/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211202.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, December 2, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 235

                            Headlines

AMARIN CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 20 Deadline
AMERICAN MEALS: Quiros Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AQUA ELITE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASPIRO ADVENTURE: Underpays Field Guides, Garner Claims
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Tallini Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

BA SPORTS NUTRITION: Silver Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
BAMKO LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF NEW YORK: Denial of Judgment on Pleadings in Maddox Vacated
BRISTOL-MYERS: Williams Suit Removed to S.D. New York
BRITELIFE RECOVERY: Faces Highers Suit Over Wrongful Termination

C PEPPER: White Line Compelled to Comply W/ Subpoena in Flinn Suit
COLUMBIA GRAMMAR: C.H. Appeals Files Appeal in Discrimination Case
COSY HOUSE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged False Advertising
DESERT FINANCIAL: Evidentiary Hearing in Cornell Suit Partly OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: Sheas Appeal Oil Consumption Defect Suit Dismissal

GINKGO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
GROUP HEALTH: Findling Appeals Ruling in Medical Records Suit
MDL 2989: Antitrust Tranche Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Oreo Cookies' Label "Deceptive," Leonard Claims
NATIONS LENDING: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Summary Judgment in Torres-Ronda Suit Affirmed
NCL BAHAMAS: Marin Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
NEVADA: Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in Brown v. SNAMHS Suit
NEW YORK: Suspends Teachers Over Refusal of COVID-19 Vaccination
OWLET INC: Faces Butala Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price

PENSKE TRUCK: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PINNACLE PROPERTY: Denial of Arbitration in De Leon Suit Affirmed
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 24 Deadline
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Summer's Eve Spray Contains Benzene, Lofaro Says

PRIORITY PAYMENT: Faces Class Action Over Systematic Policy
PROMPT NURSING: $3MM Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
RICHMOND PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Actual Expenses, McBride Claims
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Fisher Suit Over Info Data Breach
S&H TRUCKING: Underpays Dump Truck Drivers, Shepler Suit Alleges

SAVANNAH BEE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Ellsworth Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
SEAN KELLY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEED HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. West Virginia

SHAKER & SPOON: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SHINESTY INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIERRA NEVADA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMON'S AGENCY: Summary Judgment Bid in Huber Suit Granted in Part
SIMPLY NATURAL: Andrade Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages

SINGER SEWING: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SLED DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLO DTC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SONIM TECH: Distribution of Net Settlement Fund in Sterrett Granted

SONTIQ INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUNDS TRUE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOURCEBOOKS INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SP PLUS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Cuellar Files Suit in S.D. Florida

SPLENDID SPOON: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPOTHERO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SQUIX LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
STONE FOREST: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STONECO LTD: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline

STORK CRAFT: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STRYTEN ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Rivera Claims
SUMMIT VIEW: Residents Removed Under Threat of Force, Suit Says
SUNNY SCUBA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SUNRUN INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUPER EASY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TAKEOUT KIT: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TALK TO BRUNO: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TASTY HUT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atwood Suit Alleges
TELLO LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

THERABOX INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
THINK OUTSOURCING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cayetano Alleges
THIS LAND: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THUMBTACK INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOUCHLAND LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRAININGMASK LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSCO LINES: Moore Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
TRUSTPILOT INC: Trustpilot Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: $3.3MM Class Deal in Kudatsky Suit Has Final OK
U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION: Appeals Ruling in Buttermark Labor Suit

ULTIMATE SACK: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
UNITED STATES: Cabrera's Federal Pretrial Detainees Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Graham v. IRS Without Prejudice
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Tosses Williams Civil Rights Suit
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Tosses Wise Pretrial Detainees Suit

URBAN OFFICE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UVNV INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VACUUM INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VAIL CORP: McAuliffe Appeals Dismissal of Resort Fee Refund Suit
VANT PANELS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VEGGIE GRILL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VINOLIO EXPORTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VM INNOVATIONS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
W.B. HUNT CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALMART INC: DeMaso Sues Over Fudge Mint Cookies' Deceptive Label

WEIDER GLOBAL: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLBOTS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESCOVER INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WEVIDEO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
WICKER PARADISE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WIRCO INC: Like Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
WOLACO INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WOODS GOODS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Mandamus Petition in Yeomans Suit
WORLDVENTURES MARKETING: Fralish Sues Over Telemarketing Calls

ZOLI INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

AMARIN CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Amarin Corporation PLC ("Amarin" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: AMRN) in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Amarin securities between
December 5, 2018 and June 21, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until December 20, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Amarin and
its senior executives made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an
increasingly high risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be
invalidated; (2) once the District Court invalidated certain of
Amarin's patents, there was little to no chance of reversing that
ruling; (3) Amarin's litigation was preventing it from effectuating
a successful takeover; and (4) Amarin was downplaying the true
threat the ongoing ANDA litigation posed to the Company's business
and future prospects.

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

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

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

AMERICAN MEALS: Quiros Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Meals, Inc.
The case is styled as Armando Quiros, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Meals, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0010894 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov.
24, 2021).

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

American Meals Inc. -- http://www.dennys.com/-- is a restaurants
company based in Stockton, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250



AQUA ELITE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aqua Elite Events,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Aqua Elite Events, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09979 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Aqua Elite Events -- https://www.primeluxuryrentals.com/ -- is
Miami's premier luxury rentals, boat rental and event planning
organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


ASPIRO ADVENTURE: Underpays Field Guides, Garner Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
DALLEN GARNER, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ASPIRO ADVENTURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00674-DAK (D. Utah, November 15, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field guide.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated Field
Guides, who have worked for the Defendant anywhere in the U.S. at
any time from November 15, 2018 through the final disposition of
this complaint, were denied of overtime compensation of at least
one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. Despite working more than 40 hours
per week, the Defendant allegedly paid them a day rate for each day
worked.

Aspiro Adventure, LLC provides wilderness therapy whereby Field
Guides lead clients through the wilderness to build self-awareness
and establish healthier behavioral patterns. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361) 452-1279
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com

                - and –

          Jesse S. Brar, Esq.
          PRESTON BRAR, LLC
          670 East 3900 South, Suite 10
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Tel: (801) 269-9541
          Fax: (801) 577-1988
          E-mail: jesse@prestonbrar.com

ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Tallini Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Fiory
Tallini, All other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde
Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New Hyde
Park, Respondents, Case No. 614807/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of
Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in
New York, United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 SPRUCE ST
          CEDARHURST, NY 11516-1915


BA SPORTS NUTRITION: Silver Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BA Sports Nutrition,
LLC. The case is styled as Marc Silver, Alexander Hill,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BA
Sports Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00158-WOB-EBA (E.D. Ky.,
Nov. 24, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

BA Sports Nutrition LLC doing business as Bodyarmor SuperDrink --
http://www.drinkbodyarmor.com/-- is an American sports drink and
fully-owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company based in Queens,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP - LA
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (303) 393-0070
          Fax: (212) 253-4272

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Lawrence, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC
          606 Philadelphia Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Phone: (859) 578-9130
          Fax: (859) 578-1032
          Email: jllawrence@lawrencefirm.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Maia C. Kats, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (415) 772-4700
          Fax: (415) 772-4707

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP - NY
          100 W. 93rd Street,16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Fax: (212) 253-4272


BAMKO LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamko, LLC. The case
is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bamko, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10068 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 24, 2021).

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

BAMKO -- https://bamko.net/ -- is a full-service promotional
products and branded merchandise agency focused on creating lasting
connections between brands and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Phillip Rubin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN P. RUBIN, PLLC
          3000 Marcus Ave., Ste 1e5
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Phone: (917) 957-0978
          Email: jprubinesq@gmail.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Denial of Judgment on Pleadings in Maddox Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA MADDOX, TOMETTA MADDOX HOLLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellant, Docket No. 19-1774 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's
order denying BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
remanded with instructions that the case be dismissed.

Introduction

BNY Mellon appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (Arcara, J.) denying its motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The district court held that the
Maddoxes have Article III standing to seek statutory damages from
the Bank for its violation of New York's
mortgage-satisfaction-recording statutes. These statutes require
mortgage lenders to record satisfactions of mortgage (also known as
"certificates of discharge") within 30 days of the borrower's
repayment; a failure to record renders the lender "liable to the
mortgagor" for escalating statutory damages in amounts dependent on
the delay in the ultimate filing.

In the case, the Bank did not record the satisfaction of the
Maddoxes' mortgage, in an amount of over $50,000, until almost one
year after full payment was received -- nearly 11 months later than
the law allows. For the filing of a satisfaction over 90 days after
discharge, the lender becomes liable to the mortgagor for $1,500.
R.P.L. Section 275(1); R.P.A.P.L. Section 1921(1).

The Maddoxes sued to collect that penalty and to represent a
putative class of similarly wronged borrowers.

The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the question
whether the Maddoxes have Article III standing to sue the Bank for
the statutory damages and other relief. Our initial opinion on this
appeal, Maddox v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., 997 F.3d 436
(2d Cir. 2021), was the subject of a motion for rehearing in light
of the intervening authority of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, - U.S.
-, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), which expanded upon the standing
principles raised by the case.

The parties submitted supplemental letter briefs discussing the
impact, if any, of TransUnion on our previous decision. Because
TransUnion bears directly on its analysis, the Second Circuit
grants the motion for rehearing, withdraws its opinion of May 10,
2021, and issues the instant amended opinion in its place.
Additional oral argument is unnecessary.

Discussion

To demonstrate injury in fact, a plaintiff must show the invasion
of a [1] legally protected interest that is [2] concrete and [3]
particularized and [4] actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical."

BNY Mellon argues that, although the New York State Legislature may
have implicitly recognized that delayed recording can create harms
such as a cloud on title and an adverse affect on a mortgagor's
credit, the Maddoxes have not alleged, and cannot allege, that they
suffered these harms. Therefore, BNY Mellon asks us to conclude
that the Maddoxes have failed to show that the injury alleged was
either "concrete" or "particularized" enough to amount to an injury
in fact for purposes of Article III standing.  

The Maddoxes argue to the contrary, that where the Legislature has
recognized a legal interest or interests and a plaintiff has
suffered a harm or risk of real harm to those interests, Article
III is satisfied. According to the Maddoxes, the harms that the
Legislature aimed to preclude need not have come to fruition for a
plaintiff to have suffered a material risk of real harm sufficient
to seek the statutory remedy afforded by the Legislature.

I. Plaintiffs must suffer a concrete harm to establish standing.

"No concrete harm; no standing." This equation, which opens the
Supreme Court's TransUnion decision, leaves little room for
interpretation and may be sufficient to resolve the issue before
the Second Circuit. Still, the facts in TransUnion bear a strong
enough resemblance to those in the case that the Supreme Court's
treatment of them proves highly instructive. The Second Circuit
opines that TransUnion established that in suits for damages the
Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III standing by relying
entirely on a statutory violation or risk of future harm: "No
concrete harm; no standing."

II. The Maddoxes have not suffered a "concrete" harm.

The only allegations that matter are few: The Maddoxes paid off
their mortgage when they sold their house; the bank filed the
mortgage satisfaction nearly one year afterward. By statute, New
York creates a private right to collect an escalating cash penalty
if the satisfaction is filed more than 30 days after the mortgage
is paid off, up to $1,500 for delay exceeding 90 days.

The determinative standing issue is whether the Maddoxes suffered a
concrete harm due to the Bank's violation. It is clear that they
have not, the Second Circuit opines. It finds that in any event,
the Maddoxes need not show a cloud, reputational harm, or any other
injury. The Maddoxes have an easy way to collect their reward for
reporting the Bank's delay in recording the mortgage satisfaction:
They may recover the statutory penalty in state court. This is a
small claim, in a fixed amount, amenable to a recovery without
dispute -- and probably without counsel or fees. It is hard to
imagine that a bank would press the issue to litigation.

Of course, state court remains an option for all absent class
members as well. To the extent that such members (or their lawyers)
prefer to form a class and bring their claims in federal court,
they must come prepared to prove that they suffered concrete harm
due to the Bank's violation of the relevant statutes.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit vacated the district
court's order denying BNY Mellon's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and remanded with instructions that the case be
dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/494tw4nu from Leagle.com.

JONATHAN M. ROBBIN -- jrobbin@blankrome.com -- (Deborah A. Skakel,
on the letter brief), Blank Rome LLP, in New York City, for
Defendant-Appellant Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company.

SETH R. LESSER, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, in Rye Brook, New York,
for Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox, et al.

ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Maddox, et al.

CHARLES MARSHALL DELBAUM, National Consumer Law Center, in Boston,
Massachusetts (on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox, et
al.

William Alvarado Rivera -- warivera@aarp.org -- Julie Nepveu --
jnepveu@aarp.org -- AARP Foundation, in Washington, D.C., and Brian
L. Bromberg, Joshua Tarrant-Windt, Bromberg Law Office, P.C., in
New York City, for AARP, AARP Foundation, and National Association
for Consumer Advocates, amici curiae in support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees Maddox, et al.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Williams Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tara Williams, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Giovanni
Caforio, Charles Bancroft, Karen M. Santiago, Vicki L. Sato, Peter
J. Arduini, Robert Bertolini, Matthew W. Emmens, Michael Grobstein,
Alan J. Lacy, Dinesh Paliwal, Theodore R. Samuels, Gerald L.
Storch, Karen H. Vousden, Case No. 656179/2021, was removed from
the Supreme Court, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on Nov. 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-09998 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Bristol-Myers Squibb -- https://www.bms.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical company, headquartered in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq.
          DLA PIPER US LLP (NY)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 335-4500
          Fax: (212) 335-4501
          Email: john.clarke@dlapiper.com


BRITELIFE RECOVERY: Faces Highers Suit Over Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIKA HIGHERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRITELIFE RECOVERY AT HILTON HEAD, LLC and
DENNIS KOLEDA, Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-03860-RMG-MHC (D.S.C.,
November 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence per se, wrongful termination in violation of public
policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil
battery, negligent supervision and negligent retention, and
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Emergency Paid Sick
Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case arises from BriteLife's alleged termination of the
Plaintiff for complaining about violations of the criminal code and
for civil battery, as well as violations of the South Carolina
Occupational Health and Safety Act and other workplace safety
standards, guidelines and regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed as a substance abuse therapist for
Defendant BriteLife in Beaufort County, South Carolina from
February 19, 2020 to October 6, 2021.

BriteLife Recovery at Hilton Head, LLC is an addiction treatment
center in Hilton Head, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Casey Martens, Esq.
         Molly R. Hamilton Cawley, Esq.
         MHC LAW, LLC
         460 King Street, Suite 200
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 225-8651
         E-mail: Casey@mhc-lawfirm.com
                 Molly@mhc-lawfirm.com

C PEPPER: White Line Compelled to Comply W/ Subpoena in Flinn Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC, LANTER
DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and JAMES PEPPER, Defendants, Case No.
20-2215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the
Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with a subpoena issued to
non-party White Line.

Background

The matter is a class action on behalf of truck drivers. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, "acting as joint employers,
misclassified the truck drivers as independent contractors; issued
them fraudulent Form 1099-MISCs each tax year showing compensation
in an amount more than two times what they were actually paid; and
issued them paystubs each pay period containing fraudulent,
unlawful deductions."

The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contains causes of action
for 1) fraudulent filing of 1099 tax forms rather than W-2s while
substantially overreporting the amount of compensation paid to the
class members (Cause of Action I against C Pepper and James Pepper)
and 2) violation of state common law and wage law regarding
improper deductions from employees' wages (Cause of Action II
against all the Defendants). The Plaintiff is seeking damages in
excess of $30 million plus damages available under state laws for
the unlawful wage deductions.

The Plaintiff continues that during his employment with the
Defendants, Defendant C Pepper was a "designated carrier partner"
of Defendant Lanter. According to Plaintiff, through this
designated carrier partner relationship, Lanter exerted control
over C Pepper's business. In about August 2020, Lanter purported to
terminate its relationship with C Pepper, and all of the managers
and 700 truck drivers working for Lanter and the Pepper Defendants
began to instead work for Lanter and White Line overnight. White
Line now serves as the primary designated carrier partner of
Lanter. Allegations of this nature -- or any allegations regarding
White Line -- are notably absent from the Plaintiff's Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiff issued a subpoena to White Line on July 1, 2021,
requesting the production of certain documents. The parties have
resolved all of their disputes but for the following three
categories, which have been significantly narrowed: (1) a
representative sample of the agreement form(s) between White Line
and the drivers who came from C Pepper to White Line (Request No.
1); (2) a representative sample of pay stubs issued by White Line
to these former C Pepper drivers in 2020 (10 examples randomly
chosen from among the 700 drivers who transitioned from C Pepper to
While Line) (Request No. 5); and (3) a representative sample of the
tax forms issued by White Line to these former C Pepper drivers for
2020 (the same ten randomly chosen persons for Request No. 5)
(Request 7).

The Plaintiff has offered to allow White Line to redact the
personal/identifying information from the documents and produce
them subject to the Protective Order entered in the case. Even so,
White Line has refused to produce any documents responsive to the
(now narrowed) subpoena, objecting that the information sought is
irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and seeks disclosure of confidential
matter.

Discussion

A. Relevance (Categories 1, 5, and 7)

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Lanter, C Pepper, and James
Pepper were "joint employers, constitute an integrated enterprise,
and/or otherwise have an association or relationship that makes
Defendants jointly and severally responsible and liable for the
claims in the case." The Complaint further alleges that Lanter
created a model for its "dedicated carrier partners" and "exercised
direction and control over almost every aspect of C Pepper's
business operations, including but not limited to the structure of
its business model, its accounting and payroll functions, and
arranging and guaranteeing its truck leases."

The Plaintiff argues that the information sought by the subpoena
"will show how the same truck drivers employed by C Pepper and
Lanter were treated when their employment switched overnight to
White Line and Lanter."

White Line responds that the documents requested are irrelevant to
Plaintiff's two remaining causes of action. It also argues that the
information sought by the subpoena is irrelevant to Count II,
violations of common law and wage laws. The Plaintiff replies that
the requested documents relate directly to allegations contained in
his Second Amended Complaint

Judge Gale holds that the Plaintiff alleges that this establishes
the relevance of the requested documents. Given the broad scope of
discovery relevance, he agrees. White Line's relevance objection is
overruled.

B. Burden (Categories 1, 5, and 7)

Judge Gale will not rely on conclusory statements to support a
finding of undue burden. Rather, unless a discovery request is
facially unduly burdensome, the party resisting the request has the
burden to support its objection.

The Plaintiff argues that White Line has not and cannot support an
objection of undue burden as he has "gone above and beyond to
narrow the scope of the subpoena to minimize any burden to White
Line." Judge Gale notes that White Lines' brief in opposition
contains only passing reference, rather than a substantive
discussion, of this objection. As such, the undue burden objection
is overruled.

C. Privacy/Confidentiality (Category 7)

The production of private or confidential information is not, in
and of itself, a valid reason to withhold discovery as the
production could governed by a protective order. A concern for
protecting confidentiality does not equate to privilege." Judge
Gale notes that a Protective Order has been entered in the case.
Further, White Lines' brief in opposition appears to abandon this
objection.

Topic 7, as narrowed, seeks "a representative sample of the tax
forms issued by White Line to these former C Pepper drivers for tax
year 2020 (for the same 10 persons randomly chosen for the response
to Request No. 5)." White Line's discussion of this topic arguably
touches on this objection wherein it contends that the tax
documents are non-discoverable. White Line contends that this
request is "particularly problematic" as tax returns "'are not
generally discoverable, and there is a public policy against
exposure of production of them.'"

The Plaintiff replies that he has not requested White Line's tax
returns but "rather, he seeks instead only a small sample of ten
1099s that were issued to drivers who also previously worked at C
Pepper," which have already been issued to members of the proposed
class.

Judge Gale has already found the documents to be relevant. The
burden thus shifts to White Line to show that the information is
available from other sources. White Line's brief in opposition does
not address this point. Further, because the Plaintiff has agreed
to the redaction of names and Social Security numbers of the
drivers to whom the 1099s were issued, Judge Gale sees no concern
with producing the information in accordance with the Protective
Order. The objection is, thus, overruled.

Order

Judge Gale granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as set forth.
White Line will respond to the subpoena, as narrowed by the
Plaintiff, within 30 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44z5vhe7 from Leagle.com.


COLUMBIA GRAMMAR: C.H. Appeals Files Appeal in Discrimination Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff C.H., an infant under the age of 18 by her mother and
natural guardian, CELESTE RAMIREZ, filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled C.H., an infant under the age
of 18 by her mother and natural guardian, CELESTE RAMIREZ, and
those similarly situated v. COLUMBIA GRAMMAR and PREPARATORY
SCHOOL, Case No. 30467/2020E, in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Bronx.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged discriminatory
racism conduct.

In its motion for class certification, the Plaintiff moved for an
order 1) certifying that the action may proceed as a New York Civil
Practice Law and Rules Article 9 class action, 2) that notice may
be sent via mail to propose class members, 3) appointing the Law
Office of John A. Scola, PLLC and the UMOH Law Firm, PLLC as class
counsel, and 4) appointing C.H. by her natural guardian and mother
Celeste Ramirez as the class representatives.

On July 24, 2021, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as C.H., an infant under the age of
18 by her mother and natural guardian, CELESTE RAMIREZ and others
similarly situated v. COLUMBIA GRAMMAR AND PREPARATORY SCHOOL, Case
No. 2021-04103, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on November 4,
2021.[BN]

COSY HOUSE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Cosy House
Collection has falsely claimed that its "bamboo" bed sheets and
towels are woven from real bamboo fibers, a proposed class action
alleges.

The 22-page lawsuit states that textiles can be produced from
bamboo either by directly weaving the actual fibers of the plant
into fabric or by deriving other materials, such as rayon or
viscose, from a bamboo plant source, typically by chemical means.
Per the complaint, Federal Trade Commission guidelines dictate that
only textiles directly woven from actual bamboo fibers may be
lawfully described as "bamboo." Alternatively, textiles woven from
other materials produced from a bamboo plant source, known as
bamboo derivatives, must be identified as "rayon from bamboo,"
"bamboo viscose," or a comparable description, given they contain
no trace of the original plant, the suit says.

According to the lawsuit, Cosy House Collection "has made, and
continues to make, deceptive and misleading Bamboo Claims to
consumers" amid a pervasive, nationwide marketing scheme seen
prominently across its website and those of retailers such as
Amazon. The case states in a footnote that most "bamboo" textile
products are, in truth, made of rayon, purified cellulose that is
typically made by the use of environmentally toxic chemicals amid a
process that emits pollutants into the air.

"Plaintiff and the Class read and relied upon Defendant's online
representations and advertising, namely the Bamboo claim, when they
purchased the Product," the filing says. "They also read such
misinformation in paperwork and Product packaging received from
CHC. Defendant's multitudinous use of ‘Bamboo Claims' manipulated
consumer expectations, i.e. the essence of consumer deception."

For advertising purposes, the terms "bamboo" and "bamboo fiber"
convey to a reasonable consumer that a textile product has certain
qualities, such as being thin and space-saving, natural and
eco-friendly, antibacterial, highly absorbent, non-toxic and
suitable for sensitive skin, the case states. Contrary to Cosy
House Collection's representations, its "bamboo" products are not
only comprised of bamboo derivative fibers but contain undisclosed
microfiber, a polyester and "well-known environmental hazard," the
lawsuit alleges.

According to the case, Cosy House Collection has on its website a
single disclosure of "bamboo rayon," well short of formal FTC
guidance on how to make effective disclosures in digital
advertising.

"CHC's bad faith and malicious intent is evident from its
disclosure of rayon online under the Details link and the fact
that, in its advertising on Amazon it discloses its sheets' rayon
content along with the Bamboo claim, on the same adjacent screen,"
the lawsuit specifies. "The fact that CHC does not similarly
disclose rayon content on its own website evinces CHC's calculated
deception of the public."

The plaintiff, a Queens, New York consumer, claims to have only
discovered that the bedding she purchased from Cosy House
Collection was made of synthetic bamboo microfiber, and not 100
percent bamboo as represented online, after she received the
product and viewed its tag.

The lawsuit looks to cover consumers in the United States who,
within the last four years, purchased online, from any website
maintained by Cosy House Collection, any textile product advertised
as "bamboo." [GN]

DESERT FINANCIAL: Evidentiary Hearing in Cornell Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Eva Cornell, Plaintiff v. Desert Financial Credit
Union, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-21-00835-PHX-DWL (D. Ariz.),
Judge Dominic W. Laza of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona granted in part Desert Financial's motion for an
evidentiary hearing.

Introduction

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Cornell alleges that Desert
Financial violated certain federal regulations that require clear
disclosure of a bank's overdraft practices. In response, Desert
Financial has moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration
clause that it added to its standard terms and conditions several
years after the Plaintiff opened her account. On Oct. 8, 2021, the
Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing concerning
whether the addition of this clause resulted in a valid contract
modification.

Background

It is undisputed that, when the Plaintiff originally opened her
account with Desert Financial, there was no arbitration clause in
the account agreement. However, when signing the relevant
applications, the Plaintiff agreed to be bound by Desert
Financial's account terms and conditions and agreed that it "may
change those terms and conditions from time to time." The Plaintiff
also elected to receive monthly bank statements from Desert
Financial via email.

It is undisputed that Desert Financial sent the Plaintiff's monthly
statement for the period ending on March 20, 2021 "to the primary
email address it has on file for her." However, the parties dispute
whether the Plaintiff opened and reviewed that statement. In a
declaration, the Plaintiff avows that although she "uses Desert
Financial's mobile app to check her account balance on her mobile
device," she "does not review her monthly statements through the
app or online" and thus did "not see the monthly statement that
Desert Financial claims contained a notice of an arbitration
clause."

Meanwhile, Desert Financial has now submitted a declaration from
Tamara Hunter, its manager of account services, avowing that the
"Detail User Activity Report" associated with Plaintiff reveals
that a person using the Plaintiff's account credentials "accessed,
viewed, and saved the Plaintiff's periodic account statements
through Desert Financial's online banking platform" and that,
during one such session on April 13, 2021, the person accessing the
Plaintiff's account "displayed and saved her periodic account
statement for the period ending on March 20, 2021."

It is undisputed that the account statement for the period ending
on March 20, 2021 (which, as noted, the Plaintiff may or may not
have reviewed) included a graphic inlay that communicated the
changes in terms. It is also undisputed that the cross-referenced
website displayed Desert Financial's updated account agreement,
which now includes the arbitration clause. Finally, it is
undisputed that the Plaintiff never subsequently opted out of the
arbitration provision.

On May 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the complaint. On June 24,
2021, Desert Financial moved to compel arbitration. That same day,
it separately moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On July 26, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed responses to both motions. On Aug. 24, 2021, Desert Financial
filed replies in support of both motions.

On Oct. 8, 2021, the Court ordered supplemental briefing with
respect to the motion to compel arbitration. On Oct. 22, 2021, the
parties filed their supplemental briefs. That same day, Desert
Financial filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing.

On Nov. 3, 2021, the Court issued a tentative order addressing the
parties' supplemental briefing and Desert Financial's request for
an evidentiary hearing. On Nov. 16, 2021, the Court heard oral
argument.

Discussion

I. Arizona's Standard For Modification Of Consumer Contracts

In the Oct. 8, 2021 order, the Court solicited supplemental
briefing to "address the key legal issue in the case -- whether,
under Arizona law, it is enough for a party seeking to modify a
contract to send notice of the proposed modification to the offeree
through a communication channel to which the offeree previously
consented or whether the offeror must also show that the offeree
had actual, subjective knowledge of the proposed modification."

Having now reviewed that briefing, Judge Laza concludes, once
again, that none of the cases cited by the parties provide
authoritative guidance on how Arizona courts would resolve the
issue. He finds that the Arizona Supreme Court has elsewhere deemed
standardized contracts "essential to a system of mass production
and distribution" and endorsed the notion that "those who make use
of a standardized form of agreement neither expect nor desire their
customers to understand or even to read the standard terms. On the
other hand, customers trust to the good faith of the party using
the form and understand that they are assenting to the terms not
read or not understood, subject to such limitations as the law may
impose," citing Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
Co., 682 P.2d 388, 391 (Ariz. 1984). And whatever concerns prompted
the Arizona Supreme Court to endorse the standardization and rapid
execution of contracts in 1984 may be even more pertinent today.
For example, in 1984, almost no Arizonans were online -- today,
nearly all of them are.

In a related vein, it appears that "California has a well-developed
body of law concerning electronic consumer agreements" under which
"courts apply the theories of 'constructive notice' and 'inquiry
notice,' which may result in a finding of acceptance even when a
consumer does not have actual notice of a contract's terms."
Although Arizona is, of course, free to adopt rules and legal
doctrines that differ from those followed in neighboring states, it
is not obvious that Arizona has made an intentional choice to
deviate from California's approach in this area and adopt a rule
that makes it more difficult to modify consumer agreements.

Judge Laza says certification seems particularly appropriate
because it will promote values of comity and federalism. The case
presents a pure issue of contract law that is likely to recur.
"Contract law is," at its essence, "a set of policy judgments
concerning how to decide the meaning of private agreements, which
private agreements should be legally enforceable, and what remedy
to afford for their breach." It promotes judicial federalism to
allow state courts to "decide whether to force parties to comply
with a contract," given that they are most qualified to determine
whether "state policy, as expressed in its contract law, will be
advanced by that decision."

II. Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing

Desert Financial has filed a motion for a "two-hour evidentiary
hearing pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 4." Under 9 U.S.C Section 4,
if there is a factual dispute regarding "the making of the
arbitration agreement, the court will proceed summarily to the
trial thereof." The Plaintiff, in her response to Desert
Financial's motion to compel arbitration, accepts the premise that
"if, after review of the parties' arguments, there is a factual
question regarding the formation of the agreement to arbitrate, the
Court must deny the motion and resolve the dispute through an
evidentiary hearing or mini-trial."

Judge Laza holds that Desert Financial has established the presence
of a factual question regarding the formation of the agreement to
arbitrate. Specifically, although the Plaintiff avows that she does
"not review her monthly statements through the app or online" and
thus did "not see the monthly statement that Desert Financial
claims contained a notice of an arbitration clause," Desert
Financial has proffered evidence that the Plaintiff "accessed,
displayed, and saved the March 2021 statement (and other
statements) less than a month before filing the lawsuit." Because
the Plaintiff's subjective notice or knowledge of the March 2021
account statement may be relevant to whether a valid contract
modification occurred, further proceedings to resolve the parties'
factual dispute on that issue are warranted.

Because the Plaintiff did not demand a jury trial in her response
to Desert Financial's motion to compel arbitration, Judge Laza
makes findings of fact as to (1) whether the Plaintiff viewed,
accessed, displayed, or saved the March 2021 statement, and (2)
whether the Plaintiff visited DesertFinancial.com/Disclosures, or
otherwise viewed, accessed, displayed, or saved Desert Financial's
updated account agreement containing an arbitration clause.

Finally, during oral argument, both sides seemed to agree that they
should be allowed to engage in limited, expedited discovery before
the ultimate resolution of these factual disputes. Additionally,
the parties discussed the possibility of engaging in "Rule 56 style
briefing" in lieu of (or, perhaps, in advance of) an evidentiary
hearing. As discussed at the conclusion of oral argument, Judge
Laza orders the parties to meet and confer about these issues and
then file a joint notice setting forth their respective positions.
After reviewing the joint notice, he will provide further
guidance.

Disposition

Accordingly, Judge Laza granted in part Desert Financial's motion
for an evidentiary hearing. The parties were to file on Dec. 1,
2021, a joint notice setting forth their respective positions (with
citations to legal authorities, if necessary) on the following
issues: (a) whether they should be allowed to engage in limited,
expedited discovery; (b) if so, which specific discovery steps
should be authorized (along with proposed deadlines); (c) following
the conclusion of the discovery process, whether the Court should
proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing or allow the parties to
submit summary judgment-style briefing; and (d) a proposed date (or
dates) for the evidentiary hearing and/or briefing schedule.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yuahx9ts from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sheas Appeal Oil Consumption Defect Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ron Shea, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled RON SHEA and ROBERT KELLY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-CV-86
DRL-MGG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Ron Shea and Robert Kelly
each purchased vehicles manufactured by General Motors LLC and
fitted with Generation IV Vortec engines. They claim their engines
consume an excessive amount of oil--what they call an "oil
consumption defect." They sue GM for violations of the Indiana
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA), breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
omissions, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA).

On June 8, 2009, GM acquired the assets of General Motors
Corporation, referred to as "old GM." For model years 2010-2014, GM
continued manufacturing and selling Chevrolet and GMC vehicles
equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines. According to
the complaint, the piston rings within these engines fail to keep
oil in the crankcase.

These two vehicle owners also claim that the systems within these
engines contribute to the excessive oil consumption defect. The Oil
Life Monitoring System in GM vehicles with these engines doesn't
advise drivers of insufficient oil in their vehicles until the oil
level is critically low. The oil pressure gauge in these vehicles
doesn't indicate when the oil pressure is low enough to damage
internally lubricated parts or cause engine failure. The oil
canister symbol doesn't illuminate until well past time when the
vehicles are critically oil starved.

The two owners allege that the oil consumption defect can damage
critical engine components and cause drivability problems, such as
lack of power from misfire, spark plug fouling, excessive engine
noise, abnormal vibration or shaking, piston cracking, head
cracking, and ultimately, engine seizure. These problems could
potentially cause the engine to catch fire or the vehicle to
unexpectedly shut down. Beginning with certain of its model year
2014 vehicles, GM scrapped the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engine and
replaced it with the Generation V Vortec 5300 engine, which was
redesigned to fix this problem.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 1, 2021,
District Judge Damon R. Leichty granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss all claims in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of Judge Leichty's order.

The appellate case is captioned as Ron Shea, et al. v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 21-3122, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 15, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due on November 29, 2021;
and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on or before December 27, 2021 for
Robert Kelly and Ron Shea.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RON SHEA and ROBERT KELLY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Scott L. Starr, Esq.
          STARR, AUSTEN & MILLER, LLP
          201 S. Third Street
          Logansport, IN 46947-3102
          Telephone: (574) 722-6676
          E-mail: starr@starrausten.com

Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by:

          Dina M. Cox, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
          1411 Roosevelt Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46201
          Telephone: (317) 237-0500
          E-mail: dcox@lewiswagner.com

GINKGO BIOWORKS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of January 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. ("Ginkgo") (NYSE: DNA) f/k/a
Soaring Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: SRNG). The action charges
Ginkgo 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
Ginkgo's materially misleading statements to the public, Ginkgo
investors have suffered significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: January 18, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: May 11, 2021 through October 5, 2021

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

GINKGO'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Ginkgo, headquartered in Boston, is a biotech company that develops
platforms for cell programming which are used to enable biological
production of products, such as novel therapeutics, food
ingredients, and chemicals currently derived from petroleum.

On October 6, 2021, analyst Scorpion Capital published an
investigative report concluding "Ginkgo is a house of cards - in
our opinion, one of the most brazen frauds of the last 20 years."
The report indicated that Ginkgo's business model is a
related-party model whereby essentially 100% of the company's
deferred revenue are derived from related-party "customers" it
created, funded, controls or influences via its ownership position
and board seats. Scorpion also alleged that Ginkgo has engaged in a
brazen effort to misclassify and misreport related-party revenue
and deceive investors with phony accounting and at least half of
Ginkgo's reported foundry revenue is phantom, non-cash and "pure
accounting hocus-pocus."

Following this news, Ginkgo's stock price fell $1.39, or
approximately 12%, to close at $10.59 per share on October 6,
2021.

Recently, on November 15, 2021, Ginkgo admitted that shortly after
the issuance of the Scorpion Capital report, the company received
an inquiry from the United States Department of Justice relating to
the financial misconduct allegations in the report.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Ginkgo investors may, no later than January 18, 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 Ginkgo 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. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. 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.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

GROUP HEALTH: Findling Appeals Ruling in Medical Records Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Findling filed an appeal from the District
Court's Judgment dated September 17, 2021, entered in the lawsuit
entitled William Findling, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Group Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a HealthPartners,
and Regions Hospital, Case No. 27-CV-21-3052, in the Minnesota 4th
Judicial District Court, Hennepin County.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 23, 2021, William
Findling brought this lawsuit against the Defendant for their
failure to timely provide health care records to its patients in
violation of Minnesota law.

Access to personal health information is a fundamental right.
Minnesota law recognizes this right and requires healthcare
providers to give their patients access to this information in a
way that is inexpensive and convenient within 30 calendar days of a
request. Minnesota law has established a straightforward process
that allows patients to request and obtain their medical records
under the Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA"). Healthcare
providers are well aware of this process, and they are legally
required to follow the process set forth in the MHRA when a patient
submits a request for his or her medical records.

A negligently injured patient has a legal right to pursue
compensation from the responsible healthcare provider through the
civil justice system. Healthcare providers, however, can prevent
patients from asserting their rights by denying or delaying access
to personal health information. Regrettably, the Defendant has
engaged in unlawful and unethical conduct by failing to timely
provide health care records to its patients, says the complaint.
The Defendant often erects barriers to providing this information
to their patents in direct violation of Minnesota law, the
complaint adds.

The appellate case is captioned as William Findling, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant v. Group
Health Plan, Inc. d/b/a Health Partners, et al., Respondents, Case
No. A21-1518, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed on November
15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant William Findling is represented by:

          Brandon Edward Thompson, Esq.
          Barry Maxwell Landy, Esq.
          Rachel Louise Barrett, Esq.
          Jacob Fatula Siegel, Esq.
          CIRESI CONLIN LLP
          225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-361-8200
          Email: bet@ciresiconlin.com
                 bml@ciresiconlin.com
                 rlb@ciresiconlin.com

Defendants-Respondents Group Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Health
Partners; and Regions Hospital are represented by:

          Anthony James Novak, Esq.
          Jason Thomas Johnson, Esq.
          LARSON KING LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101  
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618

MDL 2989: Antitrust Tranche Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to the Antitrust Actions, Case No.
21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres (S.D. Fla.), Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Antitrust Tranche
Complaint.

Background

The putative class action is brought on behalf of individual
investors (the "Retail Investors") who suffered losses as a result
of Defendants' response to a "short squeeze" -- a situation in
which stocks or other assets rise sharply in value, distressing
short positions. This short squeeze occurred in late January 2021,
as the Retail Investors rapidly purchased the Relevant Securities,
exposing those with short positions in the Relevant Securities to
"massive potential losses." According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants conspired to prevent these losses by "artificially
constricting the price appreciation of the Relevant Securities," in
violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

The Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "CCAC")
categorizes the Defendants into three groups: The Clearing
Defendants, the Brokerage Defendants, and the Market Maker
Defendants. Clearing Defendants Apex Clearing Corp. and Electronic
Transaction Clearing, Inc. ("ETC") are independent clearing firms.
They handle the back-office details of securities transactions for
broker-dealers, such as the Introducing Brokerages. Independent
clearing firms are supervised by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority ("FINRA") and the Depository Trust and Clearing
Corporation ("DTCC"). Apex and ETC acted as the clearing firms for
one or more of the Introducing Brokerages.

The Brokerage Defendants, E*Trade; Interactive Brokers LLC; and
Robinhood, act as self-clearing brokers. They act as both an
introducing broker and as their own clearing firm. In other words,
the Brokerage Defendants handle orders to buy and sell securities,
as well as execute and settle orders, maintain custody of
securities and other assets, and maintain the paperwork associated
with clearing and executing a transaction. Self-clearing brokers
are subject to DTCC rules and regulations.

The Market Maker Defendant, Citadel Securities LLC, acts as a
market participant by providing bid prices and ask prices for
securities; maintaining an inventory of securities from its own
trading; and matching incoming buy and sell orders to fill those
orders. Citadel Securities took short positions in the Relevant
Securities during the relevant period.

The Defendants' alleged acts "were authorized, ordered or performed
by the Defendants' respective officers, agents, employees,
representatives, or shareholders while actively engaged in the
management, direction, or control of the Defendants' businesses or
affairs." The Defendant parent entities exercise dominance and
control over all their subsidiary entities; and the Defendant
subsidiary entities have a unity of purpose and interest with their
respective parents. In addition, "each Defendant acted as the
principal, agent, or joint venture of, or for other Defendants with
respect to the acts, violations, and common course of conduct
alleged." The Plaintiffs allege there may be various persons and/or
firms that have participated as co-conspirators but are unknown at
this time.

The named Plaintiffs are four individual investors who were subject
to trading limitations imposed on the Relevant Securities between
Jan. 28, 2021 and Feb. 4, 2021. Each Plaintiff held shares of one
or more of the Relevant Securities at the close of the stock market
on Jan. 27, 2021. The next day, Jan. 28, 2021, each Plaintiff was
prohibited from purchasing the Relevant Securities on Robinhood's
trading platform.

That same day, Guzman and Miller applied for accounts with Charles
Schwab, Fidelity, and TD Ameritrade -- who were not prohibiting
customers from purchasing the Relevant Securities -- but were
unable due to the amount of time required to set up the accounts.
Minahan successfully applied for an account with Fidelity and was
able to purchase a share of GameStop Corp. stock that day. Each
Plaintiff then sold his or her shares of the Relevant Securities on
Robinhood between Jan. 28, 2021 and Feb. 4, 2021.

As a direct and intended result of the Defendants' contract,
combination, agreement and restraint of trade or conspiracy, the
Defendants caused injury to the Plaintiffs by restricting purchases
of Relevant Securities. The Brokerage Defendants deactivated the
buy option on their platforms and left the Plaintiffs with no
option but to sell shares of the stocks on their platforms. The
Plaintiffs and the Class members, faced with an imminent decrease
in the price of their positions in the Relevant Securities due to
the inability of Retail Investors to purchase shares, were induced
to sell their shares in the Relevant Securities at a lower price
than they otherwise would have, but for the conspiracy,
combination, agreement and restraint of trade.

The named Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All
persons or entities in the United States that held shares of stock
or call options in GameStop Corp. (GME), AMC Entertainment Holdings
Inc. (AMC), Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB),
Express, Inc. (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS), Nokia Corp. (NOK),
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR), or Trivago N.V. (TRVG) as of
the close of market on Jan. 27, 2021, and sold the above-listed
securities from Jan. 28, 2021 up to and including Feb. 4, 2021 (the
Class Period).

The CCAC alleges a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, against all the Defendants. The Plaintiffs'
overarching theory is that "Citadel Securities conspired with the
Brokerage Defendants and the Clearing Defendants to prevent retail
investors from purchasing shares of the Relevant Securities to
artificially suppress share prices so that Citadel Securities could
cover its short positions and mitigate its potential losses."

The Defendants move to dismiss the CCAC. They argue: (1) the
Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently plead that Defendants agreed to
conspire; (2) the Plaintiffs fail to plead the remaining elements
of a Sherman Act section 1 claim; and (3) the Plaintiffs' antitrust
theory is precluded by federal securities laws.

Discussion

In their Motion, the Defendants start by attacking the sufficiency
of the allegations directed at the first requirement -- that
Plaintiffs plead a conspiracy among the Defendants. They next
dispute whether the Plaintiffs adequately plead that the alleged
agreement among Defendants unreasonably restrained trade. Lastly,
the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' antitrust theory is
precluded by federal securities laws. Because the Plaintiffs fail
to plead a conspiracy, Judge Altonaga declines to reach the second
and third suggested grounds for dismissal.

The Plaintiffs contend they have plausibly alleged facts, both
direct and circumstantial, that "Citadel Securities conspired with
the Brokerage Defendants and the Clearing Defendants to prevent
retail investors from purchasing shares of the Relevant Securities
to artificially suppress share prices so that Citadel Securities
could cover its short positions and mitigate its potential
losses."

Judge Altonaga finds that the Plaintiffs fall far short of
providing allegations "explicitly manifesting the existence of the
agreement in question." Although in form a few stray statements
speak directly of agreement, on fair reading these are merely legal
conclusions resting on the prior allegations. The nub of the
complaint, then, is the Defendants' parallel behavior, and its
sufficiency turns on the suggestions raised by this conduct when
viewed in light of common economic experience."

Moreover, Judge Altonaga holds that the Plaintiffs adequately
allege that the Defendants engaged in parallel conduct. But because
the Plaintiffs' parallel conduct allegations are "insufficient
standing alone to raise an inference of conspiracy," she turns to
whether the Plaintiffs "allege sufficient plus factors to make the
parallel conduct more probative of conspiracy than of conscious
parallelism."

Judge Altonaga finds that the Plaintiffs adequately explain Citadel
Securities' motive for allegedly orchestrating the trading
restrictions imposed by the Brokerage Defendants and Clearing
Defendants. But she is unconvinced that the Plaintiffs have set
forth a coherent common motive as to the Brokerage Defendants and
Clearing Defendants. The Plaintiffs establish a plus factor
supporting, albeit weakly, an inference of a conspiracy between
Robinhood and Citadel Securities.

Finally, Judge Altonaga finds that the Plaintiffs do not elaborate,
it appears from the CCAC that the Plaintiffs are attempting to
define multiple markets -- one for each Relevant Security -- by
stating "the Relevant Securities are commodity (homogenous)
products." To complicate matters further, the CCAC also confusingly
discusses characteristics of "the markets for broker dealers,
clearing firms and market making." Judge Altonaga is thus unable to
discern from the CCAC what the alleged market definition is.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs fail to grapple with the Defendants'
argument that the case is unlike the typical price-fixing
conspiracies where this plus factor is invoked. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Brokerage Defendants and Clearing Defendants
restricted output to lower prices for securities they are not
alleged to have bought or sold for their own accounts, all to
benefit the Market Maker Defendant who actually engages in such
transactions. They do not address this distinction at all and do
not provide any legal authority supporting the application of this
plus factor to their novel anticompetitive theory. In short, the
Plaintiffs fail to coherently define a market and persuade the
Court that this plus factor weighs in their favor.

There are no factual allegations left standing that support a
plausible inference of a conspiracy other than an allegation of
parallel conduct with respect to Defendants, E*Trade, Interactive
Brokers, Apex, ETC, and PEAK6. Each of these Defendants therefore
must be dismissed because "an allegation of parallel conduct and a
bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice" to state a section 1
claim.

That leaves Robinhood and Citadel Securities. High-level executives
at these firms exchanged various vague and ambiguous emails
immediately before and after Robinhood imposed trading restrictions
on the Relevant Securities on Jan. 28, 2021. These emails set up
telephone discussions between the executives, the substance of
which is unknown to the Plaintiffs. Admittedly, these emails may be
somewhat suspicious given the participants and their timing. But
are a few vague and ambiguous emails between two firms in an
otherwise lawful, ongoing business relationship enough to "nudge
the Plaintiffs' claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible?" Judge Altonaga thinks not. Accordingly, the CCAC is
dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Altonaga granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Antitrust Tranche Complaint. The CCAC is
dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs have until Dec. 20,
2021, to file their final amended complaint in the Antitrust
Tranche of the Multidistrict Litigation.

Judge Altonaga denied as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike
Defendant Citadel Securities LLC's Notice of Supplemental
Authority.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypfys2f9 from Leagle.com.


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Oreo Cookies' Label "Deceptive," Leonard Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10102 (S.D.N.Y., November 28, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violations of New York General Business Law and State Consumer
Fraud Acts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Fudge Covered chocolate sandwich cookies under the Oreo brand. The
product lacks essential fudge ingredients because it does not
contain any dairy ingredients and substitutes lower quality and
lower-priced palm and palm kernel oil and nonfat milk, shown in the
ingredient list. The front label creates an erroneous impression
that essential fudge ingredients are present. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class
members bought the product. Had they known the truth, they would
not have bought the product or would have paid less for it.

Mondelez Global LLC is an American multinational confectionery,
food, holding and beverage and snack food company, with its
principal place of business in East Hanover, Morris County, New
Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

NATIONS LENDING: Fitzhenry Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK FITZHENRY, Plaintiff v. NATIONS LENDING CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2021CP1005189 (S.C. 9th Jud. Cir. Ct., November
15, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action alleging the
Defendant of violations of the South Carolina Telephone Privacy
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant sent telemarketing calls
to individuals who have been registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry, including him. The Defendant allegedly did not obtain
their prior express written consent before sending telemarketing
calls. The Defendant also failed to identify themselves and provide
the name of the person on whose behalf the telephone solicitation
is being made during the telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff seeks
an injunction preventing the Defendant from calling a South
Carolina number on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Nations Lending Corporation is a mortgage lending company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
          P.O. Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Tel: (803) 509-6800
          Fax: (855) 299-1656
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com

                - and –

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Summary Judgment in Torres-Ronda Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOEMI TORRES-RONDA; ANGELO RIVERA-LAMBOY, Plaintiffs,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
AIG INSURANCE COMPANY - PUERTO RICO, f/k/a Chartis Insurance
Company of Puerto Rico; ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION;
CARIBBEAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY; COOPERATIVA DE SEGUROS
MULTIPLES DE PUERTO RICO; INTEGRAND ASSURANCE COMPANY;
MAPFRE-PRAICO INSURANCE COMPANY; QBE SEGUROS, f/k/a Optima
Insurance Company; REAL LEGACY ASSURANCE COMPANY, f/k/a Royal & Sun
Alliance of Puerto Rico, Inc.; SEGUROS TRIPLES PROPIEDAD, INC.;
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Appellees, NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; JAVIER
RIVERA-RIOS, in his official capacity as Insurance Commissioner of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; CARLOS CONTRERAS-APONTE, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation
and Public Works; FRANCISCO PARES-ALICEA, in his official capacity
as the Secretary of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Defendants, Case Nos. 20-1038, 20-1089 (1st Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district
court's order granting two summary judgment motions, one filed on
behalf of all the Defendants and one filed on behalf of certain
Defendants.

Introduction

The case involves whether the district court erred under the Erie
doctrine -- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) -- in
adopting the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Appeals of
Puerto Rico in Collazo Burgos v. La Asociacion de Suscripcion
Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio, No.
KAC2010-0179, 2017 WL 6884428 (P.R. Cir. Nov. 30, 2017). The
Plaintiffs, appellants/cross-appellees Noemi Torres-Ronda and
Angelo Rivera-Lamboy, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
Defendants, appellees Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and
several insurance companies (collectively, "Defendants"), violated
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
Puerto Rico law.

The district court granted two summary judgment motions, one filed
on behalf of all the Defendants and one filed on behalf of certain
Defendants. In doing so, the district court adopted the findings of
law in Collazo Burgos and held that the Defendants' actions were
required by Puerto Rico law and thus could not support a RICO
claim.

Background

Puerto Rico law requires all who own motor vehicles to buy
automobile insurance for a set premium. On Aug. 19, 2011, the
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit, representing two classes
of owners of either private or commercial motor vehicles who
purchased compulsory automobile insurance between 1998 and the
adjudication of the action. The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Defendants violated RICO and Puerto Rico law by failing to refund a
portion of compulsory automobile insurance premiums intended for
"acquisition costs" and "administrative costs" that were never
expended.

On Nov. 14, 2014, the Defendants moved for summary judgment,
asserting among other reasons that their conduct complied with
Puerto Rico law and thus could not form the basis of the RICO
claims. While the motion for summary judgment remained pending, the
Plaintiffs negotiated a partial settlement with cross-appellants.

On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the partial settlement agreement. The district court never approved
the proposed settlement, preliminarily or finally, and the
Defendants involved in the settlement never withdrew from the
pending summary judgment motion.

On Nov. 30, 2017, in separate litigation, the Court of Appeals of
Puerto Rico ("Court of Appeals") affirmed a Puerto Rico trial
court's grant of summary judgment in Collazo Burgos, a case
considering similar issues to those in the action. The Court of
Appeals applied traditional canons of statutory construction and
held that under Puerto Rico law, compulsory automobile insurance
premiums from JUA are not reimbursable as a matter of law.

On June 18, 2018, certain Defendants, uninvolved in the proposed
settlement, filed a second motion for summary judgment based on the
Court of Appeals decision in Collazo Burgos. On Sept. 30, 2019, the
district court granted both summary judgment motions. The district
court applied the Erie doctrine and adopted the Court of Appeals'
reasoning in Collazo Burgos. It found that the Plaintiffs presented
no law or other evidence that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
would decide the issue differently than did the Court of Appeals.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Discussion

A.

The First Circuit begins with whether the district court erred
under the Erie doctrine in adopting the Court of Appeals of Puerto
Rico's reasoning in Collazo Burgos. It does not review the legal
conclusions of the Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico. The relevant
question is whether the district court erred in relying on the
Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico's decision in Collazo Burgos, not
-- as the Plaintiffs would have it -- whether the Court of Appeals
was wrong as to the legal issue before it.

The First Circuit holds that the district court did not err in
adopting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. The district court
properly concluded that the Plaintiffs presented no Puerto Rico
case law or other evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court of
Puerto Rico would decide the issue differently than the Court of
Appeals.

The Plaintiffs argue that the decision in Collazo Burgos conflicts
with our court's previous decision in Arroyo-Melecio v. Puerto
Rican American Insurance Co., 398 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2005). Even
assuming arguendo inconsistency between the two decisions, under
the Erie doctrine, the recent decision by the Puerto Rico
intermediate appellate court is more authoritative as to Puerto
Rico law than our court's much earlier dictum regarding Puerto Rico
law. The First Circuit accepts Collazo Burgos for its
persuasiveness, as it is entitled to do. The crux of the
Plaintiffs' argument is that Collazo Burgos was wrongly decided,
but that is irrelevant to the Erie question before the First
Circuit. It looks to Collazo Burgos because there is no reason to
think the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico would resolve the question
differently.

The Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that if the district court
committed no Erie error in relying on the Court of Appeals'
articulation of Puerto Rico law, they cannot sustain their RICO
claims. Under Collazo Burgos, the Defendants' actions were not only
legal, but indeed required by Puerto Rico law. As such, the
Defendants' actions cannot serve as the basis for the mail fraud
predicate acts of the RICO claims, and the district court properly
granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

B.

The Plaintiffs separately argue that the district court erred by
failing to rule on the motion for preliminary approval of the class
settlement before ruling on the motions for summary judgment.

The First Circuit notes that district courts have broad discretion
in controlling their dockets. Relying on this broad discretion, the
district court decided to adjudicate the summary judgment motions
before the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement.
The First Circuit finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in so doing.

Disposition

The First Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycktdsus from Leagle.com.

Pedro R. Vazquez, III -- QuetglasLaw@gmail.com -- with whom Jose F.
Quetglas Jordan, Eric Quetglas-Jordan, and Quetglas Law Firm P.S.C.
were on brief, for the Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Moraima S. Rios-Robles -- mrios@arroyorioslaw.com -- with whom Luis
Sanchez-Betances, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, Daniel
Perez-Refojos, Diana Batlle-Barasorda, Fernando D.
Castro-Maldonado, Angel E. Rotger-Sabat, Luis J. Clas-Wiscovitch,
Arroyo & Rios Law Offices, P.S.C., Sanchez-Betances, Sifre & Munoz
Noya, P.S.C., O'Neill & Borges LLC, Casillas Santiago Torres, LLC,
Saldana, Carvajal & Velez-Rive, P.S.C. were on brief, for the
Appellees.

Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- with whom Steven M.
Levy, Eduardo A. Zayas-Marxuach, Dentons US LLP, and McConnell
Valdes LLC were on brief, for the Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


NCL BAHAMAS: Marin Sues Over Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
LINETTE MARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., A BERMUDA COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-24147 (S.D. Fla., November 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unequal treatment of
the Plaintiff because of her sex and/or sexual orientation. The
Defendant subjected the Plaintiff to adverse actions when: (1) she
was given a final warning; (2) the final warning was not rescinded
after her manager learned that she had obtained coverage after the
April 17, 2019 meeting; and (3) her job duties and schedule as a
trainer were taken away. Other employees, including Leandro
Echeverria, a supervisor and the Plaintiff's counterpart for
training employees, and/or other individuals who were insubordinate
during meetings were not given final warnings and did not have
their job duties taken away as a result. Moreover, the Plaintiff
was not allowed to apply for another job internally and was
subjected to constant criticism after her May 1, 2019 complaint and
charge filing. The Defendant also rejected her application for
internal position(s) or took actions that made her application for
such futile and terminated her in June 2020, the suit added.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from August 2016 through
June 2020. She started with an entry level job in 2016 to the
position of supervisor of reservations.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. is a cruise line company, with offices in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gary A. Costales, Esq.
         GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
         1533 Sunset Drive, Suite 150
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (786) 446-7288
         Facsimile: (786) 323-7274

NEVADA: Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in Brown v. SNAMHS Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOUTHERN NEVADA ADULT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES,
Appellant v. JAMES FLAVY COY BROWN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Respondent, Case No. 78770 (Nev.), the
Supreme Court of Nevada reverses the district court's judgment in
favor of the Respondent.

Background

The matter is an appeal from a district court judgment after a jury
trial in a class action medical malpractice lawsuit (Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge). In
2014, respondent Brown and other class members asserted claims for
negligence, negligence per se, and medical malpractice, among
others, against appellant Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health
Services (SNAMHS) and several nonparties to the appeal in state
court. These nonparty Defendants included state employees in their
official capacities and several SNAMHS employees.

Mr. Brown claimed that SNAMHS and its employees involuntarily
discharged him and other class members who were patients at
Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, sending them out of state on a
Greyhound bus without a plan in place for follow-up treatment or
housing arrangements upon their arrival to their destinations. This
discharge practice is referred to by Brown as "Greyhound therapy."
In Brown's prayer for relief, he requested, among other things,
class certification, a permanent injunction to prevent the
defendants from continuing "Greyhound therapy," declaratory
judgment that the defendants violated Brown's and the other class
members' rights under Nevada law, and damages.

Throughout the proceedings, the other defendants were dismissed or
summary judgment was granted in their favor such that only SNAMHS
and some of its employees remained parties to the case. Before
trial, SNAMHS and the remaining defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the district court granted in their favor
on all claims except negligence and negligence per se. In that
order, the district court also specifically found that, "except for
medical malpractice and conspiracy on which summary judgment was
granted, Plaintiff Brown did not name SNAMHS in any of the other
negligence claims." Despite this finding, SNAMHS, over its
objection, remained in the case and proceeded to trial.

During trial, the parties stipulated to awarding each class member
the same amount of damages awarded to Brown as the class
representative. The jury found SNAMHS and its administrator
negligent and awarded $250,000 to Brown. Subsequently, the district
court entered judgment in favor of each class member but reduced
the amount of damages to the statutory cap of $100,000 per class
member. The court also issued a mandatory injunction for a period
of two years, enjoining SNAMHS from further engaging in "Greyhound
therapy" discharge practices and requiring it to document and
report its compliance on a quarterly basis. SNAMHS and its
administrator filed several posttrial motions and, because the
district court granted their motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict as to the administrator, only SNAMHS remained liable.

SNAMHS now appeals, arguing that the district court erred by
allowing Brown's negligence and negligence per se claims to proceed
against SNAMHS at trial. It also challenges the jury's award of
damages to Brown, the district court's award of costs, and the
district court's orders certifying the class and granting
injunctive relief. Finally, SNAMHS contests the district court's
determination that Brown's claims were not time-barred under NRS
41A.097(2) as medical malpractice claims rather than ordinary
negligence claims.

Discussion

A. Brown did not plead negligence or negligence per se claims
against SNAMHS

SNAMHS argues that the district court erred when it allowed Brown's
negligence claims to go to trial because Brown never asserted those
claims against SNAMHS in his complaint. At first, the district
court found in its June 2018 order that the only claims Brown had
asserted against SNAMHS were civil conspiracy and medical
malpractice, and it dismissed both of those claims in that order.
At trial, the district court reversed course and determined that
Brown did assert these negligence claims against SNAMHS because he
named SNAMHS as a defendant and used the term the "Defendants"
throughout the facts section of the amended complaint, thus holding
"it's implicit if not express in the pleadings." The reasoning for
the district court's about-face may be gleaned from its ruling on
SNAMHS's oral directed verdict motion. In that order, the district
court found that SNAMHS could "be vicariously liable under the
doctrine of respondeat superior," and that Brown did not need to
specifically identify or name as defendants the SNAMHS agents and
employees who allegedly negligently discharged Brown and the class
members.

The Supreme Court concludes that the district court abused its
discretion when it ruled that SNAMHS continued to be a party in the
case despite Brown's failure to assert his only remaining claims
against it. It says, Nevada is a notice-pleading jurisdiction and
thus, the Supreme Court liberally construes pleadings to place into
issue matter which is fairly noticed to the adverse party."
However, parties are bound by their pleadings.

In his amended complaint, Brown asserted negligence specifically
against several SNAMHS employees and unnamed Does 1 to 50, but he
failed to mention SNAMHS. Similarly, he only asserted his
negligence per se claim against four unnamed social workers, but he
did not mention SNAMHS. This omission, according to the Supreme
Court, contrasts notably with Brown's medical malpractice and
conspiracy claims in which he instead used the collective term the
"Defendants" without specifically listing them. As such, a plain
reading of Brown's amended complaint and who he identified as the
Defendants against whom he was seeking liability in each claim
supports the district court's initial holding that Brown did not
plead either negligence claim against SNAMHS, but rather, only
claims for conspiracy and medical malpractice. Moreover, Brown
never sought leave to amend his complaint to name SNAMHS despite
SNAMHS's repeated objections throughout the proceedings and even
after trial.

Further, neither the district court nor Brown asserted that there
were new issues of fact or law related to this issue, which would
justify rehearing. Therefore, the district court abused its
discretion when it kept SNAMHS in the case after it issued its
order granting summary judgment on all claims asserted against it.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the district court's
judgment against SNAMHS.

B. Brown failed to establish damages

Even if Brown had properly pleaded his negligence claims against
SNAMHS, the Supreme Court further concludes that Brown failed to
establish the damages element for these claims. SNAMHS argues that
the jury's award of damages is unsupported by the record. The
district court rejected SNAMHS's contention that Brown had failed
to establish damages for his negligence claims in its order denying
SNAMHS's motion for directed verdict.

The Supreme Court holds that Brown did not present any evidence of
physical injury as a result of SNAMHS's negligence, and thus, he
can only recover damages if physical injury is not required. Even
if it were to apply the Restatement's approach to allow recovery on
a negligence claim based solely on emotional distress damages,
Brown failed to demonstrate that he actually suffered serious
emotional distress. Further, Brown also did not claim that his
mental health condition had worsened or that he feared being
treated for his alleged mental health condition in the future due
to SNAMHS's discharge. Therefore, because there is no credible
evidence that Brown suffered serious emotional harm due to SNAMHS's
discharge practices, the Supreme Court concludes that Brown failed
to establish the damages element of his claims. Thus, reversal is
warranted on this ground as well.

C. Brown is not entitled to costs

Having concluded that the judgment in favor of Brown for both his
negligence and negligence per se causes of action must be reversed,
Brown is no longer the prevailing party. As such, the Supreme Court
further concludes that the district court abused its discretion
when it awarded Brown costs. As a result, it reverses the district
court's award of costs to Brown.

Disposition

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ykwk8y3a from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Suspends Teachers Over Refusal of COVID-19 Vaccination
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE BROECKER; MICHELLE MARTINO; GINA PORCELLO; AMOURA BYRAN;
RENA GELLMAN; FOTINA LAMBOS; KERRY BEN-JACOB; EKATERINA UDINA;
ANDREA TICHIO; MARIANNA CIACCA-LISS; ANITA QUASH; KELLY DIXON;
FELICIA HAGAN; MARITZA ROMERO; MARIA RUSCELLI; BETIZIADA CRUZ;
FRANCINE TRAPANI;·JEANNINE LAM; JESSICA NARCISCO; BRIANNA PEREZ;
NICOLETI A MASULLO; ANAST ASIA CHRISTOPOULOS; FA YE KOTZER;
BENEDICT LOPARRINO; YADITZA RODRIGUEZ; RAFAEL ADRIAN TORO; SERINA
MENDEZ; DINA HUSSIEN; HERENDYRA PEREYRA; ROSA ABREU; LISA WILLIAMS;
JOAN GIAMMARINO; ANDREA JACKSON; MARIA KLAPAKIS; STELLA PORTO;
TONIANN MIRAGLIA; ROSEANNA SILVESTRI-INCANTALUPO; JULIA A. MAVIS;
CHRISTOPHER HANSEN; ANNETTE BACKOF; DIANE PAGEN; LYNN PEPE;
STEPHANIE EDMONDS; YVONNE COSTELLO; DEBBY HARTZ; SORAYA SANCHEZ;
MONIQUE MOORE; ANGELA VELEZ; SALLY MUSSAFI; JESSICA NICCHIO; DORCA
GENAO; RACHEL MANISCALCO; JAMES HOFFMAN; SHARLAYNE JACOBS; CRYSTAL
SALAS; FRANCES DIPROSSIMO; CAROLA MARTINEZ-VAN BOKKEM; AYSE
USTARES; ELIZABETH FIGUEROA; DIANE BAKER­PACIUS; NICOLE MOORE;
ELIZABETH PLACENCIO; DEBBIE BERTRAM; KIMBERLI MADDEN; FRAN
SCHMITIER; VICTORIA RUSSO; PAUL CIFARELLI; DANIELLE HEAL; SARA
COOMBS-MORENO; LISA SIMO; TAMI BENEDUCE; ZABDIEL VALERA; NATHALIE
CHARLES; JANELLE LOTITO; JEANEAN SANCHEZ; MARIE MOSLEY; TARA
PALLADINO; DANIELLE MCGUIRE; JULIA HARDING; LEAH KUKLA; STEPHANIE
FRANZESE; JULIA BALASIS-MARING; and BETH SCHIANO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MEISHA PORTER; UNITED FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL 2; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO;
MICHAEL MULGREW; and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06387-KAM-LB (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2021) is an action arising
from the acts of Defendants in suspending the Plaintiffs and the
Class from their employment without pay for not taking the COVID-19
vaccine.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that as a direct consequence
of not taking a COVID-19 vaccine, on October 2, 2021, the
Plaintiffs received an email from the New York City Department of
Education that they have been placed on a Leave Without Pay.

Since October 4, 2021, up to the date of the complaint, the
Plaintiffs remain on an unpaid status and are not authorized to
enter the New York City Department of Education building to work.

The Plaintiffs were not provided the opportunity for a fair hearing
prior to being suspended in violation of their constitutionally
protected property interest, which is their pay.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Austin Graff, Esq.
          THE SCHER LAW FIRM, LLP
          One Old Country Road, Suite 385
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 746-5040


OWLET INC: Faces Butala Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. BUTALA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OWLET, INC. f/k/a SANDBRIDGE
ACQUISITION CORPORATION; KURT WORKMAN; KATE SCOLNICK; KEN SUSLOW;
DOMENICO DE SOLE; RAMEZ TOUBASSY; JAMIE WEINSTEIN; KRYSTAL KAHLER;
and MICHAEL F. GOSS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-09016 (C.D. Cal.,
Nov. 17, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities:
(a) that purchased or otherwise acquired Owlet securities between
March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period");
or (b) held Sandbridge common stock held as of June 1, 2021 and
were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on July 14,
2021, the Plaintiff seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, on October 4, 2021, Owlet revealed that
it had received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"), which stated that "the Company's marketing
of its Owlet Smart Sock product . . . renders [it] a medical device
requiring premarket clearance or approval from FDA." Owlet has not
obtained such clearance or approval. Moreover, the FDA "requests
the Company cease commercial distribution of the Smart Sock for
uses in measuring blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate where such
metrics are intended to identify or diagnose desaturation and
bradycardia using an alarm functionality to notify users that
measurements are outside of preset values. On this news, Owlet's
stock price fell $1.29, or 23%, to close at $4.19 per share on
October 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result,
Sandbridge investors who could have voted against the Business
Combination and redeemed their shares at $10.00 per share suffered
a loss of $5.81 per share, says the suit.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that Owlet was reasonably likely to be
required to obtain marketing authorization for the Smart Sock
because the FDA concluded it was a medical device; (2) that, as a
result, Owlet was reasonably likely to cease commercial
distribution of the Smart Sock in the U.S. until it obtained the
requisite approval; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.

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

OWLET, INC. operates as a health technology company. The Company
offers proactive health monitor products which uses pulse oximetry
technology to track a baby's heart rate and oxygen levels during
sleep. [BN]

The Plaintiff is repres

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Eq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                 clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com

PENSKE TRUCK: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penske Truck Leasing
Co., L.P. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penske Truck Leasing
Co., L.P., Case No. 1:21-cv-10059 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Penske -- https://www.pensketruckleasing.com/ -- offers
full-service truck leasing and contract maintenance, including
preventive maintenance, roadside assistance, collision repair, and
fleet maintenance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


PINNACLE PROPERTY: Denial of Arbitration in De Leon Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY DE LEON, Plaintiff and Respondent v. PINNACLE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. G059801 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the
court's order denying the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.

Introduction

Defendants Pinnacle and Jennifer Stewart appeal from the court's
order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The court denied
the motion because it determined the arbitration agreement was
procedurally and substantively unconscionable. As to the former,
the court noted the agreement was unconscionable because Plaintiff
De Leon was required to sign the arbitration agreement as a
precondition to his employment. As to the latter, the court found
the agreement was substantively unconscionable because of its
limits on discovery and because it shortened the statute of
limitations to one year on all claims.

On appeal, the Defendants contend the arbitration agreement had low
procedural unconscionability and contained only one substantively
unconscionable provision -- the statute of limitations provision.
They alternatively claim the court erred by failing to sever any
unconscionable provisions.

Background

In 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an electronic application for
employment with Pinnacle. Among other things, he electronically
signed an "Issue Resolution Agreement" (IRA), which he was required
to sign as a precondition to employment. The IRA provided that the
Plaintiff and Pinnacle agreed to "settle any and all previously
unasserted claims, disputes or controversies arising out of or
relating to the Plaintiff's application or candidacy for
employment, employment, and/or cessation of employment with
Pinnacle exclusively by final and binding arbitration before a
neutral Arbitrator." The selected arbitrators would have experience
deciding employment disputes, and arbitration would be conducted in
accordance with the "Issue Resolution Rules" (IRR). The IRA further
advised: "The IRA and the Issue Resolution Rules affect your legal
rights. You may wish to seek legal advice before signing this IRA."
The Plaintiff could withdraw his consent to the IRA within three
days of signing if he notified Pinnacle he no longer wanted to be
considered for employment.

The IRR were attached to the IRA and included several provisions
that are central to the appeal. First, rule 4(b)(i) of the IRR
included the statute of limitations provision. Second, rule 7 of
the IRR was a discovery provision. Third, the IRR included the
costs provision.

In 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging he was employed
as a nonexempt employee at Pinnacle and reported to Stewart.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not compensate the
Plaintiff for overtime work or certain business expenses and did
not provide accurate wage statements. The complaint further alleged
the Plaintiff injured his back while working and went on leave due
to back pain. Once his doctor released him to return to work with
restrictions, the Plaintiff expressed his desire to return to work
but allegedly never heard back from the Defendants.

The complaint accordingly alleged claims for: (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to furnish wage statements; (3) failure
to pay wages timely; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure
to reimburse business expenses; (6) waiting time penalties; (7)
wrongful constructive termination in violation of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (8) disability discrimination in
violation of FEHA; (9) violation of Business & Professions Code
section 17200 (UCL claim); (10) failure to accommodate a disability
in violation of FEHA; (11) failure to engage in a good faith
interactive process in violation of FEHA; (12) wrongful
constructive termination in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5;
and (13) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public
policy. The claims were alleged against both Pinnacle and Stewart
with the exception of the seventh through eleventh and thirteenth
causes of action, which were limited to Pinnacle.

In October 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration contending the Plaintiff's claims fell within the scope
of the IRA. The Plaintiff opposed the motion on grounds that the
IRA was unconscionable. Among other things, he argued the
provisions providing for a shortened one-year statute of
limitations and limited discovery were substantively
unconscionable. He also claimed the IRA improperly shifted fees and
costs to him and was one-sided.

In support of his opposition, the Plaintiff submitted the
declaration of his counsel who estimated the Plaintiff would need
to: (1) serve at least 50 interrogatories to Pinnacle alone; (2)
serve at least 70 requests for production of documents; and (3)
depose seven specified individuals. The declaration also
ambiguously stated the Plaintiff "would need up to the full Code of
Civil Procedure limit of 35 requests."

With respect to the interrogatories, the declaration stated they
were necessary "to gather basic information about the Defendants'
policies on overtime and off-the-clock work, meal and rest breaks,
and reimbursements, the Defendants' policies with respect to
discrimination and reporting illegal activity at the workplace, as
well as the Defendants' knowledge of the Plaintiff's disability and
need for accommodations." Likewise, the Plaintiff needed
information about "how the Defendants implemented those policies
with respect to the Plaintiff specifically, in addition to the
Defendants' communications with the Plaintiff about his wages,
injury, complaints of illegal activity by the Defendants, and need
for workplace accommodations, among other communications."

In November 2020, the court denied the Defendants' motion and found
the IRA was procedurally and substantively unconscionable with
provisions that could not be severed from the agreement. First, the
court held the IRA was procedurally unconscionable because the
Plaintiff was required to sign the IRA as a precondition to his
employment. Second, it found the IRA was substantively
unconscionable because of its limits on discovery and because it
shortened the statute of limitations to one year on all claims.
Relying on Baxter v. Genworth North America Corp. (2017) 16
Cal.App.5th 713 and Fitz v. NCR Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 702,
the court held the Plaintiff produced evidence establishing the
discovery limits were insufficient for him to pursue his 13 claims.
It further noted, "the IRA does not appear to permit for adequate
discovery of third parties prior to the hearing at the
arbitration." Finally, it held the unconscionable provisions could
not be severed from the IRA because there otherwise would be no
provisions on discovery.

Discussion

The Defendants contend the court erred by finding the IRA was
unconscionable and thus unenforceable. According to them, the IRA
has low procedural unconscionability and contains only one
substantively unconscionable provision -- the statute of
limitations provision. They alternatively claim the court erred by
failing to sever any unconscionable provisions.

A. Unconscionability

On appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the
Court of Appeals reviews the court's ruling on unconscionability de
novo to the extent it is based on a pure question of law. To the
extent the court's determination of unconscionability is based upon
its resolution of conflicts in the evidence or on the factual
inferences that may be drawn therefrom, the Court of Appeals
considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's
determination and review those aspects of the determination for
substantial evidence.

A. Procedural Unconscionability

Procedural unconscionability may be proven by showing oppression,
which is present when a party has no meaningful opportunity to
negotiate terms or the contract is presented on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis. In the employment context, an
arbitration agreement that is an essential part of a `take it or
leave it' employment condition, without more, is procedurally
unconscionable.

The Defendants concede the IRA was procedurally unconscionable
because it was a contract of adhesion. But they claim the IRA had
"low procedural unconscionability" because it was not buried in an
employment agreement and was instead a stand-alone arbitration
agreement.

The Court of Appeals agrees that the arbitration agreement in the
instant case was not hidden or buried in another agreement.
Instead, it was presented as a stand-alone "Issue Resolution
Agreement" as part of Pinnacle's employment application. The word
"arbitration" appeared in bold text, and the first page of the IRA
included the following bold text: "This Agreement requires you to
arbitrate any legal dispute related to your application for
employment, employment with, or termination from Pinnacle."

In his declaration, the Plaintiff acknowledged he signed the IRA
and understood that he had to sign in order to begin his employment
with Pinnacle. But he claims he did not know "how one sided,
unfair, and illegal it was," which implies he did not understand
all of the terms. He also claims Stewart "pressured" him to sign
the agreement. Considering this evidence along with the unconcealed
nature of the IRA, the agreement had some degree of procedural
unconscionability. Still, the Court of Appeals must determine if
the IRA was substantively unconscionable.

B. Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability exists when a term is so one-sided as
to shock the conscience. Substantive unconscionability "may take
various forms," but typically is found in the employment context
when the arbitration agreement is "one-sided" in favor of the
employer without sufficient justification. In evaluating
substantive unconscionability, courts often look to whether the
arbitration agreement meets certain minimum levels of fairness.

Although the court did not address each of the above factors, it
found one of the requirements lacking because the IRA improperly
limited discovery. It also found unconscionable a provision
imposing a one-year statute of limitations on any claims subject to
the agreement.

1. One-year Statute of Limitations

The IRA included a provision that shortened the applicable statute
of limitations of all claims to one year. The Defendants concede
this provision is substantively unconscionable "because the
Plaintiff has asserted Labor Code claims with longer limitations
periods. The Court of Appeals agrees the provision is
unconscionable because many of the Plaintiff's claims have longer
statute of limitations.

2. Discovery Limitations

Although parties to an arbitration agreement may agree to
limitations on discovery that is otherwise available under the Code
of Civil Procedure, an arbitration agreement must nonetheless
ensure minimum standards of fairness so employees can vindicate
their public rights.

In the case, the IRA limits each party to 20 interrogatories and
three depositions per side. The interrogatories could also include
"a request for all documents upon which the responding party relies
in support of its answers to the interrogatories." The IRA
otherwise contains no express provision entitling the parties to
propound requests for admission or demands for requests for
production of all relevant documents. The arbitrator could order
more discovery "upon a showing of substantial need" "but only if
the Arbitrator finds that such additional discovery is not overly
burdensome, and will not unduly delay conclusion of the
arbitration."

The Court of Appeals opines that while superficially neutral, the
discovery restrictions favor the Defendants. They contend the IRA's
discovery provision is analogous to provisions in other arbitration
agreements that have been upheld. But the cases they cite are
inapposite. The Court of Appeals finds that the Plaintiff is
entitled to fewer interrogatories and depositions, and the IRA does
not require the disclosure of all relevant documents. The IRA does
not provide for any disclosure of relevant documents with a
continuing obligation to supplement. Instead, it only allows for
interrogatories that could include "a request for all documents
upon which the responding party relies in support of its answers to
the interrogatories."

In addition, the Plaintiff set forth facts tending to show he would
be unable to vindicate his statutory rights under the discovery
limitations of the IRA. While the Defendants contend that Plaintiff
did not identify what information these individuals had, the
Plaintiff's attorney's declaration identified the significance of
these witnesses. The declaration stated the supervisors could
testify about the Plaintiffs' compensation, job requirements, and
various company policies while the human resources representatives
had spoken to the Plaintiff about his injury and need for
accommodations.

Finally, the Court of Appeals notes the parties disagree as to
whether the discovery provision is further unconscionable due to
limitations on third party discovery. The court's order indicated
that "the IRA does not appear to permit for adequate discovery of
third parties prior to the hearing at the arbitration." It
explained the IRA allows the arbitrator to enforce or cancel
subpoenas but found this provision was set forth in a portion of
the agreement concerning hearing procedures. The Defendants
disagree and claim the arbitrator could allow third party discovery
on a showing of substantial need. The Court of Appeals need not
decide the issue because it finds the discovery provision is
substantively unconscionable.

3. Costs Provision and Other Concerns

The Plaintiff raises additional concerns about the IRA that the
court did not rely upon in its ruling. First, he argues the IRA
illegally shifts fees and costs. He relies on the following
provision: "The Company will advance all costs of arbitration. Each
Party will advance its own incidental costs. Each Party will pay
one-half of the costs of arbitration following the issuance of the
arbitration award. The Employee's liability for the costs and fees
of arbitration, other than attorneys' fees, however, will be
limited to $100." The Plaintiff claims this provision is ambiguous
because it says he is responsible for half of the arbitration costs
while also saying his costs are limited to $100.

While the provision is poorly drafted, the Court of Appeals finds
no ambiguity. It finds that the provision clearly states the
Plaintiff's arbitration costs and fees "shall be limited to $100."
It also disagrees with the Plaintiff's assertion that the $100 cost
is improper because he would not have to pay any "arbitration
costs" if he had proceeded with a civil action.

The Court of Appeals further finds that the IRA states the
arbitrator cannot consolidate claims of different employees without
the mutual consent of all parties. The Plaintiff contends the IRA
is not bilateral because it states, "Claims by Employees for state
employment insurance (e.g., unemployment compensation, workers'
compensation, worker disability compensation) are not subject to
arbitration." But any arbitration agreement must exclude these
claims. The Court of Appeals accordingly does not find the cost
provision, class arbitration waiver, or provision regarding state
employment insurance to be substantively unconscionable.

III. Severability of Unconscionable Provisions

The Court of Appeals declines to sever the substantively
unconscionable terms, reasoning that those "provisions,
particularly the limitations on discovery, cannot be severed from
the IRA, as striking same would leave the parties with no
provisions on discovery." It finds that the IRA was signed by the
Plaintiff in 2016. At that time, other cases had concluded similar
unilateral statute of limitations provisions were unconscionable
when contained in an employment contract. While superficially
neutral, the discovery restrictions in the IRA favored the
Defendants who already had many of the documents relevant to the
Plaintiff's employment.

While "the general rule does favor arbitration and states terms
should be interpreted liberally, when the agreement is rife with
unconscionability, as here, the overriding policy requires that the
arbitration be rejected." The court accordingly did not abuse its
discretion by refusing to sever any portion of the IRA.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals concludes that the IRA has some degree of
procedural unconscionability but finds both the statute of
limitations and discovery provisions are substantively
unconscionable. As a result, it affirmed. The Plaintiff will
recover his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yf6uhsdr from Leagle.com.


PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of January 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Playtika Holding Corp. ("Playtika" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PLTK) 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 21-cv-06571, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Playtika
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about January 15, 2021 (the "IPO"
or "Offering"); or (b) Playtika securities between January 15, 2021
and November 2, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Playtika securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, and during the Class Period,
you have until January 24, 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.

Playtika develops mobile games in the United States, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and internationally. The
Company distributes its games to the end customer through various
web and mobile platforms, such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and
other web and mobile platforms and its own proprietary platforms.

On December 18, 2020, Playtika filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the IPO, which, after an amendment, was declared
effective by the SEC on January 14, 2021 (the "Registration
Statement").

On January 15, 2021, pursuant to the Registration Statement,
Playtika's securities began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select
Market under the symbol "PLTK." That same day, Playtika filed a
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(collectively, the "Offering Documents").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Offering Documents issued
in connection with the Company's IPO were negligently prepared and,
as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally,
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's year-over-year total costs and
costs related to sales & marketing and research & development were
on track to rise significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii)
the success of the Company's game portfolio was less sustainable
than the Company had represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were
likely to negatively impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 11, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results for the
first quarter of 2021. While the Company's revenue beat
expectations by $57.97 million, its GAAP earnings per share of
$0.09 missed consensus estimates by $0.04.

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $.93 per share, or 3.47%,
to close at $25.89 per share on May 11, 2021.

Then, on November 3, 2021, Playtika announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2021. Among other items, Playtika reported
revenue of $635.9 million, missing consensus estimates by $26.07
million, and GAAP EPS of $0.20, missing consensus estimates by
$0.05.

That same day, on an earnings call with investors and analysts
discussing the Company's Q3 2021 results, Defendant Robert Antokol,
Playtika's Chief Executive Officer, and Defendant Craig Abrahams,
Playtika's Chief Financial Officer, revealed that two of the games
in Playtika's portfolio yielded disappointing revenues for the
quarter.

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $6.80 per share, or
23.3%, to close at $22.72 on November 3, 2021.

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]

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pre-Paid Legal
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pre-Paid
Legal Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09821 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23,
2021).

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

Pre-Paid Legal Services doing business as LegalShield --
http://www.legalshield.com/-- is an American corporation that
sells legal service products direct to consumer through employer
groups and through multi-level marketing in the United States, and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Summer's Eve Spray Contains Benzene, Lofaro Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE LOFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-06610 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of New York
General Business Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
the Summer's Eve - Ultra Freshening Spray. The Defendant failed to
disclose that the product contain benzene, a known human
carcinogen. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misrepresentation, the Plaintiff and Class members have been
exposed to the carcinogen benzene. Had they known the truth, they
would not have bought the product.

Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. is a marketer and distributor of
over-the-counter healthcare and household cleaning products, with
its principal place of business located in Tarrytown, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Joseph Lipari, Esq.
         Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
         270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (845) 483-7100
         Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                - and –

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

PRIORITY PAYMENT: Faces Class Action Over Systematic Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against payment processing giants
Priority Payment Systems, LLC and Priority Technology Holdings,
Inc. (collectively, "Priority"). Priority handles credit and debit
card processing for over 200,000 customers in the United States.
The suit alleges Priority maintains a systematic policy of
enrolling customers under false pretenses and then overbilling them
for amounts not shown on their contract or fee schedule.

The Class Action Complaint asserts that Priority uses a network of
independent sales agents to sign up customers. The suit alleges
that such sales agents include Wholesale Payments, Cynergy Data,
Simplify Commerce, Priority Commercial Payments, and many local
independently-owned sales offices under the "Priority Payments"
name, such as Priority Payments of North Atlanta, Priority Payment
Systems Gulf Coast, Priority Payments Local, Priority Payments
Global, and Priority Payments of Texas. It is alleged that these
sales agents, and hundreds of others, sign up customers for
Priority using Priority's form contract. Therefore, customers may
not even realize they have entered a contract -- not with the sales
company – but with Priority and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs contend Priority has perpetrated a
nationwide "bait and switch" scheme by luring merchants in with
false promises, such as technological capabilities Priority does
not offer or low rates and fees. The suit alleges that Priority
then charges customers excessive fees, even if they are never able
to use their accounts. Moreover, as alleged in the Class Action
Complaint, when merchants realize they have been overcharged and
attempt to leave Priority, they are often informed they must pay an
early termination fee of several hundred dollars. The Class Action
Complaint describes hundreds of similar complaints from customers
nationwide.

The legal claims referenced in the Class Action Complaint are for
fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs also specifically allege that Priority has violated
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Plaintiffs seek
the return of all improper fees they paid Priority, the rescission
of the fraudulently induced contracts, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The case, styled Braids R Us 305, et al. v. Priority Technology
Holdings, Inc., et al., is pending in the Superior Court of Cobb
County, Georgia and has been assigned case number 2021-0151551-CV.

If you wish to discuss this class action or have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Webb, Klase & Lemond,
LLC at (770) 444-9325 or contact@WebbLLC.com. You may also visit
the firm website at http://www.WebbLLC.com.[GN]

PROMPT NURSING: $3MM Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that
Filipino nurses brought to the U.S. with promises of good-paying
jobs and opportunities for citizenship received preliminary
approval of a $3 million settlement with recruiters Prompt Nursing
Employment Agency LLC they accused of engaging in human
trafficking.

Judge Nina Gershon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered attorneys to email each class member a
notice of the settlement and to post the notice on the class action
website.

Class counsel must notify the court of the status of notification
by Jan. 25. A fairness hearing is scheduled for Feb. 22, the Nov.
22 order said. [GN]

RICHMOND PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Actual Expenses, McBride Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER MCBRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RICHMOND PIZZA HUT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00148-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky., November 15, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately January 2021 until March 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant did not reimburse the
Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers for their actual expenses that
were incurred for the primary benefit of the Defendant. The
Defendant also failed to track its delivery drivers' actual
expenses. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were reimbursed by the Defendant at or around $0.33 per
mile only that is less than the standard mileage rate. As a result,
the Defendant deprived them of minimum wages guaranteed to them by
the FLSA.

Richmond Pizza Hut, Inc. owns and operates multiple Pizza Huts
throughout Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Anne L. Gilday, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE FIRM PSC
          606 Philadelphia Street
          Covington, KY 41011
          Tel: (859) 578-9130
          Fax: (859) 578-1032
          E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Fisher Suit Over Info Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
ADAM FISHER; ASHLEY CARTER; CHRISTINA LOPEZ; RACHEL BARNETT; LUCIA
FLORES; TIFFANY COLE; DENISE OKEEFE; BAYLEE MESTAZ; JOHN COOPER;
CRYSTAL HARMON; MICHELLE DURDEN; KAREN BENOIT; and CASSIE COWEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD CRYPTO, LLC;
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURTIIES, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-08906-KAW (S.D. Cal.; Nov. 17; 2021)
is a class action against Robinhood for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated
Robinhood customers' personal information from hackers.

According to the complaint, on November 3, 2021, hackers gained
access to the personally identifiable information ("PII") of over 7
million Robinhood customers (the "Data Breach"), including full
names, email addresses, dates of birth, zip codes, and other PII.

On November 8, 2021, Robinhood allegedly announced the Data Breach.
At least since that date, Robinhood has maintained a blog post on
its website titled, "Robinhood Announces Data Security Incident."
The blog post states, in part, "Late in the evening of November 3,
we experienced a data security incident. An unauthorized third
party obtained access to a limited amount of personal information
for a portion of our customers."

Robinhood customers' PII is currently up for sale on the dark web.
Hackers offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted, stolen PII to
criminals. Because of Robinhood's Data Breach, customers' PII is
still available on the dark web for criminals to access and abuse.
As a result, Robinhood's customers face a lifetime risk of identity
theft, the suit says.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. operates a financial services platform. The
Company offers brokerage and cash management applications such as
stocks, exchange-traded funds, options, and cryptocurrency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason Barney, Esq.
          Sonal Jain, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue Seventeenth Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 sjain@sirillp.com

S&H TRUCKING: Underpays Dump Truck Drivers, Shepler Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN SHEPLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S&H TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02927-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., November 28, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated dump truck drivers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a dump truck
driver for the last four years.

S&H Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company headquartered in
Rossville, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Amber K. Boyd, Esq.
         AMBER K. BOYD ATTORNEY AT LAW
         8510 Evergreen Avenue
         Indianapolis, IN 46240
         Telephone: (317) 210-3416

SAVANNAH BEE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savannah Bee Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Savannah Bee Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09893 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Savannah Bee Company -- https://savannahbee.com/ -- brings both
local and international award-winning specialty honey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Ellsworth Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jarrell Ellsworth filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ARRELL ELLSWORTH, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01699-SB-SP, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and the California Business and Professions
Code by failing to provide applicants with proper disclosures
before procuring their consumer reports and failing to provide
notice about adverse actions taken based in whole or in part on
their consumer reports.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 16, 2021, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed
class defined as follows:

   California Labor Code Class:

   "All California-based drivers employed by the Defendant
   Schneider National Carriers, Inc. at any time from May 29,
   2016 through the date this class is certified ("California
   Labor Code Class Members")."

      California Labor Code Subclass:

      "All California-based drivers employed by Defendant and
      engaged in short-haul operations as defined by 49 C.F.R.
      section 395.1(e) at any time from May 29, 2016 through the
      date this class is certified ("California Labor Code
      Subclass Members")."

   Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Class:

   All persons residing in the United States who  applied for a
   position with Defendant described by 15 U.S.C. section
   1681b(b)(2)(C) from May 29, 2015 through the date this class
   is certified and on whom Defendant procured one or more
   consumer reports ("FCRA Class Members").

On October 28, 2021, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order in its appellate case
captioned as Jarrell Ellsworth v. Schneider National Carriers,
Inc., Case No. 21-80114, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2021.

Plaintiff-Petitioner JARRELL ELLSWORTH, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Alexandria Kachadoorian, Esq.
          Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277-9945
          E-mail: alexandria@counselonegroup.com
                  justin@counselonegroup.com  

Defendant-Respondent SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. is
represented by:

          Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1800 Century Park, E, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 956-3419
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com  

               - and -

          Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Katherine Elizabeth Lehnen, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 E Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775-4716
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com

SEAN KELLY: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sean Kelly, Inc. The
case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Sean Kelly, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10045 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Sean Kelly -- https://www.skny.com/ -- is a contemporary art
gallery located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


SEED HEALTH: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seed Health, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Seed Health, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09881 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Seed Health -- https://www.seedhealth.com/ -- is a microbial
sciences company pioneering applications of microbes for human and
planetary health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance
Services Inc. The case is styled as Joanne Rogers, Angela Star
Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. SelectQuote Insurance Services Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-00603-EKD
(W.D.W. Va., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ --
provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers
auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Brian Hissam, Esq.
          HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC
          707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 260
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (681) 265-3802
          Fax: (304) 982-8056
          Email: mhissam@hfdrlaw.com


SHAKER & SPOON: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shaker & Spoon, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Shaker & Spoon, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10007 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Shaker and Spoon -- https://www.shakerandspoon.com/ -- is a monthly
cocktail subscription box delivering original recipes plus all you
need to make them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SHINESTY INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shinesty, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Shinesty, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10037
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Shinesty -- https://www.shinesty.com/ -- is a vintage clothing
brand that aims to bring an outlandish collection of clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com



SIERRA NEVADA: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Nevada Brewing
Co. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10013 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Sierra Nevada Brewing -- https://sierranevada.com/ -- is the
seventh-largest brewing company in the United States and is the
third largest privately owned brewery in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SIMON'S AGENCY: Summary Judgment Bid in Huber Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMIE HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 2:19-01424 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Anita B. Brody of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued
a Memorandum:

   a. granting in part, denying in part, and denying as moot in
      part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and

   b. granting in part and denying as moot in part Huber's motion
      for summary judgment.

Introduction

Plaintiff Huber allegedly incurred four debts to creditor Crozer
Health Network. Crozer contracted with Defendant Simon's Agency,
Inc. ("SAI"), a collection agency specializing in medical billing,
to collect all four debts. SAI sent Huber collection letters and
contacted her about the debts via her cell phone.

Huber brings two putative class action claims against SAI for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. She also brings two individual claims
against SAI for violations of the FDCPA and of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The Court
exercises federal question jurisdiction over all four claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

In December 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. SAI moves for summary judgment on all four claims. Huber
moves for partial summary judgment on the three FDCPA claims; two
are putative class claims limited to liability.

Background

In early 2018, Jamie Huber visited doctors at Crozer on four
separate occasions. At each doctor's visit, Huber filled out
paperwork providing her cell phone number. Huber's four doctor
visits resulted in four debts to Crozer that were subsequently
placed with SAI for collection. Each debt was given a unique
account number, and the four debts were aggregated under a single
"master number" labeled with Huber's name and the relevant creditor
(Crozer). After each debt was placed with SAI for collection, SAI
mailed Huber an initial collection letter. None of the letters were
returned as undeliverable. The letters all follow the same format
as the fourth collection letter sent by SAI on Sept. 6, 2018.

When each debt was placed with SAI, Crozer also provided SAI with
Huber's contact telephone number. SAI was provided with the same
number -- Huber's cell phone number -- all four times. SAI phoned
Huber on her cell phone twice in June 2018, seeking to collect on
the first two debts owed to Crozer.

On June 28, 2018, Huber's financial advisor sent SAI a letter on
Huber's behalf disputing the first two debts and directing SAI to
stop making calls to Huber's cell phone. SAI received the letter on
July 3, 2018 and noted Huber's permanent cease and desist request
on her master account, placing the first two debts in dispute
status. After the third debt was placed for collection, an SAI
employee noted the cease and desist request on Huber's master
account and marked the third account as disputed.

After the fourth debt was placed for collection, SAI resumed
attempts to reach Huber to discuss that fourth debt, calling
Huber's cell phone twelve times between Oct. 10, 2018 and March 9,
2019. During the March 9, 2019 phone call, Huber told SAI that her
attorney had advised her that SAI should no longer call her cell
phone. On April 3, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant case.

Discussion

A. Collection Letter FDCPA Putative Class Claims

Huber's two putative class claims rely on a single argument: That
in sending Huber the Sept. 6, 2018 debt collection letter,
including both the balance of the individual debt and the balance
of all of Huber's debts to Crozer, SAI violated the FDCPA. Huber
argues that the letter violated both 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g and 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e. Claims brought under both Section 1692g and
Section 1692e should be considered from the perspective of the
least sophisticated debtor. This is an objective standard, meaning
Huber doesn't need to prove she was confused or misled, only that
"the objective least sophisticated debtor would be."

The question for the Court on these claims, then, is whether an
objective least sophisticated debtor would find that the letter
intelligibly communicated "amount of their individual debt," and
whether the combination of the "amount" and "various other accts
total balance" boxes was deceptive or misleading. The least
sophisticated debtor standard "protects naive consumers but also
'prevents liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of
collection notices by preserving a quotient of reasonableness and
presuming a basic level of understanding and willingness to read
with care.'"

1. Section 1692g(a) Claim (Count II)

In her Section 1692g claim, which focuses solely on the Sept. 6,
2018 collection letter, Huber alleges that SAI failed to meet the
requirement of unambiguously communicating the "amount of the
debt." She alleges that the letter was unclear as to whether she
owed $178 (listed as "Amount"), $517.50 (listed as "Various Other
Accts Total Balance"), or the sum of the two ($695.50). Huber also
notes that all four letters included the same "File #" -- the
master account number, not the account number assigned to each
individual debt -- making it difficult for the least sophisticated
consumer to determine which "Various Other Accounts" are
represented by the $517.50 balance. Huber suggests that SAI should
have identified the accounts included in that total "other
accounts" balance and should have provided the creditor for each.

SAI counters that each letter included what is required under
Section 1692g: The amount of the debt, labeled as "Amount." The
additional information provided (the total balance of all debts
Huber owed to Crozer), SAI argues, is supplementary and should be
read in context of the three prior letters Huber received from SAI.
SAI also argues that Huber must have been aware that the "Other
Accounts" referenced were the four debts she owed to Crozer,
because she or her financial advisor separately disputed the
individual accounts via SAI's online dispute management system.

Judge Brody holds that no context is required for the Plaintiff to
understand the amount of the debt. That amount is clearly stated on
the letter as "Amount." What is less clear is the total amount owed
over all accounts, and to understand this total, the context of
prior letters is required. But Section 1692g does not require
collectors to include a total of all accounts placed for
collection, and because this information is supplementary, the law
requiring that each letter intelligibly communicate the elements of
Section 1692g does not apply. Because SAI's September 2018 letter
to Huber included the amount of the debt, Huber cannot prove the
elements of her Section 1692g claim and SAI is thus entitled to
summary judgment on Count II.

2. Section 1692e Claim (Count I)

In Huber's Section 1692e claim, she asserts that a lack of clarity
in the amount of the debt made SAI's letter inherently "deceptive"
and "misleading" because it could trick a debtor into falsely
believing they owe more than they do. Huber argues that she
reasonably believed she owed the sum of the two amounts listed in
the letter ($178 + $517.50 = $695.50) when she, in fact, only owed
$517.50, the sum listed under "Various Other Accts Total Balance."
Huber argues that her reading of the letter is, in fact, the most
reasonable one under the least sophisticated debtor standard.

SAI counters that the letter at issue clearly states both the total
balance on the fourth account ($178) and the total balance of the
four accounts Huber owed Crozer ($517.50). It argues that Huber had
the letters it sent about the first three debts and thus should
have known that the four individual debts added up to $517.50 and
not to $695.50. SAI also notes that Huber or her agent subsequently
disputed the four accounts and that she therefore should have known
their total balance.

Judge Brody holds that SAI's letter is undoubtedly open to more
than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is inaccurate.
Under Third Circuit law, the September 2018 letter is thus
deceptive under Section 1692e, entitling the Plaintiff to summary
judgment on Count I.

B. Telephone Call-Based FDCPA Claim Under Section 1692c (Count IV)

As with Huber's letter-based putative class claims, her phone
call-based individual claims under the FDCPA (Section 1692c) and
the TCPA are based on a single argument: That she sent SAI a letter
disputing the debts and requesting that SAI no longer call her
regarding the debts, but that SAI continued to call her cell phone
even after noting receipt of the do-not-call request.

Judge Brody finds that the Plaintiff cites to no evidence in the
record, in Huber's own deposition or otherwise, explicitly stating
that SAI attempted to collect on debts covered by the cease and
desist request. As such, there is no dispute of material fact on
this claim. The Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proving
that SAI in any way violated Section 1692c, and SAI is entitled to
summary judgment on Count IV.

C. TCPA Claim (Count III)

Huber's final individual claim is that SAI violated the TCPA by
placing autodialed calls to her cell phone. SAI counters that Huber
consented to calls when she provided her cell phone number to
Crozer in connection with the medical services she received, and
which generated the debts then placed with SAI for collection. In
response to Huber's complaint that SAI continued to call her after
the June 28 dispute letter, SAI reiterates that it only called
Huber about subsequently placed debts and that, when Huber told SAI
on March 9, 2019 that her attorney advised her that SAI should not
be calling her phone, SAI ceased all calls.

Judge Brody finds that in seeking summary judgment on Huber's TSCA
claim, SAI must show an "absence of a genuine issue of material
fact" as to whether Huber revoked her consent to be contacted via
phone. Huber clearly revoked consent as to calls about the first
two debts when she sent SAI her Dispute Letter on June 28, 2018.
According to SAI, Huber revoked consent to be called on two
occasions: Dirst on June 20, 2018 as to the first two Crozer debts,
and second on March 9, 2019 about the remainder of the debts.

SAI states that, between June 28, 2018 and March 9, 2019 -- when
Huber advised an SAI representative that she no longer wanted to be
called -- calls placed to Huber were only about the fourth debt,
and that SAI ceased all calls to Huber after March 9, 2019. Huber
counters she asked SAI not to call her every time she answered a
call from an SAI representative. According to SAI records, SAI
employees spoke to Huber twice between June 28, 2018 and March 9,
2019: First on October 10, 2018, and then on Nov. 11, 2018.

Judge Brody holds that whether Huber orally revoked her prior
express consent on either occasion, then, is a disputed material
fact. This dispute makes summary judgment on Huber's TSCA claim
inappropriate at this juncture.

Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Brody grants SAI's motion for
summary judgment as to Counts II and IV, denies SAI's motion as
moot as to Count I, and denies SAI's motion as to Count III. She
grants Huber's motion for partial summary judgment -- as to
liability only -- as to Count I and denies Huber's motion as moot
as to Counts II and IV.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88ae8e from Leagle.com.


SIMPLY NATURAL: Andrade Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARLES ANDRADE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY NATURAL SNACKING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-06320 (E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid manual
worker to perform duties as a machine operator from in or about
October 2019 to on or about September 28, 2021.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failing to timely pay his
and other similarly situated hourly-paid Manual Workers wages
within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these
wages were earned. The Defendant also failed to provide them with
notice of this wage rate and the basis of pay upon hire as required
by NYLL, the Plaintiff added.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages pursuant to NYLL,
reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

Simply Natural Snacking, LLC is a manufacturer of snack items.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 257-5588
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

SINGER SEWING: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Singer Sewing Machine
Company. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Singer Sewing Machine
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-09831 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Singer Corporation -- https://www.singer.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of consumer sewing machines, first established as I.
M. Singer & Co. in 1851 by Isaac M. Singer with New York lawyer
Edward C. Clark.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SLED DISTRIBUTION: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sled Distribution,
LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sled Distribution,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09933 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Sled Distribution LLC doing business as My Medic --
https://mymedic.com/ -- offers first aid kits that will actually
save lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smithfield Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09940 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/ -- is a
pork producer and food-processing company based in Smithfield,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SOLO DTC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solo DTC Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Solo DTC Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09896 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Solo DTC Brands doing business as Solo Stove --
https://www.solostove.com/ -- offers Stainless Steel wood-burning
stoves and fire pits designed with efficient airflow.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SONIM TECH: Distribution of Net Settlement Fund in Sterrett Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID STERRETT, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SONIM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
ROBERT PLASCHKE, JAMES WALKER, MAURICE HOCHSCHILD, ALAN HOWE, KENNY
YOUNG, SUSAN G. SWENSON, JOHN KNEUER, JEFFREY D. JOHNSON,
OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., LAKE STREET CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, and
NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-06416-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted Lead
Plaintiff Sterrett's motion for approval of distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants.

Unless otherwise defined, all terms used have the same meanings as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated Sept. 10, 2020.

Judge Chesney granted the motion in its entirety and approved the
administrative determinations of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
("RG/2"), the Court appointed Claims Administrator, in accepting
and rejecting the Proof of Claim and Release forms.

The Net Settlement Fund established by the settlement of the Action
will be distributed to Authorized Claimants according to RG/2's
determinations and consistent with the Stipulation and Plan of
Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund previously approved by the
Court on March 5, 2021.

Pursuant to RG/2's administrative determinations accepting valid
claims that were postmarked or received by Feb. 3, 2021, which are
set forth in Exhibit A of the Declaration of Tina Chiango in
Support of Motion For Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, and
accepting otherwise valid claims that were postmarked or received
after the Feb. 3, 2021 claims-submission deadline but received on
or before Oct. 18, 2021, which are set forth in Exhibit B of the
Distribution Declaration, are approved and the claimants set forth
in Exhibits A and B may receive distributions from the Net
Settlement Fund in the initial distribution and any subsequent
distributions as set forth in the Distribution Declaration.

RG/2's administrative determinations rejecting the ineligible or
otherwise deficient Claims, which are set forth in Exhibit C of the
Distribution Declaration, are approved. Such claims may not receive
any distributions from the Settlement Fund.

Any Claims or responses to deficiencies that are received after
Oct. 18, 2021 are rejected as untimely and will not be accepted.

If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the initial
distribution, and RG/2 has made reasonable and diligent efforts to
have Authorized Claimants who are entitled to participate in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution
checks, Lead Counsel, in consultation with RG/2, will determine
whether it is feasible to conduct a second distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.

If a second distribution is determined to be feasible, the balance
will be redistributed on a pro rata basis among Authorized
Claimants who cashed their initial distribution checks and would
receive at least $10 in the redistribution after payment of the
estimated costs, expenses, and fees incurred in administering the
Net Settlement Fund and in making the second distribution. Such
redistributions may occur thereafter, if economically feasible,
until the balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is de
minimis.

Any de minimis balance that still remains in the Net Settlement
Fund after such reallocation(s), which is not feasible or
economical to reallocate among Authorized Claimants, will be
donated to the Investor Protection Trust in accordance with
paragraph 5.7 of the Stipulation.

RG/2 will be paid the sum of $7,947 from the Settlement Fund for
the outstanding fees and expenses it incurred in connection with
administering the Settlement and estimates it will incur in
conducting the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. It
may destroy paper copies of the Claim Forms and all supporting
documentation one year after the initial distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund and electronic copies of the same three years after
the final distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Claims
submitted in the matter, or otherwise involved in the
administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund, including the
Lead Plaintiff, the Lead Counsel, RG/2, and the Escrow Agent, are
released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such
involvement, and any further claims against the Net Settlement Fund
are barred beyond the amount allocated to Authorized Claimants
pursuant to the Order.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications
concerning the administration of the Settlement, and such other and
further relief as it deems appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Distribution Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymxpnp29 from Leagle.com.

Katherine M. Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- (admitted pro hac
vice) FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, in New York City, Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, in Los Angeles,
California, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff David Sterrett and Lead
Counsel for the Class.


SONTIQ INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sontiq, Inc. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sontiq, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09814
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Sontiq -- https://www.sontiq.com/ -- is an IT consultancy that
offers mobile security, identity restoration, breach response, and
digital identity protection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SOUNDS TRUE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sounds True, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sounds True, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09888 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Sounds True -- https://www.soundstrue.com/ -- is a multimedia
publishing company founded in 1985 by Tami Simon offering
transformational programs to help live a more genuine, loving and
meaningful life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


SOURCEBOOKS INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sourcebooks, Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sourcebooks, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09783 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Sourcebooks, Inc. -- https://www.sourcebooks.com/ -- is an
independent book publisher located in Naperville, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SP PLUS: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SP Plus Corporation.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SP Plus Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-09841 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

SP Plus Corporation -- https://www.spplus.com/ -- is an American
provider of parking facility management services. It manages
parking facilities with more than one million parking spaces across
the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SPECIALIZED LOAN: Cuellar Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialized Loan
Servicing LLC. The case is styled as Elsa Cuellar, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-24126-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS) -- http://www.sls.net/--
operates as a financial company. The Company offers residential
mortgages, as well as provides loan modification and planning
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
          SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          6810 North State Road 7
          Coconut Creek, FL 33073
          Phone: (561) 569-7062
          Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L. KERR, P.A. dba THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 282-1858
          Fax: (844) 786-3694
          Email: service@advocacypa.com


SPLENDID SPOON: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Splendid Spoon LLC.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Splendid Spoon LLC., Case No.
1:21-cv-09949 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Splendid Spoon -- https://splendidspoon.com/ -- delivers
ready-to-eat and nutrient-dense plant-based smoothies, soups, grain
bowls, and noodles nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com



SPOTHERO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SpotHero, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SpotHero, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09839 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

SpotHero -- http://spothero.com/-- is a digital parking
marketplace that connects drivers looking to reserve and pay for
parking spaces with parking lots, parking garages and valet
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SQUIX LLC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Squix, LLC. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Squix, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10003
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Squix, which also operates under the name Vine Oh! --
https://www.vineoh.com/ -- is a quarterly wine & lifestyle
subscription box for women, designed to help recharge &
unwind.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


STONE FOREST: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stone Forest, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Stone Forest, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09994 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Stone Forest -- https://stoneforest.com/ -- has crafted
award-winning designs for the bath, kitchen and garden—sculpted
from stone, bronze, copper and wood.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


STONECO LTD: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Nov. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against StoneCo Ltd. ("StoneCo" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: STNE) 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 StoneCo securities between May 11,
2021 and November 16, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until January 18, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, StoneCo announced its
second quarter 2021 financial results in a press release, reporting
an 8.1% year-over-year decrease in revenue "mainly due to
adjustments in credit fair value and significantly lower credit
disbursements." The Company stated that it had "implemented some
prudent actions, like temporarily stopping the disbursement of
credit and increasing coverage for potential future losses, which
impacted [StoneCo's] reported results for the quarter."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.96, to close at
$46.54 per share on August 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on October 26, 2021, PAX Global Technology Ltd's Florida
offices were raided by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Department of Homeland Security, and several other agencies as
part of a federal investigation. As a Viceroy Research report on
October 27, 2021 pointed out, Stone states that PAX "is no longer
[its] sole provider of POS services, [but the Company is] still
substantially dependent on it to manufacture and assemble a
substantial amount of [its] POS devices." Moreover, another company
replaced its PAX terminals "because it did not receive satisfactory
answers from PAX regarding its POS devices connecting to websites
not listed in their supplied documentation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.64, or 7%, to close
at $33.81 per share on October 27, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

Then, on November 16, 2021, StoneCo announced that it would "start
retesting our original [credit] product, which is short-term loans,
between the fourth quarter of '21 and the first quarter of '22."
The Company could not provide specific guidance about when credit
volumes would return to levels before StoneCo had halted
origination of credit.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $10.96, or 34%, to
close at $20.70 per share on November 17, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that StoneCo was experiencing difficulties in
implementing its credit product; (2) that StoneCo faced significant
risks via its point-of-sale vendor, PAX Global Technology Ltd.; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results
would be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

STORK CRAFT: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stork Craft
Manufacturing (USA) Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stork Craft Manufacturing (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10036
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Storkcraft -- https://www.storkcraftdirect.com/ -- has provided
families with affordable, innovative, and quality furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


STRYTEN ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Rivera Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ISRAEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYTEN ENERGY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:21-cv-02056-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa, November 15, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
"Process Attendant" from March 2019 to October 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week while employed by
the Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to include the value
of the nondiscretionary bonuses that it provided to them in
determining their regular rate for the purpose of computing their
overtime rate. As a result, their overtime compensation was not
properly paid by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint to recover
damages for all unpaid overtime compensation owed to him and other
similarly situated employees, as well as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and all litigation costs, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Stryten Energy, LLC manufactures batteries for motive power
equipment, telecommunications and utility systems, and vehicles.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Thomas Newkirk, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, PLC
          521 East Locust St., Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Tel: (515) 883-2000
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com

SUMMIT VIEW: Residents Removed Under Threat of Force, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sloan Dickey, writing for The Denver Channel, reports that former
residents of The Summit View Inn are filing a class action lawsuit
with its parent company VareCo nearly two months after they say
they were removed from their homes.

The suit was filed on Nov. 19 on behalf off three former residents
identified as Sneed, Rogers and Marshall. The lawsuit alleged they
were established tenants and removed under threat of force
illegally.

"A tenant has certain rights in Colorado, and those rights were
violated," said Burt Nadler, a lawyer with the Colorado COVID-19
Eviction Defense Project. "Nobody should have to suffer the
indignity that these people suffered or the fear that they suffered
when they did."

On Sept. 14, the residents were handed notices that they would no
longer be allowed to live on the property after Oct. 28. The notice
also said they would be required to move out on Oct. 2. Colorado
law requires a one month notice for an eviction.

Cellphone video from Oct. 3rd shows armed security guards on the
property, the day former residents say they were forced out.

The lawsuit alleges the residents established tenancy because many
had lived at the Summit View Inn for years and had signed various
agreements with the hotel. They also say the hotel required
cleaning of the rooms but did not provide housekeeping.

The lawsuit alleges that the residents were removed by force by a
private security company, something only allowed by the sheriff's
department. They also allege that residents were removed without
time to take professional and personal items with them.

"I have one client who lost the family bible, one client who lost
the ashes of his grandparents," Nadler said. "Somebody lost their
social security card."

Managers at VareCo declined to comment on the pending litigation,
but a spokesperson for the company did send a statement to
Denver7:

"Our team has consistently worked with the city of Aurora and
nonprofit Aurora Warms the Night to transition guests to safe
housing," spokesperson Wendy Aiello said in a statement on behalf
of VareCo. "If a guest feels that we have unfairly kept their
belongings, we welcome them back to retrieve what they left
behind." [GN]

SUNNY SCUBA: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunny Scuba, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sunny Scuba, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10027 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Sunny Scuba Inc. -- http://www.sunnysports.com/-- is located in
New York City is part of the Sporting Goods, Hobby, and Musical
Instrument Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SUNRUN INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc. The case
is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09781
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Sunrun Inc. -- https://www.sunrun.com/ -- is an American provider
of residential solar panels and home batteries, headquartered in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


SUPER EASY: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Easy Nutrition,
LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Super Easy Nutrition, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-09889 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Super Easy Nutrition -- https://supereasynutrition.com/ -- is one
of the fastest growing and top selling plant-based dietary and
nutritional supplements formulating company in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


TAKEOUT KIT: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Takeout Kit LLC. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Takeout Kit LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10046 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Takeout Kit -- https://takeoutkit.com/ -- provides unique meal
delivery services with global-inspired recipe kits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


TALK TO BRUNO: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Talk To Bruno, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Talk To Bruno, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09775 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Talk To Bruno, Inc. -- https://www.talktobruno.com/ -- is located
in Alexandria, Virginia and is part of the Electronic Shopping and
Mail-Order Houses Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


TASTY HUT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Atwood Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
APRIL ATWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TASTY HUT, LLC; TASTY RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC;
TASTY HUT OF NC LLC; TASTY BRANDS, LP; TASTY BRANDS II, LP; TRITON
PACIFIC CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; TRITON PACIFIC GROUP, INC.; DOE
CORPORATION 1–10; and JOHN DOE 1–10, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00163 (W.D.N.C., Nov. 17, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Atwood was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

TASTY HUT, LLC owns and operates Pizza Hut stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary-Ann Leon, Esq.
          THE LEON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          704 Cromwell Dr., Ste E
          Greenville NC 27858
          Telephone: (252) 830-5366
          Email: maleon@leonlaw.org

               -and-

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Riley E. Kane, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8714
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 rkane@billerkimble.com

TELLO LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tello, LLC. The case
is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tello, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10051
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Tello LLC -- https://tello.com/ -- is located in Atlanta, Georgia
and is part of the Wired and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


THERABOX INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Therabox, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Therabox, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10001 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

The TheraBox -- https://www.mytherabox.com/ -- is a subscription
box that is mindfully curated by therapists to reduce stress and
increase joy through self-love.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


THINK OUTSOURCING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cayetano Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CAYETANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THINK OUTSOURCING LLC; and PETER GRIZARDO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-09515 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 17, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Cayetano was employed by the Defendants as hotel
engineer/handyman.

THINK OUTSOURCING LLC specializes in engineering, housekeeping and
mechanical services within the hospitality industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

THIS LAND: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against This Land, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. This Land, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09868 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

This Land Inc. doing business as Sunday --
http://www.getsunday.com/-- is a Boulder-based startup that's
reinventing the lawn and garden space.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


THUMBTACK INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thumbtack, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Thumbtack, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09850 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

Thumbtack -- https://www.thumbtack.com/ -- is an American home
services website. It is an online directory that allows users to
search for, rate, and hire local service providers to work on a
variety of personal projects, including home improvement, financial
and legal services, and event planning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


TOUCHLAND LLC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touchland LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Touchland LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10052
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Touchland -- https://touchland.com/ -- manufactures hydrating hand
sanitizer mist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


TRAININGMASK LLC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrainingMask L.L.C.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. TrainingMask L.L.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-09772 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 23, 2021).

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

TrainingMask -- https://www.trainingmask.com/ -- is a Pioneer in
the field of Respiratory Conditioning for Exercise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


TRANSCO LINES: Moore Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transco Lines Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Moore, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Transco Lines Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-01156-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 24, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Transco Lines, Inc. -- http://transcolines.com/-- provides
trucking services. The Company offers company and team drivers,
lease purchase, and freight services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colby Qualls, Esq.
          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 904-1649
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TRUSTPILOT INC: Trustpilot Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Trustpilot Damages LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled TRUSTPILOT DAMAGES LLC,
et al., Plaintiffs v. TRUSTPILOT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-432, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

According to the complaint, Defendant Trustpilot, Inc. operates
trustpilot.com, a website that publishes crowd-sourced reviews of
businesses. Business customers can purchase annual Trustpilot
subscriptions that allow businesses to access consumer insight data
and to control how reviews of the business are displayed online.
Trustpilot automatically renews these subscriptions unless
subscribers notify the company of their desire to cancel.

Plaintiff Trustpilot Damages LLC, an entity formed for the purpose
of this lawsuit, claims that Trustpilot "designed its system to
force auto-renewals" after a spate of bad press convinced business
customers that annual Trustpilot subscriptions were not worth the
cost. According to TDL, Trustpilot tricked business customers into
paying for annual subscriptions by sending renewal reminder emails
that were likely to get caught in spam filters, because those
emails came from the domain name trustpilot.net.

On behalf of themselves and a putative class of Trustpilot
subscribers, TDL and co-plaintiff Tumbaco Inc., a Florida-based
company doing business as Quasar Expeditions, sued Trustpilot for
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, violation of New York General
Business Law Section 349, and violation of similar unfair business
practices statutes in other states.

On April 14, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On June 29, 2021, Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an order dismissing
the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.

The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal
ruling, but the Court denied the request on October 14, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as Trustpilot Damages LLC v.
Trustpilot Inc., Case No. 21-2837, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Trustpilot Damages LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and Tumbaco Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA
Quasar Expeditions, are represented by:

          Gregory Alan Frank, Esq.
          FRANK LLP
          305 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 682-1853
          E-mail: gfrank@frankllp.com

Defendant-Appellee Trustpilot Inc. is represented by:

          Andrew Kratenstein, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          1 Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 547-5695
          E-mail: akratenstein@mwe.com

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: $3.3MM Class Deal in Kudatsky Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON KUDATSKY, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of
those similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 19-07647 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the parties' motion for final approval of their settlement,
and the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

Background

In this wage-and-hour class action, Defendant technology company
allegedly misclassified employees, depriving them of overtime and
other wages. Prior orders detailed the facts involving the
now-familiar Plaintiffs, implementation consultants (ICs) and the
Defendant software company, Tyler Technologies, Inc.

Since then, the notice process appears to have reached all 295
putative class members, by either First Class mail or email. The
class counsel received no objections. Two class members opted out
for a total of 99.3% participation in this settlement. The total
settlement fund now comes to $3,258,313.61.

Additionally, two class members disputed Tyler's calculations of
their dates of employment and settlement payments. In response,
parties met and conferred. Tyler determined that it had used
"incomplete employment data" for the two objecting class members.
It agreed to revise its calculation of those two and, su esponte,
the hours of five others. This entitled the class to an additional
$128,979.45. To pay for this, the agreement provides for draining
the contingency fund ($20,000) and using the funds that would have
been paid to two opt-out plaintiffs $665.84). That not sufficing,
Tyler agreed to foot the remaining $108,313.61 (the "supplemental
payment") to cover the additional funds owed to the seven employees
with corrected employment data.

The parties now move for final approval of the settlement and for
fees and costs. There are no oppositions. Judge Alsup's Order
follows a stipulated motion for final approval and a fairness
hearing (telephonic due to COVID-19).

Analysis

In consideration for the dismissal of the action with prejudice and
a release of claims, Tyler agrees to make a settlement payment of
$3,258,313.61. Of this, $2,450,813.61 will be allocated to the 294
participating class members on a pro-rata basis.

Having considered the applicable factors, Judge Alsup finds the
proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate so as
to warrant final approval. The Court, however, will retain
jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement for just six
months from the date of the Order. Accordingly, and to the extent
stated, final approval of the proposed class settlement and plan of
allocation is granted.

The counsel seeks $787,500. This represents 25% of the original
gross settlement fund, but only 24% of the revised gross settlement
fund (of $3,258,313.61). This discrepancy is due to the fact that
the counsel did not seek 25% of Tyler's additional payment to the
fund (those additional payment, undertaken voluntarily, amounted to
$108,313.61). The $787,500 represents 32% of the net fund
($2,450,813.61).

Judge Alsup finds that the fees appear reasonable. The class
counsel conducted substantial motion practice and extensive
discovery. Further, the counsel also worked on a contingent-fee
basis despite the risks of litigation, which were substantial in
the case -- and for approximately two years. The issues are clearly
complex. The counsel has achieved a payment of 30.5% of the maximum
value of the claims, or 79% of the realistic value. This appears to
be a fair settlement. The 25% fee scheme received no objections
from the class members, who received the proposed fee percentage
with the notice of settlement and opportunity to opt-out.

The lodestar is $323,385, and lodestar multiplier comes out to
2.34: The calculation uses 984.2 hours total to date and another 40
hours of work split evenly between lawyers and non-lawyers to
finalize settlement payments. Fees ranged from $175/hour for
non-lawyer hours to $575 for partner Rachhana T. Srey, $450 for
associate Daniel Brome, and short bursts by attorneys Matthew
Helland ($650/hour) and Reena Desai ($500/hour). These compare
favorably to recent approvals. All of these factors weigh in favor
of the attorney's fees payment.

The counsel has incurred a total to date (as of Sept. 14, 2021) of
$18,957.28 in unreimbursed costs but it anticipates additional
costs associated with distributing settlement payments and
continuing to store electronic discovery, for a total of $20,000 in
costs. The largest component of claimed expenses are for deposition
transcripts (approximately $8,800). The second-largest are
electronic storage costs ($4,300 to date). Counsel also seek
reimbursement for mailing notices ($2,700 to date). The latter two
will increase with settlement. Other costs flow from filing, Pacer,
advertising, and legal research, and a few miscellaneous
categories, and amounted to $3,000. Appearing reasonable for the
two-year and multi-million-dollar action, Judge Alsup approved the
$20,000 request for costs.

Plaintiff Kudatsky requests $5,000 as an incentive award. Tyler has
not lodged any opposition to the request. Kudatsky declares, under
oath, that he worked closely with class counsel throughout the
litigation, providing about 80 hours of work. An award of $1,000 to
Kudatsky is reasonable under these circumstances and no others are
warranted.

In sum, the class counsel will receive $20,000 as reimbursement for
litigation expenses, to be paid promptly from the settlement fund.
As for the attorneys' fees, the Defendant will wire transfer 50% of
the total $787,500 as of the effective date as defined in the
settlement. The remaining 50% will be paid when the Defendants
certify that all funds have been properly distributed and the file
can be completely closed.

Conclusion

To the extent stated, Judge Alsup granted final approval of the
class settlement, attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2kpdz9aj from Leagle.com.


U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION: Appeals Ruling in Buttermark Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LOUIS L.
BUTTERMARK & SONS, INC., individually, and as representatives of
all trust beneficiaries similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. TECH
CONSTRUCTION CORP., ANNA LUIS ASHA KHALED, LEOPOLDO BAEZ,
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and John Does One through
Ten, and other Lien Holders unknown, Defendants, Case No.
656174/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on August 12,
2016, plaintiff BUTTERMARK entered into a written contract with the
defendant U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. to provide work, labor,
services, and furnish materials, at the Project known as Sophie
Davis Interior Upgrade Phase 1 at City College of New York. The
labor performed was: plumbing work, installed pipe, fittings,
fixtures, floor drain. The materials furnished were: plumbing
materials, pipe, fittings, fixtures, floor drain. These labor and
materials were actually performed and furnished by plaintiff
BUTTERMARK, and have been actually used in the execution of the
parties' contract.

The amount due and owing to BUTTERMARK is $43,246.77, but no
portion of it has been paid although duly demanded.

Plaintiff sued to recover all collection costs, attorney's fees,
and court costs necessarily incurred to collect the sums due.

On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court entered a Memorandum Decision
and Order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as LOUIS L. BUTTERMARK & SONS,
INC., individually, and as representatives of all trust
beneficiaries similarly situated v. U.S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
ANNA LUIS ASHA KHALED, LEOPOLDO BAEZ, PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, and John Does One through Ten, and other Lien
Holders unknown, Case No. 2021-04068, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
filed on November 3, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants .S. TECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., ANNA LUIS ASHA
KHALED, LEOPOLDO BAEZ, PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
and John Does One through Ten, and other Lien Holders unknown, are
represented by:

          Gayle A. Rosen, Esq.
          RABINOWITZ, GALINA & ROSEN
          94 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, New York 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-822

Plaintiff-Appellee LOUIS L. BUTTERMARK & SONS, INC., individually,
and as representatives of all trust beneficiaries similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Leonard J. Catanzaro, Esq.
          555 Lenox Avenue, Suite 2F
          New York, NY 10037
          Telephone: (212) 226-1234

ULTIMATE SACK: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Sack LLC.
The case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ultimate Sack LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-09993 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Ultimate Sack -- https://ultimatesack.com/ -- offers high quality,
low priced bean bag chairs of all sizes are available.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


UNITED STATES: Cabrera's Federal Pretrial Detainees Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the case, JOSE FRANCISCO GUZMAN
CABRERA, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-17483 (BRM) (MAH) (D.N.J.), in its entirety.

Introduction

Before the Court is Plaintiff Cabrera's civil rights amended
complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York severed the
Plaintiff's various restrictive jail conditions claims against
Defendants the United States Marshals Service, Governor Phil
Murphy, Essex County, Director Alfaro Ortiz, Warden Guy Cirillo,
and CFG Medical Services and transferred them to the Court.

At this time, Judge Martinotti must review the Complaint, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Background

The Plaintiff alleges he is a federal pretrial detainees, housed at
the Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey. His
Complaint lists various federal and state law claims. His Complaint
lists various federal and state law claims. He claims Governor
Murphy issued "Covid-19 emergency orders that were used by the
Defendants to deprive the Plaintiff of constitutional rights." He
asserts Director Ortiz issued unspecified "emergency declarations."
He also complains about various pandemic related restrictions at
the jail such as limited visitation, religious services, discovery
access, legal research time, and medical care, as well as slow
mail, lockdowns, extreme quarantines, and a lack of access to
attorneys.

The Plaintiff's Complaint lacks specificity. The Complaint states
only that Governor Murphy issued unspecified "Covid-19 emergency
orders," and Director Ortiz issued unspecified "emergency
declarations." The Complaint fails to delineate which the
Defendants were involved in which alleged violations of his rights.
The Plaintiff does not explain the supposed conspiracy he alleges
deprived him of his rights. Additionally, he requests to proceed on
a class action basis; however, he does not provide any specific
information about how his rights were violated, as opposed to
general allegations of restrictive conditions of confinement
imposed on detainees at Essex County Correctional Facility.

In terms of relief, the Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief. In particular, he seeks to vacate unspecified
pandemic related orders and declarations and requests four days of
jail credit for every day in detention "during the period of March
15, 2020 to present."

Analysis

A. Immune Defendants

Judge Martinotti begins with addressing immunity, because it
appears the Plaintiff has sued several Defendants who are immune
for suit.

1. The United States Marshals Service

It is well-settled that the United States has sovereign immunity
except where it consents to be sued. The United States Marshals
Service is immune from suit in the matter because they have not
explicitly waived sovereign immunity and the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims against the Defendant.
Consequently, the Plaintiff's claims against the United States
Marshals Service are dismissed with prejudice.

1. The United States, the United States Department of Justice, The
United States Marshals Service, and the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey

The United States is entitled to sovereign immunity and has not
waived said immunity. As such, the Plaintiff's claims against the
United States are dismissed with prejudice. Likewise, the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service,
and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
are immune from suit in the matter because they have not explicitly
waived sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claims
against them are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Governor Murphy

Any claim for monetary relief the Plaintiff attempts to raise
against Governor Murphy in his official capacity is barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment "has been
interpreted to render states -- and, by extension, state agencies
and departments and officials when the state is the real party in
interest -- generally immune from suit by private parties in
federal court."

Governor Murphy is a state official sued in his official capacity.
Accordingly, he is entitled to sovereign immunity from the
Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. Judge Martinotti,
therefore, dismissed with prejudice, the Plaintiff's claims against
Governor Murphy for monetary damages.

B. Federal Tort Claims Act

The Plaintiff also raises a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim.
The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity with
respect to tort claims for money damages. Judge Martinotti holds
that the Complaint fails to make any reference to a notice of tort
claim, a demand for sum certain, or that the Plaintiff has
otherwise exhausted their FTCA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
FTCA claim against the United States "for failure to sufficiently
allege the jurisdictional basis" for his claim is dismissed without
prejudice.

C. Supervisory Liability

The Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendants Governor Murphy,
Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo, and CFG Medical
Services are liable as supervisors. He fails to plead sufficient
facts to indicate these Defendants' personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs. The Defendants in a Section 1983 case may not be
held liable solely on the basis of a respondeat superior theory of
liability premised on their vicarious responsibility for the
actions of their subordinates.

In the matter, the Plaintiff fails to plead facts to show
Defendants Governor Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden
Cirillo and CFG Medical Services personally involved in actions
that violated his rights. He makes a single brief reference to
unspecified policies and customs. He fails to explain what policies
they are referring to or how they allegedly violated any of their
personal rights. Judge Martinotti dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Governor Murphy, Essex
County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo and CFG Medical Services.

D. Group Pleadings

The Plaintiff raises various claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
702. Throughout the Complaint, he raised claims regarding prison
conditions, such as a lack of access to dental care, limited access
to medical services, limited access to counsel, isolation and lack
of family visits. He also alleges the Defendants conspired to deny
them of their constitutional rights. He fails to delineate which
the Defendants are responsible for which action. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants in general are responsible for these
wrongs.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiff does not plead how they
were personally affected by any specific Defendants actions. He
finds that the Plaintiff makes conclusory statements that
Defendants generally are responsible for the alleged wrongs.
Similarly, the Plaintiff's conspiracy claim does not allege
specific facts. Rather, the Plaintiff merely asserts a conspiracy
existed. The Plaintiff fails to plead facts of an actual agreement
or concerted action. As such, he has failed to plead a conspiracy.

In sum, Judge Martinotti holds that the Plaintiff's claims fail to
sufficiently allege what his claims are against each Defendant and
fail to provide fair notice of the grounds on which they intend to
rest their claims. Stated differently, such claims "would not
provide any meaningful opportunity for the remaining Defendants to
decipher or answer the vague allegations levied against them."
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and 5 U.S.C. Section 702 are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

E. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Plaintiff also raises claims against all the Defendants under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d). In order to have standing to litigate
a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show that she suffered an
injury to her business or property and that the injury was
proximately caused by the defendant's racketeering activities.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiff fails to adequately
plead the elements required for a RICO claim. He says, the
Plaintiff's RICO allegation states only that the Defendants "acted
as a criminal enterprise that is run as a business with a pattern
of illicit conduct exceeding two predicate acts that equates to
fraud, corruption, violence and activity in furtherance of human
trafficking and slavery." The Complaint does not specify how the
Defendants formed a "criminal enterprise" or what predicate acts
they took part in. Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to allege
a "concrete financial loss." The Complaint only raises allegations
of constitutional violations related to personal injury, which are
not proper RICO losses. The Plaintiff's RICO claims offers only
conclusory allegation, which fail to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's RICO claims are dismissed without
prejudice because they have failed to state claim in which relief
can be granted.

F. Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act

The Plaintiff also asserts claims under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb, et seq., and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc, et seq. To state a claim
under either statute, the "Plaintiff must allege facts that
indicate that the federal government substantially burdened a
sincerely held religious belief."

The Plaintiff does not allege facts to support an RLUIPA claim. The
Complaint only submits that the COVID-19 related jail restrictions
are interfering with religious practices. The Plaintiff alleges no
facts regarding their own religious beliefs. As such, his RLUIPA
and RFRA claims are dismissed without prejudice. Finally, as no
federal claims remain in the case, Judge Martinotti declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining
state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the United States Marshals
Service and the claims against Governor Murphy in his official
capacity for monetary relief. He dismissed without prejudice the
remainder of the Plaintiff's federal claims. He declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law
claims. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8dvutk from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Graham v. IRS Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania dismissed without prejudice the case,
ROLAND GRAHAM, Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-CV-1411 (E.D. Pa.),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Background

Graham, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Philadelphia
Industrial Correctional Center ("PICC"), filed the pro se civil
case against the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue
Service ("IRS") asserting that he did not receive his federal
stimulus checks. On March 24, 2021, Graham, along with several
other prisoners incarcerated at PICC, filed a Complaint against the
IRS with respect to their alleged failure to receive their federal
stimulus checks. The Complaint was signed by Graham, as well as
Cesar Saez, Charles Green, Fernando Miraye, Antwon Richard, Durward
Allen, Doug Weiser, Andre Davis, Nafece Martin, and Wykeem Bass. As
of the filing of the Complaint, none of the Plaintiffs paid the
fees necessary to commence a civil action in the Court or filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis along with a certified
copy of his prisoner account statement.

On April 9, 2021, the Court granted each Plaintiff 30 days to
correct the initial filing deficiencies and directed the Clerk of
Court to furnish each Plaintiff with a blank copy of the Court's
standard prisoner in forma pauperis form to be used if a Plaintiff
sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Following the April 9,
2021 Order, the Court granted all the named Plaintiffs multiple
extensions of time to correct the initial deficiencies, ultimately
allowing each Plaintiff more than three months to either pay the
fees necessary to commence a civil action or file an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. Only Graham filed a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, as well as a prisoner account statement, on his own
behalf. On July 12, 2021, the Court granted Graham leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Because none
of the other named Plaintiffs paid the fees necessary to commence a
civil action or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
along with a certified copy of his prisoner account statement, the
Court dismissed each of them without prejudice.

Graham's allegations are brief. He asserts that the IRS "cannot
deny economic impact payments" under the "CARES Act" to
incarcerated individuals. He seeks an order directing the IRS "to
immediately release his 3 stimulus checks" he has not yet received.
He also seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 and
punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.

Discussion

I.

Graham is proceeding in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to
dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether a
complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is
governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires the
Court to determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face."

At this early stage of the litigation, the Court will accept the
facts alleged in the pro se complaint as true, draw all reasonable
inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, and ask only whether that
complaint, liberally construed, contains facts sufficient to state
a plausible claim. Moreover, if the Court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss
the action." As Graham is proceeding pro se, Judge Pappert
construes his allegations liberally.

II.

Graham filed the case pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act. Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).
The CARES Act was signed into law on March 27, 2020 as part of the
Government's response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Section
2201 of the statute created a "recovery rebate," structured as a
$1,200 tax credit for eligible individuals. The tax credit was
treated as an "advance refund," meaning qualified individuals would
directly receive the rebate as an economic impact payment or so
called "stimulus check." The CARES Act directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to issue the credit "as rapidly as possible" and specifies
that no impact payment "shall be made or allowed" after Dec. 31,
2020. Graham seeks a belated stimulus payment.

Construing Graham's allegations liberally, Judge Pappert assumes at
this early juncture and without definitively determining that the
United States has waived its sovereign immunity for his claim.

The next question is whether a person seeking payment under the
CARES Act must exhaust administrative remedies by first filing a
claim for a refund with the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 7422.
Again, construing Graham's allegations liberally, Judge Pappert
assumes without deciding that no exhaustion is required since
Graham is not challenging an "internal revenue tax alleged to have
been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any
penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or of any
sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully
collected."

Nonetheless, Graham's case is not plausible and must be dismissed
under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) because he lacks standing to bring his
claim. Judge Papper finds that it is clear from the face of
Graham's Complaint that he has not suffered an actual or imminent
injury-in-fact. Graham has not established that he has suffered an
injury or will suffer an imminent injury if the Court does not
address his claims because the CARES Act did not grant an eligible
individual a right to an immediate economic impact payment.

Assuming Graham is an eligible individual as defined under the law,
his claim to an economic impact payment would not be infringed upon
unless and until he files his 2020 tax return and is denied the
payment by the IRS. Graham therefore has not alleged "an invasion
of a legally protected interest" that is actual or imminent.

III.

Finally, Graham's Complaint cites to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions, and he has also
repeatedly referred to the matter as a class action. Although pro
se litigants who are not lawyers may represent themselves, they may
not pursue claims on behalf of others, including a class of other
inmates. Accordingly, the case cannot proceed as a potential class
action.

Order

For these reasons, Judge Pappert dismissed without prejudice
Graham's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9y7872 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Tosses Williams Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the case, RUFUS WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-503 (BRM)(ESK)(D.N.J.).

Introduction

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Rufus Williams and Creaghan Harry's
civil rights amended complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. The Plaintiffs are pro se federal pretrial detainees. The
Plaintiffs' Complaint raises various claims arising out of alleged
violations of their speedy trial rights resulting from the Court's
COVID-19 related standing orders, as well as various restrictive
jail conditions claims, against the Unites States, the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service,
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Chief Judge Freda Wolfson, Governor Phil Murphy, Essex County,
Director Alfaro Ortiz, Warden Guy Cirillo, and CFG Medical
Services.

At this time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Background

The Plaintiffs allege they are federal pretrial detainees, housed
at the Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey.
Their Complaint lists various federal and state law claims. The
Plaintiffs allege Chief Judge Wolfson and the Government violated
their speedy trial rights through Chief Judge Wolfson's issuance of
COVID-19 pandemic related standing orders. In those orders, Chief
Judge Wolfson held that the pandemic warranted the exclusion of
various periods of time from the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 3161(h)(7)(A).

The Plaintiffs also claim Governor Murphy issued "Covid-19
emergency orders that were used by defendants to deprive plaintiff
of constitutional rights." They assert Director Ortiz issued
unspecified "emergency declarations." They also allege this Court
and the United States employ some of the Defendants and should be
responsible based on that employment and that the Defendants
conspired to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights. The Plaintiffs
also complain about various pandemic related restrictions at the
jail such as limited visitation, religious services, discovery
access, legal research time, and medical care, as well as slow
mail, lockdowns, extreme quarantines, and a lack of access to
attorneys.

The Plaintiff's Complaint lacks specificity. The Complaint states
only: (1) Chief Judge Wolfson issued the standing orders Plaintiffs
believe violated their Speedy Trial rights (2) Governor Murphy
issued unspecified "Covid-19 emergency orders"; and (3) Director
Ortiz issued unspecified "emergency declarations." The Complaint
fails to delineate which the Defendants were involved in which
alleged violations of his rights. The Plaintiffs do not explain the
supposed conspiracy they allege deprived them of their rights.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs request to proceed on a class action
basis; however, they do not provide any specific information about
how their rights were violated, as opposed to general allegations
of restrictive conditions of confinement imposed on detainees at
Essex County Correctional Facility.

In terms of relief, the Plaintiffs seek monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief. In particular, they seek to vacate unspecified
pandemic related orders and declarations and requests four days of
jail credit for every day in detention "during the period of March
15, 2020 to present."

In Jan. 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. In
March 2021, they filed applications to amend their initial
complaint. In April 2021, they filed the operative Complaint in the
matter.

Analysis

A. Immune Defendants

Judge Martinotti begins with addressing immunity, because it
appears the Plaintiffs have sued several Defendants who are immune
for suit.

1. The United States, the United States Department of Justice, The
United States Marshals Service, and the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey

The United States is entitled to sovereign immunity and has not
waived said immunity. As such, the Plaintiffs' claims against the
United States are dismissed with prejudice. Likewise, the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service,
and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
are immune from suit in the matter because they have not explicitly
waived sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claims
against them are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Chief Judge Wolfson

The Plaintiffs raise claims against Chief Judge Wolfson based on
her issuance of the COVID-19 standing orders and those orders'
exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, in light of the
pandemic. Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a judicial
officer has absolute immunity from suit for action taken in his or
her judicial capacity. Chief Judge Wolfson's standing orders were
issued in a judicial rather than administrative capacity. The
standing orders addressed the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on
the speedy trial rights of the pretrial detainees in the District.
Hence, the Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages against Chief
Judge Wolfson are dismissed with prejudice because her standing
orders were issued in a judicial capacity.

Chief Judge Wolfson is also immune from suit with respect to the
Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief. Except in very limited
circumstances, judges are immune from personal-capacity suits for
injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs make a conclusory statement that
"a decree was violated, and declaratory relief was not made
available." They fail to submit what decree was violated. They also
explicitly seek declaratory relief in the matter. The Plaintiffs
have failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, Judge Martinotti dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief against Chief Judge Wolfson
because the Plaintiffs have failed to plead Chief Judge Wolfson
violated any declaratory decree or that declaratory relief is
unavailable.

The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief, requesting a
"declaration" that various statutes and constitutional amendments
were violated. In the case, Judge Martinotti finds that the
non-monetary relief sought (i.e., a declaration that statutes and
constitutional amendments were violated) is improper. Indeed,
declaratory relief is only appropriate for future conduct, but in
the case, the relief is sought for alleged harm caused by past
"violations." The Plaintiffs do not provide any facts regarding a
future injury. More importantly, the Plaintiffs fail to provide any
facts regarding how the standing orders affected them personally,
aside from general allegations, and any future injury Plaintiffs
personally face. As such, declaratory relief is improperly pled.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief against
Chief Judge Wolfson are dismissed without prejudice.

3. Governor Murphy

Any claim for monetary relief the Plaintiffs attempt to raise
against Governor Murphy in his official capacity is barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment "has been
interpreted to render states -- and, by extension, state agencies
and departments and officials when the state is the real party in
interest -- generally immune from suit by private parties in
federal court."

Governor Murphy is a state official sued in his official capacity.
Accordingly, he is entitled to sovereign immunity from the
Plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages. Judge Martinotti,
therefore, dismissed with prejudice, the Plaintiffs' claims against
Governor Murphy for monetary damages.

B. Federal Tort Claims Act

The Plaintiffs also raise a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim.
The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity with
respect to tort claims for money damages. Judge Martinotti holds
that the Complaint fails to make any reference to a notice of tort
claim, a demand for sum certain, or that the Plaintiffs have
otherwise exhausted their FTCA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
FTCA claim against the United States "for failure to sufficiently
allege the jurisdictional basis" for his claim is dismissed without
prejudice.

C. Supervisory Liability

The Plaintiffs appear to claim that Defendants Governor Murphy,
Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo, and CFG Medical
Services are liable as supervisors. They fail to plead sufficient
facts to indicate these Defendants' personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs. The Defendants in a Section 1983 case may not be
held liable solely on the basis of a respondeat superior theory of
liability premised on their vicarious responsibility for the
actions of their subordinates.

In the matter, the Plaintiffs fail to plead facts to show
Defendants Governor Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden
Cirillo and CFG Medical Services personally involved in actions
that violated the Plaintiffs' rights. They make a single brief
reference to unspecified policies and customs. They fail to explain
what policies they are referring to or how they allegedly violated
any of their personal rights. Judge Martinotti dismissed without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Governor
Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo and CFG
Medical Services.

D. Group Pleadings

The Plaintiffs raise various claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
702. Throughout the Complaint, the Plaintiffs raise claims
regarding prison conditions, such as a lack of access to dental
care, limited access to medical services, limited access to
counsel, isolation and lack of family visits. They also allege the
Defendants conspired to deny them of their constitutional rights.
They fail to delineate which the Defendants are responsible for
which action. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants in general
are responsible for these wrongs.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiffs do not plead how they
were personally affected by any specific Defendants actions. He
finds that the Plaintiffs make conclusory statements that
Defendants generally are responsible for the alleged wrongs.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim does not allege
specific facts. Rather, the Plaintiffs merely assert a conspiracy
existed. The Plaintiffs fail to plead facts of an actual agreement
or concerted action. As such, they have failed to plead a
conspiracy.
In sum, Judge Martinotti holds that the Plaintiffs' claims fail to
sufficiently allege what their claims are against each Defendant
and fail to provide fair notice of the grounds on which they intend
to rest their claims. Stated differently, such claims "would not
provide any meaningful opportunity for the remaining Defendants to
decipher or answer the vague allegations levied against them."
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and 5 U.S.C. Section 702 are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

E. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Plaintiffs also raise claims against all the Defendants under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d). In order to have standing to litigate
a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show that she suffered an
injury to her business or property and that the injury was
proximately caused by the defendant's racketeering activities.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiffs fail to adequately
plead the elements required for a RICO claim. He says, the
Plaintiffs' RICO allegation states only that the Defendants "acted
as a criminal enterprise that is run as a business with a pattern
of illicit conduct exceeding two predicate acts that equates to
fraud, corruption, violence and activity in furtherance of human
trafficking and slavery." The Complaint does not specify how the
Defendants formed a "criminal enterprise" or what predicate acts
they took part in. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege a "concrete financial loss." The Complaint only raises
allegations of constitutional violations related to personal
injury, which are not proper RICO losses. The Plaintiffs' RICO
claims offers only conclusory allegation, which fail to state a
claim for relief. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' RICO claims are
dismissed without prejudice because they have failed to state claim
in which relief can be granted.

F. Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act

The Plaintiff also asserts claims under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb, et seq., and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc et seq. To state a claim under
either statute, the "Plaintiff must allege facts that indicate that
the federal government substantially burdened a sincerely held
religious belief."

The Plaintiffs do not allege facts to support an RLUIPA claim. The
Complaint only submits that the COVID-19 related jail restrictions
are interfering with religious practices. The Plaintiffs allege no
facts regarding their own religious beliefs. As such, the
Plaintiffs' RLUIPA and RFRA claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Finally, as no federal claims remain in the case, Judge Martinotti
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
remaining state law claims, including any claims under the New
Jersey Civil Rights Act.

G. Request for Jail Credits

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek four extra jail credits for
every day spent in detention during the pandemic for unspecified
detainees. Detainees may not, however, use a civil rights complaint
to "challenge the fact or length of their detention." Rather,
detainees must raise any claim "which would impugn or otherwise
overturn the fact or length of detention via a criminal motion or a
habeas petition." As a result, the Plaintiffs' request for
additional jail credits is denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against the United States, the
United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals
Service, for the District of New Jersey, Chief Judge Wolfson for
monetary relief, and Governor Murphy in his official capacity for
monetary relief. He dismissed without prejudice the remainder of
the Plaintiffs' federal claims. He declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. An appropriate
Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/53b5usju from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Tosses Wise Pretrial Detainees Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the case, RANDAL L. WISE,
Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-10168 (BRM) (AME) (D.N.J.).

Introduction

Before the Court is Plaintiff Wise's civil rights amended
complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff
is a pro se federal pretrial detainee. Based on his affidavit of
indigence, the Court previously granted him leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and ordered the Clerk of Court to file the
Complaint.

The Plaintiff's Complaint raises various claims arising out of
alleged violations of his speedy trial rights resulting from the
Court's COVID-19 related standing orders, as well as various
restrictive jail conditions claims, against the Unites States, the
United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals
Service, the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Chief Judge Freda Wolfson, Governor Phil Murphy, Essex
County, Director Alfaro Ortiz, Warden Guy Cirillo, and CFG Medical
Services.

At this time, Judge Martinotti must review the Complaint, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, to determine whether it
should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Background

The Plaintiff alleges he is a federal pretrial detainees, housed at
the Essex County Correctional Facility, in Newark, New Jersey.
Their Complaint lists various federal and state law claims. His
Complaint lists various federal and state law claims. He alleges
Chief Judge Wolfson and the Government violated his speedy trial
rights through Chief Judge Wolfson's issuance of COVID-19 pandemic
related standing orders. In those orders, Chief Judge Wolfson held
that the pandemic warranted the exclusion of various periods of
time from the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A).

The Plaintiff also claims Governor Murphy issued "Covid-19
emergency orders that were used by defendants to deprive plaintiff
of constitutional rights." He asserts Director Ortiz issued
unspecified "emergency declarations." He also alleges the Court and
the United States employ some of the Defendants and should be
responsible based on that employment and that the Defendants
conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights. The Plaintiff
also complain about various pandemic related restrictions at the
jail such as limited visitation, religious services, discovery
access, legal research time, and medical care, as well as slow
mail, lockdowns, extreme quarantines, and a lack of access to
attorneys.

The Plaintiff's Complaint lacks specificity. The Complaint states
only: (1) Chief Judge Wolfson issued the standing orders the
Plaintiff believe violated their Speedy Trial rights (2) Governor
Murphy issued unspecified "Covid-19 emergency orders"; and (3)
Director Ortiz issued unspecified "emergency declarations." The
Complaint fails to delineate which the Defendants were involved in
which alleged violations of his rights. The Plaintiff does not
explain the supposed conspiracy they allege deprived them of their
rights. Additionally, the Plaintiff requests to proceed on a class
action basis; however, they do not provide any specific information
about how their rights were violated, as opposed to general
allegations of restrictive conditions of confinement imposed on
detainees at Essex County Correctional Facility.

In terms of relief, the Plaintiff seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief. In particular, he seeks to vacate unspecified
pandemic related orders and declarations and requests four days of
jail credit for every day in detention "during the period of March
15, 2020 to present."

Analysis

A. Immune Defendants

Judge Martinotti begins with addressing immunity, because it
appears the Plaintiff has sued several Defendants who are immune
for suit.

1. The United States, the United States Department of Justice, The
United States Marshals Service, and the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey

The United States is entitled to sovereign immunity and has not
waived said immunity. As such, the Plaintiff's claims against the
United States are dismissed with prejudice. Likewise, the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals Service,
and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
are immune from suit in the matter because they have not explicitly
waived sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Plaintiff's claims
against them are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Chief Judge Wolfson

The Plaintiff raises claims against Chief Judge Wolfson based on
her issuance of the COVID-19 standing orders and those orders'
exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, in light of the
pandemic. Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a judicial
officer has absolute immunity from suit for action taken in his or
her judicial capacity. Chief Judge Wolfson's standing orders were
issued in a judicial rather than administrative capacity. The
standing orders addressed the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on
the speedy trial rights of the pretrial detainees in the District.
Hence, the Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against Chief
Judge Wolfson are dismissed with prejudice because her standing
orders were issued in a judicial capacity.

Chief Judge Wolfson is also immune from suit with respect to the
Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief. Except in very limited
circumstances, judges are immune from personal-capacity suits for
injunctive relief. The Plaintiff makes a conclusory statement that
"a decree was violated, and declaratory relief was not made
available." He fails to submit what decree was violated. They also
explicitly seek declaratory relief in the matter. The Plaintiff has
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, Judge Martinotti dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief against Chief Judge Wolfson
because the Plaintiff has failed to plead Chief Judge Wolfson
violated any declaratory decree or that declaratory relief is
unavailable.

The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief, requesting a
"declaration" that various statutes and constitutional amendments
were violated. In the case, Judge Martinotti finds that the
non-monetary relief sought (i.e., a declaration that statutes and
constitutional amendments were violated) is improper. Indeed,
declaratory relief is only appropriate for future conduct, but in
the case, the relief is sought for alleged harm caused by past
"violations." The Plaintiff does not provide any facts regarding a
future injury. More importantly, the Plaintiff fails to provide any
facts regarding how the standing orders affected them personally,
aside from general allegations, and any future injury the Plaintiff
personally faces. As such, declaratory relief is improperly pled.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief against
Chief Judge Wolfson are dismissed without prejudice.

3. Governor Murphy

Any claim for monetary relief the Plaintiff attempts to raise
against Governor Murphy in his official capacity is barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Eleventh Amendment "has been
interpreted to render states -- and, by extension, state agencies
and departments and officials when the state is the real party in
interest -- generally immune from suit by private parties in
federal court."

Governor Murphy is a state official sued in his official capacity.
Accordingly, he is entitled to sovereign immunity from the
Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages. Judge Martinotti,
therefore, dismissed with prejudice, the Plaintiff's claims against
Governor Murphy for monetary damages.

B. Federal Tort Claims Act

The Plaintiff also raises a Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim.
The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity with
respect to tort claims for money damages. Judge Martinotti holds
that the Complaint fails to make any reference to a notice of tort
claim, a demand for sum certain, or that the Plaintiff has
otherwise exhausted their FTCA claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
FTCA claim against the United States "for failure to sufficiently
allege the jurisdictional basis" for his claim is dismissed without
prejudice.

C. Supervisory Liability

The Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendants Governor Murphy,
Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo, and CFG Medical
Services are liable as supervisors. He fails to plead sufficient
facts to indicate these Defendants' personal involvement in the
alleged wrongs. The Defendants in a Section 1983 case may not be
held liable solely on the basis of a respondeat superior theory of
liability premised on their vicarious responsibility for the
actions of their subordinates.

In the matter, the Plaintiff fails to plead facts to show
Defendants Governor Murphy, Essex County, Director Ortiz, Warden
Cirillo and CFG Medical Services personally involved in actions
that violated his rights. He makes a single brief reference to
unspecified policies and customs. He fails to explain what policies
they are referring to or how they allegedly violated any of their
personal rights. Judge Martinotti dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Governor Murphy, Essex
County, Director Ortiz, Warden Cirillo and CFG Medical Services.

D. Group Pleadings

The Plaintiff raises various claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
702. Throughout the Complaint, he raised claims regarding prison
conditions, such as a lack of access to dental care, limited access
to medical services, limited access to counsel, isolation and lack
of family visits. He also alleges the Defendants conspired to deny
them of their constitutional rights. He fails to delineate which
the Defendants are responsible for which action. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants in general are responsible for these
wrongs.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiff does not plead how they
were personally affected by any specific Defendants actions. He
finds that the Plaintiff makes conclusory statements that
Defendants generally are responsible for the alleged wrongs.
Similarly, the Plaintiff's conspiracy claim does not allege
specific facts. Rather, the Plaintiff merely asserts a conspiracy
existed. The Plaintiff fails to plead facts of an actual agreement
or concerted action. As such, he has failed to plead a conspiracy.

In sum, Judge Martinotti holds that the Plaintiff's claims fail to
sufficiently allege what his claims are against each Defendant and
fail to provide fair notice of the grounds on which they intend to
rest their claims. Stated differently, such claims "would not
provide any meaningful opportunity for the remaining Defendants to
decipher or answer the vague allegations levied against them."
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, 1986, and 5 U.S.C. Section 702 are dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

E. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Plaintiff also raises claims against all the Defendants under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c), (d). In order to have standing to litigate
a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show that she suffered an
injury to her business or property and that the injury was
proximately caused by the defendant's racketeering activities.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Plaintiff fails to adequately
plead the elements required for a RICO claim. He says, the
Plaintiff's RICO allegation states only that the Defendants "acted
as a criminal enterprise that is run as a business with a pattern
of illicit conduct exceeding two predicate acts that equates to
fraud, corruption, violence and activity in furtherance of human
trafficking and slavery." The Complaint does not specify how the
Defendants formed a "criminal enterprise" or what predicate acts
they took part in. Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to allege
a "concrete financial loss." The Complaint only raises allegations
of constitutional violations related to personal injury, which are
not proper RICO losses. The Plaintiff's RICO claims offers only
conclusory allegation, which fail to state a claim for relief.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's RICO claims are dismissed without
prejudice because they have failed to state claim in which relief
can be granted.

F. Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act

The Plaintiff also asserts claims under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000bb, et seq., and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc, et seq. To state a claim
under either statute, the "Plaintiff must allege facts that
indicate that the federal government substantially burdened a
sincerely held religious belief."

The Plaintiff does not allege facts to support an RLUIPA claim. The
Complaint only submits that the COVID-19 related jail restrictions
are interfering with religious practices. The Plaintiff alleges no
facts regarding their own religious beliefs. As such, his RLUIPA
and RFRA claims are dismissed without prejudice. Finally, as no
federal claims remain in the case, Judge Martinotti declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining
state law claims, including any claims under the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act.

G. Request for Jail Credits

In their Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks four extra jail credits for
every day spent in detention during the pandemic for unspecified
detainees. Detainees may not, however, use a civil rights complaint
to "challenge the fact or length of their detention." Rather,
detainees must raise any claim "which would impugn or otherwise
overturn the fact or length of detention via a criminal motion or a
habeas petition." As a result, the Plaintiff' request for
additional jail credits is denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against the United States, the
United States Department of Justice, the United States Marshals
Service, for the District of New Jersey, Chief Judge Wolfson for
monetary relief, and Governor Murphy in his official capacity for
monetary relief. He dismissed without prejudice the remainder of
the Plaintiff's federal claims. He declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims. An
appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3azpr4k9 from Leagle.com.


URBAN OFFICE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urban Office Products
Inc. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Urban Office Products
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09681 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2021).

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

Urban Office Products -- https://www.urbanofficeproducts.com/ --
provides office supplies, laser toner, and office furniture
throughout the New York city area and beyond.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett Scott Charo, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jcharo@mizrahikroub.com


UVNV INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UVNV, Inc. The case
is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. UVNV, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10043
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

UVNV, Inc., doing business as Ultra Mobile --
http://www.ultramobile.com/-- is an American Mobile Virtual
Network Operator, founded in 2011, which sells low-cost prepaid
mobile phone services with unlimited international calling and text
plans, operating on T-Mobile's cellular network in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


VACUUM INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Vacuum Inc. The
case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mr. Vacuum Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09945 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Mr. Vacuum Inc. doing business as Mr Vac & Mrs Sew --
https://www.mrvacandmrssew.com/ -- offers a wide variety of sewing
machines, vacuum cleaners, embroidery machines, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


VAIL CORP: McAuliffe Appeals Dismissal of Resort Fee Refund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael McAuliffe, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL McAULIFFE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE VAIL CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01121-RBJ, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 8, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought to secure partial refunds for each and every
similarly situated consumer that the Defendant has wronged by
refusing to issue refunds for season passes and Epic Daily Passes
with unused days, when the Defendant closed its resorts starting
between March 15 and March 20, 2020.

According to the complaint, activities, such as skiing and
snowboarding--and especially using lifts to access the ski and
snowboard routes--are difficult, if not impossible, to safely
participate in while social distancing to help avoid contracting
the coronavirus. As such, beginning on March 15, 2020, the
Defendant suspended operations at all of its resorts in North
America, and, within the following five days, closed all of its
resorts.

After the Defendant closed its ski resorts early due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, class members were unable to use the remaining
value in their passes, and Defendant has refused to refund the
Plaintiffs and Class members for the unusable portion of the
passes, according to the complaint. The Defendant has shifted the
financial burden of this extraordinary crisis onto its customers,
who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for lift tickets and
passes to ski or snowboard at the Defendant's properties.

Specifically, the Defendant has refused to refund to its customers
any portion of the money paid for tickets and passes they cannot
use; money that they need to provide for themselves and their
families during this crisis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant's conduct breaches its contract with
passholders, is unfair, unlawful, and unconscionable, and unjustly
enriches it at the expense of its customers.

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiffs Michael McAuliffe and George T. Farmer
moved the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to consolidate
and transfer the related actions against The Vail Resorts, Inc.,
and any tag-along actions, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
purposes.

On October 15, 2021, Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order and
final judgment granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case with
prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as McAuliffe et al v. Vail
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-1400, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on November 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL McAULIFFE, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe Street
          Media, Pennsylvania 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Katherine D. Varholak, Esq.
          SHERMAN & HOWARD, LLC
          633 17th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 297-2900
          E-mail: kvarholak@shermanhoward.com

VANT PANELS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vant Panels LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vant Panels LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10056 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Vant Panels -- https://vantpanels.com/ -- brings luxurious
headboard and wall paneling into customers' home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


VEGGIE GRILL: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Veggie Grill,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Veggie Grill, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-09960 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Veggie Grill -- https://veggiegrill.com/ -- is a fast-casual vegan
restaurant chain that operates in California, Oregon, Washington,
Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


VINOLIO EXPORTS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vinolio Exports and
Imports, LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vinolio Exports and
Imports, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09965 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Vinolio Exports and Imports, LLC is located in NAPA, California and
is part of the Beer, Wine, and Liquor Stores Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


VM INNOVATIONS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VM Innovations, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. VM Innovations, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10033 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

VM Innovations -- https://www.vminnovations.com/ -- offers the
lowest prices on sports, outdoor, baby products, pool & spa supply,
electronics, home, garden equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


W.B. HUNT CO: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.B. Hunt Co., Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. W.B. Hunt Co., Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10014 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

W.B. Hunt Co., Inc., doing business as Hunts Photo & Video --
https://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/ -- retails photographic
supplies and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


WALMART INC: DeMaso Sues Over Fudge Mint Cookies' Deceptive Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DEMASO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-06334 (N.D. Ill., November 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and violations
of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
State Consumer Fraud Acts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Fudge Mint Cookies under the Great Value brand. The product lacks
essential fudge ingredients because it does not contain any dairy
ingredients and substitutes lower quality and lower-priced
"Vegetable Oil Shortening," a mix of canola, palm kernel and palm
oils, shown in the ingredient list. Even though the fudge and
cookie ingredients are not identified separately, it is apparent
that the vegetable shortening is part of the "fudge" because it
would not be a part of a regular chocolate mint cookie. Moreover,
the product's mint representation is misleading because it contains
no mint, indicated by its absence on the ingredient list. Instead,
the product's mint taste is from the "Natural and Artificial
Flavor," which is a synthesized blend of compounds extracted in a
laboratory from artificial sources which may include petroleum
byproducts. Reasonable consumers are misled by the product's
statements, "Fudge Mint Cookies," and the pictures of the cookie
coated with what appears to be fudge and two mint leaves next to
the word, "Mint," says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the
Plaintiff and Class members bought the product. Had they known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for it.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation,
headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

WEIDER GLOBAL: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weider Global
Nutrition, LLC. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Weider Global
Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10050 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Weider Global Nutrition -- https://www.weider.com/ -- is a sports
nutrition COMPANY specializing in Nutritional Supplements for you
to live a stronger, healthier, and better life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


WELLBOTS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellbots Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wellbots Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10057
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Wellbots Inc. -- https://www.wellbots.com/ -- is an award-winning
online retailer of Smart Products including robot vacuums, electric
scooters and drones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


WESCOVER INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wescover, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wescover, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09955 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Wescover -- https://www.wescover.com/ -- is a marketplace of unique
art and designs — shared and sold directly by the original
Creator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


WEVIDEO INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WeVideo, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. WeVideo, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-10024 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

WeVideo -- https://www.wevideo.com/ -- is an online, cloud-based
video editing platform that works in web browsers and on mobile
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


WICKER PARADISE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wicker Paradise, LTD.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wicker Paradise, LTD., Case No.
1:21-cv-10040 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Wicker Paradise -- https://www.wickerparadise.com/ -- has been
providing premium, affordable wicker, rattan patio furniture and
resin for over 30 year.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com



WIRCO INC: Like Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Clifford Like, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wirco, Inc., Case No. 2021L000167, was
removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court Champaign County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on
Nov. 24, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02289-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

Wirco -- https://www.wirco.com/ -- is an alloy fabrication and
casting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, PC
          200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: (630) 355-7590
          Fax: (630) 929-7590
          Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLANOS PC
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Phone: (630) 355-7590
          Fax: (630) 778-0400

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lena Shapiro, Esq.
          Peter M. Spingola, Esq.
          CHAPMAN SPINGOLA LLC
          190 S LaSalle Street, Suite 3850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 606-8641
          Fax: (312) 630-9233
          Email: lshapiro@chapmanspingola.com
                 pspingola@chapmanspingola.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Shapiro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT SHAPIRO
          94 Green Street
          Jamica Plain, MA 02130
          Phone: (617) 522-7597
          Fax: (617) 249-1877
          Email: comlawjp@gmail.com



WOLACO INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolaco, Inc. The case
is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Wolaco, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-09956 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

WOLACO -- https://www.wolaco.com/ -- offers a solution to modern
day deficiencies in fitness apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WOODS GOODS: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woods Goods Company
LLC. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Woods Goods Company LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10047 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

Woods Goods -- https://woodsgoodsco.com/ -- provide unique products
and gifts for anyone who loves food, spirits, and grilling.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com


WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Denies Mandamus Petition in Yeomans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TRICIA YEOMANS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. WORLD
FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC., a California corporation;
WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Georgia corporation,
Defendants-Appellants. In re: WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE
AGENCY, LLC.; WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP
INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC., a California corporation; WORLD FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., a Georgia corporation, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
FRANCISCO, Respondent, TRICIA YEOMANS, et al., Real Parties in
Interest, Case Nos. 20-16937, 20-73758 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum:

    (i) denying World Financial Group's mandamus petition; and

   (ii) affirming the district court's order denying World
        Financial Group's motion to compel arbitration.

Introduction

World Financial Group, Inc. and World Financial Group Insurance
Agency (collectively, World Financial Group) seek a writ of
mandamus to force the district court to grant their motion to
transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia and appeal from
the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration
in the Plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit.

Analysis

A. Mandamus Petition

On direct appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviews the denial of a motion
to transfer venue for abuse of discretion, therefore, review in
mandamus proceedings is "especially deferential." While there are
no specified time limits for seeking mandamus relief, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1651, laches might bar a petition for a writ of mandamus if
the petitioner slept upon his rights.

In the case, the Ninth Circuit notes that there was no "flurry of
activity" -- for example, a motion to reconsider or a motion for an
interlocutory appeal -- after the district court denied World
Financial Group's motion to transfer venue to Georgia. Instead,
World Financial Group waited approximately eight months and then
moved to compel arbitration. And it was over three months after the
district court declined to compel arbitration before World
Financial Group filed its Petition for Writ of Mandamus. This type
of delayed action is what "makes the application of laches
appropriate."

B. Motion to Compel Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit reviews the denial of a motion to compel
arbitration de novo and the "findings of fact underlying that
decision for clear error." It reviews a district court's decision
not to sever unconscionable portions of an arbitration agreement
for abuse of discretion."

First, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not err
in holding that World Financial Group failed to establish that
plaintiff Adrian Rodriguez agreed to the arbitration clause, and
that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. The Plaintiffs
have shown that there was surprise in the contracting process, and
that some of the terms were "unreasonably favorable to World
Financial Group, the more powerful party."

Moreover, given the relatively high degree of procedural
unconscionability and multiple unconscionable provisions, the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to
sever the unconscionable provisions because the arbitration
agreement lacked mutuality and "the central purpose was tainted"
with an intent to deter World Financial Group Associates, like the
Plaintiffs, from enforcing their rights under California law.

Finally, it also was not error for the district court to decline to
entertain World Financial Group's request for a jury trial on the
parties' contract formation dispute. Only "the party alleged to be
in default" of the arbitration agreement may demand a jury trial
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In the case, the parties
alleged to be in default are the Plaintiffs, and the general demand
for a jury trial in their operative complaint is insufficient to
demand a jury trial under the FAA because they did not allege the
existence of an arbitration agreement in their complaint.

Disposition

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied, and the denial of the
Motion to Compel Arbitration is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 17, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckvhv7x from Leagle.com.


WORLDVENTURES MARKETING: Fralish Sues Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FRALISH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WORLDVENTURES MARKETING, LLC d/b/a DreamTrips and
Rovia, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00874 (N.D. Ind., November
15, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous
pre-recorded calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number,
which was registered in the Do Not Call Registry in or around May
2019. Allegedly, the Defendant's pre-recorded calls were a
marketing ploy to promote the Defendant's DreamTrips memberships
and Rovia booking services. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant's telemarketing robocalls were annoying and harassing
nuisance and his privacy has been violated. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed
by the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct.

WorldVentures Marketing, LLC provides leisure travel services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

                - and –

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Tel: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

ZOLI INC: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZoLi, Inc. The case
is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ZoLi, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-10048
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2021).

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

ZoLi -- https://zoli-inc.com/ -- started in 2008 with the goal to
create safe, innovative products that meet the challenges of modern
parenting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2021. 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 ***