/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220126.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 13

                            Headlines

1ST CHOICE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 29
212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks Servers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
998LQ SUSHI: Faces Yuwono Suit Over Bussers' Unpaid Wages
ADT LLC: Ingram Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit
ALABAMA: District Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Duke v. Dunn

ALDER HOLDINGS: Faces Luo Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
ALFI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 31 Deadline
ALFI INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Possible Securities Claims
ALL SHORE: Faces Delgado Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers
ALLERGAN INC: Wins Leave to Amend Removal Notice in Chipego Suit

ALLERGAN PLC: Judge Refuses to Remand Breast Implant Class Action
ANDREWS GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 13
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Earphones
ASA DEVELOPMENT: Graybar Electric Files Appeal in Contract Suit
AT&T CORP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Adzhikosyan Suit

BEL-AIR LAURENTIEN: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Action Dismissal
BEST OVERNITE: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
BLUE CROSS: Gonzalez Appeals Dismissal of Cancer Therapy Suit
BOISE DISTRICT: Seeks to Strke Declaration and Expert Reports
BP EXPLORATION: E.D. Louisiana Grants Bid to Stay Pabst BELO Suit

BRIGHT HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 7 Deadline
CAPTAIN FREIDT: McMasters Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
CAROLINA PIZZA: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Beane Says
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Janis Wolf
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Henry's Bid for Class Cert. Continued to April 5

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 10
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in Byrne Suit
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Monteiro Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CLOOPEN GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of February 8 Deadline
COLLABORATIVE BOATING: Case Management Plan, Sched Order Entered

COMPASS PACT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Salguero Suit Says
COOK COUNTY, IL: Denial of Simpson's Bid for Class Cert. Vacated
CRST EXPEDITED: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline Nixed
CUBA GOODING: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bid
DAIRYLAND USA: Bid to Disqualify El-Hag as Orbetta's Counsel Denied

DEBT RESOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended in McGalloway
DHI MORTGAGE: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
DISH NETWORK: Liable to 401(K) Plan Losses, Jones Suit Alleges
DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Tipped Employee Class Gets Conditional Status
DREAM BIG: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unreimbursed Expenses

DYLA LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Diet Peach Tea Drink
EHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 18 Deadline
ENCLARITY INC: Fulton Files Bid for Class Certification
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Extend Time to Respond Partly OK'd
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: FeganScott Broadens Investigation Amid Lawsuit

EYEMED VISION: Case Schedule Amended in Tate Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Klein Class Suit
FARADAY FUTURE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 22 Deadline
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Pistorio's Amended Class Suit
FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Suits Seek to Certify Cases as Class Actions

FLORIDA POWER: Class Action Certification to Hit Insurance Firms
FULL SPECTRUM: Time Extension to File Class Cert Responses Sought
GARDENS AT GLENLAKES: Appeal From Order Consolidating Actions Nixed
GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bid
GOODYEAR TIRE: Esraelian Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

GOOGLE LLC: CSK&DS Investigating Suit Over Smart Speaker Devices
GOOGLE LLC: Demands Funding Information in Class Action
HEALTH INSURANCE: Moser Seeks to Certify Suit as Class Action
HOME DEPOT: Burcham Labor Suit Wins Class Certification
HOME DEPOT: Order Setting Trial Date Entered in Didzun

HURRICANE EXPRESS: Joint Bid to Vacate Deadlines OK'd in Turpin
IDAHO: Court Seeks Clarification on Class Cert. in Turney v. IDOC
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Discriminated Against Turkish Workers, Genc Says
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: April 13 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15

ISLAND CZ CAFE: Rodgers Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
JOHN HANCOCK: Romano Wins Class Certification Bid
JOHN HANCOCK: S.D. Florida Certifies Trustees Class in ERISA Suit
JOHN MCKOWEN: Settlement in Paulson Suit Gets Initial Nod
JP MORGAN: Nypl CUCL Claim Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

JUDGE GROUP: Katona Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Recruiters
JUUL LABS: California Court Grants Arbitration in Antitrust Suit
KALEIDA HEALTH: Ct. Enters Order on Class Certification in Lutz
KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Seeks Denial of Brayman Class Status Bid
LENDUS LLC: Console & Associates Investigates Breach Class Action

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Class Cert. Oral Argument Reset for March 15
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 28
LOUIS MILUSNIC: Torres Seeks Non-Provisional Class Status
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Filing of Premotion Conference Due Jan. 28
MAISON DE'VILLE: Feb 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought

MARATHON DIGITAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
MARKER GROUP: Logan Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
MATRIX TRUST: Time Extension on Expert Witness Designations Sought
MCAFEE CORP: Coffman Sues Over Sale to Advent International
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Court Junks Initial OK of Manzo Class Suit

MDL 2452: Adams Appeals Denial of Bid to Retax Costs
MEDALLION FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Lawsuit
MEDTRONIC PLC: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Stapler Defect
METRO AND GRAHAM: Lopez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
METROMILE INC: Lemonade Merger Deal Lacks Info, Wilhelm Alleges

MLD MORTGAGE: Dye Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO: Martinez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
MYLIFE.COM INC: Dennis Appeals FCRA Class Suit Dismissal
NATERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

NATIONAL GRID: Court Won't Remand Nightingale Suit to State Court
NATIONAL SECURITY: Jewel Files Certiorari Petition in Wiretap Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Can't Amend Class Complaint, Court Rules
NEW YORK PAVING: Diaz Must File Class Cert Reply by Feb. 9
NISSAN NORTH: Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Response Sought

NORTH ALLEGHENY: Judge Issued TRO to Reinstate Universal Masking
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Amendment of Deposition Deadline Sought
NY EL DIAMANTE: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
OAK STREET: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 14 Deadline
ORION MANUFACTURED: Fritch Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Status

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Response
PARNELL CONSULTANTS: Faces Kee Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid OT
PATROWICZ HOLDINGS: Derossett Seeks to Certify Class
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Poker Player Evans Part of Suit Over Seized Funds
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Faces Suit Over Use of Photographs for Ads
PETER BARCA: Feb. 28 Deadline to File Class Certification Stricken
PORTLAND, OR: City Council Pays $22.5K to Settle Protest Lawsuit
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Knowles Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
PREMIERFIRST HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Campbell Suit Says

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Richardson Loses Class Status Bid
QG PRINTING: Class Certification Briefing Continued in Sims Suit
QRS HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Class Suit
RAE WELLNESS: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 8

RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Suit Seeks to Certify Collective
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
REBELZ CLUB: Illegally Deducted Dancers' Tips, Harris Suit Claims
RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by May 16
ROBERT MACIOL: Sarah Barrett Wins Bid for Preliminary Injunction

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Stanley Seeks to Certify Class of Therapists
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Judge May Be Removed After Suit Settlement
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Lawmakers Issue Resolution to Remove Judge

SAFESPEED LLC: Marso ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
SAILORMEN INC: Crayton Sues Over Unpaid OT for Area Supervisors
SAINT-GOBAIN: PFOA Settlement Approval Hearing Set on April 18
SAME DAY: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Combs Alleges
SANTA CLARA, CA: Joseph Leon Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates

SEATTLE, WA: Hunters Capital Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
SELECT REHABILITATION: Faces Mclaughlin Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SEQUIUM ASSET: Velez-Aguilar Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal
SIERRA PACIFIC: Cole Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Scheduling Order Entered in Gagnier Suit

SMILE BRANDS: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California
SOMCHAI & CO: Non-Managerial Employees Get Conditional Status
SONESTA NOLA: Donaldson Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
SOUTH CAROLINA: Stogsdill Appeals Denial of Bid to Alter Judgment
SPROUT FOODS: Huntley Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey

ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Amend Case Management Order Partly OK'd
STALLION EXPRESS: Gagne Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Couriers
STATE FARM: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Shields Suit
STATE FARM: Entry Bid of Intermediary Deadlines Partly Granted
STATE FARM: Lisa Martino Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class

SYKES ENTERPRISES: Border Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
SYNIVERSE CORP: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Baron
TAHITIAN VILLAGE: Temporary Injunction Denial in Myers Suit Upheld
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Contracts
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aleksanian Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid

UKG INC: Fails to Secure Workers' Personal Info, Muller Says
ULTIMATE KRONOS: Faces Suit Over Improper Wages After Cyberattack
UNIFIED LIFE: Class Claims in Butler Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
UNILEVER UNITED: Suave Antiperspirant Contains Benzene, Morris Says
UNITED PARCEL: Boyle Suit Remanded to Jefferson County Cir. Court

UNITED SERVICES: Court Clarifies Dec. 9, 2021 Order in Spielman
UNITED STATES: COVID-19 Mandate "Unconstitutional," Heminger Says
UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Cert Response Extended to March 21
UNITED STATES: Perry-Bey Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
UPPER SAINT CLAIR: Parents Slam Optional Masking in School

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Garcia Loses Bid to Certify Class
W.E.K. ENTERPRISES: Nelson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss Guzman Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
WALTER KIDDE: Taylor Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Bowles Class Suit

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: District Court Certifies Class in Bowles Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Feb. 2, 2023
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: K's Inc. Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WISCONSIN: Plaintiffs Seek to Adjourn Feb. 28 Class Bid Due Date

WORKING BETTER: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
XPO LAST: Muniz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Men
YALLA GROUP: Lead Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Securities Suit
ZAREMBA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jelenic Says
[*] U.S. Class Suits Targeting Healthcare Industry May Rise in 2022


                            *********

1ST CHOICE: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fuller v. 1st Choice
Family Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02771 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Kimberly A Jolson entered an order granting motion for
Extension of Time for Class Certification Motion to April 29, 2022.


The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]

212 STEAKHOUSE: Martinenko Seeks Servers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NINO MARTINENKO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. 212 STEAKHOUSE, INC., and NIKOLAY VOLPER,Case No. 1:22-cv-00518
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2022) seeks damages in the amount of respective
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated (double) damages as
provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act for overtime violations,
attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
Specifically, Plaintiff regularly worked 5 dinner shifts lasting at
least 8 hours each (from 4:00 p.m. until closing time, which was
normally after 12:00 a.m.) and 2 to 3 lunch shifts lasting at least
4 hours each (from 11:00 a.m. until at least 3:00 p.m.) in a week.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knew that nonpayment of
minimum wage and nonpayment of overtime would economically injure
Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and violated federal and
state laws.

Plaintiff Nino Martinenko was employed by Defendants as a server
from 2015 through 2018, and again from January 2021 until December
2021.

The Defendant is a New York corporation that owns and operates 212
Steakhouse in Midtown Manhattan. Defendant Volper made hiring and
firing decisions with respect to Plaintiff's employment. Allegedly,
he terminated Plaintiff's employment. Defendant Volper is in charge
of employee discipline, payroll issues and scheduling at 212
Steakhouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 981-9587

998LQ SUSHI: Faces Yuwono Suit Over Bussers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
SANDY YUWONO on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the class, Plaintiff v. 998LQ SUSHI INC., d/b/a OKINII, XIANG QIU,
and YONG FENG LIU, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00389 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 14, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendants unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit,
unlawfully retained gratuities, unpaid spread of hours premium
liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a busboy for
Defendants "Okinii" Restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff was
employed two terms, (i) a first term from January 17, 2017 to June
2018; and (ii) a second term from August 19, 2021 to October 27,
2021.

The Defendants collectively own and operate a Japanese restaurant
under the tradename "Okinii," based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

ADT LLC: Ingram Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Armenia Ingram filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled ARMANIA INGRAM, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-376-HBG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act on August 24, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving calls
from the Defendant on her cellular telephone number ending in 8261
beginning in July 2019. She contends that she has never given prior
express consent to be called by the Defendant using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
which she found out when she answered the Defendant's calls.
Additionally, despite her request several times to the Defendant to
stop calling, it continued placing calls to her cellular telephone
number for hundreds if not thousands times.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff says
she suffered concrete harm in the form of lost time spent fielding
the unwanted calls, loss of use of her cellular telephone as the
calls came in, invasion of her privacy, and intrusion upon her
seclusion and time with her family.

On June 16, 2021, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on two
grounds. First, it argued that the Plaintiff's claims are barred by
her pre-suit settlement and release. Second, it stated that the
proof establishes that it did not use an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice pursuant to
47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., and therefore, the Plaintiff's TCPA
claim fails as a matter of law.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13, 2022,
Magistrate Judge M. Bruce Guyton of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville:

   (1) granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   (2) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Armenia Ingram v. ADT, LLC, Case
No. 22-5042, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, filed on Jan. 18, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ARMENIA INGRAM, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Benjamin James Miller, Esq.
          BENJAMIN N. MILLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          525 Fourth Avenue, S.
          Nashville, TN 37210
          Telephone: (615) 353-0930

Defendant-Appellee ADT, LLC is represented by:

          James Ford Little, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER
          P.O. Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000
          E-mail: flittle@wmbac.com

ALABAMA: District Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Duke v. Dunn
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK DUKE, et al., Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-01952-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R.
David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, Middle Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended and
Supplemental Complaint.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Partial Motion to
Dismiss. The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.

The Defendants make three arguments. First, they argue that certain
prisoners -- those who resided at St. Clair when the Second Amended
Complaint was filed on Aug. 28, 2015, but not when the Third
Amended and Supplemental Complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2021 -- are
improper Named Plaintiffs.

Judge Proctor agrees. He opines that the Plaintiffs' sole rebuttal
is that the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness applies
to these Named Plaintiffs. But, the Plaintiffs misunderstand the
application of this exception. It is meant to address the
"significant problem that arises when the claim at issue is so
inherently transitory that individual plaintiffs cannot even expect
to maintain it long enough to obtain a decision on, or even file a
motion for, class certification." Of course, it is "true with all
class actions that the named plaintiff must have standing when she
filed the class complaint." In other words, the doctrine saves a
plaintiff whose claim becomes moot between the filing of the
complaint and class certification. It does not, however, save a
plaintiff whose claim is already moot when the operative complaint
is filed.

Accordingly, Judge Proctor holds that those Named Plaintiffs who
were not residing at St. Clair when the Third Amended and
Supplemental Complaint was filed are due to be terminated from the
action.

Second, the Defendants argue that because only Defendant Dunn has
the authority to implement the relief the Plaintiffs seek, all
other Defendants should be dismissed.

Again, Judge Proctor agrees. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants' argument is procedurally barred because Judge Hopkins
may have rejected this argument in ruling on an earlier motion to
dismiss. Although the proposition that a court cannot revisit an
earlier ruling in the case is doubtful, in any event, the
Defendants counter that they are making a new argument.

New or not, this argument has merit, Judge Proctor opine. And to be
candid, the Court struggles to understand how considering it at
this juncture would prejudice the Plaintiffs. The question is
whether these Defendants "have the authority through their
positions to implement the injunctive relief the Plaintiffs seek."
If the Defendants lack that authority and the Plaintiffs win the
lawsuit, any injunction imposed against these Defendants would be
meaningless. Moreover, merely "alleging the relevant job
responsibilities for each of" them is an insufficient basis for
keeping these Defendants in the suit. Accordingly, all the
Defendants except Dunn are due to be dismissed without prejudice.

Third, the Defendants argue that the Braggs v. Dunn,
2:14-cv-601-MHT, class action precludes this suit to the extent the
Plaintiffs seek relief regarding correctional and mental-health
staffing at St. Clair. As the Defendants acknowledge, the Court
considered and rejected a similar argument in United States v.
Alabama, No. 2:20-CV-01971-RDP, 2021 WL 4711841, at *3 (N.D. Ala.
Oct. 8, 2021).

Judge Proctor sees no reason to depart from that analysis in the
present case. Like that case, the instant one "is being litigated
outside the boundaries of the Braggs class action" because the
"Braggs class action is specific to the effects of understaffing on
mental-health care." And, as the Plaintiffs note, the "Defendants
do not identify any portion of Paragraph 2.1 (or any other
provision of the Braggs Remedial Order) that would conflict with
any remedy the Duke plaintiffs seek to remedy the distinct
constitutional violations at issue in the instant case."

For these reasons, Judge Proctor granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. Named Plaintiffs Dale
Gilley, Franky Johnson, John Miller, Allan Williams, and Robert
Woods, along with Defendants Dennis Stamper, Steve Watson, Jenny
Abbott, Edward Ellington, Guy Noe, Phillip Mitchell, Darrel Fox,
Christopher Webster, and Gary Malone are due to be dismissed
without prejudice from the action. In all other respects, the
Defendants' Motion is due to be denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p85ewmp from Leagle.com.


ALDER HOLDINGS: Faces Luo Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
WINSTON LUO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00178 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for breach of contract.

The Defendant employed Mr. Luo and other non-exempt sales
representatives to sell Alder products door-to-door but allegedly
failed to properly compensate them in accordance with minimum wage
requirements and for overtime hours worked at the legally required
rate in violation of the FLSA. Additionally, the Defendant
materially breached the contract by failing to timely pay
commissions owed under the terms of the parties' employment
agreement.

Mr. Luo worked for the Defendant as a sales representative in the
state of Texas within the three years preceding the filing of this
lawsuit.

Alder Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company that sells home
security, home automation, and alert systems, and conducts business
in all fifty states of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Allen, Esq.
          WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP
          440 Louisiana, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 224-1744
          Facsimile: (713) 227-0104
          E-mail: ballen@wallaceallen.com

ALFI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of January 31 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Playtika Holdings Corp.
(NASDAQ: PLTK), Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALF), Berkeley Lights, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BLI), and Organogenesis Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGO).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Playtika Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: PLTK)

Class Period: January 15, 2021 IPO; January 15, 2021 - November 2,
2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 24, 2022

On or about January 15, 2021, Playtika conducted its IPO, selling
approximately 18.5 million shares of common stock priced at $27.00
per share.

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

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or
3.47%, to close at $25.89 per share on May 11, 2021.

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

On this news, Playtika's stock price fell $6.80, or 23%, to close
at $22.72 per share on November 3, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's year-over-year total costs and costs related to sales &
marketing and research & development were on track to rise
significantly by the third quarter of 2021; (ii) the success of the
Company's game portfolio was less sustainable than the Company had
represented; (iii) the foregoing issues were likely to negatively
impact the Company's revenue and earnings; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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

Alfi, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALF)

Class Period: May 4, 2021 IPO; May 4, 2021 - November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 31, 2022

On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that "[o]n October 22, 2021, the
Board of Directors (the 'Board') of Alfi, Inc. (the 'Company')
placed each of Paul Pereira, the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer, Dennis McIntosh, the Company's Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer, and Charles Pereira, the Company's Chief
Technology Officer, on paid administrative leave and authorized an
independent internal investigation regarding certain corporate
transactions and other matters." On this news, Alfi's stock price
fell sharply during intraday trading on October 29, 2021.

Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability
to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for
the quarter ended September 30, 2021 (the "3Q21 10-Q"). That filing
cited, inter alia, "recent changes in the Company's [CEO] and [CFO]
and in the Chair of the Audit Committee" of the Board, as well as
needing "a new independent registered public accounting firm," as
reasons for the Company's inability to timely file the 3Q21 10-Q.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $0.24
per share, or 5.21%, to close at $4.37 per share on November 16,
2021.

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

Berkeley Lights, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLI)

Class Period: July 17, 2020 - September 14, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 7, 2022

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from
numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns,
high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems,
limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research
institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (2)
Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding
the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation
systems, including complaints related to the design and
manufacturing; (3) the actual market for Berkeley Lights' products
and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented to
investors because of, among other things, the relatively high cost
of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability to
provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these high
costs; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements to investors
during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights' business,
operations and financial results were materially false and
misleading.

On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital
issued a scathing investigative report, titled "Fleecing Customers
And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker,
While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just
Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0," which criticized
Berkeley Lights' technology and questioned the durability of
Berkeley Lights' most important business relationships and its
business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short
Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital
report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and
analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley
Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of
Berkeley Lights' largest customers. Among other findings, the
report detailed a "trail of customers who allege they were
'tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon"
and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype
that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute
outright fraud."

On this news, the price of Berkeley Lights common stock fell by
nearly 30% over two trading days, damaging investors.

For more information on the Berkeley Lights class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BLI

Organogenesis Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGO)

Class Period: March 17, 2021 - October 11, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

On October 12, 2021, Value Investors Club issued a report alleging
issues at Organogenesis Holdings, Inc., indicating that the wound
care medical company has been improperly billing the federal
government for $250 million annually. The Company also set the
price for its new wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high,"
which Medicare reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for
doctors to use through large rebates.

On this news, shares of Organogenesis fell over 18% in intraday
trading on October 12, 2021.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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


ALFI INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Possible Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Alfi, Inc. ("Alfi" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ALF) (NASDAQ: ALFIW) and reminds investors of
the January 31, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $200,000 investing in Alfi stock
or options between May 4, 2021 and November 15, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/ALF.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Alfi maintained deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, the
Company and its employees could and did engage in corporate
transactions and other matters without sufficient and appropriate
consultation with or approval by the Company's Board of Directors
(the "Board"); (3) all the foregoing increased the risk of internal
and regulatory investigations into the Company and its employees;
(4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's reputation, financial condition,
and ability to timely file periodic reports with the SEC; and (5)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 28, 2021, Alfi disclosed in an SEC filing that, on
October 22, 2021, the Board had placed Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") Paul Antonio Pereira ("P. Pereira"), Chief Technology
Officer Charles Raglan Pereira ("C. Pereira"), and Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") Dennis McIntosh ("McIntosh") "on paid
administrative leave and authorized an independent internal
investigation regarding certain corporate transactions and other
matters." That filing further disclosed, among other changes, that
on October 22, 2021, the Board had appointed a new interim CEO and
Chairman of the Board, and that "[o]n October 28, 2021, Mr. C.
Pereira's employment with the Company was terminated."

On this news, Alfi's stock price fell $1.24 per share, or 21.91%,
to close at $4.42 per share on October 29, 2021.

On November 1, 2021, Alfi disclosed in another SEC filing, among
other matters, that the Company's Chair of the Audit Committee had
resigned from the Board, and details concerning the corporate
transactions and matters that had precipitated the internal
investigation into P. Pereira, C. Pereira, and McIntosh. According
to that filing, the internal investigation resulted from "the
Company's purchase of a condominium for a purchase price of
approximately $1.1 million" and "the Company's commitment to
sponsor a sports tournament in the amount of $640,000," both of
which "were undertaken by the Company's management without
sufficient and appropriate consultation with or approval by the
Board."

Then, on November 15, 2021, Alfi disclosed that it "received a
letter from the staff of the [SEC] indicating that the Company, its
affiliates and agents may possess documents and data relevant to an
ongoing investigation being conducted by the staff of the SEC" and
"that such documents and data should be reasonably preserved and
retained until further notice." According to Alfi, "[t]he materials
to be preserved and retained include documents and data created on
or after April 1, 2018 that[,]" among other things, "were created,
modified or accessed by certain named former and current officers
and directors of the Company or any other officer or director of
the Company" or "relate or refer to the condominium or the sports
tournament sponsorship identified in the Company's Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on November 1, 2021, or financial reporting and
disclosure controls, policies or procedures."

Also on November 15, 2021, Alfi announced "that Louis A. Almerini,
CPA, has been appointed by the [Board] to serve as interim [CFO],
effective November 8, 2021."

Finally, on November 16, 2021, Alfi filed a notice of its inability
to timely file its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for
the quarter ended September 30, 2021 (the "3Q21 10-Q"). That filing
cited, inter alia, "recent changes in the Company's [CEO] and [CFO]
and in the Chair of the Audit Committee" of the Board, as well as
needing "a new independent registered public accounting firm," as
reasons for the Company's inability to timely file the 3Q21 10-Q.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $0.24
per share, or 5.21%, to close at $4.37 per share on November 16,
2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, the price of Alfi common
stock and warrants were trading below the $4.15 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice,or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Alfi's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

ALL SHORE: Faces Delgado Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
FAUSTO DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL SHORE MARINE CONSTRUCTION INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00340 (E.D.N.Y., January 20, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a laborer from July 2020
through October 2020 and then from March 3, 2021 until June 17,
2021.

All Shore Marine Construction Inc. is a construction company, with
a place of business located at 30 Marvin Lane, Islip, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
         AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
         546 5th Avenue
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 486-0011
         E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com

ALLERGAN INC: Wins Leave to Amend Removal Notice in Chipego Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAIDA CHIPEGO, Plaintiff v. ALLERGAN, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-16010 (BRM) (ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge
Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey issued an Opinion:

   a. granting Allergan's Motion for Leave to File an Amended
      Notice of Removal; and

   b. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

I. Background

Plaintiff Chipego and the class members are patients who had
Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders
surgically implanted. Many of the Plaintiffs are breast cancer
survivors or women having undergone prophylactic mastectomies, who
were implanted with the BIOCELL implants in reconstructive surgery.
The Plaintiffs allege the BIOCELL implants cause Breast-Implant
Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"), a cancer of
the immune system that develops in the area around an implant,
often between the implant and the surrounding scar tissue.

BIA-ALCL frequently presents as a late-onset seroma in the breast,
which is an accumulation of fluid between the capsule and the
implant, resulting in swelling of the breast. Left untreated,
BIA-ALCL can spread through the body and be fatal. Symptoms of
BIA-ALCL can arise even after the implant is removed. Diagnostic
procedures for detecting BIA-ALCL include computed tomography
scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and fluid sampling. BIA-ALCL is
treated with surgery to remove the implant and the surrounding
capsule and tissue, and may require other treatments such as
reconstructive surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

The case involves dozens of recalled models of the BIOCELL
implants. For over 20 years, Allergan and its predecessor companies
marketed and sold the BIOCELL implants. As early as 1997, some
women were reported to have developed BIA-ALCL after receiving the
BIOCELL implants. Over the course of the next two decades, the
number of reported cases of BIA-ALCL associated with the BIOCELL
implants continued to mount. Through this period, Allergan
allegedly concealed the risks of BIA-ALCL by failing to
appropriately submit adverse event reports to the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") or otherwise disclose to the public complete
and accurate safety information regarding the BIOCELL implants.

On July 24, 2019, the FDA issued a Class I Recall notice of the
BIOCELL implants. The FDA stated "the risk of BIA-ALCL with
Allergan BIOCELL textured implants is approximately six times the
risk of BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers."
The FDA further stated the continued distribution of the BIOCELL
implants "would likely cause serious, adverse health consequences
and potentially death from BIA-ALCL."

Allergan recalled the BIOCELL implants after the FDA found the
products posed a heightened risk of BIA-ALCL. According to the FDA,
246,381 BIOCELL implants have been recalled in the United States.
The Plaintiffs claim Allergan does not intend to provide medical
monitoring for the class members to mitigate the increased risk of
developing BIA-ALCL caused by the recalled BIOCELL implants. The
Plaintiffs also claim Allergan will not pay for the cost of explant
surgery to remove the implants.

On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Allergan in the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:32, the Plaintiffs define the
class as follows: "All New Jersey citizens who, for personal use,
implanted FDA-recalled Allergan Natrelle Saline-Filled Textured
Breast Implants, FDA-recalled Allergan Natrelle Silicone-Filled
Textured Breast Implants; FDA-recalled Allergan Natrelle 410 Highly
Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled Textured Breast
Implants; FDA-recalled Allergan Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expanders;
FDA recalled Allergan Natrelle 133 Tissue Expanders with Suture
Tabs; and/or McGhan BioDIMENSIONAL Silicone-Filled BIOCELL Textured
Breast Implants, Style 153, who were New Jersey citizens at the
time of implant, had their implant surgery in New Jersey, and who
have not been diagnosed with breast implant associated anaplastic
large cell lymphoma."

The Plaintiffs assert their alleged injuries will require
specialized testing and medical monitoring to reduce the risk of
long-term disease and loss. Therefore, they are seeking "an
injunction creating a Court-supervised, Allergan-funded medical
monitoring program which will facilitate the diagnoses of their for
BIA-ALCL." Additionally, the Plaintiffs request Allergan establish
a medical monitoring program.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to
warn (Count 1); manufacturing defect (Count 2); design defect
(Count 3); violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.
Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-1, et seq., (pled as a second Count 3);
breach of express warranty (Count 5); and unjust enrichment (Count
6).

On Aug. 25, 2021, Allergan filed a notice of removal. The notice of
removal stated Allergan, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois
but was silent as to Allergan, Inc.'s citizenship at the time the
Complaint was filed. On Sept. 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand. On Oct. 18, 2021, Allergan filed its opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. Concurrently, Allergan filed a
motion for leave to file an amended notice of removal. The amended
notice of removal clarified Allergan, Inc.'s principal place of
business was California at the time the Complaint was filed. On
Nov. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in further support of
the motion to remand.

II. Discussion

A. Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Removal

In seeking leave to amend the notice of removal, Allergan asserts
the original notice of removal stated Allergan, Inc. is a citizen
of Delaware and Illinois at the time of removal but silent as to
Allergan, Inc.'s citizenship at the time the Complaint was filed.
In its amended notice of removal, Allergan attempts to clarify
Allergan, Inc. was a citizen of Delaware and California at the time
the Complaint was filed.

Allergan removed this case on the basis of diversity under CAFA.
The original notice of removal stated Allergan, Inc. and Allergan
USA, Inc. both had their principal places of business in Illinois
at the time of removal but was silent as to the entities' principal
places of business at the time the Complaint was filed. On Oct. 18,
2021, Allergan amended its notice of removal and provided a
declaration from an Allergan corporate representative who is
"familiar with the operations, corporate structure and business
contacts of Allergan, Inc. and Allergan USA, Inc. throughout the
states in which they operate." The corporate representative
clarified Allergan, Inc.'s principal place of business was
California at the time the Complaint was filed.

Allergan is not seeking to add a new basis for removal, but rather
to clarify a jurisdictional fact for its original basis of removal.
Because an amendment to the notice of removal "will be permitted
only to the extent that it clarifies or corrects an allegation
already contained in the original notice," Judge Martinotti will
accept Allergan's amended notice of removal. Accordingly,
Allergan's motion for leave to file an amended notice of removal
will be granted.

B. Motion for Remand

The Plaintiffs move to remand the putative class action, contesting
removal jurisdiction on the following basis: (1) Allergan has not
satisfied the minimal diversity requirements under CAFA; and (2)
the home state exception to CAFA applies and favors remand.

1. Minimal Diversity under CAFA

The Plaintiffs argue removal is improper because Allergan has not
established the minimal diversity requirement under CAFA.
Specifically, they assert Allergan has not satisfied its burden to
establish Allergan is not a citizen of New Jersey. Alternatively,
they argue Allergan should be judicially estopped from claiming it
is not a citizen of New Jersey.

Allergan asserts the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is moot because
the amended notice of removal clarifies Allergan's original basis
for removal. Specifically, it argues the amended notice of removal
stating Allergan, Inc.'s principal place of business was California
at the time the Complaint was filed satisfies the minimal diversity
requirements under CAFA. Allergan also contends the Plaintiffs'
judicial estoppel request is meritless because estopping Allergan
from supplementing its removal is at odds with the law and the
facts.

Judge Martinotti explains that the Plaintiffs contest only whether
Allergan satisfied CAFA's minimal diversity requirement. All the
Plaintiffs in the putative class are citizens of New Jersey.
Allergan, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois at the time of
removal and a citizen of Delaware and California at the time the
Complaint was filed. Because CAFA's diversity requirements are met
when one defendant is a citizen of a different state from one class
plaintiff, Allergan established that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the putative class action.

To the extent the Plaintiffs contend Allergan's post-filing change
in citizenship should not be considered, Judge Martinotti holds
that the Plaintiffs are drawing a distinction without a difference.
The parties were minimally diverse at the time the Complaint was
filed and at removal. Allergan, Inc. changed its citizenship from
California to Illinois in the intervening period. Contrary to the
Plaintiffs' assertions, this is not a case where Allergan
unilaterally acted to create diversity that did not exist at the
time the Complaint was filed.

Moreover, to the extent the Plaintiffs argue Allergan should be
judicially estopped from asserting Allergan, Inc. is not a citizen
of New Jersey, Judge Martinotti holds that the Plaintiffs fail to
raise a credible basis for their request. Allergan, Inc. was a
citizen of Illinois at the time of removal and a citizen of
California at the time the Complaint was filed. Allergan produced a
corporate representative to attest to the truth and accuracy of the
information. The Plaintiffs fail to explain why the Court should
reject those representations and declare New Jersey as Allergan,
Inc.'s principal place of business. Accordingly, because the
parties are minimally diverse, CAFA's subject matter jurisdictional
requirements are satisfied.

2. Home State Controversy Exception Under CAFA

The Plaintiffs contend the matter should be remanded under the home
state exception of CAFA even if Allergan, Inc. maintains its
principal place of business outside of New Jersey. Specifically,
they assert Allergan USA, Inc. is the primary defendant and because
Allergan USA, Inc. maintains its principal place of business in New
Jersey, the home state exception to CAFA applies. Allergan asserts
the home state exception to CAFA does not apply when at least one
primary defendant is not a citizen of the state where the action
was originally filed. Specifically, it argues because Allergan,
Inc. is a primary defendant but not a citizen of New Jersey, the
home state exception to CAFA does not apply.

Judge Martinotti opines that because Allergan, Inc. is a primary
defendant but not a citizen New Jersey, the home state exception is
inapplicable. To the extent the Plaintiffs argue only Allergan USA,
Inc. can be considered a primary defendant because Allergan, Inc.
is merely a holding company with no employees, the Plaintiffs'
contentions are misplaced. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge Martinotti granted Allergan's
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Removal, and denied
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p886e46 from Leagle.com.


ALLERGAN PLC: Judge Refuses to Remand Breast Implant Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a New Jersey federal judge has refused to
remand a medical monitoring class action involving Allegran's
Biocell textured breast implants, ruling that the Class Action
Fairness Act's diversity requirements have been met.

In a Jan. 14 order, Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey noted that all plaintiffs are
New Jersey citizens, and that Allergan Inc. is a citizen of
Delaware and Illinois at the time of removal and a citizen of
Delaware and California at the time the complaint was filed. [GN]

ANDREWS GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN BYERS, v. THE
ANDREWS GROUP, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-05332-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial
order as follows:

  -- The parties have agreed to make         January 28, 2022
     Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures
     by:

  -- Amendments to Pleadings and/or          March 30, 2022
     Joinder of Parties Motions or
     stipulations addressing the
     parties or pleadings, if any,
     must be filed no later than:

  -- The motion for class certification      October 13, 2022
     must be filed by:

  -- Primary expert reports, if any,         December 5, 2022
     must be produced by

  -- Rebuttal expert reports, if any,        January 5, 2023
     must be produced by:

  -- All fact discovery shall be             November 21, 2022
     completed by:

  -- Case dispositive motions must           February 21, 2023
     be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff shall make a              October 3, 2022
     settlement demand by:

  -- The Defendants shall respond            October 17, 2022
     by:

The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on January 18, 2022,
and indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary
Pretrial Order without a conference. Accordingly, the January 25,
2022 preliminary pretrial conference is vacated.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendants
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. 227, by sending unsolicited text messages to consumers whose
telephone numbers are on the National Do Not Call registry.

The Defendants deny violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The Defendants state that in the event Plaintiff did receive a
text message from Defendant(s), the circumstances were isolated and
not based on systemic conduct warranting class-based adjudication.
The Defendant Plum Tree Realty, LLC further states that the facts
associated with this case do not give rise to a finding of
vicarious liability.

The Andrews Group is the architectural product company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3KwV8xZ  at no extra charge.[CC]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Earphones
-----------------------------------------------------------
Techsmart reports that yet another class action against Apple would
be on the way. The subject of the dispute, this time, is an alleged
manufacturing defect of the Beats Powerbeats Pro earphones,
launched in 2019, which would prevent them from being recharged
correctly. More precisely, the problem would be related to the
contact of the pins with the case which in addition to not allowing
the headset to be recharged would also let it download quickly
without interrupting the connection.

Apple, according to the lawyers, would have been aware of the
situation and would not have taken the necessary countermeasures in
response to the requests of customers who had to resort to arranged
solutions, inserting shims in the case, to maintain contact between
the headset and the pins. charging.

Lawyers also dismiss Apple's claims that the Powerbeats Pro are
sweat and water resistant. In fact, sweat would also corrode the
charging contacts causing contact problems.

The allegations require Apple to both "correct" this problem and
compensate users. If this lawsuit turns into a class-action, all
customers in New York, Georgia, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Virginia would be
affected.

This is not the first time that Beats headphones have caused Apple
headaches. A problem with charging the PowerBeats2, in fact, led to
a class-action that ended in August 2020 with the payment of $ 9.75
million from Apple.

The PowerBeats Pro, remember, are gods "true wireless" earphones
with H1 chip which, in addition to allowing greater efficiency and
more stable connectivity, also allows you to recall Apple's voice
assistant via the "Hey Siri" command when connected to an iOS
device. The Powerbeats Pro also have sensors that can detect
positioning in the ear to start or pause music. [GN]

ASA DEVELOPMENT: Graybar Electric Files Appeal in Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Graybar Electric Company, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Graybar Electric
Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated with regard to that certain construction project located
at 770 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York v. Asa Development LLC,
D/B/A Unified Electric, et al, Case No. 653265/2021, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
was filed on May 18, 2021. The lawsuit arises from alleged
contract-related violations.

Asa Development LLC doing business as Unified Electric provides
prevailing wage projects made up of complex electrical
installations.

The appellate case is captioned as Graybar Electric Company, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated with
regard to that certain construction project located at 770
Lexington Avenue, New York, New York v. ASA Development LLC, d/b/a
Unified Electric et al., Case No. 2022-00112, filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial
Department, on Jan. 10, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Graybar Electric Company, Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated with regard to that
certain construction project located at 770 Lexington Avenue, New
York, New York, is represented by:

          David Beresh Rosenberg, Esq.
          TODD & LEVI LLP
          444 Madison Ave Ste 1202
          New York, NY 10022-6959  
          Telephone: (212) 308-7400

AT&T CORP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Adzhikosyan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled ARAM ADZHIKOSYAN, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T CORP. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-05997-ODW-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

On June 8, 2021, Adzhikosyan filed this putative class action
against Defendants in California Superior Court alleging violations
of California privacy laws.

According to the complaint, Adzhikosyan's mother subscribes to
Defendants' services. After Adzhikosyan learned that Defendants may
be offering special discounts to their subscribers, he called
Defendants on numerous occasions on his mother's behalf, including
by placing calls from his cell phone to Defendants' phone numbers.
Mr. Adzhikosyan alleges that Defendants record all calls placed to
and received from the phone number without informing the callers.
He alleges violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
based on Defendants' unlawful recording of California residents'
telephone calls.

The Defendants removed this action to federal court based on
alleged federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Mr. Adzhikosyan moved to remand and Defendants moved to compel
arbitration.

On December 17, 2021, Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion to remand and denying Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration.

The Defendants seek a review of the denied motion to compel
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as AT&T Corp., et al. v. Aram
Adzhikosyan, Case No. 22-55088, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 18, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants AT&T Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire was due on Jan. 25, 2022;

   -- Appellants AT&T Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC opening brief is due
on March 21, 2022;

   -- Appellee Aram Adzhikosyan answering brief is due on April 21,
2022; and

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

Defendants-Appellants AT&T CORP., a New York corporation, and
DIRECTV, LLC, a California limited liability company, are
represented by:

          Frank Gooch, III, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-4000
          E-mail: fgooch@cozen.com

               - and -

          Michael Wayne McTigue, Jr., Esq.
          Meredith Slawe, Esq.
          COZEN & O'CONNOR
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2093
          E-mail: mmctigue@cozen.com
                  mslawe@cozen.com

Plaintiff-Appellee ARAM ADZHIKOSYAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark D. Potter, Esq.
          James Michael Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (760) 480-4162
          E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
                  jimt@potterhandy.com

BEL-AIR LAURENTIEN: Court of Appeal Upholds Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lavery Lawyers disclosed that the Court of Appeal upheld the
dismissal of the class action against its client Bel-Air Laurentien
Aviation.

In a lengthy judgment rendered in 2019, the Superior Court had
found no fault on the part of Bel-Air Laurentien Aviation and no
neighborhood disturbance to speak of. The Court of Appeal upheld
this conclusion.

Myriam Brixi and Laurence Bich-Carriere, who led the defence of the
appeal, are relieved for their client who was facing a class action
estimated at several tens of millions of dollars.

This case was named one of the cases to watch in 2018 by
l'Actualite magazine. [GN]


BEST OVERNITE: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
BALTAZAR PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST OVERNITE EXPRESS, INC; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV393492 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., January 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code including failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to pay a11 wages due upon separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

Best Overnite Express, Inc. is a freight trucking company in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
         Kashif Haque, Esq.
         Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
         AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
         9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 379-6250
         Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
         E-mail: Jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

BLUE CROSS: Gonzalez Appeals Dismissal of Cancer Therapy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Roslyn Gonzalez filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Roslyn Gonzalez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, Health Care Service Corporation and United
States Office of Personnel Management, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02149, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit wants Blue
Cross to disgorge funds it has saved in delaying treatment to
policyholders, declaratory and injunctive relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and for violation of the
Texas Consumer Protection Act and Texas Unfair Claim Settlement
Practices Act.

Gonzalez, a 43-year old female, is a participant in the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Service Benefit Plan administered by the Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas.
She obtained coverage under the Plan through her former employment
as an attorney with the United States Department of Homeland
Security and Army Corps of Engineers. Gonzalez was diagnosed of
having a 3.9 cm right ovarian cyst in her pelvis.

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy is a radiation therapy to treat a
tumor while reducing doses to healthy tissues and organs, which
results in fewer complications and side effects than traditional
radiation treatments. Gonzalez claims to spend a significant amount
of time in appeals, and pleas, to Blue Cross to reverse its initial
denials and approve the treatment despite proton beam radiation
therapy being recognized as an established, medically appropriate
treatment for various forms of cancer for decades.

On December 13, 2021, Judge Jane J. Boyle entered an order granting
Blue Cross and Blue Shield's motion to dismiss and dismissing with
prejudice Gonzalez's claims against Blue Cross Blue Shield on the
ground that they are preempted by federal law. Gonzalez's request
for leave to amend was denied.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Gonzalez v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Case No. 22-10062, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on Jan. 19, 2022.[BN]

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

          Amar B. Raval, Esq.
          BERG PLUMMER JOHNSON & RAVAL, L.L.P.
          3700 Buffalo Speedway
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 526-0200
          E-mail: araval@bergplummer.com

Defendants-Appellees Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Health
Care Services Corporation, doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Texas; and United States Office of Personnel Management are
represented by:

          Barry M. Golden, Esq.
          MILLER, EGAN, MOLTER & NELSON
          2911 Turtle Creek Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 628-9514
          E-mail: barry.golden@egannelson.com

               - and -

          Brian Patrick Kavanaugh, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, L.L.P.
          1 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: bkavanaugh@sidley.com  

               - and -

          Dawn Whalen Theiss, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1100 Commerce Street
          Dallas, TX 75242-1699
          Telephone: (214) 659-8628
          E-mail: dawn.theiss@usdoj.gov

BOISE DISTRICT: Seeks to Strke Declaration and Expert Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
Boise District No. 1; et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00207-RCT (D.
Idaho), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order striking the
"Declaration and Expert Report of Russell A. Joki, ED.D" and the
"Declaration and Expert Report of Robert D. Ranells, Ed.D" that
Plaintiffs filed in support of their Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

The Defendants include Twin Falls School District No. 411; Blaine
County School District No. 61; McCall-Donnelly Joint School
District No. 421; Jefferson County Joint School District No. 251;
Mountain Home School District No. 193; Caldwell School District No.
132; Madison School District No. 321; Compass Public Charter School
- LEA No. 455; and Vallivue School District No. 139.

The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho. Twin Falls School District No.  411 is a
public school district in Idaho.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qIYB4E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Huntley, Esq.
          E-mail: rhuntley@huntleylaw.com

               - and -

          T. Jason Wood, Esq.
          E-mail: jason@woodlaw.net

               - and -

          Brian K. Julian, Esq.
          Bret A. Walther, Esq.
          Andrea Fontaine, Esq.
          E-mail: bjulian@ajhlaw.com
                  afontaine@ajhlaw.com
                  bwalther@ajhlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David P. Gardner, Esq.
          Jetta Hatch Mathews, Esq.
          Colleen R. Smith, Esq.
          HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
          412 West Center St., Ste. 2000
          Pocatello, ID 83204
          Telephone (208) 233-2001
          Facsimile (208) 232-0150
          E-mail: dgardner@hawleytroxell.com
                  jmathews@hawleytroxell.com
                  crsmith@hawleytroxell.com


BP EXPLORATION: E.D. Louisiana Grants Bid to Stay Pabst BELO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay the lawsuit captioned as JOHN
PABST v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., ET AL., Case No. 21-290
(E.D. La.).

Background

The Plaintiff initiated the action pursuant to the Back End
Litigation Option ("BELO") of the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement ("MSA") entered in the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation, MDL 2179 (In re Oil Spill
by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April
20, 2010, Case No. 2:10-md-2179).

The MSA provides the sole remedy for certain class members,
including clean-up workers like the Plaintiff, to sue Defendants BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company for
"Later-Manifested Physical Conditions" ("LMPC"). LMPCs are defined
as physical conditions allegedly caused by spill-related exposure
and first diagnosed after April 16, 2012.

The MSA sets out a unique procedure for initiating a BELO lawsuit.
First, class members must submit a Notice of Intent to Sue ("NOIS")
to the MSA Claims Administrator. The NOIS shall identify the LMPC
and provide proof of the diagnosed condition and the date of first
diagnosis. Once the NOIS is submitted, the Claims Administrator
performs a basic review to confirm that it complies with the
requirements of the MSA. If it does, the Claims Administrator sends
the NOIS to Defendants for them to decide whether to mediate or
not. If Defendants choose not to mediate, then the claimant has six
months to file the BELO lawsuit.

In the case, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with orbital lymphoma on
July 20, 2017, and with a cortical cataract on July 10, 2018. He
submitted his first NOIS based only on orbital lymphoma in June of
2020, and after following the procedure, he filed the instant case
in February of 2021. On Nov. 3, 2021, the Plaintiff submitted a
second NOIS, this time based on his cataract.

Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the instant
case while the Claims Administrator reviews the second NOIS. The
Defendants oppose staying the case.

Law and Analysis

The Plaintiff argues that a stay is necessary because it would be
inefficient for this case to proceed through discovery when in the
future Plaintiff will likely initiate another BELO lawsuit against
the Defendants based on his second NOIS. A failure to stay this
case, according to the Plaintiff, could lead to duplicative
discovery and Daubert motions, as well extra costs from experts.

The Plaintiff contends that the most prudent option is to stay the
instant case until the second BELO suit is filed and can be
consolidated with this case. The Defendants counter that the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with cataracts before filing his first
NOIS, and his failure to include the ailment as an LMPC in the past
does not justify a stay in the present. The Defendants also argue
that a stay prejudices them by preventing timely resolution and
requiring additional expenses.

In deciding whether to issue a stay, district courts consider
several factors, including (1) whether the litigation is at an
early stage; (2) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically
disadvantage the non-moving party; (3) whether a stay will simplify
the issues in question and streamline the trial; and (4) whether a
stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the
court. These factors weigh in favor of a stay, District Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo holds.

First, the case is at an early stage; only one deadline from the
Scheduling Order has passed. Second, while the Court shares the
Defendants' discontent with the Plaintiff's failure to include his
cataract diagnosis in the first NOIS, any concerns about prejudice
are misplaced. There is no guarantee that staying the instant case
will be less timely and more expensive than litigating two similar
cases back to back. Third, a stay may lead to consolidation, which
will simplify the issues and potentially necessitate one trial
rather than two. Finally, a stay will reduce the burden of
litigation.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion to Stay is granted. It is
ordered that this case is stayed until the Claims Administrator
addresses the Plaintiff's new NOIS submitted on Nov. 3, 2021, and
until the Defendants elect to mediate or not, if necessary.

It is further ordered that the Plaintiff's pending Ex Parte Motion
for Extension of Deadlines for Expert Disclosures is denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Jan. 6,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr27mjy5 from
Leagle.com.


BRIGHT HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE:
BHG): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's June 24, 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO"); and/or (ii) between June 24, 2021 and
November 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Bright Health investors under the
federal securities laws. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than March 7, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Bright Health securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Bright Health class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2236.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 7, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: The complaint alleges that the Offering
Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO business and
financial prospects; (2) Bright Health was ill-equipped to handle
the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (3) Bright Health was
experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure to
capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (4) all the foregoing
was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Bright
Health's business and financial condition; and (5) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

To join the Bright Health class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2236.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CAPTAIN FREIDT: McMasters Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCMASTERS, DIONTE PALMER, JOYVITA WRIGHT, JONTE JOHNSON and
SAMMY WILLIAMS v. CAPTAIN FREIDT TOWER SERVICES, LLC and JASON
FREIDT, Case No. 5:22-cv-00107-SL (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2022) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging that Captain Freidt and its owners and/or
manager, Defendant Jason Freidt, failed to pay the Plaintiffs
minimum wage and for all hours worked or overtime.

Accordingly, Defendants' conduct violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
employees, McMasters brings this collective action for the recovery
of unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA, and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act .

The Plaintiffs performed work for the Defendants within the last
three years for which they were not paid the minimum and overtime
wages guaranteed by the FLSA.

Captain Friedt is a for-profit corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Ohio, and who maintains offices in Akron, Ohio, and
whom operates in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel B. Robb, Esq.
          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S LAW FIRM
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

CAROLINA PIZZA: Shortchanges Delivery Drivers' Pay, Beane Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Beane, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Carolina Pizza Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-00321 (M.D. N.C., January 19, 2022), seeks minimum wages,
final injunctive and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants own and operate Papa John's Pizza franchise stores where
Beane worked as a delivery driver. Defendants allegedly took a tip
credit from Beane when he was making deliveries and made him use
his own car for deliveries. Plaintiff claims that the delivery fee
he gets is not enough to cover his vehicular expenses. He also
claims that he occasionally worked hours over 40 in a week, and in
these weeks he did not receive a sufficient overtime premium
because of the unreimbursed mileage expenses. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan M. Smith, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 400
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone (212) 273-0768
      Email: jsmith@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 204-2170
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
              JPavlos@forthepeople.com


CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Wins Summary Judgment Bid v. Janis Wolf
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Janis Wolf v. Carpenter
Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00957-DLR (d.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

   4. denying all motions for leave to file supplementary
      briefing; and

   5. directing the clerk of the Court to enter judgment
      accordingly and terminate this case.

The Court said, "Merely identifying a credit transaction is not
enough. There must be a "direct link" between the credit
transaction and the collector's request for a credit report. It is
undisputed that Defendant "obtained Plaintiff's credit report to
confirm her whereabouts before filing [a] justice court action
against her in November 2019" to collect the outstanding debt. The
Defendant has established the requisite "direct link"."

The Plaintiff became interested in purchasing a home in the 25
Neely Farms subdivision. Before she purchased it, she learned it
was located within a HOA, which imposed an assessment under the
Neely Farms HOAs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Under the CC&Rs, which Plaintiff read "from cover to cover, the
assessment is imposed on an annual basis, with homeowners paying
the full amount in installments throughout the year.

But in 2017, she stopped making those payments. The Neely Farms HOA
hired Defendant Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen, a law firm, to
collect the unpaid assessments. Before filing a lawsuit to collect
the unpaid HOA assessment, the Defendant obtained Plaintiff's
credit report -- without her consent --in September 2019 to learn
Plaintiff's current address. Carpenter justifies this practice
because "many debtors do not reside in the homes subject to the HOA
assessments being collected, and because debtors often have common
or similar names."

Carpenter & Hazlewood is a full service law firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ahwsorat no extra charge.[CC]

CENTRAL FREIGHT: Henry's Bid for Class Cert. Continued to April 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henry v. Central Freight
Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00280 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John A. Mendez entered an order continuing the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.

   -- CFL's counsel shall file its Motion for Leave to Withdraw
      As Counsel no later than February 1, 2022

   -- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is continued to
      April 5, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

Central Freight provides transportation services.[CC]

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Nov. 10
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY RYDMAN and SERIN
NGAI, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Case
No. 2:18-cv-01578-TL (W.D. Wash), the Hon. Tana Lin Judge entered a
minute order as follows:

  (1) Having reviewed the Parties' January 14, 2022 Joint Status
      Report, the Court does not see a need for a status
      conference at this time. Accordingly, the Clerk is
      directed to strike the telephonic status conference
      scheduled for January 20, 2022.

  (2) The Court also sets the following dates, as jointly
      proposed by the Parties:

      -- Deadline for the completion         April 29, 2022
         of fact discovery:

      -- Deadline for expert                 June 30, 2022
         reports:

      -- Deadline for rebuttal               July 29, 2022
         expert reports:

      -- Deadline for the completion         August 17, 2022
         of expert discovery:

      -- Deadline to file                    November 10, 2022
         dispositive motions:

      -- Deadline to file a class            November 10, 2022
         certification motion:

  (3) The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to
      all counsel of record.

Champion Petfoods retails pet food products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nJ8Nbv at no extra charge.[CC]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in Byrne Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDALL BYRNE, DAVID KLEUSKENS, JERRY HENRY, JASON
WEBER, SUSAN FOSTER-HARPER, and LISA KINELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC,
SPECTRUM MID-AMERICA, LLC, and SPECTRUM NORTHEAST, LLC, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-712 (CSH) (D. Conn.), Judge Charles S.
Haight, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as
to Plaintiffs Kleuskens, Henry, Weber, Foster-Harper, and Kinell.

I. Introduction

The lawsuit is a purported class action brought by six individual
Plaintiffs who subscribed to cable television service packages
disseminated by the corporate Defendants ("Charter"). The
Plaintiffs assert that they and putative class members suffered
monetary damages as the result of Charter's conduct of its cable
television service business in an unfair, false, misleading, or
deceptive fashion. Charter denies all allegations of wrongdoing.
This Court's subject matter jurisdiction is based on the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2).

Charter has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or -- in the alternative
-- to compel submission of the underlying disputes of five of the
six Plaintiffs to arbitration, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 4. The Plaintiffs resist both motions.

II. Background

The services Charter provides, and the use the Plaintiffs make of
them, furnish dramatic evidence of the changes that have occurred
in home entertainment over the course of a single lifetime. Not
long ago, as eternity measures time, there was no television and
consequently no cable television programming. People had devices
called "radios" in their homes. In the New York City area, radio
owners listened principally to the four leading commercial stations
-- WEAF, WOR, WJZ and WABC -- and the occasional independent
station like WQXR (classical music). A consumer accessed those
services by turning his or her radio on, turning the device's dial
to a station's number, and listening to the program then being
broadcast.

The television owner of today turns the device on and is confronted
with literally hundreds of cable television channels to which he or
she can watch and listen. Companies like Charter exist that bring
order out of seeming chaos by selecting particular cable television
channels and arranging them in designated groups or "packages,"
which are made available to television program consumers upon
payment of monthly subscription fees.

In the case at bar, six individual Plaintiffs -- Byrne, Kleuskens,
Henry, Weber, Foster-Harper, and Kinell -- allege that they have
been subscribers to cable television service packages disseminated
by Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. and/or one of its
subsidiaries, Defendants Charter Communications Operating, LLC,
Spectrum Mid-America, LLC, and Spectrum Northeast, LLC.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") is the operative
pleading. Of their number, the Plaintiffs allege that Byrne and
Kleuskens are citizens of Ohio; that Henry is a citizen of Florida
who resides in Ohio from May through October each year; that Weber
and Foster-Harper are citizens of Kentucky; and that Kinell is a
citizen of Massachusetts. The Charter entities, meanwhile, are
alleged to have been formed under Delaware law, with offices
located principally in Connecticut.

The Plaintiffs' theory of the case is a straightforward one. They
allege that Charter has engaged in a bait-and-switch scheme whereby
Charter advertises to consumers that its cable television service
packages will have a fixed monthly rate for a period of one to two
years, but after consumers sign up or renew their service for the
promised fixed-rate period, Charter increases the monthly rate in
multiple deceptive ways.

The Plaintiffs claim that these "deceptive ways" include: (1)
adding a "Broadcast TV Surcharge" to each monthly bill for every
customer, and regularly increasing the surcharge; (2) promising
customers a "discounted" monthly price, without disclosing that the
"discount" is pegged to a list price rate that Charter increases at
its whim; (3) removing channels originally presented as part of a
cable television service package, and then charging additional fees
to include those channels going forward; and (4) increasing the
monthly price of customer equipment such as cable boxes, which
customers use to receive television service.

The Plaintiffs' action purports to be on behalf of three classes of
Charter customers and invokes the class action provisions in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3).
Specifically, Plaintiffs Byrne, Kleuskens and Henry seek to
represent an "Ohio Class" consisting of persons who purchased
television service from Charter and "resided or received Charter
television service in Ohio." Plaintiffs Weber and Foster-Harper
seek to represent Charter television customers who "resided or
received Charter television service in Kentucky." Plaintiff Kinell
seeks to represent Charter television customers who "resided or
received Charter television service in Massachusetts."

III. Discussion

A.

Charter contends that five of the six Plaintiffs -- Kleuskens,
Henry, Weber, Foster-Harper, and Kinell -- have "each assented to
arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in Charter's Terms
of Service," and thus should be compelled to arbitrate their
claims, since all issues regarding not only the merits of those
claims but also their arbitrability have been delegated to the
arbitrator to decide. These five Plaintiffs prefer not to arbitrate
their "bait and switch" claims against Charter, and thus have
opposed Charter's efforts to compel arbitration, arguing that the
arbitration agreement is illusory, and that even if it is not
illusory Plaintiffs never sufficiently manifested their asset to
it.

Judge Haight finds that the Plaintiffs' briefs cite a number of
cases from several jurisdictions on the issue of illusory
contracts, but they cite no case, in the Second Circuit or
elsewhere, holding that a service provider's right to modify its
terms of service on notice, accompanied by a customer's attendant
right either to accept the modification or to reject it by ceasing
to use the service, renders the underlying contract illusory and an
arbitration clause unenforceable. Such a proposition would be
contrary to the clear weight of authority, derived from a number of
jurisdictions, as the cases cited supra demonstrate. Indeed, some
of the cases cited by the Plaintiffs themselves point in the
direction of the Court's decision.

On the basis of the clear weight of authority, Judge Haight
concludes that the contracts between Charter and the individual
Plaintiffs are not illusory. It follows that the arbitration
agreement in the contracts is enforceable by Charter. This ruling
applies to five of the six Plaintiffs: Specifically, Kleuskens,
Henry, Weber, Foster-Harper, and Kinell.

B.

While the record is not entirely clear on the point, the parties
seem to agree that Byrne, alone among the individual Plaintiffs, is
not bound to arbitrate his dispute with Charter. Charter has
described Byrne as "the only Plaintiff to opt out of arbitration,"
and Charter's records appear to imply that he is so situated.
Meanwhile, throughout the litigation thus far, the counsel for the
Plaintiffs have accepted Byrne's special status as the one
Plaintiff not subject to an arbitration agreement -- the "Sixth
Man," as the counsel and the Court referred to Byrne during the
oral argument.

In these circumstances, Judge Haight must give separate
consideration to the effect of this ruling upon the five Plaintiffs
who have not opted out of arbitration on the one hand, and upon
Plaintiff Byrne on the other.

As for the five Plaintiffs who are bound to arbitrate their claims
against Charter, he will grant Charter's motion to compel
arbitration, direct those Plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration, and
stay the action pending the conclusion of the arbitration. This is
the course required by the Federal Arbitration Act, as interpreted
in the Circuit. Judge Koeltl followed this course in Olsen v.
Charter Communications, Inc., No. 18-cv-3388 (JGK), 2019 WL 3779190
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2019), an action against Charter asserting
similar claims under terms of service similar to those in issue in
the present case.

C.

Thus, it remains for the Court to consider what it should direct
with respect to the "Sixth Man" -- i.e., Byrne -- who is not bound
by the arbitration agreement to which the other five Plaintiffs
have acceded.

Charter submits that "the Court should exercise its inherent
authority to stay Mr. Byrne's individual action until the
arbitration proceedings conclude." The counsel for the Plaintiffs
contend that Byrne should simply be allowed to get on with his
claims against Charter under Ohio law, uninhibited or undeterred by
an arbitration proceeding to which Byrne is not himself a formal
party.

Judge Haight holds that it seems arguable in the case at bar that
Byrne's claims against Charter could be precluded by a full and
fair arbitration that rejects precisely the same claims in what
originally was brought as one putative class action, albeit
asserted by different customers but represented by the same
attorneys. He puts the prospects of a preclusive effect no higher
than that, and the parties have not briefed the issue. He will
further note that even if preclusion principles ultimately do not
apply to Byrne's claims, the arbitration proceedings involving his
co-Plaintiffs still may help simplify the management of his claims
in the Court: The counsel for both sides presumably will have
sharpened their legal arguments during the arbitration and (if
discovery becomes necessary) have resolved most discovery issues,
allowing this Court to proceed with greater speed towards
resolution of Byrne's dispute.

In total, the circumstances of the case persuade Judge Haight that
it is preferable, in the exercise of his discretion, to stay
Plaintiff Byrne's action against Charter pending completion of the
arbitration of the same claims between Charter and Byrne's
co-Plaintiffs, so we will know how that arbitration comes out.

He does not reach Charter's alternative motion to dismiss Byrne's
claims. Nor does heI reach the question of whether Byrne's action
should be certified as a class action. Those decisions are for
another day.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Haight granted the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiffs Kleuskens, Henry,
Weber, Foster-Harper, and Kinell. These Plaintiffs are directed to
proceed to arbitration in the manner provided in the arbitration
agreement between these Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

The action between the Plaintiffs identified in Paragraph 1 of the
Order and the Defendants is stayed, pending completion of the
arbitration proceedings.

In the exercise of the Court's discretion, the action between
Plaintiff Byrne and the Defendants is stayed, pending the
completion of the arbitration proceedings between the Defendants
and the Plaintiffs identified in Paragraph 1 of the Order.

Judge Haight denied as moot the Defendants' alternative Motion to
Dismiss the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckn8h9r from Leagle.com.


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Monteiro Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADILSON MONTEIRO, KAREN GINSBURG, JASON LUTAN, and BRIAN MINSK,
Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION
TAX-DEFERRED ANNUITY PLAN, Plaintiffs v. THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
CORPORATION, THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CORPORATION RETIREMENT
COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-20, whose names are currently unknown,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10069 (D. Mass., Jan. 18, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the Children's
Hospital Corporation Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan and a class of
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan. Allegedly, the Defendants: (1) failed
to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment
options to participants; (2) allowed unreasonable expenses to be
charged to participants; and (3) selected, retained, and/or
otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments,
instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such
prudent investments were readily available at the time Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class
Period.

The Children's Hospital Corporation, doing business as Boston
Children's Hospital, operates as a non-profit health care
organization. The Organization offers neuroscience, orthopedic,
pediatric transplant, endocrinology gastroenterology, hepatology
and nutrition, newborn medicine, and blood disorder care services
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Roddy, Esq.
          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
                  eryan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                  lrubinow@millershah.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                  ajberin@millershah.com

               - and -

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Blvd.
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: kctang@millershah.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  gabriellek@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

CLOOPEN GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Cloopen Group Holding
Limited ("Cloopen" or the "Company") (NYSE: RAAS) and reminds
investors of the February 8, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Cloopen
stock or options between February 9, 2021 and May 10, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/RAAS.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Cloopen's "land and expand" strategy was failing and its customer
base deteriorating; (2) the Company's dollar-based net retention
rate was not "stable," but rather had dropped significantly by the
end of 2020; (3) at the time of the IPO, an increasing number of
customers were not paying Cloopen for the services and/or solutions
it provided, forcing Cloopen to recognize massive increases in its
accounts receivable and its allowance for doubtful accounts; (4)
because Cloopen had valued certain warrants at extremely low
levels, the Company would recognize massive additional costs
associated with those warrants; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

In February 2021, Cloopen conducted its IPO, selling 23 million
ADSs at $16 per ADS.

On March 26, 2021, Cloopen released its 2020 fourth quarter
financial results for the period ending December 31, 2020 - more
than a month before the IPO. Cloopen reported revenues of $39.6
million, $2 million short of analysts' consensus, as well as net
losses of $46.8 million (a 466.9% year-over-year increase), and
operating expenses of $27.6 million (a 30% year-over-year
increase).

On this news, Cloopen's shares fell $14.42, or 18.5%, to close at
$11.75 per ADS on March 26, 2021.

On May 10, 2021, Cloopen filed its 2020 annual report, revealing
that its dollar-based net customer retention rate for recurring
solutions fell from 102.7% in 2019 to 86.8% in 2020, which meant
that Cloopen's purportedly "loyal" customer base was not
"expand[ing]" into additional solutions and the Company's growth
strategy was not effective.

On this news, Cloopen's shares closed at $8.97 per ADS on May 12,
2021. Since the IPO, Cloopen's ADSs have traded as low as $2.70 per
ADS, an 80% decline from the $16 IPO price.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Cloopen's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

COLLABORATIVE BOATING: Case Management Plan, Sched Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
COLLABORATIVE BOATING, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09788-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge entered a civil case management plan and scheduling
order as follows:

  -- Any motion to amend or to                Feb. 16, 2022
     join additional parties shall
     be filed no later than:

  -- Initial disclosures pursuant             Jan. 31, 2022
     to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
     shall be completed no later
     than than:

  -- All fact discovery shall be              May 17, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- All expert discovery,                    May 17, 2022
     including reports, production
     of underlying documents,
     and depositions, shall be
     completed no later than:

  -- The Plaintiff shall file a               June 16, 2022
     motion for/to class
     certification no later than:

  -- Any opposition shall be                  July 18, 2022
     filed by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:             August 17, 2022

  -- The next pretrial conference             May 26, 2022
     is scheduled for:

Collaborative Boating operates an online marketplace for renters
and private boat owners.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FOl4kN at no extra charge.[CC]


COMPASS PACT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Salguero Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Yjaira Salguero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Compass Pact 3, LLC d/b/a Riliberto's, a
Domestic Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00023-JAS (D. Ariz., Jan. 18, 2022) is a collective action
to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action pursuant to the
state laws of Arizona to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and
treble damages.

Plaintiff Silguero was employed by Riliberto's as an hourly
employee in Tucson from April 2021 until May 2021. The Plaintiff's
job duties consisted of serving customers and cleaning the
restaurants.

Compass Pact 3 LLC operates a chain of restaurants known as
Riliberto's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
          LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.  
          349 North Fourth Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
          Telephone: (602) 234-0008
          Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
          E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com

               - and -

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

COOK COUNTY, IL: Denial of Simpson's Bid for Class Cert. Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH SIMPSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. THOMAS J. DART, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 21-8028 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacates in part the denial of
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Joseph Simpson applied to work as a Correctional Officer
at the Cook County Department of Corrections four separate times
between 2014 and 2017. The Department declined to hire him each
time. Simpson believed the hiring practices underlying these
rejections violated his rights--and those of other unsuccessful
Black applicants--under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Invoking
theories of both disparate treatment and disparate impact,
Simpson's class action complaint alleged that, through the use of a
five-step hiring process for correctional officers, the Department
of Corrections both intended to discriminate against Black
applicants and succeeded in producing that discriminatory result.

The district court denied Simpson's motion for class certification,
finding that none of his proposed classes--a general class of all
unsuccessful applicants and five subclasses of candidates dismissed
at each step of the hiring process--satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s
requirement that they present "questions of law or fact common to
the class."

I

A

The Cook County Sheriff's Office oversees all operations at the
Cook County Department of Corrections, including the hiring of
correctional officers. That hiring authority is delegated in large
part to an administrative body within the Sheriff's Office known as
the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board, although the Sheriff's
Office itself makes the final hiring decision. Both entities--the
Sheriff's Office (through Sheriff Thomas J. Dart in his official
capacity) and the Merit Board--are Defendants in this case, as is
Cook County itself.

The Department of Corrections considers applicants by employing a
five-step hiring process. Applicants may be eliminated from
contention at any step. The Merit Board controls the first four
steps--(1) an initial written exam; (2) a written situational exam;
(3) a physical fitness test; and (4) a more discretionary "final
review," which itself appears to consist of a background check,
drug testing, and multiple interviews. Applicants who successfully
complete each step are certified by the Merit Board as "eligible
for hire" and proceed to step (5), a discretionary "file review"
(and a polygraph test) conducted by the Sheriff's Office, which
then makes the final hiring decision.

Mr. Simpson's complaint alleged that the Defendants instituted and
implemented this multistep process to discriminate against Black
applicants. The complaint alternatively alleged that, regardless of
the Defendants' intent, the policies did in fact disparately impact
Black applicants, who were purportedly hired at significantly lower
rates than white applicants. In discovery, Simpson produced
statistical evidence that he believes proves that, at each of the
five steps of the hiring process, Black applicants received
rejections more often than white applicants.

B

Mr. Simpson first moved to certify just one class of all
unsuccessful Black applicants dating back to March of 2015. He
later sought to add five subclasses for candidates rejected at each
of the five challenged steps of the hiring process. The district
court permitted Simpson to amend his complaint to add these
proposed subclasses before it considered the motion for class
certification. The Defendants had a full and fair opportunity to
oppose class certification, Circuit Judge Michael Y. Scudder,
writing for the Panel, notes.

The district court acknowledged that Simpson's proposed classes
alleged violations based on theories of both "disparate impact and
discriminatory intent." In denying the certification motion "in its
entirety," the court's analysis focused solely on Rule 23(a)(2)'s
"commonality" requirement--that there must exist "questions of law
or fact common to the class," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). As to each
of Simpson's proposed classes under both his disparate impact and
disparate treatment theories, the court determined that no such
common questions existed--a finding preventing certification. At no
point, though, did the district court differentiate or separate its
analysis of Simpson's disparate impact claims from its
consideration of his disparate treatment claims.

Mr. Simpson has not sought review of the district court's refusal
to certify either the original combined class or the subclasses for
steps (4) and (5) of the hiring process--the Merit Board's final
review and the Sheriff's Office's file review. He instead seeks
interlocutory review only as to the subclasses for steps (1), (2),
and (3)--the initial written exam, the written situational exam,
and the physical fitness test. The Court of Appeals refers to these
together as the exam subclasses.

The district court analyzed steps (1) and (2), the two written
exams, together and found that the class plaintiffs had "made
little effort to establish that these standardized tests are
racially biased." The court observed that these tests had "been
validated in other jurisdictions and by agencies throughout the
country." And while the Plaintiffs had presented statistical
evidence indicating that Black applicants were rejected at higher
rates than white applicants at both steps, the district court
discredited this evidence because it "did not control for any
racially neutral factors." The district court's analysis of step
(3), the physical fitness test, was much the same. The court found
that the Plaintiffs had failed to "present evidence that the
physical ability test was administered in a raciallybiased manner,"
and instead pointed only to statistical disparities in the pass
rates for white and Black applicants.

With his motion for class certification denied in its entirety,
Simpson invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) and sought
this Court's review. He contends that the district court erred in
finding that, as applied to the three exam subclasses, his
disparate impact claims did not present a common question capable
of classwide determination.

II

Promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(e), Rule 23(f) grants courts of appeals discretion to permit
an appeal from an order granting or denying class action
certification, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).

Judge Scudder explains that the Panel has often exercised that
discretion where "deciding the appeal would clarify class action
law," citing Driver v. AppleIllinois, LLC, 739 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th
Cir. 2014) (citing Blair v. Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d
832, 835 (7th Cir. 1999). This is such a case, Judge Scudder finds.
So the Court of Appeals grants Simpson's petition and vacate the
district court's judgment as to the three exam subclasses, making
two observations to help inform the district court's analysis on
remand.

First, Rule 23(a) enumerates four--and only four--requirements for
class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy of representation. Likelihood of success on the merits is
not among them.

Judge Scudder finds that front and center here is the second of
Rule 23(a)'s four requirements--commonality. The first
element--identifying a discrete employment policy to
challenge--often presents difficulties for proposed disparate
impact classes. This difficulty may have doomed certification of
Simpson's subclasses (4) and (5), as both the Merit Board's final
review and the Sheriff's Office's file review processes seem to
involve multiple decisionmakers exercising discretion in various
unknown ways.

The Court of Appeals needs not decide the issue, because Simpson
has limited his petition to subclasses (1), (2), and (3)--the three
exam subclasses. And those subclasses, it seems, concern challenges
not to the exercise of discretion by multiple actors but to the
uniform administration of standardized tests to each putative class
member.

Where, as here, a plaintiff identifies a discrete employment policy
that allegedly results in discrimination, Title VII disparate
impact claims are well suited for classwide adjudication: the
policy either disparately impacted the plaintiff class or it did
not, Judge Scudder observes. To put it even more in terms of this
case, once Simpson has identified the three challenged exams, the
ensuing Rule 23 analysis requires no inquiry into the merits to
determine that the remaining two elements of his disparate impact
claims almost necessarily present questions common to the
class--whether those exams in fact caused a disparate impact and,
if so, whether the use of the exams was justified by business
necessity.

Accordingly, Judge Scudder opines, the district court's analysis
was not "limited to those aspects of the merits that affect the
decisions essential under Rule 23," citing Dancel v. Groupon, Inc.,
949 F.3d 999, 1005 (7th Cir. 2019). To assess whether Simpson's
claims presented common questions, the district court did not need
to consider whether Simpson's statistical experts controlled for
racially neutral factors or whether the tests had been validated
for use at other departments. These considerations go not to
commonality but instead to whether the exam subclasses can
ultimately succeed on the merits. The Panel cannot know at this
stage. But what the Panel can say is that, as to each subclass, the
answer seems likely to be the same for each class member. That is
all that Rule 23(a)(2) requires, Judge Scudder points out.

As to the second observation, Judge Scudder notes that some of the
confusion in the district court's opinion appears to stem from not
separating its analysis of Simpson's disparate impact claims from
its assessment of his disparate treatment claims. The claims are
not one and the same. Indeed, today they root themselves in
different provisions of Title VII.

Judge Scudder explains that commonality may be harder to establish
for disparate treatment claims, as those claims require proof of
intentional discrimination, which is not an element of a disparate
impact claim. Simpson has not petitioned for review of the class
certification decision as to his disparate treatment claims.
Accordingly, the Court can assume without deciding that it was
reasonable for the district court to find that Simpson had not
shown that the question of intent was a common one that would yield
a common answer across each proposed class.

Even so, class certification is not an all-or-nothing proposition,
Judge Scudder states. Certification may be appropriate as to some
of the class's claims but not others. This observation flows from
the text of Rule 23 itself: an order certifying a class "must
define the class and the class claims, issues, or defenses," Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B). If a class's definition was synonymous with
its claims, this language would be superfluous. Instead, the
"class" takes its definition from the people in it and the period
of time during which the relevant conduct occurred, and the "class
claims" are the legal claims for which the class satisfies all of
Rule 23's certification requirements.

Sometimes those requirements may be satisfied as to some of the
class representative's claims but not others, Judge Scudder holds.
Only the former become "class claims." So the fact that the
district court found that Simpson could not show that, as to the
three exam subclasses, his disparate treatment claims were capable
of classwide resolution, does not mean that the same must be true
for his disparate impact claims, Judge Scudder points out.

For their part, the Defendants insist that the district court's
failure to separate the disparate impact and disparate treatment
claims is Simpson's own fault. Simpson, they say, conflated his
disparate impact and disparate treatment theories and focused his
efforts primarily on the latter. The Defendants, therefore, ask the
Court to find the disparate impact claims waived.

Judge Scudder holds that the Court of Appeals declines to do so.
Simpson's disparate impact claims have been in this case since its
inception, and he briefed them in his motion for class
certification. Nothing prevents a Title VII plaintiff from alleging
both that a challenged policy caused a disparate impact and that it
was intended to do so. And the district court recognized that
Simpson had done just that, calling his claim one for "disparate
impact and discriminatory intent."

But the district court's analysis did not reflect that recognition,
Judge Scudder observes. When conducting class certification
analyses, district courts should assess the four Rule 23(a) factors
as to each of the putative class claims. A one size (or one claim)
approach is at odds with the "rigorous analysis" required at the
class certification stage. Instead, as the Court recently
explained, a district court should begin by identifying the
elements of the plaintiff's various claims: only by properly
circumscribing the claims and breaking them down into their
constituent elements can a district court decide which issues are
common, individual, and predominant.

Hence, the Court of Appeals grants Simpson's petition, vacates the
denial of class certification in part, and remands for the district
court to reconsider certification of the three exam subclasses in
light of this Court's observations and the remaining Rule 23
factors. Whether Simpson's three exam subclasses will ultimately
merit certification is a question for the district court to answer
in the first instance, Judge Scudder holds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr32vt2n from Leagle.com.


CRST EXPEDITED: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Huckaby v. CRST
Expedited, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07766-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order on the operative
deadline to file motions for class certification. It remains as set
and the parties' Stipulation is denied because the parties failed
to demonstrate the good cause necessary to warrant such an
extension.

On November 29, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting
the operative dates and deadlines for this action. According to the
Scheduling Order, motions for class certification "must be filed
within 120 days after service of a pleading purporting to commence
a class action."

On December 7, 2021, the parties filed a first stipulation to
extend this motion deadline to February 27, 2022. The Court granted
that extension.

On January 18, 2022, the parties filed a second stipulation to
extend the February 27, 2022 deadline to 60 days after the
Court’s issuance of a ruling on Plaintiff's pending Motion to
Remand.

In their Stipulation, the parties state that a deadline extension
is necessary "due to the volume of discovery necessary for class
certification." In its original Scheduling Order, the Court already
advised the parties that, "The Court will rarely grant stipulations
or applications to extend that deadline. Specifically, the failure
to complete class discovery before the deadline does not constitute
good cause to extend the deadline," the Court says.

CRST provides transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nGhOSvat no extra charge.[CC]

CUBA GOODING: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe v. Cuba Gooding,
Jr., Case No. 1:20-cv-06569-PAC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered an order on motion for class
certification:

   1. The above-referenced action has been referred to the
      undersigned for general pre-trial purposes. All pre-trial
      applications, including those relating to scheduling and
      discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except
      motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for
      injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class
      certification).

   2. The parties should write to the Court at any time that
      they wish to participate in Court-sponsored mediation.

   3. All discovery (as well as requests for admissions) must be
      initiated in time to be concluded by the deadline for all
      discovery.

   4. Discovery motions -- that is, any application pursuant to
      Rules 26 through 37 or 45 -- not only must comply with
      par. 2.A. of the Court's Individual Practices but also
      must be made promptly after the cause for such a motion
      arises.

   5. Any application for an extension of the time limitations
      with respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made
      as soon as the cause for the extension becomes known to
      the party making the application and must be made in
      accordance with par. 1.E of the Court's Individual
      Practices.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GIEyc6 at no extra charge.[CC]


DAIRYLAND USA: Bid to Disqualify El-Hag as Orbetta's Counsel Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAURICIO ORBETTA, et al., Plaintiffs v. DAIRYLAND USA
CORPORATION and THE CHEF'S WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20
Civ. 9000 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
Defendants' motion for Jordan El-Hag's disqualification as one of
the Plaintiffs' counsel.

I. Background

In the wage-and-hour employment case, one of the Plaintiffs'
attorneys, El-Hag, also led the Plaintiffs' union's collective
bargaining negotiations with Defendants. The Plaintiffs have sued
the Defendants under federal and state employment law, arguing that
they were paid insufficient wages.

Plaintiff Orbetta alleges that he formerly worked as a delivery
driver for the Defendants. On Oct. 27, 2020, he commenced the suit
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and a class action under the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Fifty-two other plaintiffs, also delivery
drivers, have since joined the case.

On Feb. 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
asserting six causes of action that allege failure to pay the
minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, and failure
to provide required pay notices under sections 195(1) and 195(3) of
the NYLL. Because the Complaint alleges that the Defendants'
violations of the FLSA were willful, the Plaintiffs contend that
the statute of limitations applicable under the FLSA is three
years, rather than the usual two. .

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1430 (the
"Union") represented the Plaintiffs as the exclusive collective
bargaining agent in their dealings with the Defendants. The Union
has represented the Defendants' delivery drivers since Sept. 30,
2013, and negotiations between the Union and the Defendants have
culminated in a series of written collective bargaining agreements.
The first collective bargaining agreement was negotiated in August
2014 with a three-year term, the second was renegotiated for
another three-year term to extend through August 2020, and the
current version was negotiated in August 2020 and has a five-year
term.

El-Hag, who is the lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, serves as the
chief officer and legal counsel of the Union. Both the Union and
the Defendants were represented by bargaining committees in their
collective bargaining negotiations. El-Hag, a member of the Union's
bargaining committee, "acts as the chief negotiator of almost all
the contracts to which the Union is a party." Although El-Hag
served as the Union's chief negotiator in the negotiations with the
Defendants, he was not its sole representative. Other members of
the Union's bargaining committee included the Union's President,
Vice President, business agent, and shop stewards.

Mr. El-Hag attests that he has no firsthand knowledge of the
Defendants' decision-making related to the collective bargaining
agreements or compliance with the FLSA and the NYLL. But Patricia
Lecouras, the Chief Human Resources Officer of The Chef's
Warehouse, attests that during the 2020 negotiations, the
Defendants and the Union agreed that Plaintiffs were properly
classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and the NYLL.

On July 6, 2021, the Defendants moved to disqualify El-Hag as
counsel for the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs opposed on July 14,
2021, and the Defendants replied on Aug. 3, 2021.

II. Analysis

The Defendants move to disqualify El-Hag, arguing that his
representation violates the witness-advocate rule in two ways.
First, El-Hag's testimony would be significantly useful to the
Plaintiffs because he negotiated the collective bargaining
agreements. Second, El-Hag's testimony would be necessary to the
Defendants and prejudicial to his clients because he would confirm
that, during collective bargaining negotiations, the Defendants
viewed the Plaintiffs as exempt from certain FLSA provisions under
29 U.S.C. Section 213(b)(1).

Relevant to the Defendants' motion is the concept of willfulness.
"A cause of action arising out of a willful violation" of the FLSA
has a three-year, rather than a two-year, statute of limitations. A
willful violation is one committed with knowledge of or reckless
disregard for the statute's requirements. But "if an employer acts
unreasonably, but not recklessly, in determining its legal
obligation, its action should not be considered willful." As noted,
the Plaintiffs seek to invoke this three-year statute of
limitations provision by alleging that the Defendants' FLSA
violations were willful.

Judge Cronan opines that neither argument raised by the Defendants
warrants El-Hag's disqualification as counsel. First, he finds that
the Defendants' primary argument appears to be grounded in
speculation that El-Hag's testimony as to the negotiations might
support a finding of Defendants' willfulness. But even putting
aside that the Plaintiffs' have not indicated that they plan to
call El-Hag as a witness, the Defendants have not even suggested
what his testimony would entail, let alone whether it would be
relevant and admissible. And to the extent that speculation is
based on El-Hag's participation in the collective bargaining
negotiations, the Defendants have not shown that El-Hag negotiated
without the bargaining team at any relevant time or that he alone
would have proof of their willfulness.

For similar reasons, Judge Cronan opines that the Defendants have
not shown that El-Hag's testimony is either necessary to their case
or likely to be prejudicial to the Plaintiffs'. For the same
reasons -- i.e., the limited probative value of testimony from
El-Hag and the availability of substitute witnesses -- there also
is no substantial likelihood of prejudice by permitting El-Hag to
remain as counsel. Judge Cronan is similarly unpersuaded by the
Defendants' contention the Plaintiffs would be prejudiced because,
"if his testimony di] not confirm what is alleged in the Complaint,
the Plaintiffs' claims would be severely undermined." Such
speculation, which could apply in any case, fails to establish a
"substantial" "likelihood of prejudice."

III. Conclusion

Judge Cronan, therefore, denies the Defendants' motion to
disqualify El-Hag as counsel for the Plaintiffs, and directed the
Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at Docket Number 89.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2yvyca5 from Leagle.com.


DEBT RESOLUTION: Class Cert. Bid Deadline Extended in McGalloway
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGalloway v. Debt
Resolution Direct LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01740 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend the
      deadline for class certification; and

   2. vacating all remaining deadlines.

The court will schedule a status conference after all parties have
appeared , says Judge Dries.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit.[CC]

DHI MORTGAGE: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Miller, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit recently reversed a trial court's order dismissing a
putative class action complaint and granting the defendant lender's
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement
with the plaintiff loan officer.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with its sister circuits and held that
parties cannot delegate issues of formation to the arbitrator.

The Court further held that the agreement at issue did not
constitute a properly formed contract between the lender's former
employee (the plaintiff loan officer) and the lender's parent
company, with which the former employee had no employment
relationship.

A copy of the opinion in Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortgage Co. is available
at: Link to Opinion.

When the plaintiff was hired as a loan officer by a lender, he
signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement ("MAA") with the parent
company of the lender. The MAA included a delegation clause
providing that the arbitrator would have "exclusive authority to
resolve any dispute relating to the formation, enforceability,
applicability, or interpretation" of the MAA.

Following termination of the employment relationship, the former
employee brought employment-related claims against the lender. The
lender moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the putative
class claims. The former employee opposed the motion, contending
that the MAA was never properly formed due to a failure to satisfy
a condition precedent in the MAA.

The trial court granted the lender's motion. Citing the delegation
clause, the trial court concluded that formation issues, including
the former employee's condition precedent argument, could not be
decided by the court, and were instead delegated to the arbitrator.
The former employee timely appealed.

The Ninth Circuit began by noting that the "cardinal precept of
arbitration is that it is ‘simply a matter of contract between
the parties; it is a way to resolve those disputes -- but only
those disputes -- that the parties have agreed to submit to
arbitration.'" Local Joint Exec. Bd. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, Inc.,
911 F.3d 588, 595 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting First Options of
Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995)). Thus, "[w]here
a party contests either or both matters, the court must resolve the
disagreement." Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561
U.S. 287, 299 (2010).

It is well-established that some "gateway" issues pertaining to an
arbitration agreement, such as issues of validity and
arbitrability, can be delegated to an arbitrator by agreement. See
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444, 452 (2003). The
issue before the Ninth Circuit was whether parties may also agree
to delegate issues of formation to an arbitrator.

The lender argued that the trial court did not have the authority
to decide whether an agreement to arbitrate existed when the
parties delegated the arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.
However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, pointing out that the Fifth
and Tenth Circuits have rejected that very argument. See, e.g.,
Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., 888 F.3d 738, 744 (5th Cir. 2018); Fedor
v. United Healthcare, Inc., 976 F.3d 1100, 1104 (10th Cir. 2020).

Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that parties cannot delegate issues of
formation to the arbitrator, even where a delegation clause exists.
Here, where the former employee challenged the very existence of an
agreement to arbitrate, the trial court was required to address the
former employee's challenge and determine whether an agreement
existed. See Granite Rock, 561 U.S. at 299–300. If no agreement
to arbitrate was formed, then there was no basis upon which to
compel arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit then analyzed whether the MAA constituted a
properly formed agreement between the former employee and the
parent company.

The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, on its face, the MAA was plainly
drafted to govern an employer-employee relationship. For example,
in Paragraph 1, the MAA stated that "Employee and the Company both
agree all legal disputes and claims between them, including without
limitation those relating to Employee's employment with the Company
or any separation therefrom . . . shall be determined exclusively
by final and binding arbitration."

However, the Ninth Circuit found that none of the MAA's provisions
had any relevance to any relationship between the former employee
and the parent company. All parties appeared to agree that the
former employee's only employer was the lender, but, in its
introductory sentence, the MAA defined the former employee's
employer as the parent company alone. In fact, the Court observed
that nowhere in the MAA was there any specific reference to the
former employee's actual employer, the lender.

To the extent the lender suggested that the definition of the
parent company as the employer also encompassed its subsidiaries,
such as the lender, the Ninth Circuit was unconvinced. The Court
instead affirmed its adherence to the fundamental principle that
corporations, including parent companies and their subsidiaries,
are treated as distinct entities. See Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson,
538 U.S. 468, 474 (2003).

Therefore, the Ninth Circuit held that the MAA, as drafted,
described and governed a relationship between the former employee
and the parent company that did not exist, and thus did not
constitute a properly formed agreement to arbitrate.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court's judgment
and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[GN]

DISH NETWORK: Liable to 401(K) Plan Losses, Jones Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAQUITA JONES, LATEESHA PROCTOR, PATRICK SMITH, and BEN MCCOLLUM,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the DISH NETWORK CORPORATION 401(K)
PLAN, Plaintiffs v. DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, THE RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION; and DOES No. 1-20, whose
names are currently unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00167-CMA
(D. Colo., January 20, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, failure to monitor
fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches, and in the alternative,
liability for knowing breach of trust under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Dish Network Corporation 401(k) Plan by
failing to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's
investment options to participants; allowing unreasonable expenses
to be charged to participants; and selecting, retaining, and/or
otherwise ratifying high-cost and poorly-performing investments,
instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such
prudent investments were readily available at the time Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the class
period. The Plaintiffs and all Plan participants allegedly suffered
financial harm as a result of the Plan's imprudent investment
options and excessive fees, and were deprived of the opportunity to
invest in prudent options with reasonable fees, among other
injuries.

Dish Network Corporation is an American television provider and the
owner of the direct-broadcast satellite provider, headquartered in
Englewood, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                 lrubinow@millershah.com

                - and –

         James C. Shah, Esq.
         Alec J. Berin, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                 ajberin@millershah.com

                - and –

         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         19712 MacArthur Blvd.
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: kctang@millershah.com

                - and –

         Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
         Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         312 Old Lancaster Road
         Merion Station, PA 19066
         Telephone: (610) 890-0200
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                 gabriellek@capozziadler.com

                - and –

         Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
         CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
         2933 North Front Street
         Harrisburg, PA 17110
         Telephone: (717) 233-4101
         Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
         E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

DOUGLASVILLE BAY: Tipped Employee Class Gets Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY DONNELLY
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
DOUGLASVILLE BAY BREEZE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01948-TWT
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order
granting unopposed the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of a  collective action:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of tipped employees
      who worked at a Defendants' Sea Breeze Restaurant in
      Douglasville within three years of the Court's order;

   2.approving Plaintiffs' Amended Notice;

   3. approving the requested Notice period and plan for issuing
      the Notice; and

   4. directing the Defendants to produce the list of potential
      class members as requested in Plaintiffs' Motion.

This is an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage action.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kuiynx at no extra charge.[CC]

DREAM BIG: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREAM BIG, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00023-B (S.D. Ala., January 20, 2022) 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 and failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately February of 2017 until May of
2020.

Dream Big, Inc. is an owner and operator of a Marco's Pizza
franchise in Baldwin County, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Courtney Lowery, 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: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

DYLA LLC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Diet Peach Tea Drink
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action against Dyla LLC claims the label of the company's
Snapple diet peach tea powdered drink mix is misleading in that it
fails to disclose the presence of an artificial flavor.

According to the 13-page case, the front label of the diet Snapple
drink mix states that the product is "Naturally Flavored With Other
Natural Flavors" yet fails to disclose the presence of dl-malic
acid, an artificial flavoring made from petroleum. Per the lawsuit,
state and federal food labeling regulations require artificial
flavors to be disclosed on a product's front label.

The case claims consumers would have paid less for the diet Snapple
drink mix, or would not have purchased it at all, had they known
the product contained artificial malic acid. Per the suit, the
value of the drink mix was much less than represented by the
defendant given the presence of an artificial flavor.

"Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers," the complaint
alleges.

According to the lawsuit, many consumers look to avoid artificially
flavored foods because they consider products made without
artificial flavors to be healthier and more environmentally
friendly.

The suit says that although the ingredients list for the diet
Snapple drink mix states that the product includes "Natural
Flavor," it also lists malic acid, which lends foods a tart, fruity
flavor and occurs naturally in fruit but can also be produced
synthetically from petroleum. The case claims that laboratory
analysis has shown that the variety of malic acid used in the diet
Snapple drink mix is dl-malic acid, the synthetic chemical version
of the flavoring.

According to the complaint, the defendant used synthetic malic acid
in the drink mix because it was cheaper and "more accurately
resembled natural peach flavor."

The lawsuit alleges that the "natural flavors" representation on
the front label of the diet Snapple drink mix leads consumers to
mistakenly believe that the product contains only natural flavors.

"Consumers are unable to learn the malic acid listed in the
ingredients is the artificial version without a chemistry kit," the
complaint attests.

The case looks to cover anyone in Illinois, Michigan, Texas,
Arkansas, Delaware, Wyoming, Virginia and Oklahoma who purchased
the diet Snapple drink mix within the applicable statute of
limitations. [GN]

EHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, informs
purchasers of the securities of eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH)
between April 26, 2018 and July 23, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the updated March 18, 2022lead plaintiff
deadline in the action In re eHealth Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The action has been temporarily
stayed pending the appointment of a new lead plaintiff.

SO WHAT: If you purchased eHealth securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the eHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1836.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 18, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period materially misrepresented the costs and
expenses incurred by eHealth in connection with the retention of
its policyholders. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the eHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1836.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

ENCLARITY INC: Fulton Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW N. FULTON, DDS,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ENCLARITY, INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK
SOLUTIONS GA INC., LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., and JOHN DOES
1-12, Case No. 2:16-cv-13777-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All persons: (1) to whom Defendants sent one or more
      faxes during the period between October 30, 2012, and
      December 6, 2016, requesting that the recipient review,
      update, and correct the contact information on the fax for
      an identified medical provider and return it by fax; and
      (2) for whom Defendants have produced no record of any
      contact other than a complaint or request to stop sending
      such faxes;" and

   2. appointing Plaintiff as its representative and Plaintiff's
      attorneys, Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC, as class counsel.

Enclarity provides healthcare information solutions.

LexisNexis Risk is a global data and analytics company that
provides data and technology services, analytics, predictive
insights and fraud prevention for a wide range of industries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AnwA5S
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Extend Time to Respond Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et
al., v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-05072-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order granting
in part the defendant's motion for an extension of time to file a
response to plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Defendant's response is due by February 4, 2022. Because I am
granting the defendant additional time to respond, I will allow the
plaintiffs additional time to file any reply. The Plaintiffs' reply
is due by February 18, 2022. The hearing on the motion for class
certification, currently set for February 9, 2022, is rescheduled
for March 9, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.,  Judge Orrick says.

Equinox Holdings is located in New York, New York, and is part of
the Other Amusement and Recreation Industries Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nG0YmM at no extra charge.[CC]


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: FeganScott Broadens Investigation Amid Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer-rights law firm FeganScott on Jan. 18 disclosed that it is
broadening its investigation of Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS)
(NYSE:ELS) to include other mobile home properties owned and
operated by ELS across 33 states.

FeganScott filed a class-action lawsuit earlier this month in the
Southern District of Florida, alleging that ELS and the operator of
the Heritage Plantation mobile home park in Vero Beach, a
subsidiary of ELS, have failed to maintain the park's stormwater
drainage system, leaving residents to deal with frequent flooding,
mud, slip and fall injuries, and damaged mobile homes and cars, in
dereliction of their duties as mobile home park operators and
owners.

"Since we filed our complaint on behalf of the residents in Vero
Beach, we've learned that this might not be an issue limited to
this one property but could be a systemic issue with ELS properties
across the state of Florida and in other states as well," said
Elizabeth Fegan, founding partner and managing member of FeganScott
and lead attorney representing the residents.

In the Florida lawsuit, homeowners claim they have had to pay to
replace flooring that is persistently damaged by the three-feet
high floodwaters that occur after normal rainfall. In addition to
the stress of frequent household damages, residents risk injuries
caused by muddy accumulations and face health risks caused by mold
growth caused by the flood waters.

"Heritage Plantation, like many of ELS' properties, is an
age-qualified community, meaning its residents are over the age of
55. Many of those residents are on a fixed incomes and because
mobile homes cannot easily be moved, cannot relocate to another
mobile home park and so are trapped by ELS's neglect," Fegan added.
"As we noted in our complaint, we contend that ELS has made the
decision to forego necessary infrastructure investments in efforts
to increase profits at the expense of residents' safety and
wellbeing and believe this extends to other ELS properties."

FeganScott urges residents and homeowners who live in properties
managed by ELS to learn more about their rights by contacting the
firm at heritage@feganscott.com.

                       About FeganScott

FeganScott is a national class action law firm dedicated to helping
victims of consumer fraud, sexual abuse, and discrimination. The
firm is championed by acclaimed veteran, class action attorneys who
have successfully recovered $1 billion for victims nationwide.
FeganScott is committed to pursuing successful outcomes with
integrity and excellence while holding the responsible parties
accountable.

Media Only:

Mark Firmani
feganscottpr@firmani.com
206.466.2700
Case: 8:20-cv-01584
https://feganscott.com [GN]

EYEMED VISION: Case Schedule Amended in Tate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDRA TATE, et al., v.
EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole entered an order granting the joint
motion to amend the case schedule as follows:

  -- Substantial completion of              May 16, 2022
     document production:

  -- Plaintiffs' class certification        August 4, 2022
     expert report(s) and
     designation(s):

  -- Plaintiffs' class certification        August 24, 2022
     motion:

  -- The Defendant's class                  September 15, 2022
     certification expert
     report(s) and designation(s):

  -- The Defendant's opposition             October 14, 2022
     to class certification motion:

  -- Rebuttal class certification           October 28, 2022
     expert report(s) and
     designation(s):

  -- Plaintiffs' reply in support           November 16, 2022
     of class certification motion:

  -- Plaintiffs' merit expert               December 8, 2022
     report(s) and designation(s):

  -- Defendant's merit expert               January 13, 2023
     report(s) and designation(s):




  -- Fact discovery deadline:               February 16, 2023


  -- Rebuttal merit expert                  February 21, 2023
     report(s) and designation(s):

  -- Disclosure of lay witnesses:           February 23, 2023

  -- Expert discovery deadline:             March 23, 2023

  -- Dispositive motion deadline:           June 15, 2023

Eyemed provides vision benefits programs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qO7p9u at no extra charge.[CC]

FACEBOOK INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Klein Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FACEBOOK,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-08570-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy
H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
Facebook's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Consumer Class Action
Complaint and the Consolidated Advertiser Class Action Complaint
with leave to amend.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Maximilian Klein; Sarah Grabert; and Rachel Banks Kupcho
(collectively, "Consumers") and Affilious, Inc.; Jessyca Frederick;
Mark Young; Joshua Jeon; 406 Property Services, PLLC; Mark Berney;
Jessica Layser; Katherine Looper; and Zahara Mossman (collectively,
"Advertisers") individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sue Defendant Facebook.

On Dec. 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Klein and Grabert filed an initial
complaint against Defendant Facebook. Subsequently, 11 other
antitrust cases were filed by consumers and advertisers against
Facebook. On Feb. 9, 2021, the Court: (1) granted motions to relate
Sherman v. Facebook, Kupcho v. Facebook, Dames v. Facebook,
Steinberg v. Facebook, Layser v. Facebook, and Rosenman v. Facebook
to the instant case; (2) concluded that Affilious v. Facebook was
related to the instant case; and (3) consolidated these cases with
the instant case. On Feb. 11, 2021, Plaintiff Rosenman voluntarily
dismissed her case.

On Feb. 25, 2021, the Court granted motions to relate Kovacevich v.
Facebook and Garvin v. Facebook to the instant case and
consolidated these cases with the instant case. On March 16, 2021,
it granted a motion to relate Wasvary v. Facebook to the instant
case and consolidated it with the instant case. On April 9, 2021,
the Court granted a motion to relate Ryan v. Facebook to the
instant case and consolidated that case with the instant case.

After voluntarily dismissing her federal case on Feb. 11, 2021,
Plaintiff Rosenman refiled her case in state court, and Facebook
removed the refiled case to federal court. On April 9, 2021, the
Court related the refiled Rosenman Case to the instant case. On
April 26, 2021, Rosenman filed a motion to remand, which the Court
denied on Aug. 27, 2021.

On March 18, 2021, the Court held a hearing on motions for
appointment as interim class counsel. That same day, it appointed
Stephen A. Swedlow of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and
Shana A. Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as the Interim
Class Counsel for the Consumer class ("Consumers") and appointed
Warren Postman of Keller Lenkner and Brian D. Clark of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. to serve on the Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee for Consumers.

On March 18, 2021, the Court appointed Yavar Bataee of Bathaee
Dunne LLP and Kristen M. Anderson of Scott + Scott LLP as the
Interim Class Counsel for the Advertiser class ("Advertisers") and
appointed Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and Keith J. Verrier
of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP to serve on the Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee for Advertisers.

On April 22, 2021, the Consumers filed a Consolidated Consumer
Class Action Complaint. The Consumers are individuals who use
Facebook's services, including Facebook, Facebook Messenger,
Instagram, and WhatsApp. They allege that, "absent Facebook's
anticompetitive scheme, fair competition would have required
Facebook to provide consumers greater value in return for the
consumers' data on a market-wide basis."

The Consumers seek to represent a class of "all persons in the
United States who maintained a Facebook profile at any point from
2007 up to the date of the filing of the action." They assert five
claims: (1) monopolization of the Social Network Market in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) attempted
monopolization of the Social Network Market in violation of Section
2 of the Sherman Act; (3) monopolization of the Social Media Market
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (4) attempted
monopolization of the Social Media Market in violation of Section 2
of the Sherman Act; and (5) unjust enrichment under California
common law.

On April 22, 2021, the Advertisers filed a Consolidated Advertiser
Class Action Complaint. The Advertisers are individuals, entities,
and corporations who purchased advertising from Facebook. They
allege that they paid prices for advertising that were "higher than
they would have been absent Facebook's anticompetitive conduct and
unlawfully acquired and/or maintained monopoly."

Affilious, Inc.; Jessyca Frederick; Joshua Jeon; and 406 Property
Services, PLLC seek to represent a class of "all persons, entities,
and/or corporations in the United States who purchased advertising
from Facebook between Oct. 1, 2012, and April 3, 2018, but not
after April 3, 2018." Mark Berney, Mark Young, Jessica Layser,
Katherine Looper, and Zahara Mossman seek to represent a class of
"all persons, entities, and/or corporations in the United States
who purchased advertising from Facebook between April 4, 2018, and
the present."

The Advertisers assert three claims: (1) monopolization of the
Social Advertising Market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act; (2) attempted monopolization of the Social Advertising Market
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (3) restraint of
trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

On May 7, 2021, Facebook filed a motion to disqualify Keller
Lenkner. On July 13, 2021, the Court granted Facebook's motion to
disqualify Keller Lenkner in advance of the July 15, 2021 hearing
on Facebook's motion to dismiss in light of the importance of the
issues raised by the motion to disqualify. It noted that the Court
was focusing on preparation for the motion to dismiss hearing and
would issue a written decision on the motion to disqualify shortly.
On July 20, 2021, the Court issued a written decision on the motion
to disqualify.

On May 20, 2021, Facebook filed the instant motion to dismiss. On
June 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On June 28,
2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued
decisions on Facebook's motions to dismiss in FTC v. Facebook,
Inc., No. 20-CV-3590-JEB, and State of New York v. Facebook, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-3589-JEB. On July 1, 2021, the Court permitted the
Plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief regarding those decisions.
On July 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief. On July
7, 2021, Facebook filed a reply. The Court held a hearing on the
instant motion on July 15, 2021.

Plaintiff Layser voluntarily dismissed her case on Aug. 5, 2021.
Plaintiff Mossman voluntarily dismissed her case on Nov. 4, 2021.
Thus, a total of 11 cases remain.

II. Discussion

The Consumers allege that Facebook violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Act through a "two-pronged anticompetitive strategy."
First, they allege that Facebook acquired and maintained monopoly
power in the Social Network and Social Media Markets by making
false representations to users about Facebook's data privacy
practices. For ease of reference, the Court refers to Consumers'
claims based on this theory of liability as Consumers' "data
privacy claims." Second, the Consumers allege that Facebook's
"Copy, Acquire, Kill" strategy allowed Facebook to maintain
monopoly power in the Social Network and Social Media Markets. The
Court refers to Consumers' claims based on this theory of liability
as Consumers' "'Copy, Acquire, Kill' claims."

The Consumers also allege that Facebook's conduct constitutes
unjust enrichment under California common law. The Court refers to
this as Consumers' "Unjust Enrichment claim."

Like the Consumers, the Advertisers challenge Facebook's "Copy,
Acquire, Kill" strategy under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Specifically, they allege that the "Copy, Acquire, Kill" strategy
allowed Facebook to maintain monopoly power in the Social
advertising Market. The Court refers to Advertisers' claims based
on this theory of liability as Advertisers' "'Copy, Acquire, Kill'
claims."

Additionally, the Advertisers allege that Facebook maintained
monopoly power in the Social Advertising Market by entering a
contract with Google called the Google Network Bidding Agreement
("GNBA"). They also allege that the GNBA was an unreasonable
restraint of trade. Thus, Advertisers challenge the GNBA under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The
Court refers to these claims as Advertisers' "GNBA claims."

Facebook moves to dismiss all of these claims. Specifically,
Facebook argues that: (1) neither Consumers nor Advertisers have
alleged cognizable product markets; (2) Consumers have not
plausibly alleged monopoly power; (3) Consumers' data privacy
claims are untimely; (4) Consumers' and Advertisers' "Copy,
Acquire, Kill" claims are untimely; (5) Consumers have not
plausibly alleged that Facebook's deceptive data privacy practices
were anticompetitive; (6) neither Consumers nor Advertisers have
plausibly alleged that Facebook's "Copy, Acquire, Kill" strategy
was anticompetitive; (7) neither Consumers nor Advertisers have
adequately alleged causal antitrust injury; and (8) Consumers have
not adequately stated a claim for unjust enrichment. Facebook also
argues that Consumers' requests for injunctive relief are barred by
the doctrine of laches.

Judge Koh rules as follows: (1) the Consumers and the Advertisers
have adequately alleged that Facebook has monopoly power in
cognizable product markets; (2) because the Consumers have
adequately alleged that their data privacy claims are timely, that
Facebook's false representations about its data privacy constitute
exclusionary conduct, and that the Consumers have suffered a causal
antitrust injury, Judge Koh will deny Facebook's motion to dismiss
Consumers' data privacy claims; (3) because the Consumers' and the
Advertisers' "Copy, Acquire, Kill" claims are untimely, Judge Koh
will grant Facebook's motion to dismiss the Consumers' and the
Advertisers' "Copy, Acquire, Kill" claims with leave to amend; (4)
because the Advertisers have adequately alleged that they were
injured by the GNBA, Judge Koh will deny Facebook's motion to
dismiss Advertisers' GNBA claims; and (5) because the Consumers
have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment, Judge Koh will
grant Facebook's motion to dismiss Consumers' Unjust Enrichment
claim with leave to amend.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted in part and denied in
part Facebook's motion to dismiss. Specifically, she granted with
leave to amend Facebook's motion to dismiss the following claims:
Consumers' Copy, Acquire, Kill claims; Advertisers' Copy, Acquire,
Kill claims; and Consumers' Unjust Enrichment claim. Judge Koh
denied Facebook's motion to dismiss the following claims:
Consumers' data privacy claims; and Advertisers' GNBA claims.

The Plaintiffs will file any amended consolidated complaints within
45 days of the Order. Failure to do so, or failure to cure
deficiencies identified herein or identified in the instant motion
to dismiss, will result in dismissal of the deficient claims with
prejudice. The Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or add
new parties without stipulation or leave of the Court. They are
directed to file a redlined complaint comparing the complaint to
any amended complaint as an attachment to their amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m52m9dys from Leagle.com.


FARADAY FUTURE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Faraday Future Intelligent
Electric, Inc. f/k/a Property Solutions Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:
FFIE, FFIEW, PSAC, PSACW, PSACU) between January 28, 2021 and
November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important
February 22, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Faraday Future securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Faraday Future class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2206.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 22, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Faraday Future had assets in
China frozen by courts; (2) a significant percentage of Faraday
Future's deposits for future deliveries were attributable to a
single undisclosed affiliate; (3) Faraday Future's cars were not as
close to production as the Company claimed; (4) as a result of
previously issued statements that were misleading and/or
inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly
report; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Faraday Future's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Faraday Future class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2206.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Pistorio's Amended Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Edward Pistorio, et al., Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11838 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Sean F. Cox of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part FCA's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action
complaint.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action of nationwide vehicle
purchasers based on alleged defects in the Uconnect infotainment
systems of vehicles manufactured by Defendant FCA.

On July 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the action. On Aug. 12,
2021, Plaintiffs Pistorio, Paul Murdock, Daniel Przekop, Hasan
Aktulga, Sandra and Thomas Kloszewski, Randall Courtney, Corey
Gerritsen and Sara Elice, Justin and Elizabeth Bagley, and Marcus
Swindle filed the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint and Jury Demand. The Plaintiffs filed the action for
themselves and "on behalf of all persons in the United States who
purchased or leased any 2017-2019 Chrysler Pacifica or Chrysler 300
vehicles equipped with FCA US LLC's "Uconnect" infotainment system
("Class Vehicles") designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
sold, warranted, and/or serviced" by FCA.

The Amended Complaint is organized by the claims brought on behalf
of the Nationwide Class (Counts 1-4) and those brought on behalf of
the individual state sub-classes: the Alabama Sub-Class (Counts
5-10); the California Sub-Class (Counts 11-17); the Florida
Sub-Class (Counts 18-23); the Illinois Sub-Class (Counts 24-29);
the Michigan Sub-Class (Counts 30-35); and the Pennsylvania
Sub-Class (Counts 36-41).

The claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class are a
violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
2301, et seq. ("MMWA") (Count 1); fraudulent concealment (Count 2);
negligent misrepresentation (Count 3); and unjust enrichment (Count
4).

The claims brought on behalf of the Alabama Sub-Class are breach of
express warranty (Ala. Code Section 7-2-313) (Count 5); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Ala. Code Section 7-2314)
(Count 6); fraudulent concealment (based on Alabama law) (Count 7);
violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ala. Code
Section 8-19-1, et. seq.) (Count 8); negligent misrepresentation
(based on Alabama law) (Count 9); and unjust enrichment (based on
Alabama law) (Count 10).

The claims brought on behalf of the California Sub-Class are breach
of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1791.2 & 1793.2(d)) (Count 11); breach of
implied warranty pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1792 & 1791.1, et. seq.) (Count 12);
fraudulent concealment (based on California law) (Count 13);
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750, et seq.) (Count 14); violation of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. (Count 15);
negligent misrepresentation (based on California law) (Count 16);
unjust enrichment (based on California law) and (Count 17).

The claims brought on behalf of the Florida Sub-Class are breach of
express warranty (Fla. Stat. Section 672.313) (Count 18); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (Fla. Stat. Section 672.314)
(Count 19); fraudulent concealment (based on Florida law) (Count
20); violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(Fla. Stat. Section 501.201 et seq.) (Count 21); negligent
misrepresentation (based on Florida law) (Count 22); and unjust
enrichment (based on Florida law) (Count 23).

The claims brought on behalf of the Illinois Sub-Class are breach
of express warranty (810 ILCS 5/2-313) (Count 24); breach of
implied warranty of merchantability (810 ILCS 5/2-314 and 5/2A-212)
(Count 25); fraudulent concealment (based on Illinois law) (Count
26); violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.) (Count 27);
negligent misrepresentation (based on Illinois law) (Count 28); and
unjust enrichment (based on Illinois law) (Count 29).

The claims brought on behalf of the Michigan Sub-Class are breach
of express warranty (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Sections 440.2313 and
440.2860 (Count 30); breach of implied warranty of merchantability
(Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. Section 440.2314) (Count 31); fraudulent
concealment (based on Michigan law) (Count 32); violations of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann Section
445.903, et seq.) (Count 33); negligent misrepresentation (based on
Michigan law) (Count 34); and unjust enrichment (based on Michigan
law) (Count 35).

The claims brought on behalf of the Pennsylvania Sub-Class are
breach of express warranty (13 Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 2313) (Count
36); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (13 Pa. Stat.
Ann. Section 2314) (Count 37); fraudulent concealment (based on
Pennsylvania law) (Count 38); violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (73 P.S. Section 201-1,
et seq.) (Count 39); negligent misrepresentation (based on
Pennsylvania law) (Count 40); and unjust enrichment (based on
Pennsylvania law) (Count 40).

The Plaintiffs seek compensatory, statutory, and exemplary damages;
disgorgement; restitution; an order enjoining FCA "from further
deceptive practices"; an order compelling FCA "to reform its
warranty to cover the injury alleged; and attorney's fees.

Because the matter comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint, the allegations in the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint are taken as true. Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that
FCA manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the Class
Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' Uconnect
infotainment system (Uconnect) was defective. Specifically, the
Uconnect system is designed and/or manufactured with screens,
including their operating software and routing modules, that suffer
from freezing, loss of back up camera functionality, loss of
navigation system functionality, black screens, repeated
unintentional reboots, and general lack of operation (Uconnect
Defect). The Uconnect Defect results in the need for frequent
software updates and expensive replacements of screens and related
components. FCA knew about the deficiencies of the Uconnect well
before Plaintiffs purchased their Class Vehicles.

Currently before the Court is FCA's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The motion has been fully briefed, and a
hearing was held on Dec. 9, 2021.

II. Analysis and Order

In its motion to dismiss, FCA argues that the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed in its entirety. FCA's brief addresses each of
the 41 claims and why they argue the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for each.

Judge Cox granted in part and denied in part FCA's motion.
Specifically, he granted motion as to (i) the claims on behalf of a
nationwide class and dismissed Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4; (ii) the
breach of warranty claims under Florida law and dismissed Counts 18
and 19; (iii) the breach of implied warranty claims under Alabama
and Illinois law and dismissed Counts 5 and 24; (iv) the negligent
misrepresentation claim under Alabama law and dismissed Count 9;
(v) the MCPA claim and dismissed Count 33; and (vi) the unjust
enrichment claims and dismissed Counts 4, 10, 17, 23, 29, 35, and
41.

Among other things, with respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, FCA
argues that the claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class
should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs do not allege injuries
in states other than where they reside and purchased their vehicles
and they do not plead claims under the laws of all 50 states. Judge
Cox opines that the Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class
but only present factual allegations on behalf of named Plaintiffs
in only seven states. The named Plaintiffs do not allege injuries
in states other than their own or base their claims on the
application of other states' laws. The Plaintiffs therefore lack
standing to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class, and Judge
Cox granted FCA's motion as to the claims brought on behalf of the
nationwide class.

As to pre-suit notice under Florida law (Counts 18 and 19), Judge
Cox holds that Pistorio has not alleged that he has provided
pre-suit notice to FCA, and therefore he has not met the
requirements under Florida law to bring breach-of-warranty claims.
He granted FCA's motion as to the breach of warranty claims under
Florida law and dismissed Counts 18 & 19.

Regarding Counts 5 (implied warranty under Alabama law) and 24
(implied warranty under Illinois law), Judge Cox opines that (i) as
Przekop alleges he purchased his vehicles from an independent FCA
dealership, his implied warranty claim under Alabama law (Count 5)
must be dismissed; and (ii) Courtney alleges that the dealership
from which he purchased his vehicle was "an authorized FCA Dealer
in Sycamore, Illinois," so the breach of implied warranty claim
under Illinois law (Count 24) must be dismissed.

With respect to Count 9 under Alabama law, the Court asked the
Plaintiffs' counsel whether they had any authority to show that
Count 9 should not be dismissed under the economic loss doctrine,
and the Plaintiffs' counsel responded that they relied on
Tuscumbia. However, Judge Cox does not find that Tuscumbia applies
because the economic losses claimed by the Plaintiffs are the
consequences of the Uconnect defect. Hence, FCA's motion as to the
Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim under Alabama law is
granted.

FCA argues that the Plaintiffs' claim under the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act ("MCPA") should be dismissed because automobile
advertisement and sales are statutorily exempt from the MCPA. Judge
Cox granted FCA's motion as to the MCPA claim. He finds that courts
in this District have repeatedly held that "the general transaction
in the case (i.e., the sale of a new car by a licensed dealer) is
one specifically authorized and regulated by law; thus, it is
exempt from the MCPA."

Finally, with respect to Counts 10, 17, 23, 29, 35, 41 (unjust
enrichment claims), the parties agree that there is an express
warranty that governs the dispute: The Basic Limited Warranty.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must be
dismissed.

Judge Cox denied the remainder of FCA's motion. Counts 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36,
37, 38, 39, and 40 remain.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx6bfjsp from Leagle.com.


FIRST PENN-PACIFIC: Suits Seek to Certify Cases as Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the two cases against First Penn-Pacific Life
Insurance Company and Lincoln National Life Insurance Company --
Thomas Iwanski, TVPX ARS Inc., and Vida Longevity Fund -- move the
Court for an Order certifying the cases, which consist of claims
for breach of contract, as class actions pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class:

   "COI Overcharge Class."

   All owners of universal life insurance policies insured by
   First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company or Lincoln National
   Life Insurance Company that were (i) issued in the United
   States, excluding owners whose policies were issued in
   Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico, New York, and Washington; (ii)
   issued under the marketing names identified in Table 1 below;
   and (iii) assessed a cost of insurance charge during the
   Damages Period referenced in Table 1 below.

        Table 1 -- Class Products and Damages Periods

        Company        Damages Period         Marketing Name of
                                              Product Insured

  First Penn-Pacific    Beginning April         Advantage
  Life Insurance        13, 2014                MoneyGuard
  Company                                       MoneyGuard Flex
                                                MoneyGuard Plus
                                                New Advantage
                                                Premiere
                                                Strategist

  Lincoln National      Beginning July          Advantage
  Life Insurance        17, 2014                Advantage II
  Company                                       Advantage II NJ
                                                Advantage NJ
                                                Apex
                                                Irresistible
                                                P250
                                                Irresistible TMX
                                                Lifespan II-
                                                Ultraspan II
                                                SUL I
                                                SUL II
                                                SUL III LP
                                                SUL IV PL
                                                SUL LPR
                                                UL 1
                                                UL DB
                                                UL II
                                                UL III LP
                                                UL LPR
                                                Ultraspan 2001
                                                Ultraspan 85
                                                Utraspan XL
                                                VUL I

The Plaintiffs move, alternatively, for the certification of the
following Alternative Classes and the appointment of the
corresponding Class Representatives:

  -- "Registered Owners Class":

     Members of the COI Overcharge Class who are owners of
     record with Defendants (Plaintiffs Iwanski and TVPX).

  -- "Four-Corners States Class":

     Members of the Registered Owners Class, excluding owners of
     record with Defendants whose policies were issued in
     Arizona, California, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
     Vermont, and Wyoming (Plaintiffs Iwanski and TVPX).

  -- "Nine-State Class": Members of the COI Overcharge Class
     whose policies were issued in California, Florida,
     Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
     Pennsylvania, or Tennessee (Plaintiffs Iwanski, TVPX, and
     Vida).

  -- "Lincoln Products Class": Members of the Registered Owners
     Class whose policies were issued under one of the following
     marketing names: SUL I, SUL II, SUL III LP, SUL IV PL, SUL
     LPR, UL 1, UL II, UL LPR, or UL III LP (Plaintiff TVPX).

  -- "Form LN580 Class": Members of the Registered Owners Class
     whose policies were issued under the marketing names UL II
     or UL LPR (Plaintiff TVPX).

  -- "Irresistible Class": Members of the COI Overcharge Class
     whose policies were issued under the marketing names
     Irresistible P250 or Irresistible TMX (Plaintiff Vida).

  -- "MoneyGuard Class": Members of the Registered Owners Class
     whose policies were issued under the marketing names
     MoneyGuard, MoneyGuard Flex, or MoneyGuard Plus (Plaintiff
     Iwanski).

     Excluded from each of the foregoing Class and Alternative
     Classes are First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company,
     Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, their officers and
     directors, members of their immediate families, and the
     heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing.

     The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Susman
     Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel for the Classes.

The two class action lawsuits are captioned as:

   "THOMAS IWANSKI, on behalf of himself and all others
   similarly situated, v. FIRST PENN-PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE
   COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-01573-RBS (E.D. Pa.);" and

   "TVPX ARS INC., as securities intermediary for CONSOLIDATED
   WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LTD., and VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, L.P. on
   behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
   LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 18-cv-
   02989-RBS (E.D. Pa.)"

First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides
insurance services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kmn4Ew at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
          Michael Adamson, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
                  madamson@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Gaetan Alfano, Esq.
          Leslie A. Mariotti, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
          BOSICK & RASPANTI
          1818 Market St Suite 3402
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-6200
          Facsimile: 215-981-0082
          E-mail: gja@pietragallo.com
                  lam@pietragallo.com

FLORIDA POWER: Class Action Certification to Hit Insurance Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Rabb, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a Miami
judge's certification of a lawsuit against Florida's largest
utility company as a $10 billion class action, with damage claims
from more than 4 million people who lost power in Hurricane Irma,
could have significant repercussions for self-insurers and
insurance companies in the years ahead.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David Miller issued the order last month,
noting that the plaintiffs had shown that the case meets all
requirements for a class action. The plaintiffs allege that Florida
Power & Light was negligent and breached its contract with
customers by failing to fully prepare for the storm or to "harden
the system," despite collecting a surcharge for that purpose.

"Plaintiffs are not claiming that FPL is an insurer against
hurricanes, nor will class status produce that result," the judge
wrote. "Instead, plaintiffs seek class-wide management over a basic
contractual issue" -- whether the utility failed to honor its
promise to use reasonable diligence at all times.

Judges and legal scholars have said that, with climate change and
the consensus that storms are gaining in frequency and intensity,
fewer businesses and utilities will now be able to claim damage was
simply an "act of God" that they could not have anticipated. For
some parts of the state, 2017's Irma had weakened to a minor
tropical storm, yet thousands of customers still lost power, the
plaintiffs in the FPL suit allege.

Plaintiffs, like those in the FPL class, may succeed by showing the
utility engaged in gross negligence and reckless disregard for
warning signs, as opposed to "ordinary negligence" that can be
chalked up partly to the will of Mother Nature, said professor Joel
Eisen, of the University of Richmond School of Law.

"I think there will be more claims of this sort and many will
succeed," said Eisen, who has studied energy law and policy.

The case, Heydi Velez et al vs. Florida Power & Light, was the
second in December in which a court in Florida allowed thousands of
claims over the lack of storm preparedness to proceed. In the U.S.
District for the Northern District of Florida, a judge found that
maritime law did not shield a bridge construction firm, Skanska
USA, from property damage claims and business interruption claims.
Skanska officials should have known of an impending hurricane in
2020 and should have taken steps to better secure construction
barges before they broke loose and knocked out part of the
Pensacola Bay bridge and smashed waterfront properties, the judge
said.

And while the multinational Skanska and Florida Power & Light are
largely self-insured, many smaller construction firms and utilities
purchase their coverage. They could face similar legal claims if
hurricanes continue to pound the Sunshine State and other coastal
areas.

"I imagine that every utility is watching the FPL case closely,"
said Robert Jarvis, a professor at Nova Southeastern University
School of Law, in Fort Lauderdale.

The class action against FPL also means that insurance subrogation
claims will now become part of the class. That could potentially
save insurers the cost of having to pursue hundreds of individual
claims to recoup what they've paid in business-interruption claims
that resulted from the 2017 hurricane, which left some Floridians
without power for days.

Similar actions against utilities may be on the rise. In Texas, 131
insurance carriers earlier this month filed suit against power
companies and the Texas power grid operator over widespread losses
from a 2021 winter storm. More than 4.5 million people lost power
during the freezing weather, causing pipes to burst in many
buildings and damaging property. Some 240 people died and insurers
have seen more than 500,000 claims filed for $10 million in
losses.

Like the FPL and Skanska suits, the suit against Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Texas power generators
argues gross negligence – that the utilities had knowledge of the
storm's potential but failed to prepare for it.

While many Florida property insurance policies exclude losses
caused by power outages, some cover losses of refrigerated,
perishable items, said John Ruiz, the lead attorney in the class
action against FPL.

Ruiz' name will ring a bell for many insurance companies. His
Miami-based firm, MSP Recovery, has filed other class-action suits
against more than 300 auto insurers around the country, charging
that they have failed to correctly report primary payer status in
no-fault auto accidents. The omissions have stuck Medicare and
Medicare Advantage plans with billions of dollars in illegal costs,
according to at least one of the MSP lawsuits.

The tort actions allege that 90% of no-fault auto insurers utilize
the same software, produced by the Insurance Services Office, part
of Verisk Analytics. It systematically and erroneously reports that
Medicare should be the primary payer in many accidents, contrary to
federal law, Ruiz said.

"If they are aware of the flaws in the software and they've done
nothing to fix it, it becomes intentional," Ruiz said last month.

Verisk declined to comment on its software or the litigation.

Ruiz' Florida Power & Light class action puts him on the side as
some of the same insurers he's now battling in the auto-insurers
suits. The FPL action could end up recouping some funds for
carriers but could also potentially mean higher electric bills for
Florida residents.

"If FPL loses, they'll probably have to raise rates or cut back on
promises to customers," said Jarvis, the Florida law professor.

Florida Power & Light, which serves more than 11 million residents
in Florida, is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy. FPL notes in its
December 2020 annual report that, "due to the high cost and limited
coverage available from third-party insurers," NextEra does not
have property insurance coverage for "a substantial portion" of its
transmission and distribution property.

If storm restoration costs exceed storm reserves already set aside,
FPL may recover costs through a surcharge on customers, as approved
by Florida regulators, the annual report explains. NextEra, which
maintains a captive insurance company, Palms Insurance, does have
coverage on its directors and officers.

The class certification is the latest in a four-year legal battle
over the Hurricane Irma outages. FPL initially asked a trial court
to dismiss the case, then asked an appeals court to force the
dispute to be heard by the Florida Public Service Commission.
Florida Power lost at both attempts.

In Miami-Dade Circuit Court, the utility's attorneys argued that
the company had no way to be sure that all of the outages for the
proposed class had come as a result of the hurricane. But the
plaintiffs pointed out that almost 90% of FPL customers who saw
outages during the 2017 storm reported a "cause code" as Hurricane
Irma.

The judge, David Miller, said the utility has engaged in some
obfuscation on the cause of the power outages, which did not help
its cause.

"It stands to reason that FPL has identified the cause of an outage
where it has been able to turn the power back on," Miller wrote in
the opinion. "FPL, though, has now dedicated the bulk of its
presentation to undermining the accuracy of its own records."

Company officials did not return requests for comment about the
lawsuit. [GN]

FULL SPECTRUM: Time Extension to File Class Cert Responses Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAM HERSHMAN, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, SUMIT SINGH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FULL SPECTRUM LASER
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02245-GMN-BNW (D. Nev.), Full Spectrum Laser
and Plaintiffs Hershman and Singh stipulate and agree that
Defendant shall have through February 1, 2022, to file responses to
Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Conditional Class
Certification.

Full Spectrum is a designer and manufacturer of industrial-grade
laser products.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Jan. 19, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rECMT1 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maurice Verstandig, Esq.
          THE VERSTANDIG LAW FIRM, LLC

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth Hogan, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hulet, Esq.
          HOGAN HULET PLLC
          10501 W Gowan Rd Suite 260
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          Tel/Fax: (702) 800-5482
          E-mail: ken@h2legal.com
                  jeff@h2legal.com


GARDENS AT GLENLAKES: Appeal From Order Consolidating Actions Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC v. The Gardens at
Glenlakes Property Owners Association, Inc., et al., Case No.
1200493 (Ala.), Judge Sarah Hicks Stewart of the Supreme Court of
Alabama dismissed Baldwin County Sewer Service, LLC's appeal from
the trial court's order ultimately consolidating the 2014 action
and the 2017 action in 2020.

I. Introduction

The appeal arises from an order entered by the Baldwin Circuit
Court ("the trial court") in two consolidated actions. In the first
action ("the 2014 action"), The Gardens at Glenlakes Property
Owners Association, Inc., Lake View Villas Association, Inc., Lake
View Estates Property Owners Association, Inc., Glenlakes Unit One
Property Owners Association, Inc., and Glenlakes Master
Association, Inc. ("the Associations"), sued Baldwin County Sewer
Service, LLC ("BCSS"), challenging a sewer-service rate increase.
In the second action ("the 2017 action"), Dan Gormley, Mike Willis,
Janet Maxwell, a Larry Morgan, David Vosloh, and Dick Dayton ("the
individual Plaintiffs") sued BCSS, challenging the same rate
increase.

The trial court ultimately consolidated the actions in 2020, and it
entered an order determining that the Associations and the
individual Plaintiffs are the real parties in interest in the
actions. BCSS has appealed from that order.

II. Background

In Gardens at Glenlakes Property Owners Ass'n v. Baldwin County
Sewer Service, LLC, 225 So.3d 47 (Ala. 2016)("Glenlakes"), an
earlier appeal from a judgment entered in favor of BCSS in the 2014
action, the Court provided a detailed factual background of that
case. In 1985, South Alabama Sewer Service, Inc. ("SASS"), and Lake
View Developers, Ltd. ("Lake View"), entered into an agreement that
governed their relationship with respect to SASS's construction of
a sewer line from its waste-treatment facility to a subdivision
developed by Lake View known as Lake View Estates. In 1991,
Lakeview Realty Co. purchased the development, excluding lots that
had already been sold. On Nov. 13, 1991, SASS and Lakeview Realty
entered into a new sewer agreement ("the 1991 agreement").

By 2004, BCSS had purchased SASS' sewer lines and facilities in
Baldwin County, and, in 2004, it purchased all the stock of SASS;
since then, all monthly sewer fees related to Lake View Estates
have been billed by and paid to BCSS. At some point after its
acquisition of SASS's sewer system, BCSS enacted a rate increase
affecting customers in Lake View Estates.

In 2014, the Associations sued BCSS in the trial court, generally
asserting that BCSS had violated the sewer-service-rate provision
of the 1991 agreement and contending that the rate increase
effected by BCSS resulted in a rate that exceeded the rate
permitted by the 1991 agreement. The Associations filed a joint
motion for a partial summary judgment, and BCSS filed a
cross-motion for a summary judgment in which it argued, among other
things, that the Associations lacked standing to enforce the 1991
agreement on behalf of the individual property owners in Lake View
Estates.

On Sept. 23, 2015, the trial court entered a summary judgment in
favor of BCSS, concluding that the Associations lacked standing to
enforce the 1991 agreement. On Oct. 20, 2015, the trial court
entered a final judgment dismissing all remaining claims. The
Associations appealed, and the Supreme Court of Alabama held: "The
Associations may have a 'cause of action' problem; they may have a
'real-party-in-interest' problem. There is, however, no 'standing'
problem." Therefore, it reversed the judgment in favor of BCSS and
remanded the 2014 action for further proceedings.

In January 2017, after the appeal in Glenlakes, the individual
Plaintiffs, who are residents in Lake View Estates, commenced the
2017 action, in which, among other things, they sought to certify
their claims as a class action. BCSS moved to dismiss that action
based on the abatement statute, Section 6-5-440, Ala. Code 1975,
and the trial court denied the motion. BCSS then filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus requesting that the Court directs the trial
court to dismiss the 2017 action; that petition was denied without
an opinion.

Then, in May 2019, the trial court entered an order in the 2017
action denying the individual Plaintiffs' request for class
certification and entering a partial summary judgment in favor of
BCSS; as part of that order, the trial court dismissed, by
stipulation, Willis, Maxwell, Morgan, and Vosloh as potential class
representatives. Gormley and Dayton appealed to the Court,
challenging the order denying class certification, and the Supreme
Court of Alabama affirmed that order without an opinion. In
September 2020, the 2017 action was consolidated with the 2014
action.

Meanwhile, in September 2017, while the 2017 action was still
proceeding separately, BCSS filed a motion for a summary judgment
in the 2014 action, contending that the Associations were not the
real parties in interest and that the Associations could no longer
timely substitute or join other parties. The Associations filed a
response in opposition to BCSS' summary-judgment motion, and, in
October 2017, the Associations filed a motion to substitute the
members of the Associations as parties, arguing that, pursuant to
Rule 17, Ala. R. Civ. P., the Associations should be afforded an
opportunity to substitute parties rather than have the action
dismissed. In October 2017, the trial court entered an order
denying BCSS's summary-judgment motion.

In October 2020, after the actions had been consolidated, the
Associations moved for a partial summary judgment on the
real-party-in-interest issue, asserting that BCSS had been
unwilling to participate in previously ordered mediation because of
its continuing belief that the Associations were not real parties
in interest.

In support of their motion, the Associations attached a map of Lake
View Estates, a copy of the 1991 agreement, and approximately 500
pages of powers of attorney executed in September 2015 by numerous
members of the Associations granting the Associations the authority
to prosecute the 2014 action on their behalf. It is not clear
whether the submitted powers of attorney encompass every resident
in Lake View Estates or every member of the Associations.

The Associations later amended their motion to include the
individual plaintiffs as movants; however, the motion did not
include any argument as to why the individual Plaintiffs should be
considered real parties in interest.

BCSS filed a cross-motion for a summary judgment in which it
referred the trial court to its argument regarding the
real-party-in-interest issue in its summary-judgment motion that
the trial court had denied in October 2017, in which it had
asserted that no named plaintiff was a real party in interest.

On March 5, 2021, the trial court entered an order determining that
the Associations and the individual Plaintiffs are the real parties
in interest in the consolidated actions. On March 10, 2021, the
trial court entered an amended order in which it purported to
certify the March 5 order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R.
Civ. P. BCSS appealed.

II. Discussion

Before addressing the merits of BCSS's appeal, Judge Stewart must
address whether there is a final judgment that will support an
appeal. She explains that the parties and the trial court referred
to the order from which BCSS appeals as a "summary-judgment order."
That order granted the Associations and the individual Plaintiffs'
summary-judgment motion, but it also, in effect, denied BCSS'
cross-motion for a summary judgment by determining that the
Associations and the individual Plaintiffs are the real parties in
interest.

The Supreme Court of Alabama has consistently held that it will not
entertain the attempted appeal of a denial of a motion for a
summary judgment because "'"such an order is inherently non-final
and cannot be made final by a Rule 54(b) certification. An order
denying summary judgment is interlocutory and nonappealable."'"

The substance and result of the "summary-judgment order," however,
is more akin to a denial of BCSS' attempt to have the Associations'
and the individual Plaintiffs' claims dismissed based on the
argument that they are not the real parties in interest, Judge
Stewart opines. She says, an order denying a motion to dismiss is,
likewise, not a final, appealable judgment. Although the trial
court purported to certify the March 5, 2021, order as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P., for a Rule 54(b)
certification to be effective, "the order must dispose of at least
one of a number of claims or one of multiple parties, must make an
express determination that there is no just reason for delay, and
must expressly direct the entry of a judgment as to that claim or
that party." "In other words, for a Rule 54(b) certification of
finality to be effective, the order being certified as final must
fully adjudicate at least one claim or fully dispose of the claims
as they relate to at least one party."

The order at issue in the present case does not fully dispose of
any claims or parties -- instead, it effectively permits the
consolidated actions to proceed by determining that the
Associations and the individual Plaintiffs are the real parties in
interest. Therefore, Judge Stewart opines that the trial court's
purported Rule 54(b) certification was not effective to create a
final judgment, and the order to which that certification related
was not appealable as of right." She must, therefore, dismiss the
appeal from a nonfinal order.

III. Conclusion

Because BCSS has appealed from a nonfinal order, Judge Stewart
dismissed the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4kyrw8yv from Leagle.com.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Enters Order on Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCOY v. GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05597 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Tonianne J
Bongiovanni entered an order that within 2 weeks after a decision
on the Motion for Class Certification is rendered, the parties
shall advise whether the matter is ripe for a settlement
conference.

A proposed schedule for remaining discovery shall also be
submitted, says Judge Bongiovanni.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company provides vehicle, property, business, and life insurance
services.[CC]

GOODYEAR TIRE: Esraelian Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARIN ESRAELIAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV44620, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00413 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages, including minimum and
overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
meal periods; failure to timely pay wages at separation; failure to
keep accurate payroll records; failure to reimburse employees for
necessary business expenditures; and unfair business practices.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is an American multinational
tire manufacturing company, with its principal place of business in
Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Alecia Whitaker Winfield, Esq.
         Jamar D. Davis, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: awinfield@littler.com
                 jddavis@littler.com

GOOGLE LLC: CSK&DS Investigating Suit Over Smart Speaker Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP (CSK&DS) is
investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of owners
of certain Google smart speaker devices affected by Google's
recently downgrading of certain features on these devices.
Specifically, the US International Trade Commission recently issued
a ruling in a patent case brought by Sonos against Google ruling
that Google infringed on five Sonos smart speaker patents. In
response to the ruling, Google has decided to release a firmware
update that removes or works around the infringing patents. As a
result, longtime owners of these speakers are losing certain
features including, but not limited to, the ability to adjust
volume on a group of multiple speakers all at once. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Demands Funding Information in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Charley Connor, writing for Global Competition Review, reports that
Google has demanded that the class representative bringing a
proposed collective action against it in the UK's Competition
Appeal Tribunal provide additional information about her funding
arrangements. [GN]



HEALTH INSURANCE: Moser Seeks to Certify Suit as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH J. MOSER,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., et. al., Case No.
3:17-cv-01127-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the case as a class action.

Health Insurance Innovations is a developer and distributor of
individual health insurance plans and ancillary products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fz8j32
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: 619-886-0252
          E-mail: JustinP@prato-reichman.com


HOME DEPOT: Burcham Labor Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN,
ARACELI BARRAGAN, and JEREMEY BURCHAM, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff Jeremey Burcham's
motion for class certification.

The Court finds no management difficulties that would preclude this
action from being maintained as a class action. The potential
management of claims pertain to the calculation of each
individual's damages, and thus does not prevent certification on
the common questions concerning Defendant's liability. Many
employees may also be reluctant to file an individual lawsuit for
fear of retaliation.  Moreover, damages per employee may not be
large, thus, individual suits would not be cost effective, and
instead would burden the courts with duplicative cases, the Court
adds.

This wage-and-hour class action seeks to hold Home Depot liable for
unpaid overtime. Specific to this motion, Burcham asserts the
Defendant failed to include bonus payments under its "Success
Sharing" bonus program when calculating employees' overtime pay
during the periods in which they received the bonus payments.

Under the Success Sharing program, the Defendant pays a minimum
amount, usually $100, so long as the employee meets minimum
criteria of being in good standing and remaining employed at the
time of payment. Employees may also earn amounts over the minimum
if their total pay for the bonus period is sufficiently high as
compared to other employees at that store.

The Defendant's employees receive their cash incentive awards at
semi-annual parties to boost employee morale and retain employees.

Burcham was employed with Home Depot as a non-exempt, hourly sales
representative from approximately October 2017 through February
2019. He seeks to represent a class composed of "[a]ll non-exempt
Home Depot employees in California who received a minimum (e.g.,
$100) 'Success Sharing' bonus and worked overtime during the same
Success Sharing plan period, within three years of the filing of
the complaint in this action until June 20, 2018."

The Plaintiffs Donnie Sanchez Barragan and Araceli Barragan
instituted this action in San Diego Superior Court on August 12,
2019. The Defendant thereafter removed the action to this Court. On
or around July 21, 2020, Burcham was added to this action. Burcham
then moved to certify this class on August 26, 2021.

Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, appliances, and
services. The company is headquartered in incorporated Cobb County,
Georgia, with an Atlanta mailing address.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KkH3nb at no extra charge.[CC]


HOME DEPOT: Order Setting Trial Date Entered in Didzun
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD JAMES DIDZUN, et
al., v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01540-RSL
(W.D. Wash.), the Court entered a minute order setting trial date
and related dates as follows:

  -- Trial date:                            June 5, 2023

  -- Deadline for joining additional        February 10, 2022
     parties:

  -- Motion for class certification         September 7, 2022
     due and noted on the Court's
     calendar for the fifth Friday
     thereafter:

  -- Deadline for amending pleadings:       October 7, 2022

  -- Reports from expert witnesses          December 6, 2022
     under FRCP 26(a)(2) due:

  -- All motions related to discovery       February 4, 2023
     must be noted on the motion
     calendar no later than the Friday
     before discovery closes pursuant
     to LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2)
     Discovery completed by:

  -- Settlement conference held no          January 19, 2023
     later than:

  -- All dispositive motions must be        March 6, 2023
     filed by and noted on the motion
     calendar no later than the fourth
     Friday thereafter (see LCR 7(d)(3)):

  -- All motions in limine must be          April 15, 2023
     filed by and noted on the motion
     calendar no earlier than the
     second Friday thereafter.
     Replies will be accepted.

  -- Agreed pretrial order due:             May 3, 2023

Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, appliances, and
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IiNIfC at no extra charge.[CC]

HURRICANE EXPRESS: Joint Bid to Vacate Deadlines OK'd in Turpin
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Turpin v. Hurricane
Express, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00544 (N.D. Okla.), the Hon.
Judge John E. Dowdell entered an order granting the Parties' joint
motion to vacate deadlines to allow for mediation.

The Court said, "The Deadlines of the Class Certification
Scheduling Order are hereby stricken. The parties are ordered to
file a joint status report within 90 days of the entry of this
order notifying the Court of the status of the mediation with
either a proposed schedule for submitting settlement paperwork or
revised dates for conditional certification."

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involvind collection of unpaid wages.

Hurricane Express provides equipment and service in the
refrigerated freight markets.[CC]

IDAHO: Court Seeks Clarification on Class Cert. in Turney v. IDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho issued an order requiring clarification on class
certification in the lawsuit entitled PHILIP A. TURNEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. HENRY ATENCIO, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
1:18-cv-00001-BLW, 1:18-cv-00097-BLW, 1:18-cv-00099-BLW,
1:18-cv-00100-BLW (D. Idaho).

The parties have filed a Stipulation of Dismissal, a proposed
"Notice of Class Certification," and their Settlement Agreement.
They request that the Court preliminarily approve their joint
settlement proposal and certify a class action for purposes of
settlement only.

Background

The Plaintiffs are a group of Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC)
inmates, who presently suffer from or in the past suffered from
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) and complain that they did not receive
adequate treatment for that condition from the private contracted
medical provider to IDOC, Corizon, Inc. ("Corizon," now Corizon,
LLC) and Corizon officials, in violation of the inmates' federal
constitutional right to adequate medical care. IDOC, Corizon, and
their officials continue to deny the Plaintiffs' allegations and
contend their provision of medical care is, and has been, adequate
and appropriate.

The Plaintiffs sought class action status at the beginning of this
lawsuit, but, instead of certifying a class at that time, the Court
directed that this case proceed on an alternative dispute
resolution pathway. With the aid of private mediator Newel K.
Squyres, Esq., and without admission of liability, the parties have
reached an amicable resolution of their dispute in this action,
after engaging in alternative dispute resolution proceedings
between July 18, 2019, and Sept. 1, 2020. The Plaintiff's operative
pleading, the Second Amended Complaint with Supplement, seeks
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.

The class representatives now seek the Court's preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement and request class action status for the
purpose of this settlement agreement only. They request that the
Court put in motion adequate procedural mechanisms to give the
potential class members notice and an opportunity to respond, and
set a hearing to review adequacy of the settlement agreement and
the proposed stipulated dismissal of this action.

After reviewing the parties' submissions, the Court has determined
that it is in need of additional information. It appears that the
parties' Settlement Agreement is intended to address declaratory
and injunctive relief claims, but it is unclear what is to happen
to the outstanding claims for monetary damages. The Stipulation for
Dismissal provided by the parties states: "The Parties agree that
any and all of Plaintiffs' claims for damages relief in this case,
including but not limited to general, special and punitive damages,
against any and all Corizon Defendants and IDOC Defendants are
dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and
fees related to these claims."

Settlement Agreement Section 3.11 harmonizes with the Stipulation
for Dismissal: "Plaintiffs acknowledge that this Agreement shall
resolve each and every issue and claim raised by them in this
Action against any and all of the IDOC Defendants." But, another
statement in Section 3.11 seems inconsistent: "This agreement does
not apply to Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages against
Corizon Defendants stated in the Operative Complaint, and any
dismissal of those claims must be set forth in a separate
agreement." Elsewhere in the agreement, the Defendants state that
they have stipulated to class action status only for purposes of
settlement and dismissal of the declaratory and injunctive relief
claims, and that the Defendants do not stipulate to class
certification for purposes of the Plaintiffs' damages claims.

Judge Winmill directs counsel for the parties to submit a
clarification regarding whether some or all of the Plaintiffs'
damages claims against some or all of the Defendants are to remain
open and viable after the injunctive and declaratory relief claims
have been settled, and to submit amended supporting documents to
correct the inconsistencies, if necessary.

As to the subject matter of the Settlement Agreement, the Court
agrees that settlement of the disputed issue of a clear protocol
for delivering HCV diagnostic care and treatment for all IDOC
inmates, present and future, is an important, singular, and
severable issue from individual inmate claims for damages. If three
years of negotiations have produced only a fair, reasonable, and
adequate proposal for declaratory and injunctive relief, then that
work product is worthy of preservation and implementation on behalf
of all inmates.

If any of the Plaintiffs' damages claims are intended by the
parties to remain viable after the Settlement Agreement, it is the
Court's inclination to permit individual inmates in individual
severed actions to pursue individual claims that relate back to the
earliest date of their asserted claims in this action to the extent
that the inmate has allegations showing they sought and were denied
appropriate HCV treatment in the past, and they were injured by the
denial. In general, individual actions, not a class action, are a
more suitable avenue for inmates to pursue their claims that lack
of HCV treatment caused individual measurable and compensable harm,
Judge Winmill holds. However, before making a final decision on the
issue, the Court will invite further input from counsel.

Judge Winmill wants the parties to clarify their intent regarding
whether the individual damages claims are to be dismissed or remain
for the individuals to pursue. The parties should clarify whether
the individual Plaintiffs should be entitled to seek and use any
disclosure and discovery from this case--but not the fact of
settlement or the terms of the settlement--in their ongoing
individual damages cases. If the Plaintiffs' counsel knows the
approximate number of plaintiffs, who intend to pursue monetary
damages, that would be helpful for the Court to know.

The Court does not see the potential for a Seventh Amendment issue
here that sometimes arises when a prior injunctive relief
settlement forecloses a plaintiff's ability to have a jury decide
an issue of fact in a later damages case—because the parties here
have not stipulated to liability or even to standards of law in
their Settlement Agreement.

Concerns for inconsistent verdicts or for res judicata and
collateral estoppel effects on ongoing damages suits also seem
attenuated because of the no-admission-of-liability terms of the
Settlement Agreement, but the parties should comment on their views
of application of these principles, Judge Winmill holds, citing
Daskalea v. Washington Humane Soc., 275 F.R.D. 346, 365-366 (D.D.C.
2011)

The Court is inclined to certify the class for purposes of
settlement of the declaratory and injunctive relief claims only,
and to permit those claims to be dismissed with prejudice on the
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, to the extent that the
hearing does not produce evidence showing that the terms are not
fair, reasonable, and adequate, taking into consideration whether:
(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's
length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking
into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing
relief to the class, including the method of processing
class-member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of
attorney's fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any
agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and (D)
the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each
other.

The Court finds no precedent or Rule constraining its authority to
permit the declaratory and injunctive relief claims proceed via a
class action settlement route, and any remaining damages claims to
proceed individually in new lawsuits to be severed from this suit,
with each named Plaintiff able to take advantage of the first date
his claim was asserted in this action. If the parties read the law
to limit the Court's options differently, they should provide
authority to support their opinions. The Court not only has broad
discretion in class action matters it also has the duty to uphold
negotiated settlement agreements of the parties, where the terms
are appropriate.

The parties are also invited to comment on the Court's intent to
include in the "Notice of Proposed Settlement and Fairness Hearing
in Class Action Lawsuit" clarifications that named members of the
lawsuit who have claims for monetary damages will be permitted to
preserve their filing dates for statute of limitation purposes and
pursue those claims individually, and that unnamed members of the
lawsuit who have past, current, or future claims for monetary
damages will not be foreclosed from filing their own individual
lawsuits for monetary damages for failure to provide treatment for
HCV.

Judge Winmill also notes that the language that "This lawsuit does
not seek monetary damages, and Class members are not entitled to
monetary damages in this case," will need to be amended
appropriately. Again, to the extent that the Court's intentions are
not in line with the parties' intentions and settlement terms, they
are invited to clarify them in amended supporting documents. The
Court also intends to supplement the "Notice" with a statement that
the hearing and objections are limited to consideration of those
factors set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2) and that any written
objections should address those factors in particular.

Order

It is ordered that the parties will submit clarifying responses,
and amended documents, if needed, within 14 days after entry of
this Order.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for
Plaintiff Joseph Williams is granted, provided that the Plaintiff's
Counsel sends a copy of this Order to Joseph Williams at his last
known address and files proof of such mailing to the Clerk of
Court.

Mr. Williams, if still incarcerated, will be entitled to file an
objection to the notice of class settlement. Whether incarcerated
or not, should Mr. Williams desire to represent himself as to
damages claims in this action, he must file a notice of appearance,
pro se or through a new attorney, within 14 days after the date
counsel sends notice to him.

The parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement is conditionally granted, subject to receipt of the
parties' clarifications and a subsequent Order. The Court intends
to set the Fairness Hearing in this action in May 2022. Counsel for
the parties will inform the Court as to their availability during
that month and submit an estimate of the total time that will be
needed for the hearing, from one-half day to multiple days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3a7vxrdu from Leagle.com.


IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Discriminated Against Turkish Workers, Genc Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE, and SULEYMAN KOS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IMPERIAL
PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, and IMPERIAL PACIFIC
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00002
(D.N. Mar. I., January 20, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for employment discrimination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendants discriminated against
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Turkish construction workers
admitted to the U.S. under the H-2B temporary foreign worker
program by paying them less than Taiwanese workers.

The Plaintiffs started to work for the Defendants as construction
workers in January 2020.

Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC is a casino gaming
company, headquartered in Hong Kong.

Imperial Pacific International Holdings Ltd. is a casino gaming
company, headquartered in Hong Kong. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Richard C. Miller, Esq.
         BANES HOREY BERMAN & MILLER, LLC
         Suite 201, Marianas Business Plaza
         P.O. Box 501969
         Saipan, MP 96950
         Telephone: (670) 234-5684
         Facsimile: (670) 234-5683
         E-mail: RMiIlcr@pacificlavvycrs.law

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: April 13 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has approved the following announcement of a proposed securities
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of India
Globalization Capital, Inc. common stock (NYSEAMERICAN: IGC):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED
COMMON STOCK OF INDIA GLOBALIZATION CAPITAL, INC. ("IGC") FROM
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 THROUGH OCTOBER 26, 2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, that a hearing will be
held on April 13, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Paul W.
Grimm, United States District Judge of the District of Maryland,
6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$1,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees of up to
one-third of the Settlement Amount plus a proportionate share of
interest accrued on the Settlement Amount, Lead Counsel's
reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred of not more than
$60,000, and Award to Plaintiffs of not more than $2,500 each,
should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed
with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated October 20, 2021 ("Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means.

If you purchased or acquired publicly traded IGC common stock from
September 26, 2018 through October 26, 2018, both dates inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership interest in IGC common
stock. You may obtain copies of the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Securities Class Action ("Notice") and the
Proof of Claim and Release Form by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: India Globalization Capital, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download
copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release
Form online at www.strategicclaims.net/IGC/. If you are a member of
the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
Form electronically or postmarked no later than March 14, 2022 to
the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than March
23, 2022, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.
All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection by a Settlement Class Member to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, Plaintiffs' Counsel's requests for an award to
Plaintiffs' Counsel of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, or Award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than March
23, 2022, by each of the following:

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: December 27, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND [GN]

INTELLIGENT NUTRIENTS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Estevez v. Intelligent
Nutrients LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09027 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lewis J. Liman entered an order regarding class certification
dates:

  -- The deadline for moving for class       June 15, 2022
     certification is:

  -- The Defendant shall have until          July 15, 2022
     to file any opposition:

  -- The Plaintiff shall have until          August 16, 2022
     to file any reply:

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.

The Defendant sells skin & hair care products, including
sanitizers, body washes & shampoos.[CC]


ISLAND CZ CAFE: Rodgers Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAILLE RODGERS on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. ISLAND CZ CAFE, LLC, d/b/a ISLAND CZ
CAFE, ISLAND SEAS LOUNGE, LLC, d/b/a ISLAND CZ LOUNGE, and PATRICK
CLARKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00266 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18,
2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law, as well as damages under the Internal
Revenue Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid wages for training,
unpaid wages due to time-shaving, unpaid minimum wage due to
invalid tip credit, unpaid tip compensation due to an invalid tip
pooling policy, unlawfully retained gratuities, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants discriminated her on the
basis of her disability. She further seeks damages under the
Internal Revenue Code for relief, damages, fees, and costs in the
matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax
information forms with the Internal Revenue Service.

Ms. Rodgers was hired by the Defendants to work as a bartender for
Island CZ Cafe restaurant from August 27, 2020 to October 18,
2020.

The Defendants collectively own and operate two Caribbean
restaurants under the common trade name "Island CZ" in Brooklyn,
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

JOHN HANCOCK: Romano Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC ROMANO, et al., v.
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INS. CO. (USA), Case No. 1:19-cv-21147-JG (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan Goodman entered a redacted order on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' class certification motion;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing Podhurst Orseck, P.A. and Searcy Denney Scarola
      Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. as class counsel; and

   4. directing counsel to give absent class members appropriate
      notice under Rule 23.

The Court said, "However, the Court will, unless the parties reach
an agreement, hold a hearing on the issue of the specific timeframe
to be used to define the class. John Hancock notes that the
Contract did not become effective until October 17, 2014 but the
proposed class period begins March 25, 2013. Therefore, John
Hancock says, Plaintiffs cannot represent the Proposed Class for
the 18.5-month period (from March 25, 2013 through October 17,
2014). The parties will need to present argument on whether
Plaintiffs have standing to pursue claims during the gap period."

John Hancock is a Boston-based insurance company. Established April
21, 1862, it was named in honor of John Hancock, a prominent
patriot. In 2004, John Hancock was acquired by the Canadian life
insurance company Manulife Financial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgGZ5R at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHN HANCOCK: S.D. Florida Certifies Trustees Class in ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC ROMANO, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INS. CO. (USA), Defendant, Case No. 19-21147-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Eric and Todd Romano, trustees of an ERISA defined
contribution plan, filed a two-count lawsuit against Defendant John
Hancock, which sold them, as trustees of a 401(k) Plan, a Group
Variable Annuity Contract. The Plaintiffs sued on behalf of a
putative class of persons who owned variable annuity contracts from
John Hancock. They filed a motion to certify the class. John
Hancock filed a response and a Notice of Supplemental Authority and
the Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Judge Goodman held a hearing lasting
more than three hours, and the parties then (in response to an
Order requiring clarification) submitted memoranda on the burden of
proof for class certification.

II. Background

Plaintiffs Eric Romano and Todd Romano are trustees of the Romano
Law, PL 401k Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution plan under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which allows participating
employees to invest in options made available by the plan trustees.
Through their financial advisor, the Plaintiffs purchased a group
variable annuity contract from John Hancock to make recordkeeping
services and investments available for Plan participants.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts two claims against John Hancock
relating to tax credits attendant to investments that they chose
for their Plan under the Contract that "invest in stocks and
securities of foreign companies."

In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege John Hancock breached the ERISA
fiduciary duty of loyalty by receiving and retaining "Plan Foreign
Tax Credits" with respect to the International Investment Options,
resulting in an alleged reduction in the value of the Plan's
assets. In Count II, they allege that John Hancock caused the Plan
to enter into an ERISA prohibited transaction by not crediting
their Plan with the value of Foreign Tax Credits ("FTCs").

In profiting from FTCs without disclosing them or passing through a
commensurate benefit to Plans that generated such credits, the
Plaintiffs contend, John Hancock failed to act solely in the best
interest of the Plans and failed to defray reasonable expenses of
administering the Plans.

The Plaintiffs have sued on behalf of a putative class of "all
trustees, sponsors and administrators of all 'employee benefit
plans' under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(1), that owned variable
annuity contracts from" John Hancock.

As originally filed, the Plaintiffs sought equitable relief under
ERISA against John Hancock under both Counts I and II.

Shortly after the hearing, however, the Plaintiffs withdrew their
requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically,
Plaintiffs withdrew requests for:

     B. Declaratory Judgment that Defendant breached ERISA
fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and Participants;

     F. An Order permitting the withdrawal of any and all amounts
payable under the Contract without imposition of a surrender fee;
and

     G. An Order enjoining Defendant from any further violations of
its ERISA fiduciary obligations.

In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege John Hancock is "liable to
personally make good to the Plan any losses to the Plan resulting
from each breach under 29 U.S.C. Section 502(a)(2)." Similarly, in
Count II, they seek the same relief, alleging John Hancock is
"liable to personally make good to the Plan any losses to the Plan
resulting from these prohibited transactions under 29 U.S.C.
Section 502(a)(2)." The Plaintiffs further allege in both Count I
and Count II that "pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(a)(3), the Court should award equitable relief to the
Class." However, as noted, the Plaintiffs have withdrawn their
request for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs still seek a constructive trust on amounts that
result from the alleged breaches.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "All trustees of all
defined-contribution employee benefit plans covered by ERISA with
which John Hancock had group annuity contracts and recordkeeping
agreements from at any time from March 25, 2013 the date of class
certification, and that have, since March 25, 2013, allocated
assets through John Hancock's Signature Platform to International
Investment Options that have passed through foreign tax credits to
John Hancock."

III. Discussion

A. Standing

John Hancock argues, there is no evidence to establish that
different disclosures would have in any way changed the Plaintiffs'
behavior. In other words, John Hancock contends, it is the
Plaintiffs' own decisions which caused their injury, not John
Hancock's failure to disclose or failure to credit the Plaintiffs
for the FTCs. When given an opportunity to select a replacement
which uses FTCs in the way they say John Hancock should have (or to
exclude investments subject to foreign taxation in the first
place), the Plaintiffs decided to not select that alternative.
Therefore, John Hancock concludes, its own actions could not have
caused the Plaintiffs' injury.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue that John Hancock has incorrectly
and incompletely portrayed their claims as challenging only
inadequate disclosures and then has unfairly contended that
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated an injury in fact (because they
have not established that they would have made different decisions
if John Hancock had made adequate disclosures about the FTCs). But
the Plaintiffs explain that their lawsuit challenges far more than
the failure to disclose. Specifically, they say, the lawsuit
challenges John Hancock's conduct in keeping more than $100
million. According to the Plaintiffs, by keeping money which it
should have credited to them, John Hancock caused them to suffer a
concrete injury in fact.

Judge Goodman holds that although the optics of the arrangements
between the Plaintiffs and John Hancock may at times portray the
Plaintiffs in a negative light, the critical point alleged by the
Plaintiffs is that John Hancock improperly kept the FTCs. This is
sufficient to confer standing. The Plaintiffs have adequately
distinguished the authorities on which John Hancock relies for its
lack of standing theory. They have asserted
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims -- which have "traditionally been
regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American
courts," -- challenging John Hancock's conduct, which directly
resulted in John Hancock earning more than $100 million that should
have been credited to class members. Phrased differently, it
resulted in class members losing FTCs. That is an actual injury.

B. General Principles and Plaintiffs' Burden

To proceed as a class, the named representatives must complete a
burdensome checklist. Specifically, they "must satisfy an implicit
ascertainability requirement, the four requirements listed in Rule
23(a), and at least one of the requirements listed in Rule 23(b)."
These requirements are generally referred to as "numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation."

If the plaintiffs have affirmatively demonstrated both
ascertainability and that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are
satisfied, then the district court moves on to Rule 23(b). In the
case, since the Plaintiffs proceed under Rule 23(b)(3), they must
show that "questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." The
Plaintiffs must also establish that "damages are susceptible of
measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule
23(b)(3)."

Judge Goodman finds that (i) because John Hancock's own records can
identify class members with the objective criteria of the class
definition, the Plaintiffs have established ascertainability; (ii)
John Hancock's own records show that the Class includes tens of
thousands of Plans, which far exceeds the requirement that the
putative class be so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (iii) the message implicit in John Hancock's
argument is that these questions arise from uniform conduct; (iv)
the Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence the element of typicality, which is
not a demanding hurdle in the first place; and (v) the Plaintiffs'
interests are aligned with those of other Class Members and that
they are adequate class representatives, as they will be proving
the claims of absent Class Members as they prove their own claims.

Judge Goodman similarly finds that (i) for class certification
purposes, the Plaintiffs have established that common questions of
law and fact predominate; and (ii) courts often find the
superiority requirement satisfied for ERISA cases.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Goodman granted the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.
Requiring every issue to be common would defeat the utility of the
class action device.

However, Judge Goodman will, unless the parties reach an agreement,
hold a hearing on the issue of the specific timeframe to be used to
define the class. John Hancock notes that the Contract did not
become effective until October 17, 2014 but the proposed class
period begins March 25, 2013. Therefore, John Hancock says, the
Plaintiffs cannot represent the Proposed Class for the 18.5-month
period (from March 25, 2013 through Oct. 17, 2014). The parties
will need to present argument on whether the Plaintiffs have
standing to pursue claims during the gap period.

Finally, Judge Goodman appointed the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives and appointed Podhurst Orseck, P.A. and Searcy
Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. as the class counsel, and
the counsel are directed to give the absent class members
appropriate notice under Rule 23.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the ruling hardly means that
the Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. In fact, John Hancock
has presented myriad substantial, substantive arguments in its
still-pending summary judgment motion. John Hancock needs to
convince the Court of only one of these arguments in order to
obtain a favorable summary judgment ruling. Judge Goodman will be
holding a hearing on the summary judgment motion, as well as the
six pending motions challenging expert witnesses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Redacted Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4rxd9h4j from Leagle.com.


JOHN MCKOWEN: Settlement in Paulson Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PAULSON, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. JOHN R. MCKOWEN,
WAYNE HARDING, and TIMOTHY BEALL, Case No. 1:19-cv-02639-PAB-NYW
(D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order
that:

   1. The Unopposed Motion of Plaintiff for Preliminary Approval
      of Settlement, Certification of Class, and Appointment of
      Class Representative and Class Counsel is granted.

   2. The parties shall contact the Court's chambers within
      seven days of the entry of this order to set a date for
      the fairness hearing.

      -- Settlement Agreement

         The motion for preliminary approval seeks certification
         of a settlement class consisting of:

         "All persons or entities who currently hold claims
         based  on Securities of GrowCo, and who purchased or
         otherwise acquired the securities through Offerings,
         during the time period beginning October 2014 through
         December 2017 (the "Class Period"), and suffered
         Alleged Losses."

         For the avoidance of doubt, persons or entities who
         purchased or otherwise acquired the securities during
         the Class Period who have assigned the securities to
         VitaNova Partners, LLC are not excluded as Class
         Members by virtue of such assignment. There are no
         subclasses.

         The following persons are excluded from the Class:

         (1) the Defendants; (2) the officers and directors of
         Two Rivers and GrowCo during the Class Period to the
         Settlement Agreement for securities purchased at the
         time or after they were officers or directors; (3) any
         judge or judicial officer who may hear any aspect of
         this Action and his or her law clerks; and (4) except
         as provided in the Settlement Agreement, all persons or
         entities released in the Settlement.

         Also excluded from the Settlement Class are the persons
         and/or entities who validly request exclusion from the
         Settlement Class within the time period set by the
         Court in the Preliminary Approval Order.

      -- Notice to the Settlement Class

         The proposed notice in this case provides potential
         Class Members with information regarding the class
         action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the plan
         of allocation, attorneys' fees and expenses, the
         fairness hearing, how investors can opt-out of the
         Class or object to the terms of the Settlement
         Agreement. Class Counsel have physical addresses for
         all Class Members, rendering direct mail the best
         notice practicable. Based on the foregoing, the Court
         is satisfied that the parties' proposed notice is
         reasonably calculated to apprise the absent Class
         Members of the action.

The Plaintiff brings a securities class action against defendants.
The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that McKowen, Harding,
and Beall were officers of defendant Two Rivers Water and Farming
Company.

The Plaintiff alleges that Two Rivers and McKowen formed GrowCo,
Inc. to "capitalize on [the] burgeoning marijuana industry in
Colorado." To support their operations, defendants offered GrowCo
securities to investors (the "Offerings"). With the Offerings,
defendants provided "sales presentations, memoranda of terms,
exchange note purchase agreements, exchange agreements, investor
questionnaires, and other documents which purported to make
material disclosures to investors about GrowCo and the Securities
Offerings."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offering documents omitted material
information about McKowen, including a 1987 disciplinary action,
fine, and suspension with the National Association of Securities
Dealers, a 1995 bankruptcy, and a 1992 default judgment in
connection with a complaint before the Indiana Securities
division.

The Defendants dispute these allegations and deny liability for the
claims. McKowen moved to dismiss the complaint, on the basis that
the inf ormationunderlying the allegations against him "concerned
the distant past, was not required to be disclosed, and was not
material to investors' decisions to purchase GrowCo securities."

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qKpZip at no extra charge.[CC]

JP MORGAN: Nypl CUCL Claim Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN NYPL, et al., v.
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09300-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order
that:

   -- The California Unfair Competition Law (CUCL) claim is
      dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because
      no plaintiff in this action has standing to bring such a
      claim.

   -- The Defendants' request for Nypl to be dismissed from the
      case entirely because he lacks standing is denied.

The Court said, "Under the one-plaintiff rule, so long as one
plaintiff has standing to assert each claim in the case, a court
can adjudicate the case without inquiring as to the standing of
remaining plaintiffs. Here, as to the remaining claims, which are
brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class, two Plaintiffs,
Lisa McCarthy and Valarie Jolly, testified at their depositions
that they purchased foreign currency at JPMorgan branches and have
met their burden of demonstrating standing for this stage of the
litigation."

The Plaintiffs have presented evidence of some transactions by
Nypl, but none meeting the contours of the claims in this case.
First, the Plaintiffs point to testimony that at some point Nypl
gave U.S. Dollars to one of the defendants and received a non-U.S.
currency in return. This testimony is insufficient to meet his
burden because it does not provide any details about the
transaction, such as the currencies exchanged, the geographic
location of the exchange, whether a bank branch was involved or
which Defendant was involved. Second, Plaintiff Nypl points to
testimony that he lived in California from January 2007 to December
2013, and that he exchanged currency on many occasions.

JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FKDMdd at no extra charge.[CC]

JUDGE GROUP: Katona Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Recruiters
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD KATONA, YANIRA
BAEZ-MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE JUDGE GROUP, INC., Case No. e 2:21-cv-03534-ER
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for conditional certification and Court-authorized
notice be sent to:

   "All current and former Salaried Recruiters employed by Judge
   Group at any time during the past three years (the "Salaried
   Recruiters")."

To facilitate the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act's
collective action provisions, the Plaintiffs respectfully request
the Court grant this Motion and:

   (1) conditionally certify the proposed collective;

   (2) authorize judicial notice be sent to all Salaried
       Recruiters;

   (3) approve the Notice and Consent forms;

   (4) authorize the mailing and e-mailing of notice, along with
       a reminder notice;

   (5) authorize Class Counsel to contact certain Salaried
       Recruiters by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
       forms return as undeliverable;

   (6) order Judge Group to produce to Class Counsel the contact
       information for each of the Salaried Recruiters within 10
       days of the Court's Order; and

   (7) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Salaried
       Recruiters to join this case.

As a staffing agency, Judge Group bills itself as offering "deep
expertise in consulting, learning, staffing & search and offshore
solutions" and producing its services for "over 50 of the Fortune
100 companies across all verticals including financial services,
healthcare & life sciences, insurance, technology, government,
manufacturing and telecom/utilities." To provide staffing services,
Judge Group employs recruiters to make Internet job postings, place
phone calls, and generally field candidates according to the
criteria established by Judge Group's customers. Judge Group pays
these recruiters a salary and classifies them as exempt from
overtime pay.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWpec5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net

JUUL LABS: California Court Grants Arbitration in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., ANTITRUST LITIGATION, IN RE:
JUUL LABS, INC., ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-02345-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration as to the two new Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs, Jonathan Burgher and Anthony Lana.

I. Background

Defendant Juul Labs, Inc. ("JLI") again moves to compel arbitration
because the newly named Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") gave
constructive assent to arbitrate when they purchased JLI products
or used the JLI website. The motion requires the Court to apply
current precedent on this nettlesome issue to a series of web pages
from 2017 to the present.

--- Judge Orrick concludes that the DPPs' use of JLI's landing page
after JLI modified it in April 2021 establishes constructive assent
and grant the motion to compel. Whether the scope of the
arbitration includes the Plaintiffs' purchases made prior to that
is for the arbitrator to decide.

In Judge Orrick's August 2021 Order, he granted JLI's first motion
to compel arbitration of the claims of the then-named DPPs Anthony
Martinez, Jessica McGee, and Mallory Flannery. He determined that
alterations JLI made to its Log In/Sign Up pages on www.juul.com as
of Aug.9, 2018 were sufficient to establish objective constructive
assent to JLI's Terms and Conditions, including JLI's Arbitration
Policy.

JLI had added an affirmative assent "clickbox" to the "landing
page" immediately adjacent to a disclosure that "By registering
with JUUL Labs, Inc. you agree to our Terms and Conditions and
Privacy Policy." The Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy terms
were hyperlinks to those policies; one could not sign up to
register with JLI and proceed to use the website unless that
clickbox was checked.

Judge Orrick stayed the effect of the Order and gave the DPPs leave
to amend with new named DPPs who had purchased prior to Aug. 9,
2018.

On Sept. 20, 2021, the DPP Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, naming two new DPPs, Jonathan Burgher and
Anthony Lana. Both Plaintiffs first created accounts on
JUULvapor.com in 2017. JLI argues that the format of JUULvapor.com
was different from the format of the Log In/Sign Up pages then
existing on www.juul.com and that code on JUULvapor.com during that
time contained an affirmative clickbox on the "checkout screen."
But, Judge Orrick finds that it presents no evidence of how the
checkout screen on JUULvapor.com during the relevant timeframe
looked to users. There is no evidence that the alleged affirmative
checkbox was proximate to a hyperlinked copy of Terms and
Conditions containing a specific arbitration policy. Absent this
evidence, Judge Orrick cannot find that a consumer's use of the
JUULvapor.com site to sign up for an account established the
objective constructive assent required under Ninth Circuit
precedent.

JLI shows that Lana completed subsequent online transactions in
March 2018. But the design and appearance of the Log In/Sign Up
page on juul.com during that month, is the same as the page Judge
Orrick reviewed in the August 2019 order in Colgate v. JUUL Labs,
Inc., 402 F.Supp.3d 728, 766 (N.D. Cal. 2019): He denied a motion
to compel arbitration based on that page. Judge Orrick will not
revisit that determination or compel arbitration based on it.

Burgher made a purchase on juul.com in May 2019 and Lana logged
into his account in May 2019 (but did not make a further purchase).
At that time the juul.com landing page was still split in two with
the Log In section above and the Sign Up section below. The
clickbox was beneath the lower "Sign Up" section and informed
consumers "signing up" that "By registering" the user agreed to
JLI's Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Judge Orrick holds that tThat page does not establish constructive
affirmative assent sufficient to compel arbitration. There is no
evidence that returning, already registered users -- like Burgher
and Lana -- would need to check the clickbox to proceed to the
site. More fundamentally, Judge Orrick says the disclosure
regarding the Terms and Conditions was contained in the wholly
separate Sign Up section below the Log In section. There is no
reason why a returning user would pay particular attention to a
disclosure below the Sign In button or have reasonable notice that
by signing in they could, as already registered users, be giving
constructive assent to terms and conditions applying to then
"registering" users. This page does not demonstrate constructive
assent by Burgher or Lana to the Terms and Conditions, including
the Arbitration Policy.

JLI made modifications in July 2019 to the juul.com landing page.
That page, which JLI asserts Burgher would have encountered when he
logged onto the site in April 2020, was reformulated as a "Welcome
Back" screen where a user was prompted to enter their email and
password and hit the "SIGN IN" button. Beneath the "SIGN IN" button
there is a disclosure in a greyed out box that "By proceeding, you
agree to our Terms and Conditions." The change in language --
notifying users that by "proceeding" they would agree to
hyperlinked Terms and Conditions -- is a material, significant
change. However, that disclosure is still placed beneath the SIGN
IN button, so there remains a question whether that disclosure was
sufficient to put a reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice.

Judge Orrick need not definitely resolve this question, however,
given further modifications that JLI made to its landing page as of
April 2021 that were in place when Burgher and Lana logged into the
juul.com website in May and September 2021 respectively. On the
April 2021 "Log In" page, the grayed out box containing the
disclosure that "By proceeding, you agree to our Terms and
Conditions" is placed immediately above the "LOG INTO MY ACCOUNT"
button. Consistent with numerous decisions from this District, this
placement of the disclosure and the broad "By proceeding" language
-- even absent the clickbox -- is sufficient to put a reasonably
prudent user on inquiry notice to find constructive assent to the
Arbitration Policy contained in the Terms and Conditions.

Therefore, at least as of May and September 2021, Burgher and Lana
were on inquiry notice that by proceeding to use the juul.com site,
they were agreeing to be bound by the Terms and Conditions.
Therefore, there is sufficient constructive assent to the
Arbitration Policy.

The remaining question is whether the assent to be bound by the
Arbitration Policy in 2021 by using JLI's website requires
arbitration of Burgher and Lana's claims related to purchases that
took place prior to 2021. JLI argues that because the Arbitration
Policy Burgher and Lana agreed to in 2021 contained broad "Website
Term of Use" language mandating the arbitration of "any claim,
dispute, or controversy arising out of or in connection with or
relating to these Terms, the breach or alleged breach thereof, or
your purchase or use of JUUL Products," the prior purchases are now
covered by the Arbitration Policy. Judge Orrick holds that these
arguments go to the scope of the Arbitration Policy, matters to be
resolved by the arbitrator.

III. Conclusion

Judge Orrick concludes the prior uses and purchases of Burgher and
Lana through juul.com are arguably covered by the Arbitration
Policy (although the arbitrator will be the final arbiter of the
scope of the Arbitration Policy) and granted JLI's motion to
compel.

Judge Orrick granted the motion to compel as to the two new DPPs
Jonathan Burgher and Anthony Lana. The effect of the Order, as well
as the August 2021 Order, is further stayed for 30 days to allow
the DPPs to substitute in a class representative whose claims
against JLI and the Director Defendants would not be subject to
arbitration and for the DPPs to notify Judge Orrick whether they
want the claims of Martinez, McGee, Flannery, Burgher, and Lana
dismissed or stayed pending arbitration.

The DPPs will file their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint within 30 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdz46vwz from Leagle.com.


KALEIDA HEALTH: Ct. Enters Order on Class Certification in Lutz
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lutz, et al., v. Kaleida
Health, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01112 (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jeremiah J. Mccarthy entered an order that the deadlines for the
completion of the deposition of plaintiff's expert (if necessary)
and for class certification and/or dispositive motions will be set
following resolution of the motion to strike.

The suit alleges violation of the  Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving Employee Benefits.

Kaleida Health, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare
network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls
metropolitan area.[CC]


KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT: Seeks Denial of Brayman Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL BRAYMAN,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. KEYPOINT GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Defendant contends that the Motion for Rule 23 Class
Certification filed by named Plaintiffs Adriana Ponce and Dana
McCarthy (including the members of the putative class, the
"Plaintiffs") for unpaid wages for "off the clock" work, meal
period violations, and rest break violations fails.  

The Plaintiffs cannot show any common, unlawful policy of KeyPoint
justifying class treatment, and marshal only anecdotal and
discrepant evidence to support their California claims; in doing so
establishing, ironically, that individualized issues predominate
over common issues, the Defendant adds.

In its Motion for Decertification, KeyPoint demonstrated that
employees understood nationwide that KeyPoint required them to
record all time worked. The Plaintiffs have not produced any
evidence of an unwritten KeyPoint policy preventing or even
discouraging them from reporting their hours accurately. KeyPoint
also demonstrated that Plaintiffs' disparate explanations for why
they individually chose to allegedly work off the clock preclude
class treatment. Similarly, the California class overtime claims
should not be certified under Rule 23.

KeyPoint Government Solutions provides security services. The
Company offers security clearance background investigations and
employment screening.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nZ8NnV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Caroline Elizabeth Bressman, Esq.
          H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  cbressman@nka.com
                  ccolemanb@nka.com
                  rdesai@nka.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Matthew Helland, Esq
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          234 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  gswegman@nicholllaw.com
                  kaburgy@nichollaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret Parnell Hogan, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          Michelle L. Gomez, Esq.
          Thomas W. Carroll, Esq.
          Danielle VanKatwyk, Esq.
          Jacqueline E. Kalk, Esq.
          Matthew J. Ruza, Esq.
          Steven Kaplan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1900 16th Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: mphogan@littler.com
                  jharpole@littler.com
                  mgomez@littler.com
                  tcarroll@littler.com
                  dvankatwyk@littler.com
                  JKalk@littler.com
                  mruza@littler.com
                  skaplan@littler.com

LENDUS LLC: Console & Associates Investigates Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Console & Associates, P.C. recently announced that
it is opening an investigation into the recent LendUS, LLC data
breach to determine what, if any, legal remedies those affected by
the breach have against the company. LendUS, LLC may be financially
liable to those consumers whose information was compromised if the
company failed to take the necessary steps to secure sensitive
consumers' data in advance of the breach.

A data breach involves an unauthorized party gaining access to
consumer data that is being maintained by a company. Usually, data
breaches are the result of a hacking event or some other type of
cyberattack. While a data breach doesn't necessarily mean that the
information obtained will be used for criminal purposes, it is a
very real possibility, as there is no way to be sure what the party
in possession of the information plans to do with it.

News of the LendUS data breach is very fresh, and the investigation
is only in its infancy. However, the breach raises questions about
the company's efforts to keep consumer data secure. If it turns out
that LendUS, LLC mishandled consumer data leading up to the breach
or did not ensure adequate IT security measures were in place,
affected parties may be eligible for financial compensation through
a class action lawsuit.

Attorney Richard P. Console, Jr. explains, "It's easy to place all
the blame for a data breach on the person who hacks into an
organization's system; however, this ignores the legal and moral
obligation that these companies owe to customers. When someone
gives a company their business, they trust that the information in
the organization's possession will remain private -- and out of the
hands of criminals. While protecting consumer data requires a
business to undergo some effort and expense, in our current
environment of widespread hacking, this is a cost of doing business
that all organizations must take seriously."

According to the data breach letter by LendUS, LLC, the company
noticed unusual activity regarding several employees' email
accounts. In response, the company secured the employees' email
accounts and initiated an investigation into what was then only a
possible breach. However, the investigation confirmed that an
unauthorized party accessed certain employee email accounts at
various times between February 2, 2021 and March 22, 2021. While
LendUS, LLC was not able to determine which emails or attachments
were accessed, the company determined that the email accounts
contained the names and Social Security numbers of 12,205
individuals.

LendUS, LLC notes that there is no indication that the unauthorized
party used or intends to use any of the data obtained; however, the
company's investigation is ongoing. On January 19, the company sent
out data breach notifications to all affected parties, informing
them of the breach and what they can do to protect themselves.

As the investigation progresses, if it turns out that LendUS, LLC
did not maintain the necessary data-security protocol to protect
consumers' data, those impacted by the breach may be able to pursue
a claim for financial compensation through a class action lawsuit.

Those receiving a data breach letter from the LendUS, LLC should
take the following steps to protect themselves:

-- Carefully review the letter sent by LendUS, LLC;

-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;

-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by LendUS,
LLC;

-- Change all passwords and security questions to online accounts;

-- Frequently review all credit card and bank account statements
for any signs of fraud or unauthorized activity;

-- Monitor credit reports for any unexpected changes or signs of
identity theft;

-- Contact a credit bureau to request a temporary fraud alert; and

8.) Notify all banks and credit card companies of the data breach.

To learn more about this data breach, please visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/lendus-data-breach/

Console & Associates P.C. is dedicated to advancing consumers'
privacy interests at every opportunity. The firm investigates all
types of data breaches, ransomware attacks and other network
intrusions to determine the legal rights of consumers who trusted
corporations with their sensitive information. Console &
Associates, P.C. can be reached through the firm's website at
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/consumer-privacy-data-breach-lawyers/.
[GN]

LIBERTY HOMECARE: Class Cert. Oral Argument Reset for March 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Headly v. Liberty Homecare
Options, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00579 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order resetting the oral argument
on the question of conditional and class certification for March
15, 2022 at 10 a.m.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Liberty Homecare Options is a non-medical agency.[CC]

LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 28
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cary Leeper, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lighthouse
Insurance Group, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02821-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Pamela Barker entered an order granting stipulated
motion for extension of time.

The Parties shall have until Feb. 28, 2022 to complete all
discovery. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
filed no later than March 28, 2022.

Lighthouse Insurance Group LLC was founded in 2011. The company's
line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KmodMkat no extra charge.[CC]

LOUIS MILUSNIC: Torres Seeks Non-Provisional Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YONNEDIL CARROR TORRES; et
al., v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting non-provisional certification of the class that the Court
provisionally certified in its July 14, 2020 Order, for the
purposes of final injunctive and declaratory relief, that class is:


   "[A]ll current and future people in post-conviction custody
   at FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc over the age of 50, and all
   current and future people in post-conviction custody at FCI
   Lompoc and USP Lompoc of any age with underlyinghealth
   conditions,  including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
   serious heart conditions such as heart failure, coronary
   artery disease, or cardiomyopathies; Type 2 diabetes; chronic
   kidney disease; sickle cell disease; immunocompromised state
   from a solid organ transplant; obesity (body mass index of 30
   or higher); asthma; cerebrovascular diseases; cystic
   fibrosis; hypertension or high blood pressure;
   immunocompromised state from blood or bone marrow transplant;
   immune deficiencies, HIV, or those who use corticosteroids,
   or use other immune weakening medicines; neurologic
   conditions such as dementia; liver diseases; pulmonary
   fibrosis; thalassemia; Type 1 diabetes; and smokers."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KtfmZ8
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Dorothy Wolpert, Esq.
          Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq.
          Kate S. Shin, Esq.
          Oliver Rocos, Esq.
          Christopher J. Lee, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
          NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
          RHOW, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23 rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com
                  dwolpert@birdmarella.com
                  sbannett@birdmarella.com
                  kshin@birdmarella.com
                  orocos@birdmarella.com
                  clee@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          Ima E. Nsien, Esq.
          David Boyadzhyan, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: nrim@manatt.com
                  insien@manatt.com
                  dboyadzhyan@manatt.com

               - and -

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Sara Norman, Esq.
          Sophie Hart, Esq.
          Patrick Booth, Esq.
          Jacob J. Hutt, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621
          Facsimile: (510) 280-2704
          E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com
                  snorman@prisonlaw.com
                  sophieh@prisonlaw.com
                  patrick@prisonlaw.com
                  jacob@prisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq.
          Peter Bibring, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF
          SOUTHERN th CALIFORNIA
          1313 West 8 Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5297
          E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org
                  pbibring@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          C. Ryan Fisher, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 14 th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 371-2500
          Facsimile (714) 371-2550
          E-mail: cfisher@manatt.com

LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Filing of Premotion Conference Due Jan. 28
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ariza, et al., v.
Luxottica Retail North America, Case No. 1:17-cv-05216 (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Roanne L. Mann entered an order that any party
wishing to pursue a Rule 56 motion must, by January 28, 2022, file
a request for a premotion conference before Judge Chen.

The Court said, "Fact and expert discovery in this case has long
since closed, and Judge Chen has now resolved the parties' class
certification and Daubert motions. A review of the docket suggests
that, at the parties' request summary judgment briefing was
deferred until after the resolution of Rule 23 and Daubert
motions."

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

Luxottica Retail offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. The
Company offers premium, luxury, and sports eyewear.[CC]

MAISON DE'VILLE: Feb 26 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE VERDIN, CATHERINE
NAQUIN, MARY HELMER, OLIVIA HELMER, LAUREN HELMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BOB DEAN, JR., MAISON
DE'VILLE NURSING HOME OF HARVEY, L.L.C., ST. ELIZABETH'S CARING,
L.L.C., RACELAND MANOR NURSING HOME, INC., MAISON DE'VILLE NURSING
HOME, INC., RIVER PALMS NURSING & REHAB, L.L.C., UPTOWN HEALTHCARE
CENTER, L.L.C., BOB DEAN ENTERPRISES, INC., and LOUISIANA
HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, L.L.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01976-JCZ-DMD
(E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs, Janice Verdin, Catherine Naquin, Mary
Helmer, Olivia Helmer and Lauren Helmer ask the Court to enter an
order granting them an additional 30 days, or until February 26,
2022, to file their motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action petition for damages in the
24th Judicial District Court for Jefferson Parish on September 29,
2021, which was thereafter removed to this Honorable Court by the
Defendants on Wednesday, October 27, 2021.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1(B), the deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file a motion to certify this matter as a class
action pursuant to FRCP 23(c)(1) is January 26, 2022. Local Rule
23.1(B) further provides that this deadline may be extended by
Order to the Court.

This case is in its infancy. Counsel for the Parties have conferred
and are conducting informal discovery, including the exchange of
relevant documents, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs aver that additional discovery is needed before a
meaningful motion for class certification can be filed in this
case, the Plaintiffs add.

Maison De'ville is a senior living provider in Harvey, Louisiana.
Saint Elizabeth's Caring LLC provides extended-stay nursing care to
seniors with varying levels of disabilities in Harvey, Louisiana.
Raceland Manor is a nursing facility.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rs64Ee
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Pedersen, Esq.
          839 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 306
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-3610
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7509
          E-mail: Jcpedersen@howardandreed.com

               - and -

          Shawn C. Reed, Esq.
          516 N. Columbia Street
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 893-3607
          Facsimile: (985) 893-3478
          E-mail: Sreed@howardandreed.com

MARATHON DIGITAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon
Patent Group, Inc. ("Marathon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MARA) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada, and docketed
under 21-cv-02209, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Marathon securities between October 13, 2020 and
November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Marathon securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 15, 2022 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Marathon is a digital asset technology company that mines
cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the
generation of digital assets in the United States. The Company was
formerly known as "Marathon Patent Group, Inc." and changed its
name to "Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc." on March 1, 2021.

In October 2020, Marathon announced the formation of a new joint
venture with Beowulf Energy LLC ("Beowulf") purportedly focused on
delivering low-cost power to Marathon's Bitcoin mining operations
(the "Beowulf Joint Venture"). In connection with that joint
venture, Marathon entered into a series of agreements with multiple
parties to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana (the
"Hardin Facility"), issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to
the parties of those agreements.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Beowulf Joint Venture, as
it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated potential regulatory
violations, including U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a
result, the Beowulf Joint Venture subjected Marathon to a
heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was
reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's business and commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 15, 2021, Marathon disclosed that "the Company and
certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents
and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center
facility[,]" and advised that "the SEC may be investigating whether
or not there may have been any violations of the federal securities
law."

On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $20.52 per share, or
27.03%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021.

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

CONTACT:

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

MARKER GROUP: Logan Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LOGAN and NATHAN BAXTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARKER GROUP, INC., a
Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00174 (S.D. Tex.,
Jan. 18, 2022) is a class action against Defendant for its alleged
failure to properly secure and safeguard medical records and other
documentation containing sensitive information that Plaintiffs and
class members in mass tort litigations against Defendant's
customers entrusted to it, in violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

On September 3, 2021, Defendant noticed "suspicious activity" on
its computer network and later determined that files were accessed
by an "unknown, unauthorized third-party." In its Notice of Data
Breach dated December 23, 2021, Marker Group advises that the files
accessed contained personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI). However, the Notice provides
scant other information, including how long these unauthorized
third-parties had access to the medical records and other sensitive
information of Plaintiffs and Class Members.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to comply with
industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII
and PHI, as well as failed to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their
PII and PHI had been accessed and potentially acquired by an
unauthorized third-party.

Marker Group, Inc. provides litigation support services to law
firms, insurance companies, and corporations in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Sanov, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 500
          Houston, TX 77084
          E-mail: psanov@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                  fkester@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Paul Pennock, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
          Brooklyn, NY 11232
          Telephone: (212) 738-6839
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2439
          E-mail: ppennock@forthepeople.com
                  jsedgh@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Rd 6th floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Stephanie O'Connor, Esq.
          DOUGLAS & LONDON, P.C.
          59 Maiden Lane, 6th Fl.
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 566-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 566-5601
          E-mail: sconnor@douglasandlondon.com

MATRIX TRUST: Time Extension on Expert Witness Designations Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as
Sponsor and Administrator of the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEES
401(K) PLAN and the MBA ENGINEERING, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN, and
CRAIG MEIDINGER, as Trustee of the MBA Engineering, Inc. Employees
401(k) Plan and the MBA Engineering, Inc. Cash Balance Plan,
Individually and as representative of all others similarly
situated, v. MATRIX TRUST COMPANY, and MATRIX SETTLEMENT AND
CLEARANCE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01915-E (N.D. Tex.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending by 60 days the
deadlines relating to expert witness designations in the Class
Certification Scheduling Order issued on May 21, 2021, to be
consistent with the Court's January 12, 2022 electronic order
granting in part and denying in part the Parties' Joint Motion for
Leave to Extend the Class Certification Scheduling Order
Deadlines.

In its January 12, 2022 Order granting in part and denying in part
the Parties' Joint Motion for Leave to Extend the Class
Certification Scheduling Order, the Court extended by 60 days the
time for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification to
April 1, 2022 and for the Defendants to file their response by July
2, 2022. Because the Order did not address the Parties' request
that the deadlines relating to expert witness designations, those
deadlines currently remain as February 1, 2022 for Plaintiffs to
file designations of expert witnesses, March 3, 2022 for Defendants
to file designations of expert witnesses, and April 1, 2022 for
completion of depositions of class certification experts.

Matrix Trust provides automated trust, custody and agent services
for Qualified and Non-Qualified Retirement Plans. Matrix Trust is a
Colorado state-chartered trust company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ahiva8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Melissa D. Hill, Esq.
          David Monteiro, Esq.
          Justin Roel Chapa, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201-7347
          Telephone: (214) 466-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
          E-mail: justin.chapa@morganlewis.com
                  david.monteiro@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Lewis, Esq.
          One Market Street, Spear Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: robert.lewis@morganlewis.com
          Melissa D. Hill (Pro Hac Vice)
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: melissa.hill@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Abbey M. Glenn, Esq.
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: abbey.glenn@morganlewis.com

MCAFEE CORP: Coffman Sues Over Sale to Advent International
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Coffman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McAfee Corp., Jon Winkelried,
Kathy Willard, Jeff Woolard, Tim Millikin, Sohaib Abbasi, Peter
Leav, Mary Cranston, Gunther Bright and Emily Rollins, Defendants,
Case No. 22-cv-00361 (N.D. Cal., January 19, 2022), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of McAfee
by an investor group led by Advent International Corporation,
Permira Advisers LLC, Crosspoint Capital Partners, Canada Pension
Plan Investment Board, GIC Private Limited, and a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority through their
affiliates Condor BidCo, Inc. and Condor Merger Sub, Inc.  The
lawsuit further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, McAfee stockholders will
receive $26.00 in cash for each share of McAfee common stock they
own. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $12
billion on an equity value basis.

Coffman claims that the proxy statement filed in connection with
the transaction fails to provide company stockholders with the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by McAfee's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs, including
net revenue, gross margin, adjusted EBITDA and unlevered free cash
flow. The description of Goldman Sachs's fairness opinion and
analyses failed to include key inputs and assumptions underlying
these analyses, asserts the complaint.

McAfee provides online protection for consumers. McAfee's common
stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker
symbol "MCFE." [BN]

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
      Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      305 Broadway, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

             - and -

      Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 860-9158
      Fax: (212) 214-0506
      Email: raymond@bespc.com

MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Court Junks Initial OK of Manzo Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENNIFER MANZO, v.
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., AND DOES 1-50, Case No.
1:20-cv-01175-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena M.
Barch-Kuchta entered an order denying preliminary approval of class
action and PAGA settlement without prejudice as follows:

   (1) The Plaintiff's Motion is denied without prejudice to the
       parties submitting a renewed motion to correct and/or
       clarify the deficiencies noted above. In order to
       expedite the handling of this matter, the Court requests
       that such motion shall be filed within five days of the
       date of this Order.

   (2) If Plaintiff files a renewed motion, she shall also
       specify the necessary number of days between the Court's
       anticipated issuance of any preliminary approval order
       and the date of any final approval hearing.

The proposed settlement includes the following terms relevant to
this Order:

   1. Settlement Class

       The proposed settlement class includes the following two
       groups:

       The "June 2, 2020 Settlement Subclass" consists of:

       "all California non-exempt employees who received wage
       statements that included daily, weekly, or seventh day
       premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages at any time
       from June 2, 2020 through the Preliminary Approval Date
       ("June 2, 2020 Subclass Class Period") and who were
       subject to the class settlement reached in Sanchez v.
       McDonald's Restaurants of Cal., Inc., Los Angeles County
       Superior Court Case No. BC499888."

       The "April 6, 2019 Settlement Subclass" consists of:

       "all California non-exempt employees who received wage
       statements that included daily, weekly, or seventh day
       premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages at any time
       from April 6, 2019 through the Preliminary Approval Date
       ("April 6, 2019 Subclass Class Period"), and who were not
       subject to the class settlement reached in Sanchez v.
       McDonald's Restaurants of Cal., Inc., Los Angeles County
       Superior Court Case No. BC499888.

       There are approximately 5,500 class members and 57,000
       wage statements at issue.

   2. Gross and Net Settlement Amounts

      a. Gross Settlement Amount

         The Gross Settlement Amount is $2 million. This amounts
         to an average of $35.09 per wage statement. Should the
         actual number of wage statements "containing daily,
         weekly, or seventh day premium overtime furnished to
         these groups exceeds 57,000 during the" relevant
         subclass periods through June 30, 2021, "the Gross
         Settlement Amount will increase proportionally on a per
         wage statement basis for the number of wage statements
         in excess of 57,000." No portion of the Gross
         Settlement Amount will be retained by or revert to
         Defendant.

      b. PAGA Penalties

         The settlement allocates $100,000 of the Gross
         Settlement Amount for PAGA penalties. From this amount,
         75% will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
         Development Agency ("LWDA") and 25% will be distributed
         to the settlement class members. Potential class
         members who opt out of the class action settlement will
         receive $10.00 in settlement of their PAGA claims.

      c. Estimate of Net Settlement Amount

         The Plaintiff estimates that the net settlement amount
         available for distribution to the class members will be
         approximately $1,188,333,33, which would amount to up
         to $216.06 on raw average.

      d. Distribution of Penalties and Net Settlement Amount

         The settlement provides that both the PAGA penalties
         and the net settlement amount are to be distributed
         according to the class member's "proportionate share."

         The proportionate share is: based on the number of
         qualifying wage statements they received during their
         applicable Subclass Class period as follows:

         April 6, 2019 Subclass: the number of wage statements
         that included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium
         overtime and/or MQI True Up wages received by the
         Settlement Class Member at any time during the April 6,
         2019 Subclass Class Period divided by the total number
         of wage statements that included daily, weekly, or
         seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages
         received by all April 6, 2019 Settlement Class Members
         during the April 6, 2019 Subclass Class Period.

         June 2, 2020 Subclass: the number of wage statements
         that included daily, weekly, or seventh day premium
         overtime and/or MQI True Up wages received by the
         Settlement Class Member at any time during the June 2,
         2020 Subclass Class Period divided by the total number
         of wage statements that included daily, weekly, or
         seventh day premium overtime and/or MQI True Up wages
         received by all June 2, 2020 Settlement Class Members
         during the June 2, 2020 Subclass Class Period.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant. The Plaintiff's
claims were based on allegations that Defendant's wage statements
were inaccurate in two ways. First, she alleged the wage statements
"did not identify the overtime rate as 1.5 times the regular rate
of pay," but instead reflected the rate of "one-half (0.5) the base
hourly rate of pay." Second, she alleged the wage statements failed
to identify the correct rates of pay and applicable number of hours
for "MQI True Up" wages. Though she does not explain "MQI True Up"
wages, she characterizes them as a form of overtime.

The Plaintiff contends these inaccuracies violate Labor Code
section 226 and entitle her and the putative class to penalties
under that section and under the PAGA. At the outset of this case,
th Plaintiff sought to represent non-exempt employees who, after
April 6, 2019, were paid overtime or "MQI True Up" wages.

McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. owns and operates a
chain of restaurants. The Company offers sandwiches, burgers,
chicken, fish, and beverages.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fwQUrG at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2452: Adams Appeals Denial of Bid to Retax Costs
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jean Adams filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled INCRETIN-BASED THERAPIES PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:13-md-02452-AJB-MDD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

The multidistrict litigation involves claims that Defendants failed
to warn that four prescription drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes
cause or create an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Plaintiffs
are individuals with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed and
consumed one or more of the prescription drugs marketed
respectively as Januvia, Janumet, Byetta, and Victoza. Defendants
are the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and market the
drugs, including Amylin Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Eli Lilly and
Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Novo Nordisk Inc.

In March 2021, the Court granted and entered summary judgment in
favor of Defendants based on federal preemption and lack of general
causation evidence. The Defendants thereafter filed bills of costs.
On May 4, 2021, the Clerk of Court determined the total costs taxed
in favor of Defendants in the amount of $187,466.58 to Amylin,
$76,357.06 to Lilly, $83,454.20 to Merck, and $258,633.75 to Novo.

On May 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to re-tax bill of
costs.

On December 17, 2021, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion to retax costs.

Ms. Adams now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as JEAN ADAMS, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., FKA Merck & Co. Inc.; AMYLIN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; NOVO NORDISK A/S,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-55095, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 19, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due today, January 26,
2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by February 17, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be filed on March 21, 2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record are due on
April 25, 2022;

   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record are due on
May 25, 2022; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

MEDALLION FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Probes Possible Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Medallion Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: MFIN) resulting
from allegations that Medallion may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Medallion securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2234.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 29, 2021, before the market opened,
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), filed a
complaint alleging Medallion and two of its corporate officers
engaged in schemes in attempts to reverse the Company's declining
stock price. Charges in the complaint include violating antifraud,
books and records, internal controls, and anti-touting provisions
of federal securities laws amongst others. On this news,
Medallion's stock price fell $1.78 per share, or over 21%, on
December 29, 2021.

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

MEDTRONIC PLC: Faces Class Action Over Surgical Stapler Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that
Medtronic and its Covidien subsidiary face a surgical stapler class
action lawsuit in Canada, raising allegations that mirror similar
claims presented throughout the U.S. court system, indicating that
stapler defects and failures have led to life-threatening
infections and other adverse health complications.

According to a report by CTVNews published late last month, Health
Canada has received more than 1,100 reports of surgical stapler
malfunctions, which have led to several class action lawsuits in
that country.

One complaint, filed by Angelo Paolozzi indicates staples used on
his bowels after a diverticulitis surgery failed, resulting in a
life-threatening infection that left him hospitalized for a month.

Another class action complaint, filed in British Columbia by Lois
Ruscheinski, came after Ruscheinski nearly died of internal
bleeding after a staple line in her bowel failed, resulting in her
bleeding from multiple wounds which led to her being hospitalized
for several days.

The complaints join a growing number of similar surgical stapler
lawsuits being filed here in the U.S. as well in recent years, all
claiming Covidien and other manufacturers designed defective
products which have been plagued by recalls and numerous reports of
surgical complications. [GN]

METRO AND GRAHAM: Lopez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. METRO AND GRAHAM LLC (D/B/A WHOLESOME BASKET), SALEH IBRAHIM,
and FAROUK ABOU ZEID, Case No. 1:22-cv-00332 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 20,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law
as well as "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.

Allegedly, Plaintiff Lopez worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, says the suit.

The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff Lopez the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
Lopez wages on a timely basis, added the suit.

Mr. Lopez was employed by Defendants at Wholesome Basket from
October 1, 2020 until August 23, 2021. He was employed as a food
preparer, dishwasher, stocker worker and cleaner at the deli
located at 344 Graham Ave, Brooklyn, New York.

The Defendants operate a deli located in the Williamsburg section
of Brooklyn in New York City.

The Individual Defendants, Saleh Ibrahim and Farouk Abou Zeid,
possess operational control over Defendant Corporation, possess
ownership interests in Defendant Corporation, or control
significant functions of Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

METROMILE INC: Lemonade Merger Deal Lacks Info, Wilhelm Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WILHELM, Plaintiff v. METROMILE, INC., DAN PRESTON, COLIN
BRYANT, JOHN BUTLER, SANDRA CLARKE, RYAN GRAVES, and VIKAS SINGHAL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 14, 2022) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated stockholders for Defendants' alleged violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
arising out of their attempt to sell the Metromile to Lemonade,
Inc. through Lemonade's subsidiaries Citrus Merger Sub A, Inc. and
Citrus Merger Sub B, LLC.

On November 8, 2021, Metromile and Lemonade announced they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which,
each Metromile stockholder will receive 0.05263 shares of Lemonade
common stock for each Metromile share they own.

On December 29, 2021, Metromile filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy Statement with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is materially
deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose
material information regarding: (i) the Company's and Lemonade's
financial projections and the financial analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor Allen & Company LLC; (ii) the
background of the proposed transaction; and (iii) Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. Without additional information,
the Proxy is materially misleading in violation of the federal
securities laws, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the proposed transaction unless and until the
material information is disclosed to the holders of the Company
common stock, or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

Metromile, Inc. is a San Francisco, California-based technology
startup that offers pay-per-mile car insurance, licenses a digital
insurance platform to insurance companies around the world, and
provides a digitally native offering featuring smart driving
features, automated claims, and vehicle information.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          LONG LAW, LLC
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 729-9100
          E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com

               - and -

          Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 860-9158
          Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
          E-mail: raymond@bespc.com

MLD MORTGAGE: Dye Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Loan Borrowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER DYE, et. al., v. MLD
MORTGAGE, INC., dba THE MONEY STORE, Case No. 1:19-cv-03304-ELH (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs Roger and Linda Dye, and Lynn Glasser and
Nicole Cole ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 to proceed as a class action and for certification of
the following Class and Subclasses:

   "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
   mortgage loan originated by, brokered by, and/or otherwise
   obtained from MLD Mortgage, Inc., d/b/a The Money Store, for
   which All Star Title, Inc., provided a settlement service, as
   identified in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, or
   Closing Disclosure 1 , between September 1, 2014, and March
   31, 2016."

   Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period
   of September 1, 2014, through March 31, 2016, was an
   employee, officer, member and/or agent of MLD Mortgage Inc.
   d/b/a The Money Store, or All Star Title, Inc.

   The RICO Subclass is comprised of all members of The Money
   Store Class.

   "The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all members of The Money

   Store Class who were borrowers on a federally related
   mortgage loan (as defined under the Real Estate Settlement
   Procedures Act, between September 1, 2014, and March 31,
   2016."

   The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
   Representatives.

MLD Mortgage provides financing services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GJFVal
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

MOSQUITO SQUAD: Lenorowitz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Case No.
3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting his motion for class certification pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Mosquito Squad offers barrier spraying and misting to control
mosquito and ticks for residential and commercial customers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33wfqGY
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282


MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO: Martinez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Isaura Martinez filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
MULTI-SERVICIOS LATINO, INC., RIGOBERTO AGUILAR, individually,
EUGENIO AGUILAR, individually, SAUL HERNANDEZ, individually, RON'S
TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES, INC. and RON MICHELON, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10748, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover wages stolen from low-wage residents of the Little
Village community of Chicago, Illinois through a scheme involving
currency exchanges, and Chicago area staffing agencies.

According to the complaint, to avoid the prohibition under Illinois
law against charging temporary laborers for transportation, many
area staffing agencies, including Ron's Staffing, engage raiteros
such as Rigo, Eugenio and Saul to recruit temporary laborers from
Little Village in Chicago, a community heavily populated with
recent immigrants who are easily exploited, and to transport those
laborers to a staffing agency's client companies where the staffing
agency has a contract or agreement to provide temporary laborers
for a fee. Rather than compensate the raiteros directly, staffing
agencies that engage in this unlawful scheme provide the raiteros
with the weekly paychecks of the temporary laborers, including
Plaintiff, who then take the laborers' paychecks to a currency
exchange, in this case Multi-Servicios CE, with which they have an
arrangement.

The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated laborers, that the scheme engaged in between the area
staffing agencies, including Ron's Staffing, their agents the
Defendant Raiteros, and the currency exchange, Multi-Servicios CE
violated multiple state and federal laws designed to protect
workers from theft of their wages and designed to protect consumers
from forced and excessive charges for check-cashing services.

Defendant Elite Staffing, Inc. moved to dismiss on res judicata
grounds, arguing that Plaintiff is engaged in impermissible claim
splitting following the settlement of a prior lawsuit, Baker v.
Elite Staffing, Inc., Case No. 15 CV 3246. In Baker, Plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated sued Elite
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services
Act.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Order entered on October
31, 2019, granting Defendant Elite Staffing, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' class action complaint against Elite Staffing,
Inc. on res judicata grounds and the Order entered on July 16, 2020
denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal
order by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland, Judge of the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. The District Court entered a Final Order on December 20,
2021, granting final approval of the class action settlement with
the remaining Defendant in the matter and terminating this matter.

The appellate case is captioned as ISAURA MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. ELITE STAFFING, INC., Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 22-1090, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, on Jan. 19, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Isaura Martinez, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1275
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121

MYLIFE.COM INC: Dennis Appeals FCRA Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Deidre Dennis, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Deidre Dennis, William
Bonvie, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. MYLIFE.COM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00954, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was commenced
on January 29, 2020 and is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act, the New Jersey common law right of publicity, and the New
Jersey right of privacy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant promotes itself as
knowingly and deliberately gathering information and preparing
reports that bear upon a consumer's character, general reputation,
personal characteristics or mode of living.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant gathers and sells
information concerning consumers without the consent of the
consumers. The Defendant's purpose behind furnishing reports
concerning searched individuals is to advertise its service of
providing details about the person's identity, character and
reputation for purposes, such as hiring. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendant does not follow reasonable procedures to assure the
maximum possible accuracy regarding the information that it sells
about consumers.

The Defendant's unauthorized use, for a commercial purpose, of an
individual's name or likeness harms that individual by diluting the
value of the name and depriving the individual of compensation
derived from the use of that name or likeness, the Plaintiffs aver.
They add that the information about consumers published by the
Defendant also invades the privacy of consumers protected by New
Jersey law by publicly disclosing private facts, such as the
purported income, net worth or religion of the consumer.

The Defendant has published and continues to publish information
about consumers that violates their rights under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and New Jersey law, the Plaintiffs further assert.
Both Plaintiffs sustained particularized and concrete harm as a
result of the actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.

On September 18, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case.

On December 20, 2021, Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order
granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing Plaintiffs'
complaint without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Deidre Dennis, et al. v.
Mylife.com Inc., Case No. 22-1110, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Jan. 20, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DEIDRE DENNIS and WILLIAM BONVIE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com   

Defendant-Appellee MYLIFE.COM INC. is represented by:

          Robert T. Szyba, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-3351

NATERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 17
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA) resulting from
allegations that Natera may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Natera securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2240.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On January 1, 2022, the New York Times
published an article calling into question the accuracy of certain
non-invasive prenatal tests ("NIPT"), including Natera's NIPT,
Panorama. The New York Times analyzed data and spoke to researchers
to conclude that positive results from tests screening for certain
rare chromosomal microdeletion disorders are incorrect
approximately 85% of the time. Patients who receive a positive
result are supposed to pursue follow-up testing, which "can cost
thousands of dollars, come with a small risk of miscarriage and
can't be performed until later in pregnancy." On this news,
Natera's stock price fell sharply, thereby damaging investors.

Then, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for Accountability filed a
complaint letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), alleging that Natera misled investors by, among other
things, failing to disclose the prevalence of false positives from
four of the five disorders screened by Panorama. The Campaign for
Accountability complaint letter also alleged that the Company
issued false and misleading statements about the accuracy of
Panorama. On this news, Natera's stock price declined again,
thereby damaging investors.

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

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

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

NATIONAL GRID: Court Won't Remand Nightingale Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Robert Nightingale, Plaintiff v. National
Grid USA Service Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court.

The putative class action arises out of alleged violations of the
Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations, 940 C.M.R. Section 700,
et seq. ("the Regulations"). The Plaintiff Nightingale claims that
Defendant First Contact LLC called him and similarly situated
Massachusetts residents with respect to debts allegedly owed to
Defendant National Grid more frequently than that which is
prescribed by the relative regulations, i.e. two times in a
seven-day period.

Background

At an unspecified time, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to National
Grid. He alleges that in or around June 2018, he began receiving
calls from First Contact, a purported representative of National
Grid, attempting to collect the debt.

On Oct. 8, 2018, Nightingale sued National Grid in the
Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated Massachusetts citizens,
alleging violations of the Regulations and M.G.L. c. 93A, Section
2, et seq., based on the frequency of those calls. He later amended
his complaint to state claims against First Contact and its parent
corporation, iQor US Inc. In November 2019, First Contact and iQor
removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2). Asserting that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, Nightingale now belatedly moves to remand.

Motion to Remand

The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") affords the federal district
courts original jurisdiction over any civil action in which 1) any
member of a plaintiff class is a citizen of a different state than
any defendant, 2) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and
3) the class is comprised of 100 or more members.

Here, all three conditions are met, Judge Gorton finds. The
Plaintiff is a resident of Massachusetts, while iQor and First
Contact are not, and the Plaintiff has alleged more than $5 million
in classwide damages and the putative class far exceeds 100
members. Nevertheless, and despite having litigated the present
action in this Court for over two years, Nightingale contends that
CAFA's local controversy exception, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4),
compels the Court to remand the case.

That argument is untimely and meritless in any event, and remand is
not warranted, Judge Gorton holds.

The local controversy exception requires that a district court
decline to exercise its jurisdiction under CAFA where 1) greater
than two-thirds of the Plaintiff class members are citizens of the
state in which the action was originally filed, 2) at least one
Defendant from whom significant relief is sought and whose alleged
conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted is also a
citizen of that state, 3) the principal injuries resulting from the
alleged conduct were incurred in that same state and 4) no other
similar claim against any Defendant by persons asserting similar
facts has been filed during the preceding three years.

While a motion to remand generally is timely only if filed within
30 days of removal, the Plaintiff contends that remand under the
local controversy exception is available at any time prior to
judgment because the exception goes to subject matter jurisdiction,
or rather to the lack thereof in the district court. Judge Gorton
holds that that notion does not bear scrutiny. The local
controversy exception is not jurisdictional. Rather, it is a form
of statutorily-mandated abstention that requires a district court
to "decline to exercise jurisdiction" under certain circumstances.
Because the Plaintiff cannot conjure a defect in the Court's
subject-matter jurisdiction, his motion is untimely and will be
denied.

Finally, even if the motion had been timely filed, remand would not
be appropriate, Judge Gorton finds. The local controversy exception
applies only where the local defendant's alleged conduct forms a
significant basis for the claims asserted by the plaintiffs. While
neither the statute nor the First Circuit has provided guidance as
to the meaning of "significant basis", other sessions of this
district court have interpreted "significant" to require that the
subject conduct be significant in relation to the conduct alleged
against other defendants in the complaint, and that the relief
sought against the local defendant be significant in relation to
the total relief sought by the class.

Here, all of the alleged unlawful conduct was undertaken by First
Contact and any action of the local defendant, National Grid, was
secondary, Judge Gorton opines. Under such circumstances, the local
controversy exception does not apply.

Order

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Jan. 6,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckra5z2 from
Leagle.com.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Jewel Files Certiorari Petition in Wiretap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carolyn Jewel, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Carolyn Jewel, et al., Petitioners v. National Security
Agency, et al., Respondents, Case No. 21-1017, on January 19,
2022.

Response is due on February 18, 2022.

The Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled CAROLYN JEWEL; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16066. The Court of Appeals
affirmed district court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment and grant of the government's cross-motion for
partial summary judgment, as well as its subsequent grant of the
government's motion for summary judgment and denial of Plaintiffs'
cross-motion to proceed to resolution on the merits.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Carolyn Jewel
filed the case in 2008, claiming the government acquires AT&T
customers' e-mail and other data using spy devices attached to the
Company's network.  Digital watchdog group Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) represents Jewel in the action.

The Plaintiffs originally alleged seventeen counts against
Defendants: violation of the Fourth Amendment (counts 1 and 2);
violation of the First Amendment (counts 3 and 4); violation of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (counts 5 and 6); violation
of the Wiretap Act (counts 7 through 9); violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications
Act (counts 10 through 15); violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act (count 16); and violation of separation of powers
(count 17).

The Court of Appeals stated that the Plaintiffs failed to set forth
sufficient evidence of standing for each of their claims to survive
the government's motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs failed to set forth sufficient evidence of
particularized injuries in fact--the standing element in dispute on
appeal--demonstrating that the government has interfered with their
communications and communications records.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Carolyn Jewel, et al., are
represented by:

          Richard Roy Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          44 Montgomery Street Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

Defendants-Appellees-Respondents National Security Agency, et al.,
are represented by:

          Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Smith Can't Amend Class Complaint, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's motion to amend
class action complaint in the lawsuit entitled BRENDAN SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 19-1217 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiff, who has brought a putative class action against
Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, seeks to amend his
Complaint to add an additional subclass.

The case arises from a Nationwide insurance policy owned by Smith's
parents that also applies to Smith as a resident relative.
Following a vehicle collision in 2018, Smith filed claims with
Allstate Insurance Company, the other driver's insurance provider,
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Smith's own
insurance provider. Smith received the liability limit under the
policies from both companies.

Because these payouts allegedly did not fully compensate him for
injuries and damages sustained in the collision, Smith filed a
claim with Nationwide for a payout based on his parents' policy's
uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. Nationwide
denied Smith's claim, pointing to a "household vehicle exclusion"
in the policy. The exclusion provision essentially states that
Nationwide's UM/UIM coverage cannot be stacked on coverage provided
by a different company, even by Nationwide customers, who expressly
elected stacked coverage.

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action in Pennsylvania court
in February 2019, which the Defendant removed to federal court the
following month. He alleges that the Nationwide policy's household
vehicle exclusion violates Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial
Responsibility Law. He seeks to represent a class of Nationwide
customers, who elected and paid for stacked UM/UIM coverage but
were prevented from stacking that UM/UIM coverage on coverage from
a different company.

The Plaintiff now moves to amend the Complaint to divide the
original putative class into two separate subclasses. The first
subclass would be composed of the original putative class members.
The second subclass would be composed of Nationwide customers, who
purchased UM/UIM coverage and elected to waive stacking that
Plaintiff argues they were nonetheless entitled to based on the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's August 2021 decision in Donovan v.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 256 A.3d 1145 (Pa. 2021).

The Donovan court held in relevant part that signed waivers of
UM/UIM stacking--such as those signed by members of the new
putative subclass--may be ineffective under certain circumstances.
The Defendant filed a Response, arguing that the Plaintiff has
unduly delayed in bringing his Motion and is not an appropriate
representative of the putative Donovan subclass.

Discussion

As an initial matter, Judge Baylson finds, the substance of the
proposed amendment is not at all integral to the Plaintiff's case;
as the Defendant correctly asserts, the Plaintiff is not even part
of the putative Donovan subclass. This putative subclass is
composed of people with UM/UIM coverage, who waived stacking,
whereas the Plaintiff has alleged that his parents elected stacking
in the insurance policy at issue.

The Plaintiff's Motion also comes at an exceptionally late time,
Judge Baylson states. This case was filed over two years ago,
discovery has long since closed, and the parties have both filed
motions for summary judgment. These facts weigh against granting
the Motion.

Judge Baylson notes that there is no new information that has only
recently become available to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's counsel
in the present case was also the Donovan plaintiffs' counsel, and
so has presumably been long aware of the legal theory that the
Donovan plaintiffs pursued. Moreover, although the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's decision may be relatively recent, judicial
endorsement of the Donovan plaintiffs' position is not; a court in
this district granted summary judgment in favor of the Donovan
plaintiffs in June 2019.

The Plaintiff has provided no explanation of what specific,
previously unavailable information he gained from the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's decision, Judge Baylson points out.

In the case, the Plaintiff has not provided any reasons for the
lateness of his Motion that would justify the disruption to
proceedings that the amendment would cause. The Court agrees with
the Defendant that the Plaintiff has unduly delayed moving to amend
his Complaint.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Class Action Complaint.

The Court issued a separate Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8mrcxj from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 6, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8d3fwn from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK PAVING: Diaz Must File Class Cert Reply by Feb. 9
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGARDO DIAZ, v. NEW YORK
PAVING INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-04910-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiff an
enlargement of 7-pages for their Reply in Support of Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiff is directed to file their reply on or before February
9, 2022.

New York Paving Inc. was founded in 1976. The Company's line of
business includes highway and street construction.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Infac2 at no extra charge.[CC]

NISSAN NORTH: Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Response Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE J. AYALA, JR. and
JEFF SANTOS on behalf of themselves and as representative of other
class members similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-01625-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting a 14 day extension of Nissan's
deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify
an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action and
Authorizing Notice to Potential Collective Members and Rule 23
Motion for Class Certification.

On October 8, 2021, the Court entered its Case Management and
Scheduling Order for this case. The Scheduling Order set December
31, 2021 as the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification and all supporting evidence.

Under the Scheduling Order, Nissan's current deadline to submit its
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion and all supporting evidence is
January 31, 2022.

On December 31, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and Motion for Conditional Certification, each of
which included a declaration from each Plaintiff.

The parties worked diligently to schedule Plaintiffs' depositions
with sufficient time for Nissan to use Plaintiffs' testimony in its
oppositions to Plaintiffs' certifications motions and scheduled
both depositions to take place on January 20, 2022 at the office of
Plaintiffs' counsel.

On January 18, 2022, Plaintiffs' counsel notified Nissan's counsel
that Jeff Santos had been exposed to COVID-19, that he was
scheduled to be tested the following day, and that he likely would
not obtain his test results before the scheduled deposition. Given
the recent wave of COVID-19 cases, Plaintiffs' counsel expressed
concern about Mr. Santos' exposure and proceeding with the
deposition before Mr. Santos obtained his test results.

Nissan North is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KuSMiX at no extra charge.[CC]


NORTH ALLEGHENY: Judge Issued TRO to Reinstate Universal Masking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Guza, writing for TribLive, reports that a federal judge on
Jan. 17 issued a temporary restraining order sought by pro-mask
parents in North Allegheny School District, meaning all students,
staffers and visitors in district buildings must wear masks when
classes resume Tuesday, Jan. 18.

The restraining order was requested last week by parents seeking to
overturn the district's mask-optional policy that they say violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The parents of four children filed the class action lawsuit on Jan.
11, alleging the mask policy forces parents of medically vulnerable
students to choose between keeping them at home where "they will
likely suffer continued learning loss" or sending them to school in
"an environment that presents a serious risk to their health and
safety."

District officials acknowledged the court order in an email to
parents on Jan. 17. Officials declined further comment citing the
pending litigation.

The lawsuit does not identify the four students but indicated all
have medical conditions that leave them particularly vulnerable to
covid-19, according to the lawsuit. It also claims that there are
as many as 1,557 district students who are "medically fragile
disabled students who require the protection afforded by universal
masking."

The school board voted in early December to make masks optional
beginning Monday, Jan. 17. The vote reversed the district's health
and safety plan, which initially required masks when the county
transmission rate is considered substantial or high.

Attorneys for the district argued against the restraining order,
noting that the December vote delayed the mask policy change until
Jan. 18, the start of the second semester, "to permit all parents
and students to make an informed choice of where to enroll in North
Allegheny programming to receive services."

They also noted that the change was preceded by policies
implementing more frequent cleaning, social distancing during lunch
and cleaning of high-traffic areas during the day.

"Plaintiffs' argument ignores the fact that the use of masks or
shields will not be prohibited on Jan. 18," district attorneys
wrote. "Thus, the plaintiffs and similarly situated students will
still have the ability to protect themselves through the wearing of
their own masks or face shields."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in guidance updated
Jan. 13, recommended universal indoor masking for all students
older than 2, regardless of vaccination status. The CDC allows for
accommodations for those who cannot safely wear a mask. [GN]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Amendment of Deposition Deadline Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760-GRB-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the parties ask the Court to enter the following dates
to complete depositions of their class certification experts and
exchange class certification briefing:

          Event                  Existing           Proposed
                                 Deadline           Deadline

-- Defendants depose          Jan. 21, 2022      March 4, 2022
    Plaintiffs' class
    certification experts:

-- Service of Defendants'     April 29, 2022    June 10, 2022
    response to Plaintiffs'
    Rule 23 motion and
    Defendants' class
    certification expert
    reports:

-- Plaintiffs depose         June 10, 2022      Aug. 19, 2022
    Defendants' class
    certification experts

-- Plaintiffs serve reply    July 11, 2022      Sept. 19, 2022
    brief to Rule 23 motion
    and rebuttal expert
    reports, and file the
    fully briefed motion:

Northrop Grumman is an American multinational aerospace and defense
technology company.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Jan. 18, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rRblFN at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lilia Factor, Esq.
          400 Broadhollow Rd.
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: lfactor@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Paul Napoli, Esq.
          NSPR LAW
          E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Greg Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
          GROUP, PC
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          E-mail: gregC@elglaw.com
                  gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David J. Fioccola, Esq.
          Katie L. Viggiani, Esq.
          Robert J. Baehr, Esq.
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com;
                  kviggiani@mofo.com;
                  rbaehr@mofo.com

NY EL DIAMANTE: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO CARDOSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NY EL DIAMANTE CORP. d/b/a PRIMA DONNA, and
CHRISTIAN TORAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00329 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
restaurant employees at statutory minimum wage.

Mr. Cardoso was hired by the Defendants as a menu distributor at
Prima Donna restaurant, located at 90-18 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson
Heights, New York.

NY El Diamante Corp. is an owner and operator of an Ecuadorean
restaurant Prima Donna, located at 90-18 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson
Heights, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1180
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

OAK STREET: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
class action security lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Oak
Street Health, Inc. (NYSE:OSH) ("the Company") on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Oak Street
securities between August 6, 2020, and November 8, 2021, (the
"Class Period").

Take the Benzinga Trader Quiz and find the trading strategy that is
perfectly customized to you.

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

If you have incurred losses in Oak Street Health, Inc., you may, no
later than March 14, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Oak Street Health,
Inc.

In Oak Street Health's Third Quarter of 2021 update, November 8,
2021, the Company revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") is investigating whether it may have violated the False
Claims Act and said the DOJ has requested documents and information
related to Oak Street providing free transportation to federal
healthcare beneficiaries and related to its relationships with
third-party marketing agents.

On this news, the stock fell $9.75 per share, or 22% November 9,
2021, the steepest intraday decline on record for Oak Street, which
first sold shares to the public in an Initial Public Offering
("IPO") last year.

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

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

ORION MANUFACTURED: Fritch Files Bid for FLSA Conditional Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Fritch, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Orion
Manufactured Housing Specialists, Inc., an Arizona company; and L.
James Miller, an Arizona resident, Case No. 4:21-cv-00509-RCC (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to
      Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
      consisting of:

      "All persons who work[ed] for Defendants Orion
      Manufactured Housing Specialists, Inc., and/or L. James
      Miller; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek
      as a past or present worker, and who only received
      straight time for all hours worked over 40 in a given
      workweek;"

   2. authorizing the Opt-In procedure; and

   3. For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
      proper.

Through this lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages for himself 27 and the Collective Members, requiring
the proper payment of overtime wages to 28 employees, under the
collective action mechanism of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
Collective Members. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt full-time
employee who worked for Defendants from May 16, 2020 until August
5, 2021.

The Defendants allegedly created a scheme where they would pay 40
hours on a regular paycheck with applicable taxes taken out and
then any hours worked over 40 hours, they would pay only straight
time for those hours in cash. The reason for this scheme was to not
pay workers time-and-a-half for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek and not pay applicable payroll taxes, the Plaintiff
contends.

At this preliminary stage, the Plaintiff has come forward with
sufficient factual bases from which this Court can determine that
similarly situated plaintiffs exist.

Orion Manufactured is in the mobile home site set up and tie down
business.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FHaOLh
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Zoldan, Esq.
          Jason Barrat, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5050 N. 40 th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: mzoldan@zoldangroup.com
                  jbarrat@zoldangroup.com

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE VILLARINO, et al.,
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-60192-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a 14 Day Enlargement of Time to File
Response to Plaintiffs'Motion for Class Certification, up to and
including February 1, 2022.

On January 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for
unpaid minimum wages and overtime under Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collection Action
and to Permit Notice.

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.

The Plaintiffs include Shane Villarino, Laura J. Johnson, Jeffery
Mondy, and Jerome Gunn.

The Defendants include Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc.,
Pacesetter Personnel Service of Florida, Inc., Florida Staffing
Service, Inc., and Tampa Service Company, Inc.

Pacesetter Personnel provides employment services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tyZEpo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dion J. Cassata, Esq.
          CASSATA LAW, PLLC
          Boca Crown Centre
          7999 North Federal Highway, Suite 202
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (954) 364-7803
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, 4 th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          E-mail: dion@cassatalaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 967-5377

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr., Esq.
          Derek E. Leon, Esq.
          Ronald J. Tomassi, Jr., Esq.
          LEÓN COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          E-mail: dleon@leoncosgrove.com
                  rtomassi@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
          Caroline Gorman, Esq.
          BERG & ANDROPHY
          3704 Travis Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 529-5622
          E-mail: jandrophy@bafirm.com
                  cgorman@bafirm.com

PARNELL CONSULTANTS: Faces Kee Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY KEE, JR., individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PARNELL CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00048 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant has a uniform compensation
scheme of paying certain employees a day rate without overtime in
weeks in which these workers work over 40 hours which is a
violation of the FLSA.

Mr. Kee worked for Parnell from approximately October 2019 until
approximately October 2021 as an inspector.

Parnell provides inspection services, including pipeline, gas
distribution systems, certified welding inspection, power plant,
gas plant, water plant, and water line.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

PATROWICZ HOLDINGS: Derossett Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY DEROSSETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PATROWICZ HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A JONATHON C. PATROWICZ D.O., P.A., and
SIGNATUREMD, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01294-DKC (D. Md.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class:

      "The approximately 3,000 individuals who on April 22, 2021
      and May 5, 2021 were sent approximately 5,915 prerecorded
      voice calls by Defendants. Specifically excluded from the
      putative Class are Defendants, any entities in which
      Defendants have a controlling interest, any of Defendants'
      parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
      employees and members of such persons' immediate families,
      and the presiding judge(s) in this case, their staff, and
      his, her, or their immediate family."

   2. appointing her as representative of the Class;  and

   3. appointing her counsel Ignacio J. Hiraldo of IJH Law,
      Manuel S. Hiraldo of Hiraldo PA, and Andrea R. Gold of
      Tycko & Zavareei LLP, as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
      23(g)(1) and for such further relief as the Court deems
      appropriate.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33PmvlJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: IJhiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Poker Player Evans Part of Suit Over Seized Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Garcia, writing for Gambling News, reports that
philanthropist, pro poker player, and a two-time WSOP Circuit ring
winner Lena Evans is a part of a lawsuit against the digital
payment company PayPal. Bensamochan Law Firm filed a lawsuit with
the Northern District of California, United States.

Plaintiffs Seek to Recover Seized Funds from PayPal, File Lawsuit
The lawsuit comes after the digital giant allegedly seized funds
belonging to Evans, as well as two other plaintiffs. The 37-page
court document reveals that PayPal froze some $26,984 from Evans'
PayPal account. On the other hand, Roni Shemtov, the second
plaintiff had some $42.737 seized from his PayPal account. The
third plaintiff, Shbadan Akylbekov, had $172,206 seized from his
account.

"This action stems from Defendant's widespread business practice of
unilaterally seizing funds from its clients' financial accounts,
without cause and without any fair or due process," reads the
class-action lawsuit filed by Bensamochan Law Firm.

Evans claims that she used her PayPal account to help her run the
Poker League of Nations (PLO). PLO is in fact the world's largest
women's poker organization and was founded by Evans. The initial
seizure of funds happened on November 22, 2020, according to the
lawsuit. Back then, Evans learned that her PayPal account was
frozen. Then, in May 2021, she understood that PayPal had seized
$26,984 from her account without notifying her. According to the
court document, despite the multiple attempts to contact PayPal,
Evans wasn't able to reach and discuss the issue with a live
person.

Lawsuit Claims PayPal "Shoots First and Asks Questions Later"
The lawsuit deemed the seizure of funds as unlawful. It describes
that PayPal alleged violations to its Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
which resulted in the seizure of funds, but the plaintiffs were not
provided with a copy of the AUP when they started using the
platform. Moreover, the court document claims that PayPal seized
the funds "without first obtaining any conclusive determination of
actual breaches by the users of the AUP" and without conducting an
investigation to reaffirm if there were any violations.

Plaintiffs claimed that PayPal has adopted a policy described as
"shooting first and asking questions later." Alleging breaches of
the Federal RICO Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, breaches of
contract, and other violations, plaintiffs in the class-action
lawsuit seeking to recover three times the amount seized by the
digital payment company.

This is not the first time PayPal seizes money from a famous poker
player. In fact, last year in June, Chris Moneymaker, a poker pro
and Poker Hall-of-Famer revealed on Twitter that he had $12,000
seized by PayPal. Although he had plans for a lawsuit, nothing
happened as after 10 days his money was returned to his account.

In a statement on Twitter dated January 14, Moneymaker acknowledged
that there was a lawsuit filed against PayPal. Adding #thieves he
stressed, "It is amazing what they are trying to do to people."
[GN]

PAYSAFE LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Paysafe Limited (NYSE:
PSFE), Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC), and Cloopen Group
Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Paysafe Limited (NYSE: PSFE)

Class Period: December 7, 2020 - November 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

On March 30, 2021, Paysafe became a public entity via business
combination with FTAC.

Then, on November 11, 2021, before the market opened, Paysafe
announced that it was revising its revenue guidance for the full
year 2021 downward from a range of $1,530 - $1,550 million to a
range of $1,470 - $1,480 million. Paysafe attributed the revision
to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key European markets and
performance challenges impacting the Digital Wallet segment" and
"[t]he modified scope and timing of new eCommerce customer
agreements relative to the Company's original expectations for
these agreements."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.03 per share, or
more than 40%, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) that Paysafe was being negatively impacted by gambling
regulations in key European markets; (2) that Paysafe was
encountering performance challenges in its Digital Wallet segment;
(3) that new eCommerce customer agreements were being pushed back;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC)

Class Period: November 25, 2019 - October 11, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Revance, a biotechnology company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and commercialization of neuromodulators for various
aesthetic and therapeutic indications in the United States and
internationally. The Company's lead drug candidate is
DaxibotulinumtoxinA for injection ("DAXI"), which has completed
phase III clinical trials for the treatment of glabellar (frown)
lines and cervical dystonia; is in phase II clinical trials to
treat upper facial lines, moderate or severe dynamic forehead
lines, and moderate or severe lateral canthal lines; and has
completed Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of adult upper
limb spasticity and plantar fasciitis.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had issued a Form 483
notifying Revance of serious issues that the FDA had observed
during its inspection of the Company's Northern California DAXI
manufacturing facility. Among other deficiencies, the FDA observed
that "[t]he current manufacturing process is not the process
proposed for licensure" and Revance's "Quality Unit lacks the
responsibility and authority for the control, review, and approval
of outsourced activities[.]" Significantly, the Form 483 only came
to light as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
directed to the FDA. On this news, the price of the Company's
shares declined by $6.85 per share, or approximately 25%, from
$27.30 per share to close at $20.45 per share on October 12, 2021.

On October 15, 2021, Revance issued a press release announcing that
it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA,
indicating that the FDA has determined "it is unable to approve the
BLA in its present form and indicated that there are deficiencies
related to the FDA's onsite inspection at [Revance's] manufacturing
facility." On this news, the price of the Company's shares declined
by $8.90 per share, or approximately 39.19%, from $22.71 per share
to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) quality control deficiencies existed at the
Company's manufacturing facility for DAXI; (ii) the foregoing
deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would approve
the DAXI BLA in its current form; (iii) accordingly, it was
unlikely that the DAXI BLA would obtain FDA approval within the
timeframe the Company had represented to investors; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Revance Therapeutics class action go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/RVNC

Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS)

Class Period: February 6, 2021 - May 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based
communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021
United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full
exercise of the underwriter defendants' over-allotment option) at
$16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from
the offering.

The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration
Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen's
much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling,
up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new
features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration
Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its
customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as
dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to
increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen's representations
concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and
misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges,
Cloopen's growth strategy was not working and its existing
customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action
lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen's Registration Statement
failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were
refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its
accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The
Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that
Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the
fair value of certain recently-granted warrants.

On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen
reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million - $2
million shy of analysts' consensus - net losses of $46.8 million,
representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating
expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth
quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant
liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen's remarkable net
loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts
resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2%
increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the
price of Cloopen's ADSs fell by more than 18%.

Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about
its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including
that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far
below historical periods, Cloopen's share price fell again.

At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced,
Cloopen's share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a
decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price.

For more information on the Cloopen Group class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RAAS

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Faces Suit Over Use of Photographs for Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MACKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00342 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2022) seeks damages, an
injunction, and additional relief from the Defendant, which owns
and operates the website www.classmates.com, by using Plaintiff's
and Class Members' names and personas to promote paid subscriptions
to the Classmates website without consent in violation of Illinois'
right of publicity statute and common law prohibiting unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are private individuals who have no
relationship with PeopleConnect. The Plaintiff and the Class have
never used Classmates.com, nor did they provide their names,
photographs, or any other personal information to PeopleConnect.

The Plaintiff was seriously distressed to discover that
PeopleConnect is using decades-old photographs of Plaintiff and the
Class as children to advertise paid subscriptions to
Classmates.com, the suit alleges.

Allegedly, PeopleConnect advertises and promotes paid subscriptions
to the Classmates website by displaying Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names and photographs on advertising webpages published on
the Internet. PeopleConnect displays Plaintiff's and Class Members'
names and photographs in low-resolution and volume-limited formats
for free. Users who click to see high-resolution versions, or who
attempt to view more than two low-resolution photographs, receive a
message saying they must purchase a paid subscription.

By using Plaintiff's and Class Members' names and photographs as
children in its advertising, PeopleConnect knowingly mislead the
public into believing Plaintiff and Class Members are
Classmates.com users who willingly shared their personal
information with Classmates.com and endorse Classmates.com's
subscription product, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, 36 th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
          E-mail: SMM@cliffordlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          BEN OSBORN LAW
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          TURKE STRAUSS
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turke strauss.com
                  raina@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

PETER BARCA: Feb. 28 Deadline to File Class Certification Stricken
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  Siebers, Margaret et al.,
v. Peter  Barca, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01109 (W.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order on motion for
Miscellaneous Relief as follows:

   -- The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to strike the February
      28, 2022 deadline to file a class certification motion is   
      granted.

   -- For now, the other dates set in the April 7, 2021 text-
      only order remain in place.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]

PORTLAND, OR: City Council Pays $22.5K to Settle Protest Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portland City Council approved paying $22,500 to settle a
lawsuit brought by a woman who said police used excessive force
against her during the 2020 protests that wracked the city.

The settlement is the latest in a string of payouts -- totaling at
least $357,500 since January 2021 -- stemming from police actions
during protests dating back to 2016.

KOIN reports that Lydia Fuller said she was hit with a munition
round, fired by a Portland Police Bureau officer while trying to
leave a protest. The settlement was passed unanimously by the
council.

Oregon's largest city saw months of nightly protests in 2020 that
often turned violent following the murder by police of George Floyd
in Minneapolis.[GN]


POSITIVE BEHAVIOR: Knowles Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly Knowles and Putative
Class Members v. Positive Behavior Supports Corp., Case No.
4:20-cv-00335-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting final approval of the settlement.

  -- The Settlement

     The Parties settled the case for an all-in common fund of
     $2,250,000, with no reversion. The Defendant will pay the
     employer's share of payroll taxes due on the portion of the
     net settlement fund allocated to wages and to the common
     fund.

     The parties agreed to allocate the net settlement fund 10%
     to wages and 90% to penalties and interest.  The
     Plaintiff's counsel requests an attorney's fee of 25% of
     the gross settlement fund.

     Additionally, the Plaintiff's counsel requests actual
     costs, not to exceed $20,000. The settlement also includes
     an incentive payment for Kelly Knowles, the representative
     plaintiff, not to exceed $7,500, all of which shall be
     subject to court approval

     The settlement class includes approximately 648 members who
     were classified as independent contractors.

     The Class Period is between October 17, 2015 to December
     31, 2018. The PAGA Period will be from October 17, 2018 to
     December 31, 2018. About $50,000 of the gross settlement
     fund shall be allocated to settlement of the PAGA claims,
     75% of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25% of which
     shall be paid to the aggrieved employees as part of the
     class distribution.

  -- Post Preliminary Class Certification Administration

     The Court appointed Simpluris to administer the class
     settlement notice.

     The Court defined the Class as follows:

     "All Persons in California who defendant classified as
     independent contractors during the class period of October
     17, 2015, to December 31, 2018."

  -- Post Preliminary Class Calculations

     As of the date of this declaration, 648 Class Members will
     be paid a share of the Net Settlement Fund, which is
     estimated to be $1,607,250.00. The Net Settlement Amount
     available to pay Participating Class Members was determined
     as follows:

        Gross settlement fund:                 $2,250,000.00

        Less attorney's fees (requested):       -$562,500.00

        Less litigation costs (requested):       -$20,000.00

        Less PAGA -- LWDA:                       -$37,500.00

        Less settlement administration:          -$15,250.00

        Less plaintiff service award              -$7,500.00
        (requested):

        Net settlement fund:                   $1,607,250.00

     The average estimated payment is $2,493.52, the highest
     estimated payment is $27,317.47, and the lowest estimated
     payment is $2.53. The person with the lowest payment worked
     0.5 hours. Should the Court-awarded fees or costs differ
     from those shown above or the number of Class Members
     approved for payment change, the estimated award allocation
     calculations will change accordingly.

  -- The Individual Class Member Payment Is Fair

     Awarding the Plaintiff $7,500 is not exorbitant considering
     the work she put into the case. The Plaintiff kept track of
     the hours she worked on the case. She itemized 62 hours
     spent working on the case.

     Additionally, Plaintiff filed her claim in front of the
     Labor Commissioner. In July of 2019, Plaintiff refused an
     early resolution of her claim at the Labor Commissioner's
     office to ensure her work colleagues were paid
     appropriately.

     Clearly, the $7,500 payment is fair considering the hours
     and effort Plaintiff expended to see her colleagues receive
     their wages.

The Plaintiff Knowles respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of her motion for final approval of the proposed class
action settlement with Defendant PBS.

The Plaintiff filed a class action on October 17, 2019, in San
Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-19-580094, against PBS.

The Class involves approximately 648 Class Members misclassified as
independent contractors between October 17, 2015, and December 31,
2018.

The Complaint asked for damages for lost wages, meal and rest
period  violations, split shift differentials, reporting time pay,
travel time, and reimbursement of business-related expenses. Ms.
Knowles additionally claimed entitlement to waiting time and
pay-stub penalties, expenses, interest and liquidated damages, and
restitution of wages, all for herself and other similarly situated
employees of PBS. She also alleged a claim for civil penalties
under the California Private Attorney General's Act for failure to
provide personnel records and payroll records and for inaccurate
and incomplete paystubs.

On January 15, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to federal
court. The Court assigned the Honorable Judge Phyllis Hamilton to
preside over the instant case. Defendant answered the complaint on
February 28, 2020. Following the filing of Defendant's answer, the
parties agreed to alternative dispute resolution and attempted
mediation with Judge Carl West (Ret.) after this Court ordered the
parties to mediation. The parties held a full-day mediation with
Judge West on April 5, 2021.

Judge West has extensive  experience settling class actions,
including wage-and-hour actions. The mediation ultimately resulted
in a settlement.

On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed for preliminary approval of
the settlement. October 25, 2021, the Court granted the preliminary
approval motion.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/326UKES at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 North 1 St. Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (650) 630-2447

PREMIERFIRST HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Campbell Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAHARA CAMPBELL and CATHERINE MORRIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIERFIRST HOME
HEALTH CARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00199-ALM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, January 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated home health aides overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiffs Campbell and Morris worked for the Defendant as home
health aides from approximately 2013 and August 2018,
respectively.

Premierfirst Home Health Care Inc. is a provider of home healthcare
services based in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
         Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
         Rebecca L. Hill, Esq.
         MANSELL LAW, LLC
         1457 S. High St.
         Columbus, OH 43207
         Telephone: (614) 610-4134
         Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
         E-mail: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Rebecca@MansellLawLLC.com

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Richardson Loses Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY RICHARDSON and
MANDY LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE
SELECT COMPANY, J.D. POWER & ASSOCIATES, AND MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 2:18-cv-00715-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge John E. Steele entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; and

   2. denying as moot Defendants Mitchell International, Inc.
      and J.D. Power & Associates Motion To Exclude Hubele
      Consideration.

      The Plaintiffs seek to proceed as a class action, and to
      certify a Florida class with two sub-classes.

      The Statewide Florida Class defined as:

      "All persons and entities that have made first-party
      claims since October 1, 2012, under an automobile
      insurance policy issued within the state of Florida by
      Progressive whose vehicles were declared a total loss by
      Progressive and were valued using J.D. Power and
      Mitchell's WCTL system."

      The Condition Adjustment Subclass defined as:

      "All Florida insureds whose total loss claims were reduced
      by negative or downward condition adjustments; and A
      Market Value Subclass defined as: All Florida insureds
      whose vehicles received Market Values and Settlement
      Amounts as determined by WCTL Valuations which were less
      than the actual Retail Values for each vehicle as required
      by Florida Statute § 626.9743(5)(a)(2)(b), as determined
      by Guidebooks."

The named-plaintiffs each obtained an insurance policy from a
Progressive insurance company covering their respective vehicle.
Each vehicle was involved in an accident, and was declared a total
loss by Progressive. Each plaintiff accepted a settlement amount
from the Progressive insurer for the respective vehicle. After
being approached by the law firm of Morgan & Morgan, the plaintiffs
sued two Progressive companies and two other the defendants,
asserting that the settlement amounts they accepted were less than
they were due under their insurance policies and Florida law.

Progressive American operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tHBvwZ at no extra charge.[CC]

QG PRINTING: Class Certification Briefing Continued in Sims Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SIMS, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QG
PRINTING II LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company; 74 QC
PRINTING II LLC, business organization, form unknown; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01632-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order continuing the hearing
on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and setting a
continued briefing schedule as follows:

  1. Deadline for Defendant to File the Opposition is continued
     from January  21, 2002 to January 28, 2022;

  2. Deadline for Plaintiff to File the Reply is continued from
     February 4, 2022 to February 18, 2022;

  3. Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is
     continued from February 18, 2022 to March 4, 2022 at 10:00
     a.m.

QG Printing provides printing services. The Company offers
inventory management, binding, monitoring, tracking, publishing,
and logistics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ikda4G at no extra charge.[CC]


QRS HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Coble, writing for Info Security Magazine, reports that a
Tennessee-based healthcare technology services company is facing
legal action over a cyber-attack that occurred in August 2021.

The class action lawsuit was filed against QRS Healthcare Solutions
(QRS, Inc), an electric health record (EHR) vendor and provider of
integrated practice management and clinical services, including
electronic patient portals.

On August 26 2021, QRS discovered that a cyber-attacker had
accessed a QRS dedicated patient portal server on which certain
sensitive information was stored.

According to a data security notice published by QRS on its
website, the cyber-attack "involved the personal information,
including the health information, of some of its clients'
patients."

The impacted server was taken offline when the attack was
discovered, and QRS hired a digital forensics security firm to
analyze the incident.

Investigators determined that an unknown attacker had accessed the
server from August 23 2021 to August 26 2021, and may have acquired
files containing the protected health information (PHI) of almost
320,000 patients.

"The information may have included, depending on the individual,
their name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, patient
identification number, portal username and/or medical treatment or
diagnosis information," reads QRS's notice.

In October, on behalf of its clients, QRS began sending written
notifications to individuals whose personal information was
accessed in the incident. The healthcare technology services
company also offered complimentary identity theft protection
services to individuals whose Social Security numbers may have been
compromised.

Following the data breach, Kentucky resident Matthew Tincher has
filed a class action complaint in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee against QRS. Tincher, who lives in
Frankfurt, alleges that QRS failed to take reasonable action to
secure, monitor and maintain the personally identifiable
information (PII) and PHI stored on its patient portal.

The suit alleges that the data was stored by QRS in an unencrypted
form. It also criticizes QRS for waiting two months before sending
out data breach notifications to impacted individuals. [GN]

QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE QUANTUMSCAPE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss except as it relates to
Statement 19.

Background

QuantumScape was founded in 2010 and makes a solid-state battery
for use in electric vehicles. During all relevant times, Singh was
its CEO, Holme was its co-founder and chief technology officer, and
Hettrich was its chief financial officer.

The Plaintiffs in the putative securities class action allege that
Defendants QuantumScape, Jagdeep Singh, Timothy Holme, and Kevin
Hettrich (collectively, "QuantumScape") misled investors about the
progress and effectiveness of their "solid-state batteries."
Solid-state batteries are an aspiring competitor to conventional
lithium-ion batteries for use in electric vehicles. They have never
been successfully commercialized due, in part, to a well-known set
of challenges.

The Defendants repeatedly represented that their batteries had
overcome those challenges and were comparable to or outperformed
the conventional batteries on the market. QuantumScape and its
officers made a series of claims about their solid-state batteries
to the effect that the batteries (1) did not form dendrites, (2)
had greater range than convention lithium-ion ones, (3) charged
faster than conventional lithium-ion ones, (4) had better life
cycles than conventional lithium ion ones, (5) were tested using
uncompromised tests in real-world conditions, (6) were ready for
commercial use as soon as they could be scaled up, (7) would cost
less than conventional lithium-ion ones, (8) were safer than
conventional lithium-ion ones due to the solid separator, and (9)
were more energy dense than conventional lithium-ion ones. And they
represented that the "fundamental science risk" was "behind them"
and the "fundamental issues" were "addressed."

According to the Plaintiffs, those representations were false; they
allege that the Defendants' batteries still faced the same
challenges, the tests used by the Defendants were "compromised" to
make the performance look more promising than it was, and the
batteries performed meaningfully worse than lithium-ion ones.

This purported truth was revealed to the market in two publications
that allegedly caused QuantumScape's share price to fall: (i) the
online publication Seeking Alpha published on Jan. 4, 2021, an
article by Dr. Brian Morin titled, "QuantumScape's Solid State
Batteries Have Significant Technical Hurdles To Overcome"; and (ii)
a firm called Scorpion Capital published on April 15, 2021 a report
entitled "QuantumScape (NYSE: QS) A Pump and Dump SPAC Scam by
Silicon Valley Celebrities, That Makes Theranos Look Like
Amateurs."

A number of plaintiffs filed suit in this district in early January
2021, just after the Seeking Alpha article was published. Judge
Orrick consolidated all of the cases under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") and appointed investor Frank Fish
as the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the parties' schedule, Fish
filed the operative complaint on June 21, 2021. It alleges a class
period from Nov. 27, 2020 to April 14, 2021.

QuantumScape moved to dismiss the complaint in August 2021. It
argues that none of its statements were false or misleading, some
of them are protected by the safe harbor of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), some are opinions or corporate
puffery, there are not adequate allegations of scienter, and that
the two corrective disclosures cannot reasonably be relied on.

Judge Orrick held a hearing on the motion on Dec. 8, 2021.

II. Discussion

A. Actionable Misrepresentations

QuantumScape argues that, for various reasons, the complaint fails
to plead any misrepresentation that is actionable under the
securities laws.

1. False or Misleading

Judge Orrick addresses whether the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged that the challenged statements are false or misleading. The
analysis of Statement 1 is addressed separately because it
intertwines with the safe-harbor analysis. The parties group the
remaining statements into two groups (though there is some overlap
and relation between them), so Judge Orrick does as well: (1)
statements about QuantumScape's testing conditions and having
solved the "fundamental risks" or "fundamental science risks" of
solid-state batteries such that the batteries were ready for
commercialization and (2) comparisons of the solid-state batteries
to lithium-ion batteries or "conventional batteries" already on the
market.

QuantumScape argues that, as an initial matter, the Seeking Alpha
article and Scorpion Capital report cannot be relied on to show
falsity (or loss causation) because there is no evidence that
anything it represented was false or misleading. It argues that the
statements on the batteries' testing, fundamental risks, readiness
for commercialization are not actionable because the Plaintiff
cannot dispute that they were accurately disclosed. The other group
of statements represented that QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
were either as good as or better than the conventional lithium-ion
batteries being used in electric vehicles commercially in various
measures.

First, Judge Orrick holds that it is plausible that reasonable
investors would have relied on both publications and the Plaintiffs
have adequately alleged that each publication has the minimum
indicia of reliability to make is past the pleadings stage. Indeed,
these corrective disclosures are more robust than one that the
Ninth Circuit recently approved. There, the disclosure was the
allegations in a lawsuit of a single employee (described as a
"midlevel auditor") about alleged financial malfeasance, citing In
re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781, 788, 793-94 (9th
Cir. 2020). Just as that auditor allegedly personally encountered
the financial issues, these nine employees claim to personally have
encountered flaws in QuantumScape's testing -- and in the case,
many of their claims are reinforced by experts.

Next, Judge Orrick finds that the disclosures of underlying testing
data and the results of those tests as they related to individual
characteristics (e.g., charge speed or energy density) were
certainly extensive and may well weaken or even defeat the
Plaintiffs' case at a later stage when a factfinder can weigh them
contextually. For now, however, he cannot conclude that "the
adequacy of the disclosure is so obvious that reasonable minds
could not differ" about whether the overall statements were
misleading. He cannot definitively say that these more categorical
statements would be rendered entirely non-misleading by the far
more technical and narrow disclosures that QuantumScape relies on.
And, if this is all taken as true, it would mean that QuantumScape
falsely stated that it was ready for commercialization with the
only remaining steps being ramping up production and layering the
cells.

Finally, Judge Orrick rules that if the Seeking Alpha and Scorpion
Capital Reports are credited, that is false or misleading.
According to those reports, the reality was that QuantumScape
overstated the objective capabilities of its batteries or reported
them only from compromised tests. They report that, in reality, the
QuantumScape batteries were not better than -- and often were much
worse than—conventional batteries. Much of the reason these
statements are actionable also depends on the preceding analysis
because the comparisons to conventional batteries are alleged to be
misleading, in part, due to the presentation of the allegedly
compromised testing data.

2. Safe Harbor

QuantumScape argues that most of the statements at issue are
shielded from liability by the PSLRA's safe-harbor. Judge Orrick
holds that most are not truly forward-looking and are disqualified
on that basis alone. One statement is divisible, and one part of it
is forward-looking; Judge Orrick does not interpret the Plaintiffs
to challenge that part and it is, in any event, not misleading. And
one statement is forward-looking but does not meet the other
statutory requirements.

Among other things, he says the following statements are not
forward-looking. Statement 2 states that the "fundamental science
risk is behind us," which is a statement both about what has
happened before and about the current state of affairs. Statement 3
describes the batteries compared to conventional technology; it
says nothing about the future. Statement 8 says that the data
presented show how QuantumScape "can address" fundamental issues.
Even though the phrase "can address" might, in a certain light,
seem to discuss the future, the statement in context is most
reasonably understood to be a reflection of what specific data
about the past show. Statement 10, again, compares solid-state to
lithium-ion batteries and discusses "previous attempts" at creating
solid-state batteries. Statements 11, 12, 18, and 26 do the same
thing, describing the battery and comparing its charging speed,
energy density, cost, and cost (respectively) to lithium-ion.
Statement 24 explains that they believed the "chemistry risk" was
behind them and that is why QuantumScape went public. It is focused
on the past twice-over: On the reasons for doing public and
describing the technology that they developed.

In a television interview on Jan. 4, 2021, Singh said: "Statement
19: We have something that has never been shown to the world
before, a solid-state system that delivers levels of performance
that are really record breaking not only in comparison to other
solid-state efforts, but even in comparison to conventional
lithium-ion technology. So if we can get this into the market,
which is the task we are currently focused on, ramping up
production and making these multilayer cells."

Statement 19 has one part that is forward-looking and one part that
is not, Judge Orrick holds. To the extent the statement says, "if
we can get this into the market, which is the task we are currently
focused on," that is forward-looking. But the preceding sentence
simply compares the product to conventional lithium-ion. That
portion of the statement alone is not actionable on that basis.

Statement 1 is forward-looking. It expressly contemplates
QuantumScape's plans "between now and first revenue." Statement 1
says that between that time and "first revenue," QuantumScape would
be doing two things: "ramping up production," including with
scaling, and "the final automotive qualification process."
Addressing whether it qualifies under the two prongs of the
safe-harbor, Judge Orrick holds that the cautionary language that
QuantumScape points to about the work ahead does not address that
alleged misrepresentation with any particularity.

Finally, Statement 1 is also not protected under the
actual-knowledge prong. The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
Singh knew about the state of testing and development of batteries.
Assuming that is true, and assuming it is true that Statement 1 is
therefore false, Singh is plausibly alleged to have actual
knowledge that he was making a false or misleading statement.

3. Opinion

QuantumScape argues that many of the statements are non-actionable
opinions. As Judge Orrick explains, the statements are either not
opinions at all or the Plaintiffs only challenge factual statements
communicated in the course of the opinion (or a statement Judge
Orrick assumes for the sake of argument is an opinion). For
example, he assumes Statement 24 is an opinion because Singh states
that one of the reasons that QuantumScape went public was it
"thought" certain things. But the statement includes the supporting
fact that most of the "chemistry risk" was behind them.

4. Optimism and Puffery

QuantumScape challenges a last group of statements as unactionable
puffery. Most are not; one is, Judge Orrick holds. The following
statements are not puffery. Statement 7 states that the batteries
are "in fact" ready for "commercial deployment," provided they can
be scaled and layered. That is a concrete statement about the
batteries' stage in development and contains specific caveats.
Statement 9 states that QuantumScape's data shows that it has
addressed the "fundamental issues" and lists them. Statement 16
describes in detail testing that has been performed and its
conditions and outcomes; it would be difficult to make it more
specific. Statement 25 states that the batteries charge to 80
percent in 15 minutes, which is "significantly faster" than
conventional ones. Presumably, QuantumScape takes issue with the
"significantly faster" language. But that language does not stand
alone: It is tied to a specific time figure and is compared to
conventional batteries.

The surviving part of Statement 19, however, is puffery. The
remaining part states that the solid-state batteries are
"record-breaking" in comparison to conventional lithium-ion.
Whether something is "record-breaking" might be non-puffery if
there were an actual record at issue. But in the case, the
Plaintiffs do not point to one. Without that, calling something
"record-breaking" is just standardless corporate hype that no
reasonable investor would credit.

5. Conclusion

Judge Orrick concludes that Statement 19 is not actionable and the
motion to dismiss is granted to that narrow extent. The other
statements that QuantumScape challenges are (respectively)
plausibly false or misleading, not protected by the safe harbor,
and not opinions or puffery.

B. Scienter

QuantumScape appears to argue that the Plaintiffs rely only on the
Defendants' positions as executive which, according to it, is
insufficient to impute knowledge.

That is incorrect, Judge Orrick says. This is not a case in which
the purported knowledge depends only on "corporate management's
general awareness of the day-to-day workings of the company's
business." Instead, the individual Defendants personally reported
facts about the company that are alleged to be completely at odds
with reality. Judge Orrick cannot conclude at this early stage that
the Defendants did (or intended to) reveal all of the pertinent
information underlying their test results.

C. Loss Causation

Under the PSLRA, a plaintiff must show "loss causation." That is,
they must show a "causal connection between the deceptive acts that
form the basis for the claim of securities fraud and the injury
suffered by the plaintiff." Typically, loss causation is shown
through "corrective disclosures" that reveal the truth to the
market and "cause the company's stock price to drop and investors
to lose money."

In the case, Judge Orrick holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged loss causation. The Morin article in Seeking Alpha and the
report from Scorpion Capital both revealed to the market what
QuantumScape allegedly misrepresented: That its tests were
compromised, its results misleading, and its product not at the
stage of development presented. See supra Background, Sections
I.F., I.G. Immediately after both were published, QuantumScape's
stock price plummeted.

As the Ninth Circuit has explained, "that a stock price drop comes
immediately after the revelation of fraud can help to rule out
alternative causes," citing Mineworkers' Pension Scheme v. First
Solar Inc., 881 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2018). So it is in the
case. It is plausible that the Seeking Alpha article and Scorpion
Capital report caused the stock price drop due to their timing;
taking as true the allegations, that means that the revelation of
alleged fraud was at least a substantial cause of the loss of
value.

QuantumScape responds that the articles should not be credited, an
argument Judge Orrick rejects for the reasons explained.

III. Conclusion

Judge Orrick concludes that many of QuantumScape's arguments are
not without some force, but even under the heightened pleading
requirements of the PSLRA the allegations are largely sufficient to
state a claim. He denied the motion to dismiss except as it relates
to one specific challenged statement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p94pw9p from Leagle.com.


RAE WELLNESS: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 8
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RAE WELLNESS PBC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09966-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to amend or to join          March 10, 2022
     additional parties shall be
     filed no later than:

  -- Initial disclosures pursuant            Feb. 22, 2022
     to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
     shall be completed no later
     than than

  -- All fact discovery shall be             June 6, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- All expert discovery, including         June 8, 2022
     reports, production of underlying
     documents, and depositions,
     shall be completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production         March 10, 2022
     of documents shall be served by:

  -- Interrogatories pursuant to             March 10, 2022
     Rule 33.3(a) of the Local Civil
     Rules of the Southern District
     of New York shall be served by:

  -- Plaintiff shall file a motion           July 8, 2022
     for/to class certification no
     later than:

  -- Any opposition shall be filed           August 9, 2022
     by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:           September 8, 2022

  -- The next pretrial conference           June 16, 2022
     is scheduled for:

Rae Wellness offers a variety of vegan, non-GMO, and gluten-free
supplements.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3InkiwT at no extra charge.[CC]

RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL: Lima Suit Seeks to Certify Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL LIMA AND JAVIER
GRACE, v. RANGER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00598-TFM-N (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying collective action classes
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      -- The Straight Time for Overtime Class

         "All persons, who, since 2019, previously worked or
         currently work for Defendant, worked more than 40 hours
         per week for Defendant, but were not paid overtime for
         all hours worked in excess of 40 per week due to
         Defendant's failure to pay them for missing or
         uncounted hours at their overtime rate of pay, all in
         direct violation of the FLSA;" and

      -- The Unlawful Deductions Class.

         "All persons, who, since 2019, previously worked or
         currently work for Defendant and had deductions for
         uniforms, in-house training, drug testing and other
         unlawful deductions taken from their pay during weeks
         when they worked overtime, thereby depriving them of
         all overtime to which they were legally entitled in
         direct violation of the FLSA;" and

   2. authorizing notice to allow potential members of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Classes to opt in to
      preserve their rights.

The Plaintiffs have filed a Collective Action Complaint, asserting
collective action claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed
collective class seeking unpaid overtime wages that Defendant
Ranger owed to them under FLSA, but declined to pay to them in
direct violation of that Act.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful policies and practices,
Plaintiffs have filed this Motion pursuant to Section 16 of the
FLSA -- its collective action provision -- in order to provide
workers similarly situated to Plaintiffs with a reasonable
opportunity to collectively litigate their claims.

Ranger Environmental offers industrial cleaning and environmental
service.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33PGwJ4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
                  jjackson@jackson-law.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carter H. Dukes, Esq.
          Wes Stevenson, Esq.
          Joshua Thompson, Esq.
          SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER, PC
          211 Twenty-Second Street North
          Birmingham, AL
          E-mail: CDukes@scottdukeslaw.com

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: RETA) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, and docketed under 22-cv-00012, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Reata securities,
and/or sold Reata put options, between November 9, 2020 and
December 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Reata securities, and/or
sold Reata put options, during the Class Period, you have until
February 18, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff
for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Reata is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that focuses on
small-molecule therapeutics. One of its two lead product candidates
is bardoxolone methyl ("bardoxolone"), which is being developed for
multiple indications, including chronic kidney disease ("CKD")
caused by Alport syndrome ("AS").

On March 1, 2021, Reata announced that it had submitted its New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for bardoxolone as a treatment of CKD caused by AS. The
Phase 3 CARDINAL study was purportedly designed to measure the
efficacy and safety of bardoxolone. The primary endpoint for Year 2
was the change from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration
rate ("eGFR") after 100 weeks of treatment (end-of-treatment). The
key secondary endpoint for Year 2 was the change from baseline in
eGFR at Week 104 (four weeks after last dose in second year of
treatment).

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the FDA had raised
concerns regarding the validity of the clinical study designed to
measure the efficacy and safety of bardoxolone for the treatment of
CKD caused by AS; (2) that, as a result, there was a material risk
that Reata's NDA would not be approved; and (3) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On December 6, 2021, the FDA released briefing documents in advance
of an Advisory Committee meeting for the Company's NDA for
bardoxolone, stating that throughout the clinical development, the
agency had repeatedly questioned the validity of Reata's study
design because bardoxolone's pharmacodynamic effect on kidney
function would make the results difficult to assess the
effectiveness of the drug. Though the FDA agreed that Reata's Phase
3 study met its endpoints, "the FDA review team d[id] not believe
the submitted data demonstrate that bardoxolone is effective in
slowing the loss of kidney function in patients with AS and
reducing the risk of progression to kidney failure."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $29.77, or 38%, to
close at $48.92 per share on December 6, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on December 8, 2021, the FDA's Advisory Committee unanimously
decided that bardoxolone was not effective based on the submitted
data.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $25.31, or 46%, to
close at $29.11 per share on December 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

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

REBELZ CLUB: Illegally Deducted Dancers' Tips, Harris Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA RAE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REBELZ CLUB, LLC, d/b/a Rebelz
Gentlemen's Club; HEATHER VARANDO; and PABLO VARANDO, Defendants,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00111-MWB (M.D. Pa., January 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, tips and illegal
wage deductions in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Ms. Harris was employed as a dancer by Defendant at its
establishment in Moshannon, Pennsylvania from approximately March
2021 through September 2021.

Rebelz Club, LLC, doing business as Rebelz Gentlemen's Club, is an
owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility located at
601 Spruce Road, Moshannon, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James E. Goodley, Esq.
         Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
         GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
         1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 394-0541
         E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                 ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

RICK'S CUSTOM: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by May 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Peer v. Rick's Custom
Fencing and Decking, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01155 (D. Or.),
the Hon. Judge John V. Acosta entered an order adopting the
following proposed deadlines:

  (1) Plaintiff's expert witness           March 21, 2022
      disclosures for class
      certification due by:

  (2) Defense rebuttal expert              April 18, 2022
      witness disclosures for
      class certification due by:

  (3) File all pleadings and               April 18, 2022
      join all claims, remedies
      and parties by:

  (4) Class certification motion           May 16, 2022
      to be filed by:

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.

Rick's Custom Fencing and Decking, Inc. retails building materials.
The Company offers decks, benches, fences, pasture, patio covers,
pergolas, and gates.[CC]


ROBERT MACIOL: Sarah Barrett Wins Bid for Preliminary Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BARRETT, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ROBERT MACIOL,
Oneida County Sheriff, and LISA ZUREK, Chief Deputy Oneida County
Jail, Case No. 9:20-cv-00537-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae
A D'Agostino entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction;

   2. adopting the Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-
      Recommendation and Order in its entirety; and

   3. directing the Defedant, within 10 days of the date of the
      Memorandum-Decision and Order, to return female general
      custody inmates to one of the pod housing units, thereby
      providing the same housing option afforded to male general
      custody inmates.

The Court said, "The Defendants were required to adjust the housing
arrangement of female inmates to separate closed custody and
general custody female inmates. The Defendants are accorded
"substantial deference" to determine the "most appropriate means to
accomplish" this goal. The current arrangement, however, likely
violates the Equal Protection Clause's guarantee to be free of
discrimination on the basis of gender. The Defendants have not
suggested any alternative arrangements that would remedy the
ongoing violation. Throughout this litigation, the Defendants'
efforts to equalize the benefits between the male and female
general custody inmates, such as providing the female inmates
access to live television, have been unable to remedy the gender
discrimination. As such, the Court orders that Defendants shall
return female general custody inmates to the pod housing, which is
sufficiently "narrowly drawn" and the "least intrusive means" to
remedy the gender discrimination."

Three former inmates at the Oneida County Correctional Facility,
Nicole Williamson, Sarah Barrett, and Shannon Terrell,  commenced
this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated general custody female inmates on May 12, 2020.

The Plaintiffs allege that the transfer of female inmates from "pod
housing" to "linear housing" violated the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the corresponding provision
in the New York State Constitution.

On August 3, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification but denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction, which sought to return female inmates to the pod
housing.

On January 11, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the denial of a
preliminary injunction and remanded the matter for further
consideration. After consideration of the Second Circuit's Summary
Order, further development of the factual record, and review of the
supplemental briefing, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nBPJf0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are

          Sara Adams, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL
          NEW YORK - SYRACUSE
          221 South Warren Street, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13202

               - and -

          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          Maurie G. Heins, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL
          NEW YORK, INC. - UTICA
          120 Bleecker Street, 2nd Floor
          Utica, NY 13501

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          David H. Walsh, IV, Esq.
          Daniel Cartwright, Esq.
          KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK
          NOWAK LLP
          4615 North Street
          Jamesville, NY 13078

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Robinhood Markets, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HOOD), Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA), Desktop
Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM), and Chegg, Inc. (NYSE: CHGG). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. (NASDAQ: HOOD)

Class Period: July 30, 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 15, 2022

On July 30, 2021, Robinhood conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), issuing 55 million shares priced at $38.00 per share.
Then, on October 26, 2021, Robinhood announced its 2021
third-quarter financial results. Among other items, Robinhood
reported third-quarter revenue that fell short of consensus
estimates on crypto transaction revenue totaling only $51 million,
a 78% plunge compared to the preceding quarter.

On this news, Robinhood's stock price fell $4.13 per share, or
10.44%, to close at $35.44 per share on October 27, 2021.

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

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA)

Class Period: November 9, 2020 - December 8, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 18, 2022

On March 1, 2021, Reata announced that it had submitted its New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for bardoxolone as a treatment of chronic kidney disease
("CKD") caused by Alport syndrome ("AS"). The Phase 3 CARDINAL
study was purportedly designed to measure the efficacy and safety
of bardoxolone. The primary endpoint for Year 2 was the change from
baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate ("eGFR") after 100
weeks of treatment (end-of-treatment). The key secondary endpoint
for Year 2 was the change from baseline in eGFR at Week 104 (four
weeks after last dose in second year of treatment).

On December 6, 2021, the FDA released briefing documents in advance
of an Advisory Committee meeting for the Company's NDA for
bardoxolone, stating that throughout the clinical development, the
agency had repeatedly questioned the validity of Reata's study
design because bardoxolone's pharmacodynamic effect on kidney
function would make the results difficult to assess the
effectiveness of the drug. Though the FDA agreed that Reata's Phase
3 study met its endpoints, "the FDA review team d[id] not believe
the submitted data demonstrate that bardoxolone is effective in
slowing the loss of kidney function in patients with AS and
reducing the risk of progression to kidney failure."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $29.77, or 38%, to
close at $48.92 per share on December 6, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on December 8, 2021, the FDA's Advisory Committee unanimously
decided that bardoxolone was not effective based on the submitted
data.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $25.31, or 46%, to
close at $29.11 per share on December 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the FDA had raised concerns regarding the
validity of the clinical study designed to measure the efficacy and
safety of bardoxolone for the treatment of chronic kidney disease
caused by Alport syndrome; (2) that, as a result, there was a
material risk that Reata's NDA would not be approved; and (3) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Reata Pharmaceuticals class action go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/RETA

Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM)

Class Period: March 15, 2021 - November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022

On February 16, 2021, the Company acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc. and
certain of its affiliates (collectively, "EnvisionTEC"), a provider
of volume production photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use
parts.

On November 8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop Metal
disclosed that it was conducting an internal investigation into
certain matters, including "manufacturing and product compliance
practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its
photopolymer equipment and materials at its EnvisionTEC US LLC
facility." The Company also stated that the Chief Executive Officer
of EnvisionTEC US LLC had resigned.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at
$8.81 per share on November 9, 2021.

Then, on November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company
stated that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") of "compliance issues with certain shipments of
EnvisionTEC's Flexcera dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at
$6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC's
manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (2)
that the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the
commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Desktop Metal class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DM

Chegg, Inc. (NYSE: CHGG)

Class Period: May 5, 2020 - November 1, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022

The complaint charges Chegg, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, and others with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose known adverse facts about Chegg's business, operations,
and prospects, including that: (i) Chegg's increase in subscribers,
growth, and revenue had been a temporary effect of the COVID-19
pandemic that resulted in remote education for the vast majority of
United States students and once the pandemic-related restrictions
eased and students returned to campuses nationwide, Chegg's
extraordinary growth trends would end; (ii) Chegg's subscriber and
revenue growth were largely due to the facilitation of remote
education cheating an unstable business proposition rather than the
strength of its business model or the acumen of its senior
executives and directors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
current business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong
as it had led the market to believe during the Class Period.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $30.64
per share, or 48.82%, to close at $32.12 per share on November 2,
2021.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Robinhood Markets, Inc.
("Robinhood" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HOOD) and reminds investors
of the February 15, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Robinhood
stock or options pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July
2021 initial public offering and would like to discuss your legal
rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at
877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here
for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/HOOD.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Robinhood suffered from major issues with
revenue growth at the time of the IPO, with its touted
transaction-based revenues from cryptocurrency trading only
providing a temporary boost to otherwise flat growth. The Company's
supposed "significant investments" in reliability and
infrastructure growth were subpar, creating the opportunity for
service disruptions and cybersecurity failures. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market learned the
truth about Robinhood, investors suffered damages.

On October 26, 2021, after the markets closed, Robinhood reported
its third quarter 2021 financial results, revealing that its total
net revenue for the period between July 1, 2021 through September
30, 2021 - the same period during which the Company conducted its
IPO - came in at $365 million, badly missing analyst estimates by
nearly $73 million, and declines in its monthly active users
("MAUs"), funded accounts, assets under custody ("AUC"), and
average revenue per user ("ARPU"). Robinhood also disclosed that
third-quarter transaction-based revenue from cryptocurrency
trading, which in the lead up to the IPO had been the bulk of the
Company's revenues, was a measly $51 million, staggeringly below
the $233 million Robinhood earned from crypto trading in the second
quarter. The proportion of Robinhood's cryptocurrency
transaction-based revenue generated by Dogecoin alone fell 40% in
Q3, with Robinhood only generating $20.4 million in Q3 compared to
around $144.5 million in Q2. At the same time, Robinhood's net
losses skyrocketed from $11 million to $1.32 billion due to a
remarkable $1.24 billion stock based compensation expense that was
tied to the stock's post-IPO performance, and its initial rally -
which boosted its shares to an all-time high of $85 a share on
August 4, 2021 and triggered a massive payout to Defendants Tenev
and Bhatt. To make matters worse, Robinhood also guided for "less
than $1.8 billion" in revenue for the full year, implying a maximum
85% growth, which fell well short of analyst expectations of 111%.

Analysts immediately took note with those at J.P. Morgan, for
example, downgrading their price target and characterizing the
Company's trading revenue as a "disappoint[ment]," noting in
particular how "equity trading was particularly weak, down both
sequentially and YoY despite a near doubling of accounts and MTUs"
and how "[c]rypto trading revenue fell 78%, down more than the
crypto industry average of around 40% and the decline of Dogecoin
trading of around 75%[,]" before concluding "we believe Robinhood
has been overearning and guidance will weaken for '22." J.P. Morgan
also questioned why management "did not disclose trading volumes,"
finding it "peculiar for a company generating around 75% of revenue
on volumes," but, nonetheless, suspecting "revenue per trade had
been elevated [indicating] a weaker business outlook."

On this news, Robinhood's stock declined nearly 10.5%, falling from
$39.57 per share on October 26, 2021 to close at $35.44 per share
on October 27, 2021.

Then, on November 8, 2021, after the markets closed, Robinhood
disclosed that it had suffered a "data security incident" on
November 3, 2021, admitting that an "unauthorized third party" had
obtained email addresses for approximately five million users and
the full names of a different group of about two million users,
indicating that the attack potentially affected nearly 40% of
Robinhood's MAUs. What is more, Robinhood said the additional
personal information of 310 other users, including their names,
dates of birth, and zip codes, were exposed, and within that group,
that 10 users suffered even "more extensive" breaches.

On this news, Robinhood's stock declined further, falling over 3%
on November 9, 2021 to close at $36.70 per share, before then
falling another 6% to close at $34.49 the very next day.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Robinhood's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Stanley Seeks to Certify Class of Therapists
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as George Stanley, On Behalf
of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated, v. Roper St. Francis
Healthcare, Case No. 2:20-cv-04505-BHH (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. authorizing to proceed as a collective action for overtime
      wage compensation under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf
      of the following class:

      "All Respiratory Therapists who worked at any of RSFH
      hospitals and have had occasion to work more than 40 hours
      in a workweek and who were not paid for their meal breaks,
      either in whole or in part, from [Date of Order] to the
      present;"

   2. authorizing mailing of the proposed Notice to all
      Respiratory Therapists who worked during the time period
      beginning three years prior to the filing of this action
      through the present; and

   3. requiring the Defendant to produce a list containing the
      names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all potential
      Opt-In Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant who files this
action against the Defendant for claims for unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff's primary job duty was to give patients oxygen,
manage ventilators, administer drugs to the lungs and respond to
emergency calls for patients struggling to breathe. The Defendant
employed other Respiratory Therapists who also performed these same
duties.

The Defendant considered their Respiratory Therapists non-exempt
and paid them all an hourly wage.

The Defendant had a policy of automatically deducting a 30-minute
meal break from each 12-hour shift worked, regardless of whether
the Respiratory Therapists had an uninterrupted meal break, the
lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qEJUPW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
          Charleston, South Carolina 29403
          Telephone (843) 588-5587
          Facsimile: (843) 593-9334
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Judge May Be Removed After Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Summers, writing for WSMV, reports that the Tennessee General
Assembly could remove a Rutherford County juvenile judge after she
was accused of jailing juveniles for misdemeanor charges.

If passed, Senate Joint Resolution 788, which is sponsored by Sen.
Heidi Campbell (D-Nashville) and Rep. Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville),
would authorize the senate and the house speakers to appoint a
panel of 10 lawmakers to consider the case of removing Juvenile
Court Judge Donna Scott Davenport.

This resolution comes just a month after a federal judge approved a
settlement of about $6 million to the families of hundreds of
juveniles that were illegally jailed for over a decade.

The cause listed in the ouster resolution says the judge violated
state law and her oath of office:

From at least 2008 until 2017, Judge Davenport oversaw an illegal
detention policy that was in use in Rutherford County, resulting in
the unlawful detention of children, some of whom had not even been
alleged to have committed a delinquent or unruly act. [GN]

RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Lawmakers Issue Resolution to Remove Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Ismail, writing for WTVF, reports that a controversial judge
out of Rutherford County is seeking reelection, but state
legislators said she's not fit to serve.

State Sen. Heidi Campbell and State Rep. Gloria Johnson recently
filed a joint resolution to remove juvenile court Judge Donna Scott
Davenport from the bench.

They said she was responsible for the "filter" system, "where Black
children have been repeatably and illegally arrested and
incarcerated. Some as young as 8 years old," Campbell said.

The most drastic example takes us back to 2016 when Davenport
approved Murfreesboro Police to detain 10 children for watching a
fight not far from Hobgood Elementary School.

Critics were quick to call out the judge after officers pulled
students from class and placed some in handcuffs before
transporting them to the detention center.

NewsChannel 5 learned that for years, Davenport gave jailers the
discretion to keep kids locked up who they perceived as a threat.
Children were forced to wait in detention until their day in court
and sometimes it meant staying days behind bars before being
formally charged with a crime.

Some legislators said this was part of a more systemic issue but
claim Davenport should still share the responsibility.

Johnson was also critical of the state's Department of Children
Services for not taking action sooner. She said the department
should have been aware that children were unlawfully locked up for
days at a time. Johnson acknowledged that caseworkers may have had
their hands full with double or even triple the recommended
caseload, but said it's no excuse for not finding one negative
remark against the detention facility in years.

"Tennessee children and their families deserve better than the
trauma inflicted on them by this dangerous judge," Johnson said.

Reporters asked lawmakers why it took so long for them to come
forward with a plan to remove the judge. Campbell called it a
lengthy process to go from complaint to action, especially for
something as serious as unseating an elected judge.

She said they've already spoken with state leaders about their
intentions, but they feel confident they will have support after
Gov. Bill Lee announced he too wants an investigation into the
Rutherford County juvenile justice system.

The most recent data NewsChannel 5 has shown that at its height,
jailers locked up kids nearly 10 times more than the state average.
Attorneys for the kids, who in some cases are now adults, said kids
were improperly put behind bars more than 1,500 times. A
disproportionate number of which were minorities.

Only some of these children elected to be a part of a class-action
lawsuit where Rutherford County agreed to pay $11 million to
settle. While lawmakers call it a crucial first step, they're
determined to vote Davenport out before anyone votes her back in.

"Incarcerating children as young as 8-years-old is abuse. That's
child abuse and so if people feel like they want that kind of
discipline with children, they need to seek a different venue than
our government system," Campbell said.

The since-condemned filter system is no longer policy, but
legislators said the only way to make sure is by removing
Davenport. If this resolution passes, a joint committee will hear
arguments and make recommendations for or against removal before it
returns to legislators for a final vote.

Davenport has been the only person in her position since it was
created in 2000. This will be the first year she's expected to face
an opponent after the county's senior judicial commissioner Jacob
Flatt announced he too will run for the position.

Davenport has not responded to NewsChannel 5's latest request for
comment. [GN]

SAFESPEED LLC: Marso ADA Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARSO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SAFESPEED, LLC and
VILLAGE OF NORTH RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS, Case No.
2:19-cv-02671-KHV-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following class and subclass for the
purpose of pursuing declaratory and injunctive relief:

   1) All persons residing in the United States who are disabled
      within the meaning of the ADA and have been issued a
      Disability Identification Placard Number or other
      disability-related identification number by their
      respective state government, and

   2) All persons in Kansas who are disabled within the meaning
      of the ADA and have  been issued a Disability
      Identification Placard Number by the Kansas Department of
      Revenue.

SafeSpeed provides red light enforcement systems that are used with
the goal of providing safer roadways for communities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tFkJie
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
          Sarah E. Stula, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
          9225 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
          Telephone: (913) 253-2144
          Facsimile: (866) 347-1472
          E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com
                  sstula@foulston.com

               - and -

          Jeremy E. Koehler, Esq.
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 291-9728
          Facsimile: (888) 889-9614
          E-mail: jkoehler@foulston.com

SAILORMEN INC: Crayton Sues Over Unpaid OT for Area Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------------
TALETHA CRAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAILORMEN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00004-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., January 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated area supervisors 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 area supervisor
in Georgia until November 2021.

Sailormen, Inc. is a chicken and biscuits restaurant franchisee and
operator based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         W. Douglas Adams, Esq.
         1829 Norwich Street
         Post Office Box 857
         Brunswick, GA 31521-0857
         Telephone: (912) 265-1966
         Facsimile: (912) 265-1966
         E-mail: WDAdams@WDALaw.biz

SAINT-GOBAIN: PFOA Settlement Approval Hearing Set on April 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE
United States District Court for Vermont

If you have lived or owned real property in or around Bennington or
North Bennington, Vermont, in the area of PFOA exposure, you could
get benefits from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached in Sullivan v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp., a class action lawsuit filed by
residents in the Bennington area alleging contamination of their
property and drinking water with a chemical called
Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"). The U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 18,
2022, 10:00 am, at the Rutland Federal Courthouse.

The settlement provides:
   - Money for property damages to Property Class members, people
who: (1) owned residential real property in the Zone of Concern --
an area of PFOA exposure defined by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) in Bennington, North Bennington
and some properties with a Shaftsbury address -- on March 14, 2016;
or (2) purchased residential real property after March 14, 2016,
that was later added to the Zone of Concern.
   - Funding for a Court-Supervised Medical Monitoring Program for
Exposure Class members, providing free testing and monitoring,
which does not duplicate their current primary care, for early
detection of certain diseases. You are an Exposure Class member if
you: (a) resided in the Zone of Concern on or before August 23,
2019; (b) ingested drinking water with PFOA in the Zone of Concern;
and (c) have a blood serum test with a PFOA blood level above 2.1
parts per billion ("ppb"). If you meet the first two criteria, but
have not yet had a blood test, the Medical Monitoring Program will
make one available to you free of charge within the first 90 days
of the Program.
   - You may be a member of both the Property Class and the
Exposure Class.

A more detailed Class Settlement Notice, the Settlement Agreement,
a Claim Form, and an Opt-Out form can be found at
www.BenningtonVTClassAction.com, or requested by emailing
info@benningtonvtclassaction.com, or by calling 866-726-3778.

Your legal rights are affected regardless of whether you act or
don't act. If you are a property owner in the Zone of Concern, you
must file a Claim Form to receive money for property damages.
Unless you ask to be excluded (opt out) from the Property Class, no
later than February 2, 2022, to maintain your right to pursue your
own separate lawsuit against Saint-Gobain, you will be bound by the
Settlement and Release of Claims, whether you file a Claim Form or
not. If you are an Exposure Class member, you must file a Claim
Form to participate in the Medical Monitoring Program. If you are
an Exposure Class member, there is no opportunity to opt out and
you will be bound by the Settlement and Release of Claims whether
you file a Claim Form or not. You also have a right to object to
the Settlement, no later than February 2, 2022. If you do nothing
you will not get a payment or other benefits from this Settlement,
and you will give up certain legal rights.

More information, including a detailed notice, is available at:
www.BenningtonVTClassAction.com , by emailing
info@benningtonvtclassaction.com ,
or by calling 866-726-3778. [GN]

SAME DAY: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Combs Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD COMBS, JANIQUA MAYO, MARTIN SIERRA, DRESHON WEAVER-MOORE,
and WILLIAM PERTHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAME DAY DELIVERY INC., SCOTT
WEINSTEIN, and BENE EWERTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00520
(S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2022) 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 overtime wages, failure
to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to provide wage notices,
and failure to provide proper wage statements.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery drivers at any
time between 2019 and 2020.

Same Day Delivery Inc. is a courier delivery service provider, with
its principal place of business at 2403 2nd Avenue, Floor 2 New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0046
         E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

SANTA CLARA, CA: Joseph Leon Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH R LEON DUX708, on
his own behalf and those similarly situated, v. The Office of the
Sheriff Dept Laurie Smith, and The Superior court Of Santa Clara
County in both his official and individual capacity, acting color
of law, Case No. 3:21-cv-06317-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:

   "All presently incarcerated within the Santa Clara County
    department of corrections."

The Plaintiff filed this civil rights action for injunctive relief,
remedial request, damages on October 22,2021, pursuant to depriving
him and members of his class civil rights to equal protection , due
process , excessive fines/bail prohibited by the eighth Amendment,
wanton infliction of pain, cruel and unusual punishment, inadequate
medical treatment, bounds violations of proper law library/access
to courts causing injury and prejudice.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nIp68a
at no extra charge.



SEATTLE, WA: Hunters Capital Suit Seeks to Certify Class, Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hunters Capital LLC, et
al., v. City of Seattle, Case No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ (W.D. Wash.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a Class,
and three subclasses.

According to the complaint, From the night of June 8, 2020, to the
early morning hours of July 1, 2020, the City of Seattle allowed,
aided, encouraged, and supported the hostile takeover of an entire
neighborhood in Capitol Hill by a loosely organized group of
protesters and others that became known as the Capitol Hill
Occupying Protest ("CHOP"). Because of the City's assistance, the
occupiers overran a public park, blocked off and impeded access on
public streets and sidewalks, caused crime and violence in the area
to skyrocket, and vandalized and terrorized the entire area. The
City's support and encouragement of this behavior injured thousands
of property owners, businesses, and legal residents who called
Capitol Hill home, and as a result, all of them have claims against
the City that are based on the same legal theories, and the same
striking evidence about what the City did to place them in harm's
way.

The Plaintiffs include HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, HUNTERS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; GREENUS BUILDING, INC., a Washington
corporation; NORTHWEST LIQUOR AND WINE LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, SRJ ENTERPRISES, d/b/a CAR TENDER, a Washington
corporation, THE RICHMARK COMPANY d/b/a RICHMARK LABEL, a
Washington company, ONYX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington
registered homeowners association, MATTHEW PLOSZAJ, an individual,
WADE BILLER, an individual, MADRONA REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS
IV LLC, a Washington limited liability company, MADRONA REAL ESTATE
INVESTORS VI LLC, a Washington limited liability company, 12TH AND
PIKE ASSOCIATES LLC, a Washington limited liability company,
REDSIDE PARTNERS LLC, a Washington limited liability company, OLIVE
ST APARTMENTS LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation,
BERGMAN'S LOCK AND KEY SERVICES LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
SHUFFLE LLC d/b/a CURE COCKTAIL, a Washington limited liability
company, and SWAY AND CAKE LLC, a Washington limited liability
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fw14c7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angelo J. Calfo, Esq.
          Patricia A. Eakes, Esq.
          Tyler S. Weaver, Esq.
          Gabe Reilly-Bates, Esq.
          Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
          Henry Phillips, Esq.
          CALFO EAKES LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 407-2200
          Facsimile: (206) 407-2278
          E-mail: pattye@calfoeakes.com
                  angeloc@calfoeakes.com
                  tylerw@calfoeakes.com
                  gaber@calfoeakes.com
                  andrewd@calfoeakes.com
                  henryp@calfoeakes.com


SELECT REHABILITATION: Faces Mclaughlin Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-JBT (M.D. Fla., Jan. 18,
2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff arising from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges wrongful scheme by Defendant to: a) willfully
fail to accurately and properly track and record the work hours of
program managers and therapists, and b) willfully refuse to pay
overtime wages to a large class of non-exempt, hourly paid
employees who Defendant knows or should have known, were working
off the clock and working overtime hours without being paid for all
such hours.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in October 2019, as dual
physical therapist and "program manager" and assigned to work at
the Defendant's Jacksonville rehab center or office in Florida.

Select Rehabilitation LLC provides contract rehabilitation as well
as nurse and therapy consulting services in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

SEQUIUM ASSET: Velez-Aguilar Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Margaret Velez-Aguilar filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARGARET VELEZ-AGUILAR, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, INC, CACH, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2-21-cv-14046, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed this class action over
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

On October 18, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 25, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On January 18, 2022, Judge William J. Martini entered an order
denying a motion to dismiss for lack of standing; denying on
Rooker-Feldman grands; granting as to failure to state a claim; and
dismissing Plaintiff's amended complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Margaret Velez-Aguilar v.
Sequium Asset Solutions LLC In, et al., Case No. 22-1109, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Jan.
20, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MARGARET VELEZ-AGUILAR, On Behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com  

Defendants-Appellees SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS LLC INC and CACH LLC
are represented by:

          Jacquelyn A. Dicicco, Esq.
          J ROBBIN LAW
          200 Business Park Drive, Suite 103
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 685-5017
          E-mail: jacquelyn.dicicco@jrobbinlaw.com

SIERRA PACIFIC: Cole Appeals Summary Judgment in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Devin Cole filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled Devin Cole, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:18-cv-01692, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On October 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. On November 12, 2021 the Plaintiff filed an opposition
and cross-motion.

On December 15, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero
entered an order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment
and denying Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. On
December 16, 2021, a Judgment was released in favor of Sierra
Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc., and against Plaintiff Devin Cole.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Devin Cole v. Sierra Pacific
Mortgage Co., Case No. 22-15078, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 19, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Devin Cole Mediation Questionnaire is due today,
Jan. 26, 2022;

   -- Appellant Devin Cole opening brief is due on March 21, 2022;

   -- Appellee Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc. answering
brief is due on April 18, 2022; and

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

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

          David Martin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID W. MARTIN
          5350 James Avenue
          Oakland, CA 94618
          Telephone: (510) 332-3943

Defendant-Appellee SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., a
California Corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew A. Morr, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR, LLP
          1225 17th Street, Suite 2300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292-2400

SITEONE LANDSCAPE: Scheduling Order Entered in Gagnier Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID D. GAGNIER, v.
SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC, et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-01834-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered a Scheduling Order:

   1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
      completed by 22 November 9, 2023. Discovery motions must
      be filed and heard prior to this date.

   2. The parties shall have until January 8, 2024 to file and
      have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
      amend the pleadings.

   3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, March 11,
      2024 at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
      required.

   4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, March 19, 2024
      at 08:30 AM.

   5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 – Private
      Mediation. The parties shall have until November 23, 2023
      to conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file
      with the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five
      days after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the
      Court of their settlement efforts and status.

   6. The Plaintiff shall have until June 12, 2023 to file and
      have heard any class certification motion.

SiteOne provides landscape architectural services. The Company
offers irrigation, outdoor lighting, nursery, and landscape
supplies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nzoS34 at no extra charge.[CC]

SMILE BRANDS: Richard Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Destinee Richard, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Smile Brands Inc., Case No.
30-2022-01238972-CU-NP-CXC, was removed from the California
Superior Court, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Jan. 19, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00092 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Smile Brands Group, Inc. -- https://smilebrands.com/ -- provides
dental services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Nadolenco, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 229-9500
          Fax: (213) 625-0248
          Email: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com


SOMCHAI & CO: Non-Managerial Employees Get Conditional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAO YU YANG, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOMCHAI AND COMPANY
INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-12742-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification of a collective action for non-managerial
      employees and court authorized notice to similarly
      situated non-managerial employees, pursuant to the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as equitable tolling
      of the statute of limitations to allow potential
      plaintiffs to join the action;"

   2. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      method of dissemination and content of the notice to
      similarly situated non-managerial employees;

   3. directing the parties to submit their proposed notice to
      the Honorable James B. Clark III, United States Magistrate
      Judge within 15 days of the date of this opinion and
      accompanying order; and

   4. scheduling statute of limitations period of three years.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nzrbTN at no extra charge.[CC]


SONESTA NOLA: Donaldson Seeks Extension to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT DONALDSON husband
of/and AMY DONALDSON individually and o/b/o their late son SETH
DONALDSON, v.  SONESTA NOLA CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No.
2:21-cv-01976-JCZ-DMD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order that their unopposed motion to extend deadline
seeking class certification be granted and that Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude the testimony of James
S.Olin be reset for submission on February 2, 2022.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tLx4kO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Pedersen, Esq.
          D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Esq.
          839 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 306
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone (504) 581-3610
          Facsimile (504) 581-7509
          E-mail: Jcpedersen@howardandreed.com
                  ddhowardjr@bellsouth.net

SOUTH CAROLINA: Stogsdill Appeals Denial of Bid to Alter Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Stogsdill, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Richard Stogsdill, Nancy
Stogsdill, Mother of Richard Stogsdill, Robert Levin, and Mary
Self, Mother of Robert Levin, Plaintiffs v. Anthony Keck and the
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants,
Case No. 3:12-cv-00007-JFA, in the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina at Columbia.

The case arises out of the reduction in benefits provided to two
Medicaid-eligible individuals and seeks to challenge the policies
and procedures in the operation of two Medicaid programs.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of statutory and constitutional
due process, violations of the S.C. Administrative Procedures  Act,
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violations of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and violations of 42  U.S.C.
Sections 1983 and 1985 (Civil Rights) against Anthony Keck and the
South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

On November 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter
judgment and to alter or amend their request for declaratory
relief.

On December 21, 2021, the Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered
an order denying Plaintiffs' motion to alter judgment.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Stogsdill v. South
Carolina Dept. of Health, Case No. 22-1069, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Jan. 20,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard Stogsdill, Nancy Stogsdill, Mother of
Richard Stogsdill; and Robert Levin, and Mary Self, Mother of
Robert Levin, are represented by:

          Patricia L. Harrison, Esq.
          PATRICIA LOGAN HARRISON ATTORNEY AT LAW
          47 Rosemond Road
          Cleveland, SC 29635
          Telephone: (803) 256-2017
          E-mail: plh.cola@att.net

Defendant-Appellee SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES is represented by:

          Peter Michael Balthazor, Esq.
          Roy F. Laney, Esq.
          Thomas Lowndes Pope, Esq.
          Jayme Leigh Shy, Esq.
          Damon C. Wlodarczyk, Esq.
          RILEY, POPE & LANEY, LLC
          2838 Devine Street
          P. O. Box 11412
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 799-9993
          E-mail: peteb@rplfirm.com
                  rlaney@rplfirm.com
                  lpope@rplfirm.com
                  jshy@rplfirm.com
                  damonw@rplfirm.com

               - and -

          Nikole Deanna Haltiwanger, Esq.
          HOLDER PADGETT LITTLEJOHN & PRICKETT, LLC
          1201 Main Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 335-1444
          E-mail: nikole.haltiwanger@rtt-law.com

SPROUT FOODS: Huntley Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LYNN HUNTLEY, Plaintiff v. SPROUT FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00488 (JAM) (D. Conn.), Judge Jeffrey
Alker Meyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted Sprout's motion to transfer the action to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and denied as
moot its motion to dismiss.

I. Background

Plaintiff Huntley brings the proposed nationwide class action on
behalf of herself and other consumers who have purchased baby food
products from Defendant Sprout. Huntley claims that Sprout's
products were deceptively marketed as safe and healthy because
Sprout knew or should have known that its products contained toxic
heavy metals.

Sprout manufactures and distributes baby food products nationwide.
It is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of
business in New Jersey.

Sprout advertises that its products that are safe, healthy, and
nutritious. But, according to Huntley's amended complaint, Sprout's
products are unsafe. The complaint alleges that a private group
known as Healthy Babies Bright Futures published a report in
October 2019 documenting detectable levels of toxic heavy metals in
at least one line of Sprout products. It further alleges that a
subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives published a
report in February 2021 with findings that numerous baby foods
belonging to a variety of brands are potentially contaminated with
significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead,
cadmium, and mercury and that Sprout declined to cooperate with the
subcommittee's investigation.

Ms. Huntley is a Connecticut resident and the proposed
representative of a nationwide class of consumers who, like her,
purchased Sprout-brand baby foods in reliance on the brand's
representations that its products are safe, healthy, and free from
harmful substances or contaminants. Until recently, Huntley was
joined in this action by named plaintiffs from three other states.
On Sept. 10, 2021, the non-Connecticut named plaintiffs moved to
voluntarily dismiss their claims, leaving Huntley as the sole
representative of both the nationwide class and a proposed
Connecticut subclass.

Ms. Huntley's action is similar in substance to two other federal
lawsuits filed against Sprout around the same period of time. The
first, initiated just one week before Huntley's action, was filed
in the Northern District of California before being transferred to
the District of New Jersey and later voluntarily dismissed -- Key
et al v. Sprout Foods, Inc., 2:21-cv-16605 (SRC) (JSA). The second,
initiated shortly after Huntley's action, was filed in the District
of New Jersey, where it remains pending before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler and referred to Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen -- Kimca
et al v. Sprout Foods, Inc., 2:21-cv-12977 (SRC) (JSA).

Sprout has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Sprout has also moved to transfer the action to the District of New
Jersey, where it suggests that the action "could be designated as
related" to the pending Kimca action and "efficiently managed by
the same judge."

II. Discussion

Federal law allows a district court to transfer a civil action to
any other district where the action might have been brought "for
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice." The objectives of Section 1404(a) are "to prevent the
waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses
and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense."
"District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of
convenience under Section 1404(a)," but the burden is ultimately on
the moving party to show by clear and convincing evidence the
propriety of a transfer.

In determining whether transfer of venue is appropriate, a court
asks (1) whether the action "might have been brought" in the
proposed transferee forum and, if so, (2) whether the transfer
promotes convenience and justice. Neither party disputes that the
action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey, and
therefore Judge Meyer proceeds to the second inquiry.

The Second Circuit has identified some of the factors to be
considered in determining whether transfer is warranted, including:
"(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of
witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease
of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5)
the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to
compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) the relative
means of the parties." In addition to these "private" factors, a
district court must also take into account various "public-interest
considerations," including judicial economy and local court
congestion.

Having considered the relevant factors, Judge Meyer concludes that
the interests of justice, and especially the interests of judicial
economy, favor transfer to the District of New Jersey. He finds
that the majority of section 1404(a) factors are either neutral or
firmly in favor of transfer. The factors most aligned against
transfer -- namely, Huntley's presumptive entitlement to a forum of
her choice, and the relative means of the parties -- are somewhat
mitigated by the fact that the case has been brought as a proposed
nationwide class action. It serves both the overall convenience of
the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice to transfer
this action to the District of New Jersey, where the case has its
locus of operative facts, and where a nearly identical proposed
class action -- itself helmed by a Connecticut plaintiff and
featuring a Connecticut subclass -- is currently pending.

Because he finds by clear and convincing evidence that transfer to
the District of New Jersey is warranted, Judge Meyer will grant
Sprout's motion to transfer.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Meyer granted the Defendant's
motion to transfer. He denied as moot the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court
will transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/36zdvy8n from Leagle.com.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Amend Case Management Order Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting in part the
Defendant's motion to amend the Case Management Order, as follows:

   1. Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
      class certification must be filed no later than January
      31, 2022, and any reply may be filed no later than 10
      days thereafter (and no later than February 10, 2022).

   2. The trial setting of February 28, 2022 and the setting for
      the final pretrial conference of February 24, 2022 are
      both vacated, to be reset at a later date sometime after
      the Court to rules on the above-noted motion and other
      anticipated pretrial motions.

   3. The parties shall promptly engage in good faith
      discussions regarding the choice of a mediator.

   4. No later than 7 days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs'
      renewed motion for class certification, the parties shall
      file a joint proposed scheduling plan for the remainder of
      the litigation, including proposed deadlines for any
      further pretrial motions and a re-referral to mediation,
      as well as the earliest date by which this case should
      reasonably be expected to be ready for trial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qxUk3O at no extra charge.[CC]

STALLION EXPRESS: Gagne Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Couriers
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAELA GAGNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STALLION EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-40008 (D. Mass., January 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, the Massachusetts
Minimum Wage Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Law, and the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a courier from April
2018 until the present.

Stallion Express, LLC is a provider of pharmaceutical courier
services throughout the U.S., including Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
         RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
         92 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 723-7700
         Facsimile: (617) 227-0313

STATE FARM: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Shields Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DARREN MICHAEL
SHIELDS, ET AL. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case
No. 6:19-CV-01359, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Lafayette.

The lawsuit challenges a valuation system used by car insurers to
determine cash value of vehicles on total loss claims. Plaintiffs
Darren Shields and Connie Bourque are two Louisiana residents who
had insurance policies through State Farm. Under the terms of these
policies, State Farm agreed to pay the owner the actual cash value
("ACV") of the insured vehicles upon the occurrence of a total
loss. To determine the ACV, State Farm used a valuation product
known as the Autosource Market-Driven Valuation ("Autosource"),
which was developed by a company known as Audatex and allegedly
marketed exclusively to insurance companies.

Shields filed a claim under his collision coverage, after his 2008
Isuzu i-370 LS truck was involved in an accident that occurred on
April 27, 2019. Bourque also filed a claim under her collision
coverage, based on damage sustained to her 2016 Toyota Rav4 XLE in
an accident occurring on March 7, 2018.

Both Plaintiffs challenge the adjusted value of their vehicles, as
determined by the Autosource valuation report, and allege that it
resulted in their claims being undervalued. They filed suit in this
court on Oct. 16, 2019, invoking the Court's jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332 and alleging that State Farm's use of
Autosource resulted in a breach of the insurance contract as well
as violations of Louisiana law. They seek certification on behalf
of State Farm policyholders who have been similarly
undercompensated based on the use of Autosource.

On May 28, 2021, Ms. Borque filed a motion for class
certification.

On January 3, 2022, Judge James D. Cain, Jr. entered an order
granting the motion for class certification.

The Defendant seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company v. Bourque, Case No. 22-90002, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on Jan. 18, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
is represented by:

          Peter W. Herzog, III, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, L.L.P.
          211 N. Broadway
          1 Metropolitan Square
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (303) 244-0117
          E-mail: pherzog@wtotrial.com  

               - and -

          Allyson Newton Ho, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3100

               - and -

          Wayne Joseph Lee, Esq.
          STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMANN, L.L.C.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 593-0814
          E-mail: wlee@stonepigman.com  

               - and -

          Kristin Andrea Linsley, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          555 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
          Telephone: (415) 393-8395

Plaintiff-Respondent Connie Bourque, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kenneth W. Dejean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH DEJEAN
          417 W. University
          Lafayette, LA 70506-0000
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          701 Poydras Street
          Hancock Whitney Center
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          E-mail: smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com   

               - and -

          Kenneth David St. Pe, Esq.
          311 W. University Avenue
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com  

               - and -

          John Randall Whaley, Esq.
          WHALEY LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          6700 Jefferson Highway, Building 12
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 302-8810
          E-mail: jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com

STATE FARM: Entry Bid of Intermediary Deadlines Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Toms v. State Farm Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 8:21-cv-00736 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle entered an endorsed order granting in
part and denying in part Joint Motion for Entry of Intermediary
Deadlines on Class Certification and to Enlarge Page Limits.

  -- The Court grants Plaintiff Toms's request for an
     enlargement of time until April 8, 2022, to complete the
     expert discovery related to the class certification.

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains
     January 28, 2022, which shall not exceed 30 pages.
     Defendant State Farm must file its response to the motion
     for class certification no later than March 4, 2022, which
     shall not exceed 30 pages.

     Plaintiff Toms may file a reply by March 25, 2022, which
     shall not exceed 15 pages.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.[CC]

STATE FARM: Lisa Martino Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MARTINO, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-00910-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 certifying
a class and for such other relief the Court deems proper.

State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.


A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GIDFAj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
          J. Brett Milbourn, Esq.
          Taylor P. Foye, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: bmilbourn@hab-law.com
                  jkronawitter@hab-law.com
                  tfoye@hab-law.com

SYKES ENTERPRISES: Border Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Border, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00171 (S.D. Ohio, January 19, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and any other
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Sykes provides telephone-based customer service solutions to its
customers. Within the last three years, Border was employed by
Sykes as a remote customer service representative, working from her
home, providing telephone-based customer service to customers of a
credit card company that hired Sykes to provide customer service
solutions. Sykes allegedly did not compensate Border for time spent
when she was off the clock and was paid only when she was ready to
take customer calls at the exact start time of her scheduled shift.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 230-2955
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


SYNIVERSE CORP: Case Management, Scheduling Order Entered in Baron
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA BARON, OLIVIA
ENLOE, MARCO LERRA, JOHN PELS, ALEXIS MULLEN, NICHOLAS YEOMELAKIS,
and THOMAS MACNISH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SYNIVERSE CORPORATION, Case No.
8:21-cv-02349-SCB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Susan c. Bucklew
entered a case management and scheduling order as follows:

   1. This case is scheduled for a jury trial in Tampa, Florida,
      during the March 2024 trial calendar. The trial is
      estimated to last 14 days.

   2. A Pretrial Conference will be held on February 8, 2024.

   3. The parties have until April 29, 2022, to file Third Party
      Claims, Motions to Join Parties, and Motions to Amend
      Pleadings.

   4. The Plaintiffs must disclose the identity of any class
      certification expert witnesses and expert reports by
      October 7, 2022. Defendants must disclose the identity of
      any rebuttal class certification expert witnesses and
      expert reports by November 21, 2022.

   5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be
      filed on or before October 7, 2022. Defendants' opposition
      to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be
      filed on or before November 21, 2022.

   6. The Plaintiffs must disclose the identity of any expert
      witnesses and expert reports by January 16, 2023. The
      Defendants must disclose the identity of any expert
      witnesses and expert reports by February 13, 2023. Expert
      rebuttal reports must be disclosed by March 13, 2023.

   7. All discovery must be completed by the parties on or
      before July 14, 2023.

   8. The parties must participate in court-annexed mediation on
      or before July 28, 2023.

   9. Daubert motions must be filed on or before September 1,
      2023. Responses thereto must be filed no later than 21
      days after the filing date of the motion.

  10. Dispositive motions must be filed on or before September
      1, 2023. Responses thereto must be filed no later than 21
      days after the filing date of the motion. Replies, if any,
      must be filed no later than 14 days after the filing date.

Syniverse is a telecommunications company based in the United
States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fwjKbB at no extra charge.[CC]

TAHITIAN VILLAGE: Temporary Injunction Denial in Myers Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Zachary Myers and Dart Frog, LLC, Appellants
v. Tahitian Village Property Owners Association, Inc.; and Tahitian
Village Architectural Control Committee, Appellees, Case No.
03-21-00105-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Third
District, Austin, affirms the district court's order denying a
temporary injunction.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Zachary Myers and Dart Frog, LLC bring the
interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying their
request for a temporary injunction in their suit against Tahitian
Village Property Owners Association, Inc. and the Tahitian Village
Architectural Control Committee for breach of the restrictive
covenants governing the Tahitian Village subdivision.

Background

Mr. Myers owns a lot in the Tahitian Village subdivision. Dart
Frog, a Texas limited liability company that Myers alleged is "one
of his companies," owns six lots in the same subdivision. In
September 2020, Myers and Dart Frog sued Tahitian Village Property
Owners Association (the POA) and the Tahitian Village Architectural
Control Committee (the ACC) seeking a declaration that the POA did
not have the authority to impose fines related to their residential
construction activities in the subdivision and could not enforce
architectural guidelines separate from those contained in the
subdivision's restrictive covenants. Myers and Dart Frog also
sought a declaration that if the POA had the authority to assess
construction related fines, it had to first provide notice and an
opportunity to cure the violation. They alleged that the POA
breached the Texas Property Code by imposing arbitrary, capricious,
and discriminatory fines and breached the subdivision's restrictive
covenants by imposing fines and adopting architectural restrictions
separate from those contained in the subdivision's restrictive
covenants.

In February 2020, Myers and Dart Frog amended their petition to
bring a putative class action on behalf of all property owners in
the Tahitian Village subdivision. They dropped their claims for
declaratory relief and asserted a cause of action against both the
POA and the ACC for breach of the subdivision's restrictive
covenants. They alleged that the restrictive covenants do not
authorize the POA or the ACC to require property owners to comply
with any architectural or construction related rules other than
those contained in the subdivision's restrictive covenants and that
the POA and the ACC breached the restrictive covenants by requiring
owners to submit anything other than plans, specifications, and a
plat to obtain architectural approval for residential construction
in the subdivision. They also alleged that the POA and the ACC
breached the subdivision's restrictive covenants by requiring
property owners to pay unauthorized assessments, fees, and fines in
order to obtain architectural approvals, build improvements, and
vote in "community elections."

The amended petition also sought a temporary injunction enjoining
the POA and ACC from:

   * requiring Myers and Dart Frog to pay assessments, fees, or
     fines apart from admission or use fees for community
     facilities;

   * requiring Myers and Dart Frog to submit anything other than
     plans, specifications, and a plat to obtain ACC review and
     consideration of architectural submissions; and

   * preventing Myers and Dart Frog from voting in community
     elections on the ground that they had failed to pay
     assessments, fees, or fines.

After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the request
for temporary injunctive relief and ordered the parties to
mediation. Myers and Dart Frog then perfected the interlocutory
appeal.

Discussion

Justice Chari L. Kelly, writing for the Panel, notes that at a
hearing on a request for a temporary injunction, the only question
before the trial court is whether the applicant is entitled to
preservation of the status quo of the subject matter of the suit
pending a trial on the merits, citing Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d
859, 861-62 (Tex. 1978); Gettysburg Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v.
Olson, 768 S.W.2d 369, 371 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no
writ).

The decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction lies in the
discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's ruling is
subject to reversal only for a clear abuse of discretion, Judge
Kelly says. She explains that this Court may neither substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court nor consider the merits of the
lawsuit. She opines that the Court will reverse the order if the
trial court misapplied the law to established facts or if it
concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a probable
injury or a probable right to recover and such conclusion is not
reasonably supported by the evidence.

In general, temporary injunctive relief is warranted when a movant
shows: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable
right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and
irreparable injury in the interim (Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84
S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002)). When an injunction is sought to
enforce a restrictive covenant, however, the movant is not required
to show proof of irreparable injury. Instead, the movant need to
show only that the defendant intends to do an act that would breach
the restrictive covenant.

Thus, to be entitled to injunctive relief in the case, Myers and
Dart Frog had to demonstrate that the POA or the ACC were engaging
in conduct that breached the Tahitian Village restrictive
covenants.

Authority to Make Assessments

Mr. Myers and Dart Frog assert that the Tahitian Village
restrictive covenants prohibit the POA from making any assessments
and that its having done so constitutes a breach of those
covenants. According to Myers and Dart Frog, the authority for the
POA to make any assessments was revoked when the property owners
voted in 1998 to amend the "Agreement of Covenants, Conditions for
Tahitian Village" (the Restrictive Covenants) and, as part of the
amendment, deleted Article II of the previous version, which
provided for the "Assessment of Annual Charge." This amendment,
Myers and Dart Frog maintain, stripped the POA of the authority to
make assessments of any kind.

The POA and the ACC counter that the amendment to the Restrictive
Covenants removed the requirement that Tahitian Village property
owners pay an annual charge, but that the amendment did not
prohibit the POA from making and collecting other types of
assessments as permitted by the POA bylaws. The POA points to
Article IX, section 9(c) of the POA bylaws, which authorizes the
POA to establish an assessment and its collection as is necessary
to maintain the powers, duties, and authority of the POA.

As Mr. Myers and Dart Frog point out, the Restrictive Covenants, as
amended, deleted a provision that required property owners to pay
an annual charge to the POA. The Restrictive Covenants, however,
are silent as to the POA's power to make other assessments.
Consequently, the Restrictive Covenants do not prohibit all
assessments; the amendment simply removed the provision authorizing
the POA to impose an annual charge on the subdivision's property
owners.

The POA's bylaws, by contrast, expressly address assessments and
authorize the POA to make an assessment "as is necessary to
maintain its powers, duties, and authority." An example of such an
assessment is the transfer fee the POA assesses when a property
changes ownership. Judge Kelly says that the bylaws are not
subordinate documents to the Restrictive Covenants, nor are they
inconsistent with the terms of the Restrictive Covenants, which do
not prohibit the POA from making assessments. While Myers and Dart
Frog may take issue with a particular assessment made by the POA
and may argue that such assessment is improper or unauthorized,
they have not demonstrated that the POA is not permitted to make
any assessments at all, Judge Kelly points out.

Based on the documents and evidence submitted to the trial court,
it could reasonably have determined that the amendment to the
Restrictive Covenants that removed the POA's authority to charge
residents an annual fee did not foreclose the POA from making other
assessments as permitted by the Bylaws, such as the "transfer fee"
or fines for violations of subdivision rules and regulations, Judge
Kelly observes. The court could have determined that, based on the
record before it, the amendment's purpose was limited to
eliminating an annual charge or assessment that each homeowner had
been required to pay and was not intended to revoke the POA's
authority to make individual, case-by-case assessments as necessary
to carry out its duties.

The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that Myers and Dart Frog failed to
demonstrate that they had a probable right to recover on their
claim that the POA had no authority to impose or collect any type
of assessment from owners of property in the Tahitian Village
subdivision and that doing so was a breach of the Restrictive
Covenants.

Information Required for ACC Consideration

Judge Kelly next considers whether Myers and Dart Frog established
a probable right to recover on their claim that the ACC's requiring
anything other than building plans, specifications, and a plat
before reviewing and deciding whether to approve architectural
submissions constituted a breach of the Restrictive Covenants.
Myers and Dart Frog assert that because the Restrictive Covenants
contain a covenant requiring that a property owner submit plans,
specifications, and a plat, the POA and the ACC are not authorized
to require submission of any other type of additional documentation
before considering and approving architectural submissions.

The Restrictive Covenants, however, do not prohibit the ACC from
requiring additional information and documentation with
architectural submissions, Judge Kelly finds. In fact, the
Restrictive Covenants impose a duty on the ACC to prevent the use
of any lot in a way that would "violate the laws of the local,
State or Federal governments." The trial court could have
determined, based on the record before it, that the plans,
specifications, and a plat would not provide sufficient information
to the ACC to carry out its duty of ensuring that a proposed
project did in fact comply with local, state, and federal laws.

Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that
Myers and Dart Frog were not entitled to injunctive relief
prohibiting the POA or the ACC from requiring information beyond
the plans, specifications, and a plat, Judge Kelly holds. Myers and
Dart Frog may at trial present evidence that the specific
additional information the POA and the ACC demanded from them was
in excess of its authority or otherwise improper, but the issue in
this appeal is whether they established a probable right to recover
on their assertion that requiring the submission of additional
information per se constituted a breach of the Restrictive
Covenants.

The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court's denial of the
temporary injunctive relief sought was not an abuse of its
discretion.

Conclusion

Having concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the temporary injunctive relief Myers and Dart Frog
requested, the Appellate Court affirms the trial court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Jan. 6,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ejb6yaz from
Leagle.com.


TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Terminix
faces a proposed class action that alleges the pest control company
has unlawfully charged and retained fees under contracts canceled
by customers.

The 18-page lawsuit says that although Terminix contracts are
cancellable at will, such as if a consumer were to sell their home,
the defendant nevertheless fails to refund customers for unused
time remaining on their service agreements, and retains the
leftover money as "undue profit."

The plaintiff, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida resident, claims to have
demanded a prorated refund from Terminix after he canceled his
year-long $345 contract in July 2020, shortly after it went into
effect. Nevertheless, defendant Terminix chose instead to keep the
apparently unearned fees, the suit alleges.

"The refund should have been three hundred twenty-two dollars and
thirty-one cents ($322.31)," the lawsuit says. "This amount
constitutes what [the plaintiff] paid for services which would not
be received. Since there were no services, Terminix was not
entitled to any fees."

According to the suit, the plaintiff filed an administrative
complaint against Terminix with the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. In response to the plaintiff's
complaint, Terminix stated in a sworn affidavit that the man was
entitled to a refund of $345, the proposed class action says,
alleging the defendant "knew that the fees it was retaining were
illegitimate, unfair, and contrary to the contract and public
policy."

The case alleges Terminix has run afoul of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state's Consumer Collection
Practices Act, which was enacted to eradicate abusive charges, fees
and collection activities.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities nationwide who
canceled their annual service contract with Terminix prior to the
expiration of its term and did not receive a prorated refund within
the last five years.

The suit was removed from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, where it
was initially filed on December 9, 2021, to Florida's Southern
District Court on January 14, 2022. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Aleksanian Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Levon Aleksanian, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LEVON ALEKSANIAN, SONAM, LAMA,
HARJIT KHATRA, and, Individually, on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, and as Class Representatives v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
UBER LOGISTIK, LLC, UBER USA LLC, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:19-cv-10308, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from
the Defendants' alleged systematic breaches of contract.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks to recover amounts that were
systematically deducted from drivers' earnings, in violation of
Uber's driver contracts (known as Uber "Software License and
Services Agreement," hereafter "contracts") as a result of Uber's
payment practices in New York from at least November 6, 2013,
through May 22, 2017.

The Plaintiffs are present and former drivers, who contracted with
Uber to drive Black Cars as part of Uber's New York City fleet and
who did not opt out of arbitration.

Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California. Uber operates twenty-eight wholly owned subsidiaries in
New York, each of which has held or currently holds a TLC license
to operate a For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) Base. Uber operates its Black
Car operations in New York City as a group of Black Car bases and
one luxury limousine base, each of which is licensed by the New
York City Taxi Limousine Commission (TLC).

According to the complaint, the claims raised on behalf of those
similarly situated seek to provide redress to more than 96,000 New
York City Uber drivers for breaches of contract affecting every
member of the largest private sector workforce in New York City
over the relevant period.  From the time Uber entered the New York
City market in 2011, until May 22, 2017, Uber illegally deducted
from drivers' earnings monies, which Uber represented were sales
taxes and the surcharge for the Black Car Fund (BCP) surcharge,
which provides Workers' Compensation for Black Car drivers.

On March 8, 2021, a Memorandum and Opinion was entered by the Court
denying Plaintiffs' motion for discovery, granting Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration, and dismissing the case.

On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration to
amend Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) relating
to the Memorandum and Opinion.

On December 29, 2021, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies
Inc., Case No. 22-98, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on Jan. 18, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Levon Aleksanian, Sonam Lama, and Harjit
Khatra, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and as Class Representatives, are represented by:

          Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq.
          MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC
          1 Whitehall Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 231-2235
          E-mail: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Uber Technologies Inc. and Uber Logistik, LLC,
jointly and severally; and Uber USA LLC are represented by:

          Jeremy Micah Creelan, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 891-1678
          E-mail: jcreelan@jenner.com

UKG INC: Fails to Secure Workers' Personal Info, Muller Says
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MULLER and ANTONIO KNEZEVICH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UKG INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00346 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 18,
2022) arises from the Defendants' negligent failure to implement
and maintain reasonable data security procedures and practices, and
the consequent massive security breach of its systems that began in
December 2021, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act,
the California Customer Records Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, UKG suffered a ransomware attack and
data breach on December 11, 2021 due to its lack of adequate
security measures. The alleged breach not only exposed millions of
workers' personal information to cybercriminals, but also crippled
timekeeping and payroll systems for their employees, resulting in
workers whose data was affected by not being paid, being paid late,
or being paid incorrectly.

The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a nationwide class for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, and breach of contract, as well as claims on behalf of a
California subclass for violation of the state laws.

Plaintiff Muller works as a truck driver for New Bern Transport
Corporation, an exclusive carrier and wholly-owned subsidiary of
PepsiCo. Plaintiff Knezevich works as a truck driver for Tesla,
Inc.

UKG is a multi-billion dollar workforce management technology
company that provides third-party human resources services,
including timekeeping and payroll services, to companies around the
globe. In connection with those services, UKG collects, stores, and
processes data for thousands of companies and millions of workers,
including a multitude of companies and workers in California and
throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
          Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
          WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
          222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 335-2001
          Facsimile: (310) 364-5201
          E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com
                  dimitri@wukolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
          Erin A. Lim, Esq.
          ALEXANDER MORRISON + FEHR LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
          E-mail: mmorrison@amfllp.com
                  elim@amfllp.com

ULTIMATE KRONOS: Faces Suit Over Improper Wages After Cyberattack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two workers, one at Telsa Inc. and the other at a PepsiCo Inc.
subsidiary, are suing the Ultimate Kronos Group over paychecks
short of what they earned. The lawsuit -- one of three filed -- is
the start of legal consequences from the ransomware attack against
the vendor's payroll and timekeeping systems.

A attack hit Ultimate Kronos Group (UKG) payroll and timekeeping
systems Dec. 11, and prompted some customers to switch to manual
processes, including paper. But in some cases, fixes like these
relied on estimates of hours worked, which may have left some
paychecks without overtime and holiday pay.

UKG said it is "ahead of schedule" in meeting its complete
restoration date of Jan. 28. It said services for more than 1,000
affected customers were "back online and ready for them to log-in."
About 2,500 customers were affected by the attack.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks
class-action status. One plaintiff, William Muller, works as a
truck driver in California for New Bern Transport Corp., an
exclusive carrier and wholly owned subsidiary of PepsiCo. The other
plaintiff is Antonio Knezevich, a truck driver in California for
Tesla Inc.

The lawsuit claims the ransomware attack "crippled" payroll and
timekeeping systems at PepsiCo and Telsa. As described in the suit,
the apparent workaround was calculating wages based on averaging
employee hours in the weeks before the breach.

But that practice "has proved woefully inadequate, resulting in
Plaintiffs and employees like Plaintiffs not being fully paid for
all time worked, not being paid overtime, being provided inaccurate
wage statements or no wage statements at all," the lawsuit claims.


UKG isn't commenting on the lawsuits.

It is the third lawsuit seeking class-action status against UKG
over its breach, and it's not the only risk the company faces.

The range of risks
Legal experts said that regulatory enforcement by federal and state
agencies and governments abroad are another risk.

The principal threat to the company is really going to come from
regulators.

"The principal threat to the company is really going to come from
regulators," said Michael Zweiback, a cybersecurity attorney at
Zweiback, Fiset & Coleman LLP in Los Angeles.

From the perspective of regulators, "private companies are
responsible for maintaining and hardening their networks against
these international threat actors," Zweiback said.

Customers can also sue over breaches, but their contract with their
vendor may limit them, said Layna Cook Rush, an attorney who leads
the data incident response team Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell
& Berkowitz P.C. in Memphis. It's rare to see a SaaS provider like
UKG "that doesn't have some type of limiting language in their
contract," she said.

Between the litigation and possible regulatory action, the cost of
responding to a break "can have a significant impact on your
business -- it can cost a lot of money," Rush said.

Another lawsuit is against UKG and West Penn Allegheny Health
System Inc., in Pittsburgh. The plaintiff, Larry Kroeck, is
alleging pay discrepancies. It also seeks class-action status. A
third lawsuit seeks class-action status over any cybersecurity
risks posed by incident.

Patrick Thibodeau covers HCM and ERP technologies for TechTarget.
He's worked for more than two decades as an enterprise IT reporter.
[GN]


UNIFIED LIFE: Class Claims in Butler Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan P. Waters of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana, Billings Division, dismissed the class action claims in
the case, CHARLES M. BUTLER, III and CHOLE BUTLER, Plaintiffs v.
UNIFIED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Cause No. CV
17-50-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), with prejudice.

The claims are dismissed as fully settled upon merits pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Plaintiff Charles Butler, III, and the Defendant have filed their
Stipulation for Dismissal of the class action claims in the matter,
by and through their respective counsel of record. Each Party will
bear its own costs, except as otherwise provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

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


UNILEVER UNITED: Suave Antiperspirant Contains Benzene, Morris Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO MORRIS, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INCORPORATED, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00338 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 20, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of Unilever with
respect to the marketing and sale of Suave 24-hour Protection
Powder aerosol antiperspirant.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on behalf of
himself and Class Members who purchased the Product during the
applicable statute of limitations period.

The Defendant does specifically list the active ingredients of the
Products but allegedly fails to disclose that the Products contain
"benzene." Benzene is a widely recognized and incredibly dangerous
substance, especially in the context of applying it to the skin.
Benzene has been recognized, acknowledged, and accepted as a
well-known health hazard and human carcinogen for approximately a
century. For example, benzene is known to harm the bone marrow, and
long exposure to benzene can lead to blood cancer, such as
leukemia, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and those similarly certainly expect that the aerosol
and spray products they purchase will comply with its labeling and
not contain any knowingly harmful substances like benzene.

Accordingly, Defendant's alleged conduct violated and continues to
violate, inter alia, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act  and the common law.

Unilever markets and sells aerosol deodorant and antiperspirant as
part of its Suave product line. Unilever has sold Suave personal
care products for the last 75 years, and, according to Unilever,
"the brand has provided high-quality, value products that work as
well as premium brands."

Unilever's website emphasizes that "the safety of our products is
our top priority. That is why each new product innovation is
evaluated systematically and scientifically by our team in the
Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC). Our scientists
consider any safety risks to the consumers who use our products, to
the workers who make them, and to the environment to ensure all our
products are safe to use."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Hwy E., 2 nd Fl.
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
                  jshub@shublawyers.com

UNITED PARCEL: Boyle Suit Remanded to Jefferson County Cir. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville, remanded the case, TIM
BOYLE, individually, and as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons comprising the unincorporated labor organization,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 2727, 7711 Beulah
Church Road, Louisville, Kentucky 40228, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE CO. (AIR), Defendant, Case No. 3:21-CV-135-CRS (W.D. Ky.),
to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court for all further
proceedings.

I. Background

The action was filed in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit
Court by Boyle, seeking to represent himself and as a
representative of Teamsters Local 2727, alleging nuisance,
negligence and negligence per se in UPS "refusing to take
reasonable and appropriate sanitation measures to protect the
members of the Union" during the COVID-19 pandemic and placing them
"at significant risk of illness and death." He seeks certification
of a class of union members like himself, and declaratory and
injunctive relief to remedy the sanitation issues and institute
"communication protocols" with the Union concerning COVID-19
issues.

UPS removed the action under our diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332, representing in its Notice of Removal that the
parties are diverse and that "the amount in controversy here
exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, because the
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief impacting the workplace safety
and communication protocols for approximately 1,600 employees who
are members of the Union, as well as attorneys' fees."

Before the Court are the following: 1) Motion of Defendant UPS' to
dismiss; (2) Boyle's motion to remand and for costs; and (3)
Boyle's objection to the Order of the United States Magistrate
Judge denying limited jurisdictional discovery.

II. Discussion

Diversity jurisdiction requires two elements: Complete diversity of
the parties and an amount in controversy which exceeds $75,000.

Judge Simpson has reviewed the filings and discerned that the
matter was improperly removed from state court. Among other things,
he finds that the Notice of Removal fails to articulate a
sufficient ground upon which to conclude that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. UPS offers no additional elucidation
in response to Boyle's motion to remand. In response, UPS merely
repeats the statement made in the Notice of Removal. It does not
directly argue that an aggregate value of proposed union member
claims can meet the jurisdictional threshold for diversity
jurisdiction. Hence, the case was not properly removed under the
Court's federal question jurisdiction. The action must be remanded
to the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court for all further
proceedings.

Boyle seeks an award of fees and costs, urging that the removal of
the case to federal court was objectively unreasonable. Judge
Simpson, having reviewed the matter and considered the request,
finds that despite the Court's ultimate determination that removal
was improper, he does not find it was objectively unreasonable and
so will decline to award costs.

III. Disposition

Judge Simpson granted Boyle's motion to remand but denied Boyle's
motion for costs. A separate order will be entered the same date in
accordance with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxe5k67 from Leagle.com.


UNITED SERVICES: Court Clarifies Dec. 9, 2021 Order in Spielman
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER I. SPIELMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No.
2:19-cv-01359-TJH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter,
Jr. entered an order granting the unopposed motion of Plaintiff
Lester Spielman to clarify the Court's December 9, 2021 Order.

The class certified by the Court is defined as follows:

   "All individuals and entities in California insured by United
   Services Automobile Association whose insurance covered or
   covers a leased vehicle with private-passenger physical
   damage coverage, including collision or physical damage other
   than collision coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed
   within four years of the date the lawsuit was filed through
   September 12, 2020, that was adjusted by United Services
   Automobile Association or USAA Casualty Insurance Company as
   a total loss and who received an actual cash value payment
   from United Services Automobile Association or USAA Casualty
   Insurance Company that did not include sales tax and/or
   Vehicle Title and Registration Fees."

United Services Automobile Association provides financial services.
The Company offers auto, life, flood, vehicle, business, and health
insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nwPult at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anmick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (213) 425-3657
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 41
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan Streisteld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow(@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamus, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE tst Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamusgentile.com


UNITED STATES: COVID-19 Mandate "Unconstitutional," Heminger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN HEMINGER, MICHAEL ANDERSON, DUSTIN NEWELL, ANDREW ALIAS,
AMANDA REMANN, ADAM HYDE, DUSTIN THORNBERRY, ROBERT DONKOR, ANTHONY
WAJDA, ANNA NICKELSON, ADAM FLORES, and BRYAN WOLLENBERG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00070-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., January 20, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment that the U.S.
government and employer mandates to require COVID-19 vaccination to
employees are an unlawful usurpation of states' rights and police
power authority.

The Plaintiffs are in the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) within the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who have been given an
ultimatum by the government and their employer to get vaccinated
against COVID-19. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek declaratory
and injunctive relief against COVID-19 vaccination mandates which
allegedly violate their constitutional and human rights.

The United States of America is a federal government. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         James E. Goodley, Esq.
         FERGUSON LAW, P.A.
         1 East Broward Blvd., Suite #700
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 256–5646
         Facsimile: (954) 256–5655
         E-mail: Wayne@FergusonLawPA.com

UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Cert Response Extended to March 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JOHNSON and JANE
DOE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FRANK KENDALL, Secretary of the Air Force, Case No.
3:21-cv-01214 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr.
granted the motion for extension of time and Defendant shall
respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Class Certification
on or before March 21, 2022.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
involving Job Discrimination (Handicap).

Frank Kendall III is an American engineer, lawyer, and executive
who is the 26th United States Secretary of the Air Force. He has
served in several senior positions in the US Department of Defense.
He is a West Point graduate and retired as a LTC from the US Army
Reserves.[CC]



UNITED STATES: Perry-Bey Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ROY L. PERRY-BEY filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Roy Perry-Bey v. U.S. Department of
Defense, Case No. 2:19-cv-00344-RAJ-DEM, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Norfolk.

On May 15, 2020, in response to the global health crisis caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States House of Representatives
adopted House Resolution 965, 116th Congress. The adopted
resolution creates a framework by which Members of the House may
designate proxies to cast votes on their behalf based on their
explicit instructions. Plaintiffs -- a group of House Members and
constituents -- filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that H.
Res. 965 is unconstitutional and an injunction against its
continued use in the House.

The Plaintiffs argued the resolution violates the Quorum
Requirement, the Yeas and Nays Requirement, the nondelegation
doctrine, and the general structure of the United States
Constitution, which they maintain require actual physical presence
to do the business of the House.

The Defendants urged the Court not to reach the merits of the case,
arguing that various threshold doctrines bar review of Plaintiffs'
claims.

Because the Court found that Defendants are immune from suit under
the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, it did not reach
the merits and granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Mr. Perry-Bey previously sought a review of the Court's Order dated
May 13, 2021, in the appellate case captioned as Roy Perry-Bey v.
U.S. Department of Defense, Case No. 21-1604, filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 21, 2021.

Mr. Perry-Bey now seeks a review of the affirmed judgment of the
district court relating to the dismissal of the case.

The present appellate case is captioned William Hayes v. John
Whitley, Case No. 22-1062, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Jan. 19, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM T. HAYES appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees JOHN E. WHITLEY; THOMAS B. MODLY, in his
official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Navy; DENIS R.
MCDONOUGH; JOHN P. ROTH; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; and
LLOYD AUSTIN, are represented by:

          Garry Daniel Hartlieb, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          8000 World Trade Center
          101 West Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510-1624
          Telephone: (757) 441-6331
          E-mail: garry.hartlieb@usdoj.gov  

UPPER SAINT CLAIR: Parents Slam Optional Masking in School
----------------------------------------------------------
John Doe 1-5 and Jane Doe 1-5, in their own capacity and as parents
of Child Doe 1-5 and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Upper Saint Clair School District, Phillip Elias,
Daphna Gans, Barbara L. Bolas, Patrick A. Hewitt, Louis P. Mafrice,
Michael R. Mascaro, Angela B. Petersen, Jennifer A. Schnore,
Danielle Z. Wetzel, all individual elected officials sued in their
official capacity as members of the Upper Saint Clair School)
District Board of Directors, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00112 (W.D.
Pa., January 19, 2022), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act.

The School Board of Upper Saint Clair School District, on January
10, 2022, by a 7-2 vote, voted to reverse the Health and Safety
Plan of the District requiring universal masking and instead
updated the Health and Safety Plan to make mask-wearing optional
effective as of January 24, 2022, regardless of transmission rate
of infection of COVID-19.

This renders school-age children attending school in Upper Saint
Clair School District medically vulnerable to COVID-19, thus
exposing them to the severe risk of illness, asserts the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
      BEHREND LAW GROUP LLC
      The Pittsburgher, Suite 1700
      428 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 391-4460
      Fax: (412) 391-5073
      Email: krbehrend@behrendlawgroup.com

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Garcia Loses Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ricardo R. Garcia, et.
al., v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et. al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00331-LO-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Liam O Grady
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Court said, "Certification and management of the proposed class
action would be unwieldly and improper due to the multitude of
predominant individual questions that would need to be addressed
for cach proposed class member. The Plaintiffs have not met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for any of
the proposed subclasses. The individual questions of fact and law
differ wildly between and within each of the proposed subclasses.
These stark differences between the factual questions relating to
class members and subclasses would make a class action suit
unmanageable and therefore it is inappropriate to grant the
Plaintiffs motion for class certification in accordance with Rule
23(b)(3)."

In the present civil case, the Defendants are a group of car
manufacturers and associated corporate entities that sell several
different types of vehicles under the brand names Audi and
Volkswagen.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in multiple states and
seek to represent a purported class of purchasers of Volkswagen
vehicles over the last fourteen years. Generally, the Plaintiffs
allege that the members of the purported class suffered harm after
purchasing vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen from fraudulent
misrepresentations made by Volkswagen.

The Plaintiffs allege that several of Volkswagen's corporate
practices have led to the class members’ vehicles falling into
one of three purported subclasses. One such practice is the sale of
so-called pre-production vehicles. Pre-production vehicles are
prototypes that Volkswagen utilizes for different functions, such
as to test a vehicle before it is mass produced for consumers.

Another practice that allegedly contributes to Volkswagen’s
tortious conduct is the practice of leasing pre-production vehicles
to members of the press and to Volkswagen's employees.
The second amended complaint asserts that Volkswagen lends some
pre-production vehicles to the automotive media to gain publicity
and exposure.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany. VWoA is responsible for five
marques: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and Volkswagen cars.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fvUHpc at no extra charge.[CC]


W.E.K. ENTERPRISES: Nelson Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL NELSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. W.E.K.
ENTERPRISES, LLC, formerly known as ROADTEK TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00895-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order following relief:

   (1) conditional certification of this action and for court-
       authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");

   (2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and
       the consent form;

   (3) a production by Defendant of names, job titles, last
       known mailing addresses, home and cell phone numbers,
       business and home email addresses, dates of employment,
       locations of employment, last four digits of Social
       Security Numbers, and dates of birth of all putative
       plaintiffs within 15 days of the Court's Order; and

   (4) the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via
       first class mail, email, and text message to all putative
       plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective,
       with the Reminder Notice to be sent 45-days after the
       initial mailing to all non-responding putative
       plaintiffs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32cdrHf
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-Mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          North Carolina State Bar No. 55014
          THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
          Arlington, VA 22206
          Telephone: (202) 449-8527
          Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
          E-Mail: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
                  rtucci@spigglelaw.com

WALMART INC: Bid to Dismiss Guzman Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALVADOR GUZMAN, and others, Plaintiffs v. WALMART
INC., and others, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-09133-NC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California:

   (1) granted Walmart's motion to dismiss all of the claims in
       the case except the Plaintiffs' minimum wage claim; and

   (2) granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend.

I. Background

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Guzman worked as a non-exempt
retail employee at a Walmart store in Victorville, California from
October 2020, through March 3, 2021. Plaintiff James Marshall
worked as a non-exempt retail employee at a Walmart store in
Carson, California from August 2019, through Nov. 28, 2020.

On Oct. 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs brought a class action suit
against Walmart, alleging labor violations arising from Walmart's
failure to apply the correct rate of pay (including MYSHARE INCT,
awards, and COVID pay) to the Plaintiffs' meal premiums, reporting
time, and overtime, Walmart's failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and the resulting violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

On Nov. 24, 2021, Walmart removed the suit from Santa Clara County
Superior Court to the Court and promptly moved to transfer the case
to the Central District of California.

On Dec. 1, 2021, Defendants Walmart Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (collectively Walmart) filed a motion to
dismiss all of the claims in the case except the Plaintiffs'
minimum wage claim. Walmart argues that: (1) the meal period,
reporting time, and overtime violation allegations fail to state a
claim, (2) the wage statement violation claim constitutes improper
double recovery, (3) the Unfair Competition Law claim does not
adequately allege the lack of remedy at law, and (4) the claims
predicated on California Labor Code Section 204 are improper
because Section 204 does not establish a private right of action.

On Dec. 23, 2021, the Court denied Walmart's motion to transfer.
Judge Counsins now evaluates the motion to dismiss. All parties
have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28
U.S.C. Section 636(c).

II. Discussion

A. Meal Period, Reporting Time, and Overtime Violations

Walmart argues that the Plaintiffs' first three causes of action
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Cousins
agrees because the three causes of action generally allege labor
code violations without offering any specifics about the
Plaintiffs' experience.

In the first cause of action for meal period violations, the
Plaintiffs allege that the "Defendants, as a matter of corporate
policy and procedure, regularly failed to pay the meal period
premium at the correct rate of pay." However, they do not identify
a single date when either of them was paid a meal period premium at
an incorrect rate.

In the second cause of action for reporting time violations, the
Plaintiffs claim that "whenever the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs
and the class members their reporting time pay during pay periods
in which they earned such non-discretionary remuneration, the
reporting time pay was always paid at their based rate of pay."
Again, the Plaintiffs do not point to any enumerated instances when
they were paid at the incorrect rate for reporting time.

Finally, in the third cause of action for overtime violations, the
Plaintiffs assert that "during their employment with the Defendant,
the Plaintiffs and the Class worked overtime hours. Specifically,
they worked more than 8 hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a
workweek, without being paid the proper amount of overtime pay."
his claim, too, fails to identify a particular week when the
Plaintiffs worked overtime and were paid at the incorrect rate.
Without any detail about the Plaintiffs' experiences as to their
allegations, Judge Cousins cannot find their claims facially
plausible. Accordingly, he will dismiss these claims. And because
the claims may be cured by further allegations, he will grant the
Plaintiffs leave to amend.

B. Wage Statement Violations

Next, Walmart argues that the Plaintiffs' fourth cause of
action-wage statement violations-should be dismissed because it
derives from the first three claims and allowing it to proceed
would enable Plaintiffs to collect a double recovery. In the
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that "the wage statements provided
to the Plaintiffs and the Class failed to identify such
information, including without limitation, accurate gross and net
wages, the number of hours worked and the correct applicable hourly
rates, as well as all of the wages owed for meal period premium and
reporting time pay paid at the correct rate of pay."

As alleged, the Court cannot determine whether the Plaintiffs'
claim is barred as "double recovery" under Maldonado v. Epsilon
Plastics, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). The
Maldonado court held that the plaintiffs could not bring a claim
for wage statement violations because their wage statements
accurately reflected the wages earned despite incorrectly
recounting their hours worked. The court determined that the
employer's failure to pay the employees overtime was remedied by
the employees' unpaid overtime claim, not their wage statement
claim. And the Legislature did not intend to "mandate that they
also receive penalties for the wage statements."

In their opposition, the Plaintiffs assert that the Maldonado
holding does not apply because their claim is based on Walmart's
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. But, Judge Cousins holds
that this claim is not clear from the allegations in the complaint.
Given this confusion, he will dismiss the claim and will grant the
Plaintiffs leave to amend to clarify their claim.

C. Unfair Competition Law Violations

Walmart also argues that the allegations under the UCL fail to
state a claim because the UCL only allows equitable remedies and
Plaintiffs have not shown that they lack an adequate remedy at law.
The complaint alleges that Walmart engaged in "unfair and unlawful
business practices in California by failing to include all
remuneration, including non-discretionary remuneration, in the
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating meal period premium
pay, overtime and reporting time wages." As a remedy, the
"Plaintiffs seek full restitution of monies to restore any and all
monies withheld, acquired and/or converted by the Defendants by
means of the unfair practices complained of herein."

Following Ninth Circuit precedent, Judge Cousins finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim. In Sonner v. Premier Nutrition
Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth Circuit
affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a plaintiff's UCL claim
finding that under California's inadequate-remedy-at-law doctrine,
the plaintiff must "establish that she lacked an adequate legal
remedy for the same past harm for which she sought equitable
restitution." Applying that reasoning in the present case, Judge
Cousins finds that the complaint also fails to allege that the
Plaintiffs lack an adequate legal remedy for the same harms that
form the basis of their UCL claim.

In their opposition, the Plaintiffs cite Cortez v. Purolator Air
Filtration Prods. Co. and Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A. as
prevailing legal authorities, but Judge Cousins finds these cases
distinguishable. The Cortez court held that a plaintiff could
recover unpaid wages as restitution under the UCL, but it did not
consider what a plaintiff must plead to state a UCL claim that
mirrors other labor claims in their complaint. The Pineda court
affirmed the holding of Cortez. Pineda, 50 Cal.4th 1389, 1401
(2010). As neither authority applies to the present case, the
Court's conclusion under Sonner stands. The UCL claim will be
dismissed with leave to amend.

D. Claims Predicated on California Labor Code Section 204

Finally, Walmart argues that any claims predicated on California
Labor Code Section 204 should be dismissed because Section 204 does
not provide a private right of action. The Plaintiffs concede that
no private right of action exists under Section 204. However, the
Plaintiffs contest that their second, third, and fourth causes of
action are predicated on Section 204.

Upon review of the complaint, Judge Cousins determines that
although Section 204 is cited in the second, third, and fourth
causes of action, the claims themselves do not rely on the statute.
Thus, there is no basis for dismissing these claims.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Walmart's motion.
Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint or notify the Court
that they do not wish to amend by Feb. 14, 2022. Plaintiffs may not
add any new parties or claims without further leave of Court. If
Plaintiffs do not act by February 14, the Court will dismiss the
claims identified in this order with prejudice. Walmart does not
need to answer the complaint unless Plaintiffs file a notice that
they will not file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p85hss8 from Leagle.com.


WALTER KIDDE: Taylor Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET TAYLOR and JAMES
NEWLANDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALTER KIDDE PORTABLE EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00839-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), extending the
deadline to file a motion for class certification until after the
parties have conducted a Rule 26(f) conference and the Court enters
an Initial Pretrial Order.

THe Plaintiffs filed their their Class Action Complaint (CAC) on
October 28, 2021. Accordingly, under LR 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs
have until January 26, 2022 to move for class certification.

Walter Kidde Portable Equipment Inc., doing business as Kidde
Safety Equipment, manufactures fire safety products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qDCkVz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          Sarah Spangenburg, Esq.
          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: mgeer@milberg.com
                  sspangenburg@milberg.com
                  gcoleman@milberg.com

               - and -

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

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Bowles Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES and BRUCE
TAYLOR, v. ERIC R. SABREE, COUNTY OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS also sometimes known as CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE BY
ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF OAKLAND, and ANDREW MEISNER,
Case No. 2:20-cv-12838-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Linda
V. Parker entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part defendants motions to
      dismiss; and

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify Class defined as:

      "All property owners formerly owning property from within
      the counties of Wayne and Oakland who, during the relevant
      statutory period, had said property seized by Defendants
      via the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et seq, which
      was worth more and/or was sold at tax auction for more
      than the total tax delinquency and was not refunded the
      excess/surplus equity but excluding any property owner who
      has filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to
      obtain such relief."

This action arises out of property tax foreclosures in Wayne and
Oakland counties. The Plaintiffs Tonya Bowles and Bruce Taylor,
former real property owners, allege violations of their
constitutional rights and Michigan law in connection with the tax
foreclosure process.

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals against the
following Defendants: (i) County of Wayne by its Board of
Commissioners, also sometimes known as Charter County of Wayne by
its Board of Commissioners; (ii) County of Oakland; (iii) Wayne
Treasurer, Eric Sabree; and (iv) Oakland Treasurer, Andrew Meisner.


In their pleading, Plaintiffs do not challenge the foreclosure of
their property; instead, they assert violations of their rights
under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States and Michigan Constitutions and state law in connection with
the tax auction sales.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that Defendants wrongfully
retained the sales proceeds exceeding the taxes they owed on the
properties and damages.

Bowles is the former owner of property located in Wayne at 14730
East, State Fair, Detroit.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCoTnd at no extra charge.[CC]


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: District Court Certifies Class in Bowles Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA BOWLES and BRUCE TAYLOR, Plaintiffs v. ERIC R.
SABREE, COUNTY OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS also
sometimes known as CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE BY ITS BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF OAKLAND, and ANDREW MEISNER, Defendants,
Civil Case No. 20-12838 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, issued an Opinion and Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part Oakland's and Wayne's
      motions to dismiss, filed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
      12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

   b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

I. Background

The action arises out of property tax foreclosures in Wayne and
Oakland counties. Plaintiffs Tonya Bowles and Bruce Taylor, former
real property owners, allege violations of their constitutional
rights and Michigan law in connection with the tax foreclosure
process. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals
against the following Defendants: (i) County of Wayne by its Board
of Commissioners, also sometimes known as Charter County of Wayne
by its Board of Commissioners; (ii) County of Oakland; (iii) Wayne
Treasurer, Eric Sabree; and (iv) Oakland Treasurer, Andrew
Meisner.

In their pleading, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the foreclosure
of their property; instead, they assert violations of their rights
under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States and Michigan Constitutions and state law in connection with
the tax auction sales. Specifically, they claim that the Defendants
wrongfully retained the sales proceeds exceeding the taxes they
owed on the properties and seek unpaid "just compensation" and
other monetary damages. The Plaintiffs are suing Sabree and Meisner
in their individual and official capacities.

Following tax foreclosure, the Defendants administered an auction
sale of the subject properties in which, following the sale, they
retained the entire amount of proceeds. The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants did not return any proceeds in excess of tax delinquency
to the former property owners or "provide compensation for the
portion of the equity destroyed by underselling the parcel." They
generally claim that this practice is a taking without just
compensation. Moreover, they claim that they were not afforded any
process, plan, or legal mechanism to seek or achieve just
compensation. The Plaintiffs assert that Wayne and Oakland each
"made the affirmative, voluntary, and discretionary decision to
select and designate its own treasurer to act as the FGU."

Presently before the Court are Oakland's and Wayne's motions to
dismiss. Further, Oakland filed a supplemental thief related to its
motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs replied. Additionally,
before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify this case as a class action. They
bring the action on behalf of any other individuals or entities
"during the relevant statutorily-limited time period who were
subject to the same unconstitutional process by the Defendants."

The parties have fully briefed the motion.

II. Analysis

A. Motion to Dismiss

Oakland seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under
the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or "arising directly" under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Counts I and II) or the Eighth
Amendment's Excessive Fine Clause (Count V). Further, Oakland
argues that the Court should decline jurisdiction under the
Colorado River doctrine.

Wayne seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing: (i) Ms. Bowles lacks standing to
bring this claim for a refund of auction sale proceeds that exceed
her unpaid taxes because she deeded her interest in the subject
property to another person before the property was sold at tax
foreclosure auction; (ii) the Court lacks jurisdiction because
there is an adequate state court remedy; (iii) the Defendants are
entitled to sovereign immunity and therefore all claims against
them must be dismissed; (iv) Treasurer Sabree, a defendant in his
official and personal (or individual) capacity, is entitled to
qualified immunity, and all claims against him must be dismissed;
(v) the federal constitutional claims fail as a matter of law; (vi)
the Rafaeli decision, which significantly changed Michigan law
without warning, should be applied only prospectively, and thus the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred; (vii) the claims are barred by the
applicable limitations period; (viii) even if the individual claims
survive, the Court should strike the class allegations; and (ix)
the Board of Commissioners of Wayne County is not a proper
defendant because Wayne County is a charter county, and its Board
of Commissioners is separate from the chief executive that operates
the County.

Judge Parker finds that the Plaintiffs claims are not barred by any
threshold issues including standing, subject matter jurisdiction,
sovereign immunity, or statute of limitations. She declines the
invitation to abstain from deciding Taylor's claims. She finds that
Sabree and Meisner are entitled to qualified immunity in their
individual capacities. However, claims against Sabree in his
official capacity will remain. The Plaintiffs have also
successfully plead claims of a federal takings clause violation and
state law inverse condemnation.

B. Motion for Class Certification

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the matter as a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and (b)(3),
with the Class defined as: "All property owners formerly owning
property from within the counties of Wayne and Oakland who, during
the relevant statutory period, had said property seized by
Defendants via the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78, et seq.,
which was worth more and/or was sold at tax auction for more than
the total tax delinquency and was not refunded the excess/surplus
equity but excluding any property owner who has filed their own
post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such relief."

A party seeking class certification must meet the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1), (2), or (3). The
movant bears the burden of "establishing his right" to class
certification. To satisfy Rule 23(a), four prerequisites must be
met: (1) the class must be "so numerous that joinder of all members
is impractical;" (2) there must be "questions of law or fact common
to the class;" (3) "the claims of the representative parties" must
he "typical of the claims of the class;" and (4) "the
representative parties" must be capable of "fairly and adequately
protecting the interests of the class."

Judge Parker finds opines that (i) the numerosity element is
satisfied as the Plaintiffs estimated class size is numerous as to
make joinder "impracticable"; (ii) there is commonality of injury
from the unconstitutional taking without just compensation; (iii)
the typicality requirement is met with Bowles' and Taylor's claims
of an unconstitutional taking being typical of the proposed class;
(iv) the claims are typical here where the same event, tax
foreclosure sale with the retention of surplus proceeds, gives rise
to the claims of each putative class member; and (v) the Plaintiffs
also adequately represent the class as they have a common interest
with the members of the proposed class in their claims of just
compensation. She concludes that the four requirements of Rule
23(a) are satisfied.

In addition to satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a), a party
seeking class certification must show "that the questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (emphasis
added). Thus, Rule 23(b)(3) class actions require predominance and
superiority.

Judge Parker finds that (i) the parties have demonstrated that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any question affecting individual members; and (ii) the amendments
to the GPTA, at this time, exclude the Plaintiffs from the
procedure of Section 211.78(t). She therefore finds that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for
predominance and superiority.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Parker holds that the
Plaintiffs satisfy all of the prerequisites for class certification
under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). However, the Court is not bound by the
Plaintiffs' class description. It has broad discretion to modify
class definitions.'" The proposed class definition in the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify states "during the relevant statutory
period." Further, Judge Parker notes that statutory period as
defined in the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, in the class
allegation section, states that the action is brought on behalf of
individuals within the statutorily limited time period. The statute
of limitations is three years from the time of the sale.

Accordingly, the class is certified as follows: "All property
owners formerly owning property from within the counties of Wayne
and Oakland who had said property seized by Defendants via the
General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.78 et seq., which was worth more
and/or was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax
delinquency and was not refunded the excess/surplus equity, and
this sale occurred before July 17, 2020, but within three years of
the filing of this lawsuit, and excluding any property owner who
has filed their own post-forfeiture civil lawsuit to obtain such
relief."

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), a court that certifies
a class must appoint class counsel." In doing so, the court must
consider the following: (i) the work counsel has done in
identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (ii)
counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (iii)
counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources
that counsel will commit to representing the class.

The Plaintiffs request that David Shea, Aaron Cox, Mark Wasvary,
Philip Ellison, and Matthew Gronda be appointed as the class
counsel. Judge Parker, finding the requirements of Rule 23(g) met,
designates the requested as the class counsel. The determination of
class certification is conditional until final judgment.

IV. Order

Accordingly, Judge Parker granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendant Andrew Meisner are dismissed with prejudice and Meisner
is dismissed as a party, and Counts II, IV and V are dismissed with
prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims of a Fifth Amendment Taking and
state law inverse condemnation (Counts I and III) survive, and Eric
Sabree will remain a named party in his official capacity.

Judge Parker granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 14, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ryr6z36 from Leagle.com.


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Feb. 2, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLIVER ORDOSGOITTI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and WERNER LEASING, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-00421-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis
entered an amended final progression order:

   1. The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules
      33, 34, 36 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      is December 5, 2022. Motions to compel written discovery
      under Rules 33, 34, 36 and 45 must be filed by December
      19, 2022.

   2. The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
      depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is
      December 5, 2022.

   3. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
      by February 2, 2023.

   4. The parties shall submit a proposed progression order
      proposing deadlines for merits discovery and dispositive
      motion practice within 45 days after the Court's ruling on
      Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

   5. A status conference to discuss further case progression
      will be held, if necessary, after the court receives and
      reviews the proposed deadlines for merits discovery and
      dispositive motions.

   6. The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
      agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report
      that are not inconsistent with this order.

Werner is an American transportation and logistics company, serving
the United States, Mexico and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ruq6Oi at no extra charge.[CC]


WESTCHESTER SURPLUS: K's Inc. Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff The K's Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled THE K'S INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01724-WMR, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought
against the Defendant to seek damages as a result of Westchester's
breaches of policies by denying coverage for any business income
losses incurred by the Plaintiff in connection with the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Plaintiff asserts that its existence is now threatened by
SARS-CoV-2, sometimes called "Coronavirus" or by one of the names
of the disease that it causes and that spreads it. For ease of
reference, SARS-CoV-2 will be referred to as "COVID-19." To protect
its business in the event that it suddenly had to suspend
operations for reasons outside of its control, or if it had to act
in order to prevent further property damage, the Plaintiff
purchased insurance coverage from Westchester, including property
coverage, as set forth in Westchester's Business Income (And Extra
Expense) Coverage Form (Form No. CP 00 30 10 12) ("Special Property
Coverage Form").

Westchester has, on a widescale and uniform basis, refused to pay
its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra
Expense, and Sue and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to
COVID-19, any orders by civil authorities that have required the
necessary suspension of business, and any efforts to prevent
further property damage or to minimize the suspension of business
and continue operations, says the complaint. Indeed, the Plaintiff
was told by its insurance agent that Westchester would not pay
under its policy for the losses the Plaintiff suffered due to
COVID-19 and the resultant civil authority orders.

On April 16, 2021, the Court granted Defendant's motion for leave
to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted its
motion to set briefing schedule. The Defendant then filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings.

On December 9, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings, and Judgment in favor
of Defendant dismissing the action.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as The K's Inc. v. Westchester
Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Case No. 22-10137, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on Jan. 7,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant THE K'S INC., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.  
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER, LLC
          7556 Mentor Ave
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          E-mail: marka@dicellolaw.com
                  madicello@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy Burns, Esq.
          BURNS BOWEN BAIR, LLP
          10 E Doty St Ste 600
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 286-2808
          E-mail: tburns@bbblawllp.com

               - and -

          Douglas Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS & TREDENNICK
          6363 Woodway Ste 700
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 917-0024

               - and -

          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Mark Hamill, Esq.
          Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER, LLC
          10 N Dearborn St 6th Fl
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com   

               - and -

          Christopher D. Glover, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM
          218 Commerce St
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343

               - and -

          Bryan M. Knight, Esq.
          Jonathan Micah Palmer, Esq.
          KNIGHT PALMER, LLC
          1360 Peachtree St NE Ste 1201
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 228-4822
          E-mail: bknight@knightpalmerlaw.com  

Defendant-Appellee WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          James Bauer, Esq.
          Robert W. Fisher, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO, LLP
          271 17th St NW Ste 1720
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 410-3150
          E-mail: james.bauer@clydeco.us
                  robert.fisher@clydeco.us  

               - and -

          Richard Blair Goetz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          400 S Hope St Ste 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000

               - and -

          Amy J. Laurendeau, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          610 Newport Center Dr Fl 17
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-6419
          Telephone: (949) 823-6900
          E-mail: alaurendeau@omm.com       

               - and -

          Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars 8th Fl
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700

WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SANDERS, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC.; and 19 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03137-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   1. granting conditional certification on behalf of:

      "All current or former Washington state residents employed
      by Defendant as drivers, who worked during trips of 24-
      hours or more, at any time beginning three years prior to
      the filing of the Complaint until the date of judgment
      after trial;" and

   2. directing other persons similarly situated to elect
      whether to file written consents with the Court to join
      this action as party plaintiffs and for other associated
      relief including a tolling of the statute of limitations.

The Defendant is a trucking company employing a class of Washington
drivers, 1 do not receive overtime or rest break pay.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCabfT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
           Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
           HAFFNER LAW PC
           445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
           Los Angeles, CA 90071
           Telephone: (213) 514-5681
           Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
           E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                    vh@haffnerlawyers.com

WISCONSIN: Plaintiffs Seek to Adjourn Feb. 28 Class Bid Due Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Margaret Elizabeth Doyle
Siebers and Victor Vargo individually and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated, v. Peter W. Barca, Wisconsin
Secretary of Revenue, in his official capacity, and the State of
Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Case No. 3:20-cv-01109-jdp (W.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to
Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to adjourn the February
28, 2022 due date for Plaintiffs' class motion, set in the Court's
Text Only Order of April 7, 2021, in light of the pendency of
unresolved motions the resolution of which may have a material
impact on class certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qCKDRJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis M. Grzezinski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS M GRZEZINSKI
          1845 N. Farwell Avenue, Suite 202
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414 530-9200
          E-mail: dennisglaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Charles R. Watkins, Esq.
          GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
          321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1250
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 878-8391
          E-mail: charlesw@gseattorneys.com

               - and -

          Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 N. Minnesota Street, #W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

WORKING BETTER: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER PADILLA, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. WORKING BETTER TOGETHER, LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S
PIZZA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00044-SMV-LF (D.N.M., Jan. 20, 2022) is a
collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as
a class action under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by the Defendant at their Papa John's
Pizza stores.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately August
2020 to June 2021 as a delivery driver at two of Defendant's Papa
John's Pizza store locations in Albuquerque, New Mexico

The Defendant operates numerous Papa John's Pizza franchise stores.
The Defendant employs delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendant used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that neither reimburses the drivers for their actual expenses, nor
at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a
reasonable approximation of those expenses. This
under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the applicable
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
                  JPavlos@forthepeople.com

XPO LAST: Muniz Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Men
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN MUNIZ, MOHAMMED
BELAABD, NELSON QUINTANILLA, JOSE DILONE, and VICTOR AMARO on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XPO LAST
MILE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-11905-TSH (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All individuals who personally or on behalf of their
      business entity, signed a Service Agreement with XPO and
      who personally performed deliveries for XPO full-time in
      Massachusetts between July 2015 and the present;"

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointiong Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. as class counsel.

XPO Last provides third-party logistics and last mile delivery
services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Iby45I
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com
                  osavytska@llrlaw.com

YALLA GROUP: Lead Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yalla Group Limited (NYSE: YALA), the leading voice-centric social
networking and entertainment platform in the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA), announced that the lead plaintiffs in a securities
class action lawsuit against the Company and its CEO voluntarily
dismissed the lawsuit on January 12, 2022, which marks a successful
and final conclusion of the lawsuit for the Company.

The lawsuit arose from certain short-seller reports issued in May
2021 that contained numerous errors as well as distorted,
misleading and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Company. While
the Company publicly refuted the claims in the short-seller
reports, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the United States based on the
claims in the short-seller reports, claiming that the Company had
violated U.S. securities laws. The U.S. court presiding over this
lawsuit ordered the lead plaintiffs and their attorneys to file an
amended complaint by January 7, 2022. After several months of
preparation, the lead plaintiffs and their attorneys failed to file
an amended complaint by the deadline set by the court. Instead, the
lead plaintiffs and their attorneys elected not to further pursue
this lawsuit and voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on January 12,
2022, agreeing to bear their own litigation costs. Lead plaintiffs
are barred from refiling the same claims. The voluntary dismissal
equally applies to all claims asserted against the Company's CEO,
who was named a co-defendant in the lawsuit. The court approved the
lead plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal on January 13, 2022 and the
lawsuit is terminated.

Throughout the process, the Company maintained that the lawsuit had
no factual basis. The Company believes the decision of the lead
plaintiffs and their attorneys to voluntarily dismiss all of their
claims after several months of preparation supports the Company's
position that claims in the short-seller reports are groundless.

The Company was represented in this securities class action lawsuit
by George Wang and Bryan Jin of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
[GN]

ZAREMBA MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jelenic Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP JELENIC, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZAREMBA MANAGEMENT CO. Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00093-JG (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees
proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2019 until
February 2021, as an hourly non-exempt maintenance technician at
Defendant's Fairview Park, Ohio facility.

Zaremba Management Co. owns and operates apartments in Ohio, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

[*] U.S. Class Suits Targeting Healthcare Industry May Rise in 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt Cartin, Esq., Brian Cromwell, Esq., and Robb Leandro, Esq., of
Parker Poe, in an article for BloombergLaw, report that government
investigations and class action lawsuits targeting the health-care
industry are likely to increase in 2022, including long-term care
facilities facing staffing issues, three Parker Poe partners
explain. They discuss how organizations can reduce risks with
proactive steps.

Covid-19 relief programs provided essential funding for health-care
providers the past two years. But those programs have also created
new risks that are likely to increase in 2022 tied to government
investigations.

Long-term care providers also are increasingly the target of class
action lawsuits that are often connected to their staffing levels.
Given the increased challenges of finding and keeping employees in
the health-care industry as a result of the pandemic, plaintiffs
are likely to be more aggressive in the event of provider failure
and errors in 2022 and beyond.

Those are a few enforcement and litigation trends for providers to
navigate in the next year. They also may face new government
scrutiny in other areas -- especially telehealth and the ongoing
opioid crisis. Across the board, there are practical steps
providers can take now to reduce their risks.

Government Investigations
The health-care industry received billions of dollars through the
Covid-19 Accelerated and Advance Payments (CAAP) Program and other
relief programs. Now that most of the funding from those programs
has been distributed, the main focus for many federal and state
investigators will be whether it was used for its intended
purposes. Their main and obvious priority is to target defendants
who perpetrate intentional fraud, but the government will also
target compliance breakdowns among larger providers.

Providers that received funding should conduct their own internal
audits to confirm they have the proper documentation in place.
Investigators will be looking for documentation on how and why
providers received funding, how they used it and submitted
reimbursement claims, and whether there was any erroneous
information included or examples of double billing for claims or
double dipping across relief programs.

If providers uncover instances that may be perceived as improper,
they should consider self-disclosure and proactive reimbursement
with the help of their government investigations outside counsel.

Shifting away from Covid-19, opioids continue to be a major focus
of government enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Administration is
actively and aggressively reviewing whether providers are
prescribing and tracking opioids appropriately, as well as whether
manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies are keeping accurate
records of the volume being distributed and whether the opioids are
reaching the intended beneficiaries.

For health systems and other large providers that may come under
scrutiny, it can all come down to documentation.

Additionally, the Justice Department is pursuing cases tied to
telehealth and electronic health records (EHRs). The use of
telehealth skyrocketed during the pandemic, and, with that
increased usage, came increased fraud and infiltration by bad
actors. Federal investigators have engaged in an aggressive effort
to identify and eliminate this fraud.

With telehealth and EHRs more broadly, it can be a wise investment
for providers to audit how they are using and documenting those
technologies on a regular and routine basis.

Lawsuits
Class action lawsuits against nursing homes, senior living
facilities, and other long-term care providers have proliferated
across the country over the last few years. Prior to this trend,
long-term care providers typically faced individual claims for
medical malpractice or negligence. Now plaintiffs' attorneys are
amalgamating those claims against providers and arguing they fit
under a broader violation tied to the providers' contracts as it
relates to staffing.

This approach puts extreme pressure on providers in terms of
litigation costs and documentation of care that may not always
demonstrate the true extent of staff time spent with residents.
Given the well-publicized staffing shortages faced by long-term
care providers because of the Covid-19 pandemic, this trend will
likely continue.

Moving Forward -- Steps to Take
There are several opportunities for providers to learn from the
cases that arose prior to the pandemic.

First, courts have allowed enough of these class actions to proceed
that plaintiffs' attorneys are almost certain to keep bringing
them.

Second, there are practices providers can change right now to
mitigate risks and more easily respond to the lawsuits.

Most of the cases center around staffing levels. Plaintiffs will
argue that they were harmed because the facility was not staffed at
the level promised. Staffing levels have been a challenge in the
long-term care industry even before Covid-19, and the pandemic has
made that an even bigger concern.

What often occurs when hourly caregivers are absent or in short
supply is that salaried employees will take on shifts to fill the
gaps. That fills the gap in terms of care, but it does not
necessarily fill the gap in terms of paperwork. While it makes
sense that salaried employees may not participate in a facility's
timecard system, facilities should attempt to document the hours
that salaried employees are providing care to best defend against
these types of actions.

And when possible, facilities should train as many of their
administrative staff in the provision of care so there is no
question regarding whether this time "counts" toward staffing
ratios.

A second best practice is to train leadership and rank-and-file
employees on how to talk about staffing challenges. When everyone
is working to fill gaps in the schedule, it can feel like a crisis.
But if that work behind the scenes allows them to ultimately meet
their residents' needs, later discovery of emails about a "staffing
crisis" or "dire staffing needs" can be misleading. Leadership
should set the tone and be disciplined in addressing the problem
without blowing it out of proportion.

Third, long-term care providers should reexamine what they promise
in their contracts, whether those promises go beyond their state's
requirements, and whether they include arbitration agreements. All
those issues are imperative in the context of class actions.

Health systems, nursing homes, and other providers will face new
enforcement and litigation risks in 2022. They can reduce those
risks by taking proactive steps now, including auditing and
improving their documentation tied to Covid-19 relief funding and
staffing challenges.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. or its owner.

Walt Cartin is a partner who leads Parker Poe's Health Care
Industry Team. He represents a diverse range of health-care
providers, including health systems (for-profit, not-for-profit,
and governmental), and nursing homes.

Brian Cromwell is a partner at Parker Poe on the firm's Health Care
Industry Team. He counsels clients on regulatory enforcement
issues, white collar criminal defense, civil litigation, and
internal investigations.

Robb Leandro is a partner at Parker Poe on the firm's Health Care
Industry Team. He assists his clients with a broad range of legal
issues relating to health care, administrative law, and public
policy. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***