/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220629.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 123

                            Headlines

2018HMO LLC: Terrell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
91-06 GREEN: So Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ALBERTSONS CO: Faces Winkelbauer Suit Over Deceptive Packaging
AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Drummond Suit Alleges
ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Sues Over Mislabeled Food Products

APPHARVEST INC: Wester Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ARROW SECURITY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Harrison Alleges
AVARTARA LLC: Faces Ford Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Suit Removed to C.D. California
BARGOOSE HOME TEXTILES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BARRACO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Claims
BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court
BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in PA Court
BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Product Liability Suit Stayed
BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Subsidiary Removed as Defendant from Class Suit

BENEVOLENCE LA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BETTER LIVING PRODUCTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOOMBERG LP: Disclose Private Info Without Consent, Baker Says
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Hurst Sues Over Mislabeled Electric Vehicles
C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Duke Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

CALLIE'S CHARLESTON: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ Court
CANINE STYLES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL LINK: Rivera Sues Over Misleading Collection Text Messages
CAREDX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 22 Deadline

CHVKER LIMITED: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CUFFLINKS LLC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
D'S NATURALS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DATE LADY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELAWARE NORTH: Dailing Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection

DELICIOUSNACKS LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $200-MM
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Dale Balks at Merger Deal With Sprint Corp
DOLLAR GENERAL: Nastali Sues Over Mislabeled Fudge Cookies
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges

DOMO INC: Dismissal of Volonte Suit Under Appeal
EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE: Iniestra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
EVERTON TOFFEE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EXPRESS INC: Faces Chacon Labor Suit in California Court
FAMILY DOLLAR: Brown Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee

FLY BY JING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HEBREW ACADEMY: Walfish Sues Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
HUBBARD BROADCASTING: Ade Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
HUMBL LLC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 18 Deadline
IMMUNOVANT INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements

ITOUCH WEARABLES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAMES SEAFOOD: Underpays Cooks & Managers, Bryant Suit Claims
JAMF SOFTWARE: Faces Schlichting Suit Over Unlawful Pay Practices
JUUL LABS: Adams Central Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., Metropolitan Says

JUUL LABS: Central Noble Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Culver Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Duneland School Sues Over E-Cigarette Youth Campaign
JUUL LABS: Escalon Unified Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Brownsburg Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth

JUUL LABS: Faces Linton-Stockton Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Western Wayne Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Malverne Union Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Union County Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarettes to Youth, Bluffton-Harrison Says

JUUL LABS: Metropolitan School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis
JUUL LABS: Northeastern Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, New Hope Suit Alleges
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Blue River Claims
K&N'S FOODS USA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Beckham Suit Removed to C.D. California
M PIZZA: Faces Garrett Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
MADINA INDUSTRIAL: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEYER CORPORATION: Brasch Files Suit in C.D. California
MICRO ELECTRONICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MONTE'S ELITE: Fails to Pay Premium OT Wages, Maldonado Alleges
MRS. GOOCH'S: Products Half Empty, Sinatro Class Suit Says
NEW YORK: T.C. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Aponte Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Butschle Alleges

OOMA INC: Faces Chiu Trademark Suit in Canada
OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
P.R. CREPE: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
PALERMO FLOORING: Fails to Pay Laborers' Overtime, Fuentes Claims
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline

PERFECT JEAN: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Cohen Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
PRESSLER FELT: Gelbwachs Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PS SEASONING & SPICES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REGENERON PHARMA: Local 464A Sues Over Healthcare Plans' Kickbacks

SALT & STRAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carney Suit Alleges
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Delahoy Sues Over Defective Electric Ranges
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 25 Deadline
STANWELL CORP: Court Ruling in Litigation Funding Scheme Discussed

STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Mendez Class Suit Says
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Upholds Class Certification in Fire Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Patterson Suit Over Misleading Digital Assets
TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Class Action Following UST Crash

TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeals Ruling in Australia Diesel Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Payouts for Drivers in Diesel Filters' Suit Possible
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Edge Suit Over Drop in Share Price
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNILEVER PLC: City of St. Clair Sues Over Drop in Share Price

UNILEVER PLC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNILEVER UNITED: Bogdanovs Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
VERIZON WIRELESS: Winston & Strawn Attorney Discusses Ruling
WOOD GROUP: Williams Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
YEXT INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 16 Deadline

YEXT INC: Faces Menzione Suit Over Misleading Business Operations
Z & W OF NEW YORK: Faces Pacific Rim Suit Over Unpaid Balance

                            *********

2018HMO LLC: Terrell Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2018HMO LLC. The case
is styled as Joshua Terrell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 2018HMO LLC doing business as: Hikei
Modern Cannabis, Case No. 3:22-cv-00883-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal., June
16, 2022).

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

2018HMO LLC doing business as Hikei Modern Cannabis --
https://wehikei.com/ -- is a cannabis dispensary located in the San
Diego, California area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan George, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 tfriedman@toddflaw.com


91-06 GREEN: So Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
AEYE SO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
91-06 GREEN GROCERY INC. dba JAMAICA GREEN GROCERY, YUN KYENG WON,
and HEE JO LEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-03608 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and other damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Ms. So was employed as a cook by the Defendants from 1992, through
March 17, 2020.

The Defendants own and operate Jamaica Green Grocery, a grocery
store at 91-06 Sutphin Blvd. Queens, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALBERTSONS CO: Faces Winkelbauer Suit Over Deceptive Packaging
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE WINKELBAUER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., BETTER LIVING
BRANDS LLC, SAFEWAY INC., inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04206-DMG-JPR
(C.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) alleges that the Defendants sell their
popular macaroni and cheese products in oversized, opaque boxes
that do not reasonably inform consumers that they are 45% empty to
increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition.


According to the complaint, the Defendants' scam dupes unsuspecting
consumers across California and America to pay for empty space at
premium prices and undercuts fair competition. The Defendants fail
to comply with consumer protection and packaging statutes designed
to prevent this scam, instead relying on their brand name and
goodwill to further their deceptive practices. This class action
aims to remedy the Defendants' unfair business practice by (1)
enjoining Defendants' use of non-functional slack-fill; and (2)
providing injured consumers money lost as a result of the
Defendants' deceptive packaging. Defendants’ slack-fill scam
extends to all Signature Select (TM) macaroni and cheese products
sold in opaque boxes sold in California and the United States, says
the suit.

The Defendants market the Products in a systematically misleading
manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact,
they contain an unlawful  amount of slack-fill. The Defendants
underfill the Products for no lawful reason. The  purposes of this
practice are (1) to save money (by using less product per box); and
(2) to deceive consumers into purchasing Defendants’ Products
over their competitors' products. Defendants’ slack-fill scheme
not only harms tens of  thousands of consumers, but it also harms
law-abiding competitors. Accordingly, the Defendants have violated
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, particularly
California Civil Code sections 1770(a)(2), 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7),
and 1770(a)(9). As such, the Defendants have committed per se
violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
and Business and Professions Code section 17500, et seq. and Civil
Code section 1750, et seq., the suit added.

The Plaintiff purchased the Signature Select Original Macaroni and
Cheese Dinner at an Albertsons store in Los Angeles, California in
2021.

Albertsons is an American grocery company founded and headquartered
in Boise, Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Drummond Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT L. DRUMMOND; and JAN A. CARLSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, AMERICAN FAMILY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-338 (W.D.
WI., June 17, 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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as physical damage
adjusters.

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, home, life, umbrella, business,
health, and farm and ranch insurance products and services.
American Family Mutual Insurance serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          5150 N. Port Washington Road, Suite 243
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
          Email: smurshid@hq-law.com

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

ANCIENT ORGANICS: Effinger Sues Over Mislabeled Food Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY EFFINGER and KEEFE STEVERNU, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANCIENT ORGANICS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03596 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is an
action arising from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading
practices with respect to its marketing and sale of its food
products (the "Products" or "Product").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that 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. For example, the Defendant
prominently features "EAT GOOD FAT" on its Product. However, this
is false, misleading, and deceptive because the 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, the Plaintiffs say.

Moreover, in violation of federal and state regulations, the
Defendant attempts to perpetuate this deception by prominently
making health focused nutrient content claims on the labeling of
its Products, without making mandatory disclosures, in an effort to
mislead and deceive consumers that its Products are healthy. The
Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Products if they had known
that Defendant purposely deceived consumers into believing that the
Products were healthy, healthful, better for them, and a healthier
alternative to the competition, alleges the suit.

ANCIENT ORGANICS LLC produces, markets, and distributes consumer
food products in retail stores throughout the United States. [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
          Email: cta@ggallp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

APPHARVEST INC: Wester Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACH WESTER, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant
APPHARVEST, INC., Plaintiff v. KIRAN BHATRAJU, CIARA BURNHAM,
GREGORY COUCH, ANNA MASON, MARTHA STEWART, R. GEOF ROCHESTER,
JEFFREY UBBEN, ROBERT J. LAIKIN, JONATHAN WEBB, DAVID LEE, and
LOREN EGGLETON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05031 (S.D.N.Y., June
15, 2022) is a shareholder derivative action against the Defendants
for breach of their fiduciary duties to the company and its
shareholders.

According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants released
false and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding AppHarvest's business,
prospects, and operations in order to trade company's stock at
artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the Individual
Defendants falsely represented that the company successfully
staffed the facility and scaled production to plan and
misrepresented the facts concerning the company's performance in
order to close two large credit facilities in 2nd Quarter (Q2)
2021.

When the truth emerged, the company's common stock price fell $3.46
per share, or approximately 29 percent, from $11.97 per share at
market close on August 10, 2021, to $8.51 per share at market close
on August 11, 2021, says the suit.

AppHarvest, Inc. is an applied agricultural technology company,
with its principal executive offices located at 500 Appalachian
Way, Morehead, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Vincent A. Licata, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
         825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 683-3516
         E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 tjm@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com
                 vl@rl-legal.com

ARROW SECURITY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Harrison Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUE HARRISON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ARROW SECURITY, INC., Case No. 517556/2022 (June 17,
2022) is a class action for damages and other legal and equitable
relief against the Defendant for violations of the New York State
Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and The New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of New York State and resides in Kings
County, New York. The Plaintiff was throughout his entire
employment with the Defendant, a covered, non-exempt employee
within the meaning of the NYLL. As such, Plaintiff was, and is,
entitled to be paid in full for all hours worked, says the suit.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff at locations in the City of New
York. The Defendant provides security guard services for shelters.
The Defendant and maintained control, oversight, and direction over
Plaintiff in regards to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment
practices.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated non-exempt hourly paid employees of Defendant in
the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six
years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such
further date as the practices complained of are discontinued.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949

AVARTARA LLC: Faces Ford Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL FORD, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVARTARA LLC, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV19614 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., June 15, 2022) challenges the systemic illegal employment
practices of the Defendants in violations of the California Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around
November 2020 to in or about July 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failure to timely pay his
and other similarly situated aggrieved employees. Instead of paying
them on a weekly basis in accordance with the law, the Defendant
paid them on a bi-weekly basis. In addition, the Defendants failed
to provide them accurate records, and failed to provide them with
correct wage statements. Accordingly, the hours displayed on the
wage statement do not correspond to the actual number of hours
worked by them during the applicable pay period.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff sent written notice to
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on or
about March 24, 2022 regarding the Defendant's violations. However,
the LWDA did not respond to the Plaintiff's written notice.

Avartara LLC is a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business
(SDVOSB) as well as Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) providing a
variety of service solutions for agencies of the federal government
and commercial entities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 488-6555
          Fax: (213) 488-6554

BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natalie Tristan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No.
30-02022-01255728-CU- was removed from the Superior Court of
California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on June 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01183 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking.

The Bank of America Corporation -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/
-- is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew D. Benedetto, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 443-5323
          Fax: (213) 443-5400
          Email: matthew.benedetto@wilmerhale.com


BARGOOSE HOME TEXTILES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bargoose Home
Textiles, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bargoose Home
Textiles, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05073 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Bargoose Home Textiles, Inc. -- https://bargoosebedding.com/ -- is
the leading manufacturer of protective bedding products to the
hospitality, healthcare, allergy relief and pest control bedding
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BARRACO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLE R. DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRACO'S PIZZA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03160 (N.D. IL., June 15, 2022) is an action
against the defendants to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated
tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendant as a server.

BARRACO'S PIZZA, INC. operates a restaurant known as Barraco's
located in Chicago. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          James Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                 msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                 jrogers@msiegellaw.com

               - and -

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          Allison H. Peregory, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                 pamela@herrmannlaw.com
                 aperegory@herrmannlaw.com

BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Bausch+Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of
antitrust laws.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. (BHC) and certain U.S. and Canadian
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a proposed class
proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in
the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No.
T-607-20).

The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of
persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private
sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the
Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices,
and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under
federal law. The proposed class action seeks damages under federal
and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws and allege that the company's subsidiaries entered
into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and
engage in market and customer allocation for generic
pharmaceuticals.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.


BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in PA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch+Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations of
antitrust laws.

Bausch Health Companies Inc (BHC)'s subsidiaries, Oceanside
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC, and Bausch Health
Americas, Inc., are defendants in multidistrict antitrust
litigation entitled "In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, MDL-2724).

The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.

The lawsuits, which have been brought as putative class actions by
direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as
direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, States,
and various counties, cities, and towns, have been consolidated
into the MDL.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.


BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Product Liability Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Bausch+Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit filed against the company was stayed until July 29, 2022.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.

This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. (BHC) filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims, which was granted in April 2020 without
prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint
further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the
Fifth Amended Complaint. In January 22, 2021, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief;
Appellees' response briefs were filed October 8, 2021. This matter
was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the
preliminary injunction entered by the bankruptcy court in the LTL
(Johnson&Johnson's affiliate) bankruptcy proceeding. This stay
included Appellants' reply brief deadline, which was previously due
to be filed on or before December 2, 2021. On March 9, 2022, the
Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the stay through July 29,
2022

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.


BAUSCH+LOMB CORP: Subsidiary Removed as Defendant from Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch+Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that on December 16, 2021,
Bausch Health Companies Inc. (BHC) was removed as defendant in a
British Columbia class action.

Two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against BHC
and various Johnson&Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on
behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson's
Baby Powder or "Shower to Shower."

The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain
health risks (in British Columbia) or negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner (in Quebec).


The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020,
the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a
class as to BHC or "Shower to Shower," and at this time no appeal
of that judgment has been filed.

On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class
action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application
for Certification, removing BHC as a defendant and as a result, the
British Columbia class action was concluded as to BHC.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.


BENEVOLENCE LA: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benevolence LA, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Benevolence LA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05077 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Benevolence LA -- https://benevolencela.com/ -- offers dainty
jewelry, handwoven Mexican blankets, richly scented soy candles,
and find perfect gifts that give back.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BETTER LIVING PRODUCTS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Living
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Better Living
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05074 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Better Living Products USA -- https://betterlivingproductsusa.com/
-- is a world leader in the design of innovative, quality bath and
shower organization products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BLOOMBERG LP: Disclose Private Info Without Consent, Baker Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04988 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2022) is a consumer digital
privacy class action complaint against the Defendant for violating
the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing its digital
subscribers' identities and Video Media to Facebook without the
proper consent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's claims arise from
Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta
Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"), data containing its digital
subscribers' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID
("FID") and (ii) the computer file containing video and its
corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal
Viewing Information").

The Defendant chose to disregard the Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other Bloomberg.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook without proper consent, says the suit.

BLOOMBERG L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.*
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          Email: creilly@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Hurst Sues Over Mislabeled Electric Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-03928 (D.N.J. June 15, 2022) is an action arises from the
false representations disseminated by the Defendants that
materially overstate the range of the i3 BMW passenger vehicles
("Class Vehicles") whether in battery only mode or in gasoline
engine range extender mode in cold weather.

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles cannot achieve the
driving range promised in Defendants' advertising and promotional
materials when operated in cold weather conditions. The Defendants'
promotional advertising for Class Vehicles stated that mileage
range for vehicles operating solely on the electric motor was 81
miles. The range of Class Vehicles equipped with the optional
gasoline range extender engine was advertised as 150 miles. These
advertised ranges are far beyond the range Class Vehicles can
provide in states where cold weather exists in the winter, such as
New Jersey. In cold weather, Class Vehicles only attain a fraction
of their advertised range, says the suit.

As a result, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class cannot
operate their respective Class Vehicles over distances that they
expected to be able to travel, and owners of Class Vehicles with
range extending engines are forced to spend money on gasoline to
obtain the advertised electric motor range advertised, the suit
added.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC markets and sells motor vehicles. The
Company offers vehicle accessories and interior and exterior parts,
apparel and accessories for men, women, and kids, as well as offers
vehicle financing and leasing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Daniel C. Edelman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER
          & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (201) 391-7000
          Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                 dedelman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Sobran, Esq.
          THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C.
          7 Evergreen Lane
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (781) 741-6075

C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Duke Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY DUKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00399-DBB (D. Utah, June 15, 2022) is class action arises
out of the data breach involving the Defendant failure to take
reasonable steps to protect the Personally Identifiable Information
of Plaintiff and Class Members and warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
reasonably secure, monitor, and maintain Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") provided by clients, consumers, and employees,
including, without limitation, full names, addresses, dates of
birth, and Social Security numbers stored on its private network.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other impacted individuals suffered
present injury and damages in the form of identity theft, loss of
value of their PII, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
unauthorized access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse
of their sensitive and highly personal information, the Plaintiff
says.

Moreover, after learning of the Data Breach, the Defendant waited
nearly seven months to notify the Plaintiff and Class Members of
the Data Breach or inform them that their PII was compromised.
During this time, Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that
their sensitive PII had been compromised, and that they were, and
continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, added the
Plaintiff.

C.R. ENGLAND, INC. provides transportation services. The Company
offers truck driving training, satellite tracking, communication,
fleet billing, load tracking, electronic commerce, order
consolidation, route optimization, and transport modeling services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Hull, Esq.
          Trevor C. Lang, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
          Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 456-7655
          Email: Jhull@Mohtrial.Com
                 Tlang@Mohtrial.Com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, LLP
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Email: Jlyon@Thelyonfirm.Com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Email: Tcoates@Msdlegal.Com

CALLIE'S CHARLESTON: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Callie's Charleston
Biscuits, L.L.C. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Callie's Charleston Biscuits, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-05089-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Callie's Charleston Biscuits -- https://calliesbiscuits.com/ --
operates small grab & go eateries serving a variety of piping hot
biscuits, pimento cheese sandwiches, and other locally inspired
breakfast, lunch, and late night snacks.[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


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NJ Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended May 1, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 8, 2022, that it is facing three
purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed on January 7,
2019 and pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey that were consolidated under the caption,
"In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation," Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint. The company, Denise Morrison (the
company's former President and Chief Executive Officer), and
Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's former Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer) are defendants in the Action. The amended
consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements between
July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information
about the company's business, operations, customer relationships,
and prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh
segment.

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, which the
Court granted on November 30, 2020, with leave to amend the
complaint. On January 15, 2021, the plaintiff filed its second
amended consolidated complaint.

The second amended consolidated complaint again names as defendants
the company and certain of its former officers and alleges that, in
public statements between August 31, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
omitted material information about the company's business,
operations, customer relationships, and prospects, specifically
with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment.

The second amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief. On March 10, 2021 the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.

Campbell Soup Company is into food products and is based in New
Jersey.


CANINE STYLES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Canine Styles Inc.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Canine Styles Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05048 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Canine Styles -- https://www.caninestyles.com/ -- is New York's
oldest and finest dog emporium with world-class grooming and
products.[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


CAPITAL LINK: Rivera Sues Over Misleading Collection Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARAIM RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00451 (M.D.N.C., June 15, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has allegedly defaulted on her credit card payments
after she failed to pay the full balance when she purchased
furniture on a Wayfair credit card.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's alleged debt was placed
with the Defendant for collection. Consequently, the Plaintiff has
received a text message from the Defendant on January 5, 2022
stating her account with an outstanding balance of $2, 849.19, and
offering settlement options. The Plaintiff claims that when she
received the Defendant's text message, she did not know what debt
the Defendant was attempting to collect as the text message did not
identify the underlying debt that that Defendant was attempting to
collect. Also, the Defendant's text message falsely implied that
the settlement offer is one-time offer and no further offers will
be forthcoming, thereby creating a false sense of urgency and has
caused the Plaintiff unnecessary emotional distress as it led him
to panic about how to immediately come up with funds to take
advantage of the seemingly one-time offer of an unidentified debt,
says the suit.

To determine what debt the Defendant was attempting to collect from
her, the Plaintiff placed a call to the Defendant on January 31,
2022. The Defendant's representative has falsely represented to the
Plaintiff the Defendant was a mediation firm retained by Wayfair to
resolve the subject debt and that it sent "legal" documents to the
Plaintiff. Specifically, the Defendant's representations were
calculated to mislead the Plaintiff into believing that a lawsuit
has been filed against her with respect to the subject debt, the
suit added.

Capital Link Management, LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Tel: (630) 575-8180
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: mbadwin@sulaimanlaw.com

                - and –

          Matthew R. Gambale, Esq.
          OSBORN GAMBALE BECKLEY & BUDD PLLC
          721 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Tel: (919) 373-6422
          Fax: (919) 578-3733
          E-mail: matt@counselcarolina.com

CAREDX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx") (NASDAQ: CDNA). The action
charges CareDx with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
CareDx's materially misleading statements and omissions to the
public, CareDx's investors have suffered significant losses.

VISIT https://bit.ly/3bpgy2K TO SUBMIT YOUR CAREDX LOSSES. YOU CAN
ALSO VISIT ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/caredx-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=caredx&mktm=r

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JULY 22, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 24, 2021 through MAY 5, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

CAREDX'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

On February 24, 2021, CareDx reported a 51% year-over-year increase
in total revenue, with testing services revenue increasing from
$104.6 million in 2019 to $163.5 million in 2020. CareDx presented
the testing services segment as CareDx's "growth driver" for which
"demand continued unabated." Moreover, the CareDx described its
testing services segment as having "a winning formula" that would
allow it to capture a massive total addressable market.

On October 28, 2021, CareDx filed its quarterly report for the
third quarter of 2021 on a Form 10-Q which revealed that it had
received several inquiries from multiple governmental agencies
relating to its business and practices, including: (1) a civil
investigative demand (CID) from the U.S. Department of Justice in
connection with its False Claims Act investigation; (2) a subpoena
from the SEC in relation its investigation relating to issues
identified in the CID and certain of CareDx's accounting and public
reporting practices; and (3) an information request from an unnamed
state regulatory agency. Following this news, the price of CareDx
shares declined more than 27%, from a closing price of $70.34 per
share on October 28, 2021, to a closing price of $51.00 per share
on October 29, 2021.

Then, after the markets closed on May 5, 2022, CareDx shocked the
market when it announced its results for the first quarter of 2022.
CareDx reported testing services revenue that fell well short of
analysts' expectations and yet another decline in average sales
price in which CareDx's average price declined by approximately
4.9% versus the last quarter of 2021, or what one analyst described
as "another big deterioration in price." Following this news, the
price of CareDx stock declined 18.5%, from a closing price of
$31.66 per share on May 5, 2022, to a closing price of $25.87 per
share on May 6, 2022.

WHAT CAN I DO?
CareDx investors may, no later than July 22, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages CareDx investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
info@ktmc.com [GN]

CHVKER LIMITED: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chvker Limited
Liability Company. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Chvker Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-05050
(S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Chvker -- https://www.chvker.com/ -- offers trendy, affordable,
long lasting handmade jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CUFFLINKS LLC: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cufflinks, LLC. The
case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Cufflinks, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05075 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Cufflinks -- https://www.cufflinks.com/ -- offers the largest
selection in designer cufflinks for men, ties, tie bars, stud sets
accessories and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


D'S NATURALS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D's Naturals, LLC.
The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. D's
Naturals, LLC doing business as No Cow, Case No.
1:22-cv-03549-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

D's Naturals, LLC doing business as No Cow -- https://nocow.com/ --
produces and markets protein bars. It offers its products through
retail stores in the United States, as well as online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DATE LADY INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Date Lady, Inc. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Date Lady, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05088-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Date Lady -- https://ilovedatelady.com/ -- is the original supplier
of date syrup, a delicious replacement for sugar.[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


DELAWARE NORTH: Dailing Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY DAILING, individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES GAMING
& ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a JUMER'S CASINO & HOTEL, a Delaware
corporation; BALLY'S QUAD CITIES CASINO & HOTEL, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company; and MORSE WATCHMANS INCORPORATED, a
Connecticut corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-04091-SLD-JEH
(C.D. Ill., June 8, 2022) seeks to stop Defendants' capture,
collection, use, storage, and dissemination of individuals'
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and the common law,
and to obtain redress for persons injured by Defendants' conduct
including Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other remedies
resulting from the actions of Delaware North, by and through its
ownership and operation of Jumer's Casino, in using a biometric
lockbox manufactured by Morse Watchmans to capture, collect, store,
use, and/or disseminate her biometrics, and those of the proposed
Class, without providing proper notice, obtaining informed written
consent, and without creating and/or providing a publicly available
retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying such
identifiers and/or information in direct violation of the Illinois
BIPA.

The Plaintiff and the proposed Class have suffered an injury in
fact based on Delaware North's violations of their legal rights
through its ownership and operation of Jumer's Casino. Such
violations have raised a material risk that Plaintiff and the
putative Class' biometric data will be unlawfully accessed by third
parties, says the suit.

Delaware North Companies Gaming & Entertainment, Inc. is a global
food service and hospitality company headquartered in Buffalo, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Hart, Esq.
          John Marrese, Esq.
          Shivani Bahl, Esq.
          HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
          22 W. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1600  
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 955-0545
          Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
          E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com
                  jmarrese@hmelegal.com
                  sbahl@hmelegal.com

DELICIOUSNACKS LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DeliciouSnacks LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DeliciouSnacks LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05086 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

DeliciouSnacks LLC doing business as Zesty Z -- https://zestyz.com/
-- is a healthy condiment that adds bold Mediterranean flavor to
any meal.[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


DESJARDINS GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $200-MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helena Hanson, writing for Narcity, reports that the Superior Court
of Quebec has approved a $200 million class action lawsuit
settlement against financial services company Desjardins, because
of a significant data breach back in 2019.

On Saturday, June 18, the lawyers for the class members announced
that a settlement agreement had been reached, enabling Canadians
from all over the country to claim their share.

The payout is related to an issue that occurred in June 2019, when
a series of technological and administrative failures caused a data
breach.

Canada's federal privacy commissioner said the financial
co-operative had failed to adequately protect the confidential and
sensitive information that it had been entrusted with.

According to CBC News, a rogue employee spent over two years
siphoning sensitive information collected by Desjardins from
customers who had accounts or interactions with the company.

As many as 4.2 million people who had active accounts were impacted
by the data breach.

For some, this meant first and last names, dates of birth, email
addresses, home addresses, social insurance numbers and even
transaction histories.

In the recent settlement notice shared by lawyers Siskinds
Desmeules and Kugler Kandestin, it was confirmed that class members
can seek compensation for lost time due to the personal information
breach, as well as for identity theft.

What's more, class members who have not pre-registered for
Equifax's credit monitoring service will be able to do so for five
years at Desjardins' expense.

Other protective measures implemented by Desjardins following the
breach must also be maintained for at least five years.

Members and former members, as well as clients and ex-clients of
Desjardins, who have held Desjardins credit cards or financing
products could be eligible to get money.

Although the settlement was given the go-ahead in Quebec, it's not
just Quebecers who can qualify for compensation.

Per the lawyers, "All persons who were impacted by the personal
information breach, regardless of where they live, will be eligible
to claim. "

As much as $200,852,500 will be paid out to class members.

If you think you could be eligible to claim, sit tight. Siskinds
Desmeules and Kugler Kandestin say that class members do not have
to take any action just yet, as notices containing instructions
will be distributed over several months, starting in July.

Until then, more details about the settlement agreement can be
found online. [GN]

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Dale Balks at Merger Deal With Sprint Corp
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DALE, BRETT JACKSON, JOHNNA FOX, BENJAMIN BORROWMAN, ANN
LAMBERT, ROBERT ANDERSON, and CHAD HOHENBERY on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM
AG, T-MOBILE US, INC., and SOFTBANK GROUP CORP., Case No.
1:22-cv-03189 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2022) challenges the the merger
of T-Mobile US and Sprint Corporation in violation of the Section 7
of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the merger not only consolidated the
number of national retail mobile wireless carriers from four to
three; it combined two fierce competitors into a single behemoth
with no incentive to compete meaningfully against the equally-large
AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. As a result, small
businesses and consumers in the United States who subscribe to
national retail mobile wireless carriers, including AT&T and
Verizon customers, have paid billions more for wireless service
than they would have if the merger had never happened, says the
suit.

Before the merger, T-Mobile and Sprint were two scrappy upstarts
challenging Verizon and AT&T, the industry's leviathans. According
to T-Mobile's larger-than-life CEO John Legere, AT&T and Verizon
"acted in their self-interest to protect their excessive margins
by holding onto their base of customers rather than risk erosion by
overcompeting." T-Mobile and Sprint took a different tack. Using
its competitors' prices as a starting point, Sprint regularly
targeted each of its three rivals by name and slashed prices
accordingly. T-Mobile, under Legere's leadership, dubbed itself the
"Un-carrier," introducing one competition-enhancing innovation
after another. Rates for retail mobile wireless services declined
across the market.

Being an "Un-carrier," however, was never the long-term plan of
Deutsche Telekom AG ("DT"), T-Mobile's corporate parent in Germany.
For years, DT sought a merger partner in the United States,
including an attempted sale of T-Mobile US to AT&T. This would be
the best path to extracting every possible cent from American
consumers and small businesses.

On April 29, 2018, T-Mobile and Sprint announced their intention to
merge. To secure approval from the United States Department of
Justice ("DOJ"), T-Mobile divested some of its business to DISH
Network Corp. ("DISH"), a satellite television company with no
experience in mobile wireless. According to T-Mobile, DISH would
rely on leased access to T-Mobile's network while it developed its
own competing network, which did not yet exist.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia sued to block the
deal. In December of 2019, the case went to trial. The court heard
expert testimony that reduced competition would result in $9
billion -- and possibly more -- in consumer harm per year. But the
defendants promised that the new T-Mobile would continue to compete
hard, DISH would flourish as a fourth national mobile wireless
carrier, and consumers would benefit. Faced with diametrically
opposed predictions, the court expressed grave reservations about
its ability to perform the "murky function" of a "fortuneteller"
tasked with reading the probable future effects of the merger. In
that context, and without the benefit of any post-merger data, it
found the states had failed to carry their burden of proof. The
merger closed on April 1, 2020, and Legere stepped down from his
role of leading the "Un-carrier." Post-merger, DT's CEO bragged,
"It's harvest time," the suit added.

Competition has declined precipitously as a result. In the decade
preceding the merger announcement, the average price of a
nationwide wireless plan decreased by approximately 6.3% per year.
Quality-adjusted prices consistently decreased as well. Since the
announcement of the merger, that trend has stopped:
quality-adjusted prices have inflated and stabilized because the
three surviving carriers have no reason to compete as vigorously
for subscribers and can focus on maximizing profits from existing
customers. And, led by T-Mobile, all three carriers have begun
raising prices, both through outright increases in plan prices as
well as through increases in taxes, fees, and surcharges.

Mandatory arbitration clauses purport to shield T-Mobile from
claims relating to T-Mobile's prices or services by its own
customers. But the merger harmed AT&T and Verizon subscribers as
well, because it reduced competition and affected prices and
quality industry-wide. These AT&T and Verizon subscribers have paid
billions of dollars more than they otherwise would have if the
merger had not happened. By bringing this action, AT&T and Verizon
subscribers seek to vindicate their rights under the antitrust
laws, undo the merger, create the viable fourth competitor that was
promised, and recover damages for the overcharges sustained in the
interim.

The mobile wireless services industry is one of the largest, most
widespread, and most important businesses in the United States. In
2019, U.S. mobile wireless service revenues topped $187 billion
from over 442 million connections. Individual consumers are the
largest market segment for mobile wireless carriers and comprise an
estimated 61.7 percent of industry revenue. 8 Unlike many other
large sectors of the economy, just three firms dominate the market:
AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of a class
under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 23(b)(1) and
(b)(2). Plaintiffs also bring this action as representatives of a
class seeking damages under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Class is defined as follows:

   "All persons or entities in the United States who, on or after
   April 1, 2020 ("the Class Period") paid for a national retail
   mobile wireless plan offered by Verizon or AT&T, on a prepaid or

   postpaid basis.

   The following persons and claims are excluded from the Class:

   a. Defendants, including their officers, directors, employees,
      subsidiaries,

   b. federal, state, and local or municipal government entities;

   c. all claims arising from the purchase of enterprise plans;
and

   d. all judges assigned to this case and any members of their
      immediate Defendant Deutsche Telekom AG ("DT") is a German
      corporation headquartered in Bonn, Germany at Friedrich-
      Ebert-Alle 140. DT is publicly traded on exchanges in
Germany
      and on the OTCQX in the United States."

DT is a multinational telecommunications giant, with over 240
million wireless customers -- including T-Mobile US's over 100
million subscribers -- and over 100 billion euros in annual
revenues. As of April 12, 2022, DT owns 48.27% of the shares of the
combined entity. 4 DT operates two wholly-owned subsidiaries in the
United States: T-Systems North America, Inc. and Deutsche Telekom
North America Inc.

T-Mobile is organized under the laws of Delaware and headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington at 12920 SE 38th Street and Overland Park,
Kansas at 12938 Foster Street. T-Mobile has also maintained
corporate offices in this district at 1400 Opus Place in Downers
Grove, Illinois. T-Mobile has approximately 2,200 direct-owned
retail locations throughout the United States including in this
district. T-Mobile is the second largest wireless carrier in the
United States, with 109.5 million customers as of March 31, 2022,
and over $80 billion in annual revenues in 2021.

Softbank is a holding company headquartered in Minato, Tokyo. In
2013, Softbank acquired 80 percent of the shares of Sprint Nextel,
which then resumed the name Sprint Corporation. As of April 12,
2022, Softbank owned 3.17 percent of the combined entity, T-Mobile
US, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel Flaxman, Esq.
          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH N. FLAXMAN P.C.
          200 S Michigan Ave., Suite 201
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 427-3200
          E-mail: jaf@kenlaw.com
                  knf@kenlaw.com

               - and -

          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
          Nicholas Lee, Esq.
          Sarah Zandi, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: bglackin@lchb.com
                  lchan@lchb.com
                  nlee@lchb.com
                  szandi@lchb.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Najah A. Jacobs, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (415) 215-0962
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
          njacobs@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert Litan, Esq.
          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          E-mail: rlitan@bm.net
                  jdavis@bm.net

               - and -

          Gary I. Smith Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (267)-702-2318
          E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com

DOLLAR GENERAL: Nastali Sues Over Mislabeled Fudge Cookies
----------------------------------------------------------
DAWN NASTALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-50212 (N.D. IL., June 19, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant for mislabeling its Fudge Mint Cookies under the
Clover Valley brand ("Product").

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets, and sells the Product. Though the Product is identified as
"Fudge Mint Cookies," it substitutes lower quality and lower-priced
"Vegetable Oil Shortening (Palm and Palm Kernel Oils)" for dairy
ingredients, shown in the ingredient list. Reasonable consumers are
misled by the statement "Fudge Mint Cookies" and the picture of the
cookies coated with what appears to be fudge, because they expect
fudge to contain at least some dairy ingredients. The Product's
green packaging, picture of two mint leaves, "Mint," and the lack
of any qualifying terms, i.e., "Mint Flavored" or "Artificial Mint
Flavored," causes consumers to expect it contains mint ingredients,
says the suit.

The representations are misleading because the ingredient list does
not identify any mint ingredients. By not disclosing the source of
the mint taste, consumers are misled to expect the presence of
higher quality mint ingredients instead, the suit added.

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION operates a chain of discount retail
stores located primarily in the southern, southwestern, midwestern,
and eastern United States. The Company offer a broad selection of
merchandise, including consumable products such as food, paper and
cleaning products, health, beauty, pet supplies, and
non-consumables such as seasonal merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bryant Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC.; DOMINO'S PIZZA
FRANCHISING, LLC; and DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-11319-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2022) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff Bryant was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. operates a network of company-owned and
franchise Domino's Pizza stores, located throughout the United
States and in other countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Email: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847)644-3425
          Facsimile: (847)673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com



DOMO INC: Dismissal of Volonte Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------
Domo, 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 8, 2022, that a notice of appeal was filed in
the Utah Court of Appeals and was fully briefed as of January 2022
over a November 2019 securities class action complaint captioned
"Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al," Case No. 19-04-01778.

The suit was filed by a stockholder of the company in the Fourth
Judicial District Court for the County of Utah in the State of Utah
against the company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and the underwriters of its June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint and on April 13, 2021, the court granted the
motion and dismissed the complaint. On April 25, 2021, the
plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter judgment or for
reconsideration. On June 2, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff's
motion. On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
On October 14, 2021, the plaintiff/appellant filed his principal
brief in the Utah Court of Appeals (Appellate Case No.
20210399-CA). The appeal was fully briefed as of January 20, 2022,
and the court heard oral argument from the parties on May 12,
2022.

Domo, Inc. provides a cloud-based platform based in Utah.


EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE: Iniestra Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REYNALDO INIESTRA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EARTHSCAPES LANDSCAPE, INC., and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01238975-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 15, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-01170-FWS-KES to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including unlawful receipt of wages, failure
to provide all required meal periods, failure to pay all overtime
wages, failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to provide all
required rest periods, failure to maintain and provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to pay all wages upon
termination, resignation, or end of employment.

Earthscapes Landscape, Inc. is a landscape construction company in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Erick J. Becker, Esq.
         Edward J. Farrell, Esq.
         CUMMINS & WHITE, LLP
         2424 S.E. Bristol Street, Suite 300
         Newport Beach, CA 92660-0764
         Telephone: (949) 852-1800
         Facsimile: (949) 852-8510
         E-mail: ebecker@cwlawyers.com
                 efarrell@cwlawyers.com

EVERTON TOFFEE: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everton Toffee Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Everton
Toffee Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05049 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

The Everton Toffee Company -- https://www.evertontoffee.com/ -- has
been making small craft batches of butter toffee candy and butter
toffee pretzels, each with the same rich, sweet aroma and artisan
flavors that enchanted the village of Everton and delighted the
world centuries ago.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPRESS INC: Faces Chacon Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Express, 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 8, 2022, that a class action was filed against
the company alleging violations of California state wages and hour
statutes and other labor standard violations. Both parties have
filed their Motion of Summary Judgment.

On January 29, 2019, Mr. Jorge Chacon filed a second representative
action in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange alleging violations of California state wages and
hour statutes and other labor standard violations, which was
removed to federal court by the Company and is now pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees.
In June 2021, a portion of Mr. Chacon's claims in this action were
certified as a class action. Plaintiff and the company both filed
Motions for Summary Judgment in February 28, 2022. No trial date
has been set.

Express Inc. is an apparel and accessories brand based in Ohio.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Brown Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Muriel Vanessa Brown, Donrea Brown, Rosalind
Dunning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Family Dollar, Inc., Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00105 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on June 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02390-SHL-tmp to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Martino, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO & HEDGE
          P.O. Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Phone: (251) 433-3131

               - and -

          Joseph Stewart Dennis, Esq.
          Tiffany Ray, Esq.
          TAYLOR MARTINO ROWAN, PC
          455 St. Louis Street, Suite 2100
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (215) 433-3131
          Email: joseph@taylormartino.com
                 tiffany@taylormartino.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq.
          Amaobi Joseph Enyinnia, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN WHITE
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 581-0714
          Fax: (205) 581-0799
          Email: aenyinnia@lightfoot.com


FLY BY JING: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fly By Jing Inc. The
case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fly By Jing Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05085 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Fly By Jing -- https://flybyjing.com/ -- is the first premium
Chinese food company that brings thoughtfully-crafted pantry
staples to the modern kitchen.[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


HEBREW ACADEMY: Walfish Sues Over Discriminatory Pay Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
GOLDY WALFISH individually and on behalf of similarly situated
female employees v. HEBREW ACADEMY OF FIVE TOWNS AND ROCKAWAY, Case
No. 2:22-cv-03596 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) seeks redress for
Defendant's discriminatory pay practices, in violation of the Equal
Pay Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from in or about September 2005
through August 2021 as a teacher in the history department. For
that entire time, Plaintiff suffered discrimination in pay as a
result of gender, in violation of the EPA and NYLL, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Ste. 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: LLeon@cafaroesq.com

HUBBARD BROADCASTING: Ade Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hubbard Broadcasting,
Inc. The case is styled as Kemi Ade, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., d/b/a WTOP
News, Case No. 1:22-cv-03176 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. -- https://hubbardbroadcasting.com/ --
is an American television and radio broadcasting corporation based
in St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (847) 208-4585
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


HUMBL LLC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against Humbl LLC ("Humbl" or the "Company") (OTC: HMBL)
common stock and/or the unregistered Humbl ETX securities between
November 21, 2020 and May 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in Humbl LLC you may, no later than
July 18, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of
the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more
about your rights as an investor in Humbl LLC.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors:

   -- that the HUMBL Pay App did not have even the basic
functionality that it promised investors; and
   -- that several of its hyped international business partnerships
had a very low chance of contributing material revenues to the
Company's bottom line; and
   -- as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 20, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a research report
which alleged, among other things, that basic features of Humbl's
Pay App were not functioning, and that there was no way to send,
receive, and request money between users. Furthermore, the report
also stated that many merchants using the Humbl marketplace were
not actually using Humbl.

On this news, Humbl's stock fell $0.22, or 22.4%, to close at $0.76
on May 20, 2022.

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

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

Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]

IMMUNOVANT INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Immunovant, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2022, that in February 2021, a putative
securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class
consisting of those who acquired the company's securities between
October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of "batoclimab" and seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. In December 29,
2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Roivant Sciences Ltd. (RSL) and the company's directors and
underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under
Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of a putative class consisting of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's follow-on public offering on or about
September 2, 2020. In March 15, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed
another amended complaint. The company and other defendants served
motions to dismiss the amended complaint in May 27, 2022.

Immunovant, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
based in New York.


ITOUCH WEARABLES: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against iTouch Wearables LLC.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. iTouch Wearables LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05076 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

iTouch Wearables -- https://itouchwearables.com/ -- offers a line
of affordable smartwatches and affordable fitness trackers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JAMES SEAFOOD: Underpays Cooks & Managers, Bryant Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYRESE BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. JAMES SEAFOOD, LLC, and THEHUNG
VIET NGO, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00065-CAR (M.D. Ga., June
15, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid Cook
and Manager from July 2019 until March 2020, and from August 2021
until April 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were classified by the Defendants as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Despite regularly working
over 40 hours in a week, the Defendants allegedly manipulated their
total hours worked and each check separately indicated they had
worked less than 40 hours. As a result, they were not paid their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees had worked so many hours off the clock
which went uncompensated, thereby making their hourly rate fell
below the statutory minimum wage. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
adequately reimburse them for the expenses they incurred on the
Defendants' behalf, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover from damages
suffered for all unpaid overtime wages by the Defendant. The
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees
and all litigation costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

James Seafood, LLC operates a seafood restaurant as The Crab Hut.
Thehung Viet Ngo is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of
the Corporate Defendant. Defendant Ngo also operates a restaurant
under the business name Georgia Seafood 6AE, LLC, that was listed
as “administratively dissolved” on the Georgia Secretary of
State's website. James Seafood and Georgia Seafood allegedly shared
employees such as the Plaintiff, who sometimes worked at both
Georgia Seafood and James Seafood in a single week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven E. Wolfe, Esq.
          LEGARE, ATTWOOD & WOLFE, LLC
          125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Tel: (470) 823-4000
          Fax: (470) 201-1212
          E-mail: sewolfe@law-llc.com

                - and –

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

JAMF SOFTWARE: Faces Schlichting Suit Over Unlawful Pay Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Schlichting, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and the proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class v.
Jamf Software, LLC, Case No. 0:22-cv-01602-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., June
17, 2022) is a class action about the Defendant's unlawful pay
practice that failed to pay its employees for all of their hours
worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employed sales development representatives ("SDRs"),
paid them on an hourly basis, and classified them as non-exempt,
but did not pay them for all of the hours they worked, including
their overtime hours.

As a result of the Defendant's intentional and illegal pay
practice, SDRs were deprived of their straight time and overtime
compensation for their hours worked in violation of Minnesota state
law and federal law, says the suit.

The Plaintiff Schlichting brings this proposed FLSA collective and
Rule 23 class action against the Defendant on behalf of all
individuals who worked for the Defendant as SDRs at any time since
three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the
present.

The Defendant has willfully engaged in a pattern, policy, and
practice of unlawful conduct for the actions alleged in this
Complaint, in violation of the federal and state rights of
Plaintiff Schlichting, those similarly situated, and members of the
proposed FLSA Collective and Minnesota Rule 23 Class.

Plaintiff Jacob Schlichting is an adult resident of Arvada,
Colorado. The Plaintiff Schlichting worked for the Defendant as an
SDR from January 2020 to September 2021.

Jamf operates an office in Minneapolis, Minnesota. According to
online resources, Jamf is a comprehensive management system for
Apple macOS and iOS devices. Specifically, Jamf allows IT
technicians to proactively manage the entire lifecycle of Apple
devices. This includes deploying and maintaining software,
responding to security threats, distributing settings, and
analyzing inventory data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  ccoleman@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 S. Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 402-5290
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com

JUUL LABS: Adams Central Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS CENTRAL COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 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-03515 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Adams Central Community Schools is a public school district with
its administrative offices located on West Washington Street in
Monroe, 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: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ind., Metropolitan Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WAYNE TOWNSHIP, 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-03531 (N.D. Cal., June 15,
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.

Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township is a public school
district with its administrative offices located in Indianapolis,
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: Central Noble Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL NOBLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 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-03518 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Central Noble Community Schools is a public school district with
its administrative offices in Albion, 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: Culver Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
CULVER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 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-03522 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Culver Community Schools Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in Culver, 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: Duneland School Sues Over E-Cigarette Youth Campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------
DUNELAND 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-03528 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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, the suit alleges.

Duneland School Corporation is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Chesterton, 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: Escalon Unified Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESCALON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., f/k/a PAX Labs,
Inc., PLOOM Inc., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILLIP MORRIS USA INC.,
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY,
JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ
VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV19486 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., June 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
public nuisance, strict liability, negligence, and gross
negligence.

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.

Escalon Unified School District is a unified school district with
its administrative offices located in San Joaquin County,
California.

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:                                   
                                  

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-7210
         Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
                 ckelly@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Brownsburg Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
BROWNSBURG 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-03521 (N.D. Cal., June 15,
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.

Brownsburg Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located on Stadium Drive in
Brownsburg, 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: Faces Linton-Stockton Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINTON-STOCKTON 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-03527 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Linton-Stockton School Corporation is a public school district with
its administrative offices located in Linton, 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: Faces Western Wayne Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
WESTERN WAYNE SCHOOLS, 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-03513 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Western Wayne Schools is a public school corporation with its
administrative offices located on Queen Street in Pershing,
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: Malverne Union Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
MALVERNE UNION FREE 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-03532 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Malverne Union Free School District is a school district with its
administrative offices located on Wicks Lane in Malverne, 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
                 Davis.Vaughn@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
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         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: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Union County Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNION COUNTY COLLEGE CORNER JOINT 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-03514 (N.D. Cal.,
June 15, 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.

Union County College Corner Joint School District is a unified
school district with its administrative offices located on Layman
Street in Liberty, 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: Markets E-Cigarettes to Youth, Bluffton-Harrison Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUFFTON-HARRISON METROPOLITAN 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-03519 (N.D. Cal., June 15,
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.

Bluffton-Harrison Metropolitan School District is a public school
district with its administrative offices located in Bluffton,
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: Metropolitan School Suit Claims Youth Health Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, 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-03530-WHO (N.D.
Cal., June 15, 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.

Metropolitan School District of Washington Township is a public
school district with its administrative offices located in
Indianapolis, 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: Northeastern Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHEASTERN WAYNE 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-03512 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Northeastern Wayne School District is a public school corporation
with its administrative offices located in Fountain City, 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 to Youth, New Hope Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HOPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., f/k/a PAX
Labs, Inc., PLOOM Inc., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILLIP MORRIS USA
INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV19472 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 15, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for public nuisance, strict liability, negligence, and
gross negligence.

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

New Hope Elementary School District is a unified school district
with its administrative offices located in San Joaquin County,
California.

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:                                   
                                  

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 981-7210
         Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
                 ckelly@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Blue River Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BLUE RIVER VALLEY 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-03516 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 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.

Blue River Valley School Corporation is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in New Castle, 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

K&N'S FOODS USA: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against K&N's Foods USA, LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. K&N's Foods USA, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05091 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

K&N's Foods USA, LLC -- https://kandns.us/ -- is a US based
company, produces ready-to-cook and fully cooked chicken products
at its manufacturing plant in Fulton, New York.[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



LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Beckham Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Albert Beckham, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Loyola Marymount University, Case No.
22STCV15948 was removed from the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04133-PA-MAR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Loyola Marymount University -- https://www.lmu.edu/ -- is a private
Jesuit and Marymount research university in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Ari Hammond, Esq.
          Adrian Barnes, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW PC
          1201 Pacific Avenue 6th Floor
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Phone: (310) 601-6766
          Fax: (310) 295-2385
          Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                 abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
                 acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
                 pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Q. Scott Kaye, Esq.
          Scott R. Eldridge, Esq.
          MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK AND STONE PLC
          21515 Hawthorne Boulevard Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90503
          Phone: (310) 683-6500
          Email: kaye@millercanfield.com
                 eldridge@millercanfield.com


M PIZZA: Faces Garrett Suit Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DARRELL GARRETT, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. M PIZZA, INC., and MICHAEL W. CLISE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01467-ADC (D. Maryland, June 15, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendanf'ts from approximately
May 2018 to February 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Hagerstown, Maryland.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay
for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering
pizza and other food items. Consequently, they have incurred
automobile expenses while performing duties for the primary
benefits of the Defendants. However, the Defendant failed to
adequately reimburse them due to its flawed reimbursement policy
that reimburses its delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate. As a result, the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages are diminished
beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated delivery
drivers, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
against the Defendants seeking for compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems fair
and equitable.

M Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's franchise stores. Michael
W. Clise is the director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com

MADINA INDUSTRIAL: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madina Industrial
Corp. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Madina Industrial Corp., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05053 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Madina Industrial Corp. -- https://www.madinaonline.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of fine fragrances and cosmetics.[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


MEYER CORPORATION: Brasch Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meyer Corporation
U.S. The case is styled as Madeleine Brasch, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Meyer Corporation U.S., Case
No. 3:22-cv-03570-SK (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.

Meyer Corporation -- https://meyerus.com/ -- is a cookware
distributor based in Vallejo, California, United States, whose
parent company is Hong Kong based Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Boyle, Esq.
          Jared W. Connors, Esq.
          Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          305 W Nationwide Blvd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 384-7034
          Fax: (614) 224-6066
          Email: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
                 jconnors@meyerwilson.com
                 mwilson@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Raina Challeen Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com


MICRO ELECTRONICS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed aainst Micro Electronics,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Micro Electronics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05041 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

Micro Electronics, Inc. -- https://www.microcenter.com/ -- is an
American privately owned corporation headquartered in Hilliard,
Ohio.[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


MONTE'S ELITE: Fails to Pay Premium OT Wages, Maldonado Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MONTE'S ELITE PIZZA LLC and ANDREW
MONTELEONE, Case No. 2:22-cv-03604 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff premium
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants pursuant
to the collective action provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA
limitations period who suffered damages as a result of the
Defendants' willful violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff further
brings his claims under the NYLL on behalf of himself,
individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Collective Action
Plaintiff, as that term is defined below, who opts-in to this
action.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of preparing and selling
pizzas and other Italian-style foodstuffs to customers at its
restaurant located at 300 Maple Avenue, Smithtown, New York.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a pizzaman and cook
from in or about 2007, until December 9, 2021. During his
employment, the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $18.00 per hour
for all hours worked, including those hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

MRS. GOOCH'S: Products Half Empty, Sinatro Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SINATRO and PHILLIP WHITE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD
MARKETS, INC., a California corporation and WHOLE FOODS MARKET
CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
3:22-cv-03603-LB (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants sell their popular macaroni and cheese products in
oversized, opaque boxes that do not reasonably inform consumers
that they are half empty, to increase profits at the expense of
consumers and fair competition.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' scam dupes unsuspecting
consumers 5 across California and America to pay for empty space at
premium prices and undercuts fair competition. The Defendants fail
to comply with consumer protection and packaging statutes designed
to prevent this scam, instead relying on their brand name and
goodwill to further their deceptive practices. This class action
aims to remedy the Defendants' unfair business practice by (1)
enjoining 4 Defendant's use of nonfunctional slack-fill; and (2)
providing injured consumers money lost as a result of Defendants'
deceptive packaging. The Products at issue are Whole Foods 365
Organic Shells & Cheese and Whole Foods 365 Organic Macaroni &
Cheese (Defendants' "Organic Products"), Whole Foods 365 Shells &
Cheese and Whole Foods 365 Macaroni & Cheese, and all other
macaroni and cheese products sold in opaque boxes by Defendants
(collectively, the "Products") sold in California and the United
States, says the suit.

The Defendants market the Products in a systematically misleading
manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact,
they contain an unlawful amount of slack-fill. The Defendants
underfill the Products for no lawful reason. The purposes of this
practice are (1) to save money (by using less product per box); and
(2) to deceive consumers into purchasing the Defendants' Products
over their competitors' products. Defendants' slack-fill scheme not
only harms tens of thousands of consumers, it also harms
law-abiding competitors. Accordingly, Defendants have violated the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, particularly California
Civil Code Sections 1770(a)(2), 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7), and
1770(a)(9). As such, the Defendants have committed per se
violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.
and Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq. and Civil
Code Section 1750, et seq. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members
have accordingly suffered injury in fact caused by the false,
fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices
set forth herein, and seek injunctive relief and restitution, the
suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com

NEW YORK: T.C. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
Department of Health, et al. The case is styled as T.C. by his next
friend D.S., A.H. by her next friend E.H., R.D. by her next friend
M.D., J.D. by his next friend D.D., H.L., A.B., J.S., M.L., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Disability
Rights New York v. New York State Department of Health; Mary
Bassett, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Health; New York State Office for People with
Developmental Disabilities; Kerri Neifeld, in her official capacity
as Commissioner of the New York State Office for People with
Developmental Disabilities; Case No. 1:22-cv-05045-MKV (S.D.N.Y.,
June 16, 2022).

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

The New York State Department of Health -- https://health.ny.gov/
-- is the department of the New York state government responsible
for public health.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alyssa Galea, Esq.
          Julie Michaels Keegan, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
          725 Broadway, Suite 450
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: (518) 512-4910
          Email: alyssa.galea@drny.org
                 julie.keegan@drny.org

               - and -

          Andrew Breland, Esq.
          David Evan Ross, Esq.
          Stephen Paul Thomasch, Esq.
          David J. Abrams, Esq.
          KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 506-1700
          Email: abreland@kasowitz.com
                 dross@kasowitz.com
                 sthomasch@kasowitz.com
                 dabrams@kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Sheila Ellen Shea, Esq.
          MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE
          286 Washington Avenue Extension, Suite 203
          Albany, NY 12203
          Phone: (518) 451-8710
          Email: sshea@nycourts.gov

               - and -

          Benjamin Taylor, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
          25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (518) 512-4871
          Fax: (518) 427-6561
          Email: ben.taylor@drny.org


NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Aponte Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE APONTE, II and LISA ROSENBERG are taking an appeal from a
court ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled Aponte, et al.,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Northeast Radiology, P.C., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-5883, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit,
filed on July 8, 2021, brings claims for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of
New York General Business Law Section 349, and intrusion upon
seclusion.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to protect their
electronic protected health information (e-PHI) from unauthorized
disclosure, following a misconfiguration of the companies' Picture
Archiving Communication System (PACS), which contained medical
images and associated patient data.

On October 28, 2021, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint.

On November 18, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion on May
16, 2022. According to Judge Briccetti, "because the Plaintiffs do
not allege that they have suffered, or will imminently suffer, an
injury-in-fact, the Plaintiffs have not established that they have
standing. The Court, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction in
this case, and the case must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1)."

Judge Briccetti further ruled that because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, it does not reach the motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

The appellate case is captioned as Aponte, et al. v. Northeast
Radiology, P.C., et al., Case No. 22-1284, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 14, 2022.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE APONTE, II and LISA ROSENBERG, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com

Defendants-Appellees NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY, P.C., et al., are
represented by:

          Peter Joseph Larkin, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          1133 Westchester Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 323-7000
          E-mail: peter.larkin@wilsonelser.com

               - and -

          Frank T. Spano, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 684-0199
          E-mail: fspano@polsinelli.com


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Butschle Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEIGH BUTSCHLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-686 (E.D. Wis., June 14, 2022)
is an action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid regular and agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

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

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY provides insurance and
financial advisory services. The Company offers life, health, and
disability insurance, as well as financial, retirement, and estate
planning services. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance serves
customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OOMA INC: Faces Chiu Trademark Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------
Ooma, 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 8, 2022, that a class action complaint was filed
against the company alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act
and Competition Act.

On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action
complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal
Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and
Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages
and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company to cease describing
and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or
otherwise representing that it is free.

On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu
and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding.
In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new
plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as
having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021.

In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from
counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding
jurisdiction and class action certification issues, and the parties
are awaiting the Court to issue its ruling.

Ooma, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries provides leading
communications services and related technologies based in
California.


OSEA INTERNATIONAL: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Osea International,
LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Osea
International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03550 (E.D.N.Y., June 16,
2022).

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

OSEA -- https://www.osea.com/ -- is a seaweed-based, family-run
skincare company based in Malibu, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


P.R. CREPE: Faces Moran Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE MOISES FALCON MORAN, MARIO MENDEZ, and JORGE GUZMAN MARIN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. P.R. CREPE LTD. (D/B/A JOHN'S COFFEE SHOP), NICK RIGOGIANNIS,
NIKOLAS TSINIAS, and GEORGE J. TSINIAS, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04804 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2022) is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay proper
overtime compensation, provide Plaintiffs with a written notice,
furnish accurate wage statement, reimburse the costs and expenses
for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of the trade";
and engaged in unlawful deductions from wages.

Plaintiffs Moran, Mendez and Marin were employed by Defendants at
John's Restaurant from 1990 until February 20, 2022, from November
1, 2021 until March 11, 2022, and from 2013 until May 14, 2022,
respectively.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an American restaurant in
New York under the name "John's Coffee Shop."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

PALERMO FLOORING: Fails to Pay Laborers' Overtime, Fuentes Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO DEJESUS FUENTES, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALERMO FLOORING, INC. and
MATTHEW BRUNO, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03531 (E.D.N.Y., June
15, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from in
or about 2014 until March 18, 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he and other similarly situated laborers regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not
pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. Instead, they were only paid at their straight
time rates of pay for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to
maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to
their laborers, the Plaintiff adds.

Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide them with a notice and
acknowledgement of their wage rate, and with accurate wage
statements along with their pay. The Defendants also failed to post
required notices regarding payment of minimum wages and overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the Plaintiff.

Palermo Flooring, Inc. engages in the flooring and remodeling
business. Matthew Bruno is an officer and/or owner of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588

PEGASYSTEMS INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Pegasystems Inc. ("PEGA") (NASDAQ: PEGA) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased PEGA common stock
between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022, inclusive.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pegasystems-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28742&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against PEGA includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had
engaged in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade
secrets to better compete against Appian, a principal competitor;
(2) defendants' product development and associated success was, in
significant part, not the result of its own research and product
testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade
secret theft; (3) defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal
Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out
through, the personal involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the
Company's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with
the Company's written Code of Conduct, including its express
prohibition on "stealing" confidential information from a
competitor and "misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining
confidential information"; (5) the Company was "unable to
reasonably estimate damages" in the lawsuit filed by Appian as a
result of the foregoing misconduct (the "Appian Litigation"); and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
PEGA's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and
potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when
made.

DEADLINE: July 18, 2022

Aggrieved PEGA investors only have until July 18, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

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

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

PERFECT JEAN: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Perfect Jean LLC.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Perfect Jean LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05087 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

The Perfect Jean -- https://theperfectjean.nyc/ -- manufacture the
perfect jean for perfectly imperfect men.[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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Cohen Alleges Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEDALYA COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 517301/2022 (N.Y., Sup., June 15, 2022) seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services. The Company specializes in contingency
collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders,
telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare,
utilities, and commercial accounts receivables. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com

PRESSLER FELT: Gelbwachs Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed PRESSLER, FELT & WARSHAW,
LLP. The case is styled as Yehuda Gelbwachs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRESSLER, FELT &
WARSHAW, LLP, Case No. 3:22-cv-04090-GC-LHG (D.N.J., June 16,
2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP -- https://pfwattorneys.com/ -- is a
New Jersey based debt collection law firm that operates in multiple
states, including New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


PS SEASONING & SPICES: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PS Seasoning &
Spices, Inc. The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PS Seasoning &
Spices, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05084 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2022).

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

PS Seasoning & Spices, Inc. -- https://www.psseasoning.com/ -- has
been making customer-specific seasonings since 1977.[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


REGENERON PHARMA: Local 464A Sues Over Healthcare Plans' Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCAL 464A UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION WELFARE SERVICE
BENEFIT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10960 (D.
Mass., June 17, 2022) arises from Regeneron's unlawful scheme to
utilize a system of kickbacks to patients to circumvent healthcare
plans' incentive structures to secure increased sales, at inflated
prices, for its blockbuster drug Eylea.

Regeneron manufactures and sells Eylea (aflibercept), a
prescription drug administered by injection for the treatment of an
eye condition known as wet age-related macular degeneration ("wet
AMD") that can render patients legally blind.

From 2012 to at least June 2020, Eylea's wholesale list price was
$1,850 per dose, resulting in costs of over $10,000 for a single
year of treatment. Eylea generates billions of dollars of sales in
the United States despite the fact that an alternative with similar
efficacy, Avastin, is available for only 3% of Eylea's cost.
Regeneron has maintained Eylea's market dominance through a
kickback scheme designed to negate patients' and physicians' cost
sensitivity, which would ordinarily drive them to seek out the
lowest-cost effective treatment. Since 2012, Regeneron regularly
funneled funds disguised as donations to the Chronic Disease Fund,
Inc. ("CDF"), a purported charity. These funds were specifically
earmarked for use to pay cost-sharing obligations for Eylea
patients. This arrangement meant that patients could obtain Eylea
at little to no cost. However, the arrangement also caused
patients' health benefit plans and plan sponsors to pay for Eylea
prescriptions that never would have been written absent Regeneron's
scheme, says the suit.

Regeneron widely advertised to patients and physicians the
availability of CDF's financial assistance for Eylea cost-sharing
obligations. Regeneron promoted this assistance through a program
called "EYLEA4U," which Regeneron implemented in concert with CDF
and The Lash Group LLC (the "Lash Group"), a pharmaceutical
industry consulting firm. The EYLEA4U program connected patients
and prescribers with CDF, assisted them in submitting claims to
healthcare plans such as Plaintiff, and facilitated the plans'
payment of invalid claims tainted by Regeneron's illegal kickbacks.
Regeneron's scheme was intended to maximize Regeneron's profits.
Regeneron concealed its illegal scheme from the public, including
Plaintiff and other payors who paid some or all of the cost of
Eylea prescriptions, until the scheme was exposed in June 2020,
when the U.S. Department of Justice filed an action against
Regeneron for violations of the False Claims Act, the suit added.

Allegedly, Regeneron's scheme harmed Plaintiff in several ways.
Claims submitted to Plaintiff for Eylea, which were related to
violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, were fraudulently
presented to Plaintiff as valid, payable claims. Because Regeneron
concealed its illegal kickbacks, Plaintiff was defrauded into
paying these illicit claims. Further, Regeneron's scheme
circumvented provisions in Plaintiff's health benefit plans that
required beneficiaries to pay a share of the cost of prescription
drugs. Because Regeneron had paid these beneficiaries' cost-sharing
obligations and concealed the fact that it did so from Plaintiff,
Plaintiff paid claims for which beneficiaries had not satisfied the
cost-sharing terms of their plans. Regeneron's scheme was extremely
successful at Plaintiff and Class members' expense. Even with
Eylea's sky-high costs and the availability of an effective
alternative, Eylea has become the best-selling drug for treating
wet AMD in the United States. In 2021, Eylea reached over $5
billion in sales, the suit further asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, state unfair and
deceptive trade practice statutes, and state laws governing
fraudulent concealment, tortious interference with contractual
relationships, and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
         Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
         Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
         SHAPIRO LLP
         55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
         Cambridge, MA 02142
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
         E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                 kristiel@hbsslaw.com

              - and -

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
         Lisa Lamb Port, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ
         MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 tziegler@ktmc.com
                 lport@ktmc.com

              - and -

         John Radice, Esq.
         RADICE LAW FIRM
         475 Wall Street
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (646) 245-8502
         Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
         E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

SALT & STRAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carney Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MONIKA CARNEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALT & STRAW, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 22C0129336 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., June
17, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
compensation wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods and
liquidated damages.

Plaintiff Carney was employed by the Defendants as store manager
representative.

SALT & STRAW, LLC is an ice cream company based in Portland,
Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Van Note, Esq.
          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12 Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          Email: sec@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com
                 cab@colevannote.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Delahoy Sues Over Defective Electric Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN DELAHOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-04132-CCC-CLW (D.N.J., June 17, 2022) is an action alleging
that the Defendant manufacture and sells defective electric
ranges.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class are
purchasers of Samsung electric ranges (the "Ranges") that include
dangerous latent defects in the design of their front-mounted
burner control knobs that make the Ranges susceptible to
unintentional activation (the "Defect"). The control knobs on the
Ranges are prone to, and do, rotate as a result of minor,
inadvertent contact. When the knobs on the Ranges are accidentally
and inadvertently contacted, the burners heat their electric
cooktops without warning to the consumer. This unintentional
activation of the Ranges' cooktops in turn creates a hazardous
condition and serious risk of fire, property damage, and personal
injury, the suit alleges.

The defective condition of the Ranges is the result of the low
detent force and tiny distance the burner control knobs need to
travel to be turned to the "on" position, which is inadequate to
prevent unintentional activation. In other words, the ease with
which the knobs can be pushed in and rotated without resistance
fails to prevent the cooktop from being turned on inadvertently,
added the suit.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. manufactures electronic products.
The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones,
storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches,
and computer products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
          Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
          TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          Facsimile: (215) 567-8333
          Email: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
                 egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
                 zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          711 Van Ness Ave, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Email: mram@forthepeople.com
                 mappel@forthepeople.com

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Biddle Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALARIC BIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, CHERYLYNN SHUMAN, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV15161, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 15,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-04125 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to pay
all minimum wages, meal break violations, rest break violations,
failure to maintain and provide accurate itemized wage statement,
failure to pay all wages upon separation of employment, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unlawful business practices.

The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company is a paint manufacturer
based in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
         Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
                 npoper@bakerlaw.com
                 ksakaue@bakerlaw.com

SPERO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Spero Therapeutics, Inc. ("Spero" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SPRO) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-03125, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Spero securities
between October 28, 2021 and May 2, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Spero
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 25, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.fa To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Spero, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
identifying, developing, and commercializing treatments for
multi-drug resistant bacterial infections and rare diseases in the
United States. The Company's product candidates include Tebipenem
Pivoxil Hydrobromide (HBr), an oral carbapenem-class antibiotic to
treat complicated urinary tract infections, including
pyelonephritis for adults.

On October 28, 2021, Spero announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for Tebipenem HBr for the Treatment of Complicated Urinary
Tract Infections including Pyelonephritis (the "Tebipenem HBr
NDA").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the data submitted in support of the Tebipenem
HBr NDA were insufficient to obtain FDA approval; (ii) accordingly,
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the Tebipenem HBr NDA in
its current form; (iii) the foregoing would necessitate a
significant workforce reduction and restructuring of Spero's
operations; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 31, 2022, Spero issued a press release announcing the
Company's fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. In
the press release, Spero disclosed that "[t]he U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has notified Spero that, as part of its
ongoing review of Spero's New Drug Application (NDA) for tebipenem
HBr, it has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of
labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this
time."

On this news, Spero's stock price fell $1.59 per share, or 18.27%,
to close at $7.11 per share on April 1, 2022.

Then on May 3, 2022, Spero issued a press release announcing "that
it will immediately defer current commercialization activities for
tebipenem HBr based on feedback from a recent Late Cycle Meeting
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding Spero's
New Drug Application (NDA) for tebipenem HBr[,]" and that,
"[a]lthough the review is still ongoing and the FDA has not yet
made any final determination regarding approvability, the
discussion suggested that the data package may be insufficient to
support approval during this review cycle." Specifically, the FDA
advised the Company, in relevant part, that the FDA's separate
analysis of the relevant study population had "reduce[d] the number
of evaluable patients in the primary analysis population compared
with those resulting from the trial's pre-specified micro-ITT
population as outlined in the statistical analysis plan and [a]s a
result, the FDA considers that the pre-specified non-inferiority
margin of -12.5% was not met." Further, the press release advised
that, "[i]n connection with this development, Spero announced that
it is undertaking a reduction in its workforce by approximately 75%
and a restructuring of its operations to reduce operating costs and
reallocate resources."

On this news, Spero's stock price fell $3.24 per share, or 63.65%,
to close at $1.85 per share on May 3, 2022.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

STANWELL CORP: Court Ruling in Litigation Funding Scheme Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Belinda Thompson and Andrew Burns, of Allens Linklaters, disclosed
that the Full Federal Court has held that litigation funding
agreements are not 'managed investment schemes' (MIS), overturning
its own more than decade-old decision in Brookfield Multiplex.

The 2009 decision of Brookfield Multiplex held that litigation
funding arrangements were MISs for the purposes of the Corporations
Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), however the then-Labor Government quickly
moved to exempt funders from the MIS regime.

In mid-2020, the then-Liberal Government reinstated the MIS
obligations as part of a range of additional regulations for
litigation funders, including a requirement to hold an Australian
financial services licence (AFSL). The reinstatement of the MIS
obligations created significant uncertainty and regulatory burden
for the funding industry.

Allens Linklaters recently reported that the new Labor Government
would likely wind back the application of the MIS regime to
litigation funding schemes -- the Federal Court's decision makes
this unnecessary. Litigation funding schemes no longer constitute a
MIS for the purposes of the Act.

Recent comments from Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones suggest the
requirement for funders to maintain an AFSL might also soon be
scrapped.

Questions remain as to the appropriate level of regulation of the
litigation funding industry. The ALRC and Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry have each
recommended reforms directed at litigation funding. As previously
reported, we expect the new Labor Government to revisit the ALRC's
recommendations on class actions and litigation funding. Those
recommendations included a number of recommendations to increase
the court's supervisory powers over litigation funders.

The decision
The Full Federal Court in LCM Funding Pty Ltd v Stanwell
Corporation Limited [2022] FCAFC 103 allowed an appeal brought by
LCM Funding Pty Ltd (LCM), finding that the litigation funding
scheme relating to a class action does not fall within the
description of a MIS.

Justice Anderson, with whom Justices Middleton and Lee agreed, held
that the text, context and general purpose and policy of the MIS
regime 'plainly does not have the features set out in the
definition of "managed investment scheme"'.

Background
Stanwell Corporation Limited (Stanwell), the first respondent in
the underlying class action proceeding, alleged that the litigation
funding scheme relating to the class action constituted a financial
product for the purposes of the Act, and was an unregistered MIS.

In response, LCM contended that:

  -- the scheme was not a financial product or a MIS, by operation
of the 'grandfathering' provisions inserted by the Corporations
Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2020 (Cth); and
   -- in any event, the scheme was not a MIS and LCM was not
operating a MIS. In this regard, LCM argued that the majority
decision in Brookfield Multiplex was plainly wrong.

The primary judge, Justice Beach, agreed that the grandfathering
provisions applied. While his Honour concluded it was not necessary
to decide whether the scheme was an MIS (and that, in any case, he
was bound by Brookfield Multiplex), his Honour nevertheless
expressed considerable doubt as to its correctness, suggesting
there was 'a strong case for arguing that it is appropriate for a
Full Court to reconsider the majority decision'.2

Back to top
Brookfield Multiplex plainly wrong
The Full Court in LCM Funding v Stanwell did just that. Justice
Anderson, with whom Justices Middleton and Lee agreed, held that
the majority decision in Brookfield Multiplex was plainly wrong.

At first instance, Justice Beach observed that the majority in
Brookfield Multiplex:

   -- arguably took an overly technical approach to each element of
the managed investment scheme definition instead of an orthodox
purposive approach; and as a result,
   -- construed the definition as 'capturing an arrangement that
could not realistically have been within the legislature's
contemplation and which shares little with the kinds of schemes
understood to constitute -- managed investment schemes'.
Additionally, his Honour noted that the statutory regime applying
to MISs in Chapter 5C of the Act was simply 'unfit for purpose' to
be applied to litigation funding schemes.

The Full Court agreed with this analysis, and said further aspects
of the MIS regime are incapable of application to a typical
litigation funding scheme, including the inability to value a
member's interest and issues with identifying the responsible
entity operating the scheme.

Justice Anderson ultimately concluded that:

[c]onsidering the text of s 9 of the Act itself, as well as its
context and general purpose and policy of the managed investment
scheme regime under Chapter 5C of the Act, we are of the view that
the present Scheme (which is relevantly identical to the scheme
under consideration in [Brookfield Multiplex]) plainly does not
have the features set out in the definition of "managed investment
scheme" . . ..

Regulatory reforms
In its December 2018 final report4 on class action litigation
funding the ALRC included six recommendations directed at
increasing court oversight and supporting the court to protect the
interests of group members, including that:

1. solicitors should be prevented from seeking to recover unpaid
legal fees from plaintiffs or group members in funded class
actions;
2. there should be a statutory presumption that funders will
provide security for costs;
3. the court should be empowered to award costs against funders and
insurers who fail to comply with the overarching purposes of the
Federal Court Act;
4. the court should be given greater supervisory powers over
funding agreements, to ensure they are only enforceable with the
court's approval and for the court to be able to reject, vary or
amend their terms;
5. ASIC should amend Regulatory Guide 248 to require funders to
report annually to ASIC on compliance obligations and conflicts of
interest; and
6. the Corporations Regulations should be amended to include 'law
firm financing' and 'portfolio funding' within the definition of
'litigation funding scheme', to ensure emerging funding models are
brought within the regulations.

Allens Linklaters supports each of these recommendations as
sensible steps towards increasing the court's powers to scrutinise
the conduct of funders and the reasonableness of commission rates.

In late 2020, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services Inquiry published its final report, with similar
recommendations directed at increasing court guidance and
supervision of litigation funding arrangements. [GN]

STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Mendez Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MENDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. STELLAR MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A STELLAR MANAGEMENT LTD,
3430 BWAY OWNER LLC, BIRDIE 141 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 600 W
144TH STREET, L.L.C., COB 3420 BROADWAY LLC and LAURENCE GLUCK,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05108 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendants on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated who are,
were, or will be employed by the Defendants as superintendents,
porters and handymen and/or in similar manual labor positions at
the Defendants' residential, commercial and mix-used buildings in
New York that were (and continue to be) owned, operated, and
controlled by Defendants as a unified enterprise within the
applicable statutory periods.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants during the fall of 2018, to
work as a porter of the Defendants' mixed-use building located at
556 West 140th Street, New York.

The Defendants operated (and they continue to operate) as a unified
and centrally-controlled real estate enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
          RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Marc A. Rapaport
          80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 382-1600
          E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com

               - and -

          Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW, PLLC
          167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (347) 878-2587
          E-mail: meredith@millerlaw.nyc

SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Court Upholds Class Certification in Fire Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Bevins, writing for News and Sentinel, reports that a
class-action lawsuit over the impact of a massive 2017 fire at a
Parkersburg warehouse can move forward after the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the certification of the class of
plaintiffs.

It's the second time Surnaik Holdings of WV challenged
certification of the class by Harrison County Circuit Court
Judge Thomas A. Bedell, who was appointed to hear the case after
Wood County Circuit Court judges recused themselves. But this time,
the state's highest court agreed with Bedell's ruling in a 3-1
decision with recently appointed Justice C. Haley Bunn not
participating.

The suit was filed on Oct. 30, 2017, nine days after a fire erupted
at the former Ames shovel plant, which was being used as a
warehouse to store materials for recycling by International Export
and Import Plastics. IEI is part of the Naik family of companies,
including Surnaik Holdings.

The fire burned for more than a week, creating a noxious plume of
black smoke and impacting local air quality.

Parkersburg resident Paul Snider filed the suit, claiming the
company allowed the facility's fire protection system to fall into
a state of disrepair and seeking compensatory damages for
respiratory ailments, exacerbation of existing medical conditions,
property damage and loss of enjoyment of property caused by the
fire.

According to the Supreme Court decision, penned by Chief Justice
John A. Hutchison, the class was defined using geographic areas
called "isopleths" based on areas where "there were concentrations
of fine particles 2.5 micrometers or less in size that had been
emitted by the fire; and the fine particles averaged 3 micrograms
per cubic meter or more over any 24-hour period during the fire."

The class was certified in September 2019, but Surnaik's attorneys
sought a writ of prohibition, which the state Supreme Court granted
in November 2020, saying more consideration needed to be given to
the requirements for certifying the class.

Bedell certified the class again in June 2021, and Surnaik
challenged it, using many of the same arguments. But this time the
court had a slightly different makeup following the election of
Justice William R. Wooton in 2020, replacing retired Justice
Margaret Workman, and the resignation of former Justice Evan
Jenkins, who Bunn was appointed to replace.

"The difference, however, was that the circuit court's order
clearly contains the appropriate and thorough analysis of
predominance and superiority required by our decision in" the first
case, the opinion says.

The opinion notes the Surnaik arguments are similar, and in one
case identical, to those offered in the previous petition. Among
those was that the vast majority of the people in the class were
not injured by the smoke.

"We have found the mere invasion of property by dust, smoke or
other noxious elements to be actionable," it says.

Justice Tim Armstead dissented, saying that although he agrees with
his fellow justices on some of the arguments, he would have granted
the writ based on the question of predominance.

"It is difficult to see how common questions can predominate in a
case where 70 percent of the class has suffered no injury and the
injuries that were arguably suffered may vary greatly," he said.

Armstead said a class-action format will not be an efficient means
of addressing the case because of the different circumstances that
will apply to each class member.

Alex McLaughlin, a Charleston attorney representing Snider, said he
was pleased with the decision. The next step will be working with
the judge and opposing counsel to establish a schedule for
approving and sending out the required class action notices.

"At one point, we were on track for a very speedy trial in this
case, especially considering the complexities of the case, but that
has all changed as a result of two appeals to the Supreme Court and
COVID in between," McLaughlin said via email.

A call to Ryan Donovan, an attorney for Surnaik, was not returned
on June 16. [GN]

TELADOC HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TDOC) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-04687, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Teladoc securities
between October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Teladoc securities during the Class Period, you have until August
5, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Teladoc provides virtual healthcare services in the U.S. and
internationally through Business-to-Business and Direct-to-Consumer
("D2C") distribution channels. The Company offers its customers
various virtual products and services addressing, among other
medical issues, mental health through its BetterHelp D2C product,
and chronic conditions.

Teladoc touts itself as "the first and only company to provide a
comprehensive and integrated whole person virtual healthcare
solution that both provides and enables care for a full spectrum of
clinical conditions[.]" Despite recent market concerns over new
entrants to the telehealth field, such Amazon.com, Inc. and Walmart
Inc., the Company has continued to assure investors of the
Company's dominant market position in the industry.

In fact, as recently as February 2022, Teladoc forecasted full year
("FY") 2022 revenue of $2.55 - $2.65 billion, as well as adjusted
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization
("EBITDA") of $330 - $355 million, on anticipated continued growth
through its competitive advantages.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) increased competition, among other factors, was
negatively impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care
businesses; (ii) accordingly, the growth of those businesses was
less sustainable than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(iii) as a result, Teladoc's revenue and adjusted EBITDA
projections for FY 2022 were unrealistic; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, Teladoc would be forced to recognize a significant
non-cash goodwill impairment charge; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On April 27, 2022, Teladoc announced its first quarter ("Q1") 2022
financial results, including revenue of $565.4 million, which
missed consensus estimates by $3.23 million, and "[n]et loss per
share of $41.58, primarily driven by [a] non-cash goodwill
impairment charge of $6.6 billion or $41.11 per share[.]"
Additionally, the Company revised its FY 2022 revenue guidance to
$2.4 - $2.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA guidance to $240 - $265
million "to reflect dynamics we are currently experiencing in the
[D2C] mental health and chronic condition markets." On a conference
call with investors and analysts that day to discuss Teladoc's Q1
2022 results, Defendants largely attributed the Company's poor
performance, revised FY 2022 guidance, and $6.6 billion non-cash
goodwill impairment charge to increased competition in its
BetterHelp and chronic care businesses.

On this news, Teladoc's stock price fell $22.48 per share, or
40.15%, to close at $33.51 per share on April 28, 2022.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Patterson Suit Over Misleading Digital Assets
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICK PATTERSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TERRAFORM LABS, PTE. LTD., JUMP CRYPTO, JUMP TRADING
LLC, REPUBLIC CAPITAL, REPUBLIC MAXIMAL LLC, TRIBE CAPITAL,
DEFINANCE CAPITAL/DEFINANCE TECHNOLOGIES OY, GSR/GSR MARKETS
LIMITED, THREE ARROWS CAPITAL PTE. LTD., NICHOLAS PLATIAS, and DO
KWON, Case No. 3:22-cv-03600 (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2022) is a class
action complaint under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of against the Defendants.

This action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased Terra Tokens between May 20, 2021 and May 25, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby.

TFL is a company that operates the Terra blockchain and its related
protocol, which hosts, supports, and funds a community of
decentralized financial applications and products known
collectively as the Terra ecosystem. TFL's primary focus is
developing, marketing, and selling a suite of digital assets and
financial products within the Terra ecosystem, including the native
and governance tokens within the Terra ecosystem, so-called
"stablecoins," a bevy of financial products such as "mirrored
assets," bonded assets, liquidity pool tokens, along with various
protocols to support and facilitate their sale. These digital
assets are collectively referred to as the "Terra Tokens" and are
worth tens of billions of dollars in total market cap. All of TFL's
decentralized applications are designed to manufacture a reason to
use the Terra Tokens since there is no purpose for these digital
assets other than as investments.

The Plaintiff and the Class paid fiat and/or cryptocurrencies in
exchange for the Terra Tokens with the expectation of profit from
either an increase in the price of particular Terra Tokens like
Luna and the mirrored assets or from receiving interest payments
for staking UST or other TFL governance tokens. This expectation
was based on the efforts of Defendants to maintain the Terra
ecosystem. Defendants sell or sold the Terra Tokens from the
retained supply and used the proceeds from the sales to fund TFL,
to reward investors, and as governance tokens. Even though the
Terra Tokens bear all the hallmarks of being investment contracts
and, thus, securities under the Howey test, no registration
statements have been filed with the SEC with respect to the various
Terra Tokens, says the suit.

On top of selling unregistered securities with the Terra Tokens,
the Defendants made a series of false and misleading statements
regarding the largest Terra ecosystem digital assets by market cap,
UST and LUNA, in order to induce investors into purchasing these
digital assets at inflated rates. TFL repeatedly touted the
stability of UST as an "algorithmic" stablecoin that is paired to
the Terra ecosystem's native token LUNA and the sustainability of
the Anchor Protocol ("Anchor") -- a type of high-yield savings
account whereby investors can "stake" or deposit UST with TFL in
exchange for a guaranteed 20% APY interest rate. As a part of this
promotional campaign, TFL formed the Luna Foundation Guard – a
group six venture capital groups that promised to support and fund
the Terra ecosystem and to "defend the peg" in the event that high
volatility caused the UST/LUNA pair to become untethered from one
another. The Luna Foundation Guard and its members Jump Crypto,
Tribe Capital, Republic Capital, GSR, DeFinance Capital, and Three
Arrows Capital acted on behalf of TFL to promote the stability of
UST and mislead investors into believing that (1) the Luna
Foundation Guard's reserve pool would be sufficient to defend the
peg against a proverbial run on the bank by UST/LUNA investors, and
(2) that the Luna Foundation Guard would be able to maintain
interest payments from the Anchor 17 Protocol through a
well-capitalized "Anchor Yield Reserve" fund, added the suit.

Plaintiff Patterson is a resident and citizen of Illinois, living
in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Patterson purchased Terra Tokens,
including UST, LUNA, ANC, Mirrored Assets, and Bonded Assets during
the Relevant Period, and suffered investment losses as a result of
Defendants' conduct.

TFL is a Seoul-based company with its headquarters located at 80
Raffles Place, No. 32-01, UOB Plaza, Singapore.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          Sean T. Masson, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
                  smasson@scott-scott.com

TERRAFORM LABS: Faces Securities Class Action Following UST Crash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Redman, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that following the
Terra stablecoin depegging incident, a class-action lawsuit has
been filed against the company Terraform Labs and a number of other
crypto companies over the collapse of terrausd (UST). The case
against Terraform Labs (TFL) was filed by the plaintiff Nick
Patterson on behalf of others similarly situated and the law firm
Scott+Scott LLP.

A Class-Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against TFL and Affiliated
Firms — Plaintiffs Claim Terra-Based Tokens Were Unregistered
Securities

According to recently filed documents in the U.S. District Court in
Northern California, Terraform Labs is accused of selling
unregistered securities and misleading investors. In addition to
TFL, Jump Crypto, Jump Trading, Republic Capital, Definance
Capital, GSR Markets, Three Arrows Capital, Nicholas Platias, and
Do Kwon are also named in the lawsuit. Patterson and the group of
plaintiffs accuse the defendants of "repeatedly touting the
stability of UST."

Moreover, the lawsuit claims that Terra-based tokens were
unregistered securities. "The Terra tokens are securities that the
TFL failed to register before selling," the plaintiff's lawyers
insist. The lawsuit was revealed on June 18, 2022, and the
whistleblower Fatman tweeted about the case being filed in
California. The lawsuit explains that investors were told that UST
and Anchor were stable.

Nicholas Platias, author of the Anchor white paper is quoted in the
court filing as saying Anchor's interest rate was "stable" and the
decentralized finance (defi) protocol offered a "low-volatility
yield" with a "reliable rate of return." "TFL and the Luna
Foundation Guard misled U.S. investors concerning the stability of
UST and LUNA, as well as the sustainability of Anchor," the
plaintiff's argument notes.

The plaintiffs also quote a tweet made by the Anchor Protocol's
official Twitter account on March 17, 2021, which said:

"Anchor is not your ordinary money market. The protocol offers
stable, 20% APY interest to depositors and only accepts liquid
staking derivatives as posted collateral by borrowers."

Three Arrows Capital Co-Founder Accused of Telling People to Take
out Loans Against Bitcoin and Deposit Proceeds Into Anchor
The lawsuit against TFL and the group of hedge funds follows the
recent lawsuit against Binance US, which is accused of selling
unregistered securities and advertising terrausd (UST) as "safe."
Further another lawsuit against Coinbase has been filed concerning
the UST fallout as plaintiffs accuse Coinbase of passing UST off
"as just another stablecoin." The lawsuit was initiated by Erickson
Kramer Osborne and the law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman LLP.

In addition to TFL, Nicholas Platias, Do Kwon, Jump Crypto, Jump
Trading, Republic Capital, Definance Capital, and GSR Markets,
Three Arrows Capital (3AC) co-founder Su Zhu is accused of telling
people to take loans out on their bitcoin to use the proceeds on
Anchor. "Seven days later, immediately following the UST collapse,
this post was deleted," the lawsuit against TFL details. 3AC is
allegedly facing financial hardships according to reports and
crypto community members have accused the crypto hedge fund of
being insolvent. [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeals Ruling in Australia Diesel Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miklos Bolza and Tiffanie Turnbull, writing for Bega District News,
report that Australian Associated Press reports that automotive
giant Toyota has appealed a class action decision that leaves it
facing around $2 billion in damages over vehicles fitted with dodgy
diesel filters.

Toyota is challenging an April decision from the Federal Court
which found more than 264,000 drivers who purchased some of the
firm's most popular vehicles were eligible to be compensated.

In his decision, Justice Michael Lee found that Hilux, Fortuner and
Prado vehicles sold between October 2015 and April 2020 had
defective diesel filters, leaving their owners out of pocket.

In May, the judge awarded lead applicant Kenneth Williams over
$18,000 in damages. Mr Williams was representing all eligible group
members in the class action.

The defect caused the vehicles to spill foul-smelling white smoke
and decreased fuel efficiency.

It also meant owners had to fork out for an excessive number of
inspections, services and repairs, and in some cases, caused a loss
of income when drivers could not use their cars or had to take time
off to remedy the defect.

Justice Lee found each vehicle was worth 17.5 per cent less than
what the average customer paid, and customers were entitled to be
reimbursed that difference.

If the appeal is not successful and all eligible customers claim
their payouts, the bill for Toyota could exceed $2 billion. [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Payouts for Drivers in Diesel Filters' Suit Possible
------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Daily reports that thousands of Australian drivers could be
entitled to big compensation payouts as a class action against
Toyota takes another step forward.

More than 260,000 Toyota drivers were being asked to sign up from
Monday, June 20, to a potential $2 billion lawsuit against the
manufacturer.

It follows a Federal Court ruling in April that certain versions of
the Toyota HiLux, Prado and Fortuner had defective diesel
particulate filters.

The manufacturer may be forced to pay thousands in compensation to
Australian customers bought the affected vehicles.

Gilbert and Tobin, the law firm handling the class action, has
begun contacting drivers across Australia who bought diesel models
of the vehicles between October 2015 and April 2020.

Toyota has announced plans to contest the ruling - and the mammoth
likely bill.

But, if its appeal fails, the landmark court case is likely deliver
the biggest compensation payout in Australian corporate history.

The defect caused the vehicles to spill foul-smelling white smoke
and meant owners had to fork out for excessive inspections,
services and repairs.

In the Federal Court in April, Justice Michael Lee found 264,170
vehicles were sold with the defect in Australia. Each was worth
17.5 per cent less than what the average customer paid.

"The conduct in marketing the vehicles as being of acceptable
quality was misleading," Justice Lee wrote.

At the time, lead applicant Ken Williams said he was "thrilled"
with the judgment.

Mr Williams bought a Prado that spent much of its time off the road
for repairs.

"Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian consumers who bought
these vehicles are [now] entitled to be awarded damages for the
losses they suffered as a result," he said.

"I hope the judgment provides a degree of comfort to people who,
like me, have had to deal with the disappointment, inconvenience
and extra cost of owning these vehicles."

Gilbert and Tobin partner Matt Mackenzie said anyone who bought one
of the affected vehicles could register for compensation -- and had
to be registered to be eligible for a payout.

"Anybody who acquired one of those vehicles . . .will receive a
notice approved by the court, either by email, text message, or
post that says: 'There's been a judgment, you might be entitled to
damages, but if you want to claim that compensation, you need to
come forward and register your interest'," Mr Mackenzie said.

Gilbert and Tobin has set up a website to verify the details of
each vehicle and identify affected customers. Details will be
checked with information supplied by Toyota.

"With that, we'll be able to work out which customers are eligible
for compensation and if so, how much compensation," Mr Mackenzie
said.

If each customer claimed the full amount -- $7474.59 -- the bill
for Toyota could reach about $2 billion.

There is no cost to affected customers to register interest in the
class action.

If the court case is successful, some of the compensation payout
may go towards legal costs. [GN]

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Faces Edge Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL EDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION; MIGUEL
FERNANDEZ; and CASSANDRA HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04976
(S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Tupperware
securities between November 3, 2021 and May 3, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages pursuant
to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Tupperware
was facing significant challenges in maintaining its earnings and
sales performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware's full year 2022
guidance was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material negative
impact on Tupperware's financial condition; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.

On May 4, 2022, Tupperware announced its financial results for the
first quarter of 2022. Among other items, Tupperware reported
adjusted earnings per share ("EPS") from continuing operations and
net sales that fell well short of consensus estimates and withdrew
its full year 2022 guidance and named a new Chief Financial Officer
("CFO"). The Company attributed the poor performance to the
conflict in Russia and Ukraine. However, when pressed by analysts
on a conference call, the Company acknowledged that Russia and
Ukraine only accounted for 2% of its revenue.

On this news, Tupperware's stock price fell $5.76 per share, or
32.16%, to close at $12.15 per share on May 4, 2022.

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 added.

TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION is a portfolio of global direct
selling companies which sell products across multiple brands and
categories through an independent sales force. The Company's
product brands and categories include food preparation, storage,
and serving solutions for the kitchen and home. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 692-8883
          Email: lesley@portnoylaw.com

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Tupperware Brands Corporation ("Tupperware") (NYSE: TUP)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between November 3, 2021 and May 3, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28755&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Tupperware includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Tupperware was facing significant challenges in maintaining its
earnings and sales performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware's
full-year 2022 guidance was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Tupperware's financial condition; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: August 15, 2022

Aggrieved Tupperware investors only have until August 15, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

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

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

UNILEVER PLC: City of St. Clair Sues Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNILEVER PLC; ALAN JOPE; RITVA SOTAMAA; NILS ANDERSEN;
YOUNGME MOON; GRAEME PITKETHLY; LAURA CHA; JUDITH HARTMANN; ANDREA
JUNG; SUSAN KILSBY; STRIVE MASIYIWA; JOHN RISHTON; and FEIKE
SIJBESMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05011 (S.D.N.Y., June 15,
2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Unilever American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") between September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Unilever and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's
decision appears to arise out of the boycott, divestment, and
sanctions ("BDS") movement. The BDS movement is a pro-Palestinian
movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions
against Israel. The BDS movement's objective is to coerce Israel
into making concessions to the Palestinians by using boycotts and
the like to exert economic and political pressure.

The states of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois,
Colorado, and Arizona announced decisions to divest their pension
fund investments in Unilever due to violations of their Anti-BDS
Legislation.

In response to this news, the price of Unilever ADRs closed down
$3.19 per ADR that day, approximately 5.4%.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
declines in the market value of Unilever ADRs, the Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages
for which they seek redress through this action, says the suit.

UNILEVER PLC manufactures personal care products. The Company
offers consumer goods, food, detergents, fragrances, beauty, home,
and personal care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 432-5100
          Email: rgonnello@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

UNILEVER PLC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Unilever PLC ("Unilever") (NYSE: UL) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 20 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Unilever American Depositary Receipts between September 2, 2020 and
July 21, 2021, inclusive.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/unilever-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=28754&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Unilever includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: a) in July
2020, the board of Ben & Jerry's, one of Unilever's marquee brands,
passed a resolution to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied
Palestinian Territory" ; and b) this boycott decision risked
adverse governmental actions for violations of laws, executive
orders, or resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment,
and sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states.

DEADLINE: August 15, 2022

Aggrieved Unilever investors only have until August 15, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

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

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

UNILEVER UNITED: Bogdanovs Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BERNADETTE BOGDANOVS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00652, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 15, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-03143 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act by engaging in false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Suave 24-hour
Protection Powder aerosol antiperspirant and Suave 24-hour
Protection Fresh aerosol antiperspirant products, which have been
tested and shown to be adulterated with benzene, a known human
carcinogen.

Unilever United States Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care
products, headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
         Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
         BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
         31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
         Westlake Village, CA 91361
         Telephone: (805) 270-7100
         Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
         E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

                 - and –

         Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Esq.
         R. Jason Richards, Esq.
         AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
         17 E. Main St., Suite 200
         Pensacola, FL 32502
         Telephone: (850) 202-1010
         Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
         E-mail: mliu@awkolaw.com
                 jrichards@awkolaw.com

VERIZON WIRELESS: Winston & Strawn Attorney Discusses Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq., DaWanna L. McCray, Esq. and Nathan R.
Gilbert, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that on March 19, 2018, Plaintiff Lorraine Adell filed a
class action complaint in Ohio federal court against Verizon
Wireless, seeking damages arising from Verizon's imposition of
certain administrative charges. The district court kicked
Plaintiff's case out of federal court and compelled the parties to
arbitrate because there was no dispute that Plaintiff signed a
Customer Agreement with Verizon Wireless: 1) requiring that
disputes arising under the Customer Agreement be resolved by
arbitration; and 2) requiring the bilateral, rather than class,
arbitration of disputes -- effectively limiting Plaintiff to
individual relief.

After losing before the arbitration panel, Plaintiff's case reached
the Sixth Circuit. In Adell v. Cellco Partnership, No. 21-3570,
2022 WL 1487765 (6th Cir. May 11, 2022), Plaintiff complained that
the district court erred in compelling her to arbitrate her breach
of contract case, because there is an "inherent conflict" between
the CAFA and the FAA, and her claims fell squarely within a federal
court's diversity jurisdiction through the CAFA.

For background, the FAA provides that an arbitration clause in a
"transaction involving commerce . . . shall be valid, irrevocable,
and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2003).
Courts have routinely held that the FAA evinces "a liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration agreements." The CAFA, on the other
hand, focuses on the jurisdiction of the federal courts and grants
district courts "original jurisdiction" for class actions "in which
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000."
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2). The CAFA's "findings and purposes" also
"express the importance of class action lawsuits." Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, § 2(a)–(b), 119 Stat. 4
(2005).

At first blush, it may appear that these two statutes are not in
harmony because, if a party seeks a class action, the FAA favors
arbitration where an arbitration clause is present, and the CAFA
favors federal court adjudication. Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit
rejected this contention, acknowledging that, while there is value
in a district court's ability to hear class action cases, Congress
has in no way indicated that CAFA was meant to preclude parties
from privately contracting to adjudicate such cases through
bilateral arbitration instead. Thus, the Sixth Circuit affirmed
that the FAA and the CAFA do not conflict because, "if Congress had
wanted to override the FAA and ban arbitration class action
waivers, it could have done so manifestly and expressly in the CAFA
statute."

This ruling is significant because over the years, parties have
continuously sought to circumvent the FAA by arguing that it
conflicts with another federal statute. The U.S. Supreme Court has,
to date, rejected each attempt. This trend will likely continue
unless Congress expressly overrides the FAA. [GN]

WOOD GROUP: Williams Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENDRICK V. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WOOD GROUP, Case No. 4:22-cv-01992 (S.D.
Tex., June 17, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from Defendant Wood Group under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wood Group employs workers like Williams to carry out their work.
Williams, and the other workers like him, regularly worked for Wood
Group in excess of 40 hours each week. But Wood Group does not pay
all of these workers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA, Wood Group pays these workers a daily rate with no
overtime compensation, says the suit.

From August 2018 until August 2021, Williams worked for Wood Group
as an HSSE employee at various project locations. Throughout his
employment with Wood Group, he was paid a day-rate with no overtime
compensation, the suit added.

Wood Group is (or was) a subdivision of John Wood Group PLC, an
international organization that operates around the world and in
states across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor Montgomery, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tmontgomery@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

YEXT INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on June 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Yext, Inc. ("Yext" or the "Company") (NYSE:
YEXT) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Yext securities between March 4, 2021 and March
8, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until August 16, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Yext organizes a business' facts to provide answers to consumer
questions online. The Company operates yext platform, a cloud-based
platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide
answers to consumer questions, control facts about their business
and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer
reviews. Yext's website describes its service as "a modern,
AI-powered Answers Platform that understands natural language so
that when people ask questions about a business online they get
direct answers -- not links."

As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently assured
investors that pandemic-related impacts on the Company's business
were limited as the Company adapted to lockdowns and improved
efficiencies in its sales and other operations.

On March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release announcing its fourth
quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, Yext
reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of
consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter ("Q1") fiscal 2023
revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus
estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per
share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of
$0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3
million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY
fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17,
versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed
the departure of its CEO and CFO.

That same day, on a conference call to discuss Yext's Q4 and FY
fiscal 2022 results, the Company's incoming CEO, Michael Walrath
("Walrath"), addressed the Company's disappointing financial
results, revealing, inter alia, that "we have seen fragmentation in
our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium
service and support" and that, "[i]n hindsight, it is clear we were
too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on
other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales
enablement, training, client success and services." Walrath also
disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our
business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events
were canceled because of the Omicron surges[,]" while opining that
Yext could "[a]bsolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's
more efficient during disruptions like that[.]"

Following that call, a Truist Securities analyst lowered the firm's
rating on Yext to hold from buy and slashed its price target to $6
from $17, noting, among other things, that key performing
indicators showed an "unexpected slowdown" in Q4, guidance for
fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that "planned
changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy, sales
organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a meaningful
and sustainable revival in growth is unclear[.]"

Following these disclosures, Yext's stock price fell $.055 per
share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Yext's revenue and earnings were significantly
deteriorating because of, inter alia, poor sales execution and
performance, as well as COVID-19 related disruptions; (ii)
accordingly, Yext was unlikely to meet consensus estimates for its
full year ("FY") fiscal 2022 financial results and fiscal 2023
outlook; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

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

YEXT INC: Faces Menzione Suit Over Misleading Business Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARC MENZIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YEXT, INC., HOWARD LERMAN, and STEVEN CAKEBREAD, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05127 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2022) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Yext securities between March 4, 2021 and March 8, 2022, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials.

As COVID-19 resurged throughout 2021, Yext consistently assured
investors that pandemic-related impacts on the Company's business
were limited as the Company adapted to lockdowns and improved
efficiencies in its sales and other operations.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Yext's
revenue and earnings were significantly deteriorating because of,
inter alia, poor sales execution and performance, as well as
COVID-19 related disruptions, says the suit.

On March 8, 2022, Yext issued a press release announcing its fourth
quarter ("Q4") and FY fiscal 2022 results. Among other items, Yext
reported Q4 fiscal 2022 revenue of $100.9 million, falling short of
consensus estimates by $140,000; first quarter ("Q1") fiscal 2023
revenue outlook of $96.3 million to $97.3 million, versus consensus
estimates of $103.79 million; Q1 fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per
share outlook of $0.08 to $0.07, versus consensus estimates of
$0.05; FY fiscal 2023 revenue outlook of $403.3 million to $407.3
million, versus consensus estimates of $444.71 million; and FY
fiscal 2023 non-GAAP net loss per share outlook of $0.19 to $0.17,
versus consensus estimates of $0.09. The Company further disclosed
the departure of its CEO and CFO.

That same day, on a conference call to discuss Yext's Q4 and FY
fiscal 2022 results, the Company's incoming CEO, Michael Walrath
("Walrath"), addressed the Company's disappointing financial
results, revealing, inter alia, that "we have seen fragmentation in
our interactions with customers and our ability to deliver premium
service and support" and that, "in hindsight, it is clear we were
too focused on building sales capacity and not focused enough on
other functions that drive productivity, particularly sales
enablement, training, client success and services." Walrath also
disclosed that "we saw a really significant disruption in our
business" such as "in Q4, 50% -- over 50% of our in-person events
were canceled because of the Omicron surges," while opining that
Yext could "absolutely" improve its "sales motion so that it's more
efficient during disruptions like that."

Following that call, a Truist Securities ("Truist") analyst lowered
the firm's rating on Yext to hold from buy and slashed its price
target to $6 from $17, noting, among other things, that key
performing indicators showed an "unexpected slowdown" in Q4,
guidance for fiscal 2023 shows no near-term turn around, and that
"planned changes under new management (in go-to-market strategy,
sales organization) carry execution risks and the timing for a
meaningful and sustainable revival in growth is unclear."

Following these disclosures, Yext's stock price fell $0.55 per
share, or 9.29%, to close at $5.37 per share on March 9, 2022.

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

Yext organizes a business's facts to provide answers to consumer
questions online. The Company operates Yext platform, a cloud-based
platform that allows its customers to, among other things, provide
answers to consumer questions, control facts about their businesses
and the content of their landing pages, and manage their consumer
reviews. Yext's website describes its service as "a modern,
AI-powered Answers Platform that understands natural language so
that when people ask questions about a business online they get
direct answers -- not links."[BN]

Z & W OF NEW YORK: Faces Pacific Rim Suit Over Unpaid Balance
-------------------------------------------------------------
PACIFIC RIM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Z & W OF NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 712572/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., June 15, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its breach of agreement
with the Plaintiff by failing to pay monies due for labor,
services, and materials.

According to the complaint, the agreed price and value of the
labor, services, and material provided by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant and used to improve the premises was $6,980,000 of which
$3,849,800 was paid, leaving a balance due and owed to the
Plaintiff of $3,130,200 plus interest.

Pacific Rim, LLC is a contractor based in New York.

Z & W of New York, LLC is a real property owner located in
Flushing, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Chia-Cheng Hsu, Esq.
         72-11 Austin Street, Suite 441
         Forest Hills, NY 11375
         Telephone: (253) 880-7717


                            *********

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 ***