/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220105.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 5, 2022, Vol. 24, No. -2

                            Headlines

4017 WIRELESS: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
480 ROCKAWAY: Resto Staff Files Labor Class Action
ABF FREIGHT: Bowman Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Kintz Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Lillie Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy

ALLY BANK: Velazquez Sues Over Denied Bank Account Application
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Nosaka Sues Over Electoral Vote Violations
APLAW LLC: Debt Collection Letters "Misleading," Arnstein Suit Says
ARK POTOMAC: Class Settlement in Felts FLSA-DCMWA Suit Has Approval
BAY AREA GRANITE: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Malone Says

BLUE CROSS: Romano COVID-19 Vaccine Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
BOFI HOLDING: Ct. OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Notice Issuance
BP EXPLORATION: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Maas BELO Suit
CANAL BARGE: Russ Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Shore Tankermen
CARROLL PLACE: Rapozo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Superintendents

CASELLA WASTE: Seeks to Stay Briefing of Conditional Cert. Bid
CHARLES SCHWAB: Continuance of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
CNO FINANCIAL: Faces Watkins Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
COLES COUNTY, IL: Seeks to Stay Ruling on Wolfe Class Status Bid
COLUMBIA VALLEY: Seeks Denial of Maldonado Class Certification

COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: California Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
CRO-MAGNON INC: Chacon Suit Moved From W.D. Mich. to N.D. Ill.
CURADEN AG: New Claims Administration Process Bid in Lyngaas Denied
DAN'S SUPREME: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
DCT ENTERPRISES: Faces Quiroz Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.M.

DESK STORE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
DOLPHIN TOWING: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid OT for Tow Truck Drivers
DST SYSTEMS: Arbitration Awards in Newtal & Other Suits Confirmed
ENSIGN UNITED: Settlement Deal in Newell Suit Gets Initial OK

ENTERPRISE ASPHALT: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Bear Creek Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
FBCS INC: Lowe Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
FIVE STARS BEAUTY SPA: Shu Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FLEX LTD: Dismissal of National Elevator's Class Claims Affirmed

FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
FRITO-LAY INC: Faces Booth Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
GENERAL MOTORS: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended
GENWORTH LIFE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Brighton Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Scully Files Insider Trading Class Action

GOOGLE LLC: March 28, 2022 Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Sought
HAWAI'I: District Court Trims Claims in Abing v. OCP, ODC & Judges
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Loses Class Certification Bid
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Data Breach
I.C. SYSTEM: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Revised

I.C. SYSTEM: Parties Directed to Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
IDAHO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Dreyer Suit
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Deluca Slams Share Drop from Shady Merger
J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Sues Over Illegal Puppy Laundering Scheme
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Lopinto's Bid to Reconsider in Carlisle OK'd

JING FONG: Faces Mo Suit in New York Over Bussers' Unpaid Wages
JP MORGAN: Settlement in Metals Spoofing Case Initially OK'd
JUUL LABS: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of $1.75M Class Settlement
KE HOLDINGS: Chin Slams Share Drop from Overstated Figures
KEVAN MEYERS: Pennington Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class

KODIAK CAKES: Ct. Enters Briefing Schedule Order in Stewart Suit
L&K COFFEE: Corker Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Coffee Farmers
LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED: Evers Suit Removed to S.D. California
LABORATORY CORP: Patients Hit Shady Lab Insurance Coverage Deal
LANDRY'S INC: Discovery Deadlines Extended in Leger Suit

LOWE'S HOME: Proposed Notice & Consent Forms in Bartholomew Denied
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 1917: Class Certification Schedule Extended in CRT Class Suit
MDL 2047: Summonses in Drywall Products Liability Suit Quashed
MDL 2968: Generali Covid-19 Travel Insurance Suit Partly Dismissed

MDL 2968: Generali's Arbitration Bid in Insurance Suit Partly OK'd
META PLATFORMS: DotStrategy Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
MJ'S OF MATAWAN: Min Li Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Sushi Chefs
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Randolph Sues Over Deceptive Food Labels
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Brinkley

NELNET INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 19
NEOPHOTONICS CORP: Bushansky Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
NEW BALANCE: Cristostomo Sues Over "Made in USA" Footwear Label
NEW YORK CITY: Service of Karelefsky's 2nd Amended Suit Due Feb. 4
NEW YORK HEALTH: Franck Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action

PEANUT PLUMBING: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Plumbers
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Callahan Suit
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
PERSOLVE LEGAL: Cabello Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Suit Seeks to Certify Class

PITTSBURGH LOGISTIC: Class Cert. Hearing on Alesius Set for Jan. 18
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Garza Sues Over Data Breach
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Brito Alleges
QUESTX LLC: Underpays Call Center Employees, Mills Suit Claims
R. KING WINDOWS: Class of Employees in Dylo Wage Suit Certified

RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Dismissal of Cram's Contract Breach Claim Upheld
REHABILITATION CENTER OF SMH: Settlement in Valentine Gets Final OK
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Vilchez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Shirley Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
ROHR INC: Morgan Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 21, 2022

SCHOOLADVISOR LLC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Munoz Suit
SCWORX CORP: Directors' Insurance to Settle Investor Row
SEAQUA DELICATESSEN: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Staff, Reyes Says
SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 31
SHERATON OPERATING: California Court Enters Judgment in Kim Suit

SHERMAN HEMP: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Associates, Ross Claims
SIRIUS XM: Potts Wage-and-Hour Suit Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SK FOOD: Manufacturing Employees Win FLSA Class Certification
SLSCO LTD: Settlement Deal in Vazquez Suit Get Initial Nod
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Savage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class

STORED VALUE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Brown Case
STUBHUB: Ct. Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Refund Litigation
SUGAR FACTORY: Luna Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Tips
SUPER MICRO: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order in Hessefort
T-MOBILE US: Harper Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.

T-MOBILE US: Norris Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
T-MOBILE USA: Billups Class Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
T-MOBILE USA: Cooke Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE USA: Delerme Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE USA: Donovan Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri

T-MOBILE USA: Galvez-Galvan Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE USA: Halpern Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
T-MOBILE USA: Hughes Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
T-MOBILE USA: Precour Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
TAYLOR 4 DELIVERY: Laster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought
TRUCK INSURANCE: Wash. Court Denies R2B2's Bid to Remand Class Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Gonder Suit Over Unpaid Meal Periods
UNITED STAFFING: Magtoles Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Response Due January 4, 2022

UNITED STATES: Doe v. Peace Corps Moved to District of Columbia
UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Dragon Wins Conditional Certification Bid
UTICA CUTLERY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Quintana Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: $15MM Settlement Hearing Set for April 21

VERISK ANALYTICS: Cantinieri Files Suit in E.D. New York
VERMONT TEDDY BEAR: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VF OUTDOOR: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VINCENT CONTRACTING: Demolition Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
VIP DENTAL CARE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WAL-MART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 17, 2022
WESTERN POWER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WILDERNESS SPORTS: Case Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: H.L. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WORLD NOMADS: Davis Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio

YOUNG'S MARKET: Jimenez Class Action Stays in District Court
YOUR HOME: McKinley Sues Over Unpaid OT for Homecare Providers

                            *********

4017 WIRELESS: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
SILVANO PEREZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. 4017 WIRELESS INC., d/b/a TOTAL
WIRELESS, 3919 WIRELESS INC., d/b/a TOTAL WIRELESS, NY CELL SPOT
INC., d/b/a TOTAL WIRELESS, NY MOBILAI INC., d/b/a TOTAL WIRELESS,
YARIN NADEL, a/k/a JOE NADEL, and MICHAEL NADEL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-06927 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2021) is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to
recover from Defendants unpaid prevailing minimum wages, unpaid
overtime premiums, unpaid spread of hours premiums, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a flyer
distributor at "TOTAL WIRELESS" stores from October 2020 until
March 5, 2021.

The Defendants collectively own and operate four wireless service
and cell-phone stores under the trade name "Total Wireless."[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

480 ROCKAWAY: Resto Staff Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo Noel, Wilmer Barrios Cifuentes and Jairo Mazariegos
Cifuentes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 480 Rockaway Operating Corp. and Mati
Tsadok, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07147, (E.D. N.Y., December 28,
2021), seeks to recover damages for violations of New York State
labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act, compensatory and
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other
legal and equitable remedies.

480 Rockaway Operating Corp. does business as "Giant Bagel" in
Lawrence, NY where Plaintiffs worked as restaurant staff. They
claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per day without overtime
premium, spread-of-hours premium and denied accurate wage
statements.

Noel seeks redress for unlawful discriminatory practice in
violation of New York State Executive Law for discrimination and
wrongful retaliation when he left work early to attend to his wife
who was giving birth, in violation of the New York State Executive
Law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


ABF FREIGHT: Bowman Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERRY BOWMAN and MARIO SOTO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-07921,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on December 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02342-KJM-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate
itemized statements, and failure to pay wages due at termination of
employment.

ABF Freight System, Inc. is a transport company, with its principal
place of business in Arkansas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq.
         Karen Evans, Esq.
         HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
         50 California Street, Suite 1700
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 975-3700
         Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
         E-mail: ebvicente@HuntonAK.com
                 kevans@HuntonAK.com

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Kintz Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL KINTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING
GROUP, LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC., and RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY DIVISION, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01674 (D. Conn.,
December 16, 2021) is a class action challenging an illegal
conspiracy among Pratt & Whitney Division and several outsource
engineering suppliers to restrict the hiring and recruiting of
engineers and other skilled laborers working on aerospace projects
among their respective companies.

According to the complaint, the Defendants entered into and
maintained a No-Poach Agreement at least as early as 2011 and
continued it until at least 2019. Throughout this time, and indeed
until just recently, Defendants concealed their No-Poach Agreement
from their employees and independent contractors.

The No-Poach Agreement was intended to, and did, reduce competition
for engineers' services and, as a result, suppressed the job
mobility of and compensation to Plaintiff and the members of the
proposed Class below the levels that would have prevailed but for
the illegal No-Poach Agreement, says the suit.

The Defendants' alleged conspiracy thus has restricted trade and is
per se unlawful under federal law. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and damages for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Mr. Kintz was employed as an engineer for Parametric Solutions in
Florida beginning from 2017 until 2020, working on P&W projects.
Mr. Kintz was injured in his business or property by reason of the
violation alleged herein, says the complaint.

The Defendants are outsource engineering suppliers in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Levine, Esq.
          Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
          Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          One Landmark Square - 15th Floor
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com
                  jlevine@sgtlaw.com
                  sbloch@sgtlaw.com
                  isloss@sgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Candice Enders, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  cenders@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
          E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Lillie Hits Employee Non-Poaching Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Lillie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Agilis Engineering, Inc., Belcan LLC,
Cyient, Inc., Parametric Solutions, Inc., QuEST Global Services-NA,
Inc. and Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Pratt and Whitney
Division, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01724 (D. Conn., December 28,
2021), seeks damages and injunctive relief for unlawful restraint
of competition in the market for the services of skilled
professionals in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies, is one of
the largest aerospace engine design, manufacture and service
companies in the United States. QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.,
Belcan, LLC, Cyient, Inc., Parametric Solutions, Inc. and Agilis,
Engineering Inc. are outsource engineering supply companies whose
employees performed work for Pratt & Whitney on a project basis.
Jacob Lillie was employed by Belcan in Jupiter, Florida as a
Project Engineer and Project Manager, and later as a Senior Project
Technical Lead, from March 2017 up through August 2019. Lillie
alleges that Defendants agreed not to recruit each other's
engineers and other skilled workers in the aerospace engineering
industry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Bloss, Esq.
      KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
      350 Fairfield Avenue
      Bridgeport, CT 06604
      Tel: (203) 366-4421
      Email: bbloss@koskoff.com

             - and -

      Bonny Sweeney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St. #3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 540-7200
      Email: hscherrer@hausfeld.com

             - and -

      Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Tel: (215) 985-3270
      Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com


ALLY BANK: Velazquez Sues Over Denied Bank Account Application
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIELA AGUILAR VELAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY BANK, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-at-01225 (E.D. Cal., December 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for alienage discrimination and violation of
the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged policy of denying full
access to checking and savings accounts, in addition to other
banking products and services, to applicants who are not United
States citizens or legal permanent residents (LPRs). The Plaintiff
suffered harm as a result of the Defendant's denial of her checking
and savings account application because of her immigration status.
The Defendant's denial of her application caused her to suffer
emotional distress, says the suit.

Ally Bank is a banking firm based in Sandy, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas A. Saenz, Esq.
         Deylin O. Thrift-Viveros, Esq.
         MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
         634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90014
         Telephone: (213) 629-2512
         Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
         E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
                 dthrift-viveros@maldef.org

AMERICAN FEDERATION: Nosaka Sues Over Electoral Vote Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALTON K. NOSAKA, ERIC M. SAKAZAKI, GORDON K. LESLIE, RACHEL
KRYGIER, and RICHARD OKUDA, JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; and ELIZABETH HO,
in her official capacity as Administrator of Local 646, AFSCME,
United Public Workers; and DOE DEFENDANTS, 1-19, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00497 (D. Hawaii, December 19, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to provide
adequate safeguards to insure a fair election, breach of contract,
and violations of equal rights to vote, the right to vote by secret
ballot, and rights to be informed.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the equal
rights to vote of AFSCME's Administrator over United Public Workers
(UPW) members by failing to update the UPW membership list prior to
sending out the elections notice on or about November 12, 2021.
Moreover, the Defendants and/or their agents did not provide paper
ballots for voting in the election. As a result of the Defendants
and/or their agents' acts and omissions in conducting nominations
and voting exclusively electronically without providing alternative
methods of making nominations and election choices, the Defendants
caused injury to Plaintiffs and Class members by denying them the
ability to exercise their statutory and contractual equal rights to
participate in the election of UPW's officers.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) is an international labor organization representing
workers in the public service and health care sectors. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Georgette Anne Yaindl, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGETTE A. YAINDL, LLLC
         Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96745-0307
         Telephone: (808) 224-0219
         Facsimile: (808) 377-8869
         E-mail: gyaindl@gyattorney.com

APLAW LLC: Debt Collection Letters "Misleading," Arnstein Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH ARNSTEIN, SHARON BACON, HUGO BAZZANI, DONALD
and ELIZABETH BORTNIAK, JOHN J. CAIN, PEDRO CAMACHO, WILLIAM
CATRANBONE, DONALD CONWAY, SCOTT ELLINGTON, ALLA and BORIS FELDMAN,
GUILLERMO GONELLA, ANTHONY and DOLORES MAZZELLA, MIKOLAI MIRUTKA,
TERRI L. PRIOLEAU, NADINE SHAWAH, DANIIL SHOYFER, HALINA STAVIN, as
Trustee of the JOHN STAVIN TRUST, AGNES and PAUL STAWINSKI, GARY
SULLIVAN, ROMUALDA SWIERCZEWSKI, EZZATOLLAH TARAKMI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, ESQ. and APLAW LLC, Defendants, Case No.
9:21-cv-82516 (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The case arises from the false, deceptive, and misleading debt
collection letters that the Defendants sent to the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated condominium unit owners concerning the alleged
debts that they owed to the Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Property
Owners' Association, Inc. The Defendants' debt collection attempts
allegedly violated various provisions of the FDCPA, including but
not limited to: (a) the Defendants have knowingly and falsely
represented the amount of the debt allegedly owed to the creditor;
(b) the Defendants have threatened that the non-payment of the
alleged debt shall result in the recording of a lien to encumber
the property of the Plaintiffs with the intent to foreclose and
seize the Plaintiffs' property; (c) the Defendants have threatened
to foreclose on liens that are based on debts the Defendants know
the Plaintiffs and Class members do not owe; (d) the Defendants
have threatened legal action (the recording of a lien) that they
have no intention of taking, evidenced by the fact that a year has
passed since the first debt collection letter was sent to the
Plaintiffs and other members of the class, and no legal action has
been taken; (e) Defendant Phillips failed to verbally indicate that
he was attempting to collect a debt, or that any information
obtained from the Plaintiffs will be used for that purpose; (f) the
Defendants are attempting to collect fees from the Plaintiffs that
are not expressly authorized by statute or the governing documents
of the homeowners' association to whom the Defendants allege the
debts are owed; and (g) the Defendants, after notification that the
Plaintiffs and/or Class members disputed the alleged debts, did not
send any verification of the alleged debts to the Plaintiffs and/or
class members, and did not cease collection efforts after receiving
a request for verification, says the suit.

Aplaw LLC is a law firm doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Steven H. Meyer, Esq.
         STEVEN H. MEYER, P.A.
         401 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100
         Winter Park, FL 32789
         Telephone: (407) 289-0803
         Facsimile: (407) 539-2978
         E-mail: steven@thefirm.legal

ARK POTOMAC: Class Settlement in Felts FLSA-DCMWA Suit Has Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA FELTS, et al., Plaintiffs v. ARK POTOMAC
CORPORATION d/b/a SEQUOIA RESTAURANT, Defendant, Civil Action No.
21-656 (TJK) (D.D.C.), Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiffs' motion
to approve the settlement agreement.

Background

On Sept. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for approval of their
settlement of the case, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act ("DCMWA").
Shortly afterward, Plaintiff Rebecca Felts contacted the Court ex
parte by phone and email and informed the Court that she objected
to certain aspects of the settlement agreement. The Court disclosed
those communications to the parties and held a telephonic status
conference, in which Felts participated.

During the status conference, the Plaintiffs' counsel noted that
she might need to move to withdraw as counsel for Felts. The Court
thus scheduled another status conference to give the Plaintiffs'
counsel time to confirm whether she felt she could keep
representing Felts, and to establish a schedule for Felts to
explain her objections to the Court in writing.

On Nov. 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs' counsel renewed a previously
withdrawn motion to withdraw as counsel for Felts. After
considering Felts's objections to the counsel's withdrawal, the
Court granted the motion. In the order granting the motion to
withdraw, the Court also ordered Felts to file, by Dec. 3, 2021,
either (1) a status report addressing the status of any search she
might undertake for new counsel or (2) a document setting forth her
objections to the proposed settlement agreement.

Ms. Felts filed a notice that she would be proceeding pro se, and a
document setting forth her objections to the proposed settlement
agreement. The other Plaintiffs responded to the objections.

Analysis

Upon consideration of the motion, accompanying memorandum of law,
settlement agreement, and declaration, as well as Felts's
objections, the other Plaintiffs' response to Felts's objections,
and the record as a whole, Judge Kelly finds that the settlement
resolves a bona fide dispute over minimum wage and overtime pay and
passes muster under either standard for evaluating fairness.

To start, Judge Kelly finds that the parties agree that there was a
bona fide dispute. The Plaintiffs (including Felts) claim that the
"Defendant failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs with the
required minimum wages and overtime pay." And the Defendant
"vigorously denies the Plaintiffs' claims." This settlement
resolves the parties' disagreement.

The settlement is also fair, for several reasons, Judge Kelly
holds. First, he says, the parties negotiated at arm's length
through good-faith discussions with help from competent,
experienced counsel. Second, the terms are reasonable in relation
to the strength of the case. Third, the settlement "provides total
damages closer to that asserted by the Plaintiffs than the
Defendants," strongly suggesting that it is fair. Finally, although
there are "no serious impediments to the collection of a judgment
should the case go forward," by settling, the Plaintiffs -- none of
whom object except Felts -- will recover now and will not face any
further litigation-related delay.

As for the award of attorneys' fees and expenses, Judge Kelly finds
that the hours for which reimbursement is sought are reasonable,
the fees provided under the settlement represent a significant
discount from the Plaintiffs' counsel's current lodestar, and the
expenses were incurred during this litigation. He notes that its
"review of a proposed FLSA settlement is properly limited only to
those terms precisely addressing the compromised monetary amounts
to resolve pending wage and overtime claims."

Conclusion

For all these reasons, Judge Kelly grants the motion to approve the
settlement agreement over Felts's objections. A separate order will
be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhj2rsr from Leagle.com.


BAY AREA GRANITE: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Malone Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Malone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bay Area Granite & Marble LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-01483 (E.D. Wis., December 29, 2021), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, compensation for missed breaks, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Malone worked as a Residential Sales Associate in Defendant's
Appleton, Wisconsin location. She claims that she was denied
overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek and that her pay was subject to illegal deductions.
[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Romano COVID-19 Vaccine Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN ROMANO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN,
Case No. 21-016917-CD, was removed from the 3rd Circuit Court, City
of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on December 20,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Michigan assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, in relation to its COVID-19
vaccination policy.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit mutual insurance
company based in Michigan. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Scott R. Knapp, Esq.
         Brandon C. Hubbard, Esq.
         Maureen J. Moody, Esq.
         DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
         123 W. Allegan Street, Suite 900
         Lansing, MI 48933
         Telephone: (517) 487-4714
         E-mail: sknapp@dickinsonwright.com
                 bhubbard@dickinsonwright.com
                 mmoody@dickinsonwright.com

BOFI HOLDING: Ct. OKs Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Notice Issuance
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: as BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order:

   1. granting plaintiffs' motion for issuance of class notice;
      and

   2. vacating motion hearing.

The Court said, "In class actions certified under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), "the court must direct to class members
the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances,
including individual notice to all members who can be identified
through reasonable effort."

"The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily
understood language:

(i) the nature of the action;

(ii) the definition of the class certified;

(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;

(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an
attorney if the member so desires;

(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who
requests exclusion;

(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the
binding effect of a class judgment under Rule 23(c)(3)," the Court
adds.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eMkQj6 at no extra charge.[CC]


BP EXPLORATION: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Maas BELO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MAAS, Plaintiff v. BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION,
INC., and BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00051 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division, denied BP's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Introduction

Plaintiff John Maas is suing Defendants BP America Production
Company and BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (collectively,
"BP") under a class action medical settlement agreement ("MSA")
reached after the 2010 oil spill at BP's Deepwater Horizon Rig
("DHR"). Mr. Maas assisted in the clean-up efforts that followed
the oil spill. He alleges he was exposed to toxic substances during
the clean-up and developed asthma and reactive airways disease as a
result. He seeks damages pursuant to a provision of the MSA that
permits the Plaintiffs to recover for health conditions that did
not manifest until after the MSA was finalized.

Background

The DHR was located 130 miles southeast of New Orleans, Louisiana.
There, BP drilled for oil in the Macondo Well. On April 20, 2010,
an explosion onboard the DHR and a "blowout" of the Macondo Well
occurred. Crude oil and hydrocarbons were released into the water
and the air.

BP and several government agencies attempted to contain the fallout
from the DHR explosion. Mr. Maas assisted in the response effort as
a clean-up worker and boat captain. He alleges that, during its
response, BP "purchased highly noxious chemical dispersants which
were sprayed over large areas that contained oil."  The dispersants
included Corexit EC9500A and Corexit EC9527A.

Mr. Maas claims that for two months, during the clean-up, he was
exposed to Corexit around 12 hours per day. He and his crew members
would "personally observe the spraying of Corexit from airplanes,
in their immediate vicinity." Afterwards, they would "immediately
experience severe eye, nose, and throat burning."

Once the initial clean-up efforts ceased, litigation produced the
MSA. The MSA contains a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
provision that permits clean-up workers to sue for physical
conditions manifested after the parties reached the MSA. The MSA
defines issues that parties may and may not litigate in BELO cases.
It is governed by "General Maritime Law."

On Jan. 29, 2020, Mr. Maas filed the instant suit pursuant to the
MSA's BELO provision. He alleged he developed asthma and reactive
airways disease due to his exposure to Corexit during the DHR
clean-up. As proof, he offered expert reports from Dr. Charles Wray
and Dr. Veena Antony. Dr. Wray specializes in pulmonology and has
treated Mr. Maas for "severe asthma and restrictive lung disease"
since 2019. Dr. Antony is a professor and practitioner with
expertise in pulmonary medicine who has performed "extensive
research pertaining to the potential toxic respiratory effects of
crude oil, particularly when mixed with 'Corexit.'"

On Sept. 24, 2021, BP moved for summary judgment, arguing Mr. Maas'
experts cannot establish the causation requirement of his claim.
BP's motion has been fully briefed.

Analysis

The parties dispute whether Mr. Maas has presented sufficient
evidence that his exposure to Corexit caused his injuries. In a
toxic-tort case, as in the case, the plaintiff must establish both
general and specific causation.

A. Mr. Maas Has Presented Sufficient Evidence of General
Causation.

Summary judgment is not appropriate on the issue of general
causation. To demonstrate general causation, a plaintiff must prove
the substance in question is "capable of causing" his injury. Mr.
Maas offers the expert reports of Dr. Antony and Dr. Wray. Dr.
Antony attests that Corexit exposure can "produce long-term
respiratory issues, such as asthma." He avers that "Corexit is an
acknowledged, highly toxic chemical irritant to human contact,
particularly in the sensitive respiratory airways," which can cause
asthma and restrictive lung disease. Judge Crenshaw opines that Mr.
Maas' expert reports are sufficient to establish general causation
at this stage of litigation.

BP appears to argue Mr. Maas fails the general causation standard
because he has not identified the substance to which he was exposed
with sufficient particularity. BP claims Mr. Maas' experts
identified "no chemical" causing Mr. Maas' conditions and "merely
opined that his purported injuries were caused generally by
'Corexit.'"

But the law does not require more specificity than that, Judge
Crenshaw finds. And BP's argument that Mr. Maas has not identified
a "chemical" to which he was exposed is difficult to understand
given that (1) BP does not provide the definition of the term
"chemical" on which it is relying and (2) both Corexit EC9500A and
Corexit EC9527A appear to fit within the definitions of that term
that are readily available to the Court. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit
seems to believe that substances similar to Corexit count as
"chemicals." To the extent BP argues it is entitled to summary
judgment based on Mr. Maas' failure to present evidence of general
causation, BP's argument fails.

B. Mr. Maas Has Presented Adequate Evidence of Specific Causation.

Mr. Maas also passes summary judgment on the issue of specific
causation. Specific causation exists where a toxic substance
actually "did cause" a plaintiff's injury. To prove specific
causation, Mr. Maas must show his "level of exposure" to Corexit
"was sufficient to induce the complained-of medical condition."
According to Dr. Wray, Mr. Maas' exposure to Corexit "on a daily
basis, for approximately 12 hours per day for two months," combined
with a "differential diagnosis" excluding other possible sources of
Mr. Maas' conditions, makes Corexit the "'probable' source of his
severe pulmonary problems." A reasonable jury could find this
evidence establishes specific causation, Judge Creanshaw holds.

BP attacks Mr. Maas' specific causation evidence by pointing out
that his experts relied on information that he provided to them.
But that is permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. BP's
arguments "merely go to the weight, as opposed to the
admissibility, of the expert testimony" in the case. BP's criticism
of the bases of Mr. Maas' expert opinions does not undermine Judge
Crenshaw's decision regarding specific causation.

BP further argues Mr. Maas has not raised adequate evidence of
specific causation because he has not shown the specific "dose" of
Corexit to which he was exposed. However, Mr. Maas does not have to
establish he was exposed to a specific dose of Corexit to prove
specific causation, Judge Crenshaw holds. He says, BP's own
authority shows that in addition to evidence of "dose," a
"differential diagnosis" is an "appropriate method for making a
determination of causation for an individual instance of disease."
As discussed, Dr. Wray performed a "differential diagnosis"
indicating Corexit caused Mr. Maas' conditions.

Finally, BP contends the case resembles McGill v. BP Expl. & Prod.
Inc., No. 1:18CV159-LG-RHW, 2019 WL 6053016 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 15,
2019), a BELO suit based on Corexit exposure in which the Court
granted summary judgment due to the lack of specific causation
evidence.

That case is inapposite, Judge Crenshaw finds. He finds that the
McGill court specifically noted that the plaintiff's key expert had
no knowledge of the extent of the plaintiff's exposure to Corexit.
For instance, the expert had no information regarding the "number
of days or hours" during which the plaintiff was exposed to Corexit
and no information about whether the plaintiff was exposed "through
inhalation or skin contact." Dr. Wray, conversely, specifically,
used such information in forming his opinion. Summary judgment is
not warranted on the issue of specific causation.

C. BP's Argument that Mr. Maas' Expert Reports "Must Be Stricken"
Is Unavailing.

BP argues Mr. Maas' expert reports "must be stricken" because they
were not "prepared" by Mr. Maas' experts as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26. BP relies on deposition testimony that
indicates Mr. Maas' counsel physically typed the expert reports of
Dr. Wray and Dr. Antony. But a "party's attorney can reduce an
expert's oral opinion to writing so long as the report reflects the
actual views of the expert." In the case, the record shows Dr.
Wray's and Dr. Antony's reports contain their "actual views," and
the Court is not required to strike it.

Conclusion

For the reasons he outlined, Judge Crenshaw denied BP's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckk59fn from
Leagle.com.


CANAL BARGE: Russ Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Shore Tankermen
---------------------------------------------------------------
L. W. RUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANAL BARGE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02325-GGG-MBN (E.D. La., December 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated shore tankermen overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a shore tankerman in
Louisiana.

Canal Barge Company, Inc. is a marine transportation company,
headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Victor R. Farrugia, Esq.
         FARRUGIA LAW FIRM, LLC
         1340 Poydras St Ste 2100
         New Orleans LA, 70112
         Telephone: (504) 525-0250
         Facsimile: (504) 293-0651
         E-mail: vfarrugia@farrugialawfirm.com

CARROLL PLACE: Rapozo Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Superintendents
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL RAPOZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN SCHWARTZ and CARROLL PLACE REALTY
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10925 (S.D.N.Y., December 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law
including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to
provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
and failure to pay timely wages.

Mr. Rapozo was employed as a superintendent at the Defendants'
properties in New York, New York from on or around January 2017
through and including December 3, 2021.

Carroll Place Realty LLC is an owner and operator of real
properties located in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0048
         E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com

CASELLA WASTE: Seeks to Stay Briefing of Conditional Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH WILSON RODNEY, JR.,
ROSEMARIE SIBLEY, and KENNETH MESSOM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CASELLA WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 2:21-cv-00196-cr (D. Vt.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting their bid to stay briefing on Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice to Putative Class
Members filed on December 15, 2021.

The resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint, fully briefed and pending before the Court, may
render the question of certification moot or materially impact the
scope of Plaintiffs' claims and the corresponding class of
potential collective action plaintiffs who should receive notice.

On this basis, Casella respectfully requests that the Court stay
all briefing and consideration of Plaintiffs' Conditional
Certification Motion until it has disposed of the Motion to
Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to conditionally certify a
class defined to include all current and former Waste Disposal
Drivers nationwide who were employed by Casella "at any time from
August 17, 2018 through the final disposition of this matter." Mot.
for Conditional Cert.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JwIA9n at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ritchie E. Berger, Esq.
          Justin B. Barnard, Esq.
          Anne B. Rosenblum, Esq.
          DINSE P.C.
          209 Battery Street, P.O. Box 988
          Burlington, VT 05402
          Telephone (802) 864-5751
          E-mail: rberger@dinse.com
                  jbarnard@dinse.com
                  arosenblum@dinse.com

CHARLES SCHWAB: Continuance of Class Cert Deadlines Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WRIGHT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB &
CO., INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05281-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
submit stipulation and proposed order continuing class
certification briefing deadlines as follows:

   -- Motion for Class Certification:     June 20, 2022

   -- Opposition to Class Certification:  August 15, 2022

   -- Reply in Support of Class           September 19, 2022
      Certification:

   -- Hearing on Motion for Class         At the Court's
      Certification:                      Convenience

Charles Schwab is an American multinational financial services
company. It offers banking, commercial banking, an electronic
trading platform, and wealth management advisory services to both
retail and institutional clients.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HsQ7nF
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  jdavis@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Mario D. Valdovinos, Esq.
          ROBBINS LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsllp.com
                  mvaldovinos@robbinsllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric A. Ormsby, Esq.
          Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
          Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
          Telephone: (415) 984 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984 8701
          E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
                  eormsby@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com

CNO FINANCIAL: Faces Watkins Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNIE WATKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CNO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. and MEDIX STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-1427 (E.D. Wis.,
December 16, 2021) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws against Defendants for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid regular and agreed upon wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operated (and continue
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and
failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an
overtime rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by failing to compensate said employees for
"off-the-clock" hours worked and work performed, including but not
limited to computer "boot up" time prior to their scheduled shift
start times each work day and computer "boot down" time after their
scheduled shift end times each work day, and instead simply
compensated said employees based on their scheduled shift start and
end times each work day, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in Defendants' Claims Department from July 2021
to November 2021.

CNO Financial Group provides financial services and sells life
insurance and health insurance to individuals and third-parties.

Medix Staffing Solutions is a staffing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COLES COUNTY, IL: Seeks to Stay Ruling on Wolfe Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERVIN WOLFE, TAYLOR
SCHOENEMAN, and ANTHONY GOLDING, v. COLES COUNTY, IL STATE'S
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, COLES COUNTY, IL BOARD, and ILLINOIS STATE'S
ATTORNEY'S APPELLATE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, Case No.
2:21-cv-02206-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order that:

   A. This Court stay ruling on Plaintiffs' pending
      Motion for Class Certification until such time as this
      Court has ruled on the pending Motions to Dismiss. Should
      this Court deny the Motions to Dismiss, Defendants request
      leave to file a brief in opposition to the merits of class
      certification.

   B. If this Court opts to consider the Motion for Class
      Certification before addressing the Motions to Dismiss,
      then Defendants request leave to file a brief in
      opposition to the merits of class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek class certification for claim based on a
constitutional right that does not appear to exist, and which this
Court does not appear to have jurisdiction to hear. These
Defendants have raised these substantive issues in their pending
Motion to Dismiss. Prudence cautions against building a class
lawsuit on such an unsound foundation. This Court should stay
ruling on the Motion for Class Certification until the Motions to
Dismiss are resolved -- a result permitted by Rule 23, and perhaps
even encouraged, given how difficult the required "rigorous
analysis" for class certification is when the claim is question is
legally insufficient.

The inadequacy of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
the strength of the pending Motions to Dismiss persuaded these
Defendants to style the instant Motion as one to stay class
certification. However, the Co-Defendant has capably demonstrated
many of the substantive issues in Plaintiff's Motion. Should this
Court seek to consider the merits of Plaintiff's Motion and refrain
from granting further briefing on the same, these Defendants
respectfully adopt the Co-Defendant's arguments against class
certification.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mOtamQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Smith, Esq.
          HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN
          Suite 505, 301 N. Neil Street
          Champaign, IL 61820
          Telephone (217) 344-0060
          E-mail: bsmith@heylroyster.com

COLUMBIA VALLEY: Seeks Denial of Maldonado Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISELA M. MALDONADO,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC; EMCARE, INC.; EMCARE
HOLDINGS INC.; ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; and ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-05428-DGE (W.D. Wash.),
the Defendants submit a motion to deny class certification and
strike the class allegations from Plaintiff's complaint.

Based on an allegation that Defendants charged unreasonable amounts
to patients for healthcare services, the Plaintiff Maldonado
purports to represent a class comprised of:

   "all individuals who were sent medical bills by the
   Defendants within the past six years for amounts that exceed
   the highest in-network amounts paid by major private health
   insurance plans.

This Court should deny class certification as: (i) Plaintiff has
failed to file a motion for class certification and has thus
abandoned her class allegations; (ii) Plaintiff's putative class
lacks commonality and typicality, and individual questions
predominate over common questions; (iii) Plaintiff's putative class
includes members whose claims are time-barred; and (iv) Plaintiff
does not have standing to pursue claims against unnamed physician
practices that have never provided any healthcare services to
Plaintiff, the Defendants contend.

The Plaintiff has failed to satisfy her burden of demonstrating
that she has met the requirements for class certification, and this
Court should strike the class allegations from Plaintiff's
complaint.

On April 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Original Complaint in
Washington Superior Court alleging four causes of action due to
"exorbitant and unreasonable fees" charged by Defendants: (i)
negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) common law
procedural unconscionability, and (iv) common law substantive
unconscionability. After Defendants properly removed this action,
they moved to dismiss the entirety of Plaintiff's Complaint or, in
the alternative, to strike Plaintiff's class allegations.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FNUM3e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          R. David Jacobs, Esq.
          Jonah D. Retzinger, Esq.
          Brock Seraphin, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER GREEN
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          E-mail: DJacobs@ebglaw.com
                  JRetzinger@ebglaw.com
                  BSeraphin@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew A. Carvalho, Esq.
          Angelo Calfo, Esq.
          CALFO EAKES LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 407-2210
          E-mail: angeloc@calfoeakes.com
                  mattc@calfoeakes.com

COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: California Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled The California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, a California governmental agency, ex rel. William Dean
Raymond; and William Dean Raymond, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CompuCom Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1-15, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00309983,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on December 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02327-KJM-KJN to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff in this case alleges that the Defendant violated
various provisions of the California Labor Code and committed
unlawful business practices. In addition to compensatory damages,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, civil penalties,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

The California Labor and Workforce Development Agency is a
cabinet-level California state agency that coordinates workforce
programs by overseeing seven major departments dealing with benefit
administration, enforcement of California labor laws, appellate
functions related to employee benefits, workforce development, tax
collection, and economic development activities.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Samuel S. Sadeghi, Esq.
          Kevin J. Bohm, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                  sam.sadeghi@morganlewis.com
                  kevin.bohm@morganlewis.com

CRO-MAGNON INC: Chacon Suit Moved From W.D. Mich. to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXEY CHACON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CRO-MAGNON, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00871, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on December 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06748 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law including
failure to pay appropriate minimum and overtime wages, unlawful
wage deductions, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

Cro-Magnon, Inc. is a company with a principal place of business in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         David M. Blanchard, Esq.
         BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
         221 North Main Street, Ste. 300
         Ann Arbor, MI 48104
         Telephone: (734) 929-4313
         E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

                 - and –

         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

CURADEN AG: New Claims Administration Process Bid in Lyngaas Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. CURADEN AG, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-10910 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied Curaden USA, Inc.'s
motion for a new claims administration process.

Background

The Plaintiff brought the class action based on unsolicited faxes
advertising dental products that Curaden and its parent, Curaden
AG, allegedly sent to dental offices in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The TCPA creates a private cause of
action enabling fax recipients to receive $500 in damages for each
violation of the TCPA.

Following a bench trial, the Court found that Curaden (but not its
parent) was liable for violating the TCPA and ordered that a claims
administration process be established so that an award amount could
be fixed and eventually distributed to eligible class members. The
Court subsequently granted Lyngaas's motion for judgment and
approved various components of the claims administration process:
The proposed claims form language, the claims period, the manner
for submitting claims forms and affidavits, and the appointment of
Class-Settlement.com as a claims administrator. The Court
instructed the parties to file any objections to the claims
administrator's rulings on claims within thirty days following
completion of the claims administrator's determination of claims.

The Court then entered a final judgment in favor of the class
against Curaden "in an amount to be determined through the course
of a claims administration process," the procedure for which the
Court outlined in detail. It also stated that it retains
jurisdiction to enforce the Judgment. The Court's retention of
jurisdiction over this action will in no way affect the finality of
the judgment."

Additionally, the judgment stated that the class counsel would have
28 days after the entry to file any motion seeking an award of
attorney fees and costs to the class counsel. In accordance with
this order, Lyngaas filed a motion for litigation expenses,
attorney fees, and an incentive award.

The Defendants then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

After the attorney fees motion was filed (but before the Sixth
Circuit had resolved the appeal), the Court held a telephonic
status conference with the counsel and issued an order finding that
class counsel was entitled to a fee payment, but that "due to the
uncertain nature of the case's result, it would be premature to
determine how that payment will be calculated." The order explained
that, "to facilitate the development of that record," the Court
would enter a subsequent order "directing that a status report be
filed by the claims administrator." hat subsequent order directed
the claims administrator to file a status report; it also stated
that, following its review of the status report, the Court would
set a date by which a renewed motion for attorney fees must be
filed.

Lyngaas filed a declaration from the administrator of the claims
process. This declaration stated that 919 class members claimed
receipt of 1,815 total violative fax transmissions. Almost all of
these class members (911) returned claims forms by the Court's
deadline of May 1, 2020, while eight class members (claiming 16
violative transmissions) submitted forms between May 2 and Sept.
30, 2020.

The parties had 30 days after the filing of claims administrator's
findings to raise any objections, but neither side did so. After
receiving the status report, the Court held another telephonic
status conference with the parties to discuss the status report and
the motion for attorney fees.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court's final judgment, and it
issued its mandate. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint
memorandum setting forth their positions on the next necessary
steps, which the parties did. Lyngaas proposed that the Court
should enter a money judgment in favor of the class and should set
a deadline by which counsel is to file a renewed motion for
attorney fees. The Defendants argued that the claims administration
process was invalid because it occurred while the Court was
divested of jurisdiction, an argument that Curaden reiterates in
its present motion.

Curaden's present motion seeks for a new claims administration
process following the completion of the claims administration
process already ordered by the Court. Curaden argues that the
claims administration process was invalid because the Court lacked
jurisdiction over the case following Defendants' filing of a notice
of appeal. Lyngaas, who filed the case individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a
response to Curaden's motion.

Analysis

Judge Goldsmith first considers Curaden's argument that the claims
administration process was invalid because the Court had no
jurisdiction following Curaden's filing of a notice of appeal. He
finds that the claims administration process was valid, and then
fixes the amount of Curaden's liability to the class.

A. Jurisdiction Over Actions Relating to Claims Administration
Process

Curaden argues that "the claims administration process that the
Plaintiffs now want to use occurred when the Court was divested of
jurisdiction and should not be recognized or used by this Court."

Curaden's argument is mistaken, Judge Goldsmith opines. He agrees
with the general premise that "filing a notice of appeal with the
district court divests the district court of jurisdiction to act in
a case." However, a notice of appeal "does not divest a district
court of jurisdiction over matters collateral to the main cause of
action." Curaden does not explain why its challenge to the claims
process on appeal -- which was ultimately unsuccessful --
establishes that there was no jurisdiction to undertake that
process during the pendency of the appeal. Where a party fails to
explain an argument and supply authority -- Curaden's failings -- a
court need not attempt to supply the missing information. Curaden's
appellate attack on the claims process -- when no stay of the
process had been issued -- did not deprive the Court of
jurisdiction over that process.

With Curaden making no other objections to the claims
administration process, Judge Goldsmith concludes that there was no
jurisdictional impediment to the process going forward during
Curaden's appeal. And there is certainly no need to undertake it
once again.

B. The Amount of Curaden's Liability to the Class for Violations of
the TCPA

The claims administration process determined that 919 class members
claimed receipt of 1,815 total violative fax transmissions. Sixteen
of these transmissions were submitted to the administrator through
claims made after the Court's deadline for submission; but these
claims were otherwise valid, and all were received within seven
months of the claims forms' distribution to class members.

Curaden had until 30 days after the filing of the claims
administrator's findings to object to the inclusion of the late
claims in the award. It did not raise any objections, and it
communicated to the Court that it "has no reason to contest the
results of the claims administration process as conducted beyond
the jurisdictional issue as discussed." Judge Goldsmith, therefore,
finds that the late-submitted claims are properly included in the
award. In addition, apart from the claims administration process,
the Court has already determined that Lyngaas proved his receipt of
two separate violative transmissions.

Curaden is liable for $500 per violative transmission. It is thus
liable to the class for a total of $907,500, which is exclusive of
the $1,000 liability to Lyngaas previously awarded in the judgment.
Within 14 days, the parties must submit a proposed order or
judgment regarding this liability if they can agree on the form and
language of the document; otherwise, the Plaintiffs must file a
motion for entry.

Conclusion

For the reasons he explained, Judge Goldsmith denied Curaden's
motion for a new claims administration process. Curaden is liable
to the class for $907,500, which will be memorialized as stated.

Lyngaas may file a renewed motion for attorney fees, an incentive
award, and/or litigation costs within 21 days of the date of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/v2yrskbx from Leagle.com.


DAN'S SUPREME: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA WILSON, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. DAN'S SUPREME SUPER MARKETS, INC., d/b/a KEY FOOD
d/b/a FOOD EMPORIUM d/b/a MATTITUK MARKET PLACE d/b/a DANS SUPREME
d/b/a CENTER MORICHES MARKET PLACE; JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100,
RICHARD GROBMAN, and BRIAN GROBMAN, Case No. 161267/2021 (N.Y.
Sup., New York Cty., December 16, 2021) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law to
recover from Defendants unpaid wages from compensable break time,
unpaid wages due to unpaid call-in-pay premiums, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, and to recover from
Defendants for discrimination on the basis of religion and sex.

Plaintiff Wilson was hired as a cashier at the Key Food Marketplace
located at 35 Pleasantville Road, Pleasantville, New York, in
December 2019. She was transferred to the Key Food Supermarkets
located at 540 West 235th Street, Bronx, New York around June 2020.
Ms. Wilson quit in March 2021 due to the discrimination and
harassment she endured during her time working at Key Food
Supermarkets Bronx, says the complaint.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of supermarkets as a single
integrated enterprise.[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

DCT ENTERPRISES: Faces Quiroz Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.M.
----------------------------------------------------------
SANJUANA QUIROZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DCT ENTERPRISES OF NEW MEXICO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01197 (D.N.M., December 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery 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 was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately January of 2017 until April of
2019.

DCT Enterprises of New Mexico, LLC is a company that owns and
operates Papa John's franchises in New Mexico. [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
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

DESK STORE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Desk Store LLC.
The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. The Desk Store LLC d/b/a
Porvata, Case No. 2:21-cv-07175 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2021).

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

The Desk Store LLC doing business as Porvata --
https://porvata.com/ -- design custom office furniture to help
construct a uniquely tailored workspace with balance and
performance in mind.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com



DICK'S SPORTING: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE N. MARTINEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; LARRY MARSH, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV45915 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 16, 2021) is brought pursuant to
the California Labor Code for the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement
violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify, and
unfair competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
customer service, payroll, training, and managing the storefront.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately October
of 2019 through approximately August of 2021.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is an American sporting goods retail
company, based in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211  
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  jejf@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com
                  sara@tomorrowlaw.com

DOLPHIN TOWING: Rojas Sues Over Unpaid OT for Tow Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ROJAS and JONATHAN BURGOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOLPHIN TOWING & RECOVERY,
INC., ROBERTO NODARSE, JR., and XAVIER NODARSE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-24385 (S.D. Fla., December 19, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Burgos and Plaintiff Rojas were employed by the
Defendants as tow truck drivers and yard workers from July 23, 2016
to July 23, 2021 and from September 29, 2018 to September 29, 2021,
respectively.

Dolphin Towing & Recovery, Inc. is an operator of a vehicle
recovery tow yard in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Santiago J. Padilla, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SANTIAGO J. PADILLA, P.A.
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 824-2400
         Facsimile: (305) 468-6321
         E-mail: sjp@padillalawoffice.com

DST SYSTEMS: Arbitration Awards in Newtal & Other Suits Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JILL McMANUS NEWTAL, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant. TRACY ALDEN, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
MICHAEL SPELLMAN, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. DELLA
GRAYBEAL, Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JOSEPH KENNEY,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. BETH RUDOLPH, Plaintiff
v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MARGARET PICHELMAN GOFORTH,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. JENNIFER MCCORD,
Plaintiff v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. LESLIE RILEY, Plaintiff
v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. PARMINDERJIT SINGH, Plaintiff v.
DST SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. MARTHA SABIN, Plaintiff v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. STEPHANIE STEVENS, Plaintiff v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. KATHLEEN SARETTE, Plaintiff v. DST
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 4:21-9185-NKL, 4:21-9186-NKL,
4:21-9188-NKL, 4:21-9189-NKL, 4:21-9190-NKL, 4:21-9191-NKL,
4:21-9192-NKL, 4:21-9193-NKL, 4:21-9194-NKL, 4:21-9195-NKL,
4:21-9196-NKL, 4:21-9197-NKL, 4:21-9198-NKL (E.D. Mo.), Judge
Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted each Plaintiff's motion to confirm the
arbitration award.

Background

At all relevant times, the Plaintiff was a participant, within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(7), in DST's 401(k) Profit
Sharing Plan. DST, though incorporated in Delaware, has its
principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. It is the
sponsor, administrator, and a designated fiduciary of the Plan
under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002 and 1102.

The underlying dispute arose from DST's alleged failure to monitor
and ensure the rebalancing of overly concentrated investments in
the Plan. On Jan. 13, 2017, Mr. James DuCharme, a participant in
the Plan, filed a putative class action in the Western District of
Missouri, seeking to recover damages on behalf of the Plan for
DST's alleged wrongdoing. On Feb. 22, 2017, DST filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to dismiss Mr. DuCharme's lawsuit. On June
23, 2017, the Honorable Brian C. Wimes granted DST's motion to
dismiss the DuCharme litigation, finding that the Arbitration
Agreement was "valid" and that "Ducharme's claims for breach of
fiduciary duty fell within the Arbitration Agreement's scope."

On June 18, 2018, DST sent a notice to all Plan participants bound
by the Arbitration Agreement explaining that a former employee had
initiated an arbitration relating to the Plan and advising each
participant that he or she "may initiate an individual arbitration
proceeding under the Arbitration Program by submitting a written
request" to DST.

Hundreds of Plan participants initiated arbitration proceedings
through the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). To date, 554
participants or beneficiaries have initiated arbitration
proceedings. During the past three years, the arbitrations have
progressed -- including through discovery, depositions, motion
practice, merits hearings, or simply settlements. To date, the
claims of at least 342 claimants have been tried; at least 214
claimants have received awards in their favor; and approximately 60
other claimants are awaiting awards. DST has appealed some of the
awards against it through the arbitration process. All of the
arbitration hearings at issue, albeit virtual, were conducted in
Missouri.

The Western District of Missouri confirmed at least five of the
arbitration awards earlier this year -- Murphy v. DST Sys., Inc.,
No. 21-MC-00174-BCW (W.D.Mo.); O'Brien v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-9008-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Quast v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-9009-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Mayberry v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-09007-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Keeton v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-MC-09006-BCW (W.D.Mo.); Parrott v. DST Sys., Inc., No.
21-mc-09012-NKL (W.D.Mo.). In at least one of those cases, DST
expressly stated just months ago that it "did not oppose the
confirmation of the Arbitration Award."

In September 2017, months after the DuCharme case was dismissed
upon DST's motion, a participant in the Plan brought a putative
class action in the Southern District of New York alleging breach
of fiduciary duty against DST and Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc., the
investment manager to which DST had delegated investment management
responsibilities, as well as the Plan's Advisory Committee and the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST -- Ferguson
v. Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc., No. 17-cv-06685 (S.D.N.Y.). The
plaintiffs in Ferguson filed a motion for class certification in
April 2020. The counsel for the Plaintiff in this case filed a
memorandum of law opposing the motion for class certification on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the hundreds of other similarly
situated arbitration claimants.

On March 4, 2021, while the motion for class certification in
Ferguson was pending, the Second Circuit reversed a district court
decision compelling arbitration pursuant to the same DST
Arbitration Agreement at issue in the instant case, Cooper v. Ruane
Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., 990 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2021). The Second
Circuit held that DST's Arbitration Agreement did not cover ERISA
fiduciary duty claims because the Arbitration Agreement covered
only employment-related disputes, not Plan-related disputes. The
Second Circuit also suggested that individual claims would not be
permissible in a suit asserting a breach of DST's fiduciary duty to
the Plan because, based on one of its prior opinions, such claims
must be brought on a representative basis. DST was not a party to
that lawsuit.

On March 8, 2021, the Ferguson court denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion without prejudice and ordered additional
briefing addressing Cooper. The Ferguson plaintiffs thereafter
renewed their class certification motion. DST filed a brief
supporting the class certification motion. The counsel for the
Arbitration Claimants, including the Plaintiff, filed an additional
brief in the Ferguson case opposing class certification, arguing
that DST had agreed to arbitrate the claims; that the Arbitration
Claimants had a right to arbitrate their claims; that the
Arbitration Claimants should be permitted to opt out of any class;
that Judge Wimes' decisions in DuCharme precluded certification of
a mandatory class; and that the Southern District of New York
lacked personal jurisdiction over the Arbitration Claimants.

On Aug. 17, 2021, the Ferguson court certified a Rule 23(b)(1)
mandatory class that includes the Plaintiff. The Ferguson court
stated, "while the Arbitration Claimants argue that they have a
right to arbitrate, the Second Circuit as well as the Court has
found that the claims at issue are not covered by the arbitration
agreement." The class certification decision in Ferguson also noted
secondarily that Second Circuit precedent requires parties suing on
behalf of an ERISA plan "to demonstrate their suitability to serve
as representatives of the interests of other plan stakeholders,"
and it was not clear "how an employee can bring an ERISA fiduciary
claim that satisfies adequacy requirement, while concurrently
complying with the agreement."

On Aug. 23, 2021, DST moved the Ferguson court for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit the
Arbitration Claimants from prosecuting the arbitrations and related
court proceedings in spite of the class certification order. Also,
on Aug. 30, 2021, the Arbitration Claimants, including the
Plaintiff, filed a petition in the Second Circuit pursuant to Rule
23(f) seeking discretionary review of the class certification
order.

On Aug. 31, 2021, the Ferguson court denied DST's motion for a
temporary restraining order, but it ordered the Arbitration
Claimants to show cause as to why they should not be enjoined from
prosecuting this or other actions relating to the class' claims.
The Arbitration Claimants thereafter filed papers arguing against
the proposed injunction, and DST filed papers in response.

On Nov. 18, 2021, the Ferguson court issued an order enjoining all
members of the certified class, including the Arbitration
Claimants, from "instituting new actions or litigating in
arbitration or other proceedings against the DST Defendants matters
arising out of or relating to the facts or transactions alleged in
the Ferguson amended complaint." Each of the motions to compel
arbitration addressed in the instant Order had been filed prior to
the issuance of that injunction.

Discussion

Each Plaintiff in the captioned actions has moved to confirm an
arbitration award. DST opposes the motion, arguing that the
Plaintiff's claims were not arbitrable and that the Plaintiff is
part of a mandatory class certified by the District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

One of the principal questions in the case is whether claims
relating to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") defined contribution plans must be pursued through the
class action mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1). Cases that suggest that ERISA pension fund claims must be
pursued through a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B) rely on the derivative nature
of ERISA litigation. They reason that because the ERISA claim must
be brought on behalf of the plan, any individual action would
necessarily affect absent plan participants and subject defendants
to an inconsistent standard.

DST has argued that the arbitration awards at issue cannot be
confirmed because the arbitrator had no authority to enter an
arbitration award in an individual action against DST for fiduciary
breach. DST in effect argues that these claims must be pursued in a
collective class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B) to protect all class members from being
adversely affected by piecemeal resolution of the fiduciary-breach
claims and to protect DST from inconsistent decisions.

However, Judge Laughrey finds that the non-arbitrating class
members in Ferguson were not adversely affected when the
arbitration claimants and DST agreed to arbitrate. Some
participants chose to arbitrate; other plan participants chose not
to arbitrate; but DST insisted on arbitration until recently; and
the Honorable Brian C. Wimes in Ducharme necessarily found that the
arbitration clause at issue covered claims for DST's fiduciary
breach.

Judge Laughrey adds that if the non-arbitration plaintiffs
ultimately receive more or less in a class action, or if
arbitration claimants receive more or less in arbitration, it will
be a result of each party's choice. Likewise, if DST is subject to
differing awards, it will be a result of DST's choice. Choice is
the touchstone of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Judge
Laughrey holds that absent any basis for finding that an individual
arbitration under these circumstances would adversely affect other
plan participants, there is no basis for finding that the
arbitrators in these cases exceeded their authority when they
entered their awards in these individual, representative
arbitrations based on the voluntary agreement by DST and the plan
participant to arbitrate.

Conclusion

Judge Laughrey concludes that DST paints the task before the Court
as one that is complex and merits forbearance, but in truth, the
obligation of the Court is plain and unavoidable. The FAA compels
the Court to confirm the award in the absence of specified
circumstances. As she discussed, no such circumstance exists. For
that reason and the additional reasons she discussed, Judge
Laughrey granted each Plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration
award.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in each
Plaintiff's favor against DST in the amounts listed below, with
post-judgment interest:

     a. McManus Newtal v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09185:
$8,194.02, plus attorney's fees of $247,306.93, statutory costs of
$11,949.88, and post-judgment interest;

     b. Alden v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09186 $24,659.60,
plus attorney's fees of $250,769.43, statutory costs of $11,949.88,
and post-judgment interest;

     c. Spellman v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09188
$3,153.04, plus attorney's fees of $8,180, costs of $2,987,
out-of-pocket expenses of $1,517 and post-judgment interest;

     d. Graybeal v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09189 $39,193,
attorney's fees of $105,510, costs of $12,277, out-of-pocket
expenses of $20,000, and post-judgment interest;

     e. Kenney v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09190
$11,143.90, plus attorney's fees of $15,340.92, out of pocket
expenses of $892.54, statutory costs of $11,299.05, and
post-judgment interest;

     f. Rudolph v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09191
$3,282.95, plus attorney's fees of $8,575, statutory costs of
$2,987, other costs of $1,517, and post-judgment interest;

     g. Pichelman Goforth v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09192
$45,558.89 plus attorney's fees of $205,840.10, out of pocket
expenses of $74,332.58, statutory costs of $10,928.90, and
post-judgment interest;

     h. McCord v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09193
$22,226.63, plus attorney's fees of $296,019.48, statutory costs of
$11,304.15, and pre-judgment interest;

     i. Riley v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09194 $72,364,
plus attorney's fees of $222,122.80, out-of-pocket expenses of
$74,293.56, and post-judgment interest;

     j. Singh v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09195 $13,873,
plus attorney's fees of $103,505, statutory costs of $12,277, plus
expenses of $20,000, and post-judgment interest;

     k. Sabin v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09196 $95,020.40,
plus attorney's fees $55,968.40, costs of $11,136.40 and
pre-judgment interest;

     k. Stevens v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09197
$79,278.36, plus attorney's fees in the amount of $167,806.30, plus
statutory costs of $48,448.83; and

     l. Sarette v. DST Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:21-09198
$15,857.22, plus attorney's fees of $99,560, statutory costs of
$10,928.90, and post-judgment interest.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8emysu from Leagle.com.


ENSIGN UNITED: Settlement Deal in Newell Suit Gets Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS NEWELL, an
individual, for himself and those similarly situated; MIGUEL
CALDERON, an individual for himself and those similarly situated,
v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-01314-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge  Dale A. Drozd entered an order:

   1. granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
      class action settlement;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Daniel J. Palay and Brian
      D. Hefelfinger as class counsel;

   3. appointing the plaintiffs, Louis Newell and Miguel
      Calderon, as class representatives; and

   4. approving CPT Group, Inc.as claims administrator;

The Defendant conducts drilling operations on offshore oil and gas
platforms off the California coast.

The Plaintiffs Newell and Calderon worked for defendant on federal
offshore platforms, performing non-exempt rig work.

The Plaintiffs' typical work schedule has consisted of a seven day
"hitch" (the colloquial term for the work period spent offshore)
which was generally seven consecutive days spent on the platform,
followed by seven days off work.) During a hitch, plaintiffs
generally were scheduled to work a rotating 12-hour schedule.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and the putative class were
scheduled for 12 hours "on duty," followed by 12 hours of
"controlled standby" in which plaintiffs and the putative class
members were allegedly required to be "on call" and available to
respond to any issues that arise on the platform.

During a hitch, the plaintiffs further allege that they and the
putative class were not able to leave the platform. The Plaintiffs
also allege that they and the putative class members were required
to listen for and respond to calls and alarms during meal periods.
If work calls or an alarm sounded, plaintiffs and putative class
members were allegedly required to stop whatever they were doing
and respond to the work, and they were not allowed to leave the
platform for any meals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qyyD2m at no extra charge.[CC]

ENTERPRISE ASPHALT: Jackson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
John Jackson, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Enterprise Asphalt Paving, Inc. and Alan
Siris, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07161 (E.D. N.Y., December 29,
2021), seeks to recover overtime wages for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act; and redress for failure to provide accurate wage statements
for each pay period under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
labor laws.

Defendants are engaged in the masonry and paving business,
operating throughout Suffolk and Nassau counties where Jackson was
employed as a laborer from 1995 through November 23, 2021. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
being paid the appropriate overtime premiums and alleges Enterprise
Asphalt of failing to maintain accurate records of the hours
worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: Bear Creek Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bear Creek Bible Church,
et al., v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., Case
No. 4:18-cv-00824-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their opposed motion to enter a
class-certification order that complies with the requirements of
Rule 23.

The Court's memorandum opinion and order of November 21, 2021
granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification. The plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to
enter a separate order on its class-certification ruling that
complies with the requirements of Rule 23.

Bear Creek Bible Church is a local, non-denominational, caring
community of Christians who worship and follow Jesus Christ.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace
discrimination.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zlr7Mh
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Dustin Fillmore III, Esq.
          Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
          THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street, Suite 801
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 332-2351
          Facsimile: (817) 870-1859
          E-mail: dusty@fillmorefirm.com
                  chad@fillmorefirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
          MITCHELL LAW PLLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 686-3940
          Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
          E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law

FBCS INC: Lowe Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Barbara Lowe filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled BARBARA LOWE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FBCS, INC, and LVNV
FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-02268, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The instant action arises out of a state court debt collection
action initiated by LVNV against Lowe, wherein the Superior Court
of New Jersey entered apparently conflicting and erroneous orders.
Namely, the Superior Court dismissed the case against Lowe but also
entered default judgment against her. The Defendants, debt
collectors, allegedly attempted to collect on the default judgment
while it was in effect and before it was vacated.

On July 11, 2016, Defendant LVNV commenced an action against the
Plaintiff in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County,
Docket Number PAS-DC-5913-16 (the "State Court Action") seeking to
collect a personal credit card debt. The Plaintiff filed an Answer
in the State Court Action on Aug. 12, 2016, disputing the debt. She
was thereafter notified that the matter would be set down for trial
on Oct. 20, 2016.

On Oct. 14, 2016, LVNV filed a request for default judgment against
Lowe in the State Court Action and submitted a certification of
proof regarding its damages.

On Nov. 8, 2016, despite the dismissal order, the Superior Court
filed a notice stating that judgment had been entered in favor of
LVNV against the Plaintiff for an amount of $1,173.19 on Oct. 14,
2016.

The Plaintiff alleges that, in 2019, FBCS started calling her to
collect a debt on behalf of LVNV. She cannot remember the dates or
number of calls but recalls receiving many calls from FBCS from mid
to late 2019. She also alleges that, during one or more of those
calls, she verbally disputed the debt. By letter dated Sept. 11,
2019, FBCS acknowledged the Plaintiff's verbal dispute of the
alleged debt. During her deposition on Feb. 19, 2021, the Plaintiff
could not recall this letter. She also could not recall disputing
an account with FBCS, making a phone call to FBCS, or receiving any
calls or letters from FBCS or LVNV.

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
Complaint, which she amended on June 1, 2020 (the "First Amended
Complaint"). In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants attempted to collect a debt that was subject to
dismissal and by doing so, made a false representation in violation
of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Sections 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5) and 1692e(10). The Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on June 15,
2020. Upon motion by the Plaintiff, on Feb. 11, 2021, the Court
entered an order staying consideration of the Defendants' motion to
dismiss pending the disposition of the Plaintiff's motion to vacate
judgment in the State Court Action.

On Oct. 8, 2021, the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing
that: (1) she has Article III standing; (2) her claims are timely;
(3) there is no dispute that Defendants attempted to collect a debt
subject to dismissal and thus made a false or misleading statement
in violation of the FDCPA; and (4) she is entitled to recover
actual and statutory damages and an award of attorneys' fees.

The Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 18, 2021, arguing that the Plaintiff's
claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, they
did not violate section FDCPA by attempting to collect on the
judgment at issue, the Plaintiff lacks standing, and she is not
entitled to any damages or legal fees under the FDCPA. On Oct. 25,
2021, the Plaintiff filed a reply in further support of her motion
for summary judgment.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 14, 2021,
Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey:

    (i) denied the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment; and
   (ii) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Barbara Lowe v. FBCS Inc, et
al., Case No. 21-3307, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on Dec. 15, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA LOWE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW GROUP
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

Defendants-Appellees FBCS INC. and LVNV FUNDING LLC are represented
by:

          Stephanie M. Imbornone, Esq.
          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          E-mail: simbornone@grsm.com
                  psiachos@grsm.com

               - and -

          Patrick D. Tobia, Esq.
          MORGAN MELHUISH ABRUTYN
          651 West Mount Pleasant Avenue, Suite 200
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 863-7628
          E-mail: ptobia@grsm.com

FIVE STARS BEAUTY SPA: Shu Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shu Juan Liu (a/k/a Shujuan Liu) on her own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Five Stars Beauty Spa
Inc., Shenhua Wang, Xia Zhou (Dina Doe), Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-11101, (S.D. N.Y., December 28, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours premium,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants collectively own and operate spas under the trade names
"All Seasons Body Work" and "Five Stars Beauty Spa" where Shu
worked as a beauty spa worker. She claims to have worked 66 hours
per workweek without being paid overtime premiums for hours over 40
per week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jiyuan Zhang, Esq
      J. ZHANG AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      13620 38th Ave., #11G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (607) 948-3339
      Email: contact@jzhanglaws.com


FLEX LTD: Dismissal of National Elevator's Class Claims Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, Lead
Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant, and DAVID KIPLING; BRISTOL COUNTY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs v. FLEX LTD., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-15050 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of National
Elevator's class action claims against Flex.

National Elevator appeals the dismissal of its class action claims
against Flex. It alleges that Flex and its officers gave false and
misleading information about its project with Nike and, thus,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The Ninth Circuit notes that federal securities fraud class actions
must meet the "higher, exacting pleading standards of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA)." Under Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must include "an
account of the time, place, and specific content of the false
representations" at issue. The "PSLRA imposes additional specific
pleading requirements, including requiring plaintiffs to state with
particularity both the facts constituting the alleged violation and
the facts evidencing scienter."

The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's dismissal de novo,
and affirms.

First, it finds that the district court properly held that four of
National Elevator's confidential witnesses were insufficiently
reliable. The four confidential witnesses at issue had no routine
interaction with the Nike project nor any firsthand knowledge of
facts contradicting Flex's executives' public statements. To be
credited as reliable, a witness must be in a position to personally
know the information alleged. The Ninth Circuit thus agrees that
these four confidential witnesses do not meet Zucco's test for
reliability.

More importantly, the confidential witness statements that National
Elevator relies on do not demonstrate that Flex's public statements
were false. On the contrary, the confidential witness statements
describe operational difficulties without directly contradicting
Flex's statements about profitability or successes surrounding the
Nike project. Without more, National Elevator's allegations about
"serious operational problems" in a new business "do not meet the
level of specificity required by the PSLRA and the caselaw
interpreting it." Indeed, while the confidential witnesses reported
instances of unexpected problems and delays, none of them made
statements directly at odds with Flex's public projections on
profitability. Without pleading the falsity of a statement about
operational successes or profitability with sufficient
particularity, National Elevator's claims fail.

The district court also properly held that statements related to
Flex's profitability projections are forward-looking statements
subject to the PSLRA's "safe harbor," the Ninth Circuit finds. It
says, under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-5(c)(1), statements are not actionable if (1) "they were
identified as forward-looking statements and accompanied by
meaningful cautionary language;" or (2) the plaintiff does not
allege with particularity that the "projections were made with
actual knowledge that they were materially false or misleading." "A
forward-looking statement is any statement regarding (1) financial
projections, (2) plans and objectives of management for future
operations, (3) future economic performance, or (4) the assumptions
underlying or related to any of these issues." Flex's projections
of profitability fall into the category of forward-looking
statements.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8sdea7 from Leagle.com.


FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKIESHA CLEVELAND, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FOUNDATIONS
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01713-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   a. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the FLSA on behalf of Representative Plaintiff and
      others similarly situated;

   b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail, email
      and text message to the following:

      "All present and former State Tested Nursing Aides
      ("STNAs") who were employed by Defendant and who worked
      40 or more hours in any workweek at any time from
      September 2, 2018 to the present."

   c. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;

   d. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days an
      electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or comma-
      delimited format a Roster of all individuals that fit
      the definition above that includes their full names, dates
      of employment, last known home addresses, personal email
      addresses, and phone numbers;

   e. directing Defendant to provide a Declaration that the
      produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order; and

   f. directing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses,
      email addresses, or phone numbers are found for any
      potential opt-in plaintiff.

This case involves Defendant's unlawful companywide meal deduction
policies and practices. The Representative Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt State Tested Nursing Aide
("STNA"). The Defendant has had a companywide policy and practice
of deducting thirty minutes from its STNAs' daily hours worked for
meal breaks. Many times, however, Defendant's STNAs (including
Representative Plaintiff) were unable to take a thirty-minute
uninterrupted break.

The Defendant knew that its STNAs were not taking their
uninterrupted meal beaks. Despite this knowledge, Defendant still
deducted thirty minutes from its STNAs' daily work hours. This
deduction resulted in Defendant not paying its STNAs (including
Representative Plaintiff) all of their overtime compensation.

The Defendant owns and operates fifty-nine nursing homes in Ohio.
The Defendant employees STNAs at these facilities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGvltR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: 330 470-4428
          Facsimile: 330 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com

FRITO-LAY INC: Faces Booth Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD BOOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY, INC., ROLLING FRITO-LAY SALES,
LP, FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC., FRITO-LAY SALES, INC., and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV46151 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods, failure to pay premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods at the regular rate of pay, failure to pay at least minimum
wage for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages at the
correct rate, failure to pay double time wages at the correct rate,
failure to pay overtime and/or double time wages by not including
all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay,
failure to pay all vested vacation pay, failure to reimburse all
necessary business expenses, failure to provide accurate written
wage statements, and failure to pay all of final wages following
separation of employment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from approximately August 16, 2020 through November 4,
2020.

Frito-Lay, Inc. is a food company headquartered in Plano, Texas.

Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP is a food company headquartered in
Plano, Texas.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc. is a food company headquartered in
Plano, Texas.

Frito-Lay Sales, Inc. is a food company headquartered in Plano,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Shaun Setareh, Esq.
         Thomas Segal, Esq.
         Farrah Grant, Esq.
         SETAREH LAW GROUP
         9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (310) 888-7771
         Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
         E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 thomas@setarehlaw.com
                 farrah@setarehlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Napoli-Bosse et al v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-01720 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Michael P Shea entered an order on motion for extension of
time to file response/reply as follows:

  -- The deadline to respond to the pending motions for class
     certification and summary judgment is now January 18, 2022;

  -- The reply deadline is now February 1, 2022; and

  -- The defendant's deadline to file a joinder in support of
     the plaintiff's pending motion to seal is now January 18,
     2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[CC]

GENWORTH LIFE: Ct. Amends Scheduling Order in Brighton Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brighton Trustees, LLC, et
al., v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Case No.
3:20-cv-00240-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David J. Novak entered
an order granting motion to amend scheduling order as follows:

   -- Defendant's corporate designee          Jan. 12, 2022
      shall sit for a deposition
      under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
      not later than:

   -- The deadlines for serving               Jan. 24, 2022
      Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures
      of the Scheduling and Pretrial
      Order shall be extended so that
      initial expert reports shall
      be served on or before:

   -- Responsive reports shall be served      Feb. 14, 2022
      on or before:

   -- Any rebuttal reports shall              Feb. 24, 2022
      be served on or before:

   -- Reschedules the hearing on              Feb. 25, 2022
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification for:

Genworth Life operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
life, accident, and health insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HofLdh at no extra charge.[CC]

GOLDMAN SACHS: Scully Files Insider Trading Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
ALISON SCULLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. and MORGAN STANLEY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10791 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2021) is
a securities class action arising from the unlawful use of material
non-public information by Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley, who collectively avoided billions in losses by selling
shares of Baidu Inc., a Chinese multinational technology company
specializing in Internet-related services and products and
artificial intelligence, to Plaintiff and other unsuspecting and
unwitting public shareholders, after confidentiality learning that
Archegos Capital Management, a family office with $10 billion under
management, failed to meet a margin call, requiring it to fully
liquidate its position in Baidu.

The class action is brought on behalf of all those investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Baidu shares contemporaneously with
Defendants' unlawful trades from March 22, 2021 through and
including March 29, 2021, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Allegedly, the Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing,
that they were prohibited from trading based on this confidential
market-moving information, but traded anyway, disposing to
Plaintiff and other members of the Class their Baidu stock before
the news about Archegos was announced and Baidu's shares
plummeted.

Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial
services institutions. Both served as Archegos' prime brokers,
helping it make trades and lending it capital in the form of margin
lending.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP  
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          Armen Zohrabian, Esq.
          Arun Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com
                  azohrabian@hedinhall.com
                  aravindran@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park E, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1604
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

GOOGLE LLC: March 28, 2022 Deadline for Class Cert. Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GOOGLE ASSISTANT PRIVACY LITIGATION,
Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated as
follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file          March 28, 2022
     a motion for class certification is:

  -- The Defendants' deadline to file an       May 16, 2022
     opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
     for class certification is:

  -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a        June 13, 2022
     reply in support of the motion for
     class certification is:

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

A copy of the Parities motion dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sNO1e1 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  esomers@lexlawgroup.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants Google LLC and Alphabet Inc.,
are:

          Sunita Bali, Esq.
          Bobbie J. Wilson, Esq.
          Sunita Bali, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP

HAWAI'I: District Court Trims Claims in Abing v. OCP, ODC & Judges
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHESTER NOEL ABING, DENNIS DUANE DESHAW, AND SUSAN KAY
BROER-DESHAW, Plaintiffs v. JAMES F. EVERS, JOHN N. TOKUNAGA,
STEPHEN H. LEVINS, LISA P. TONG, MELINDA D. SANCHES, CATHERINE
AWAKUNI COLON, JO ANN UCHIDA TAKEUCHI, MICHAEL J.S. MORIYAMA, BRUCE
B. KIM, BRADLEY R. TAMM, RYAN SUMMERS LITTLE, REBECCA SALWIN,
YVONNE R. SHINMURA, CHARLENE M. NORRIS, ROY F. HUGHES, GAYLE J.
LAU, JEFFREY P. MILLER, PHILIP H. LOWENTHAL, and CLIFFORD NAKEA,
BERT I. AYABE, and JEANNETTE H. CASTAGNETTI, Defendants, both
Individually and in their Official Capacities, Civ. No. 21-00095
JAO-WRP (D. Haw.), Judge Jill A. Otake of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Hawaii issued an Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part the OCP Defendants'
      Motion and the Disciplinary Defendants and Judge
      Defendants' Substantive Joinder and Motion to Dismiss;

   b. dismissing with prejudice Counts IV and VII but declining
      to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to address the
      surviving state law claims;

   c. dismissing the remaining state law claims without leave to
      amend in federal court; and

   d. denying the Judge Defendants' request to strike the
      allegations against them.

Introduction

Pro se Plaintiffs Abing, DeShaw, and Broer-DeShaw are homeowners
who have each faced or are facing foreclosure in state court
proceedings. In February 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Verified
Class-Action Complaint against various individuals affiliated with
Hawaii's Office of Consumer Protection ("OCP") and Office of
Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") and two state court judges, all of
whom allegedly engaged in a far-ranging conspiracy to unlawfully
deprive various homeowners in Hawai'i of their homes. The
Plaintiffs now repeat most of the same allegations in their First
Amended Verified Class-Action Complaint ("FAC").

Defendants James F. Evers, John N. Tokunaga, Stephen H. Levins,
Lisa P. Tong, Melina D. Sanchez, Catherine Awakuni Colón,2 Jo Ann
M. Uchida Takeuchi, and Michael J.S. Moriyama (collectively, the
"OCP Defendants") move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC. Defendants
Bruce B. Kim, Bradley R. Tamm, Ryan Summers Little, Rebecca Salwin,
Yvonne R. Shinmura, Charlene M. Norris, Roy F. Hughes, Gayle J.
Lau, Jeffrey P. Miller, Philip H. Lowenthal, and Clifford Nakea
(collectively, the "Disciplinary Defendants"); and the Honorable
Bert I. Ayabe and the Honorable Jeannette H. Castagnetti
(collectively, the "Judge Defendants") substantively join in the
OCP Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Judge Defendants also move
the Court to strike all the allegations against them.

Background

The Plaintiffs are each homeowners whose homes are or have been
subject to foreclosure by "Dummy Corporations" that allegedly
pretended (1) to lend money to homeowners and (2) to own their
mortgages, when they had no legal interest in the mortgaged
properties. They have been involved in seven separate lawsuits
against the Dummy Corporations that have initiated foreclosure
proceedings against them. The Plaintiffs allege that the Judge
Defendants wrongfully granted summary judgment to the respective
mortgagees in foreclosure cases involving their respective homes,
and that they routinely grant summary judgment in favor of
mortgagees without evidence that the mortgagee owns the mortgage
and associated note.

According to the Plaintiffs, wrongful foreclosures occur because
there are no longer any attorneys in Hawai'i who are willing and
competent to represent defendants in foreclosure actions in a
zealous manner. The various government officials named in the FAC
(whom the Plaintiffs believe are former employees of and/or
attorneys for the Dummy Corporations and reference in the FAC as
the "Conspirators" and to whom the Court will refer as
"Defendants") have allegedly entered into a "confederacy to assist
the Dummy Corporations in taking thousands of homes in this State."
The Defendants intimidate members of the foreclosure defense bar by
disbarring its members for minor or trumped-up offenses,
threatening to disbar them, subpoenaing their records, offering to
bribe their former clients to complain about them, and suing them
under consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants have acted
together to "blacklist" and discriminate against homeowners like
them who defend against foreclosure proceedings by intervening in
foreclosure cases without leave of court, threatening and
intimidating homeowners, harassing them by subpoenaing their
records, assisting the mortgagees' attorneys, and stealing funds
from one of the Plaintiffs' bank accounts.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Dummy Corporations forge documents
in order to prevail in foreclosure actions and did so in Abing and
DeShaw's respective foreclosure actions. They state that the
Defendants, who are charged with protecting consumers, have taken
no action to stop the alleged fraud the Dummy Corporations are
perpetrating.

New to the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege that they contacted dozens of
lawyers and asked them to accept the case but that they all
declined. They also allege that Defendant Evers intervened in
Deshaw's case to help a Dummy Corporation.

The Plaintiff commenced the action by filing the Complaint on Feb.
16, 2021, asserting the following claims against all the
Defendants: Count I - Abuse Of Power Or Malfeasance; Count II - 42
U.S.C. Section 1983: Due Process; Count III - 42 U.S.C. Section
1983: Threatening Homeowners; Count IV - 42 U.S.C. Section 1983:
Equal Protection; Count V - 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2) and (3):
Conspiracy To Deprive Constitutional Rights; Count VI - 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983: Denial Of Access To Courts; Count VII - 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983: Failure To Intervene; Count VIII - Malicious
Prosecution; Count IX - Civil Conspiracy; Count X - Intentional
Infliction Of Emotional Distress (IIED); and Count XI - 42 U.S.C.
Section 1986: Action For Neglect To Prevent A Harm.

The OCP Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 1, 2021. The
Disciplinary Defendants and the Judge Defendants filed a
substantive joinder in the OCP Defendants' Motion and also sought
dismissal on additional grounds. The Plaintiff opposed both the
Motion and the Substantive Joinder.

The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
("Order"). The Order dismissed all claims and only allowed limited
leave to amend Count IV (42 U.S.C. Section 1983: Equal Protection)
and Count VII (42 U.S.C. Section 1983: Failure To Intervene).
Specifically, the Court dismissed those counts with prejudice as to
the Judge Defendants and as to the other Defendants to the extent
they were acting in their official capacities and to the extent
Plaintiffs were seeking money damages. Id. at 55. Thus, Plaintiffs
had leave to amend Counts IV and VII but could not: (1) assert
those claims against the Judge Defendants; (2) seek money damages
or other retrospective relief for those counts; or (3) assert any
claim in violation of the statute of limitations. The Court also
stated that the Plaintiffs "may not add parties or claims without
obtaining leave of court." And that "failure to comply with the
Order may result in the dismissal of the action."

The Plaintiffs largely ignored the Court's Order. In the FAC, they
reasserted the dismissed claims, changed Count III from "42 U.S.C.
Section 1983: Threatening Homeowners" to "42 U.S.C. Section 1985(2)
and (3): Threatening Homeowners To Deprive Them Of Equal
Protection," and added a new Count XII (Fourteenth Amendment: Equal
Protection).

The OCP Defendants now move to dismiss the FAC. The Disciplinary
and Judge Defendants again substantively join the Motion. The Judge
Defendants also move the Court to strike all the allegations
against them. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion.

Discussion

Judge Otake only addresses the two counts for which he granted the
Plaintiffs leave to amend: Counts IV and Counts VII. To the extent
the FAC attempts to rehabilitate the other counts pleaded in the
Complaint, it violates the Court's explicit instructions in its
previous Order. The disposition of the other counts as described in
the Order remains effective. Similarly, Judge Otake dismisses with
prejudice the newly added Count XII because the Plaintiffs did not
obtain leave to add a claim.

A. Count IV: Equal Protection

In Count IV, the Plaintiffs assert an equal protection claim under
Section 1983. Despite again acknowledging that they may not have a
constitutional right to an attorney in all cases, the Plaintiffs
maintain that they have such a right in foreclosure proceedings if
the Dummy Corporations also have such a right. They add to the FAC
that the Defendants apply various consumer protection statutes
differently to homeowners and Dummy Corporations because they use
the laws "to fine and harass and intimidate the defense bar."

Judge Otake finds that the Plaintiffs' added allegation that the
Defendants apply consumer protection laws to "fine and harass and
intimidate the foreclosure defense bar" to deprive the Plaintiffs
of available attorneys to benefit Dummy Corporations is
insufficient to state an equal protection claim. Thus, the Court
again concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the
first step of a class-based equal protection claim. Even if
homeowners constitute a class and Dummy Corporations constitute a
control group, the Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts showing
that the two groups are similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs' theory that the Defendants deprived them of
attorneys while allowing Dummy Corporations to be represented does
not constitute an equal protection violation, Judge Otake adds. He
says, the Plaintiffs have not alleged that the Defendants engaged
in any affirmative efforts to provide Dummy Corporations with the
counsel nor is there any law providing for the appointment of the
counsel to the Plaintiffs in foreclosure actions or to corporations
generally. The Plaintiffs therefore fail to state an equal
protection claim.

The Plaintiffs have already had an opportunity to amend their
Complaint and failed to allege any additional facts. Instead, they
filed an FAC that was nearly identical to the Complaint. That they
declined to add, clarify, or modify their allegations in any
substantive way demonstrates that further leave to amend would
prove futile. Count IV is dismissed with prejudice.

B. Count VII: Failure to Intervene

In the Order, the Court held that the Plaintiffs have alleged no
facts showing that there was a special relationship between
themselves and any Defendants. Nor have the Plaintiffs alleged
facts showing that the State placed them in danger by acting with
deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger. In an attempt
to address these deficiencies, the Plaintiffs added two paragraphs
in their FAC:

     123. The Fourteenth Amendment imposes a duty on agents of a
State to protect individuals from their fellow agents. For example,
police officers have a duty to intercede when their follow officers
violate the Constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen —
if the agents have a realistic opportunity to intercede.

     124. Defendant James F. Evers intervened in the case of the
DeShaws to help a Dummy Corporation, without leave of court. And
Evers interrogated Mr. Abing, threatened him, tried to bribe him,
and ordered him to convey his home to a Dummy Corporation. This
behavior was illegal and improper. Meanwhile, Evers's sidekick
(John N. Tokunaga) and their supervisors in the OCP (Catherine
Awakuni Colon, Jo Ann Uchida Takeuchi, and Michael J. S. Moriyama),
all of whom have a special relationship with the State, knew
exactly what Evers was doing, because they were assisting him and
directing him to do it. But Tokunaga and the supervisors placed
Plaintiffs into danger of suffering the loss of their homes by
acting with deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger.

Neither allegation aids the Plaintiffs' case, Judge Otake holds.
She finds that the first paragraph simply misstates the legal
standard for when a state official must intervene to prevent the
violation of a constitutional right. To the extent the first
paragraph is an attempt to plead a special relationship between the
Plaintiffs and the state, she says it fails. The Plaintiff has
pleaded nothing of the sort. As to the so-called state-created
danger exception, the Plaintiffs claims also fail.

Even if Judge Otake construed such allegations as the Defendants'
failure to act, she says, the Plaintiffs have not alleged
sufficient facts to state a claim. They have not alleged which
affirmative act placed them in danger. Nor have the Plaintiffs
alleged how the various Defendants knew about and were indifferent
to the danger. Without more factual detail the Plaintiffs cannot
state a plausible claim.

The Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently amend their allegations
to state a claim. And because their allegations in the FAC are
virtually unchanged from those in the Complaint, they have
demonstrated that any further leave to amend would be futile. Count
VII is dismissed with prejudice.

C. Statute of Limitations

Even if the Plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient factual detail to
pursue their Section 1983 equal protection and failure to intervene
claims, Judge Otake alternatively concludes that those claims are
barred by the statute of limitations. She finds that the
Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims are subject to Hawaii's two-year
statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Therefore,
their claims must have accrued before Feb. 16, 2019 (two years
prior to the date of the Complaint).

The Plaintiffs only identify two alleged actions by non-Judge
Defendants that occurred after Feb. 16, 2019. First, they allege
that OCP Defendants stole $500 dollars from Abing's credit card
account on March 23, 2019 to prevent Abing from paying legal fees.
That the bank disputed the charge bears no connection to the
allegations in the FAC.

Second, the Plaintiffs allege that OCP Defendants sent letters to
them on Oct. 28, 2020, "offering to pay large bribes to them if
they would inform against" Stone. But again, the Plaintiffs have
failed to link this allegation to either an equal protection or
failure to intervene violation. Standing alone this allegation
cannot support their claims under Counts IV and VII and the
Plaintiffs have alleged no other facts to demonstrate that such
claims accrued within the limitations period. Thus, Judge Otake
concludes, in the alternative, that these claims are barred by the
statute of limitations and that Counts IV and VII are dismissed
with prejudice.

D. Judge Defendants' Request to Strike Allegations

The Judge Defendants seek an order striking all allegations of
wrongdoing asserted against them because the Court ruled that they
were protected by judicial immunity. While the Plaintiffs repeat
the dismissed allegations against the Judge Defendants in violation
of the Court's Order, the Judge Defendants have not presented any
authority for their request. Further, because the Order remains
effective, the Judge Defendants are not facing any live
allegations. As such, Judge Otake denies the request to strike.

E. Remaining State Law Claims

The OCP Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the remaining portions
of the state law claims in the FAC: Count I (Abuse of Power or
Malfeasance), Count IX (Civil Conspiracy), and Count X (IIED)
against the non-Judge Defendants acting in their individual
capacities.

Considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state law claims. The Court dismissed the only claims
over which it had original jurisdiction, and although the Court
addressed the Defendants' dispositive motions, the case is still in
its earliest stages. There are no other factors compelling the
Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental
jurisdiction when no federal claims remain. Accordingly, Judge
Otake declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Otake granted in part and denied
in part the OCP Defendants' Motion and the Disciplinary Defendants'
and Judge Defendants' Joinder. She granted the Motion and Joinder
as to Counts IV, VII, and XII. She also granted the Motion and
Joinder as to the state law claims to the extent the claims
remained live after the Court's first Order. But the Court's
dismissal of the remaining state law claims is only without leave
to amend in federal court. The Judge Defendants' request to strike
included in the Joinder is denied

Counts IV, VII, and XII are dismissed with prejudice.

Judge Otake declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Counts I, IX, and X. These counts are dismissed without leave to
amend in federal court.

The Court's previous Order disposes of the Plaintiffs' other claims
and remains effective.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5f3tvd77 from Leagle.com.


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Loses Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTOS, et al., v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-23084 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams
entered an order:

   1. adopting  Torres's Report and Recommendation regarding
      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of ther Fair Credit Reporting Act

HRRG is a debt collection agency, specializing in the collection of
medical debt.[CC]

HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH
LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-07418 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire
C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended putative
class complaint of Plaintiffs Mark Meisel, Karen Pekelney, and
Mitchell Rindner.

Background

The Defendant is a New Jersey-based company that provides health
insurance products and services to approximately 3.7 million
members. In its normal course of business, the Defendant maintains
its members' personal and medical information, including names,
birth dates, Social Security numbers, addresses, medical histories,
and insurance information. During the weekend of Nov. 1 to 3, 2013,
an unknown thief stole two password-protected laptop computers --
containing information of more than 839,000 members -- from the
Defendant's headquarters in Newark, New Jersey. The Defendant
reported the incident to the Newark Police Department on Nov. 4,
2013 and began an investigation into the amount and type of
information stored on the stolen laptops.

On Dec. 6, 2013, the Defendant notified potentially affected
members of the theft via letter and press release. The press
release stated that "the laptops may have contained files with
differing amounts of member information, including name and
demographic information (e.g., address, member identification
number, date of birth), and in some instances, a Social Security
number and/or limited clinical information." As a result of the
breach, the Defendant offered potentially affected members "one
year of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services
through Experian's ProtectMyId Alert."

On Dec. 11, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, which was later amended on June 27, 2014. In the Amended
Complaint, they asserted federal causes of action under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and several state law causes of
action.

Thereafter, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint for lack of standing. On March 31, 2015, the Court
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint without prejudice, finding that the Plaintiffs lacked
Article III standing to bring their federal claims.

In lieu of filing an amended pleading, the Plaintiffs asked the
Court to enter a final judgment, and subsequently filed a notice of
appeal on May 21, 2015. On Jan. 20, 2017, the Third Circuit,
reviewing the Court's March 31, 2015 Opinion and Order, observed
that "a pair of recent cases touching upon this question" were
rendered after the Court's March Opinion and that its
"pronouncements in this area have not been entirely consistent."
Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated the Court's Opinion and
Order, finding that standing existed, and remanded for further
proceedings on the merits, which had not yet been addressed by the
District Court.

On April 17, 2017, the Court entered a consent order establishing a
briefing schedule for revised memoranda of law regarding the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. It held oral argument. The parties
thereafter filed several submissions, including the Defendant's
Notice of Supplemental Authority, on Jan. 31, 2019 and the
Plaintiffs' response, on Feb. 20, 2019. The Court has duly
considered all submissions. All efforts at mediation have been
unsuccessful.

Discussion

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act

Preliminarily, Judge Cecchi notes that the Third Circuit, in its
opinion vacating the Court's March 31, 2015 Opinion and Order, did
not pass judgment on the merits of the Plaintiffs' FCRA claims as
it assumed, only for the purposes of the standing inquiry, that
FCRA was violated. Accordingly, the question of whether the
Defendant is subject to liability under FCRA is properly before the
Court.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant willfully (Count I) and
negligently (Count II) violated FCRA by failing to adopt and
maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality and
proper utilization of their personal and insurance information. The
Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FCRA claims on the
grounds that (1) the Defendant is not subject to liability under
FCRA because it not a consumer reporting agency and (2) even if it
were, the Defendant did not furnish or disclose information in
violation of FCRA.

1. Consumer Reporting Agency

First, the Defendant argues that it is "not a 'consumer reporting
agency' subject to FCRA liability" because, as the Amended
Complaint notes, it is a health insurance company. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendant is a CRA because on a cooperative
nonprofit basis or for monetary fees, it regularly assembles
consumer information including, among other things, insurance
policy information, such as names, dates of birth, and Social
Security Numbers of those insured; claims information, such as the
date of loss, type of loss, and amount paid for claims submitted by
an insured; and a description of insured items. The Defendant also
regularly utilizes interstate commerce to furnish such information
on consumers (consumer reports) to third parties.

Judge Cecchi finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
pleaded that the Defendant, an insurance company, is a consumer
reporting agency under FCRA. The Plaintiffs have not cited any
authority, from this district or elsewhere, wherein a court held
otherwise and found that an insurance provider qualifies as a
consumer reporting agency under FCRA. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
have failed to state a claim under FCRA.

2. Furnishing or Disclosing Information

Even if the Defendant was a consumer reporting agency, Judge Cecchi
holds that the Plaintiffs would still fail to state a claim under
FCRA because the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to
demonstrate any violation of FCRA. The Plaintiffs assert claims
under two FCRA provisions: 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681b(g)7 and 1681e.
An entity violates these provisions by either improperly disclosing
(Section 1681b(g)) or furnishing (Section 1681e) consumer
information. The Defendant argues that it cannot be found to have
disclosed or furnished consumer information because its information
was stolen.

Judge Cecchi finds that the Plaintiffs allege that the data at
issue was stolen from the Defendant, without any voluntary act of
furnishing by the Defendant. Therefore, she finds that the
Complaint does not properly allege that the Defendant furnished the
Plaintiffs' information within the meaning of FCRA. Accordingly, as
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of FCRA by the
Defendant, the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint will be granted.

B. Remaining State Law Claims

As to the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims, Judge Cecchi
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at this time.
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to either
28 U.S.C. Sction 1331 (federal question), or 28 U.S.C. Section 1332
(diversity of citizenship). A plaintiff properly invokes Section
1331 jurisdiction when she pleads a colorable claim 'arising under'
the Constitution or laws of the United States. In the case, because
the Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable federal claim under
FCRA, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

To invoke Section 1332, the Plaintiffs must state "a claim between
parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the required
jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000." According to the
allegations, complete diversity does not exist. Judge Cecchi
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(c) over any remaining state-law claims arising
in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, she will dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its entirety.

Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint. To the
extent that the Plaintiffs are able to cure the pleading
deficiencies discussed, they may file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of the Opinion. An appropriate Order
accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3npp5a3m from Leagle.com.


I.C. SYSTEM: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Revised
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luis A. Rodriguez-Ocasio
v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-13447-JMV-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order revising the briefing
schedule as follows:

            Event                 Current         Proposed
                                  Dates           Dates

  -- Motion for class          Dec. 17, 2021    Jan. 7, 2022
     certification due:

  -- Opposition papers due:    Jan. 24, 2022    Feb. 14, 2022

  -- Reply papers due:         Feb. 7, 2022     March 7, 2022

IC System is a debt collection agency that founded in 1938 with
headquarters in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eKhblO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          Continental Plaza
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117

I.C. SYSTEM: Parties Directed to Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. I.C. System,
Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-02125 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.

The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of
expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2)
discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4)
response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion
for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

IC System is an accounts receivable management provider.[CC]

IDAHO: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Dreyer Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA DREYER, as parent
and natural guardian of B.B., et al., v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
& WELFARE, an agency of the State of Idaho, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00211-DCN (D. Idaho), the Court entered scheduling order as
follows:

  1. Class Certification Motion            July 1, 2022
     Deadline:

  2. All dispositive motions shall         March 1, 2023
     be filed by:

  3. All motions to amend pleadings        March 1, 2022
     and join parties, except for
     allegations of punitive damages,
     shall be filed on or before:

  4. The parties have chosen to            June 20, 2022
     participate in setttlement
     conference. Alternative Dispute
     Resolution (ADR) must be held by:

  5. All class-certification discovery     June 1, 2022.
     will be completed by:

  6. All factual discovery will be         Feb. 1, 2023
     completed by:

The Plaintiffs include JAMIE FORURIA, as personal representative of
the Estate of Drew Anthony Rinehart, deceased; PENNEY PEASE, as
parents and guardian of Nickolas Pease; WILLIAM BENJAMIN, as parent
and guardian of Nathan Benjamin; WENDY MASTROENI, as guardian of
Michael McNamar; SHELBY BLOOM, as parents and next friends of Colby
Bloom; and WENDY GILNET, as parents and next friends of Colby
Bloom.

The Defendants include DIRECTOR, SOUTHWEST IDAHO TREATMENT CENTER,
a program of the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, an agency of
the State of Idaho; JAMIE NEWTON, individually and as Director of
the Southwest Idaho Treatment Center, a program of the Idaho
Department of Health & Welfare, an agency of the State of Idaho;
STATE OF IDAHO; CORBIN BURKETT, individually; JASON MILLER,
individually; BILLY KING, individually; LUKE BRISBANE,
individually, a/k/a LUKE GUSHWA; DEBRA LUPER, individually; DEBORAH
COMBS, individually; LEONDRE EDWARDS, individually; BRANDON McGEE,
individually; PAUL TOMPKINS, individually; ROGER ARDMONT,
individually; JOLENE BERG, individually; ROGER ARMENT; and JOHN AND
JANE DOES 1-100,
individually and in their official capacity.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34dTCQz at no extra charge.[CC]

INSTADOSE PHARMA: Deluca Slams Share Drop from Shady Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michele Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Instadose Pharma Corp. (formerly Mikrocoze,
Inc.) and Terry Wilshire, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00675, (E.D.
Va., December 30, 2021), seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Instadose does not have significant operations and is a "shell"
company. It was formerly known as "Mikrocoze, Inc.," which was
organized to sell micro-furniture for small spaces via the
Internet. It has since pivoted its business to focus on growth and
acquisition of pharmaceutical grade agricultural products.

On December 7, 2020, Instadose (then still known as Mikrocoze)
entered into a non-binding letter of intent with Instadose Pharma
Corp., a Canadian-based cannabis producer (Instadose Canada), and
holders of a majority of its outstanding shares for a transaction
to acquire 100% of the outstanding common shares of Instadose
Canada in exchange for approximately 80% of the issued and
outstanding shares of common stock of the company following such
exchange.

Deluca alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that Instadose
had performed inadequate due diligence and/or ignored significant
red flags associated with Instadose Canada, that Instadose's
internal controls and policies were inadequate to detect and/or
prevent impermissible trading activity by control persons of the
company and subjected Instadose to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement action.

On July 9, 2021, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) announced
that the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Instadose Canada,
Grant Ferdinand Sanders, was charged quasi-criminally with one
count of fraud in relation to his role as Chairman and CEO of
Instadose Canada, which, since July 2017, had raised more than $9.4
million from investors. The OSC alleged that investor funds were
diverted to the benefit of Sanders, his family, and associates, and
that Instadose Canada materially misrepresented the nature of its
business.

On this news, the company's stock price fell $22.61 per share, or
91.87%, to close at $2.00 per share on December 9, 2021.

Deluca claims to have acquired Instadose securities at artificially
inflated prices and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged
corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue N.W.
      Suite 500, East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
             dbunch@cohenmilstein.com


J.A.K.'S PUPPIES: Carey Sues Over Illegal Puppy Laundering Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA CAREY, and CODY LATZER, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J.A.K.'S PUPPIES, INC., JOLYN
NOETHE, KIMBERLY DOLPHIN, RUSSELL KIRK, RESCUE PETS IOWA CORP.,
TBHF LLC D/B/A THE PET X CHANGE, BARK ADOPTIONS, STEPHANIE VAUGHN,
ANA DIAZ, PET CONNECT RESCUE, INC., RAY ROTHMAN, ALYSIA ROTHMAN,
SUBJECT ENTERPRISE, INC., CODA SUBJECT, MICADA, INC. D/B/A ANIMAL
KINGDOM PET SHOP, and ADAM TIPTON, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-02095 (C.D. Cal., December 16, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful and unfair sale of puppy mill dogs. The
lawsuit seeks a disgorgement of all profits from Defendants'
illegal puppy laundering ring.

According to the complaint, each of the Defendants have, both
individually and collectively, knowingly participated in the
unlawful and unfair activity of trafficking puppy mill puppies into
California for compensation and private gain. The Defendants
falsified the puppies' sources and pretended to operate as, or work
with, animal rescue organizations to circumvent the restrictions of
California law. This alleged "puppy laundering" scheme enabled
Defendants to sell dogs to consumers who would not have otherwise
supported an illegal black-market enterprise, much less paid the
premium prices they did for their puppies.

Carey purchased a Cockapoo puppy, whom she named Sonnie, from an
Animal Kingdom pet store in January 2019 while Latzer purchased an
Australian cattle dog, whom he named Sadie, from an Animal Kingdom
pet store in March 2019.

Defendant J.A.K.'s Puppies, Inc., named after its founding members,
Jolyn Noethe and Kimberly Dolphin, is a for-profit puppy broker
that churns through thousands of designer and pure breed puppies
annually.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Isabel Callejo-Brighton, Esq.
          ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
          525 E. Cotati Ave
          Cotati, CA 94931
          Telephone: (707) 795-2533, Ex. 1078
          Facsimile: (707) 795-7280
          E-mail: icallejo-brighton@aldf.org

               - and -

          Caitlin M. Foley, Esq.
          ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND  
          150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (707) 795-2533, Ex. 1072
          Facsimile: (707) 795-7280
          E-mail: cfoley@aldf.org

               - and -

          Ariel Flint, Esq.
          ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
          2125 24 St.
          Astoria, NY 11105
          Telephone: (707) 795-2533, Ex. 1058
          Facsimile: (707) 795-7280
          E-mail: aflint@aldf.org

               - and -

          Claire Tonry, Esq.
          Knoll D. Lowney, Esq.
          SMITH & LOWNEY, PLLC
          2317 E. John Street
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 860-2883
          Facsimile: (206) 860-4187
          E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com
                  claire@smithandlowney.com

JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Lopinto's Bid to Reconsider in Carlisle OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAYLOR CARLISLE, et al. v. NEWELL NORMAND, et al.,
SECTION: H(1), Civil Action No. 16-3767 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana granted Sheriff Joseph Lopinto's Motion to Reconsider
the Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.

Background

In the suit, the Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the
Jefferson Parish Drug Court is conducted. Plaintiffs Taylor
Carlisle and Emile Heron were convicted of the possession of
various controlled substances and, as part of their sentences,
enrolled in Drug Court. The gist of the Plaintiffs' claims is that
the Drug Court administrators deprived them of due process in
various ways, leading to unlawful incarcerations and other negative
consequences.

Relevant to the instant Motion are the Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Lopinto in his official capacity as the Sheriff of
Jefferson Parish. At the outset of the litigation, the Plaintiffs
brought "putative class action claims against the Sheriff for
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under Section 1983,
challenging the imposition of jail time for alleged probation
violations by Drug Court participants." On Sept. 25, 2018, the
Court held that the Supreme Court case of Heck v. Humphrey
precluded the Plaintiffs' claims against the Sheriff to the extent
the Plaintiffs sought relief for detention based on judicial
incarceration orders that had not been invalidated. Following the
Court's Sept. 25, 2018 ruling, the Plaintiffs' only remaining
claims against the Sheriff were those alleging that the Sheriff's
Office imprisoned the Plaintiffs and denied them good time credit
either without or in contravention to a judicial order.

On Dec. 13, 2018, the Sheriff filed his first motion for summary
judgment ("First MSJ"), in which he argued that the Plaintiffs
were, at all relevant times, incarcerated pursuant to valid court
orders. On Aug. 7, 2019, the Court granted the Sheriff's First MSJ
in part, finding (1) that valid Drug Court orders undermine most of
the Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful imprisonment and (2) that the
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were wrongfully denied
good time credit. The Court did, however, allow the Plaintiffs'
claims for wrongful imprisonment to proceed as to two specific
periods of incarceration for which the Court could not find
evidence of the Sheriff's lawful authority to jail them. For
Plaintiff Carlisle, this was his period of incarceration from Aug.
25, 2015 to Sept. 1, 2015. For Plaintiff Heron, this was his period
of incarceration from mid-to-late June 2016 to July 20, 2016.

Subsequently, on Dec. 20, 2019, the Sheriff filed his second motion
for summary judgment ("Second MSJ"), arguing that these two periods
of incarceration were also executed pursuant to valid court orders
and presenting new evidence allegedly proving as much. The Court
disagreed and denied the motion. In response, the Sheriff filed his
third motion for summary judgment ("Third MSJ") with yet more
evidence, and this time the Court determined that Carlisle's
imprisonment from Aug. 25, 2015 to Sept. 1, 2015 was validly
ordered, but the same could not be said for Heron's respective
period of incarceration. The Court entered an Order with reasons to
follow granting in part (as to Carlisle) and denying in part (as to
Heron) the Sheriff's Third MSJ.

Now before the Court is the Sheriff's Motion to Reconsider the
Order as to the Third MSJ. The Sheriff presents new evidence
relevant to Heron's roughly month-long incarceration. The
Plaintiffs oppose this Motion.

Law & Analysis

Prior to the Court's most recent Order in the case, there were two
pending wrongful imprisonment claims against the Sheriff: One for
Plaintiff Carlisle's incarceration from August 25 to Sept. 1, 2015,
and another for Plaintiff Heron's incarceration from mid-to-late
June 2016 to July 20, 2016.

I. Plaintiff Carlisle

The Sheriff has presented the following evidence of the lawfulness
of Carlisle's roughly week-long detention. His First MSJ included
an Aug. 25, 2015 minute entry of the 24th Judicial District Court
that states: (i) The Defendant, Taylor E. Carlisle, appeared before
the bar of the Court this day for Drug Court.; (ii) The Defendant
was represented by Joseph A. Marino, Jr.; (iii) The Court ordered
the Defendant to be given a sanction of 6 months JPCC, flat
time/contempt; (iv) The Court ordered the Defendant to be held for
Revocation after his sanction is completed; and (v) The Defendant
is to appear in Court Sept. 1, 2015.

Judge Milazzo deemed this entry insufficient evidence of lawful
detention between August 25 and Sept. 1 insofar as it was silent as
to whether Carlisle was to be remanded to Jefferson Parish
Correctional Center ("JPCC") prior to his Sept. 1, 2015 court
date.

Next, in his Second MSJ, the Sheriff presented an "Order of
Attachment" dated Aug. 25, 2015, wherein the Sheriff of Jefferson
Parish is directed to "attach the body of Taylor E. Carlisle" and
have him appear in court "to answer for a contempt in neglecting or
refusing to attend before said Court as a Defendant." The problem
with the Order of Attachment, the Court found, was that it
contradicted the August 25-minute entry on the point of whether
Carlisle appeared in court. The Sheriff also adduced one page from
Carlisle's "Criminal History Report," which states that, on Aug.
25, 2015, Carlisle was arrested pursuant to a Drug Court attachment
and "needs to be held brought to Drug Court Tuesday Sept. 1, 2015."
The problem with the Criminal History Report, however, was that it
does not detail who gave the officer the order to hold Carlisle
until September 1.

Finally, in his Third MSJ, the Sheriff presents another signed
minute entry from Aug. 25, 2015, that states, "The Defendant,
Taylor E. Carlisle, did not appear before the bar of the Court this
day for Drug Court. At the request of the Assistant District
Attorney the Court ordered that an attachment be issued for Taylor
E. Carlisle."

Judge Milazzo finds this evidence sufficient to demonstrate that
Carlisle was imprisoned from August 25 to September 1 pursuant to a
lawful court order. This minute entry, she says, does not suffer
from the defects identified in the Sheriff's other evidence. While
it does continue to contradict the minute entry from the First MSJ
on whether Carlisle appeared in court, Judge Milazzo finds that
this inconsistency does not render unlawful any arrest made
pursuant to this order. Indeed, the Sheriff's officer executing the
order may not have been aware of the contradiction, and even if he
were, he can hardly be expected to defy a court order on account of
a possible clerical error. Accordingly, Judge Milazzo granted
summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff with respect to Carlisle's
claim.

II. Plaintiff Heron

Next, based on the Sheriff's Third MSJ, the Court denied relief in
his favor with respect to Heron's claim. This is because the
Sheriff argued that on Jan. 19, 2016, the 24th Judicial District
Court ordered that Heron serve a six-month sentence for contempt
and that he be held for his revocation hearing, yet the Sheriff
never produced evidence of this January 19 order. In his Second
MSJ, the Sheriff presented an affidavit from Ligaya Preatto, the
Commander of the Records Division for the JPCC, testifying as to
the January 19 order, but there was no direct proof thereof. The
only order included was from July 20, 2016, which confirmed the
occurrence of the revocation hearing on that same date but did not
speak to the January 19 order.

Judge Milazzo holds that the Sheriff's instant Motion cures this
defect. It contains the signed January 19-minute entry from the
Jefferson Parish court reflecting that "the Defendant was ordered
to be held for Revocation." It also contains an affidavit from
Deputy James Hilton, Clerk Supervisor with the Records Department
at JPCC, stating that he personally entered the January 19-minute
entry into the database of the Sheriff's Office. This evidence,
according to Judge Milazzo, proves that pursuant to a valid court
order, Heron was incarcerated from mid-to-late June until July 20,
2016, the date of his revocation hearing. The evidence also
indicates that Heron received credit for time served.

Conclusion

While Judge Milazzo has serious concerns about a Drug Court that
causes the Defendants to spend significantly more time incarcerated
than had they served their original sentences outside Drug Court,
what is before the Court is whether the Sheriff had discretion to
deviate from a court order. The answer is he did not, she says.

Thus, and for the foregoing reasons, Judge Milazzo granted the
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider. She amends the Court's previous
Order partially granting relief so as to fully grant summary
judgment to the Sheriff. Because the Sheriff is the last remaining
Defendant herein, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2wf35fs7 from Leagle.com.


JING FONG: Faces Mo Suit in New York Over Bussers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PING MO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff, and the
Class, Plaintiff v. JING FONG RESTAURANT INC d/b/a JING FONG
RESTAURANT, WEST SIDE STORY, INC. d/b/a JING FONG RESTAURANT, KIN
MING LAM, TRUMAN LAM, and CHAN KAI CHUI, Defendants, Case No.
161238/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., December 16, 2021) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law to recover from Defendants unpaid wages due to
time-shaving, unpaid wages from compensable break time, illegally
retained gratuities, unpaid spread of hours premiums, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a busser for
Defendants' restaurant located at 380 Amsterdam Avenue in New York
from June 2020 to August 2021.

The Corporate Defendants own and operate restaurants in New
York.[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

JP MORGAN: Settlement in Metals Spoofing Case Initially OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: JPMORGAN PRECIOUS METALS SPOOFING
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-11458-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory H. Woods entered an order preliminarily approving proposed
settlement, scheduling hearing for final approval, and approving
the proposed form and program of notice to the class, as follows:

   1. Except for the terms expressly defined herein, the Court
      adopts and incorporates the definitions in the Settlement
      Agreement for the purposes of this Order.

   2. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to
      preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement.

   3. Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement
      Class is hereby preliminarily certified and maintained as
      a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure.

      -- The Settlement Class is defined as:

         "All Persons and entities wherever located that
         purchased or sold any Precious Metals Futures 1 or
         Options on Precious Metals Futures on the New York
         Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") or Commodity Exchange
         Inc. ("COMEX") from March 1, 2008 through August 31,
         2016.

         Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) JPMorgan
         and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of
         JPMorgan, provided, that any Investment Vehicle shall
         not be excluded from the Settlement Class, but under no
         circumstances may JPMorgan (or any of its direct or
         indirect parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or
         divisions) receive a distribution for its own account
         from the Settlement Fund through an Investment Vehicle
         ; and (ii) the United States Government.

   4. The Court hereby appoints Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Class
      Counsel to such Settlement Class for purposes of the
      Settlement.

   5. The Court appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as Settlement
      Administrator for purposes of the Settlement.

   6. Class Plaintiffs are hereby appointed as representatives
      of the Settlement Class.

   7. A hearing will be held on July 7, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.

   8. Within 45 days after entry of this Order, the Settlement
       Administrator shall cause copies of the mailed notice.

   9. Commencing no later than 45 days after entry of this
      Order, the Settlement Administrator shall cause to be
      published a publication notice.

  10. The Settlement Administrator shall maintain a Settlement
      website,
      www.preciousmetalsfuturesclassactionsettlement.com,
      beginning on the first date of mailing notice to the
      Class and remaining until the termination of the
      administration of the Settlement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FKTje1 at no extra charge.[CC]

JUUL LABS: Suit Seeks Initial Approval of $1.75M Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA DE LA LUZ
BAUTISTA-PEREZ, LUZ PEREZ BAUTISTA and SALVADORA CORREA, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JUUL LABS,
INC., COALITION FOR REASONABLE VAPING REGULATION, LONG YING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DAVID M. HO, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-01613-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Maria De La Luz
Bautista-Perez, Luz Perez Bautista and Salvadora Correa ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the Rule 23 settlement class;

   2. granting preliminary approval to the proposed Class and
      Collective Action Settlement;

   3. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives of the
      Class and as representative Plaintiffs for the collective
      action;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel;

   5. appointing CPT Group, Inc. (CPT) as Settlement
      Administrator;

   6. approving the form, content, and method of distribution
      proposed by counsel to provide notice of the class
      settlement; and

   7. scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the
      proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's request for
      attorneys' fees and costs, and Service Awards to the Named
      Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a $1.75 million
settlement to resolve local, state and federal wage and hour claims
on behalf of putative class of approximately 370 former Campaign
Workers hired by Long Ying International, Inc. to work on the Yes
on C: Coalition for Reasonably 3 Vaping Regulation campaign in
2019.

Theg Plaintiffs allege that defendants Long Ying International and
its owner, the Coalition for Reasonable Vaping Regulation, and Juul
Labs, Inc. willfully misclassified workers as independent
contractors, and violated a number of wage and hour laws as a
result of the misclassification, including failure to pay workers
for all hours worked, failure to 7 overtime compensation, failure
to provide compliant pay statements, and failure to pay all wages
due at termination, the lawsuit says.

There are also claims for penalties under California’s Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arising from these same
violations. The settlement provides substantial relief to all
Campaign Workers based on the number of pay periods worked, the
amount of unpaid time, and the amount of time the Campaign Workers
had to wait before being fully compensated after termination, the
suit adds.

Juul Labs is an American electronic cigarette company that spun off
from Pax Labs in 2017. Juul Labs makes the Juul electronic
cigarette, which atomizes nicotine salts derived from tobacco
supplied by one-time use cartridges.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 20,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zcQ38K
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          Giselle Olmedo, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  golmedo@leonardcarder.com

               - and -

          George A. Warner, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
          E-mail: gwarner@legalaidatwork.org

KE HOLDINGS: Chin Slams Share Drop from Overstated Figures
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Chin, Individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. KE Holdings Inc., Peng Yongdong and Xu Tao,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11196, (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2021), is
a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired KE Holdings American depository
shares between August 13, 2020 and December 16, 2021, seeking
damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

KE Holdings is an integrated online and offline platform for
housing transactions and services in China. It depends on the
number of real estate agents and stores that use its platform. KE
Holdings mainly generates revenues from fees and commissions in
housing transactions and services. KE Holdings' American Depository
Shares (ADS) trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "BEKE."

On December 16, 2021, a research emerged mentioning that KE
Holdings was overstating the agents and stores on its platforms,
its gross transaction value and its revenues, among other figures.
On this news, its ADS prices dropped $4.73, 22.18%, from the high
it reached on that day on greater than usual volume.

Keith Chin is a holder of KE Holdings' ADS. He claims he purchased
the ADS at artificially inflated prices and suffered damages as a
result of the violations of the securities laws alleged herein.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
     420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1402
     New York, NY 10107
     Telephone: (212) 810-2430
     E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com

             - and -

     Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
     Craig W. Smith, Esq.
     Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
     ROBBINS LLP
     5040 Shoreham Place
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 525-3990
     Fax: (619) 525-3991
     Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
            csmith@robbinsarroyo.com
            ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com
            stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com


KEVAN MEYERS: Pennington Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Pennington, Lead
Plaintiff, and Brooke Pennington, Plaintiff, v. Kevan Meyers &
Co-Conspirators, Respondent / Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02591-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order certifying Plaintiffs' class as follows:

  -- Definition of Class (per Federal Rules for Civil Procedure,
     Title IV Rule 23(c)(l)(B)):

     Class (per Rule 23(c)(l)(B)): Jonathan Pennington and
     Brooke Pennington. Jonathan is nominated as "Lead
     Plaintiff' aka "Class Counsel", for purposes of filings and
     litigation.

     Class Claims & Issues (per Rule 23(c)(l)(B)):

     1) 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 - Deprivation of Civil
        Liberties under Colour of Custom. Defendant(s)
        interfered with the intent to deprive Brooke Pennington
        and Jonathan Pennington of rights and civil liberties,
        those being:

        a) The Right to Abortion (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
           (1973)

        b) The Right to Access Abortion Clinic Entrances (18
           U.S. Code section 248)

     2) 18 U.S.C.section 1962 - Violation of prohibited
        activities under the 1970s RICO Laws, in a manner
        demonstrating "Open Ended Continuity".

     3) 18 U.S.C. section 248 (Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat.
        694 (May 26, 1994, 18 U.S.C. section 248) - Violation of
        Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE)).

     4) 18 U.S.C. section 2261A- Stalking (encompassing actions
        including but not limited to threat of violence and
        intent to hann or kill, both in person and through

        "interactive computer service(s)", such as
        www.Facebook.com.)

     5) 18 U.S. Code section 249 - Hate Crimes, on the basis of,
        and by reason of, religion.

     6) 18 U.S.C. section 2331(5) - Domestic Terrorism

  -- Appointment of Class Counsel (per Rule 23(g)(l)): Jonathan
     Pennington. The Plaintiff(s) argue that Jonathan Pennington
     meets the standard for appointing class counsel (Rule 23(g)
     (2)) , and Plaintiff(s) believe that Jonathan Pennington is
     able to "fairly and adequately represent the interests of
     the class" (Rule 23(g)(4)), prose.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EQLtOs at no extra
charge.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC]

KODIAK CAKES: Ct. Enters Briefing Schedule Order in Stewart Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY STEWART, et al., v.
KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order granting joint motion
and setting briefing schedule as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs must file their Motion for Class
      Certification, not to exceed 35 pages, on or before March
      18, 2022.

   2. The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification, not to exceed 35 pages, must be filed on or
      before May 2, 2022.

   3. The Plaintiffs may file a reply, not to exceed 20 pages,
      on or before June 3, 2022.

Kodiak Cakes provides bakery products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EDakFu at no extra charge.[CC]


L&K COFFEE: Corker Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Coffee Farmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO
ALOHA, et al., v. L&K COFFEE CO. LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company; MULVADI CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; MNS LTD., a
Hawaii Corporation; and KEVIN KIHNKE, Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL
(W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the class of Kona coffee farmers and setting dates for
two trials -- one against Defendant L&K Coffee Co. and its owner,
Kevin Kihnke, and one against Defendant Mulvadi Corporation and its
primary retailer, MNS Ltd.

The case for class certification in this matter is overwhelming.
The elements of Plaintiffs' claims turn entirely on Defendants'
conduct in labeling the coffee they sell as originating from Kona,
and thus do not present any individualized issues: each Defendant
violated the Lanham Act as to all members of the proposed class or
none. Summary judgment and trial on a class-wide basis will be as
straightforward as the ones that would occur if Plaintiffs had
brought their cases individually. And class members are as cohesive
a group as exists in aggregate litigation: they all grow coffee
from an objectively defined and unique geography -- the Kona region
of Hawaii.

Although the Court's role at class certification is not to
adjudicate the merits of the case, 15 bears emphasis that the
common evidence Plaintiffs will present is strong. Defendants L&K
and Kevin Kihnke (L&K's owner) readily admit that their "Kona
blend" contained at most a "handful" of coffee beans from Kona. And
while Defendants Mulvadi and MNS maintain that their "100% Kona
Coffee" contained 100% coffee from Kona, this is false: expert
testing shows the coffee is not from Kona, and MNS' internal
pricing documents show the coffee it was purchasing could not have
been from Kona.

The proposed class contains coffee farmers in the Kona region of
Hawaii who grow the 3 worldwide supply of Kona coffee. Five
proposed representative plaintiffs have stepped forward, as their
accompanying declarations each explain.

Kevin Kihnke owns L&K Coffee, which he operates as "Magnum Coffee
Roastery." He Kevin Kihnke & L&K Coffee approves L&K's decisions,
including its product labeling and product contents.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zomCAo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
          Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313

               - and -

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
          Andrew Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED: Evers Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DUSTIN EVERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LA-Z-BOY INCORPORATED, LZB RETAIL,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00047960-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on December 17,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02100-CAB-LL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide meal period, failure to provide
rest period, untimely payment of wages, failure to provide accurate
wage statement, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair competition.

La-Z-Boy Incorporated is an American furniture manufacturer, with
its principal place of business in Monroe, Michigan.

LZB Retail, Inc. is a furniture retail company, with its principal
place of business in Monroe, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
         Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
         Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
         Telephone: (310) 820-8800
         Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
         E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com
                 abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
                 ksakaue@bakerlaw.com

                 - and –

         Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
         BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
         Transamerica Pyramid
         600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
         San Francisco, CA 94111-2806
         Telephone: (415) 659-2600
         Facsimile: (415) 659-2601
         E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com

LABORATORY CORP: Patients Hit Shady Lab Insurance Coverage Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel J. Nolan and Helena Wittenberg, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings (LabCorp), Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00979, (M.D. N.C., December 29, 2021), seek relief
under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

LabCorp is a provider of clinical lab testing services with more
than 72,000 employees and more than 160 million patient encounters
each year.

This action is brought as a class action on behalf of Nevada and
Florida residents who signed a Patient Acknowledgement disclosing
the "Estimated Charges" for lab services, but were billed a patient
list price for those services that exceeded the disclosed "Health
Plan Allowed Rate" for those services.

On September 1, 2018, LabCorp administered Nolan a Vitamin D,
25-hydroxy test. Prior to being administered that test, Nolan
signed a Patient Acknowledgement form acknowledging that his
financial responsibility, based on his health plan's "Allowed
Rate," was $18.93. Although the Patient Acknowledgement form
disclosed in very small print that Nolan's health insurance company
may deny coverage for the test and that the actual cost for the
test "may be different than the estimated amount," LabCorp had
allegedly failed to disclose to Nolan that if his insurer denied
coverage, Labcorp would bill Nolan a patient list price of $292
that was 15.4 times the disclosed $18.93 "Health Plan Allowed
Rate."

On April 16, 2018, Wittenberg was administered clinical laboratory
tests at a LabCorp PSC prescribed by two different doctors and
signed two separate Patient Acknowledgement forms. Prior to being
administered lipid panel, general health panel, and HGB Glycated
tests, Wittenberg signed a Patient Acknowledgement stating that her
health insurance company may deny coverage for the tests and that
the actual cost for the tests "may be different than the estimated
amount." She allges LabCorp of failing to disclose that if her
insurer denied coverage, LabCorp would bill her on the first set of
tests a patient list price of $335 that was 7.5 times the disclosed
$44.60 "Health Plan Allowed Rate," and on the second set of tests a
patient list price of $650 that was 9.96 times the disclosed $65.27
"Health Plan Allowed Rate."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Sasser, Esq.
     ELLIS & WINTERS LLP
     Raleigh, NC 27636
     Telephone: (919) 865-7000
     Facsimile: (919) 865-7010
     Email: jon.sasser@elliswinters.com

            - and -

     Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
     David Nicholas, Esq.
     Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
     Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 759-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
     Email: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com

LANDRY'S INC: Discovery Deadlines Extended in Leger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITA LEGER, et al., v.
LANDRY'S INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02274-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.),
the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Koppe entered an order granting the
parties' stipulation to extend discovery deadlines as follows:

  --  Discovery Cut-off:                   June 7, 2022

  --  Initial Expert Disclosure:           April 8, 2022

  --  Rebuttal Expert Disclosure:          May 9, 2022

  --  Rule 23 Class Certification          July 22, 2022
      Deadline:

  --  Deadline to Oppose Rule 23 Motion:   August 22, 2022

  --  Reply Brief to Rule 23 Response:     September 22, 2022

  --  Dispositive Motions:                 July 22, 2022

  --  Joint Proposed Pretrial Order:       August 22, 2022

Landry's is an American, privately owned, multi-brand dining,
hospitality, entertainment and gaming corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas. Landry's, Inc. owns and operates more than 600
restaurants, hotels, casinos and entertainment destinations in 35
U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The Court is not inclined to grant further extension requests,
Judge Koppe says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pMRAiu at no extra charge.[CC]

LOWE'S HOME: Proposed Notice & Consent Forms in Bartholomew Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE BARTHOLOMEW and MICHAEL SHERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S
HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-695-JLB-MRM (M.D.
Fla.), Judge John L. Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the
parties' motions to approve their proposed notice and consent
forms.

Introduction

It is an age discrimination case. The Court previously granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action and facilitate notice as to their disparate
impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
(Count I). At the request of Defendant Lowe's, the Court permitted
supplemental briefing addressing the content of the notice and how
the putative collective action members would be contacted. Motions
to approve proposed notice and consent forms and several disputes
followed. Because the Court has not approved either proposed notice
and consent form, the motions are due to be denied. Judge
Badalamenti addresses the parties' disputes in turn and allows the
Plaintiffs to file a revised notice and consent form consistent
with his Order.

Discussion

A. Issue 1: Notice will be sent to Lowe's employees who worked
through Aug. 1, 2019.

The parties dispute whether notice should be sent to Lowe's
employees who received the allowance from February 2012 through
Aug. 1, 2019 or through Jan. 31, 2020. As the Plaintiffs observe,
the Court conditionally certified a collective action as to the
ADEA claim on behalf of individuals who "worked for the Defendant
in an hourly position and needed to have received the Allowance, at
least through the date of the Defendant's decision to eliminate the
Allowance (approximately Aug. 1, 2019)."

Lowe's argues that because it did not end the allowance program
until Feb. 1, 2020, "those employees who stopped receiving the
Allowance prior to Jan. 31, 2020 under the terms of the program did
not suffer an adverse action, have no damages, and therefore have
no claim under the ADEA." The Plaintiffs respond that the "putative
plaintiffs that stopped working for Lowe's during this six-month
window should be allowed the opportunity to opt-in, as some of
these persons have quit, were terminated by Lowe's, and/or have
died in this period. Of course, these putative class members'
decisions to quit (and/or Lowe's decision to terminate them) may be
due to or related to the announcement of the end of the Allowance
in early August 2019."

Judge Badalamenti finds that in all events, Lowe's did not
previously raise this as a basis to deny or restrict the proposed
collective action, and the collective action has been conditionally
certified as to individuals who worked at Lowe's through Aug. 1,
2019. Accordingly, he holds that the notice will use this date.

B. Issue 2: Whether to Allow Use of a Website to Opt-in

Lowe's objects to the "Plaintiffs' proposed notice's inclusion of
avenues of communications with the putative plaintiffs where the
content of the communication has not been approved by the Court,
such as through a website for which the Plaintiffs have not
provided the content to Defendant or the Court for authorization."
The Plaintiffs respond that they "intend to utilize a website that
mirrors the contents of the Court approved notice," and will
"coordinate with Simpluris," the agreed upon third-party
administrator, "concerning creating a proposed website and its
contents." They further assert that they will "provide whatever
website information (or proposed website draft) is necessary to the
Court and/or Lowe's before the website goes live."

Contrary to Lowe's unsupported contentions, Judge Badalamenti
explains that courts have permitted putative members to use a
website to opt-in if the website's content mirrors the approved
notice. Accordingly, he says, a website with content that mirrors
and does not deviate from the approved notice and consent form may
be used for putative members to opt-in to the lawsuit. Lowe's will
have the opportunity to view the website's content prior to the
website "going live" and, if necessary, to raise any concerns as to
the website's content with the Court.

C. Issue 3: Contact Information and How the Members Will Be
Contacted

The parties dispute how the putative members will be contacted. The
Plaintiffs' proposed notice indicates that notice will be mailed by
Simpluris to the putative members and, to opt-in, the members must
return the signed consent form within "75 days from date of
mailing" to Simpluris or the Plaintiffs' counsel, or use the
website. Lowe's does not object to the proposed 75-day period to
opt-in and proposes that, to facilitate notice, "it confidentially
share the names and addresses of the putative collective action
members with Simpluris within 14 days, and that Simpluris mail out
the notice within 21 days of approval by the Court." The Plaintiffs
object and seek production of the putative members' email addresses
and phone numbers.

Judge Badalamenti agrees with Lowe's that because the parties have
agreed to use a third-party administrator to send notice and
collect consent forms, the Plaintiffs' counsel does not need the
contact information of the collective members to effect notice. The
request is denied without prejudice to a showing of necessity in
the future. Judge Badalamenti also agrees that reminder or
follow-up notices are unnecessary and will not be permitted.

The proposal of Lowe's to "confidentially share the names and
addresses of the putative collective action members with Simpluris"
is thus granted. However, due to concerns about the accuracy of
address information and out of an abundance of caution, Lowe's will
also provide to Simpluris personal email addresses, which may only
be used to send the approved notice.

Absent a showing that addresses and personal emails are
insufficient to effect notice, Judge Badalamenti will not require
Lowe's to provide the Plaintiffs or Simpluris with work email
addresses or telephone numbers. Further, he says, the notice and
consent form will be revised to reflect that the putative members
may join the lawsuit by returning the consent form to Simpluris or
via the website, not by returning the consent form to the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

D. Issue 4: Lack of Neutrality and Inaccuracies in Plaintiffs'
Proposed Notice

Lowe's objects to a purported "lack of neutrality" and inaccuracies
in the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form. However, it
does not explain the basis of its contention that the language
revised in the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form is not
neutral.

Judge Badalamenti nevertheless agrees with the modifications,
including the following: (i) removing the description of a
collective action as a type of class action lawsuit; (ii) removing
the statement that "While you are not required to join the Lawsuit,
if you do not join, you may be prevented from filing any claim
about the end of the Allowance, including due to statute(s) of
limitations"; and (iii) to the extent the Plaintiffs wish to
reference the damages they are seeking, they are limited to
describing the damages they are seeking as pleaded in Count I in
their complaint.

Conclusion

Judge Badalamenti denied the parties' motions to approve their
proposed notice and consent forms. He directed the Plaintiffs to
file a revised notice and consent form consistent with his Order by
Jan. 7, 2022.

In accord with Local Rule 3.01(g), the Plaintiffs will include
certification of good faith conferral with opposing counsel and
note whether Lowe's has any objections to the proposed notice and
consent form based on the revisions made and not previously raised.
The Court notes that the certification of good faith conferral with
opposing counsel is not a perfunctory exercise in the Middle
District of Florida. It is intended, among other reasons, to
provide an opportunity for the counsel to work together to find
common ground and limit the Court's need to address matters that
could have been resolved had the parties conferred and worked
together. The Court has noticed that there have been circumstances
in the case where matters could have, and should have, been
resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court asks the
counsel to be mindful of this and diligently work to resolve as
many matters as possible.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8pjfzr from Leagle.com.


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Kitsap County Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KITSAP COUNTY, on behalf of itself and similarly
situated counties and cities v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., UNITED
STATES and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-05853, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on December 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-09837-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, gross
negligence, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, civil aiding and
abetting, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act by helping opioid manufacturers to develop
deceptive marketing strategy to expand opioid use in Kitsap County,
Washington.

McKinsey & Company, Inc., United States is a management consulting
firm, with its principal place of business located at 711 Third
Avenue, New York, New York.

McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consulting firm, with its
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
         Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
         Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
         David J. Ko, Esq.
         Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
         Matthew M. Gerend, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         Facsimile: (206) 623-3384

                  - and –

         Christine M. Palmer, Esq.
         KITSAP COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
         614 Division Street, MS-35A
         Port Orchard, WA 98366
         Telephone: (360) 337-7004
         Facsimile: (360) 337-7083

MDL 1917: Class Certification Schedule Extended in CRT Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION (MDL No. 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order extending the class
certification schedule as follows:

   1. The Irico Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
      direct purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs') Motion for Class
      Certification and any accompanying  expert reports shall
      be extended to January 21, 2022;

   2. The deadline for class certification expert discovery to
      be completed shall be extended to February 4, 2022;

   3. DPPs' deadline to file their reply in support of their
      class certification motion shall be extended to March 4,
      2022; and

   4. The hearing on DPPs' class certification motion shall be
      rescheduled for March 31, 2022, at 2 p.m. or another date
      at the Court's convenience.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3euoVIG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Matthew D. Heaphy, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813

The Attorneys for Defendants Irico Group Corp. and Irico Display
Devices Co., Ltd., are:

          John M. Taladay, Esq.
          Evan J. Werbel, Esq.
          Thomas E. Carter, Esq.
          Andrew L. Lucarelli, Esq.
          Jonathan Shapiro, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          700 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639-7700
          Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
          E-mail: john.taladay@bakerbotts.com
                  evan.werbel@bakerbotts.com
                  tom.carter@bakerbotts.com
                  drew.lucarelli@bakerbotts.com
                  Jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com

MDL 2047: Summonses in Drywall Products Liability Suit Quashed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, SECTION: L (5), MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E.
Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons:

   a. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Alternative
      Service of Process; and

   b. granting the Defendants' Motion to Quash Summonses and
      Alternatively Dismiss Amended Complaints.

This Order and Reasons relates to: Elizabeth Bennett, et al. v.
Gebrueder Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft, KG, et al. 2:14-cv-02722
AND The following severed and individually-filed civil actions:
2:20-cv-3199, 3200, 3203, 3204, 3205, 3206, 3208, 3209, 3210, 3212,
3213, 3214, 3215, 3216, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223,
3224, 3256, 3259, 3269, 3261, 3263, 3264, 3265, 3267 and 3268.

I. Background

These cases are part of the Chinese Drywall multi-district
litigation ("MDL") that arose after thousands of Plaintiffs in
several states filed suits alleging that drywall used in the
construction of their homes was defective. The Plaintiffs claimed
that the drywall, which had been manufactured in China, had emitted
gases, damaged wiring and appliances, and caused physical
afflictions to their homes' residents. Pursuant to a Transfer Order
from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
on June 15, 2009, all federal cases involving Chinese drywall were
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 2047 before the
Court.

The drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups of
Defendants: The Knauf Defendants, which are German-based
manufacturers whose Chinese subsidiary sold some of the drywall,
and the Taishan Defendants, which are Chinese-based manufacturers
who produced some of the drywall. The present motions relate to the
Knauf Defendants. The Plaintiffs whose claims form the basis of the
present motions originally filed their claims as part of the
Bennett action, a class action against the Knauf Defendants that
was filed in November of 2014 and consolidated with this MDL in
January of 2015. However, the Court later severed the claims of the
thirty-one Plaintiffs whose claims relate to the present motions
from the Bennett action and ordered them to proceed as individual
cases within the MDL. Amended complaints were filed in each of
these cases when they were severed, but these amended complaints
were for administrative purposes, not to assert new claims.
Discovery has already been completed in these cases.

Within the group of 31 severed claims that form the basis of the
present motions, there are two sets of Plaintiffs: The Identified
Plaintiffs, 22 Plaintiffs whose claims were severed from the
Bennett action on Nov. 6, 2020, and the Pending Plaintiffs, nine
Plaintiffs whose claims were severed from the Bennett action on
Nov. 23, 2020. This distinction is relevant to the pending motions
because the Defendants argue that the Identified Plaintiffs' claims
have been dismissed by the Court and that the appeals of those
dismissals were dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, while the Pending Plaintiffs' claims continue before
the Court.

II. Discussion

Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve, and the
Defendants' Motion to Quash. The Defendants filed an opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion, while the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the Defendants' motion, to which the Defendants filed a reply.

a. Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Alternative Service of Process

The Plaintiffs seek an order allowing service of process directly
on counsel for the Defendants by electronic means instead of
serving Defendants abroad pursuant to the Hague Convention. They
allege that counsel for the foreign Defendants Knauf Gips KG and
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. have refused to accept service
of the amended complaints for their severed claims and have
insisted that they serve their complaints consistent with the Hague
Convention. The Plaintiffs argue that serving these Defendants
abroad would cause unnecessary delay, specifically alleging that
service of process in China would take several years.

In opposition, the Defendants argue that formal service of these
amended complaints is unnecessary because Rule 4 only requires
formal service of the original complaint. They also argue that, as
for the Identified Plaintiffs, these Plaintiffs' claims have
already been dismissed, making service of their amended complaints
futile. The Defendants further argue that all of these Plaintiffs'
amended complaints were filed solely as an administrative formality
and do not assert new claims, making formal service of the Pending
Plaintiffs' complaints futile as well.

The Plaintiffs seek permission to serve their amended complaints on
the Defendants' counsel rather than pursuant to the Hague
Convention. However, Judge Fallon reasons that under Rule 5 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, formal service of any pleading
other than the original complaint, including an amended complaint,
is unnecessary. He says, the Plaintiffs' amended complaints have
already been filed on the Court's electronic filing system. Under
Rule 5, electronic filing is a sufficient method of service for an
amended complaint. Therefore, the service for which the Plaintiffs
seek the Court's permission is not necessary and the Plaintiffs'
motion is moot.

b. Defendants' Motion to Quash Summonses and Alternatively Dismiss
Amended Complaints

The Defendants seek to quash the summonses, or alternatively to
dismiss the amended complaints, filed by the 22 Identified
Plaintiffs whose claims, they assert, have already been dismissed
by this Court and the Fifth Circuit. They argue that the summonses
are unenforceable and procedurally improper because the claims of
the Identified Plaintiffs have been fully and finally adjudicated,
such that there are no operative complaints for which these
Plaintiffs can seek service. Alternatively, should the Court find
that these Plaintiffs' amended complaints contain viable claims,
the Defendants request that the Court dismiss the amended
complaints with prejudice because the amended complaints are
untimely and because res judicata bars re-litigation of the
Identified Plaintiffs' claims.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that their summonses should not
be quashed because the Defendants have not proved that they seek to
serve these summonses for an improper purpose. They also argue that
the Defendants' counsel's participation in these cases since they
were severed indicates that the Defendants have waived the grounds
they now assert for quashing the summonses. The Plaintiffs further
argue that their amended complaints should not be dismissed because
they contain claims upon which relief may be granted and because
there has not been a final judgment under Rule 54(b).

The Identified Plaintiffs' amended complaints fail to state claims
for which relief can be granted because the Court has already
dismissed the claims of these 22 Plaintiffs, Judge Fallon rules.
Moreover, he finds that the Fifth Circuit has dismissed the appeals
of those dismissals. Res judicata applies because the parties whose
claims were dismissed and the parties who now seek to serve amended
complaints are the same; the Court had jurisdiction to render
judgment in the prior actions; the dismissals of these claims were
final judgments on the merits; and the claims that the Plaintiffs
now assert in these amended complaints are the same claims that
were dismissed. Therefore, the Identified Plaintiffs' amended
complaints merely raise claims that have been finally adjudicated
and thus fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Approve, and granted the Defendants' Motion to Quash.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8zn8bn from Leagle.com.


MDL 2968: Generali Covid-19 Travel Insurance Suit Partly Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERALI COVID-19 TRAVEL INSURANCE LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-md-2968 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion and Order:

   a. granting Generali's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs
      Clonts, Garner, Johner, Sharma, Morris, and Shrader; and

   b. denying as moot Generali's motion to dismiss as to certain
      claims by Plaintiff Oglevee that are subject to
      arbitration, and granting as to Oglevee with respect to her
      other claims.

Background

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against
Defendants, Generali US Branch and Customized Services
Administrators, Inc. (together, "Generali"), alleging breach of
insurance contracts and related non-contract claims.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they incurred losses because they
planned and paid for travel that was canceled because of
restrictions that were occasioned by Covid-19. They claim that
their losses were covered by trip insurance contracts issued by
Generali because their losses were "Covered Events." The Plaintiffs
point to two alleged Covered Events: (1) a "Quarantine" provision
of the relevant policy, or (2) the provision for "unavailable
accommodations due to natural disaster."

The Defendants contend that the trip cancelations were not
occasioned by those Covered Events and that, in any event, the
government regulations that brought about the Plaintiffs' losses
fell within an explicit Exclusion in the Policies for any loss
under the Policy "caused by, or resulting from, travel restrictions
imposed for a certain area by governmental authority."

The Plaintiffs sought to represent four distinct classes:

     a. Clonts, Garner, Johner, Sharma, and Oglevee sought to
represent the Quarantine Class, a class of all persons who
purchased or obtained Defendants' travel protection policies
without a pandemic exclusion and were prevented from taking their
trips because of a quarantine order, stay-at-home order, or similar
restriction related to the COVID-19 pandemic;

     b. Clonts, Garner, and Johner sought to represent the Natural
Disaster Class, a class of all persons who purchased or obtained
Defendants' travel protection policies without a pandemic exclusion
that list inaccessible accommodation as a covered event, and were
prevented from taking their trips due to their accommodation being
inaccessible as a result of the COVID-19 natural disaster;

     c. Clonts, Garner, Johner, and Sharma sought to represent the
Early 2020 Purchaser Class, a class of all persons who purchased or
obtained Defendants' travel protection policies between January 29
and March 11, 2020, without a pandemic exclusion, and were unable
to take their trip for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic;
and

     d. Morris and Shrader sought to represent the Unearned
Premiums Class, a class of all persons who purchased or obtained
Defendants' travel protection policies and whose trips were
cancelled and fully refunded prior to their departure date, but who
have not received premium refunds from Defendants for
post-departure risks.

In each case, the Plaintiffs sought to represent nationwide classes
or, should the classes not be certified nationwide, statewide
classes. Each putative class brought distinct claims, including
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, bad
faith, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The
Plaintiffs sought relief including a return of all or part of the
insurance premiums they paid, compensation for the losses they
incurred, and declaratory relief.

Generali now moves to dismiss the action as to Plaintiffs Clonts,
Garner, Johner, Sharma, Oglevee, Morris, and Shrader. Generali also
moved to compel arbitration as to Oglevee, as well as certain other
Plaintiffs who are not the subjects of its motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs as to whom Generali moved to compel arbitration
purchased their trips and the corresponding insurance through
Vrbo.com, except Oglevee, who purchased only her accommodations and
the corresponding insurance on Vrbo.com. Oglevee purchased her
flights and the corresponding insurance on FlightHub. The basis of
Generali's motion to compel arbitration is an arbitration clause in
the terms of service of Vrba.com, which provided that Generali was
a beneficiary of the clause. The motion to compel arbitration is
addressed in a concurrently-filed opinion.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs raise both contract and non-contract claims. They do
not dispute the Defendants' statement that each of their claims are
governed by the laws of their home states. Accordingly, Judge
Koeltl applies to each Plaintiff's claims the law of that
Plaintiff's home state.

A. Contract Claims

The Plaintiffs seek compensation under the Policies, which they
allege provide for coverage for their losses. In insurance actions,
to state a prima facie claim, the insured must show that the claim
is within the scope of the coverage, and the applicability of an
exclusion is an affirmative defense. A court may grant a motion to
dismiss based on an affirmative defense where "'the complaint
itself establishes the circumstances required as a predicate to a
finding' that the affirmative defense applies."

Judge Koeltl opines that a valid exclusion applies to all of the
Plaintiffs' claims, arising out of both the "Quarantine" Covered
Event and the Covered Event for "Accommodations at their
destination being made inaccessible due to natural disaster."
Therefore, the Policies do not cover the Plaintiffs' claims.
Moreover, Judge Koetl opines that almost all of the Plaintiffs have
not stated facts showing even a prima facie entitlement to coverage
due to the alleged Covered Events for Quarantine or their
accommodations being inaccessible due to natural disaster.

For one, the Plaintiffs have failed to state facts showing that
they are entitled to compensation under the Policies because the
Defendants have shown as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the valid General Exclusion. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded facts sufficient to show a prima facie
entitlement to compensation due to a Quarantine. For similar
reasons, Clonts does not state a prima facie claim for coverage
arising from their accommodations being made inaccessible due to a
natural disaster.

Because all of the claims are barred by the Exclusion, and almost
all of the claims are also barred because they fail to allege
sufficient facts to show a Covered Event, none of the Plaintiffs
has stated a claim for coverage under the Policies, and their
contract claims are dismissed.

B. Unjust Enrichment Claims

The Early 2020 Purchaser and Unearned Premium Plaintiffs (in other
words, all the Plaintiffs who are the subjects of the motion to
dismiss except Oglevee) claim they are entitled to complete or
partial refunds of their premiums because the Defendants otherwise
would have been unjustly enriched. The Early 2020 Purchaser
Plaintiffs who are the subjects of the motion to dismiss -- Clonts,
Garner, Johner, and Sharma -- seek full premium refunds on the
theory that the Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Generali -- the
premiums -- and that it would be unjust for Generali to retain that
benefit because Generali knew that the Plaintiffs would not
"receive the benefit of their bargain." The Unearned Premiums
Plaintiffs who are the subjects of the motion to dismiss -- Morris
and Shrader -- seek partial premium refunds. They reason that
insureds are typically entitled to premium refunds where the risk
covered by a policy did not attach, and that the post-departure
risks covered by the Policies did not attach. Accordingly, they
argue, it would be unjust for Generali to retain the portion of the
premium corresponding to post-departure risks.

All of these claims lack merit, Judge Koeltl opines. First, he
finds that the contract clearly covers the dispute, and Sharma has
not stated a claim for unjust enrichment. Second, the unjust
enrichment claims of Clonts and Garner are foreclosed by the
existence of their Policies. Third, because Clonts, Garner, Johner,
and Sharma do not dispute the validity of the Policies or argue
that the Policies do not govern their disputes, there is no viable
claim for unjust enrichment. Hence, they have not stated claims for
unjust enrichment, and their claims are dismissed. Fourth, Morris
and Shrader have not stated claims for unjust enrichment, and their
claims are dismissed.

C. Bad Faith and Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Claims

Clonts, Garner, Johner, and Sharma allege bad faith and breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Their claims are governed
by the law of Georgia, Oregon, Missouri, and Utah, respectively. On
this point, these states' laws are functionally identical:
Essentially, claims that an insurer acted in bad faith or breached
the duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying insurance
benefits fail where the denial is reasonable.

The Plaintiffs argue that Generali denied their claims in bad faith
because they sent boilerplate claim-denial emails and performed no
individualized investigation of the claims. But Generali's denials
were reasonable -- indeed, they were valid, Judge Koeltl holds.
Moreover, he finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege any facts that
Generali should have investigated. The factual disputes in the case
appear to be very limited; it is the law that is at issue. As such,
the Plaintiffs have not alleged bad faith or breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing based on Generali's denial of their
claims. Accordingly, Clonts, Garner, Johner, and Sharma do not
state claims for bad faith or breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing under the laws of their respective states.

D. Conversion Claims

Clonts, Garner, Johner, and Sharma also bring conversion claims.7
These claims are governed by the law of Georgia, Oregon, Missouri,
and Utah, respectively.

The claims fail for several reasons, Judge Koeltl opines. First,
the Plaintiffs' conversion claims fail because they have no
property interest in the money they seek to recover. Second, the
conversion claims of Clonts and Johner fail for the additional
reason that there is no claim for conversion of money in Georgia
and Missouri unless the money is specifically identifiable. Third,
the conversion claims of Clonts, Johner, and Sharma fail for the
additional reason that they are barred by the economic loss rule.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not stated conversion claims, and
the conversion claims must be dismissed.

E. Declaratory Judgment Claims

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek "a declaration of the parties'
respective rights and duties under the Policies and request the
Court to declare the Defendants' conduct unlawful and in material
breach." The Court will entertain a declaratory judgment claim only
"(1) when the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying
and settling the legal relations at issue," or "(2) when it will
terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and
controversy giving rise to the proceeding."

Judge Koeltl finds that the Plaintiffs' claims for a declaratory
judgment in the case are entirely duplicative of their substantive
claims, and therefore would neither serve a useful purpose in
clarifying the parties' legal relations nor afford relief from
uncertainty. Moreover, a declaratory judgment requires "a valid
legal predicate." Because none of the Plaintiffs' claims has merit,
there is no such predicate in this case. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment are dismissed. For the
foregoing reasons, Generali's motion to dismiss is granted.

Conclusion

Judge Koeltl has considered all of the parties' arguments. To the
extent not specifically addressed, the claims are either moot or
without merit. In summary, the motion to dismiss is granted as to
Clonts, Garner, Johner, Sharma, Morris, and Shrader. The motion to
dismiss is denied as moot as to Oglevee with respect to the claims
to be arbitrated. The motion to dismiss is granted as to Oglevee
with respect to her claims not subject to arbitration. The Clerk is
directed to close Docket No. 27.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88pdd5 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2968: Generali's Arbitration Bid in Insurance Suit Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GENERALI COVID-19 TRAVEL INSURANCE LITIGATION,
Case No. 20-md-2968 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered
an Opinion and Order:

   a. granting Generali's motion to compel arbitration as to
      Plaintiffs Dziagwa, Flanigan, Matthew and Kari Nixon,
      Robbins, and Swafford; and

   b. granting Generali's motion to compel arbitration as to
      Plaintiff Oglevee with respect to her claims arising out of
      her purchase of travel insurance through Vrbo.com, and
      denying as moot as to Oglevee's other claims.

Introduction

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against the
Defendants, Generali US Branch and Customized Services
Administrators, Inc. (together, "Generali"), alleging breach of
insurance contracts and related non-contract claims. They alleged
that they incurred losses because they planned and paid for travel
that was canceled because of restrictions that were occasioned by
Covid-19. The Plaintiffs allege that their losses were covered by
insurance policies issued by Generali but Generali failed to pay
the amounts due under the Policies.

Generali moved to compel arbitration as to Plaintiffs Dziagwa,
Flanigan, Matthew and Kari Nixon, Oglevee, Robbins, and Swafford.
These Plaintiffs purchased their trips and the corresponding
insurance through Vrbo.com, except Oglevee, who purchased only her
accommodations and the corresponding insurance on Vrbo.com. Oglevee
purchased her flights and the corresponding insurance on
FlightHub.

The basis of Generali's motion to compel arbitration is an
arbitration clause in the terms of service of Vrbo.com, which
provided that Generali was a beneficiary of the clause. Generali
also moved to dismiss the action as to Oglevee, and certain other
Plaintiffs who are not the subjects of Generali's motion to compel
arbitration. The motion to dismiss is addressed in a
concurrently-filed opinion.

Background

Each of the Plaintiffs planned trips scheduled for 2020 for which
they purchased travel insurance from Generali. The insurance
coverage provided was specified in the Policies, and did not differ
among the Plaintiffs in most key respects. The Policies included a
section entitled "Legal Actions" relating to the time period for
bringing certain claims. Each Policy also included a section
providing that the Policy could "be changed at any time by written
agreement between" the parties, but noting that only certain
executives could "change or waive" its provisions, which change had
to be "endorsed on the policy."

The Plaintiffs who are the subjects of the motion to compel
arbitration purchased the trips they insured through an online
travel agency called Vrbo, also known as Vrbo.com or HomeAway.com,
except Oglevee, who purchased only the accommodations portion of
her trip on Vrbo.com. She purchased the airline portion of her trip
on FlightHub. In the process of completing the online purchases
through Vrbo, the plaintiffs clicked a button labeled "Agree &
continue" or "Continue." A notice informed the plaintiffs that
clicking this button indicated their assent to certain linked terms
and conditions. The Vrbo Terms included a section entitled
"Disputes; Arbitration."

During the first week of 2020, a new coronavirus was identified in
China. By March, Covid-19 had spread so broadly that the World
Health Organization declared it a pandemic. The Plaintiffs were all
slated to take the trips for which they had purchased insurance
during 2020. All of these trips were canceled over the course of
the year. They filed claims under the Policies, seeking
compensation under the Policies. Generali denied the claims.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against Generali,
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, bad
faith, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. They
sought relief including a return of all or part of the insurance
premiums they paid, compensation for the losses they incurred, and
declaratory relief. Generali now moves to compel arbitration of
those claims brought by Dziagwa, Flanigan, Matthew and Kari Nixon,
Oglevee, Robbins, and Swafford.

Discussion

The Vrbo Terms contain an arbitration clause that, on its face,
appears to authorize Generali to seek arbitration of the disputes
arising out of the Plaintiffs' transactions on Vrbo.com. The
plaintiffs do not dispute the existence or content of the. The
Plaintiffs also do not dispute that they consented to the Vrbo
Terms. The Defendants have therefore met their initial burden with
respect to the claims arising out of the transactions on Vrbo.com,
and the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to show that the agreement
is inapplicable or invalid.

In an attempt to meet this burden, the Plaintiffs raise five
distinct arguments: (1) the dispute is not covered by the Vrbo
Terms' arbitration provision because the Policies do not
contemplate arbitration; (2) the dispute is not covered by the Vrbo
Terms' arbitration provision because no reasonable person would
have anticipated being bound to arbitrate a dispute with the
Defendants; (3) the Defendants cannot enforce the arbitration
provision because the plain language of the Vrbo Terms does not
allow them to; (4) the Defendants cannot enforce the arbitration
provision because there is no mutuality; and (5) the Defendants
cannot enforce the arbitration provision because they have waived
their right to do so.

Judge Koeltl opines that none of these arguments is persuasive.
First, he opines that there is no conflict between the Vrbo Terms
and the Policies that must be resolved by ignoring the right to
seek arbitration provided by the Vrbo Terms, or even creates an
issue of fact as to the meaning of the Vrbo Terms or the Policies.
Second, the close nexus between the agreement and the dispute made
it foreseeable that the arbitration provision would apply to
transactions collateral to the accommodation transaction, including
the purchase of insurance. Third, the plain language of the Vrbo
Terms grants the Defendants the right to enforce the arbitration
provision. Fourth, the Vrbo Terms' conferring on Generali a right
to seek arbitration is not void for lack of mutuality. Finally,
Generali's delay was not excessive, and does not constitute
waiver.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy
their burden of showing that the arbitration agreement is
inapplicable or invalid with respect to the claims that arise out
of their transactions on Vrbo.com. The Plaintiffs also do not
identify any factual disputes with respect to arbitration that
require discovery. Generali's motion to compel arbitration is
therefore granted as to the claims arising out of the Plaintiffs'
transactions on Vrbo.com.

With respect to Plaintiff Ogtevee, Plaintiff Ogtevee purchased her
accommodation and the corresponding insurance on Vrbo.com, and her
flights and the corresponding insurance on FlightHub. At the
argument of the current motion, the Defendants agreed that the
motion to compel arbitration only applied to the cost of the
accommodations Oglevee purchased on Vrbo.com, and the cost of the
flights she purchased on FlightHub were subject only to the motion
to dismiss. Accordingly, any motion to compel arbitration of
Oglevee's claims that did not arise out of her transaction on
Vrbo.com is denied as moot.

Conclusion

Judge Koeltl has considered all of the parties' arguments. To the
extent not specifically addressed, the claims are either moot or
without merit. In summary, the motion to compel arbitration is
granted as to Dziagwa, Flanigan, Matthew and Kari Nixon, Robbins,
and Swafford. The motion to compel arbitration is also granted as
to Oglevee with respect to her claims arising out of her purchase
of travel insurance through Vrbo.com. The motion to compel
arbitration is denied as moot as to Oglevee's other claims. The
claims subject to arbitration are stayed pending the conclusion of
the arbitrations. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 30.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3hppyuj8 from Leagle.com.


META PLATFORMS: DotStrategy Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff dotStrategy Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled dotStrategy Co. v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lead Plaintiff
William F. Doshier and his company dotStrategy Co. sued the social
media giant in Faulkner County Circuit Court on July 10, seeking
punitive damages and restitution for its alleged failure to detect
and filter invalid clicks.

Facebook, the world's largest social media platform, said that it
had deleted 583 million fake accounts during the first three months
of 2018. That announcement tipped Mr. Doshier off to "the
widespread extent that fake accounts populate the Facebook
platform," according to his 87-page complaint filed by Little Rock
attorney David Hodges.

Mr. Doshier, who teaches marketing classes at the University of
Central Arkansas, says Facebook should have instituted policies
that detected those fake accounts -- and potentially millions of
others -- sooner.

A doubling of Facebook's review staff to 20,000 and artificial
intelligence systems capable of filtering fake accounts could have
been deployed "a long time ago . . . but, Facebook chose not to,"
the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit, Facebook estimates that fake accounts on
their social network make up about 3 to 4 percent of users, or
about 66 million accounts. "Facebook's self-serve advertisers are
not interested in increasing fake traffic from fake Facebook
accounts," the complaint states. "Facebook knew or should have
known that it has overbilled and continues to overbill Doshier and
class members for fake traffic that is generated from fake accounts
on Facebook."

The proposed class seeks compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of breach of contract, fraud and deceptive trade practices
for Facebook's alleged misrepresentation of "the actual number of
genuine accounts on their social network."

On June 22, 2021, Judge William Alsup entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

On September 30, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On November 20, 2021, Judge William Alsup entered an order granting
Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as dotStrategy Co. v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., Case No. 21-17056, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 15, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant dotStrategy Co. Mediation Questionnaire was due on
December 22, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 13, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on February 14, 2022;

   -- Appellant dotStrategy Co. opening brief is due on March 24,
2022;

   -- Appellee Meta Platforms, Inc. answering brief is due on April
25, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DOTSTRATEGY CO., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: tbright@cerallp.com
                  scera@cerallp.com

Defendant-Appellee META PLATFORMS, INC., FKA Facebook, Inc., is
represented by:

          Beth Brinkmann, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          850 Tenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5312

               - and -

          Kathryn Cahoy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          E-mail: kcahoy@cov.com   

               - and -

          Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
          Ziwei Song, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
          Telephone: (415) 591-7052
          E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com

               - and -

          Ashley Margaret Simonsen, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
          Telephone: (424) 332-4800
          E-mail: asimonsen@cov.com

MJ'S OF MATAWAN: Min Li Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Sushi Chefs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIN LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MJ'S OF MATAWAN LLC d/b/a MJ's Restaurant
Bar & Grill, VILLAGE FALLS LLC d/b/a MJ's Restaurant Bar & Grill,
ANGELO DICAPUA, ROBERT WEBSTER, CHRISTINA DILUCCIO, JOHN DOE 1-3,
fictitiously named parties, true name(s) unknown, JANE DOE 1-3,
fictitiously named parties, true name(s) unknown, and COMPANY ABC
1-10, fictitiously named business entities, true name(s) unknown,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-20578 (D.N.J., December 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated homecare health providers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was hired as a sushi chef for MJ's on or about
December 1, 2015, and remained employed by the Defendants until
about September 30, 2021.

MJ'S of Matawan LLC is an operator of a restaurant under the name
MJ's Restaurant Bar & Grill in New Jersey.

Village Falls LLC is an operator of a restaurant under the name
MJ's Restaurant Bar & Grill in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Heng Wang, Esq.
         WANG, GAO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         36 Bridge Street
         Metuchen, NJ 08840
         Telephone: (732) 767-3020
         Facsimile: (732) 343-6880
         E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Randolph Sues Over Deceptive Food Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10858 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and
violation of New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its Stoned Wheat Thins product under the brand name Red Oval Farms.
The Defendant labeled the product to convey a message to consumers
that its main ingredient is stoneground whole wheat flour. In
reality, the product's main ingredient is unbleached enriched
flour. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and
deceptive representations and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class
members would not have been willing to pay the same amount for the
product they purchased, and/or they would not have been willing to
purchase the product at all, says the suit.

Mondelez International, Inc, is a consumer goods manufacturer, with
its principal place of business located at 905 West Fulton Market,
Suite 200, Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael R. Reese, Esq.
         REESE LLP
         100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
         New York, NY 10025
         Telephone: (212) 643-0500
         E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

                 - and –

         Charles D. Moore, Esq.
         REESE LLP
         100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (212) 643-0500
         Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
         E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com

                 - and –

         Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
         QUAT LAW OFFICES
         373 Winch Street
         Framingham, MA 01701
         Telephone: (508) 872-1261
         E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Brinkley
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY BRINKLEY, v.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-TWR-WVG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William V. Gallo entered a scheduling
order regulating class certification as follows:

   1. The parties shall designate their respective class
      certification experts in writing by January 28, 2022. The
      parties must identify any person who may be used at trial
      to present evidence pursuant to Rules 702, 703 or 705 of
      the Fed. R. Evid. This requirement is not limited to
      retained experts.

   2. The date for exchange of rebuttal experts shall be by
      February 28, 2022. The written designations shall include
      the name, address and telephone number of the expert and a
      reasonable summary of the testimony the expert is expected
      to provide. The list shall also include the normal rates
      the expert charges for deposition and trial testimony.

   3. By January 28, 2022, each party shall comply with the
      disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This disclosure
      requirement applies to all person evidence under Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by February 28, 2022.

   4. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding
      contradictory or rebuttal.

   5. All expert discovery related to class certification shall
      be completed by all parties by March 21, 2022.

   6. Any class certification motion must be filed by April 7,
      2022. Counsel for the moving party must obtain a motion
      hearing date from the law clerk of the judge who will hear
      the motion.

Monterey Financial Services is a full service receivables
management and finance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zdddM2 at no extra charge.[CC]

NELNET INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due May 19
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JOHANSSON, HEATHER
PORTER, JONPEARCE and LINDA STANLEY on behalf of themselves and the
Class Members, v. NELNET, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; NELNET
SERVICING, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; and NELNET
DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company,
Case No. 4:20-cv-03069-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to continue
and approving the parties' stipulation for additional time.

The unexpired deadlines within the court's progression order are
amended as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' deadline for responding to Defendants'
      written discovery is extended December 29, 2021. Motions
      to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45
      must be filed by January 12, 2022.

   2. The deadlines for complete expert disclosures for all
      experts expected to testify at trial, (both retained
      experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained
      experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are extended to:

      -- For the plaintiff(s):      January 19, 2022

      -- For the defendant(s):      February 23, 2022

      -- Plaintiff(s)' rebuttal:    March 9, 2022.

   3. The expert witness deposition deadline is extended to
      April 18, 2022.

   4. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
      filed by May 19, 2022, with Defendants' response filed by
      June 9, 2022, and any reply filed by June 23, 2022

   5. The conference with the court, currently scheduled for
      March 22, 2022, is continued, and it will be held on April
      26, 2022.

Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JyFfq9 at no extra charge.[CC]

NEOPHOTONICS CORP: Bushansky Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEOPHOTONICS CORPORATION, CHARLES
J. ABBE, BANDEL L. CARANO, MICHAEL J. SOPHIE, KIMBERLY Y. CHAINEY,
RAJIV RAMASWAMI, IHAB TARAZI, TIMOTHY S. JENKS, YANBING LI, and
SHERI SAVAGE, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-09825 (N.D. Cal.,
December 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized NeoPhotonics'
issuance of false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to convince stockholders to vote
in favor of the proposed acquisition of NeoPhotonics by Lumentum
Holdings Inc. The proxy statement omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) NeoPhotonics'
financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the company's financial advisor Union Square Advisors
LLC; and (iii) the background of the proposed transaction. Unless
remedied, NeoPhotonics' public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the proxy statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the proposed transaction.

NeoPhotonics Corporation is a developer and manufacturer of lasers
and optoelectronic solutions, with its principal executive offices
located at 3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 808
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (310) 208-2800
         Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
         E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

NEW BALANCE: Cristostomo Sues Over "Made in USA" Footwear Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CRISTOSTOMO, ANTHONY BOLLINI, SPENCER VERRILLA, DERRICK
EVANS, CLIFTON BRADLEY, and ROBERT KAMINSKY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW BALANCE
ATHLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-12095 (D. Mass.,
December 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California's False Advertising Law, the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the New York
General Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive representations of
its footwear models that they are "Made in USA." Contrary to the
Defendant's representations and warranties, its sneakers have as
much as 30 percent of their components made outside of the U.S. Had
the Defendant disclosed that the sneakers were not in fact "Made in
USA," the Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the
sneakers or would have paid less than they did, says the suit.

New Balance Athletics, Inc. is a footwear company, with its
principal place of business located at 100 Guest Street, Boston,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
         REARDON SCANLON LLP
         45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
         West Hartford, CT 06107
         Telephone: (860) 955-9455
         Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
         E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

                - and –

         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

                - and –

         Max S. Roberts, Esq.
         Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com

NEW YORK CITY: Service of Karelefsky's 2nd Amended Suit Due Feb. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW KARELEFSKY, Plaintiff v. CYNTHANIA BRANN,
PATSY YANG, and MARGET EGAN, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-9485 (JGK)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York extended the time for the Plaintiff
to serve the second amended complaint to Feb. 4, 2022.

The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint
by Aug. 27, 2021. While the Plaintiff claims that he filed a second
amended complaint, the docket sheet does not reflect that filing.
On Nov. 5, 2021, the Court extended the Plaintiff's time to file
the second amended complaint to Dec. 6, 2021.

Judge Koeltl is providing the Plaintiff with another copy of the
Order to Amend, together with a form to complete a second amended
complaint. The time for him to serve the second amended complaint
is extended to Feb. 4, 2022. If the Plaintiff fails to file second
amended complaint, the case may be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.

The Clerk's Office is directed to mail a copy of the Order to the
Plaintiff's last known address and to note service on the docket
sheet.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/472pd84d from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK HEALTH: Franck Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS FRANCK and LI ZHEN
FENG Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
v. NEW YORK HEALTH CARE INC., MURRY ENGLARD, and GLEN PERSAUD, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04955-GHW-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this collective
      action pursuant to Section 216(b) of all persons who
      worked as home care workers at NYHC between June 4, 2018
      and the date of final judgment in this matter;

   2. directing the Defendants to produce the full names, last-
      known addresses, email addresses, home and cell phone
      numbers, job position(s), languages spoken, present or
      last known place of employment, and dates of employment
      for all home care workers employed by NYHC during the last
      six years;

   3. approving Plaintiffs’ proposed notice plan;

   4. directing NYHC to pay all notice costs; and

   5. tolling the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) statute of
      limitations for potential opt-in plaintiffs from September
      21, 2021 until ten days after the expiration of the notice
      and opt-in period.

New York Health Care operates as a home care services agency.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eQx0HH
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
          Ethan D. Roman, Esq.
          WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
          18 HALF MILE ROAD
          Armonk, New York 10504
          Telephone: (914) 319-9945
          Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
          E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
                  jbm@wittelslaw.com
                  edr@wittelslaw.com

PEANUT PLUMBING: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Plumbers
----------------------------------------------------------
TODD BROWN and WILLIAM COX, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEANUT PLUMBING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01155 (W.D. Tex., December 20, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Texas common law.

Plaintiffs Brown and Cox worked for the Defendant as plumbers in
Elgin, Texas from approximately May 2018 until April 2021 and since
approximately March 2020, respectively.

Peanut Plumbing, LLC is a company that provides residential and
commercial plumbing services throughout Texas, with its
headquarters located in Elgin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin Anderson, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Callahan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PeopleConnect, Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of United States a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Petitioner v. MEREDITH CALLAHAN AND LAWRENCE
GEOFFREY ABRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-885.

Response is due on January 14, 2022.

The Defendant petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled MEREDITH CALLAHAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-16040. On December 9,
2021, the Ninth Circuit denied PeopleConnect's motion for stay
pending appeal.

The question presented is: Does a non-frivolous appeal of a denial
of a motion to compel arbitration divest district courts of
jurisdiction, causing proceedings to be stayed automatically, as
the Third, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held,
or does the appealing party have to satisfy the traditional
discretionary test for a stay, as the Second, Fifth, and Ninth
Circuits have held?

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order:

   -- denying the Defendant's motion to stay pending appeal;

   -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion
      to dismiss and strike; and

   -- denying the Defendant's motion to stay discovery

Plaintiffs Meredith Callahan and Lawrence Geoffrey Abraham filed
this class action against PeopleConnect, alleging that it
misappropriated their names, photographs, and likenesses and used
the same in advertising its products and services, including
reprinted yearbooks and subscription memberships to the website
Classmates.com.

According to the Plaintiffs, by misappropriating and misusing
millions of Californian's names, photographs, and likenesses
without consent, PeopleConnect has harmed the Plaintiffs and the
class by denying them the economic value of their likenesses,
violating their legally protected rights to exclusive use of their
likenesses, and violating their right to seclusion. PeopleConnect
has also earned ill-gotten profits and been unjustly enriched.

The Plaintiffs have asserted these claims for relief: (1) Violation
of California Civil Code Section 3344 (i.e., the right of
publicity); (2) Violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 (both the unlawful and unfair prongs); (3) Intrusion
upon seclusion; and (4) Unjust enrichment.

Previously, PeopleConnect moved to compel the instant case to
arbitration, but the Court denied the motion. PeopleConnect has
since appealed that decision. PeopleConnect then moved to stay
proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's disposition of that
appeal.

The Court concluded that, in the instant case, PeopleConnect has
failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Although
PeopleConnect has cited two federal district court cases in support
of its position, neither addressed Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38
Cal.3d 396 (1985). See Jimenez v. Menzies Aviation Inc., No.
15-cv-02392-WHO, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127875, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal.
Sep. 23, 2015); see also Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d
1405, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990).

Although PeopleConnect's argument is not without any merit, it is
not persuasive, Judge Chen opined. Even assuming that the Court
were to deny the motion to dismiss and strike in its entirety, that
would not deprive PeopleConnect of the arbitral forum, he pointed
out. The denial of the motion to dismiss would not resolve the case
or obviate an arbitration should it be so ordered. PeopleConnect,
therefore, would not suffer irreparable harm warranting a stay.

Accordingly, PeopleConnect's motion to stay pending appeal was
denied.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner PeopleConnect, Inc. is represented by:

          Adam G. Unikowsky, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          E-mail: AUnikowsky@jenner.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents Meredith Callahan, et al., are represented
by:

          Kelsi Brown Corkran, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY & PROTECTION
          600 New Jersey Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          E-mail: kbc74@georgetown.edu

PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Alvarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. PERFORMANCE
FOODSERVICE, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-09795 (N.D. Cal., December 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime wages
owed, failure to afford legally-compliant meal and rest periods,
failure to authorize payment of rest break premiums, failure to
authorize payment of meal break premiums, failure to pay all wages
due and owing upon termination of employment, failure to issue
legal compliant wage statements/pay stubs, illegally rounding of
shift and meal break hours, and failure to track required work
performed by non-exempt hourly workers after paid hours.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee for the
Defendants at their California production and transport
facilities.

Performance Food Group, Inc. is a food company headquartered in
Goochland County, Virginia.

Performance Foodservice is a food service provider based in
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Eric Rouen, Esq.
         THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
         297 Vardon Court Ione, CA 95640
         Telephone: (610) 324-2848
         Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
         E-mail: rouenlaw@att.net

               - and –

         Daniel Rodriguez, Esq.
         Noah Moss, Esq.
         RODRIGUEZ & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Law Corp.
         1128 Truxtun Avenue
         Bakersfield, CA 93301
         Telephone: (661) 323-1400
         Facsimile: (661) 323-0132
         E-mail: dr@rodriguezlaw.net
                 Noah@rodriguezlaw.net

PERSOLVE LEGAL: Cabello Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Legal Group
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Mayra Cabello, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Persolve Legal Group LLP,
United States Fire Insurance Company, John Doe 1 to 10, Case No.
5:21-cv-01281-OLG (W.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2021).

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

Persolve -- http://persolve.com/-- is a full service legal
recovery and collection firm that focuses on litigation in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          GREENE CONSUMER LAW
          1954 1st St., #154
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Phone: (312) 847-6979 Ext. 101
          Fax: (312) 847-6978
          Email: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          THOMASSON PLLC
          350 Springfield Avenue, Suite 200
          Summit, NJ 07901-4610
          Phone: (973) 312-0774
          Fax: (973) 559-5579
          Email: Andrew@Thomassonpllc.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS REMICK, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
persons who are entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief,
consisting of:

   "All persons who are currently or will be in the future
   confined in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and are
   or will be subjected to the unconstitutional and otherwise
   illegal conditions of confinement, including a lack of
   staffing that results in extended lockdowns; lack of out-of-
   cell time; denial of timely and adequate medical care; lack
   of protection from physical assaults; denial of access to the
   courts, to legal counsel, and to timely legal mail; lack of
   due process in disciplinary proceedings; lack of access to
   necessary exercise; inadequate sanitation, hygiene,
   quarantine, and separation practices and procedures to
   protect against COVID-19 infections."

The Plaintiffs commenced this class action seeking relief from
unconstitutional conditions of confinement that existed at the time
and which, absent judicial intervention, will continue to exist in
the Philadelphia Department of Prisons ("PDP"). Due in large part
to severe understaffing in the PDP and, in particular, lack of
sufficient correctional officer staffing and
deployment, the prison population has been subjected to conditions
that include extended lockdowns; lack of out-of-cell time; denial
of timely and adequate medical care; lack of protection from
physical assaults; denial of access to the courts, to legal
counsel, and to timely legal mail; lack of due process in
disciplinary proceedings; lack of access to necessary exercise;
inadequate sanitation, hygiene, quarantine, and separation policies
and procedures to protect against COVID-19 infections; and other
conditions that cause and exacerbate mental illness and mental
distress.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, on April 20, 2020, to compel Defendants City of Philadelphia
and Commissioner Blanche Carney to protect individuals incarcerated
in the PDP from the risks of serious harm they face from the twin
dangers of COVID-19 and prolonged isolation in their cells. See
Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and
Petition for Writs of
Habeas Corpus and Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Order
approving filing.

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order
requiring Defendants to ensure that conditions of confinement in
PDP facilities complied with the then-current health and safety
standards necessary to protect the Plaintiff class from the risks
associated with Covid-19 and to provide humane conditions of
confinement, including adequate out-of-cell time consistent with
constitutional requirements.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHsrFj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          Grace Harris, Esq.
          Sarah Bleiberg, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL
          LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215)-925-2966
          E-mail: smyeh@pailp.org
                  mfeldman@pailp.org

               - and -

          Bret Grote, Esq.
          Nia Holston, Esq.
          Rupalee Rashatwar, Esq.
          ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
          PO Box 31857
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (412) 654-9070
          E-mail: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org
                  nia@alcenter.org
                  rupalee@alcenter.org

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq.
          Susan M. Lin, Esq.
          KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING,
          FEINBERG, & LIN, LLP
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com
                  jfeinberg@krlawphila.com
                  slin@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Will W. Sachse, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
          Mary H. Kim, Esq.
          Nicolas A. Novy, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
          Telephone: (215) 994-2496
          E-mail: Will.Sachse@dechert.com
                  Ben.Barnett@dechert.com
                  Mary.Kim@dechert.com
                  Nicolas.Novy@dechert.com

PITTSBURGH LOGISTIC: Class Cert. Hearing on Alesius Set for Jan. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALESIUS et al v.
PITTSBURGH LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01067 (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order that the
initial case management and conditional class certification hearing
currently set for Jan. 18, 2022 at 09:00 AM will be held as
scheduled.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, doing business as PLS Logistics
Services, provides logistics management services.[CC]

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Garza Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Michelle Garza, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, Defendant,
Case No. 21ST-cv-47357 (Cal. Super., December 28, 2021), seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief for violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California
Customer Records Act, California Unfair Competition Law and from
the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard personal
identifiable information and protected information acquired from or
created for its employees, including without limitation, names,
addresses, dates of birth, patient identification numbers, Social
Security numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, passport
numbers, credit/debit card information and financial account
information.

Planned Parenthood Los Angeles provides numerous health services
for patients, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases,
HIV testing, emergency contraception, family planning procedures
and cancer screenings. In October 17, 2021, it experienced a data
breach through which unauthorized individuals accessed personal
data of its current and former employees.

Garza frequently visits Planned Parenthood for medical treatment.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Fails to Provide Timely Wages, Brito Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED and QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-07019 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to provide timely wages
and failure to provide wage notice at the time of employment in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Quest as an hourly-paid driver,
courier and/or route service representative in New York from in or
about May 2021 to December 16, 2021.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a provider of diagnostic
information and clinical laboratory testing services, with its
headquarters in New Jersey.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. is a provider of
diagnostic information and clinical laboratory testing services,
with its headquarters in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Peter A. Romero, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

QUESTX LLC: Underpays Call Center Employees, Mills Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE MILLS and MARISSA SCHRYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. QUESTX, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01065 (W.D. Mich., December 17, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated call center employees overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Nevada Wage
Act, the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, and the Michigan
Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiff Mills was employed by the Defendant as a call center
employee in St. Johns, Michigan from approximately April 2019 until
April 2020.

Plaintiff Schryer was employed by the Defendant as a call center
employee in Las Vegas, Nevada from approximately November 2018
until July 2021.

QuestX, LLC is a customer engagement and contact center, with its
principal place of business in St. Johns, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jennifer McManus, Esq.
         FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
         25892 Woodward Avenue
         Royal Oak, MI
         Telephone: (248) 658-8951
         Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
         E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

                - and –

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

R. KING WINDOWS: Class of Employees in Dylo Wage Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCIN DYLO, STANISLAW BAJ, ADRIAN KOSIOR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY R. KING WINDOWS CORP., ALUMINUM FABRICATORS
CORP., AND MARK KLICH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND/OR ANY OTHER RELATED OR
AFFILIATED ENTITIES, Plaintiffs v. R. KING WINDOWS CORP., ALUMINUM
FABRICATORS CORP., MARK KLICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND/OR ANY OTHER
RELATED OR AFFILIATED ENTITIES, Defendants, Docket No. 157253/2019,
Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Nancy M. Bannon of the
Supreme Court, New York County, issued a Decision + Order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class; and

   (b) denying the Defendants' cross-motion:

       * pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, CPLR,
         3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint as against Defendant
         Klich, individually, and to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
         class claims; and

       * for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing
         the complaint as against Defendant Klich.

Introduction

In the action pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) to recover
unpaid overtime wages, the Plaintiffs move pursuant to CPLR 901 and
902 to certify a class comprising all individuals employed by the
Defendants RK Windows, Aluminum, and/or Klich, who performed window
fabrication, delivery, and installation work throughout New York
from July 22, 2013, through the present, excepting any manager,
corporate officer, director, clerical, or office workers.

The Defendants oppose the motion and cross-move pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint as against Klich, individually,
and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims. They also seek summary
judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint as against
Klich. The Plaintiffs oppose the cross-motion.

Background

The named Plaintiffs, Marcin Dylo, Stanislaw Baj, and Adrian
Kosior, allege that beginning on or about February 2011, the
Defendants employed them to perform window installation work on
properties in the New York metropolitan area. Specifically, they
state they were employed by RK Windows and/or Aluminum (together,
the employer Defendants), two jointly owned and operated companies
that operate out of the same location in New York, have employed up
to 100 employees during the relevant time period, and subject their
employees to the same policies and procedures regarding hiring,
scheduling, and payroll practices. Klich is the president and sole
owner of both RK Windows and Aluminum.

The Plaintiffs claim that when they were first hired, they were
advised they would be paid a set amount of money for each week of
work. However, over the course of their employment, when they
worked in excess of 40 hours in one week, they were not paid the
statutory overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay, as required pursuant to 12 NYCRR 142-2.2.

Beginning in 2015, the Plaintiffs were required to sign payroll
sheets to receive their weekly paychecks. Each payroll sheet stated
that by signing the document, the signer certified that he was
"paid in full for the whole period he was employed at R. King
Windows and/or Aluminum Fabricators Corp. All overtime hours were
paid at 1.5 rate of signer's regular hourly wage." The payroll
sheets were written in English, a language which the Plaintiffs,
native Polish speakers, aver they do not understand. The Plaintiffs
were prohibited from keeping the payroll sheets.

The Plaintiffs further claim that the Defendants never provided
them with wage notification documents at hiring and when their wage
rates changed, as required by NYLL Section 195.1. As such, the
Plaintiffs state that their paystubs were inaccurate. The
Plaintiffs were paid for the first 40 hours they worked per week by
check and in cash for all additional work hours over 40. However,
the rates of pay on their paystubs were routinely lower than on the
signed payroll sheet. Moreover, any cash payments made to the
Plaintiffs for the hours they worked over 40 in one week did not
compensate them at the statutory rate.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
co-workers, commenced the action to recover the overtime wags they
claim they are entitled to. Pre-class-certification discovery was
completed as of the status conference held before the Court on June
24, 2021. The instant motions ensued.

Discussion

A. Defendants' Cross-Motion

Since the Defendants seek relief in their cross-motion that may be
wholly or partially dispositive of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Judge Bannon addresses the cross-motion first.

i. CPLR 3211(a)(7)

The Plaintiffs' first cause of action seeks to hold each of the
Defendants liable for violations of article 19 of the NYLL (the
Minimum Wage Act). Their second cause of action seeks to hold the
Defendants liable for violations of article 6 of the NYLL.

The Defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the
complaint as against Klich on the grounds that Klich is not an
"employer" within the meaning of the NYLL and that the Plaintiffs
assert no basis for piercing the corporate veil. The Plaintiffs
allege in their complaint that Klich, along with RK Windows and
Aluminum, was their employer "within the meaning contemplated
pursuant to the NYLL." In opposition to the Defendants'
cross-motion, the Plaintiffs also submit affidavits, wherein they
state that Klich hired them to work for RK Windows and Aluminum,
ran the company on a daily basis, set their rate of pay, and
received complaints from employees about not receiving overtime
pay.

These allegations, all of which may be considered on a motion
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), are sufficient at the pleading stage
to state NYLL wage claims against Klich as an employer, Judge
Bannon finds. The branch of the Defendants' motion seeking to
dismiss the complaint as against Klich is therefore denied.

The Defendants further move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' class claims because the Minimum Wage Act allows
employees to recover liquidated damages "unless the employer proves
a good faith basis to believe that its underpayment of wages was in
compliance with the law."

Judge Bannon holds that the Plaintiffs do not demand recovery of
liquidated damages either for themselves or for the putative class.
Indeed, no reference is made to liquidated damages anywhere in the
complaint. Thus, the branch of the Defendants' motion seeking to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims as barred pursuant to CPLR
901(b) is denied.

ii. CPLR 3212

The Defendants move, in the alternative, pursuant to CPLR 3212 for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Klich. They
submit in support of their application pursuant to CPLR 3212, inter
alia, pre-class-certification discovery demands and documents
exchanged by the parties and deposition transcripts of the
Plaintiffs and Klich. However, at his deposition, Klich also
testified regarding his unimpeded control and management over the
day-to-day business operations of each of the corporate
defendants.

Judge Bannon holds that the Defendants fail to establish, prima
facie, that Klich was not an "employer" within the meaning of the
NYLL. Thus, the branch of their motion seeking summary judgment
dismissing the complaint against Klich is denied without regard to
the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' opposition papers.

B. Class Certification

In determining whether to permit the matter to proceed as a class
action, the court must consider "(1) the interest of members of the
class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of
separate actions; (2) the impracticability or inefficiency of
prosecuting or defending separate actions; (3) the extent and
nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already
commenced by or against members of the class; (4) the desirability
or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claim in
the particular forum; (5) the difficulties likely to be encountered
in the management of a class action."

First, Judge Bannon finds that the evidence submitted by the
Plaintiffs in support of class certification, demonstrates the
merit of their claims that they and other similarly situated
laborers may have been subject to the Defendants' practice of
denying their employees statutory overtime pay. Second, she finds
that the group of persons identified by the Plaintiffs meets the
requirements for certification as a class under CPLR 901 and 902.
Third, a predominance of common issues of law and fact over
individual questions of damages. Fourth, the named Plaintiffs have
exhibited an interest in the action and their counsel have
demonstrated a level of competence ensuring that they can fairly
and adequately represent the class members. Finally, a class action
would be the best method of adjudicating this controversy, in light
of the small amount of potential recovery by each individual, the
laborers' likely insubstantial means, and the lack of any serious
problems in managing the claims of a maximum of approximately 100
individuals where most of the individual differences can be
resolved by the documentary evidence of payroll checks and time
sheets.

Judge Bannon has considered the Defendants' arguments in opposition
to class certification and finds them to be without merit.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Bannon granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class comprising all individuals employed by R. King Windows
Corp., Aluminum Fabricators Corp., and/or Mark Klich, who performed
window fabrication, delivery, and installation work throughout New
York between July 22, 2013, and the present, excepting any manager,
corporate officer, director, clerical, or office workers, and such
class is so certified.

Judge Bannon denied the Defendants' cross-motion pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint as against Klich, individually,
and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class claims, and for summary
judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint as against
Klich, in its entirety.

The parties will commence post-certification discovery and appear
for a status conference via Microsoft Teams on March 24, 2022, at
10 a.m.

The Note of Issue deadline is extended until April 25, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Decision + Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/488998w8 from Leagle.com.


RALEIGH RADIOLOGY: Dismissal of Cram's Contract Breach Claim Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY CRAM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALEIGH RADIOLOGY, LLC d/b/a,
RALEIGH RADIOLOGY BLUE RIDGE, Defendant, Case No. COA21-116 (N.C.
App.), the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the trial
court's order dismissing Cram's breach of contract claim.

I. Background

Defendant Raleigh Radiology is one of the largest mammogram service
providers in the Raleigh area. Patients contract with Raleigh
Radiology to provide scientifically reliable mammograms that meet
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and American College of
Radiology ("ACR") accreditation standards. On its website, Raleigh
Radiology promises patients that it uses the "most advanced
mammography technology available" and that its "digital mammography
screening" is the "best tool available to help detect breast cancer
in its earliest stages." Raleigh Radiology promises patients that
"all its offices are accredited by the ACR and certified by the
FDA."

As part of its accreditation process, the ACR reviewed a sample of
images to ensure they comply with the accreditation standards.
However, during a 2019 review, the ACR found substandard images for
mammograms performed at Raleigh Radiology for the time period Nov.
7, 2017 through Nov. 6, 2019. Due to these substandard images, the
ACR denied Raleigh Radiology's accreditation and, as a result, the
FDA suspended all mammography services going forward.

On Dec. 11, 2019, Raleigh Radiology sent a letter to all patients
who received a mammogram between Nov. 7, 2017, and Nov. 6, 2019
("affected patients") informing them that the FDA suspended it from
performing mammography services as a result of the ACR review. The
letter stated that "neither the FDA nor the ACR identified any
images where cancer or disease was 'overlooked,' but admitted that
the ACR's review was 'limited to a very small sample of mammography
cases' and 'related only to the technical quality of the
mammography images generated.'" "The letter claimed that the
'majority' of cases reviewed by the ACR were 'acceptable' but did
not tell the patient (1) whether her mammogram images were part of
the review; or (2) whether her mammogram images were acceptable."
"To the contrary, it advised patients to consult with their
referring physician at their own expenses and that it may be
necessary to re-review or repeat mammograms taken between Nov. 7,
2017 and Nov. 6, 2019."

Raleigh Radiology also sent a certified letter later in December
2019 to the affected patients. In that letter, it specifically
advised patients that prior mammograms likely would need, at
minimum, to be "reviewed" again and "possibly repeated." The
affected patients were advised to talk with their referring
physicians "as soon as possible." "Despite acknowledging that its
mammography services failed ACR and FDA standards, Raleigh
Radiology did not offer to refund patients for breast cancer
screenings now known to be worthless."

Plaintiff Cram had a total of three mammograms done at Raleigh
Radiology from Nov. 7, 2017, and Nov. 6, 2019, making her an
"affected patient." On Dec. 31, 2019, Cram filed a class action
complaint against Raleigh Radiology on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated to seek damages for breach of contract,
asserting "despite having paid for breast cancer screenings that
meet FDA quality standards and ACR accreditation standards, Cram
now has no way of knowing whether, in fact, her prior mammograms
actually detected any clinically significant abnormalities." Cram's
only cause of action was for breach of contract.

Raleigh Radiology did not file an answer, but rather filed a Motion
to Dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Rules 9(j), 12(b)(6), and
41(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Cram
"instituted an action for damages arising out of the furnishing of
professional services in the performance of medical or other
healthcare services by a healthcare provider" and her action for
breach of contract was, in substance, an action for medical
malpractice. It asserted that because Cram's action was an action
for medical malpractice and it did not comply with Rule 9(j) of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the action must be
dismissed with prejudice. In the alternative, Raleigh Radiology
argued Cram's complaint "fails to state a claim for relief and
should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure because Cram fails to
allege a 'breach' of any alleged contract."

A hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 1, 2020. At the
conclusion of the hearing, Cram requested that the action be
dismissed without prejudice if the trial court determined dismissal
to be the appropriate action.

On Sept. 30, 2020, 29 days after the hearing, the trial court
entered an Order Granting Raleigh Radiology, LLC d/b/a Raleigh
Radiology Blue Ridge's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing Cram's breach
of contract action with prejudice. The trial court found Cram's
action, which is one for medical malpractice, was filed in
violation of Rule 9(j) and, therefore, is subject to dismissal. The
trial court also found Cram's complaint does not adequately allege
a breach of the implied contract and affirmatively alleges that she
and the putative class members do not know whether their actual
mammogram images were deficient or revealed any clinically
significant abnormalities. Thus, the complaint fails to state a
claim for relief for this alternative reason.

Cram timely filed a Notice of Appeal.

II. Analysis

Ms. Cram argues the trial court erred by dismissing her breach of
contract claim because (A) she adequately alleged that Raleigh
Radiology breached its implied contract with her and the putative
class; and (B) her claim for breach of contract -- seeking damages
purely for economic injury, not personal injury -- fell outside the
purview of the malpractice statute and thus did not require
compliance with Rule 9(j).

A. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted

1. Breach of Contract

Ms. Cram argues the trial court erred by dismissing her complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
While the trial court found Cram did not adequately allege a breach
of implied contract, Cram argues she "adequately alleged that
Raleigh Radiology breached its implied contract with her and the
putative class by failing to provide valid breast cancer screenings
by a facility accredited by the ACR and certified as compliant with
quality standards by the FDA."

The parties do not dispute that Cram's complaint adequately alleged
the existence of an implied contract. The issue on appeal is
whether the trial court erred by dismissing Cram's complaint for
failure to state a claim because she did not properly allege a
breach of the terms of that implied contract.

The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court did not err in
dismissing Cram's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief
under Rule 12(b)(6) "because Cram's complaint does not adequately
allege a breach of the implied contract." Cram's complaint pleads
no other facts or allegations that her own mammograms were not in
compliance with FDA and/or ACR standards. While, on appeal, Cram
asserts she paid for accredited breast cancer screenings and did
not receive them, instead receiving worthless images of her
breasts, the complaint does not allege that. Instead, the complaint
merely alleges she "was not informed" whether her mammograms met
accreditation standards or not.

2. Dismissal with Prejudice

Cram also argues that "if the Court of Appeals holds that she did
not adequately plead her breach of contract claim, the trial
court's dismissal with prejudice should be reversed so that she can
amend her complaint to adequately allege breach of contract."

The Court of Appeals disagrees. It opines that the record reflects
the trial court considered whether to dismiss the claim without
prejudice as requested by Cram. In its broad discretion, the trial
court declined to dismiss the claim without prejudice. The Court of
Appeals cannot conclude that the trial court's dismissal of the
action with prejudice was "manifestly unsupported by reason."

B. Rule 9(j)

The Court of Appeals' holding that the trial court did not err by
dismissing Cram's action for failure to state a claim in accordance
with Rule 12(b)(6), renders Cram's remaining argument, regarding
whether the trial court erred in ruling that her complaint alleged
medical malpractice and required compliance with Rule 9(j), moot.
Regardless of whether a Rule 9(j) certification was required for
Cram's breach of contract claim, Cram failed to state and plead
sufficient facts to allege a breach of the implied contract by
Raleigh Radiology.

III. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals concludes that Cram did not adequately allege
a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the trial
court did not err in dismissing her breach of contract claim in
accordance with Rule 12(b)(6). Further, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the claim with prejudice as the
trial court's dismissal of the action was not manifestly
unsupported by reason. As the complaint was properly dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court of Appeals need not address whether
Cram's complaint was required to meet the heightened pleading
requirements of Rule 9(j). Affirmed.

Judges Arrowood and Griffin concur in result only.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Unpublished Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yndhtbpb from Leagle.com.

The Paynter Law Firm PLLC, by Stuart M. Paynter --
stuart@paynterlaw.com -- David D. Larson, Jr. --
dlarson@paynterlaw.com -- & Sara Willingham --
swillingham@paynterlaw.com -- for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Yates McLamb & Weyher, LLP, by Jennifer D. Maldonado --
jmaldonado@ymwlaw.com -- & David M. Fothergill --
dfothergill@ymwlaw.com -- for the Defendant-Appellee.


REHABILITATION CENTER OF SMH: Settlement in Valentine Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Valentine v.
Rehabilitation Center of Santa Monica Holding Company GP, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01300-JAK-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John
A. Kronstadt, entered an order regarding plaintiff's motion for
final approval of class action settlement and award of attorneys'
fees, and costs, and class representative
incentive payment:

   -- Summary of Settlement Agreement and Notice

      Class Definitions

      Under the class action settlement agreement, the Class
      is defined as follows:

      "Class' refers to all individuals on whom Defendants
      obtained a consumer report between December 21, 2013 and
      July 1, 2017. As of July 1, 2017, the Parties agree that
      Defendants’ disclosures and procedures for seeking
      consumer reports comply with all requirements under
      California and federal laws.

   -- Summary of the Settlement Agreement and Preliminary
      Approval Amount

      Gross Settlement Amount:                   $950,000.00

      Attorney’s Fees:                           $237,500.00

      Litigation Costs:                          $15,000.00

      Incentive Award to Named                   $10,000.00
      Plaintiff:

      Settlement Administration Costs            $40,000.00
      to Simpluris, Inc.

      Net Settlement Amount:                    $647,500.00

   -- Settlement Administration and Final Requested Amounts

      The Settlement Agreement provides for the allocation of up
      to $40,000 to cover the cost of settlement administration.
      The Preliminary Approval Order granted the request that
      Simpluris be appointed as the settlement administrator and
      approved the requested allocation of $40,000 to settlement
      administration costs.

Terry Valentine brought this putative class action in the Los
Angeles Superior Court against Rehabilitation Center of Santa
Monica Holding Company GP, LLC, Rehabilitation Center of Santa
Monica Operating Company, LP, Mariner Health Care Management
Company, Mariner Health Care, Inc., Mariner Health Central, Inc.,
and fictitiously named parties.

The complaint, which was filed on December 21, 2018, remains the
operative one. The Complaint advances claims on behalf of a
putative class under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"),
California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL'). The claims relate to
the propriety of a background check disclosure and authorization
form that Plaintiff and similarly situated persons allegedly signed
when they applied for employment with Defendants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mMGSqi at no extra charge.[CC]

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Vilchez Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services LP, et al. The case is styled as Chritian Vilchez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services LP, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:21-cv-20722-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2021).

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

Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a
manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt
portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com



ROCKET MORTGAGE: Shirley Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Mortgage, LLC.
The case is styled as Dustin Shirley, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-13007-SFC-KGA (E.D. Mich., Dec. 27, 2021).

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

Rocket Mortgage, LLC -- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/ -- is a
mortgage loan provider. It is headquartered in the One Campus
Martius building in the heart of the financial district of Downtown
Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (203) 653-2250
          Fax: (203) 653-3424
          Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


ROHR INC: Morgan Class Cert Hearing Continued to Jan. 21, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR,
INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a
COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order
rescheduling hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The hearing on this matter is currently set for January 14 2022.
The Court orders that the hearing on this matter be continued to
January 21, 2022 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4 2D, says Judge Curiel.

Rohr, Inc. is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula
Vista, California, south of San Diego.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HmTVqp at no extra charge.[CC]


SCHOOLADVISOR LLC: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Munoz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARDO MUNOZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SCHOOLADVISOR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00440-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order granting in part
stipulation to extend all remaining deadlines as follows:

                Event                      Deadline/Date

  -- Nonexpert Discovery Cutoff           January 31, 2022
     for Phase I and Phase II:

  -- Expert Disclosure re                 March 4, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure re        March 31, 2022
     Class Certification

  -- Expert Discovery Cutoff re           April 29, 2022
     Class Certification:”

Motion for Class Certification May 31, 2022A copy of the Court's
order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3qFPT5W at no extra charge.[CC]


SCWORX CORP: Directors' Insurance to Settle Investor Row
--------------------------------------------------------
SCWorx Corp disclosed in its Form 8-K report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2021 that SCWorx
and its directors Marc S. Schessel, Charles K. Miller, Steven
Wallitt and Robert Christie on December 24, 2021, entered into a
binding agreement with shareholders to settle a derivative class
action litigation.

Under the terms of this agreement, the insurers for Schessel,
Miller, Wallitt and Christie will make a cash payment to legal
counsel for the shareholder derivative Plaintiffs to cover their
legal fees and the company will adopt certain corporate governance
reforms within 60 days of court approval of the settlement, in
exchange for which all parties will be released from all claims
related to the derivative class action litigation. This agreement
provides that the parties will negotiate in good faith to enter
into a definitive settlement agreement within 30 days, which
agreement will be subject to court approval.

A series of shareholder derivative cases were filed against SCWorx
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, New York State Supreme Court and the Chancery Court in
Delaware on June 15, August 21, and September 30, 2020 where each
of the lawsuits alleged that Schessel, Miller, Wallitt and Christie
breached their fiduciary duties to the company by misleading
investors in connection to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits and
failing to correct false and misleading statements and failing to
implement proper disclosure and internal controls.

SCCWorx Corp. is an amusement and recreational company based in New
York.


SEAQUA DELICATESSEN: Fails to Properly Pay Deli Staff, Reyes Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER REYES and ULISES REYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEAQUA DELICATESSEN INC.
D/B/A SEAQUA DELICATESSEN & CATERERS, PATRICK SPATES and RICK DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06950 (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices and wage
statements.

Plaintiff Walter Reyes was employed at Seaqua Delicatessen &
Caterers as an assistant chef and catered food preparer from
approximately April 2014 until March 20, 2020.

Plaintiff Ulises Reyes was employed at Seaqua Delicatessen &
Caterers as a maintenance man, an assistant chef, and catering food
preparer from approximately April 2014 until March 20, 2020.

Seaqua Delicatessen Inc., doing business as Seaqua Delicatessen &
Caterers, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal
place of business located at 4250 Jerusalem Avenue, Suite G,
Massapequa, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

SHANGHAI CITY CORP: Opposition to Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUER HUANG ET AL, v.
SHANGHAI CITY CORP, ET AL., Case No. 1:19-cv-07702-LJL-DCF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order as
follows:

   --  Defendants' opposition to class        Jan. 31, 2022
       certification is due on:

   --  The Plaintiffs' reply to the           Feb. 5, 2022
       opposition is due on:

   --  If no class is certified,              July 11, 2022
       trial will proceed on:

   --  A proposed joint pretrial order        June 17, 2022
       will be due on:

   --  The final pretrial conference          July 5, 2022
       will take place on:

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zjTIkZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SHERATON OPERATING: California Court Enters Judgment in Kim Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered Judgment in the case, DANIEL KIM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SHERATON OPERATING CORP., Defendant, Case No. CV
17-9247 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Court's Order Re: Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, filed contemporaneously with the filing of the
Judgment, Judge Olguin ordered the following:

   a. Plaintiff Kim will be paid a service payment of $5,000 in
      accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
      the Order;

   b. The Class counsel will be paid $56,250 in attorney's fees,
      and $12,500 in costs in accordance with the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement and the Order;

   c. The Claims Administrator, Phoenix, will be paid for its
      fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement;

   d. The LWDA will be paid $7,500 pursuant to the Settlement
      Agreement;

   e. All the class members who did not validly and timely
      request exclusion from the settlement have released their
      claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, against
      any of the released parties; and

   f. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
      requested exclusion, the action is dismissed with
      prejudice, with all parties to bear their own fees and
      costs except as set forth and in the prior orders of the
      Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/58xdd5tc from Leagle.com.


SHERMAN HEMP: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Associates, Ross Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHERMAN HEMP, LLC, ASHTEN LLC, JAY ASHLEY
and JAMIE ASHLEY, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00986-SDJ (E.D.
Tex., December 20, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated sales associates
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt sales associate at CBD Plus USA stores in Texas.

Sherman Hemp, LLC is an operator of CBD Plus USA store in Sherman,
Texas.

Ashten LLC is an operator of CBD Plus USA store in Denton, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
         MORELAND VERRETT, PC
         700 West Summit Dr.
         Wimberley, TX 78676
         Telephone: (512) 782-0567
         Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
         E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

SIRIUS XM: Potts Wage-and-Hour Suit Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSICA POTTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., PANDORA MEDIA,
LLC, and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 21STCV41969, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on December 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-09755 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to indemnify all necessary business
expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair competition.

Sirius XM Radio Inc. with its principal place of business in New
York.

Pandora Media, LLC with its principal place of business in New
York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
         Donna C. Saadati-Soto, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 489-3939
         Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
         E-mail: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
                 dsaadatisoto@jonesday.com

                  - and –

         Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
         JONES DAY
         3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 851-3939
         Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
         E-mail: aileenkim@jonesday.com

SK FOOD: Manufacturing Employees Win FLSA Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARQUES DELONEY v. SK FOOD
GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification, and conditionally certifying the following
      class:

      "All former and current non-exempt manufacturing employees
      of SK Food Group Inc. between March 2, 2018 and [March 2,
      2021.]"

   2. approving the Plaintiff's discovery request, and the
      Plaintiff's intended use of postal and electronic mail as
      a means of disseminating notice; and

   3. conditionally denying the Plaintiff's request to use text
      messaging as an additional delivery method, unless the
      Plaintiff demonstrates that his other two delivery methods
      were insufficient means of contacting a particular
      potential class member.

   4. directing the Defendant to fully answer Plaintiff's
      Expedited Opt-In Discovery within 14 days of the date of
      this Opinion and Order; and

   5. directing the parties to meet and confer in good faith
      and, pursuant to the discussions, jointly submit within 14
      days of the date of this Opinion and Order.

On March 2, 2021, the Plaintiff Deloney, on behalf of himself and
current and former "manufacturing" employees of SK Food, sued
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Ohio law
to recover "unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, [and]
attorney's fees and costs."

The  Plaintiff is a former SK Food employee who worked in the
Groveport Facility between July 18, 2018 and August 7, 2019. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, as an SK Food employee,
Defendant failed to pay him and other non-exempt, hourly
"production" or "manufacturing" employees whenever they performed
the following work-required activities before and after their
shifts.

SK Food is a custom food production company that maintains a
production facility in Groveport, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qHfLy8 at no extra charge.[CC]

SLSCO LTD: Settlement Deal in Vazquez Suit Get Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vazquez v. SLSCO LTD, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11343 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV
entered an order granting the motion to certify class and
preliminary approval of settlement agreement

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SLSCO is a diverse and results-driven general contracting and
construction management firm.[CC]

SPRINGFIELD, MA: Savage Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SAVAGE and RANDOLPH
BLAKE, v. THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD and SPRINGFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT,
Case No. 3:18-cv-30164-KAR (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting certification of a class under Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(2) defined as follows:

   "All current and former Black and Hispanic firefighters
   employed by the Springfield Fire Department since March 17,
   1995."

Springfield is a city in western Massachusetts. Beside the
Connecticut River, Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame
commemorates the sport in a striking building.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HrDWre
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold J. Lizana, III
          LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III, P.C.
          1175 Peachtree Street, 10 th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com

STORED VALUE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Brown Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Stored Value Cards, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DANICA LOVE BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STORED VALUE CARDS, INC. (d/b/a NUMI FINANCIAL); and CENTRAL
NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENID OKLAHOMA, Case No.
3:15-cv-01370-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, Portland.

Danica Love Brown initiated a class action suit opposing the
imposition of fees on her and other similarly situated plaintiffs,
from the use of a preloaded NUMI debit card which she received when
she was released from the Multnomah County jail. The defendants
Stored Value Cards, Inc. ("SVC") and Central National Bank and
Trust Company, Enid, Oklahoma moved to compel arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the NUMI Prestige Prepaid MasterCard
Cardholder Agreement and Brown's use of the card. Brown, however,
claimed she received neither the cardholder agreement nor terms and
conditions with her NUMI card and therefore, she could not have
agreed to it.

On July 30, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration.

On December 6, 2021, Judge Michael W. Mosman entered an order
denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendants now seek a review of this order entered by Judge
Mosman.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Central National Bank and Trust Company and Stored
Value Cards, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 22,
2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 14, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on February 14, 2022;

   -- Appellants Central National Bank and Trust Company and Stored
Value Cards, Inc. opening brief is due on March 25, 2022;

   -- Appellee Danica Love Brown answering brief is due on April
25, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants STORED VALUE CARDS, INC., DBA NUMI Financial;
and CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Enid, Oklahoma, are
represented by:

          John Clifford Ekman, Esq.
          Eric Nystrom, Esq.
          Natalie I. Uhlemann, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3338
          Telephone: (612) 607-7039

               - and -

          James L. Hiller, Esq.
          HITT HILLER MONFILS WILLIAMS LLP
          411 SW 2nd Avenue
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 228-8870
          E-mail: jhiller@hittandhiller.com

Plaintiff-Appellee DANICA LOVE BROWN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Karla Gilbride, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
          1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 630
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 797-8600

               - and -

          Megan E. Glor, Esq.
          MEGAN E. GLOR, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          707 NE Knott Street, Suite 101
          Portland, OR 97212
          Telephone: (503) 223-7400  

               - and -

          Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
          SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
          3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 223-0303

STUBHUB: Ct. Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Refund Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION, Case No.
4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

                 Event                        Deadline

  -- Deadline for Rule 26(f)                Jan. 17, 2022
     conference and for the
     parties to meet and confer
     on Defendant's Motion to
     Dismiss:

  -- Parties exchange initial:              Jan. 30, 2022

  -- Deadline for Defendant to              Jan. 24, 2022
     file Motion to Dismiss and
     Supplemental Briefing on
     Motion to Compel Arbitration:

  -- Amendment of Pleadings/                Feb. 4, 2022
     Joinder:

  -- Plaintiffs' response to                March 4, 2022
     Defendant's Motion:

  -- The Defendant's reply in               March 31, 2022
     support of the Motion:

  -- Hearing on Defendant's                 May 5, 2022
     Motion:

  -- Deadline for Mandatory                 Aug. 12, 2022
     Settlement Conference:

  -- Plaintiffs' deadline to                August 25, 2022
     file Motion for Class:


StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company. It
provides services for buyers and sellers of tickets for sports,
concerts, theater and other live entertainment events. It has grown
from the largest secondary-market ticket marketplace in the United
States into the world's largest ticket marketplace.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Hs6jFS at no extra charge.[CC]

SUGAR FACTORY: Luna Sues to Recover Overtime Pay, Tips
------------------------------------------------------
Gino Luna, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC, Romeo Foxtrot 55 LLC and
Sherwin N. Jarol, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-11142, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 29, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
and invalid tip credits and spread-of-hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate restaurants under the trade name "Sugar Factory
American Brasserie" in New York where Luna worked as a waiter. He
claims to have worked over 40 hours per workweek without being paid
overtime premiums, and sometimes without meal breaks. Luna also
claims that he spent over 20% of each shift performing non-tipped
duties and for those days where he claims to receive less than
minimum wage but since he was paid pursuant to a tip pool
arrangement, management distributed tips and gratuities received
from patrons to Luna and certain other employees, including
servers, bussers, runners and bar employees. Luna alleges that
Sugar Factory operated and imposed an unlawful tip pool, unlawfully
retaining tips owed to tipped employees, thereby depriving them of
compensation due. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SUPER MICRO: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order in Hessefort
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN HESSEFORT,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00838-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties submit sipulation and proposed order
regarding amending scheduling order as follows:

  -- The Defendants' deadline to file and serve their class
     certification opposition is extended from December 22, 2021
     to January 31, 2022;

  -- Lead Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve its class
     certification reply is extended from February 9, 2022 to
     March 23, 2022; and

  -- The class certification hearing is continued from March 10,
     2022 to April 21, 2022 at 2 p.m., or at such other date and
     time suitable for the Court.

Super Micro Computer, Inc, doing business as Supermicro, is an
information technology company based in San Jose, California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zkuxit at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
           Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
           Patton L. Johnson, Esq.
           Post Montgomery Center
           One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
           San Francisco, CA 94104
           Telephone: (415) 288-4545
           Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
           E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                   dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
                   pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

           Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
           John C. Tang, Esq.
           Nathaniel P. Garrett, Esq.
           Dennis F. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
           JONES DAY
           555 California Street, 26th Floor
           San Francisco, CA 94104
           Telephone: (415) 626.3939
           Facsimile: (415) 875.5700
           E-mail: sdhibbard@jonesday.com
                   jctang@jonesday.com
                   ngarrett@jonesday.com
                   dennismurphy@jonesday.com

T-MOBILE US: Harper Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as MICHAEL HARPER, SUE HARPER, MELANIE JAQUESS,
CHUCK SALLADE, AND MICHAEL MALONE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE US, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00894-BCW, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on December 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01169 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose following reports based on an Internet forum post
that indicated that the personal identifying information (PII) of
millions of customers of T-Mobile US, Inc., including Plaintiffs,
was being offered for sale on the internet in exchange for
approximately $270,000 worth of bitcoin. The alleged T-Mobile data
breach resulted in the unauthorized access by hackers of highly
sensitive PII, including "names, drivers' licenses, government
identification numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
T-Mobile prepaid PINs [], addresses and phone number(s)."

T-Mobile US, Inc. is an American wireless network operator partly
owned by German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          I. Stephen Rabin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF I. STEPHEN RABIN
          5 Mohican Lane
          Irvington, NY 10533
          Telephone: (212) 880-3722
          E-mail: isteverabin@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 W Peachtree St NE #4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7584
          E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
          Steve Y. Koh, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 3rd Ave #4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 583-8888
          E-mail: kosullivan@perkinscoie.com
                  ltsuji@perkinscoie.com
                  skoh@perkinscoie.com

T-MOBILE US: Norris Suit Transferred to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled Randall Norris and Misty Norris on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00891-BCW, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on December 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01153 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against T-Mobile for its
alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard highly-valuable,
protected personally identifiable information, including without
limitations, social security numbers, phone numbers, names,
physical addresses, unique IMEI numbers (International Mobile
Equipment Identity - a 15 digit number unique to each mobile
device), and driver licenses information (collectively, "PII"),
failure to comply with industry standards to protect information
systems that contain PII, and failure to provide adequate notice to
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class that their PII had been
accessed and compromised.

T-Mobile is a mobile telecommunication company that provides mobile
telephone service, internet, banking, and television services and
products to individuals and businesses across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          80 South Eighth Street 1100 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP (NY)
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Ave., Ste 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: calexander@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
                  NickC@lcllp.com

               - and -

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM PC
          3535 Piedmont Rd Bldg 14 Ste 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 320-9979
          Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
          E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          Kristine Tack, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP (MN)
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (920) 915-3328
          E-mail: michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                  rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
          CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
          921 Hildebrand Lane NE Ste 240
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Telephone: (206) 654-4011
          E-mail: aes@cslawfirm.net           

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center, 1201 W Peachtree St NE #4900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7584
          E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
          Steve Y. Koh, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 3rd Ave #4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 583-8888
          E-mail: kosullivan@perkinscoie.com
                  ltsuji@perkinscoie.com
                  skoh@perkinscoie.com

T-MOBILE USA: Billups Class Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THALESSA BILLUPS, QUINTIN HUMPHREY, ELYSE TAMARA,
JAMES GABRIEL, PAOLA DOOLY, and WILLIAM HARRIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01266, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00903-BCW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, and violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act by
failing to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to
properly secure the personally identifiable information (PII) of
its customers, including the Plaintiffs.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a mobile telecommunication company, with its
principal place of business located at 3618 Factoria Boulevard SE,
Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
         Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
         Derik Campos, Esq.
         CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
         921 Hildebrand Lane NE, Suite 240
         Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
         Telephone: (206) 654-5050
         E-mail: steve@cslawfirm.net
                 aes@cslawfirm.net
                 derik@cslawfirm.net

                - and –

         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

                - and –

         MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
         THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
         3535 Piedmont Road
         Building 14, Suite 230
         Atlanta, GA 30305
         Telephone: (404) 320-9979
         Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
         E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

                - and –

         Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
         MURRAY LAW FIRM
         701 Poydras Street
         New Orleans, LA 70139
         Telephone: (504) 525-8100
         E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

                - and –

         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: brian.gudmundston@zimmreed.com

T-MOBILE USA: Cooke Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John G. Cooke, Peter Luna, Leotha Scott-Boone,
on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons
v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01324, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
Dec. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00906-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Emma Marguerite Wright, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Juli E. Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP (WA)
          1201 Third Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: (206) 623-1900
          Fax: (206) 623-3384
          Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                 dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                 ewright@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerRohrback.com
                 jfarris@kellerRohrback.com

               - and -

          Christopher L Springer, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          801 Garden St., Ste. 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 456-1496
          Email: cspringer@kellerrohrback.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA)
          1201 W PEACHTREE ST
          ONE ATLANTIC CTR
          ATLANTA, GA 30309-3432
          Phone: (404) 881-7584
          Email: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
          Steve Y. Koh, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
          SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 583-8888
          Fax: (206) 583-8500
          Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
                 LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
                 SKoh@perkinscoie.com


T-MOBILE USA: Delerme Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ivette Delerme, Thomas Macnish, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile, USA Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-16299, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00881-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other
Contract.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN PC
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


T-MOBILE USA: Donovan Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Deirdre C. Donovan, Beth Byrd, Kevin Curran,
Allan Spielman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01138, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on Dec. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00888-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34TH ST., STE. 300
          SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Fax: (206) 319-5450
          Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA)
          1201 W PEACHTREE ST
          ONE ATLANTIC CTR
          ATLANTA, GA 30309-3432
          Phone: (404) 881-7584
          Email: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
          Steve Y. Koh, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
          SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 583-8888
          Fax: (206) 583-8500
          Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
                 LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
                 SKoh@perkinscoie.com


T-MOBILE USA: Galvez-Galvan Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lourdes Galvez-Galvan, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. T-Mobile, USA Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-07422, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Dec. 21, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00872-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          600 West Broadway Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          Fax: (619) 233-0508
          Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jesse Steinbach, Esq.
          ALSTON AND BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 576-1000
          Fax: (213) 576-1100
          Email: jesse.steinbach@alston.com


T-MOBILE USA: Halpern Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD HALPERN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01226, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on December 17, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00901-BCW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, and violation of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act
by failing to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices to
properly secure the personally identifiable information (PII) of
its customers, including the Plaintiffs.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a mobile telecommunication company, with its
principal place of business located at 3618 Factoria Boulevard SE,
Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
         Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
         Derik Campos, Esq.
         CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
         921 Hildebrand Lane NE, Suite 240
         Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
         Telephone: (206) 654-5050
         E-mail: steve@cslawfirm.net
                 aes@cslawfirm.net
                 derik@cslawfirm.net

                - and –

         Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
         Michael J. Laird, Esq.
         Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844

                - and –

         Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
         CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
         E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
                 ncolella@carlsonlynch.com

                - and –

         Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         The Helmsley Building
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169
         Telephone: (212) 223-6444
         Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
         E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

                - and –

         MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
         THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
         3535 Piedmont Road
         Building 14, Suite 230
         Atlanta, GA 30305
         Telephone: (404) 320-9979
         Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
         E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

                - and –

         Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
         MURRAY LAW FIRM
         701 Poydras Street
         New Orleans, LA 70139
         Telephone: (504) 525-8100
         E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

T-MOBILE USA: Hughes Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Franklin Hughes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01139, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Dec. 15, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00889-BCW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34TH ST., STE. 300
          SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Fax: (206) 319-5450
          Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP (GA)
          1201 W PEACHTREE ST
          ONE ATLANTIC CTR
          ATLANTA, GA 30309-3432
          Phone: (404) 881-7584
          Email: kristy.brown@alston.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Lauren Jeffers Tsuji, Esq.
          Steve Y. Koh, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
          SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 583-8888
          Fax: (206) 583-8500
          Email: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
                 LTsuji@perkinscoie.com
                 SKoh@perkinscoie.com


T-MOBILE USA: Precour Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to W.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACK PRECOUR, WILLIAM CAPTAIN REED, CESAR LOPEZ,
TOMASINA ENOCH, MARSHALL P. JONES, JR., and CORNELIA CLAY FULGHUM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01415, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
December 20, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00907-BCW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
contract, declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations of
state statutes by failing to adopt reasonably sufficient security
practices to properly secure the personally identifiable
information (PII) of its customers, including the Plaintiffs.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a mobile telecommunication company, with its
principal place of business located at 3618 Factoria Boulevard SE,
Bellevue, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
         Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
         Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
         TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
         1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 682-5600
         Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
         E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                 kstephens@tousley.com
                 kpowell@tousley.com

                - and –

         Amy E. Keller, Esq.
         James A. Ulwick, Esq.
         DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
         Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 214-7900
         Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
         E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                 julwick@dicellolevitt.com

                - and –

         William A. Kershaw, Esq.
         Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
         KERSHAW, COOK & TALLEY PC
         401 Watt Avenue
         Sacramento, CA 95846
         Telephone: (916) 779-7000
         Facsimile: (916) 244-4829
         E-mail: bill@kctlegal.com
                 ian@kctlegal.com

                - and –

         Tyler H. Fox, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TYLER H. FOX
         135 Antrim St., Unit #2
         Cambridge, MA 02139
         Telephone: (857) 260-3105
         E-mail: tylerfox@verizon.net

TAYLOR 4 DELIVERY: Laster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE LASTER, AARON THOMAS and TYRUS LAMONT BOONE, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TAYLOR 4 DELIVERY, INC. and ISRAEL TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-01209-BRW (E.D. Ark., December 16, 2021) is a class action
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime compensation
for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Plaintiffs Laster, Thomas and Boone worked for Defendants as
delivery drivers from 2017 until November of 2021, from February of
2021 until August of 2021, and from August of 2015 until March of
2019, respectively.

The Defendants operate a contracting delivery service for FedEx to
deliver packages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Continuance of Class Cert. Filing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-01077-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties submit stipulation to continue filing dates for the
plaintiff's motion for class certification, defendants' opposition,
and plaintiff's reply brief as follows.

   1. Filing dates for Plaintiffs            August 26, 2022
      Motion to:

   2. The Defendants' Opposition to:         September 30, 2022

   3. The Plaintiff's Reply to:              October 28, 2022

Transdev provides passenger transportation services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/345TiDg at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
          Jing Tong, Esq.
          GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
          4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (213) 452-0510
          Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
          E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
                  jtong@gleasonfavarote.com

TRUCK INSURANCE: Wash. Court Denies R2B2's Bid to Remand Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, R2B2, LLC, Plaintiff v. TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant, Case No. C21-5585 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H.
Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order:

   a. denying Plaintiff R2B2's Motion to Remand and for
      attorneys' fees; and

   b. granting Defendant Truck Insurance Exchange ("TIE")'s
      Motion to Seal.

Background

R2B2 is an Olympia, Washington dental practice that purchased an
"all risk" Businessowners Special Property Insurance Policy from
Defendant TIE. R2B2 made a claim under the policy for lost business
income caused by COVID-19 and the Governor of Washington's
responsive Proclamations limiting various business and social
activities. It alleges its "property has sustained direct physical
loss and/or damages related to COVID-19 and/or the proclamations
and orders." TIE denied the claim.

R2B2 sued TIE in Thurston County Superior Court in January 2021, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of similar TIE insureds,
seeking declaratory judgments that the business losses resulting
from the pandemic and the State's response to it were covered under
the TIE policies, and that TIE was obligated to timely pay the
claims. It also seeks attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. R2B2's
Complaint alleges that TIE denied "hundreds" of similar claims for
similar losses under similar policies, and that the "aggregate
damages sustained by the classes are likely to be in the millions
of dollars."

TIE removed the case to the Court almost eight months later, on
Aug. 13, 2021. It asserted that the amount in controversy was not
ascertainable from the face of the Complaint, and that it had
propounded discovery seeking to determine whether the case was
removable under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which makes
a class action removable when the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million and the class contains more than 100 members. TIE's Notice
of Removal asserts (and demonstrates) that R2B2 objected to its
interrogatories seeking information about the amount in
controversy. TIE also asserts that it first learned that the
claimed damages exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional limit on
July 16, 2021, when R2B2 first produced confidential documents1
reflecting that it had obtained "PPP loans" based on its claimed
business losses.

TIE asserts that these records reflect that R2B2 obtained a
$236,200 PPP loan. Relying on R2B2's allegation that other,
similarly situated TIE insureds suffered "similar" covered losses,
TIE calculated that if each class member had $236,200 in claims,
the $5 million threshold would be met even if there were only 25
class members -- far less than the "hundreds" alleged in the
complaint, even excluding the class' Olympic Steamship attorneys'
fee claim. It asserts that it timely removed the action within 30
days of receipt of the "papers" demonstrating that the
jurisdictional amount was at issue.

R2B2 seeks remand, arguing that TIE's removal information was
insufficient and the removal was untimely. It argues the removal
was untimely because TIE had access to the information upon which
the removal is based back in March, and because TIE, not R2B2, had
access to TIE's COVID-19-related business interruption claims
records. It accuses TIE of "forum shopping" to take advantage of
favorable recent federal rulings on such claims, and to avoid
potentially applicable adverse state court rulings. R2B2 also
argues that TIE has not yet established that the amount in
controversy is met, because it baselessly assumes that other class
members' losses are similar to R2B2's. R2B2's Motion to Remand thus
raises two issues: Whether TIE has established that the amount in
controversy is more than $5 million and, if so, when TIE first
learned that that was the case.

These issues are addressed in turn.

Discussion

A. R2B2's "forum shopping" accusation does not support remand.

As an initial matter, Judge Settle finds R2B2's primary claim that
TIE's removal reflects impermissible forum shopping unpersuasive.
He says, R2B2's apparent refusal to respond to discovery aimed at
ascertaining the amount in controversy does not enhance its
"gamesmanship" argument. TIE is no more guilty of forum shopping by
removing than was R2B2 by filing in state court.

Furthermore, and in any event, R2B2's fears about the fate of its
claim based on the forum are not well-founded. All of the cases it
relies upon to demonstrate the disparity of results in the
different forums are recent trial court decisions from Washington
State Superior Courts and Federal District Courts, each of which
applied Washington law, each of which is persuasive authority, and
none of which are binding on the Court. The Court will undoubtedly
review those opinions, but the outcome of this case will not turn
on the forum; it will turn on the facts and on the applicable
Washington law. The Motion to Remand based on TIE's alleged forum
shopping or gamesmanship is denied.

B. TIE has met its burden of proving the amount in controversy.

R2B2 asserts both that TIE's removal was too late and, somewhat
inconsistently, that TIE has not yet received or provided "paper"
establishing that the class meets CAFA's numerosity and
amount-in-controversy requirements.

TIE's Aug. 13, 2021 Notice of Removal asserted that R2B2 first
produced confidential documents demonstrating the amount in
controversy on July 16, 2021. TIE emphasizes that it received from
R2B2 only its PPP loan forgiveness application; it did not receive
the loan application itself, or other documentation regarding
R2B2's business interruption claim amount. It argues that the
aggregate class damages are more than likely far more than the
required $5 million, and there is no doubt that the class numbers
more than 100 members based on R2B2's own allegations. TIE argues
that its assumptions and calculations are plainly reasonable and
emphasizes that it need not prove R2B2's damages in order to
properly remove a class action under CAFA.

Judge Settle agrees that a PPP loan is at the very least related to
the amount of business income lost due to the pandemic, and in the
absence of any articulation of a different measure of loss by R2B2,
and in the context of a motion to remand, will accept this as a
fair proxy for that amount. He says, TIE's methodology,
assumptions, and calculations are reasonable. He concludes that TIE
has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount
in controversy in the putative class action exceeds $5 million,
which is the CAFA jurisdictional minimum. R2B2's Motion to Remand
based on its argument that TIE has failed to establish CAFA's
amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence is
denied.

C. TIE's removal was timely.

R2B2's stronger argument is that if the information upon which TIE
based its calculation is sufficient to establish the amount in
controversy, its removal was not timely because TIE could and
should have discovered that information much earlier than it did.
It argues that PPP loans, their recipients, and their amounts are
public information, and that if TIE is entitled to rely on them as
a proxy for the insured class's claims in this lawsuit, it could
and should have done so when the case was filed. R2B2 also argues
that TIE knew (and R2B2 did not know) when it was sued how many of
its insureds had filed COVID-19-related business interruption
claims under similar property insurance policies.

TIE responds, correctly, that a defendant has "no duty to look
beyond the initial pleading for facts giving rise to removability."
For this reason, the fact that it could have ascertained the
amount in controversy by mining either the public record or its own
claims files does not mean that the lawsuit itself or the
plaintiff's subsequent discovery requests put it on notice of the
amount of the class' aggregate damage claim.

R2B2 essentially argues that TIE was obligated to do more than seek
discovery from the plaintiff; it was required to also research the
amount in controversy in its own records, and the public record, in
order to proactively locate "paper" from which it could ascertain
the amount in controversy, and to do so within 30 days of receiving
either the complaint or R2B2's discovery requests. But Judge Settle
finds that it cites no case for that proposition, and its own
articulation of the well-settled rule demonstrates that a
defendant's "second" 30-day removal window is opened only when a
defendant "receives 'a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order,
or other paper' from which removability may first be ascertained."
He holds that any other rule would be unworkable and would lead to
even more litigation over removal and remand.

TIE's receipt of "paper" from R2B2 leading it to plausibly conclude
that the amount in controversy was not just "millions," but likely
far more than $5 million, triggered the second Section 1446(b)
30-day window for removal. Its removal less than 30 days later was
timely.

Conclusion

R2B2's Motion to Remand and for attorneys' fees is denied. The
Motion to Seal is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrya4k9z from Leagle.com.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Gonder Suit Over Unpaid Meal Periods
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSHELLE GONDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
to 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV46364 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., December 20, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for unpaid meal periods in violation of the California
Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a customer service
representative in the County of Los Angeles, California.

United Healthcare Services, Inc. is a provider of healthcare
services, with its headquarters located at 5701 Katella Ave,
Cypress, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Donald Potter, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF DONALD POTTER
         444 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 215
         Arcadia, CA 91006
         Telephone: (626) 744-1555
         Facsimile: (626) 389-0592
         E-mail: dp@donpotterlaw.com

UNITED STAFFING: Magtoles Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Magtoles v. United
Staffing Registry, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01850-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y.),
the plaintiffs ask the Court extending their deadline to serve and
file their class certification reply papers until January 21, 2022.


The Plaintiffs' counsel said that the current deadline for both
fact discovery and plaintiffs' reply brief is December 31, 2021.
All parties consent to this request. The requested relief is
necessary because on Friday, December 17, the defendants served
affidavits in opposition to class certification from three
individuals whom they never identified in their initial disclosures
or otherwise during discovery.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mLvISG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J.P. Howley
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10105
          Telephone: (212) 601-2728
          E-mail: JHOWLEY@HOWLEYLAWFIRM.COM

UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Response Due January 4, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
an order on the Defendants' motion for an extension of time as
follows:

   a. The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification is due on or before January 4, 2022.

   b. The certified list of the contents of the administrative
      records is due on or before January 4, 2022.

   c. The parties shall meet and confer in accordance with Rule
      16.3 of the Local Civil Rules and shall file a joint
      status report on or before January 4, 2022.

   d. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification is due on or before January 25, 2022.

The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zhe2nl at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Doe v. Peace Corps Moved to District of Columbia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, transfers
the case, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAROL SPAHN, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-04007-LB (N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

Background

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff, who formerly lived in
Berkeley, California, but now lives in North Carolina, claims that
the Peace Corps discriminates against those with disabilities by
improperly denying medical clearances.

The Peace Corps provisionally offered the Plaintiff a job in
February 2020 as a Peace Corps Volunteer in North Macedonia but
ultimately denied her a medical clearance. During the recruitment
process, the Plaintiff lived in Berkeley, California. She met with
a Peace Corps advisor at UC Berkeley's Career Center. There, the
advisor encouraged her to apply to the Peace Corps. She completed a
"Health History Form," received emails from the advisor, and met
with the advisor in Berkeley to discuss the list of medications
that the Peace Corps used to screen out applicants. After the Peace
Corps denied her medical clearance on Feb. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff
appealed the decision, while she was living in Berkeley. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, she relocated temporarily to Georgia (from June
2020 to August 2021) to be closer to her family, but she still
worked remotely for a laboratory in Berkeley. She moved in
September 2021 to North Carolina and "still assists the lab in
Berkeley."

The Pre-Service Review Board of the Peace Corps denied the
Plaintiff's appeal on Aug. 5, 2020. She then filed an
administrative complaint of discrimination on Nov. 23, 2020. The
Peace Corps Office of Civil Rights and Diversity notified her that
her class allegations were insufficient for a class claim under
Peace Corps regulations but accepted her individual complaint of
discrimination for investigation.

After more than 180 days lapsed without a final agency action, the
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. In the operative complaint,
she claims a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), based on the Peace Corps' failure
to engage in an interactive process for invitees with a disability.
She seeks to represent a class of "Peace Corps invitees from Aug.
2, 2020 until the resolution of this complaint who were denied
Volunteer positions in the Peace Corps because the Peace Corps
denied them medical clearance for service due to their disability,
record of a disability, or perceived disability."

According to the government, the Peace Corps' Office of Health
Services (in Washington, D.C., at the Peace Corps' headquarters)
determines whether applicants are medically qualified for volunteer
service, and the Behavioral Health and Outreach Unit (in the Office
of Health Services) conducts pre-service assessments for applicants
with behavioral-health issues and makes initial medical-clearance
decisions. "All events and omissions relating to the decision not
to medically clear" the Plaintiff took place in Washington, D.C.

Based on the contention that the relevant events occurred in
Washington, D.C., the Defendant moved to transfer or dismiss the
action based on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1404(a), 1406(a), and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The Defendant also moved to
dismiss, or in the alternative, strike the Plaintiff's class claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f). In
this respect, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's class
allegations are conclusory and do not meet the standards set out in
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and that the Plaintiff's allegations
fail to meet the commonality and typicality standards in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 636. The Court held a hearing on Dec. 9, 2021.

Analysis

The government moved to dismiss or transfer the case to the
District of Columbia on grounds that venue is improper or
inconvenient in this district. It also moved to dismiss or strike
the class claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or
12(f), respectively, but asked the Court to defer ruling on those
motions in favor of the transferee court if the Court transferred
the case.

1. Venue is Proper in this District

The Defendant asks the Court to transfer or dismiss the action
based on the contention that venue is improper under Section 1391.
Because neither the Defendant nor the Plaintiff resides in this
district, venue is only proper in this district if a "substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred" here. While a
"substantial part" of the events must have occurred in this
district, a majority of the events need not have occurred in this
district, and there may be several districts where venue is
proper.

Judge Beeler finds that the Peace Corps utilized recruiters in this
district and, while the challenged decisions may have occurred
elsewhere, it applied its medical-clearance policies to the
Plaintiff in this district and sent medical non-clearance
correspondence to her here. Accordingly, venue is proper here
because a substantial part of the alleged discrimination occurred
here.

2. Transfer is Appropriate Under Section 1404(a)

As an alternative to dismissal or transfer for improper venue under
Section 1406(a), the Defendant seeks transfer to the District of
Columbia under Section 1404(a).
Given that venue is proper in the proposed transferee court, Judge
Beeler considers multiple factors to determine whether transfer is
appropriate. These factors include "(1) the Plaintiffs' choice of
forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the
witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of
each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of
consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the
controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time to
trial in each forum."

She finds that the relevant considerations weigh in favor of
granting the Defendant's motion to transfer the action to the
District of Columbia under Section 1404(a). First, the operative
facts primarily occurred in Washington, D.C. Second, the location
of parties and witnesses demonstrates that transfer is appropriate.
Third, the other factors are either neutral or weigh in favor of
transfer. Judge Beeler will therefore grant the motion.

Conclusion

Judge Beeler concludes that venue is proper in this district
because the Plaintiff resided here when she applied to be a Peace
Corps volunteer, received a provisional invitation, and was denied
a medical clearance based on her mental-health condition. Transfer
nonetheless is appropriate because (1) the allegedly discriminatory
decision-making occurred in Washington, D.C., (2) the parties are
geographically nearer to Washington, D.C. than to this district,
and (3) the key witnesses are in Washington, D.C. Judge Beeler will
transfer the case to the District of Columbia and does not rule on
the motion to dismiss or strike under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f).

For these reasons, Judge Beeler transfers the case to the District
of Columbia under Section 1404(a) and -- as the government suggests
-- does not decide the government's motion to dismiss and strike
the class claims so that those issues can be decided by the
transferee court. Her Order disposes of ECF No. 47.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 21, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p882ndz from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSAL WINDOWS: Dragon Wins Conditional Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW DRAGON, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL WINDOWS DIRECT,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the following class:

      "All current and former Measure Technicians, Service
      Technicians, Field Technicians, and Apprentice Technicians
      employed by the Defendant at any time during the three-
      year period prior to the date this Court approves the
      Stipulation of Conditional Certification, who were paid on
      a salary basis and did not receive overtime compensation
      for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek;"

   2. approving the parties' proposed notice form, delivery
      methods, and notice period and directing the Defendant to
      provide Plaintiff with limited opt-in discovery as set
      forth in the Joint Stipulation; and

   3. appointing Carrie J.Dyer and Greg R. Mansell of Mansell
      Law, LLC as counsel for the FLSA class conditionally
      certified.

Universal Windows Direct sales and installation of windows, doors,
roofing, siding, sun rooms, and gutter protection and attic
insulation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34ahnJ7 at no extra charge.[CC]

UTICA CUTLERY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utica Cutlery
Company. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Utica Cutlery Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-07072 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).

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

Utica USA -- https://uticausa.com/ -- provides American made knives
and imported knives for hard-working men and women from all walks
of life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawfirm.net


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Quintana Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN QUINTANA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALENTINE & KEBARTAS, LLC,
RESURGENT RECEIVABLES LLC, AND RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01201-GBW-SCY (D.N.M., December 20,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in illegal
debt collection activities by sending debt collection letter to the
Plaintiff through Valentine & Kebartas, which does not possess a
valid New Mexico collection agency license. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful collection attempts, the Plaintiff
agreed to repayment arrangements with respect to the debt and made
his first payment towards the debt.

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC is a debt collection agency based in
Lawrence, Massachusetts.

Resurgent Receivables LLC is a debt collection agency in
Greenville, South Carolina.

Resurgent Capital Services L.P. is a debt collection agency in
Greenville, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
         THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
         11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 #492
         Scottsdale, AZ 85259
         Telephone: (602) 388-8898
         Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
         E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: $15MM Settlement Hearing Set for April 21
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Bottini & Bottini, Inc. issued
a statement regarding the Veeco Instruments Securities Settlement:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

MATT WOLTHER, Individually and on

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHUBHAM MAHESHWARI, et al.,

Defendants.

Lead Case No. 18CV329690
(Consolidated with No. 18CV332463 and
No. 18CV332644)
CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED VEECO INSTRUMENTS, INC. ("VEECO" OR
THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR ULTRATECH, INC.
("ULTRATECH") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT
AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH VEECO'S MAY 26, 2017
MERGER WITH ULTRATECH

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 21,
2022, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni at the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Department 1,
191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine whether:
(1) the proposed settlement ("Settlement") of the above-captioned
action as set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation")1 for $15,000,000 in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award
Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in
what amount; (4) to pay Class Representatives for representing the
Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and
(5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those persons who acquired Veeco common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with Veeco's merger with Ultratech, against Veeco and
certain of its officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants")
for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material
facts from the registration statement and prospectus filed in
connection with the Merger. Plaintiffs allege that these
purportedly false and misleading statements resulted in damage to
Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of
Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU ACQUIRED VEECO COMMON STOCK IN THE MERGER WITH ULTRATECH,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than March 22,
2022) or electronically (no later than March 22, 2022). Your
failure to timely submit your Proof of Claim will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a
member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Action, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.VeecoSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:

         Veeco Securities Settlement
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 43384
         Providence, RI 02940-3384

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Class Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 1-800-449-4900

         BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
         Francis A. Bottini Jr.
         7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
         La Jolla, CA 92037
         Telephone: 1-858-914-2001

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY FEBRUARY 21,
2022, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL
BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES OF 33 1/3% OF THE
SETTLEMENT FUND (OR $5,000,000) AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED
$175,000, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES NOT TO EXCEED
$20,000 IN THE AGGREGATE FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL
AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY FEBRUARY 21, 2022, IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. YOU MAY ALSO MAKE AN ORAL OBJECTION
AT THE SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING WITHOUT SUBMITTING A WRITTEN
OBJECTION.

DATED: December 1, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF SANTA CLARA

The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.VeecoSecuritiesSettlement.com.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Cantinieri Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verisk Analytics,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jillian Cantinieri,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Verisk Analytics, Inc., Insurance Services Office, Inc., ISO Claims
Services Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-06911-JMA-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- https://www.verisk.com/ -- is an American
multinational data analytics and risk assessment firm based in
Jersey City, New Jersey, with customers in insurance, natural
resources, financial services, government, and risk management
sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond C. Silverman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Phone: (516) 466-6500
          Fax: (516) 466-6665
          Email: rsilverman@yourlawyer.com


VERMONT TEDDY BEAR: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Vermont Teddy
Bear Co., Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. The Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. doing business as: Pajamagram,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06925-AMD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).

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

The Vermont Teddy Bear Company -- https://www.vermontteddybear.com/
-- is one of the largest producers of teddy bears and the largest
seller of teddy bears by mail order and Internet.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



VF OUTDOOR: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VF Outdoor, LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. VF Outdoor, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-10811 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2021).

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

VF Corporation -- https://www.vfc.com/ -- offers outfits to
consumers around the world with its diverse portfolio of iconic
outdoor and activity-based lifestyle and workwear brands.[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


VINCENT CONTRACTING: Demolition Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abner Menendez and Erik Valdez Mejia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vincent Contracting &
Dismantling Service Inc. and Vincent Morea, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-07133, (E.D. N.Y., December 28, 2021), seeks to recover
damages for violations of New York State labor laws and the Fair
Labor Standards Act, compensatory and liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and all other legal and equitable remedies.

Plaintiffs worked for Vincent Contracting & Dismantling Service as
demolition workers. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per day without overtime premium, spread-of-hours premium and
denied accurate wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


VIP DENTAL CARE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VIP Dental Care, P.C.
The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. VIP Dental Care, P.C. Case No. 1:21-cv-11052
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2021).

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

VIP Dental Care -- https://www.vipdentalny.com/ -- is a Dentist in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAL-MART INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 17, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA
WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART INC., a corporation, WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr.
entered an order regarding class certification as follows:

  -- Jury Trial set for:                  June 13, 2023

  -- Final Pretrial Conference and        May 19, 2023
     Hearing on Motions In Limine
     set for:

  -- Last Date to Hear Motion             May 13, 2022
     Amend Pleadings/Add Parties:

  -- Non-Expert Discovery cut-off:        Jan. 20, 2023

  -- Plaintiffs' Deadline to File
     Motion for Class Certification:      June 17, 2022

  -- Motion for Class Certification       Sept. 2, 2022
     Hearing set for:

  -- Last Date to Hear Motions:           Feb. 242023

  -- Deadline to Complete                 March 10, 2023
     Settlement  Conference:

  -- Joint Status Report Regarding        April 21, 2023
     Settlement due by:

--  Trial Filings (second round):        May 5, 2023

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mLuFCm at no extra charge.[CC]


WESTERN POWER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Power Sports,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Western Power Sports, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10992 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2021).

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

Western Power Sports -- https://www.wps-inc.com/ -- is well-known
for exacting quality standards in its powersports products.[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


WILDERNESS SPORTS: Case Management Plan, Scheduling Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Contreras v. Wilderness
Sports Warehouse, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09097-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Motions are due by May 4, 2022

  -- Responses are due by June 3, 2022

  -- Replies are due by Aug. 3, 2022

  -- Deposition are due by April 21, 2022

  -- Fact Discovery due by April 21, 2022

  -- Expert Discovery due by April 21, 2022

This case is to be tried to a jury. Counsel for the parties have
conferred, and the present best estimate of the length of trial is
three. Pretrial Conference set for April 29, 2022 at 03:30 PM in
Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge
Jesse M. Furman. In the Court's experience, expert discovery and
fact discovery can proceed in parallel in cases of this type;
accordingly, the Court has changed the deadline for expert
discovery to coincide with the deadline for fact discovery. The
Court adopts the parties' proposed briefing schedule for the motion
for class certification, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mN0ue7 at no extra charge.[CC]

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: H.L. Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wildlife Conservation
Society, et al. The case is styled as H. L. by his parent C.L.; C.
L. individually and on behalf of H.L., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Wildlife Conservation Society,
Caitlyn [Last Name Unknown], Case No. 1:21-cv-10835-LJL (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 17, 2021).

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

The Wildlife Conservation Society -- https://www.wcs.org/ -- is a
non-governmental organization headquartered at the Bronx Zoo in New
York City, that aims to conserve the world's largest wild places in
14 priority regions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rony Guldmann, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
          148 W 24th St., Ste. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: (212) 661-0052
          Email: rony@leelitigation.com


WORLD NOMADS: Davis Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rufus Davis, Grant Hoag, Michael Murphy, Debra
Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. World Nomads Inc., Trip Mate, Inc., Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01264, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Dec. 20, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05847-ALM-EPD to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

World Nomads -- https://www.worldnomads.com/ -- provides
international travel insurance and travel safety services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MORRISON AND TENENBAUM, P.C.
          87 Walker St., Ste. Floor 2
          New York, NY 10013
          Phone: (212) 620-0938
          Email: jandrophy@m-t-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexandra Marie Petrillo, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US)
          2000 Huntington Center
          41 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: (614) 365-2700
          Fax: (614) 365-2499
          Email: alexandra.petrillo@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Aneca E Lasley, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          2000 Huntington Center
          41 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43215-6106
          Phone: (614) 365-2700
          Fax: (614) 365-2499
          Email: aneca.lasley@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Ashleigh Piknam Patricia Hunt, Esq.
          Emily Reisbaum, Esq.
          Royce Liverant Zeisler, Esq.
          CLARICK GUERON REISBAUM LLP
          220 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (646) 398-5068
          Email: ashleighh@spotify.com
                 ereisbaum@cgr-law.com
                 RZeisler@cgr-law.com


YOUNG'S MARKET: Jimenez Class Action Stays in District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERGIO MEZA JIMENEZ, v.
YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02410-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order denying
remand.

The Plaintiff Jimenez filed suit against his employers, the
Defendants Young's Market Company, LLC and Republic National
Distributing Company, LLC for violations of California's Labor
Codes. Plaintiff seeks civil penalties based on alleged wage and
hour violations under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Pending before the Court is an Order to Show Cause as to why this
case should not be remanded to State Court. The Defendants argue
that subsequent events after a valid removal do not divest the
court of subject matter jurisdiction and that preemption applies
under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) due
to the application of the CBA.

The Plaintiff argues that an affirmative defense of preemption does
not establish subject matter jurisdiction and that there is no
complete field preemption unless all of Plaintiff's claims are
preempted by the CBA.

On April 2, 2021, the Defendants removed this case under CAFA
jurisdiction. The Plaintiff amended his complaint to add a PAGA
cause of action The Plaintiff later moved to dismiss his class and
individual claims without prejudice due to an arbitration agreement
containing a class action waiver.

Therefore, Plaintiff focuses his argument on his minimum wage
claim, which he argues cannot be preempted under California law
because minimum wage is a state right that cannot be displaced by a
CBA, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eDeLpe at no extra charge.[CC]

YOUR HOME: McKinley Sues Over Unpaid OT for Homecare Providers
--------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA MCKINLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUR HOME COURT ADVANTAGE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02359-SO (N.D. Ohio, December 17, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated homecare health
providers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the Ohio Revised Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health aid
from approximately December 2019 through September 13, 2021.

Your Home Court Advantage, LLC is a provider of homecare health
services based in Akron, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         1360 E. 9th St., Ste. 808
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 230-2955
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                 - and –

         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
         Massillon, OH 44646
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***