/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220127.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 27, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 14

                            Headlines

A&W CONCENTRATE: Dailey Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Reply
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces McMahon Suit Over "No-Poach Agreement"
AGRANA FRUIT: Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert. Opposition
AINSWORTH PET: Court Narrows Claims in Kirchenberg Class Suit
ALBERICI CORPORATION: Case Management Order Entered in James Suit

ALLERGAN INC: Breast Implant Suit remains in N.J. Federal Court
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Samantha Sayles Files Class Certification Bid
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Montijo Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMAZON.COM: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadline
AMERICAN AUTO: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Telemarketing Suit

AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over WARN Violations
ANGIE'S LIST: PWS Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Deadline
ARISE VIRTUAL: Parties Directed to Provide Additional Briefing
ARTHUR R TODD: Pullinger Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
AUTOZONE INC: Extension to File Class Cert. Bids Partly Granted

BANK OF AMERICA: William Brooks Seeks to Certify Class
BOEING CO: Business Groups Want Class Cert. Ruling Reversed
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
BOLLE BRANDS: Pecho Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Extension to Close Phase I Discovery Sought

CANADA: No Class Settlement Yet Amid Indian Hospital Claims' Ads
CAREDX INC: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Suit
CARVANA LLC: Bodnar Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sinclair Files Class Certification Bid
CITIGROUP INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Bruce Case

COLLINS AEROSPACE: Keller Lenkner LLC Files Conspiracy Class Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Gomez
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Two Subclasses
CUE HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELTA AIR: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to March 14

DIXON ADVISORY: Enters Voluntary Administration Amid Class Action
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Sadigh FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
EFINANCIAL LLC: Court Dismisses Johansen TCPA Suit With Prejudice
EHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 18 Deadline
EHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 18 Deadline

EHEALTH INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 18 Deadline
EL-MILAGRO INC: Sued Over Alleged Sexually Hostile Work Environment
ENDO HEALTH: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Opioid Abuse
EXECU/SEARCH GROUP: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Reid
FAST ENTERPRISES: Review of Summary Judgment in Cahoo Suit Denied

FINAL EXPENSE: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 15 Deadline
FLAMBEAU INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks Extension of Time to Reply
GARRISON PROPERTY: Fortson Wins Reconsideration Bid

GENERAL MOTORS: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates Engine Class Suit
GENEXA INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GINA GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 25
GONSALVES & SANTUCCI: N.D. California Tosses Rodriguez Class Suit
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action

GOOGLE LLC: May Face Suit Over G Suite Legacy Account Shutdown
GOOGLE LLC: PGMBM Discusses Supreme Court Ruling in Breach Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Supreme Court Ruling in Data Breach Suit Discussed
HCA HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Set in Feb.
HOME DEPOT: Class of Non-Exempt Workers Certified in Barragan Suit

HOME POINT: Moyer Suit Seeks to Certify Home Point Class
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Feb. 3 Deadline to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
IDENTITY REHAB: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 21
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Suit Seeks to Certify Cleaning Worker Class
JEWELRY SUPPLY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

JING FONG: Ping Mo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. New York
JOHN DEERE: North Dakota Farm Files Antitrust Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Romoff Disputes "Non-drowsy" Tag on Cough Meds
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Marquis Loses Bid for Certification
KODA RESOURCES: Reherman Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Stewart Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Insurers Must Disclose UM/UIM Limits in Crutcher
LOUISIANA: Prison's Mental Health Care 'Insufficient,' Suit Says
MAISON DE'VILLE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 26
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzo Class Action Gets Initial Nod

MDL 2677: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in DFS Suit
MDL 2918: Parties in HDD Antitrust Suit Stipulates Case Schedule
MDL 2984: Plaintiffs Directed to File SAC in Folgers Suit
MIKA JAYMES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOON VALLEY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MY PILLOW: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due September 8
NETFLIX INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Franchise Fees
NEW HAMPSHIRE: To Create Fund to Settle Child Sex Abuse Claims
NEW HANOVER, NC: Trial Set to Start Against Director Over Sex Abuse
NEW YORK: Scheduling Order Entered in Sughrim Class Suit

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Expert Deposition in Romano Amended
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 21 Deadline
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 21 Deadline
OTTAWA, CANADA: Indian Boarding School Class Suit Set to Be Heard
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Time to File Class Cert Reply Extended

PARETEUM: Ivkovich, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
PAYSAFE LTD: Faces O'Brien Suit Over Common Share Price Drop
PFEIL & HOLING: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PLAID INC: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Users' Data Collection
POSTE ITALIANE: Judge Tosses Class Suit Over Postal Savings Bonds

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Richardson's Bid to Certify Class Denied
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Slams Illegal Insurance Rate Hikes
PULTE HOME: Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Surreply
QIHOO 360: Case Mng't Plan, Scheduling Order Entered in Altimeo

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over 37% Decline of Stock Price
REBELZ GENTLEMEN'S: Withheld Wages, Tips From Dancers, Suit Says
REVIV IP LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROHR INC: Feb. 4 Extension on Class Cert Bid Hearing Sought
SAFESPEED LLC: Seeks Feb 18 Extension to File Oppositions

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Williams Labor Suit Slams Unpaid Overtime
SANOFI CONSUMER: Dulcolax Contains Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
SEED HEALTH: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 17
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Decision on Class Certification Bid Sought
SIROB IMPORTS: Lainas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

SPLENDID SPOON: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 8
SPRAGUE OPERATING: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to March 30
STATE FARM: Millwood Seeks Approval of Class Certification Bid
STICKER MULE: Class Settlement in Bonefort Suit Gets Final Nod
STONE PARK: Asks to Toss Red Light Camera Class Action

STRATEGIC BENEFITS: Data Breach Triggers Probe Into Class Lawsuit
SUNDANCE INC: Vedder Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in FLSA Suit
SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 8 Deadline

TELECHECK SERVICES: Beaudry Files Certiorari Petition in FCRA Suit
TOP FOOD TRADING: Qun Tian Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
TOSHIBA CORP: Pension Fund Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid
TOUR RESOURCE: Delcavo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 3

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Suit Seeks Class Certification
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Protests to Oct. 23 Order in Michelo Overruled
TRAVELERS CO: Donnellan Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
TREASURY WINE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Cremation Ban

UNITED STATES: Ferdinand Files Suit in W.D. Texas
UNITED STATES: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 25
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing Sched
UNIVERSAL BRANDS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fires President Over Sexual Misconduct
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: Court Trims Claims in Johnson Class Suit
UPPER SAINT CLAIR: Doe Appeals Denial of TRO Bid
URBAN INNOVATIONS: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Gagorik Suit
VERVENT INC: Court Stays Class Certification Bid in Aliff Suit

VI-JON LLC: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in Macormic Suit
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Extension of Time to File Opposition Sought
WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Robbins DiMonte Discusses Property Suit Ruling
WING BIKES: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

WORKHORSE GROUP: Scheduling Order Entered in Farrar Class Suit
X TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Perez Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
XTO ENERGY: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Salvatora
YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
[*] Dane County, Wis. Takes Legal Action Against PFAS Manufacturers

[*] Loot Box Class Action Suits Against Apple, Google Dismissed
[*] Newtown, CT Joins Class Action Against Opioid Manufacturers
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Trends in COVID Workplace Class Action

                            *********

A&W CONCENTRATE: Dailey Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE DAILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. A & W CONCENTRATE
COMPANY and KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02732-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Local Rule 7-11, extending two weeks to file his reply in support
of his motion for class certification.

On October 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. The Defendants' opposition was originally due on
December 2, 2021; however, Defendants' requested a five week
extension for their opposition, to which Plaintiff consented and
this Court subsequently ordered, the lawsuit says.

On January 13, 2022, the Defendants filed their opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. As part of Defendants'
opposition to the motion for class certification, Defendants
submitted several expert reports (one of which relied, in part,
upon information told to that proposed expert by an A&W employee)
as well as several declarations of Defendants' employees.

The Parties are in the process of scheduling depositions for
certain of these witnesses. None of these witnesses have yet been
produced for their depositions by Defendants. The Plaintiff needs
an additional two weeks for his reply in order to depose these
witnesses and receive the transcripts of their depositions prior to
filing the reply, the lawsuit adds.

A&W manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FPupsP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces McMahon Suit Over "No-Poach Agreement"
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL McMAHON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., BELCAN ENGINEERING GROUP,
LLC, CYIENT, INC., PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC., QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC., and RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00115 (D. Conn., Jan. 21, 2022)
challenges an illegal conspiracy among Defendant P&W and several
outsource engineering suppliers (the "Supplier Defendants") to
restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled
laborers working on aerospace projects ("Engineers") among the
respective companies (the "No-Poach Agreement").

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

The scope of the No-Poach Agreement was broad, covering at least
all Engineers employed by (or working as an independent contractor
for) Defendants to work on P&W projects and statements of work in
the United States and its territories, says the suit.

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

The Defendants reached their alleged unlawful horizontal agreement
at the highest levels of their organizations through verbal
agreements that were later confirmed by Defendants, by their
conduct and in their emails, which they agreed to conceal from
outsiders, from their respective employees who make up the proposed
Class, and from the public, the lawsuit adds.

The No-Poach Agreement was brought to light by the DOJ on December
9, 2021, when it partially unsealed a criminal antitrust action
against the Director of Global Engineering Sourcing at P&W, Mahesh
Patel. In a supporting affidavit, the DOJ alleged that Patel
conspired with the Supplier Defendants to restrict the hiring and
recruiting of Engineers with the goal and effect of suppressing
Engineers' compensation wages.

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

The Plaintiff brings this action to recover treble damages, costs
of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from Defendants'
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act

Plaintiff Michael McMahon is a citizen and resident of Arizona. He
was employed as an Engineer for Belcan Engineering Group, LLC
between November 2013 and March 2016, working on P&W projects. As a
direct and proximate result of the alleged wrongdoing, hew was
injured in his business or property by reason of the alleged
violation.

Pratt & Whitney Division (P&W) is a division of Raytheon
Technologies Corporation. Raytheon is an aerospace engine design,
manufacture, and service company. P&W has over 36,000 employees,
including thousands of Engineers. P&W relies upon different sources
of labor to design, manufacture, and service its aerospace
products, including hiring Engineers directly and through outsource
engineering.

QuEST is an Ohio corporation with a principal place of business in
East Hartford, Connecticut. QuEST supplies Engineers who work on
projects for P&W and other aerospace firms on an outsource basis.

Cyient, formerly known as Infotech Enterprises Limited, is a
California corporation with a principal place of business in East
Hartford, Connecticut. Cyient supplies Engineers who work on
projects for P&W on an outsource basis.

Parametric Solutions supplies Engineers who work on projects for
P&W on an outsource basis. PSI competes with P&W as well as the
other Supplier Defendants to recruit and hire Engineers.

Agilis is a Florida corporation with a principal place of business
in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Agilis supplies employees who work
on projects for P&W on an outsource basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          E-mail: klerner@kmllp.com
                  dkovel@kmllp.com
                  amaneiro@kmllp.com

AGRANA FRUIT: Seeks Time Extension to File Class Cert. Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY MILLER, et al., v.
AGRANA FRUIT US, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01919-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 14 day
extension of time, to and until February 9, 2022, to file its
opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action.

The Defendant needs additional time to develop a thorough and
comprehensive response to Plaintiffs' conditional certification
motion, given the number of facilities and employees at issue, the
number of declarations filed by Plaintiffs, and the need to prepare
relevant rebuttal evidence responsive to the arguments and
allegations set forth in the motion and declarations.

The requested extension will not affect any other pending deadlines
in this matter, prejudice the parties, or unduly delay the
proceedings, the Defendant contends.

Agrana produces fruit preparations for the dairy industry.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35en8Gr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark S. Fusco, Esq.
          Sara Ravas Cooper, Esq.
          Russell T. Rendall, Esq.
          WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP
          The Tower at Erieview
          1301 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3500
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: 216-781-1212
          Facsimile: 216-575-0911
          E-mail: mfusco@walterhav.com
                  scooper@walterhav.com
                  rrendall@walterhav.com

AINSWORTH PET: Court Narrows Claims in Kirchenberg Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Erin Kirchenberg, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ainsworth, Pet Nutrition, Inc.,
and J.M. Smucker Co., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00690-KJM-DMC
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part with leave
to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

I. Background

Plaintiff Kirchenberg brings the putative class action against the
Defendants claiming the Defendants misrepresented the ingredients
in pet food she purchased in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, breach of implied and express
warranty, and violation of state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff Kirchenberg is a dog owner. Defendant Ainsworth is the
manufacturer and distributor of Just 6 dog food. Defendant Smucker
acquired Ainsworth in May 2018.

In 2018, Kirchenberg began purchasing Just 6 dog food after
researching limited ingredient options to benefit her dogs' health.
She made purchases from local retailers and online. Kirchenberg
claims she relied on the Defendants' public representations on
television commercials indicating that Just 6 contains only "six
simple, natural ingredients and no corn, wheat, soy or gluten." She
also was influenced by the signed statement of "a well-known and
respected celebrity chef," making the same representations.

The Just 6 nutrition label omits any mention of corn, wheat, soy or
beef from its ingredient list. The Defendants' website nutrish.com
also claims that Just 6 "may help dogs with food sensitivities,"
and that the brand "maintains rigorous testing to ensure ingredient
and product safety." Although the Just 6 products were more
expensive than other options on the market, Kirchenberg chose to
pay a "premium" for Just 6, relying on the Defendants' "limited
ingredient" representations.

In February 2020, Kirchenberg learned the Defendants mislabeled
Just 6's ingredients. She stopped purchasing the product and
conducted an independent DNA analysis of a sample of the Just 6 pet
food product. The analysis detected various animal DNA and other
ingredients: cattle (1.162%), deer (0.932%), pig (0.354%), soy
(0.057%), corn (0.050%) and wheat (0.023%). Kirchenberg then
brought the class action alleging consumers like herself relied on
the Defendants' knowing misrepresentations of Just 6's ingredients
and paid higher prices than they would have otherwise.

Ms. Kirchenberg asserts seven claims: (1) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301; (2)
breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code
section 1770(a)(5)(7)(9)(16); (6) violation of the California False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17500; and
(7) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. She seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

The Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposes the motion, and the
Defendants have replied. The Court submitted the matter without
hearing.

II. Discussion

A. Standing

The Defendants first argue the Plaintiff lacks standing because she
has not stated a particularized injury: That is, trace levels of
corn, wheat, soy and beef are not "significant amounts" harmful to
consumers. They also argue Kirchenberg lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief because she has merely pled the "clinically
insignificant presence of mammalian DNA in samples" and has not
accounted for "batch-to-batch variation."

Judge Mueller finds that he standard in determining a 12(b)(6)
motion is plausibility, which does not require an assessment of the
factual accuracy of the pleadings. At least one sister court has
found plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief when they
allege misleading advertisement of pet food products. Roper v. Big
Heart Pet Brands, Inc., 510 F.Supp.3d 903, 916 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
(finding plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive relief based on
challenge to accuracy of nutrition label for pet food advertised as
"All Natural"). Here, given her pleadings, the court agrees
Kirchenberg has standing to bring her claims for injunctive
relief.

B. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") (Claim 1)

The Defendants also move to dismiss Kirchenberg's MMWA claim
because Kirchenberg has not alleged a written warranty. Kirchenberg
has voluntarily withdrawn her MMWA claim. Judge Mueller dismissed
claim 1 without leave to amend.

C. CLRA & FAL (Claims 5 & 6)

In challenging these claims, the Defendants argue Kirchenberg's DNA
analysis is "speculative" and she "does not even attempt to explain
how trace levels of DNA content" correlate with the presence of
unwanted ingredients in the product. Kirchenberg asserts generally
the practice of mislabeling in the pet food industry is "widely
recognized," and consumers care about accurate product labeling.

Judge Mueller says, the CLRA prohibits "unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by
any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in
the sale of goods or services to any consumer." The FAL prohibits
any "unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising."
Violations of the CLRA and FAL are determined under the "reasonable
consumer test," which requires a plaintiff ultimately to show that
"members of the public are likely to be deceived" by a defendant's
activity. Courts will rarely grant a motion to dismiss for failure
to satisfy this test in the initial pleadings "because what a
reasonable person would believe is generally a question of fact,"
and at this stage, the Court's focus is on the plausibility of the
legal theories.

In the case, Judge Mueller finds that the Plaintiff pleads
sufficient facts to plausibly suggest consumers believed the
product contained "no soy, corn, beef" or even traces of these
ingredients. In reaching this conclusion, she takes judicial notice
under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(c)(1)(2) of the exhibits
defendant presents, which include research articles referenced in
the complaint that explain the process of DNA analytical methods
and noting that "pet owners hold expectations regarding the
ingredients in commercial vegetarian and vegan diets" and "quality
control may be a particular concern when pet owners are choosing
vegetarian diets." Kirchenberg has sufficiently pled her CLRA and
FAL claims, and Judge Mueller denied the motion to dismiss in this
respect.

D. UCL (Claim 7)

Ms. Kirchenberg may successfully bring a claim under the UCL by
pleading reliance on any one of three prongs under the statute. The
Defendants contend Kirchenberg has not sufficiently pled any of the
prongs. The UCL generally prohibits (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, and
(3) fraudulent acts or practices.

As to the unfair prong, the Court has consistently applied the
"traditional test" for a consumer claim: "A business practice is
unfair within the meaning of the UCL if it violates established
public policy or if it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or
unscrupulous and causes injury to consumers, which outweighs its
benefits." In Roper v. Big Heart Pet Brands, plaintiff alleged the
defendant falsely "labeled and advertised a series of products"
containing various artificial ingredients as "All Natural." That
court found because plaintiff had sufficiently alleged cognizable
fraud claims, her UCL "unfair" prong claim likewise survived the
pending motion to dismiss. Kirchenberg has pled analogous facts,
and so Judge Mueller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims under the "unfair" prong of the UCL.

Finally, as with the CLRA and FAL, violations of the fraudulent
prong of the UCL are determined under the "reasonable consumer
test." Because Kirchenberg has sufficiently pled her CLRA and FAL
claims under the reasonable consumer test, the fraudulent prong of
her UCL claim likewise survives the motion to dismiss. Kirchenberg
successfully pleads all three prongs of the UCL. Judge Mueller
denied the Defendants' motion as to this claim.

E. Breach of Express Warranty (Claim 2)

The Defendants argue that because Kirchenberg has inadequately pled
any misrepresentation, the Court must dismiss her breach of express
warranty claim. To plead a breach of express warranty, plaintiffs
"must allege facts sufficient to show that '(1) the seller's
statements constitute an affirmation of fact or promise or a
description of the goods; (2) the statement was part of the basis
of the bargain; and (3) the warranty was breached.'" Other district
courts have "found that statements on a food label can create an
express warranty."

Ms. Kirchenberg's complaint satisfies the first two requirements
for express warranty claims, Judge Mueller holds. While the
complaint pleads the Defendants' breach of the warranty, the
Defendants dispute the alleged breach. Whether or not the offending
ingredients are actually present in the Just 6 products, so as to
constitute a breach of warranty, is not for the Court to resolve at
this juncture. Kirchenberg has alleged the possibility those
ingredients are present, meeting the standard of plausibility and
therefore properly pleading her breach of express warranty claim.
Judge Mueller denied the motion as to this claim as well.

F. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Claim 3)

The Defendants contend Kirchenberg's breach of implied warranty
claim must be dismissed because she does not allege facts
identifying that Just 6 "does not possess even the most basic
degree of fitness for ordinary use." Kirchenberg responds that the
issue is not whether Just 6 is unfit for consumption by "any dog"
but by dogs "whose owners seek the benefits of a limited ingredient
diet."

Judge Mueller holds that Kirchenberg has not pled facts addressing
a cognizable breach of implied warranty or argued that Just 6 is
unfit for "even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use."
Her argument that it is sufficient to allege Just 6 is unfit for
ordinary use simply because it is a limited ingredient dog food
product is unpersuasive. Judge Mueller dismissed this claim, but
with leave to amend if possible subject to Rule 11. Courts "should
freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires," and where
as in the present case, there is no undue delay, repeated failure
to cure deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice to the
opposing party, or futility of amendment.

G. Unjust Enrichment (Claim 4)

The Defendants argue Kirchenberg cannot maintain her unjust
enrichment claim while alleging the existence of express
warranties. In opposition, Kirchenberg contends she may
alternatively plead unjust enrichment in addition to her breach of
contract claims.

Judge Mueller finds that Kirchenberg's allegations are akin to
those the Court previously has addressed. She has not pled that the
contract is "unenforceable or void, and no factual allegations
support a theory of their unenforceability or voidness. Although
she argues these claims are pled in the alternative, she identifies
no allegations to support an alternative theory that no contractual
remedy is available." Therefore, Judge Mueller dismissed this claim
but with leave to amend if possible.

H. Punitive Damages

Finally, the Defendants argue Kirchenberg's request for punitive
damages should be dismissed because Kirchenberg does not allege
"oppression, fraud, or malice" by an "officer, director, or
managing agent." Punitive damages are but a remedy they provide no
basis for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the
sufficiency of a prayer for punitive damages." Judge Mueller denied
the Defendants' motion on this ground.

III. Conclusion

Judge Mueller granted in part the motion to dismiss, with leave to
amend. She denied the motion as to the CLRA, FAL, UCL, and breach
of express warranty claims (claims 2, 5, 6, and 7). She granted it
as to the Plaintiff's breach of implied warranty and unjust
enrichment claims (claims 3 and 4), with leave to amend. The
Plaintiff's MMWA claim (claim 1) is dismissed without leave to
amend, in light of the Plaintiff's withdrawal of the claim. Any
amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of the Order.

The Order resolves ECF No. 18.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4nbcv24d from Leagle.com.


ALBERICI CORPORATION: Case Management Order Entered in James Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY H. JAMES, v.
ALBERICI CORPORATION, doing business as ALBERICI CONSTRUCTORS,
ALBERICI CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01723-RJC (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered a case management order
as follows:

   1. The parties shall move to amend      February 10, 2022
      the pleadings or add new
      parties by:

   2. The parties shall complete class     July 22, 2022
      certification discovery by:

   3. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support    August 19, 2022
      of class certification and all
      supporting evidence shall be
      filed by:

   4. All documents, declarations, or      July 22, 2020
      other evidence relied on
      Plaintiff's motion must have
      been disclosed to Defendant
      on or before:

   5. The Defendant's Memorandum in        September 19, 2022
      Opposition to class certification
      and all supporting evidence shall
      be filed by:

   6. All documents, declarations,         July 22, 2020
      or other evidence relied on
      in Defendant's opposition
      to the motion must have been
      disclosed to Plaintiff on or
      before:

   7.  The Court will conduct a            August 4, 2022
       post-discovery status
       conference on:

The Court said, "All interrogatories, depositions and requests for
admissions and/or production of documents shall be served within
sufficient time to allow responses to be completed prior to the
close of fact discovery. The parties do not contemplate using
experts in this case. The parties shall complete the ADR process
they selected within 90 days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. Discovery is not stayed pending
ADR. If a discovery dispute occurs, prior to filing any discovery
motions, the parties shall first meet and confer in an attempt to
resolve the dispute. If the matter is still unresolved after
meeting and conferring, then the parties shall jointly contact
Chambers for purposes of scheduling a telephone conference with the
Court."

Alberici provides construction services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tOlHZB at no extra charge.[CC]

ALLERGAN INC: Breast Implant Suit remains in N.J. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Allergan
Inc. and Allergan USA Inc. can keep New Jersey plaintiffs' breast
implant suit in the federal court in New Jersey, following its
ruling that jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

Naida Chipego and others allege that recalled Allergan Biocell
implants cause Breast-Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell
Lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system that develops in the area
around an implant.

They filed a proposed class suit in a New Jersey state court,
alleging that Allergan concealed the cancer risk by failing to
submit reports to the Food and Drug Administration. [GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Samantha Sayles Files Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA SAYLES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01534-MEM-MCC (M.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:

   "All persons injured in motor vehicle accidents and insured
   under Pennsylvania auto insurance policies issued by
   defendant which provided for medical benefits coverage whom
   defendant required or directed to submit to insurance
   physical exams without Court order directing insured to
   submit to physical exams and who then had medical benefits
   denied based on the defendant's medical exam actions."

The class as defined above is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Discovery responses and Allstate's own
averments in its notice of removal demonstrate that the class
exceeds 100 individuals," the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs filed this action on June 20, 2016, setting forth
claims against Allstate. This action is brought on behalf of
Samantha Sayles individually and as representative of a class of
persons similarly situated.

The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967. Founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it
was spun off in 1993.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Kannebecker, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES KANNEBECKER
          104 W High St, Milford, PA 18337
          Telephone: (570) 296-6471
          Facsimile: (570) 296-2653

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Montijo Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Luis Montijo, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly-situated employees v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CV-21-006616, was removed from
the Stanislaus County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on Jan. 20, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-at-00038 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Amazon Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- offers many of
the Web service platforms that are Amazon offers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele Leigh Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Dr.
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 451-3945
          Fax: (949) 475-4668
          Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com


AMAZON.COM: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Certification Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA HOGAN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case
No. 2:21-cv-00996-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order vacating the current class certification deadline
prescribed by the local rule.

The parties further agree that if the Court denies Amazon's motion
to dismiss Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, they will
propose a class certification-briefing schedule promptly following
the Court's disposition of the motion.

The Plaintiff Hogan initially filed this lawsuit on July 26, 2021.
On September 1, 2021, the Court entered a stipulated order.

As permitted by the Stipulated Order, Plaintiffs will file their
consolidated amended complaint on or before February 2, 2022. The
Plaintiffs intend to seek to certify a nationwide class of all
persons who, on or after January 1, 2013, purchased an item through
Amazon's Buy Box, and the order was then shipped (or fulfilled) by
Amazon.

Under Local Rule 23(i)(3), the presumptive deadline for Plaintiffs
to file a motion for class certification is 180 days from the date
of filing, absent a Court order deferring the deadline. If set by
the original filing, the deadline is January 24, 2022.

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

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IsVZh7 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34 th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Zoran Tasic, Esq.
          WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346 0022
          E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
                  jnb@wbe-llp.com
                  zt@wbe-llp.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Kevin Landau, Esq.
          Evan Rosin, Esq.
          E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
          klandau@tcllaw.com
          erosin@tcllaw.com
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          Facsimile: (212) 931-0703

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
          MaryAnn T. Almeida, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com
                  maryannalmeida@dwt.com

AMERICAN AUTO: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in Telemarketing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that can calls by a Florida
company to a Vermont phone number subject that Florida company to a
nationwide class action in Colorado? Yes, according to the Tenth
Circuit's recent decision in Hood v. American Auto Care, LLC, 2021
U.S. App. LEXIS 38400 (10th Cir. Dec. 28, 2021).

Mr. Hood claims he purchased a used car and soon after "began
receiving prerecorded calls to his cell phone claiming that his car
warranty was about to expire and offering to sell him an extended
warranty." Not interested in the warranty, but annoyed by the
calls, Mr. Hood sued the Florida company in Colorado for its
(allegedly) illegal calls.

The wrinkle: Mr. Hood's phone number has a Vermont area code.

Emphasizing that wrinkle, the District Court dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction. It held that the call to Mr. Hood's Vermont
phone number did not "arise out of, or relate to," the company's
calls to Colorado. So there was no personal jurisdiction over the
Florida company.

Citing the Court's recent decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana
Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), the Tenth
Circuit reversed. Recall that in Ford, the automaker argued that it
could not face suit in Montana or Minnesota for defects that killed
and maimed in those States because neither vehicle was designed,
manufactured, or first sold in the State where the accident
occurred. The Court rejected that argument, explaining that
specific jurisdiction arises when a defendant "serves a market for
a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there."

Applying Ford, the Tenth Circuit rejected the Florida company's
argument that personal jurisdiction requires causation -- that
jurisdiction attaches only if the conduct "gave rise" to the claim.
Instead, consistent with the Court's analysis in Ford, the Tenth
Circuit held that a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over
an out-of-state defendant that has injured a resident plaintiff
if:

-- the defendant has purposefully directed activity to market a
product or service at resident of the forum, and

-- the plaintiff's claim arises from essentially the same type of
activity, even if the activity that gave rise to the claim was not
directed at forum residents.

Applied to Mr. Hood's lawsuit, "Ford makes clear that specific
jurisdiction is proper when a resident is injured by the very type
of activity a nonresident directs at residents of the forum State
-- even if the activity that gave rise to the claim was not itself
directed at the forum State."

This case is a good reminder that specific jurisdiction requires
that conduct "arises out of, or relates to" the harm complained of.
But that does not mean the plaintiff must prove direct causation to
keep the case in his or her chosen forum. [GN]

AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over WARN Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Audette, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reports that an
investment firm that promised to help Koffee Kup Bakery dig out of
nearly $15 million in debt told a federal court that a class action
suit filed against it by former employees should be dismissed
because "it would be unfair, unreasonable, and inconsistent with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice . . ." to
allow it to continue.

According to documents filed in Vermont federal court, American
Industrial Acquisition Corporation and KK Bakery Holding
Acquisition Company are Delaware entities, do not own interests in
any Vermont companies, and do not and have never owned any shares
in the holding company that purchased Koffee Kup Bakery, Vermont
Bread in Brattleboro and Superior Bakery in North Grosvenor Dale,
Conn.

Because of these facts, wrote the attorneys for AIAC and the
holding acquisition company, Vermont courts have no personal
jurisdiction over the two named defendants.

In addition to American Industrial Acquisitions Corporation and KK
Bakery Holding Acquisition Company, the other named defendants
include the three bakeries, Koffee Kup Distribution and KK Bakery
Investment Company.

The dismissal request was filed solely on behalf of AIAC and the
holding acquisition company.

On April 1, 2021, G2 Capital Advisors, serving as "the exclusive
financial advisor" to Koffee Kup Bakery, announced Koffee Kup
Bakery had "successfully completed a transaction with American
Industrial Acquisition Corporation."

In the news release, Hubery Aubery, identified as the owner of
KUPCO, the parent company of the three bakeries, described AIAC as
"the right investor . . . with deep ties in Vermont industry."

On its website, AIAC is described as "A global acquirer of
industrial companies" with a portfolio of 78 manufacturing and
distribution sites and more than 8,500 employees in 24 countries in
North America, Europe, and Asia with annual revenues exceeding $1.6
billion.

Its portfolio includes Champlain Cable in Colchester and Vermont
Aerospace Industries in Lyndonville.

Twenty-five days after the transaction, employees at the three
bakeries arrived to work to find themselves locked out of the
bakeries and out of jobs.

On April 30, a former Vermont Bread employee filed the action,
arguing AIAC and its six co-defendants had violated the federal
WARN Act because they failed to give employees at least 60 days
advance written notice of termination.

"Although many promising avenues were explored that we were
cautiously optimistic would have allowed Koffee Kup to survive,
those efforts have now been exhausted without success and Koffee
Kup no longer has sufficient capital to continue operations," wrote
Jeff Sands, a "turnaround specialist" and senior advisor to AIAC,
in the WARN notice.

Sands, of Dorset Partners, wrote he was unable to provide an
earlier notice to the state "as we were uncertain of the success of
the efforts that we have been making to continue operating. Earlier
notice of this unfortunate outcome would have been premature and
would have jeopardized those very efforts."

In an affidavit filed with the court, AIAC founder Leonard Levie
stated that contrary to the allegations in the class action suit,
"AIAC did not acquire any shares of the holding company that
purchased Plaintiff's employers."

Levie, in the affidavit filed from San Juan, Puerto Rico, where he
lives, stated AIAC "does not and has never owned any shares in
Koffee Kup Bakery, Inc., Superior Bakery, Inc., Koffee Kup
Distribution LLC, or Vermont Bread Company."

In addition, he stated, "AIAC does not maintain, own or operate any
business facilities in Vermont."

Levie also noted that the holding acquisition company "has no
employees in any state, including Vermont . . . has never had any
employees, including Plaintiffs . . . did not acquire any shares of
the holding company that purchased Plaintiffs' employers, and does
not and has never owned any shares in VBC, SBI, KKB, or KKD . . . .
Importantly, KKBHAC also does not maintain, own, or operate any
business facilities in Vermont."

In their opposition to dismissing AIAC and the holding company,
attorneys for Matthew Chaney, Nadine Miller and Arthur Gustafson
and "all others similarly situated," wrote the court does have
jurisdiction because of the actions of AIAC and the holding
company.

"[T]he facts . . . show that both AIAC and Holding have sufficient
contact with Vermont, as they have voluntarily injected themselves
into business in Vermont," wrote the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
"AIAC . . . arranged for the purchase of Vermont-based . . . Koffee
Kup."

And while AIAC "is studiously vague about who actually became the
owner of the shares," wrote the attorneys, it is clear that AIAC
was deeply involved in the negotiations and the purchase and that
it developed a "turnaround plan" for Koffee Kup.

Documents submitted to the court by the plaintiffs' attorneys also
demonstrate that AICA worked with KeyBank, Koffee Kup's primary
lender, deciding on ways to cut employment-related costs and
securing the resignation of Koffee Kup's CEO.

"Then, when the plug was pulled leaving employees without work,
AIAC was -- at the very least -- involved in that decision if not
indeed . . . the decision maker itself, and was involved in
notifying the state of Vermont (though, as alleged, the notice was
unlawfully late and insufficient). . . . [I]t is not at all
unreasonable to expect them to defend themselves in Vermont for the
alleged violation of federal law that took place in Vermont and in
which they are alleged to be complicit as parts of a single
employer."

The suit was filed by Thomas P. Aicher, of Cleary Shahi & Aicher in
Rutland, in collaboration with Lankenau & Miller in New York City,
The Gardner Firm in Mobile, Ala., and the Sugar Law Center for
Economic and Social Justice in Detroit.

AIAC and the holding company are being represented by Langrock
Sperry & Wool in Burlington.

As far as the holding company is concerned, wrote the plaintiffs'
attorneys, "the only reason Holding exists at all is that it was
created as part of the mechanism for the purchase of the
Vermont-based Koffee Kup family. . . . Holding had no Board of
Directors of its own, and . . . all decisions about Holding were
made by AIAC."

In June of last year, Flowers Foods purchased the assets of Koffee
Kup for $14 million. Of that, KeyBank received $7.6 million, the
Vermont Economic Development authority received $213,000 and
Continental Indemnity, an insurance company, got $84,000. The
remainder of the assets are in the hands of Linda Joy Sullivan, a
Dorset accountant appointed by a Chittenden Superior Court judge as
dissolution receiver. [GN]

ANGIE'S LIST: PWS Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO WATER SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a California corporation, individually and on behalf of itself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ANGIE'S LIST,
INC., a Delaware corporation; IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, a Delaware
Corporation; ANGI HOMESERVICES INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:19-cv-08704-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff
an additional four weeks within which to file its motion for class
certification, without prejudice to further requests.

To the extent that the Court is inclined to provide the Defendants
additional time to file their opposition (i.e., more 17 than the
two weeks they have already been afforded), the Plaintiff
respectfully requests it be provided at least an additional week to
file its reply brief, the Plaintiff contends.

Pro Water sells, installs, and services water treatment systems
throughout Los Angeles.

Angie's List provides Internet information and content.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GWmHyl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
          19360 Rinaldi Street, Box 647
          Porter Ranch, CA 91326
          Telephone: (818) 360-2529
          Facsikmile: (866) 794-5741
          E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com


ARISE VIRTUAL: Parties Directed to Provide Additional Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS; v. ARISE VIRTUAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00538-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order directing the parties
to provide additional briefing as concerning the following three
issues:

   -- First, the parties shall address the three sets of
      agreements potentially at issue in this case (the Master
      Services Agreements, the Acknowledgement and Waiver
      Agreements, and the Statements of Work) as relating to
      Defendant Arise's motion to compel Plaintiff's FLSA claims
      to arbitration.

   -- Second, depending on which of the three sets of agreements
      can be enforced (if any), the parties should then address
      which state law applies to determine whether the
      applicable agreement is valid and enforceable, and whether
      such agreement is valid and enforceable under state law.

   -- Third, and finally, before the parties' briefing was
      completed pursuant to their stipulated briefing schedule,
      the consents of seven "opt-in plaintiffs" were filed. The
      parties should therefore address the status of these opt-
      in plaintiffs in this case and how the existence of these
      opt-in plaintiffs on the disposition of the case should
      the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration of the
      Plaintiff Bell's claims be granted.

The Defendant shall file its brief on or before January 28, 2022.
Defendant's brief shall not exceed 15 pages. The Plaintiff's brief
shall be filed on or before February 4, 2022, and shall not exceed
15 pages. The Plaintiff's brief may also address the arguments
advanced in Defendant's initial brief. The Defendants may file a
reply, if any, not to exceed 10 pages on or before February 9,
2022, says Judge Ketchmark.

Arise provides business process outsourcing and consulting
services.

copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rE5sLL at no extra charge.[CC]

ARTHUR R TODD: Pullinger Seeks Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pullinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arthur R. Todd Electrical Contractor, Inc.
and Arthur R. Todd, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00268, (D. N.J.,
January 22, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties,
and damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Pullinger began his employment with the Defendants in October 1997,
when he was hired as a Helper. In 2003, he was promoted to the
position of Journeyman, which he held until his separation from
employment on October 7, 2021. He claims to be uncompensated for
the time he spent traveling between the final jobsite and the
workshop at the end of the day resulting in unpaid overtime
compensation for pre- and post-shift work, as well as compensable
travel time. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      Michael Groh, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 273-1054
      Fax: (215) 525-0210
      Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
             mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


AUTOZONE INC: Extension to File Class Cert. Bids Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. IANNONE, JR.,
and NICOLE A. JAMES, as plan participants,
on behalf of the AUTOZONE, INC. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC. et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-02779-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Mark Norris
entered an order granting in part and reserving judgment in part on
joint motion to extend certain class certification-related
deadlines.

The parties have asserted that, based on Plaintiffs' schedules,
Plaintiffs are unavailable for depositions prior to the current
January 21, 2022 deadline.

The parties request an extension of time for not more than fourteen
days, until and through February 4, 2022, to file stipulations
concerning class certification.

They further request that the current March 18, 2022 deadline for
Responses to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be extended
to April 1, 2022 and the current April 8, 2022 deadline for
Plaintiffs' Reply to be extended to April 22, 2022.

The Court reserves judgment on the due dates for Responses to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Plaintiffs' Reply
until the Court can schedule a status conference with all parties.
Therefore, the original dates for Responses and Reply, March 18,
2022 and April 8, 2022 respectively, remain in place.

AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts
and accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qNI8fk at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: William Brooks Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Norman Brooks,
III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
Bank of America, NA, Case No. 3:20-cv-01348-JO-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class:

      "All persons residing in the State of California, who,
      from July 16, 2016 to the present, BANA suspended or
      discontinued access to a BANA account following LCI's
      identification of a bankruptcy filing, and the bankruptcy
      filing was not, in fact attributable to that person;"

   2. appointing him as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nOslv2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Tammy Hussin, Esq.
          HUSSIN LAW FIRM
          1596 N. Coast Hwy 101
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (877) 677-5397
          Facsimile: (877) 667-1547
          E-mail: Tammy@HussinLaw.com


BOEING CO: Business Groups Want Class Cert. Ruling Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and other large trade groups are urging a U.S. appeals
court to adopt a stricter standard for allowing lawsuits to proceed
as class actions, saying companies are frequently pressured to
settle meritless claims for millions of dollars.

The groups in amicus briefs filed on Jan. 14 asked the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a judge in Texas who in
September certified a class potentially including millions of
people in a lawsuit accusing Boeing Co and Southwest Airlines Co of
conspiring to conceal safety problems in Boeing's 737 Max
airplanes.

The business groups said 95% of the class members would not have
standing to sue on their own because they never flew on a 737 Max,
but the judge wrongly found that those issues could be sorted out
later on in the case.

The National Association of Manufacturers in its brief said the
case was "emblematic of class actions run amok" and highlighted a
broader problem with large-scale litigation.

Requiring plaintiffs to prove that absent class members have
standing prior to class certification ensures that companies do not
have to choose between costly, protracted litigation and settling
large-scale class actions even when they have done nothing wrong,
the groups said.

Boeing and Southwest did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. Nor did the plaintiffs' lawyers at Bathaee Dunne and
Capshaw DeRieux.

Trade group Airlines for America, the conservative Washington Legal
Foundation and the business-backed International Association of
Defense Counsel also filed briefs on Jan. 14.

The case is Earl v. Boeing Co, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
No. 21-40720.

For the plaintiffs: Brian Dunne of Bathaee Dunne

For Boeing: Brian Schmalzbach of McGuireWoods

For Southwest: Jonathan Franklin of Norton Rose Fulbright US [GN]

BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR.,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. v.
Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266-MOC-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
extending its time to respond to:

   (a) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
       Complaint, and

   (b) Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Rule 23 Class, Appoint
       Class Representatives and Appoint Class Counsel, through
       and including February 28, 2022.

On January 12, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave. The
Defendant's response to the Motion for Leave is currently due on
January 26, 2022.

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Class Certification
Motion. The Defendant's response to the Class Certification Motion
is currently due on January 28, 2022.

The Plaintiff has inextricably linked the Motion for Leave and the
Class Certification Motion together in several ways. The Class
Certification Motion argues for certification of state-law claims
that are not asserted in the current operative complaint and which
Plaintiff seeks to add through the Motion for Leave. Specifically,
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave seeks to add state-law claims for
South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and Alabama
employees and the Class Certification Motion argues for state-wide
class certification of those claims, the Defendant contends.

Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast-food restaurants
that specializes in cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk
biscuits that primarily serves the Southeastern United States.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fNIQTy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian L. Church, Esq.
          Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
          Brendan P. Biffany, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 N. Tryon St., Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8303
          Facsimile: (704) 373-3903
          E-mail: bbiffany@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  bchurch@robinsonbradshaw.com

BOLLE BRANDS: Pecho Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Pecho, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. Bolle Brands Inc., a New York
corporation, Case No. 2021-CH-06072, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00113 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Bolle -- https://www.bolle.com/ -- is the market-leading solution
for eyewear and helmets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: dgerbie@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer Ann Riley, Esq.
          Tyler Zachary Zmick, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 460-5965
          Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                 jriley@seyfarth.com
                 tzmick@seyfarth.com


BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Extension to Close Phase I Discovery Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO
RIOS-GUTIERREZ, JOSE JUAN MENDOZA-SERVIN, FRANCISCO JAVIER
MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ-ANAYA, and CESAR EDGARDO
AVENDANO-MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC.; L.C. BRIGGS TURF
FARM, LLC; KENOSHA, LLC; NAUDI-D INVESTMENTS, LLC; LAWRENCE CLYDE
BRIGGS, individually and as sole trustee of his family trust; and
LAWRENCE CAPEN BRIGGS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their consent
motion to extend time:

   1. The Plaintiffs request an extension until March 11, 2022
      of the close of Phase I discovery.

   2. The Plaintiff requests an extension until April 8, 2022 of
      the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class
      Certification.

On October 7, 2021, the Court entered an order setting forth the
schedule for the class certification phase of this case. Phase I
was to be related to Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification
motion and Phase II would involve damages and any other merits
issues.

The close of Phase I discover was to be January 28, 2022. The
Scheduling Order also set February 25, 2022 as the deadline for
Plaintiffs to submit their class certification motion.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nP473K at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
          315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste.1080
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (678) 271-0304
          Facsimile: (678) 271-0314
          E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com

               - and -

          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
          E-mail; heather@duganschlozman.com
                  mark@duganschlozman.com

CANADA: No Class Settlement Yet Amid Indian Hospital Claims' Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit against the federal government over the
treatment of patients in Canada's Indian Hospital system has not
been settled or begun a claims process.

A lawyer issued that statement after incorrect information appeared
on Facebook this week garnering hundreds of responses from former
patients.

"There's no settlement and there may not be one," said class-action
lawyer Doug Lennox of Klein Lawyers in Vancouver, one of four law
firms suing the federal government on behalf of thousands of former
patients.

"This may be one of those cases that goes to trial."

Last week, Fred Wilson, a First Nations health support worker on
Vancouver Island, posted an ad for one of the law firms that said,
"The Indian Hospital Claim Process is starting" and at the bottom,
"Fred will Email you a form to start the process."

But the process hasn't started yet.

The four firms are suing Canada for $1.1-billion in damages
alleging the operation of 29 segregated facilities known as "Indian
Hospitals" was negligent and breached fiduciary duties owed to
Indigenous Peoples.

The case was certified on Jan. 17, 2020, and still has a long way
to go.

"There's a lot of complicated issues to go through," said Lennox.
"We're still gathering information on how many patients went
through the hospitals and how many may still be alive."

"Indian hospitals" operated between 1945 and 1981 for Indigenous
peoples to be treated for tuberculosis and other ailments.

The Charles Camsell in Edmonton was one of the largest, with a
patient population of more than a thousand at its peak.

"The class was consent certified but all that means is we have the
right to proceed on behalf of the class," added lawyer Steven
Cooper of Cooper Regel in Alberta, another of the four law firms
involved.

"That's no guarantee of settlement or success at trial."

Both lawyers say they are months - possibly years - from a final
result.

And mistakenly using the words "Indian Hospital Claim Process" in
the ad didn't help.

"I heard from at least 300 people," said Wilson, who is working
with Klein to create awareness of the lawsuit among Indigenous
Peoples.

"It's my mistake; 100 per cent my mistake. I've updated that now."

The new post now asks: "Do you qualify?"

Former patients can contact Wilson or any of the four law firms
involved for a qualification form.

"There's a lot of people out there who still haven't heard about
this case," said Lennox, who is also involved in the '60s Scoop
class-action settlement.

"We're very grateful that they called us, but just understand it's
a longer process than you may have thought based on Facebook."

'60s Scoop

There are many Indigenous class-action lawsuits going on at the
same time.

"There's so many wrongs to right," said Lennox, "but it's confusing
and very hard for people to navigate.

"At this point, someone's like, 'Well, am I in Day Schools or Day
Scholars? Was I in Scoop? Am I in Millenium Scoop?"

The Federal Indian Day School settlement is offering compensation
for damages and abuses suffered by students forced to attend one of
the identified Federal Indian Day Schools or Federal Day Schools.

The Indian Residential Schools Day Scholars settlement is for
students who attended an Indian Residential School during the day
only (and did not sleep there overnight).

The Sixties Scoop Class-Action settlement is for First Nations and
Inuit children removed from their homes and placed with
non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents between 1951 and 1991.

Millenium Scoop is another name for two agreements that could
compensate for the racist underfunding of child welfare services on
reserves and in the Yukon.

Collectiva

Lennox said the claims administrator in the '60s Scoop settlement,
Collectiva, posted an update on its claims process on Dec. 20,
2021.

It shows there were 19,041 claims approved, 697 rejected, 3,306
require more information and 2,876 are being assessed.

Still, the claims are behind schedule, said Lennox.

"It's not on the original schedule that was planned, but there was
a (coronavirus) pandemic and some cases turned out to be more
complicated than anyone expected," he explained. "We are getting
closer to the end."

Collectiva's figures also show 8,850 claims were denied.

"It's frustrating (for those turned down) but at least it's an
answer for some people," said Lennox, "They may qualify for other
settlements."

Day Schools

One complaint about the Day School claims process is that it is
going too fast.

Claims administrator Deloitte set a record, Lennox said, by
processing and paying more than 70,000 claims in the first year.

"That kind of speed in getting people money, I can't think of any
other class action that has moved that much money to that many
people that quickly."

However, some claimants who received payment reconsidered their
claims and wanted to refile.

"They thought about it more and want to change their answer,"
Lennox said. "But a judge said No."

Editor's Note: This story was updated on Jan. 21 to correct the Day
School and Day Scholar criteria. [GN]

CAREDX INC: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA) resulting from
allegations that CareDx may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased CareDx 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-2197.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 25, 2021, CareDx sold 1,923,077
shares of its common stock through an underwritten public offering
at a public offering price of $91.00 per share.

Then October 28, 2021, after the market closed, CareDx released
third quarter 2021 financial results in which the Company disclosed
that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") served a civil
investigatory demand requesting documents in connection with a
False Claims Act investigation. The DOJ is investigating business
practices related to CareDx's kidney testing and phlebotomy
services. The Company also disclosed that it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for
similar issues, as well as certain accounting and public reporting
practices, and the Company received an information request from an
unnamed state agency.

On this news, the Company's share price declined by $19.34 per
share, or 27%, to close at $51.00 per share on October 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.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


CARVANA LLC: Bodnar Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Bodnar, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated v. Carvana LLC, Case No. 18CV-21-00632,
was removed from the Crittenden County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Jan. 19,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00013-BSM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Carvana -- https://www.carvana.com/ -- is an online used car
retailer based in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathy A. Cruz, Esq.
          CRUZ LAW FIRM, PLC
          1325 Central Avenue
          Hot Springs, AR 71901
          Phone: (501) 624-3600
          Email: kathycruzlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric Leon, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP - New York
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 906-1200

               - and -

          Grant E. Fortson, Esq.
          LAX, VAUGHAN, FORRSON, ROWE & THREET P.A.
          Cantrell West Building
          11300 Cantrell Road, Suite 201
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Phone: (501) 376-6565
          Fax: (501) 376-6666
          Email: gfortson@laxvaughan.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Collins, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          Sears Tower
          330 North Wabash, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 876-7700
          Fax: (312) 993-9767


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sinclair Files Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL
SINCLAIR, HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and all
aggrieved employees, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying the following class for purposes of determining
      whether Charter misclassified Salespersons as exempt
      outside salespersons during their orientation and training
      weeks:

      -- Outside Salesperson Class

         "All employees who worked in a direct sales position
         that Charter classified as "exempt" based on the
         outside salesperson exemption and participated in one
         or more weeks of orientation or training activities at
         any time between November 19, 2014 and the date of the
         certification order;"

         And certifying the following subclasses, or holding
         certification of the subclasses in abeyance pending a
         determination of the misclassification issue:

         -- Minimum and Overtime Wages Subclass

            "All Outside Salesperson Class members who worked
            over 8 hours in a day or over 40 hours in a week
            during their orientation and training weeks (Counts
            1 and 2);"

         -- Meal Period Subclass

            "All Outside Salesperson Class members who worked
            over 5 hours at least one day during their
            orientation and training weeks and were not provided
            a designated 30-minute meal period where they were
            relieved of all work (Count 3);"

         -- Rest Break Subclass

            "All Outside Salesperson Class members who worked
            over 3.5 hours at least one day during their
            orientation and training weeks and were not provided
            a designated 10-minute rest break where they were
            relieved of all work for every four hours of work or
            major fraction thereof (Count 4);"

         -- Wage Statement Subclass

            "All Outside Salesperson Class members who received
            a wage statement on or after November 19, 2015
            (Count 6.);

         -- Termination Subclass

            "All Outside Salesperson Class members whose
            employment terminated at any time on or after
            November 19, 2015 (Count 7.);

   2. Certifying the following class:

      -- Commission Wage Statement Class

         "All commission-eligible employees who received at
         least one wage statement that included a monthly or
         quarterly commission or commission allowance payment at
         any time between November 19, 2015 and the date of the
         certification order (Count 6);

   3. Appointing Daniel Sinclair as a class representative;

   4. Appointing Soderstrom Law PC as class counsel; and

   5. Directing Charter to give written notice to all class
      members within 14 days of the date of the certification
      order via mail, electronic means (e.g., email or text
      message), and/or other appropriate means (e.g., website
      posting), informing them of their rights and options.

According to the complaint, Charter classifies "direct sales"
employees like Sinclair (Salespersons) as exempt during their
orientation and training weeks (training weeks) based on
California's outside salesperson exemption.

Whether Charter misclassifies Salespersons during their training
weeks is the central issue in this case. Resolving the
misclassification question/exemption defense on a class basis will
significantly advance the resolution of this case and achieve
judicial economy and efficiency.

The Court should certify an Outside Salesperson Class to resolve
the threshold misclassification question. It should also certify
claim-specific subclasses, either now or after resolving the
misclassification question. Common evidence shows that Charter's
orientation and training activities are mandatory; Salespersons
typically work between 1 and 3 training weeks; Charter could
realistically expect Salespersons to work over 8 hours a day and/or
40 hours a week during their training weeks; Charter does not
require Salespersons to spend more than half of their working time
during their training weeks outside the office selling its products
or services; Charter does not provide designated meal periods and
rest breaks where it relieves Salespersons of all work; and
Charter's wage statements do not accurately itemize or pay all
wages owed or waiting time penalties. Certification of the
misclassification question and the underlying wage-and-hour claims
is proper under California and Ninth Circuit precedent, Mr.
Sinclair contends.

Charter Communications operates as a cable telecommunications
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 24,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32vuV1p
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
          SODERSTROM LAW PC
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 667-4700
          Facsimile: (949) 424-8091
          E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com

CITIGROUP INC: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Bruce Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., Citbank, N.A., and Citibank
(South Dakota), N.A., Case No. 14-8224, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (White Plains).

On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff initiated an adversary proceeding,
and amended her complaint on Nov. 18, 2014. The Amended Complaint
seeks to hold the Defendants in contempt of the Bankruptcy Court's
May 7, 2013 discharge order, as well as discharge orders protecting
similarly situated debtors issued by other bankruptcy courts
throughout the country. The Plaintiff requested, on behalf of the
putative class, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Defendants moved to compel arbitration on the Plaintiff's
original adversary complaint, and the Bankruptcy Court denied the
motion on Nov. 12, 2014. The defendants in two related cases--which
the Plaintiff states are based on the same factual and legal
claims--also moved to compel arbitration; the Bankruptcy Court
denied those motions and all three were appealed to other judges of
the Court.

On April 13, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court so-ordered a joint
stipulation by the parties setting a supplemental briefing schedule
on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and
strike or dismiss the class allegations. After supplemental
briefing, the Bankruptcy Court held a lengthy hearing on the
Defendants' motion on July 22, 2021, and then ruled from the bench,
denying the motion to dismiss in part and denying the motion to
strike.

On Aug. 10, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order formalizing
this bench ruling.

The Defendants now seek a review of this Aug. 10, 2021 order.

The appellate case is captioned as Citigroup, Inc., et al. v.
Bruce, Case No. 22-134, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on Jan. 21, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. are
represented by:

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-8555

Plaintiff-Respondent Kimberly Bruce, Debtor and Plaintiff on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, AKA Kimberly A.
Bruce, AKA Kimberly Antrell Bruce, is represented by:

          George F. Carpinello, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 434-0600
          E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com

COLLINS AEROSPACE: Keller Lenkner LLC Files Conspiracy Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC on Jan. 18 filed
an amended class action complaint challenging an illegal conspiracy
among two of Raytheon Technologies' operating units -- Pratt &
Whitney and Collins Aerospace -- and several outsource engineering
suppliers that suppressed the job mobility and compensation of
plaintiff Matthew Cydylo and other putative class members. The
filing is an expansion of the original complaint against Pratt &
Whitney and the suppliers, after Keller Lenkner's further
investigation revealed information to support allegations that
Collins Aerospace was also involved in the illegal practices.

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into an illegal
no-poach agreement that restricted the hiring and recruiting of
engineers and other skilled laborers working on aerospace
projects.

In December 2021, the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted six
executives from the various defendants -- except Collins Aerospace
-- citing Pratt & Whitney's role in the illegal no-poach agreement.
Through Keller Lenkner's independent investigation, attorneys
learned that the wrongdoing alleged in the DOJ indictment and
Keller Lenkner's initial complaint is even broader than previously
disclosed, leading to the allegations against Collins Aerospace.

From as early as 2011 until at least 2019, the defendants allegedly
maintained an expansive no-poach agreement that affected engineers
employed by, or working as independent contractors for, the
defendants; it reached those who worked on Pratt & Whitney and
Collins Aerospace projects and statements of work throughout the
United States and its territories. The no-poach agreement allegedly
was made and enforced privately and confidentially among executives
at the highest levels of the defendant organizations, who
successfully concealed it, and its implications, from Mr. Cydylo
and putative class members. Without the DOJ's criminal
investigation and subsequent indictments -- and Keller Lenkner's
independent investigation -- the existence of the no-poach
agreement would likely have remained permanently hidden.

"The defendants entered into this conspiracy with complete
disregard for the impact it would have on their employees, their
careers, and their livelihoods. The only concern was for their
bottom line and avoiding disruption to their workforce," said Jason
Zweig, Partner at Keller Lenkner. "After the Department of
Justice's appalling revelations, we filed suit with the intention
of recovering losses for the many engineers affected by this
agreement, but we knew that we couldn't stop there. After a
rigorous investigation, we look forward to ensuring Collins
Aerospace is also held accountable for its role in this
misconduct."

Led by Zweig and Keller Lenkner Partner Zina Bash, the suit seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the
United States. As a direct result of the defendants' illegal
no-poach agreement, members of the class have suffered injury and
have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair competition for
their labor on the merits.

In addition to Raytheon Technologies Corporation's Pratt & Whitney
Division and Collins Aerospace Division, defendants in the
litigation are QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc., Belcan Engineering
Group, LLC, Cyient, Inc., Agilis Engineering, Inc., Parametric
Solutions, Inc., and Mahesh Patel, Robert Harvey, Harpreet Wasan,
Steve Houghtaling, Thomas Edwards, Gary Prus, and Frank O'Neill,
and Does 1-10.

Employees who believe this no-poach agreement has affected their
job mobility or compensation, or who have otherwise been harmed,
and who are interested in joining this class action are encouraged
to contact Keller Lenkner at aerospacenopoach@kellerlenkner.com.

The Keller Lenkner legal team includes Partners Jason Zweig and
Zina Bash, along with co-counsel Daniel Krisch of Halloran Sage
LLP.

The action is Matthew Cydylo v. Agilis Engineering, et al., No.
21-cv-01730, and is filed in the United States District Court of
Connecticut.

ABOUT KELLER LENKNER: Keller Lenkner LLC --
http://www.kellerlenkner.com-- represents plaintiffs in complex
litigation matters in federal and state courts throughout the
nation. The firm acts for clients in many types of cases, including
class and mass actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation
matters. Its team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme
Court of the United States and former partners and associates from
the country's leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the
firm has secured results for more than 150,000 clients. [GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Gomez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELINA GOMEZ v. CREDIT
SUISSE AG, Case No. 1:22-cv-00115-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
      proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
      extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
      compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
      Practices.

Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KKScOm at no extra charge.[CC]


CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Two Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLETTA HARWELL-PAYNE On
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. CUDAHY
PLACE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, 41 MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00328-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying her as the class representative, and the
Previant Law Firm S.C. as class counsel, for each of the following
two subclasses.

   -- The first subclass is defined as:

      "All hourly employees who worked at a Wisconsin facility
      administered by 41 Management, LLC during the time period
      after 41 Management implemented temperature checks and
      screening questionnaires. or (b) during the time period."

   -- The second proposed subclass is defined as:

      "All hourly employees who worked at a Wisconsin facility
      administered by 41 Management, LLC who, during the time
      period of January 13, 2019 to the present, ever punched in
      after a break less than 30 minutes after they punched out
      for the break.

Cudahy Place is located in Cudahy, Wisconsin. This organization
primarily operates in the Skilled Nursing Care Facilities
industry.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify subclasses dated Jan.
20, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nNv6fT at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail:P yh@previant.com

CUE HEALTH: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cue Health Inc. The
case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Cue Health Inc. doing
business as: Cue Health, Case No. 1:22-cv-00501 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19,
2022).

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

Cue -- https://cuehealth.com/ -- is a healthcare technology company
that puts consumers in control of their health information and
places diagnostic information at the center of care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



DELTA AIR: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to March 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKIE LOMAS, ROXANDA
YANCOR, JOSE ALVARADO and MARIA ALVARADO Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. a
Delaware Corporation, Frankie Lomas et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00786 JAK-Skx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John A. Kronstadt entered an order regarding stipulation to
continue class certification related dates.

The Stipulation is approved without prejudice to the parties
revisiting this schedule if circumstances present good cause for
another extension narrowly tailored to address such need.

The Scheduling Order entered on June 15, 2021 is modified as
follows:

  -- The deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification is
     extended from February 14, 2022 to March 14, 2022.

  -- The deadline to file any Opposition to the Motion is
     extended from March 14, 2022 to April 11, 2022.

  -- The deadline to file any Reply in Support of the Motion is
     extended from March 28, 2022 to April 25, 2022.

  -- The hearing on the Motion is continued from April 18, 2022
     to May 16, 2022.

Delta is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33WPHaC at no extra charge.[CC]

DIXON ADVISORY: Enters Voluntary Administration Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brewer, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that
thousands of investors in the ACT are understood to be affected by
the announcement on Jan. 19 that the fourth largest self-managed
super fund in Australia, Dixon Advisory, has gone into voluntary
administration as a result of increasing claims against the
company.

The "wealth management" company had been formed in Canberra more
than 35 years ago by respected, high-profile pensions expert Daryl
Dixon.

The company said in a statement that the directors of Dixon
Advisory and Superannuation Services (DASS) -- a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the E&P (Evans and Partners) Financial Group --
"determined that mounting and actual potential liabilities mean it
is likely to become insolvent at some future time".

"No client assets are at risk . . . as a result of this process,"
the company said in a statement to the ASX.

The corporate liabilities result from a class action launched late
last year by commercial law firm Piper Alderman, which accused the
company of deceptive and misleading conduct, and that it failed to
act in the best interests of its clients.

The class action alleged that Dixon Advisory's investment committee
approved and recommended products which were "pushed on" clients.
These products served to pour millions of dollars of fees into the
company.

The insolvency comes after Dixon Advisory was embroiled in a raft
of controversy. In July last year, the company was forced to pay
$7.2 million penalty for breaches of the Corporations Act as well
as $1 million to cover the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission's costs of its investigation and legal proceedings.

Then another law firm, Maurice Blackburn, lodged a lawsuit against
the company on behalf of clients for allegedly poor super advice.

Dixon Advisory had been founded in Canberra in 1986 on providing
trusted and sound superannuation and pension plan advice, its sign
prominent on Northbourne Avenue. Both Daryl Dixon and his son,
Alan, had been on the investment committee until 2019.

One of the more speculative investments by the company had been
large volumes of real estate in New Jersey and New York under the
US Masters Residential Fund, in which the would buy property,
renovate and flip it back onto the market.

In its statement to the ASX on Jan. 19, the company said it had
appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Partners as its liquidator and
would "facilitate a prompt transfer of DASS clients to a
replacement service provider". [GN]

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Sadigh FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yvette Sadigh, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Educational Credit Management
Corporation, Allied Interstate, LLC, IQOR US, Inc., Case No.
532236/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court State of New York
County of Kings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on Jan. 19, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00298 to the
proceeding.

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

Educational Credit Management Corporation -- http://www.ecmc.org/
-- is a United States nonprofit corporation based in Minnesota.
Since 1994, ECMC has operated in the areas of student loan
bankruptcy management and loan collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan M Marmo, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 15243
          Phone: (215) 252-9568
          Fax: (215) 867-6070
          Email: jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com


EFINANCIAL LLC: Court Dismisses Johansen TCPA Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH JOHANSEN, Plaintiff v. EFINANCIAL LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01351-DGE (W.D. Wash.), Judge David G.
Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

I. Background

The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

On Sept. 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, a complaint alleging that Defendant
Efinanical violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
47 U.S.C. Sections 227, et seq., and its implementing regulation,
47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c), by placing telephone calls to him and
the putative class members whose telephone numbers are on the
National Do-Not-Call ("DNC") Registry.

The Defendant has submitted declarations from employees and
training materials in support of its contention that it complies
with the provisions of the TCPA and qualifies for protection under
its safe harbor provision.

On Dec. 4, 2020, Judge Tsuchida issued an order limiting discovery
initially to the Plaintiff's individual claims as the most
efficient and cost effective way of avoiding fees and costs
associated with burdensome class discovery if the Plaintiff's
claims did not succeed. As such, the Plaintiff's claim consists of
two telephone calls Efinanical made to the Plaintiff in April 2020,
only one of which, the call made on April 7, 2020, could
potentially subject Efinancial to liability under the TCPA.

On April 16, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of these claims. On June 11, 2021, Judge
Tsuchida issued the instant R&R, recommending that the Court grants
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff objected to the R&R. He contends that Judge Tsuchida
erred by concluding: (1) that he consented to the Defendant's call;
(2) that the Defendant had a reasonable basis to call him; and (3)
that the Defendant was entitled to protection under the TCPA's safe
harbor provision. The Defendant responded to the Plaintiff's
objections.

II. Discussion

Passed by Congress in response to consumer complaints about abuses
of telephone technology by telemarketers, the TCPA creates a cause
of action for a person who receives more than one telephone call
within a 12-month period in violation of the corresponding
regulation. The regulation prohibits telephone solicitations to
residential telephone subscribers who have registered their phone
numbers on the National DNC Registry.

A. A Reasonable Jury Would Find The Call Was Consented To and That
Efinancial Had a Basis to Call Plaintiff.

Judge Estudilo agrees with Judge Tsuchida's conclusion that the
Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact and that no reasonable jury would find that
someone other than the Plaintiff requested and consented to being
called by Efinancial. He finds that Efinancial produced credible
evidence supporting the conclusion the call was consented to and
that Efinancial had a reasonable basis to call the Plaintiff. There
is also no evidence that supports the argument that the Plaintiff
only engaged in the conversation to investigate.

In addition, the assertions that overseas hackers were involved or
that Efinancial may have submitted the insurance request to itself
is speculative at most, and "mere allegation and speculation do not
create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment."
Moreover, as Judge Tsuchida noted, Efinancial identified that the
email address used as part of the internet request was linked to
the physical address the Plaintiff provided to Efinancial during
the April 7, 2020 call and that the name provided in the internet
request was potentially associated with the Plaintiff's telephone
number.

B. Even if Plaintiff did not submit the online request, TCPA Safe
Harbor Provisions Apply.

Even assuming a question of fact exists as to whether the Plaintiff
submitted the internet request, the TCPA safe harbor provisions
apply, Judge Estudillo holds. As Judge Tsuchida identified,
"Substantial compliance with regulatory requirements may suffice
when such requirements are procedural and when the essential
statutory purposes have been fulfilled." Efinancial's internal
procedures in fact had prevented calls to Plaintiff except for the
call initiated because of the internet request at issue in the
case. Regardless of whether the Plaintiff or a third party actor
submitted the internet request, Efinancial "would be understandably
mistaken in its belief that Plaintiff had consented to the call."

In Judge Estudillo's view, this mistaken belief constitutes an
"error" within the purview of the TCPA safe harbor provisions. In
short, even if a question of fact existed as to whether the
Plaintiff requested or consented to the call in question, the
TCPA's safe harbor provisions would still apply.

III. Order

Having reviewed the R&R of Judge Tsuchida, any objections or
responses to that, and the remaining record, Judge Estudillo
adopted the R&R. He granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. All other pending motions are stricken as moot. The case
is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send copies
of the Order to the parties and to Judge Tsuchida.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3dwbpzf4 from Leagle.com.


EHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until March 18, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against eHealth, Inc.
(NasdaqGS: EHTH), if they purchased the Company's shares between
March 19, 2018 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of eHealth as above and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ehth/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by March 18, 2022.

About the Lawsuit

eHealth and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On April 7, 2020, Muddy Waters Capital reported that the Company's
"highly aggressive accounting masks . . . a significantly
unprofitable business," due to member churn and an overstated
"lifetime value" or "LTV" of its plans, among other things, and
that the Company's financial statements for 2019 significantly
overstated revenue and operating profit. On this news, shares of
eHealth declined, from a closing price of $130.57 per share on
April 6, 2020, to $116.90 per share the next day on April 7, 2020,
before declining to $103.20 on April 8, 2020.

Then, on July 23, 2020, the Company announced its financial results
for the 2Q2020, disclosing that the Company "saw increased levels
of Medicare Advantage plan churn compared to our historical
observations" and projected the LTV of its Medicare Advantage
policies "to decline up to 10% in the fourth quarter of 2020 and by
mid-single digits for the full year" as reflected in its revised
2020 annual guidance. On this news, shares of eHealth fell from a
closing price of $114 per share on July 23, 2020 to $79.17 per
share on July 24, 2020.

The case is In re eHealth Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
4:20-cv-02395.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


EHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired eHealth,
Inc. ("eHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EHTH) securities from
April 26, 2018 to July 23, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until March 18, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

eHealth is a health insurance marketplace with a technology and
service platform that provides consumer engagement, education, and
health insurance enrollment solutions.

On April 8, 2020, Muddy Waters Capital published a report alleging
that eHealth's "highly aggressive accounting masks . . . a
significantly unprofitable business," "that the key driver of
growth since 2018 has been [eHealth's] reliance on Direct Response
television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn
enrollee," and that eHealth's "assumptions in its LTV model seem
highly aggressive when compared to reality." On this news,
eHealth's stock price declined by $13.70 per share, or
approximately 11.7%, from $116.90 per share on April 7, 2020 to
close at $103.20 per share on April 8, 2020.

Then, on July 23, 2020 after-market hours, eHealth announced its
financial results for second quarter 2020 which confirmed
substantive aspects of the "member churn" allegations contained in
the Muddy Waters report. On this news, eHealth's stock price
declined by $34.83 per share, or approximately 30.6%, from $114.00
per share on July 23, 2020 to close at $79.17 per share on July 24,
2020.

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period that eHealth
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions, and
skyrocketing rate of member churn resulting from eHealth's pursuit
of low quality, lossmaking growth, and its reliance on direct
response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable,
high churn enrollee.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

EHEALTH INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP notifies investors of eHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: EHTH)
("eHealth" or the "Company") of a pending lawsuit against eHealth
and certain of its officers. The class action, In re eHealth Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (the "Class Action"),
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired eHealth common stock between April 26, 2018 and
July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class" and the "Class Period"). The
Class Action pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased eHealth stock during the
Class Period, you have until March 18, 2022 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. 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.

eHealth is a health insurance broker that focuses on selling
Medicare-related policies on behalf of private insurers. Its main
source of revenue is commissions from selling Medicare Advantage,
Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Part D prescription drug
policies. On January 1, 2018, eHealth adopted and implemented a new
accounting standard for recognizing revenue. This standard,
referred to herein as Accounting Standard Codification 606 or ASC
606, allowed eHealth to recognize immediately the entirety of the
commissions it expected to receive over the expected life of the
policies. Although eHealth sold annual policies that could be
cancelled at any time by the consumer, it assumed that its policies
would be renewed for several years. Consequently, for many of
eHealth's Medicare-related policies, it recognized between three
and five years of commissions immediately upon the sale of the
policy.

The Complaint in the Class Action alleges that the assumption that
eHealth's customers would renew its policies was unrealistic and
contrary to eHealth's recent experience of both cancellations and
renewals. Beginning in 2017, eHealth started soliciting Medicare
customers with television advertising. Late-night commercials
boasting $0 monthly plan premiums effectively generated a surge in
customers in a short period of time. Between 2017 and 2018, the
number of Medicare-related insurance applications submitted to
eHealth by applicants grew by 39%. These customers, however, were
notorious for cancelling their policies in short periods of time,
causing eHealth to experience sky-rocketing "member churn" ratios,
i.e., the percentage of customers who cancel their policies within
the first year. Notwithstanding, eHealth was able to provide
analysts and investors with record-setting earnings due to the fact
that it was able to recognize three- to five-years of commission
revenue for these policies upfront and immediately.

The Complaint further alleges that Class members were materially
harmed by eHealth's false and misleading statements. As a direct
result of Defendants' materially false and misleading statements,
eHealth's stock price artificially increased from a relative steady
price of around $15.32 per share of common stock on March 19, 2018
to $136.32 prior to April 8, 2020. It was on that day that Muddy
Waters Capital, a well-known and highly respected research firm,
published a report revealing eHealth's accounting misconduct. The
report disclosed, among other things, that eHealth's "highly
aggressive accounting masks [] a significantly unprofitable
business," "that the key driver of growth since 2018 has been
EHTH's reliance on Direct Response television advertising, which
attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee," "that EHTH's
persistence assumptions in its LTV model [under ASC 606] seem
highly aggressive when compared to reality." Muddy Waters report
also disclosed that eHealth's financial statements for 2019: (a)
overstated revenue by $128 million; (b) overstated operating profit
by $263 million; and (c) understated an operating loss of -$181
million. The Muddy Waters report resulted in a sharp decline in the
price of eHealth's stock, plummeting to $103.20 per share.

Subsequently, on July 23, 2020, when eHealth announced its earnings
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2020, its stock price fell
again as the information contained in its announcement confirmed
substantive aspects of the "member churn" allegations previously
asserted in the Muddy Waters report. In response, eHealth's stock
price declined from a closing price of $114 per share on July 23,
2020 to $79.17 per share on July 24, 2020.

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]

EL-MILAGRO INC: Sued Over Alleged Sexually Hostile Work Environment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action lawsuit has accused one of Chicago's most prominent
tortilla makers of allegedly not taking action to shut down a work
environment that has been "sexually hostile" toward women.

On Jan. 11, attorneys with the firm of Caffarelli & Associates, of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against El-Milagro
Inc., accusing the company of allegedly violating the Illinois
Human Rights Act.

The complaint was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Alma Sanchez,
who allegedly has worked for El-Milagro since 2019.

El-Milagro produces the El Milagro line of corn and flour
tortillas, tostadas and tortilla chips. Since it was founded by
Mexican immigrant Raul Lopez in the 1950s, the El Milagro brand has
become a popular choice for tortillas sold in supermarkets in
Illinois and elsewhere in the country.

The company operates facilities in Chicago, Texas and Georgia.

According to the complaint, Sanchez asserts a male coworker on at
least two occasions touched her buttocks, including at least once
with his genitals through clothing, while at work.

According to the complaint, Sanchez and others complained to a
supervisor about the incidents, but allegedly nothing was done.

In the complaint, Sanchez asserts she also filed a complaint with
the company's human resources department, but allegedly no
corrective action was taken.

Neither the male coworker nor the supervisor are named as
defendants in the complaint.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff believes other women have
experienced similar incidents at the hands of that same male
coworker, and the company has allegedly also not taken any
corrective action.

The complaint asserts the alleged failure to address her complaints
about the alleged incidents amounts to violations of her rights,
and those of other female El-Milagro employees, under the Illinois
Human Rights Act, as it "fostered a sexually hostile work
environment."

The complaint seeks to expand the case to include all female
El-Milagro employees "who have been and/or currently are subjected
to a sexually hostile work environment" at El-Milagro facilities in
Illinois since February 2021.

The complaint does not estimate how many employees that may
include, but indicates it may be at least 100 people.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus attorney fees and
interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alejandro Caffarelli
and Nicole Young.

The complaint would add to legal troubles experienced by El-Milagro
in recent years. The company has been targeted by a number of
labor-related actions, including worker walkouts, organized by
labor unions, and a complaint filed with the National Labor
Relations Board.

Workers have allegedly complained of intimidation by management in
response to their demands for better pay and changes to their
working conditions. [GN]

ENDO HEALTH: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Opioid Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Mann, writing for The Southeast Sun, reports that a
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
pharmaceutical companies and Dale County is among the beneficiaries
of that settlement.

At the Dale County Commission meeting Jan. 11, commissioners agreed
to the settlement reached with Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In 2017 the state of Alabama, through the attorney general's
office, had filed the class action lawsuit against the
pharmaceutical companies for their role in increasing opioid
addiction and abuse nationwide, charging negligence and aggressive
sales tactics.

The Dale County Commission voted to join the class action lawsuit
against pharmaceutical companies at a Jan. 9, 2017 meeting after
the issue was brought to the table one month earlier by Dale County
Commission Attorney Henry Steagall.

At the work session Dec. 5, 2016, Steagall told commissioners that
he had been contacted by law firms participating in a class action
lawsuit against the nation's drug distributors and recommended,
should the commission vote to join the class action suit, that they
work with the Montgomery-based Beasley Allen Law Firm.

Then-Dale County Commission Chairman Mark Blankenship, who is now
the city of Ozark mayor, had objected to participation in the
lawsuit at that time. "People have got to take some personal
responsibility for their actions," Blankenship said at the time the
issue was first broached.

Dale County Commissioner Charles "Chic" Gary had disagreed with
Blankenship at that time and made the motion to authorize Steagall
to proceed with joining with legal action through the Beasley Allen
law firm. Dale County Commissioner Frankie Wilson seconded the
motion which subsequently passed.

"The pharmaceutical companies need to take a degree of
responsibility for what they present to the Federal Drug
Administration. (Pharmaceutical companies) are partially involved
in this thing because what they are putting out there is a highly
addictive prescription versus what we've had in the past," was
Gary's statement at the 2017 meeting.

Steagall said his initial thought had been whether the opioid abuse
issue had caused damage to Dale County. "But we do have to pay
medical bills for the prisoners in jail," he had said.

Dale County will receive $32,258 for participating in the Endo
settlement. "Settlement funds must be used to prevent, treat and
support recovery from opioid addiction and any other co-occurring
substance use or mental health conditions which are all
long-lasting (chronic) diseases that can cause major health, social
and economic problems at the individual, family, community and/or
state level," according to the settlement agreement. "The opioid
epidemic is ongoing, both in terms of research on the efficacy and
efficiency of known strategies and in innovative programs at the
federal, state and political subdivision levels."

In other business, the commission voted to amend the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security—CARES—Act Community
Development Block Grant Coronavirus funds designed to assist
communities with addressing the impact and prevention of COVID 19.
The commission amended the grant project to include the purchase of
radios for the town of Midland City, instead of a van; construction
of a decontamination room and equipment purchase, instead of a
stretcher purchase for the town of Napier Field; and construction
of a decontamination room, instead of equipment purchase for the
town of Pinckard. The amount of funds allotted for each
municipality will remain the same as in the original grant request.
Any additional costs will be the responsibility of the respective
municipalities.

The next meeting of the Dale County Commission was scheduled for
Jan. 25 in the Dale County Government Building. A work session was
set to begin at 10 a.m. and was expected to be followed immediately
by a voting meeting. Both meetings were open to the public. [GN]

EXECU/SEARCH GROUP: General Pretrial Mng't Order Entered in Reid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONA REID v. THE
EXECU/SEARCH GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00469-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:

   1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
      must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
      discovery set by the Court.

   2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions
      requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly
      after the need for such an application arises and must
      comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of
      Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

   3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
      conferences are not required, but may be requested where
      counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
      may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

   4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
      proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
      extend a deadline must be made in writing and in
      compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual
      Practices.

Founded in 1985, The Execu|Search Group is full-service
recruitment, temporary staffing, and workforce management solutions
firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FP0e4V at no extra charge.[CC]

FAST ENTERPRISES: Review of Summary Judgment in Cahoo Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, and
MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs v. FAST ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG
GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, and SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY,
Defendants, Case No. 17-10657 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, denied the Defendants' motion to reconsider.

The Defendants sought reconsideration of the Court's order in March
2021 denying the motions for summary judgment by Defendants Fast
Enterprises LLC and CSG Government Solutions, except with respect
to former Plaintiff Hyon Pak.

I. Background

On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint for damages allegedly caused by the Michigan Unemployment
Insurance Agency (UIA)'s implementation of an automated system
called the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS), which
was used to make fraud determinations and to detect and punish
individuals who submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance claims.
The case was brought against the UIA and some of its employees, and
two contractors, defendants CSG Government Solutions and FAST
Enterprises LLC, and their employees, who played key roles in the
development and implementation of MiDAS.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the Court
dismissed several individual defendants and several counts, leaving
intact the Plaintiffs' due process, equal protection, and Fourth
Amendment claims against certain defendants. The State defendants
appealed the decision arguing qualified immunity, and the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the Court's decision with respect to the
Plaintiffs' due process claims only. The parties then agreed to
dismiss the equal protection and Fourth Amendment claims against
all the Defendants.

The parties engaged in another round of motion practice. On April
24, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification; the Court
denied the motion. CSG and FAST moved to dismiss the complaint,
raising jurisdiction and real-party-in interest arguments; the
Court denied those motions. All parties also filed motions for
summary judgment, which the Court denied except as to certain
individual State defendants, who were dismissed from the lawsuit.
As a result of these and other decisions, only one procedural due
process claim remains against CSG and FAST and two UIA
supervisors.

In the opinion denying the motions to dismiss, the Court determined
that CSG and FAST were state actors for the purposes of the
Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims. FAST and CSG raised the issue
again post-discovery in their motions for summary judgment, but the
Court did not address that question again in its opinion on those
motions. Additionally, with respect to FAST, the Court found that a
"question of fact remains about whether FAST helped develop the
content of the questionnaires and fraud determinations," thereby
precluding summary judgment on the claims against it.

FAST and CSG filed the present motions for reconsideration of the
Court's summary judgment opinion and order. Two weeks later, the
State Defendants filed a notice of appeal, but that notice does not
affect FAST's and CSG's present motions.

II. Discussion

CSG argues that the Court erred by not addressing its argument that
it is not a state actor that it raised for the first time after
discovery closed in its summary judgment motion. It contends that
the "joint action" tests require a showing of a civil conspiracy,
which never occurred, and that the plaintiffs essentially abandoned
their original theory that CSG was entwined with the State. FAST
presents similar arguments in its reconsideration motion.

Judge Lawson opines that the Defendants are correct that the Court
did not address at summary judgment their arguments that they
cannot be held liable as state actors under Section 1983. However,
it was not a winning argument.

1. CSG

CSG's argument that it is not a state actor under section 1983
relies on a narrow and inaccurate reading of the various
state-actor tests. It argues, essentially, that the entanglement
test requires a showing of either conspiracy or entwinement, and
that the Plaintiffs have abandoned the latter theory. But the law
is not so exacting.

The fact remains that Clay Tierney, a state employee and Director
of the Agency's Office of Technology and Modernization, served as
"the dotted line supervisor" of CSG employees on the project, to
whom the State delegated the responsibility of keeping the project
on task and working with state employees in UIA's Detroit office.
The state worked hand in hand with CSG to develop and implement the
robofraud-adjudication system. CSG's ultimate function was "help
administer and organize what the agency has decided it wants or
needs in functionality." Its employees were co-located with state
employees, used state email addresses, and worked on and led teams
comprised of both CSG and UIA staff. CSG's arguments therefore do
not contradict the Court's finding that CSG was entwined with the
State, Judge Lawson opines.

There also is no merit in CSG's argument that the Plaintiffs
abandoned their original entwinement theory. Judge Lawson finds
that the Plaintiffs raised that exact theory in their response in
opposition to CSG's motion for summary judgment. CSG also
mistakenly believes that the plaintiffs must establish a civil
conspiracy to show state action. A civil conspiracy is a sufficient
means of showing entwinement, but it is not a necessary condition.
The Plaintiffs adduced facts that tend to show concerted action by
demonstrating that CSG "works so closely with state agencies that
it is difficult to delineate between them," to the point that "the
government is 'entwined in the private entity's management or
control.'" This nexus between the state and the challenged action
far exceeds "mere cooperation," contract, authorization,
restriction, or funding, and it is enough to demonstrate that CSG
is a state actor that may be subject to suit under section 1983.

2. FAST

FAST also argues that the discovery demonstrates it is not a state
actor under any of the applicable tests. It insists that it merely
provided software for the State under its contractual obligations
and that State officials do not work for or control it. The record,
however, tells a different story, Judge Lawson finds.

First, as with CSG, there is no question that the administration of
unemployment benefits is a power traditionally reserved to the
State. Second, FAST's contract suggests that it was "entwined" with
the State and played a significant role in developing its MiDAS
system. Third, the record suggests that the State was heavily
involved in FAST's "management or control." And even if FAST lacked
final authority over key aspects of the project, Judge Lawson holds
that the record establishes a "nexus" between FAST's conduct
developing MiDAS and its forms and the State's implementation of
MiDAS such that FAST is "entwined" with the State.

FAST also asks the Court to revisit its argument that it did not
cause any of the Plaintiffs' injuries because (1) the remaining
plaintiffs did not receive the deficient notices or questionnaires
FAST allegedly designed; and (2) the UIA found fraud based on
non-responses to questionnaires before its involvement with FAST.
It raised substantially the same arguments in its prior motions.
Now, it contends that the Court's ruling is erroneous because it is
based on the incorrect premise that the questionnaires and content
of the notices provide the basis for the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Lawson holds that as the Court observed in its opinion
addressing the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the
record is unclear "as to how the deficiencies in the notices
affected the individual Plaintiffs." Each of the remaining
claimant's claim files showed that individuals checked their MiWAM
accounts around the times the notices were sent. The record,
therefore, allows a fair inference that the Plaintiffs were
influenced by the contents of the notices even though they had no
current recollection of receiving them. Without more evidence
establishing whether and how the Plaintiffs were impacted by the
deficient questionnaires and notices, the Court correctly denied
FAST summary judgment.

Judge Lawson further holds that it is also true that the UIA
developed its policy of determining fraud based on a claimant's
failure to respond before it began working with FAST. But, the fact
remains that FAST had a role in instituting and maintaining this
potentially problematic policy. Therefore, there is no basis to
reconsider FAST's causation argument.

III. Disposition

Judge Lawson concludes that Defendants CSG and FAST have not shown
that there is a proper basis to reconsider the opinion and order
denying their motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, their
motions for reconsideration are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mryv6jrm from Leagle.com.


FINAL EXPENSE: Abramson Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Final Expense Direct,
Inc. The case is styled as Stewart Abramson, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v.
Final Expense Direct, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00045-PLD (W.D. Pa.,
Jan. 7, 2022).

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

Final Expense Direct -- https://finalexpensedirect.com/ -- is a
life insurance agency in Houston, Texas who offer affordable final
expense policies that meet the needs of each individual.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
          403 S. Allen St., Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Phone: (814) 234-2626
          Email: jjackson@bower-law.com


FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 18 disclosed that
a federal class action security lawsuit has been filed against
FirstCash Holdings, Inc. ("FirstCash" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
FCFS) in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired FirstCash securities between February 1, 2018
and November 12, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the shares of FirstCash Holdings, 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 FirstCash Holdings, Inc., you may,
no later than March 15, 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
FirstCash Holdings, Inc.

In September 2016, the Company, then known as First Cash Financial
Services Inc., finalized its merger with pawnshop provider and
payday lender Cash America International, Inc. ("Cash America").
Following the merger, the combined company changed its name to
FirstCash Inc. Similarly, following a December 2021 merger with
lending company American First Finance, the Company again changed
its name to FirstCash Holdings, Inc.

The Military Lending Act ("MLA") provides protections for
active-duty service members and their dependents in connection with
the extension of consumer credit. Among other protections, the MLA
limits the interest rates that may be charged on consumer loans to
active-duty armed forces members and their covered dependents to no
more than 36%. Further, the MLA prohibits lenders from requiring
covered parties to submit to arbitration, as well as imposing other
limitations.

In November 2013, Cash America entered into a Consent Order with
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") for making loans
to covered members of the military or their dependents in violation
of the MLA, violations relating to debt collection, failure to
prevent or timely detect problematic conduct due to inadequate
internal compliance, and failure to maintain required records (the
"Order"). In the Order, Cash America agreed to cease and desist
from the violations and to implement a plan designed to ensure its
future compliance with the terms of the Order. The CFPB fined Cash
America $5 million and ordered it to deposit $8 million into an
account in order to provide redress to affected consumers.

In 2015, the Department of Defense expanded the MLA to cover more
credit products, including pawn loans. Newly covered creditors,
which included pawn brokers, had until October 3, 2016 to bring
their operations into compliance with the new rules.

In response to the expansion of the MLA, which prohibited the
Company from issuing loans with interest rates higher than 36%,
FirstCash claimed that it was "unable to offer any of its current
credit products, including pawn loans, to members of the U.S.
military or their dependents." The Company also claimed throughout
the Class Period that it employed robust systems, policies, and
procedures to ensure its regulatory compliance and adherence to
applicable laws, rules and regulations governing its business,
including the MLA.

On November 12, 2021, the CFPB filed a lawsuit alleging that
FirstCash and its subsidiary, Cash America West, Inc., had violated
the MLA by charging higher than the allowable 36% annual percentage
rate on over 3,600 pawn loans to more than 1,000 active-duty
service members and their dependents. The CFPB also alleged that
FirstCash had violated the 2013 CFPB Order prohibiting future MLA
violations, which remained in effect and applied to FirstCash
following the September 2016 merger of the Company and First Cash
America.

As a result of these revelations, the price of FirstCash stock
plummeted over $7 per share, or 8%, in a single day to close at
$78.64 per share on November 12, 2021 on abnormally high trading
volume.

The stock continued to fall in subsequent days as the market
digested the news, dropping another $10 per share by November 18,
2021.

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.

Contact:

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

FLAMBEAU INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flambeau, Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Flambeau, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00511 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Flambeau -- https://www.flambeau.com/ -- offers a network of
professionals ready to provide customer assistance in design and
specifications of injection molded and blow molded thermoplastic
components, products, building of tools / tooling and fixtures, and
contract manufacturing of complete assemblies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


FOUNDATIONS HEALTH: Cleveland Seeks Extension of Time to Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NIKIESHA CLEVELAND, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FOUNDATIONS
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01713-CAB (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week
extension of time for her to file reply to Defendant's Response to
Motion for Conditional Certification.

The Plaintiff's reply is currently due on January 25, 2022. The
Plaintiff also requests an additional one-week extension to file
her response to Defendant's Motion to Strike or Disregard Evidence.
The Plaintiff's response is currently due on February 1, 2022. The
Plaintiff requests that she be permitted to file her reply in
support of her Motion for Conditional Certification and her
response to Defendant's Motion to Strike or Disregard Evidence on
or before February 8, 2022. The Defendant does not oppose this
request, the lawsuit says.

Foundations Health specializes in physical therapy, skilled nursing
and hospice care services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3ApvhmL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                  hans@ohlaborlaw.com


GARRISON PROPERTY: Fortson Wins Reconsideration Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH V. FORTSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GARRISON
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00294-CCE-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order that:

   1. Ms. Fortson's motion for reconsideration is granted and
      the court's order is vacated and withdrawn.

   2. Garrison's motion for summary judgment is granted in
      remaining part and Ms. Fortson's claims for breach of
      contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith
      and fair dealing are dismissed.

   3. Ms. Fortson's motion for class certification is denied as
      moot.

   4. Garrison's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
      withdrawn.

   5. The motions in limine are denied as moot.

   6. The motion to quash subpoena duces tecum, is denied as
      moot.

Garrison Property operates as an insurance company. The Company
provides property and casualty insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KyaJgG at no extra charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Chimicles Schwartz Investigates Engine Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner Donaldson-Smith is investigating a
potential class action related to reports that both the 2021 Chevy
Silverado and 2021 GMC Sierra can suffer from major engine failure
requiring an engine rebuild or replacement. [GN]


GENEXA INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genexa Inc. The case
is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Genexa Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00510
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Genexa -- https://www.genexa.com/ -- is the world's first and only
clean medicine company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


GINA GROUP: Filing for Class Certification Bids Due Feb. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HYEYOON JUNG v. GINA
GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-08624-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's request to compel production of the names
      and wage notices for "all" employees is denied without
      prejudice.

   2. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by
      February 25, 2022.

   3. The parties' request for a conference regarding the use of
      an interpreter at Plaintiff’s deposition is denied as moot

      based on the parties' representation that they have
      resolved that dispute.

   4. By January 27, 2022, the parties shall file a joint status
      letter with a proposed schedule for the conclusion of
      discovery.

Gina Group manufactures, retails, and distributes hosiery and
accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fM9Lz8 at no extra charge.[CC]

GONSALVES & SANTUCCI: N.D. California Tosses Rodriguez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELMER N. RODRIGUEZ, an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GONSALVES & SANTUCCI, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-07874-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco Division, entered an Order:

   (1) granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case; and
   (2) denying the Plaintiffs' the motion for remand as moot.

I. Introduction

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff -- a construction
worker -- sued his former employer in state court, claiming
violations of California wage-and-hours laws governing overtime
pay, minimum wage, meal-and-rest breaks, payment of wages on
termination, accurate wage statements, reimbursement of expenses,
and vacation pay. The Defendant-employer removed the case to
federal court and then moved to dismiss on the grounds that Section
201 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) preempted the
claims because they either (1) involve rights conferred directly by
the parties' collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) or (2)
substantially depend on analysis and interpretation of the CBA. The
Plaintiffs moved to remand for lack of preemption or diversity
jurisdiction.

II. Background

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant on construction projects
from February 2020 to December 2020 and was a member of a CBA
governing ironworkers' employment. The 2017 CBA covered July 1,
2017, to June 30, 2020, and the 2020 CBA covered July 1, 2020, to
Dec. 31, 2024.

The CBA provides that the union is the employees' exclusive
bargaining representative and sets forth the work covered under the
CBA. Covered work includes the minimum hourly and overtime
compensation for the plaintiff and the putative class, scheduled
wage increases, the hours of work, and meal and rest periods. The
CBA defines how pay is distributed and the content of the pay
statements.

The CBA addresses expense reimbursements. It addresses vacation
pay, which is provided under the California Field Iron Workers
Vacation/Personal Time Off Plan. The CBA also provides grievance
procedures for disputes.

The class-action complaint has the following claims: (1) failure to
pay overtime pay (claim one); (2) failure to pay minimum wages
(claim two); (3) failure to provide meal and rest breaks (claims
three and four); (4) failure to pay all wages on termination (claim
five); (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements (claim six);
(6) failure to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802 (claim seven); (7)
failure to pay vested vacation pay in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 227.3 (claim eight); and (8) a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Labor Code Section 17200,
predicated on the underlying Labor Code violations (claim nine).
The complaint does not mention the CBA or whether the Plaintiff
invoked the dispute-resolution process.

The Defendant removed the case to federal court and then moved to
dismiss it as preempted by the LMRA. The Plaintiff moved to remand
the case to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. The Court
held a hearing on Dec. 23, 2021. All parties consented to
magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 636.

III. Analysis

The Complaint has the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime
pay (claim one); (2) failure to pay minimum wages (claim two); (3)
failure to provide meal and rest breaks (claims three and four);
(4) failure to pay all wages on termination (claim five); (5)
failure to provide accurate wage statements (claim six); (6)
failure to reimburse employees for necessary expenditures in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802 (claim seven); (7)
failure to pay vested vacation pay in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Section 227.3 (claim eight); and (8) a violation of California's
UCL based on the Labor Code violations.

All are preempted, Judge Beeler holds.

First, the Plaintiff alleges a failure to pay overtime wages (claim
one) in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 510. But Section 510
does not apply to an employee covered by a valid CBA "if the
agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and
working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides
premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular
hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent
more than the state minimum wage."

Second, similarly, the Plaintiff's right to meal breaks (claim
three) is conferred by the CBA because the CBA satisfies the
statutory exemption to meal periods under Cal. Labor Code Section
512(e). Under the California Labor Code, the requirements for meal
periods are set forth in Cal. Labor Code Section 512(a) and (b).
The CBA satisfies the statutory exemption in Section 512(e) because
it provides for wages, hours of work, and working conditions, and
it provides a right to meal periods. The Plaintiff's assertion that
he has an independent state right to meal periods is wrong.

Third, the right to rest periods (claim four) is conferred by the
CBA too because it satisfies the exemption to rest periods under
Industrial Welfare Commission Order 16-2001 (IWC Wage Order 16).
The rest periods do not apply "to any employee covered by a valid
collective bargaining agreement if the collective bargaining
agreement provides equivalent protection." Thus, the Plaintiff's
right to rest periods is conveyed solely by the CBA. Even if the
CBA does not exempt the claim, resolution of the claim still
requires an analysis of the CBA given that it defines how rest
periods will be paid.

Fourth, the LMRA preempts the claim for failure to timely pay final
wages under Cal. Labor Code Sections 201 through 203 (claim five)
because the CBA has different pay arrangements. The CBA provided
that the regular payday was once a week "on the day agreed upon
between" the employer and the union. For laid-off or terminated
employees, they are "laid off or discharged at the site of
construction and paid in full" immediately, by check or other
defined means, and if required to go elsewhere (such as to the
employer's office), they are paid for the time to get there. Also,
the CBA provides for penalties if workers are not paid during usual
working hours, including overtime pay for extra time spent on the
job site or for delay. These are alternate pay arrangements that
apply to the regular payment of wages and payment of final wages
and include penalties for failure to comply with the CBA's terms.
This right to payment thus arises under the CBA and not state law.

Fifth, the CBA also provides the Plaintiff's right to receive
vested vacation time (claim eight) at the time of termination under
Cal. Labor Code Section 227.3. Under Section 227.3, "unless
otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement," vested
vacation time is paid as wages upon an employee's termination of
employment. The CBA references the applicable vacation plan
requires employer contributions at a defined hourly rate to the
plan, and prohibits employers from paying vacation benefits
directly. Because the CBA is an alternate contract for vacation
pay, Section 227.3 does not apply, and the LMRA preempts the
claims.

Sixth, the claims for unpaid wages, whether overtime, straight
time, or minimum wage (claims one, two, and five) substantially
depend on an analysis of the CBA. The agreement details the hours
of work, hourly rates, workdays, and shift work. CBA addresses
compensation for activities such as show-up expenses or actual
hours worked. At minimum, resolution of the claims requires
interpretation of CBA terms such as "actual hours worked" and "show
up expenses." Thus, the unpaid wages claim turns on the analysis of
the CBA and interpretation of its terms. "Determining the meaning
of industry terms is a form of interpretation." The LMRA thus
preempts these claims that are substantially dependent on analysis
of the CBA.

Seventh, the failure to pay business expenses (claim seven)
substantially depends on an analysis of the CBA. The Plaintiff
claims an entitlement for reimbursement for purchasing mandatory
work uniforms, safety equipment, laundering the uniforms, mileage
and gas costs, use of cell phones, and tools. The CBA provides for
reimbursable expenses for mileage and gas, and the terms about
mileage and routes require analysis and interpretation. Similarly,
it provides for workers to furnish some equipment and the employer
to provide housing for certain equipment and safety equipment.
Resolution of the claim turns on the analysis of the CBA and
interpretation of its terms, and the LMRA thus preempts these
claims that are substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA.

Eighth, the derivative claims for waiting time penalties, failure
to pay final wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 203,
failure to provide accurate statements, and the UCL claim (claims
five, six, and nine) depend on the outcome of the other claims.
Those underlying claims require analysis and interpretation of the
CBA. The LMRA preempts these derivative claims that are
substantially dependent on analysis of the CBA.

Finally, the Plaintiff pleaded no facts that he exhausted the CBA's
grievance process.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Beeler dismissed the claims because the LMRA preempts them.
The Plaintiff asked for leave to amend, and Judge Beeler gave leave
to amend by Feb. 8, 2022. She denied the motion to remand as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4cnfussp from Leagle.com.


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Legal Desire reports that a California-based Latham team achieved
full dismissal of a shareholder class action against GoodRx, which
focuses on providing consumers with free information that enables
them to identify and secure lower prescription drug prices. On
January 6, 2022, Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of
California issued a detailed opinion and order dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs, represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Pomerantz LLP, asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K. The claims arose from
GoodRx's disclosures both in connection with and after its IPO.
Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to recover for alleged losses after
Amazon announced the launch of its PrimeRx service and discount
card program in November 2020, programs that Plaintiffs claimed
would compete with GoodRx. Plaintiffs claimed that GoodRx knew or
should have known that Amazon would enter the market as a
competitor, and therefore should have disclosed that information in
its Registration Statement.

Judge Carter issued a comprehensive decision granting GoodRx's
motion to dismiss in its entirety. Perhaps most importantly, Judge
Carter provided important precedent on the proper measurement of
damages in Section 11 cases. In the motion to dismiss, Latham
argued that Plaintiffs could not have suffered Section 11 damages
because GoodRx's share price never fell below its IPO price of
US$$33 per share. Plaintiffs countered by claiming that despite the
stock price, the IPO price did not accurately reflect the value of
GoodRx's stock, which was inflated as a result of GoodRx's
purported misstatements and omissions. The court sided with Latham,
dismissing the Section 11 claim and holding that Section 11's
language is clear that the starting point for damages is the price
that Plaintiffs actually paid for the stock, capped at the IPO
price. Judge Carter then dismissed all of the plaintiffs' remaining
claims, holding that GoodRx's statements were not false and
misleading because GoodRx had warned of the possibility of future
competition, and the plaintiffs failed to allege that GoodRx or its
executives had any knowledge of Amazon's plans prior to Amazon's
announcement.

This result was achieved by partners Michele Johnson (OC) and
Colleen Smith (SD), associates Jordan Cook (OC), Morgan Whitworth
(Bay Area), Sheridan Caldwell (Bay Area), and Ashley Gebicke (SD),
with invaluable assistance from paralegal Karen Patterson (OC) and
litigation services senior coordinator Khadijah Fields (OC). [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: May Face Suit Over G Suite Legacy Account Shutdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
Google recently announced that it would kill its free legacy G
Suite account program, which allowed those that snuck in before
2012 to get free Google apps services tied to a custom domain
rather than Gmail. Plenty of people used this free service for
their personal accounts, but when Google announced the shutdown, it
left all of those customers (and purchases tied to those accounts)
in the lurch: Either they would have to cough up the cash for a
paid subscription to keep their stuff tied to a fully working
account, as before, or accept using a broken and suspended account
on the side while moving to a standard Gmail address. That seemed
pretty bogus to us, and the attorneys at Chimicles Schwartz Kriner
& Donaldson-Smith agree, as they're opening an investigation into
the matter for a potential class-action lawsuit.

If the name sounds familiar, that's because we've covered the firm
before. They're the company that sued Google for the Nexus 6P's
early shutdown and bootlooping issues, the Nexus 5X's bootloops,
the 2016 Pixel's microphone problems, and the more Pixel 3 news.
You may also know them from the Nintendo Joy-Con drift class-action
- it's a well-known firm for these big tech class action lawsuits.
And now they've set their sights on Google's legacy G Suite
shutdown.

No lawsuit has been filed yet; the attorneys involved are just
collecting information for a potential lawsuit in the future once
all the facts are straight (and Google has had time to reconsider
its actions).

When we covered the original news of the legacy G Suite shutdown,
it seemed unreasonable to us, because customers using those legacy
accounts are unable to transfer purchases or things like
grandfathered subscription discounts to new accounts. When we asked
if moving purchases between accounts might be possible, a Google
representative confirmed it wasn't:

"No, customers cannot move those subscriptions and purchases to a
free Google Account. If a customer does not wish to upgrade, they
will not be asked to forfeit their login credentials, and they will
not lose access to other Google services, such as YouTube, Photos
and Google Play, nor paid content, including YouTube and Play Store
purchases. They will be able to continue to log into their Google
services and third-party sites with Google credentials. If a
customer does not upgrade, only core services in a customer's
Google Workspace subscription, such as Gmail, Calendar, Drive, and
Meet, will be suspended. In this state, users won't be able to
receive or send email, including authenticating password resets via
email. Without access to Gmail in the suspended state, we recommend
customers use a different email to send and receive email messages,
including changing logins and authenticating new passwords."

That means years of purchases tied to Google Play - potentially
hundreds to thousands of dollars of assets like movie and music
purchases for a given customer, across thousands of affected
customers - could be tied to broken accounts because of the
transition. Google explicitly confirmed to us that was the case,
though customers could elect to keep using their broken suspended
account alongside a working one.

In essence, everyone that migrated to one of these accounts while
they were still offered (from 2006 at least until 2012, so far as I
can tell) will have to pay extra money to keep their existing
purchases tied to a fully working account, and we think that's
pretty ridiculous. Attorney Benjamin F Johns, a partner at the firm
Chimicles et al., tells us he agrees:

"This appears to be a classic bait and switch strategy: lure people
and businesses into signing up for a purportedly free service and
then, years after customers have become accustomed to using their G
Suite accounts, force them to make the untenable choice between
paying for that service or essentially losing access to it. Just
imagine if Facebook suddenly started charging its users."

Again, no suit has been filed yet, and Google could yet circumvent
any of these issues by simply allowing customers to move their
purchases and subscriptions to another fully functional account or
by continuing to allow customers to use their old G Suite accounts
for free - though the latter seems less likely.

Many of our readers used free legacy G Suite accounts tied to a
custom domain for their personal accounts. All those affected can
reach out to the attorneys involved in the case should they like to
participate in any future class actions that could develop from it.
[GN]

GOOGLE LLC: PGMBM Discusses Supreme Court Ruling in Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Tyerman, PGMBM Associate, discusses Lloyd v Google LLC [2021,

In the high-profile case of Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, the
Supreme Court handed down its final judgment in November 2021.

Following a two-day hearing, the judgment overturned the Court of
Appeal's decision to allow Mr Lloyd to continue his representative
action against Google.

The case attracted a great deal of interest from lawyers and
consumer rights groups as it could have allowed a group action to
be brought on behalf of many claimants for loss of control of
personal data, without each claimant needing to be individually
identified but still entitling them to compensation.

Background of the Lloyd v Google case
The claim was bought by Richard Lloyd, a former executive director
of the UK Consumers' Association, alleging Google LLC breached its
duty as a data controller under section 4(4) of the Data Protection
Act 1998 ('DPA 1998') to comply with the data protection principles
set out in Schedule 1 of the DPA 1998.

The claim alleged that between 9 August 2011 and 15 February 2012,
Google secretly tracked the internet activity of millions of Apple
iPhone users and used the data collected in this way for commercial
purposes without the users' knowledge or consent.

Google did this through the Safari internet browser developed by
Apple and installed on its iPhones.

At the relevant time, and unlike most other internet browsers,
Safari was set by default to block third-party cookies.

Cookies are small blocks of data placed on a device when the user
visits a particular webpage. Third-party cookies are not placed on
the device by the visited website, but rather a third party whose
content is included on the website. Over time, third-party cookies
can gather information about the user's internet use and then
enable the delivery of advertisements targeted to that particular
user in accordance with their browsing history.

In this case, Google's DoubleClick Ad Cookie would be placed on a
device if the user visited a website that included DoubleClick Ad
content.

The DoubleClick Ad cookie enabled Google to identify visits by the
device to any website displaying an advertisement from its vast
advertising network.

Although Safari's default settings blocked third-party cookies,
Apple devised various exceptions to allow the use of certain
popular web functions. These exceptions allowed Google to
immediately put the DoubleClick Ad Cookie on the user's device
without their knowledge or consent whenever the user visited a
website that contained DoubleClick Ad content.

Google was then able to accumulate significant personal data on the
user, which could then be passed on to the advertisers looking to
target specified groups of prospective clients.

Appellate history
The claim was brought using the representative action procedure
under CPR r 19.6. This mechanism allows a person(s) to bring a
claim on behalf of a large class of claimants provided that they
share the 'same interest'.

To have the 'same interest', claimants must have a common interest
and grievance and the main remedy sought must be beneficial to all
of them.

A representative action works on an 'opt-out' basis, whereby the
individual class members do not need to be identified proactively.
This differs from other collective redress procedures such as Group
Litigation Orders, whereby individual claimants have to 'opt-in'
and take active steps to be included in a group register for their
claim to progress as part of a wider group action.

The claim relied on section 13(1) of the DPA 1998 (the law
applicable at the time of the alleged breach), which provides a
right of compensation where an individual 'suffers damage by reason
of any contravention by a data controller of any of the
requirements of this Act'. The DPA 1998 has since been replaced by
the General Data Protection Regulation ('GDPR') and the Data
Protection Act 2018 ('DPA 2018').

High Court
In the first instance, Mr Justice Warby dismissed Mr Lloyd's
application for permission to serve Google LLC outside the
jurisdiction. He held that there was no basis of seeking
compensation because the members of the class had not suffered
'damage' within the meaning of section 13 DPA 1998, nor was the
same interest test satisfied as the members were likely to have
suffered different types of damage (or no damage at all).

Mr Justice Warby also declined to use his discretion to allow the
claim to proceed as a representative action in accordance with CPR
r 19.6(2).

Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Mr Lloyd's appeal and
granted permission to serve out of jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that damages were, in principle, capable of
being awarded for loss of control of data under section 13 DPA
1998, even if there was no financial loss or distress. It also held
the same interest test was satisfied as all members had suffered
the same loss, namely the loss of control of their browser
generated data (having disavowed any reliance on facts specific to
individuals).

The Court of Appeal exercised its discretion under CPR 19.6(2)
afresh and held that the claim was permitted to proceed as a
representative action.

Issues for the Supreme Court to consider
In light of the above, the three issues the Supreme Court broadly
needed to consider were:

Are damages recoverable under section 13 of the DPA 1998 for loss
of control of data in and of itself (i.e., where the underlying
breach does not result in any pecuniary loss or distress)?
Did the class of claimants (some 4 million individuals) share the
'same interest', as required for a representative action to proceed
in England and Wales?
If the 'same interest' test is satisfied, should the Court exercise
its discretion to disallow the representative action to proceed in
any event?

What did the Court find?
The First Issue
The Supreme Court unanimously held damages were not awardable for a
mere loss of control of personal data under the DPA 1998; the
claimant must suffer some 'damage'.

On a proper interpretation (compatibly with article 23 of the Data
Protection Directive), the term 'damage' in section 13 of the DPA
1998 refers to material damage (such as financial loss) or mental
distress. The 'damage' cannot be the unlawful processing of data
itself.

Further, the Court ruled that even if it was not necessary to show
an individual had suffered damage or distress as a result of the
unlawful processing, the extent of such unlawful processing would
depend on the individual case.

However, given the generic facts alleged by the claimant, it was
not possible to determine the damage suffered by individual
claimants and therefore get over the 'seriousness' threshold which
entitled individuals to compensation under the DPA 1998.

The Court gave examples of relevant factors which should be
considered when deciding individual damages, including:

Over what period of time the browsing history was tracked
What quantity of data was unlawfully processed
Whether any of the information was of a sensitive or private
nature
What use was made of the information
What commercial benefit, if any, obtained from such use.

These factors would clearly vary on a case-by-case basis when
determining the extent of damage suffered.

The Second Issue
The Court held that the 'same interest' test required by a
representative action was satisfied in this case. Common issues
clearly arose where an individual claim could theoretically have
been brought by each iPhone user who was affected by the
DoubleClick Ad Cookie.

The Court also stated that even if only a few individuals were
ultimately able to obtain compensation on the basis of a
declaratory judgment, that should not be a reason for refusing to
allow a representative claim to proceed for the purpose of
establishing liability.

The Court suggested a 'bifurcated process' might have been a
suitable way to handle claims of this nature. In such
circumstances, the representative action procedure would be used to
determine common issues, leaving any issues which require
individual determination - whether they relate to liability or the
amount of damages - to be dealt with at a subsequent stage of the
proceedings.

The Third Issue
The Court held it was unnecessary to decide whether the Court of
Appeal was entitled to interfere with the first instance judge's
discretionary ruling or whether it would be desirable for a
commercially funded class action to be available on the facts
alleged. This was because, regardless of what view was taken, the
claim had no real prospect of success.

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and restored the order
made by the first instance judge refusing the claimant's
application for permission to serve the proceedings on Google
outside the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

What does this mean?
The decision can be seen as a blow for the millions of consumers
affected by unlawful data processing and data breaches.

The ruling means that, under the current legal framework in England
and Wales, the most effective way to bring a successful action on
behalf of consumers affected by the loss of control of their
personal data remains an 'opt-in' representative action limited to
those claimants whose individual damages can be calculated on a
common basis.

Given how individualised the assessment of those damages can be, it
necessarily means that the availability of cost-effective redress
to large bodies of consumers affected by data breaches is
significantly restricted.

That said, it is significant the present case proceeded under the
DPA 1998 rather than the GDPR and DPA 2018.

This later legislation makes specific provisions for both material
and 'non-material' damages; in particular, loss of control over
personal data is identified as an example of possible damage
resulting from a personal data breach.

Although the Court expressly did not consider this later
legislation in the present case, the less stringent 'damage'
requirement is likely to be a key issue of contention between
parties in future claims dealing with similar issues.

The Court did acknowledge that when exercising its discretion in
allowing a claim to proceed as a representative action it must seek
to give effect to the overriding objective. They went on to say
that many of the considerations specifically included in that
objective are likely to militate in favour of allowing a claim,
where practicable, to be continued as a representative action
rather than leaving members of the class to pursue claims
individually.

Similarly, the Court's suggestion that a 'bifurcated process' may
be suitable for claims of this nature could potentially be seen as
a move towards a hybrid type of claim whereby common issues are
dealt with as part of a representative action and then individual
issues dealt with subsequently - individual claimants would
(presumably) only need to be identified once the common issues had
been determined.

This points towards a more sympathetic approach to representative
actions than is perhaps reflected in the present case. However, it
will be for the claimants (and their funders) to decide if it is
economically viable for claims to be pursued in this way. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Supreme Court Ruling in Data Breach Suit Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Frisby, Esq., and Laura Beagrie, Esq., of Surrey firm
Stevens & Bolton, in an article for Legal Futures, report that on
10 November 2021, Google received two court rulings. In one, it
successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to prevent a class action
against it for data breaches.

In the other, it failed to persuade the EU General Court to
overturn a EUR2.4bn fine from the European Commission for giving
preferential treatment to its own price-comparison shopping service
in breach of EU competition law rules.

In tandem, the tech behemoth closed and opened the door to class
actions against it.

Now the dust of the two decisions has settled, practitioners would
be wise to consider what the nuances of the courts' decisions mean
for future class actions.

What we know so far

In theory, competition law claims are much easier to bring as class
actions, as the government introduced a class action regime for
them: collective proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT).

As many readers will know, there are two big advantages. Firstly,
an opt-out procedure can be used, so proceedings are brought on
behalf of anyone who fits the specified class unless they opt out.
Secondly, legislation altering the common law means there is no
need to prove that members of the class have individually suffered
loss.

Both reduce the litigation costs, again making it much more
economic to litigate and attractive to fund.

Beyond this, it was thought that the only other way to bring a
class action was with a group action under rule 19.11 of the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR). However, those two advantages are absent
here.

Requiring claimants to opt in to the proceedings cuts down the
claimant pool drastically, and the need to provide individual loss
in damages claims increases costs, so most claims are uneconomic to
run and will not be backed by funders.

What does Google reveal

In Google's case, Mr Lloyd tried to get round these problems by
using the representative procedure set out in CPR 19.6 instead.

This allows a claim to be brought by (or against) one or more
persons as representatives of others who have the "same interest"
in the claim. The big benefit is that it is an opt-out procedure in
that, unless the court orders otherwise, the others being
represented do not need to take a positive step to be included.

The drawback, however, is that claimants must have the "same
interest" in the remedy too, which is not the case with the group
litigation order route or the CAT approach.

Mr Lloyd's claim was for breach of Google's duties as a data
controller under section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). Section 13 of the DPA gives an individual who suffers damage
by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the
requirements under the Act a right to compensation.

Mr Lloyd argued that, if the courts interpreted the word "damages"
in section 13 of the DPA to also include "loss of control" over
personal data, they could award a uniform sum to each claimant for
loss of control. The Supreme Court, however, said that the wording
and purpose of the DPA did not allow this.

An attempt to rely on uniform "user damages", assessed by
estimating what a reasonable person would have paid for the right
of user, failed for similar reasons.

However, even if individual assessment of loss was not required,
there was still a need to establish the extent of the unlawful
processing, which would be different for each claimant. Mr Lloyd
tried to argue he could claim for the "lowest common denominator",
but as this would be someone who just visited one affected website,
this would not be sufficiently serious to give rise to a section 13
claim.

The future of group claims

Has the use of the representative procedure for class actions
finished before it has even started? The Supreme Court was very far
from saying so. However, it will be extremely difficult to use
because of the damages element.

Nearly all civil claims require assessment of an individual
claimant's loss, and this is incompatible with the 'same interest'
requirement in the representative procedure.

Claims that do not require individual assessment of loss will be
very rare, as can be seen from the limited examples the Supreme
Court mentioned in its judgment of claims - a claim alleging that
every member of the class was wrongly charged a fixed fee, or where
all the class members acquired the same product with the same
defect which reduced its value by the same amount.

It is possible to get round this problem if you can calculate the
loss suffered by the class as a whole without reference to the
losses suffered by individual class members. This is what the
Supreme Court called a 'top down' approach to damages.

If so, then the representative procedure can still be used - it
will be up to the claimant pool to decide the distribution between
themselves. The circumstances when this will apply will be
relatively rare, however.

Even if the damages hurdle can be overcome, the representative
procedure, not being designed for class actions, is silent on
distribution to the class members.

The Supreme Court could see that, if the claimant is awarded
damages in a representative capacity, there may be difficulties
with regard to how such damages should be distributed, including
whether there would be any legal basis for paying part of the
damages to the litigation funders without the consent of each
individual entitled to them.

A defendant to a class action that gets this far is likely to seek
to rely on such difficulties as a reason for disallowing a
representative action.

The damages hurdle could also be overcome by using what the Supreme
Court described as a bifurcated process. Liability issues are
established using the representative procedure, and then claimants
are persuaded to bring individual damages claims.

The problem with this, however, is that no money is recovered in
the liability proceedings, so no return for the litigation funders
who would probably be needed to fund the claim.

The Supreme Court was willing to loosen the meaning of 'same
interest' requirement for the representative procedure, saying that
claimants can have divergent interests so that an issue can arise
that is only relevant to the claims of some and not others, as long
as there was no conflict of interest between them.

This flexibility is helpful generally for representative claims,
but it will not in itself help class actions.

It is therefore likely that group actions will continue to be the
procedure used for non-competition law class actions, but the
limitations on these mean the numbers of such claims will remain
small.

So, what happens now if a corporate commits a wrong that affects a
large number of people but the financial impact for each one is
small?

If it involves a breach of competition law, then there is a good
chance that those affected can come together and get funding to
bring a class action. If it involves any other kind of breach or
wrong, however, then it remains very difficult to do so.

That said, the pace of technological development is such that it
will only become more and more common that companies will commit
wrongs that will have an impact on a huge number of people, so
maybe it will eventually be the case that class actions are
introduced in other sectors. [GN]

HCA HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Set in Feb.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New developments in the class action lawsuit against HCA and
Mission Hospital. North Carolina Business Court Judge Mark Davis
has scheduled a Feb. 16, 2022, court hearing for arguments on HCA's
motion to dismiss. That hearing will be conducted in Raleigh.

The class action lawsuit, filed in August 2021 by six local
residents, claims Mission Health and HCA has a monopoly in Western
North Carolina, which has led to higher health care prices in the
mountains.

HCA recently filed a 27-page motion disputing the lawsuit's
claims.

The lawsuit originally filed with Buncombe County Superior Court
was moved to NC Business Court because of the anti-trust issues
addressed in the claims. [GN]



HOME DEPOT: Class of Non-Exempt Workers Certified in Barragan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN, ARACELI BARRAGAN, and JEREMEY
BURCHAM, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony
J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted Plaintiff Burcham's motion for class
certification.

I. Background

The wage-and-hour class action seeks to hold the Defendant liable
for unpaid overtime. Specific to the 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.

Plaintiff 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 "all
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 the action until June 20, 2018."

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

II. Discussion

A. Rule 23(a) Requirements

Judge Battglia first starts with an analysis of whether Burcham has
satisfied the Rule 23(a) elements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy. The Defendant does not raise any issues
regarding Burcham's ability to satisfy his burdens under Rule
23(a).

Judge Battglia holds that (i) the proposed class is ascertainable;
(ii) the parties stipulate that a sufficient number of employees
received a minimum Success Sharing bonus in the same period in
which they worked overtime and agree the element of numerosity may
be established; (iii) he agrees with Burcham, and the Defendant
does not contest, that questions relating to the Defendant's
policies under the Success Sharing plan are common questions of law
and fact common to the proposed class members; (iv) Burcham's
claims are typical of the class because the class has been injured
by uniform conduct -- specifically, that each of the Defendant's
hourly retail employees in California were subject to the same
failure to pay overtime on a minimum Success Sharing bonus under
the same Labor Code Section 510 violation; and (v) Burcham is an
adequate class representative.

B. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

A class may be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) if the district
court "finds 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."

The Defendant argues Burcham cannot establish predominance for two
reasons: (1) Burcham cannot establish that common issues
predominate as to liability; and (2) Burcham has no valid
class-wide damages model.

Superiority requires consideration of the following: (1) the
interest of individuals within the class in controlling their own
litigation; (2) the extent and nature of any pending litigation
commenced by or against the class involving the same issues; (3)
the convenience and desirability of concentrating the litigation in
the particular forum; and (4) the manageability of the class
action.

Judge Battglia finds that (i) because Burcham can show his and the
purported class members' damages stemmed from the Defendant's
conduct, common issues predominate as to liability; and (ii) no
management difficulties that would preclude the action from being
maintained as a class action.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Battaglia granted Burcham's
motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycktsnjh from Leagle.com.


HOME POINT: Moyer Suit Seeks to Certify Home Point Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA MOYER, RICHARD
MARTIN, TERRY PATTERSON, JR., and YVONNE MATTHEWS, et al., v. HOME
POINT FINANCIAL CORPORATION f/k/a MAVERICK FUNDING CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03449-RDB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. granting his motion for class certification;

   2. allow this action to proceed as a class action;

   3. certify the identified Home Point Class defined as:

      "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers
      on a federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the
      Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) originated by,
      brokered by, and/or otherwise obtained from Home Point
      Financial Corporation f/k/a Maverick Funding Corporation,
      for which All State Title, Inc., provided settlement
      service, as identified on the borrowers HUD-1 or Closing
      Disclosure, between January 1, 2014 and February 29,
      2016;"

      Exempted from this class is any person who, during the
      period between January 1, 2014 and February 29, 2016 was
      an employee, officer, member, and/or agent of Home Point
      Financial, Maverick Funding Corporation, or All Star
      Title, Inc.; and

   4. appointing them as Class Representatives of the class.

Home Point provides financial services. The Company offers reverse
mortgages, conventional loans, and refinancing services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s08Qkz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, Maryland 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Drew B. LaFramboise, Esq.
          Samuel P. Morse, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  dlaframboise@jgllaw.com
                   smorse@jgllaw.com

HOMETOWN AMERICA: Feb. 3 Deadline to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Case EDWIN BARTOK, et al.,
v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D.
Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order continuing
their February 3, 2022 deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification until the Court has ruled on Docs. 46, 51,
58.

On October 7, 2021, the Court issued an Electronic Order concerning
Class Certification, which required the Defendants, on or before
February 3, 2022, to submit its opposition to the pending motion of
class certification. The Court also invited Hometown to propose
additional discovery concerning the impact of lifetime lease terms
on the question of class certification and to explain why such
additional discovery is needed.

On October 15, 2021, the Defendants timely filed a Request for
Limited Additional Discovery Pertaining to the Oak Point Lifetime
Lease Terms.

On December 8, 2021, Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct
Class Certification Discovery. The Court has not yet ruled on
either filing. Rather, on December 20, 2021, the Court raised two
additional questions for the parties to address in a joint status
report.

On January 10, 2022, as requested by the Court, the parties filed
their Joint Status Report outlining two different proposals on how
the case should proceed. The Court has not yet ruled on the
parties' Joint Status Report.

The Defendants include Hometown America, LLC, Hometown America
Management, LLC, Hometown Oak Point I, LLC, Hometown Oak Point II,
LLC, Miller's Woods MHC, LLC, and River Bend MHC, LLC.

Hometown America provides real estate management services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GSQHeC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa C. Goodheart, Esq.
          Andrea Studley Knowles, Esq.
          Tristan P. Colangelo, Esq.
          SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C.
          101 Merrimac Street, Suite 900
          Boston, MA 02114-4737
          Telephone: (617) 227-3030
          E-mail: goodheart@sugarmanrogers.com
                  knowles@sugarmanrogers.com
                  colangelo@sugarmanrogers.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Simpson, Esq.
          Daniel S. Weber, Esq.
          SIMPSON, MCMAHAN, GLICK & BURFORD, PLLC
          2700 Highway 280, Suite 203W
          Birmingham, AL 24112
          Telephone: (205) 876-1600
          E-mail: wsimpson@smgblawyers.com
                  dsweber@smgblawyers.com

               - and -

          Lee E. Bains, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas W. Thagard, Esq.
          James C. Lester, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          E-mail: lbains@maynardcooper.com
                  tthagard@maynardcooper.com
                  jlester@maynardcooper.com

IDENTITY REHAB: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 21
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN TAVAREZ-VARGAS,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
IDENTITY REHAB CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-09925-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 21, 2022
     additional parties shall be
     filed no later than:

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

  -- All fact discovery shall be             May 20, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- All expert discovery, including         May 20, 2022
     reports, production of underlying
     documents, and depositions,
     shall be completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production         March 21, 2022
     of documents shall be served by:

  -- Interrogatories pursuant to             March 21, 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           June 21, 2022
     for/to class certification no
     later than:

  -- Any opposition shall be filed           July 21, 2022
     by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:            Aug. 22, 2022

  -- The next pretrial conference            May 25, 2022
     is scheduled for:

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FMKCPz at no extra charge.[CC]

JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Suit Seeks to Certify Cleaning Worker Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO
VAZQUEZ, JUAN AGUILAR, and all others similarly situated, v.
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class
certification of Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant.

This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure on the ground that the Plaintiffs and class
members, who are cleaning workers, have been misclassified as
independent contractors rather than employees and, as a result,
have suffered violations of various provisions of the Wage Order
and the Labor Code.

For instance, Plaintiffs and class members have had unlawful
deductions taken from their wages in the form of excessive and
unfair fees and charge backs in violation of California Labor Code
sections 218.5, 221.

The Plaintiffs and class members have also not been paid the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code sections 1182.11-1182.13, 15 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197, and
have not been paid overtime for hours worked beyond eight per day
or 40 per week in violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194,
1198. Nor have class members been reimbursed for necessary business
expenses such as cleaning supplies and equipment and the cost of
their own insurance in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 2802.

The Plaintiffs assert that they were actually employees under
California law and as a result of being misclassified as
independent contractors, have suffered numerous violations of the
California Labor Code and the applicable IWC wage order, by having
the above-mentioned fees deducted from their wages; being deprived
of minimum wage and overtime; and being required to pay their own
expenses necessary to do their jobs.

Jan-Pro is a national commercial cleaning company. Jan-Pro's
contracts note that it "is in the business of operating and
franchising comprehensive cleaning and maintenance businesses which
engage in the performance of complete cleaning and/or maintenance
related services, including, but not limited to, commercial,
industrial, institutional and residential cleaning or maintenance
services under the name Jan-Pro."

Jan-Pro provides professional commercial cleaning services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GTFtGN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

JEWELRY SUPPLY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jewelry Supply, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Jewelry Supply, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00316 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Jewelry Supply, Inc. -- https://www.jewelrysupply.com/ -- offers
jewelry making supplies including beads, jewelry boxes, jewelry
displays, jewelry tools, jewelry findings, swarovski crystals and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


JING FONG: Ping Mo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PING MO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JING FONG RESTAURANT, INC., WEST SIDE STORY,
INC., KIN MING LAM, TRUMAN LAM, and CHAN KAI CHUI, Case No.
161238/2021, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on January 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00530 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. is an owner and operator of a Chinese
restaurant located in New York, New York.

West Side Story, Inc. is a company doing business in New York.
[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Adam T. Simons, Esq.
         McGUIREWOODS LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 548-2100
         E-mail: asimons@mcguirewoods.com

JOHN DEERE: North Dakota Farm Files Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mikkel Pates, writing for AGWeek, reports that a North Dakota farm
filed a federal antitrust class-action lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2022,
alleging John Deere has made excess profits by preventing farmers
and independent shops from getting access to diagnostic software
for repairs.

Forest River Farms in Forest River, North Dakota, about 30 miles
northwest of Grand Forks, owned by Robert Blair, has asked for a
jury trial. The plaintiffs seek the company to "disgorge" excessive
charges and damages for unfair repair charges from John Deere
dealers beginning on Jan. 12, 2018, to the present. The plaintiffs
say only John Deere knows many class members exist but suggests
"thousands."

No John Deere lawyers are listed in court documents. A message left
with Jennifer Hartmann, director of strategic public relations and
enterprise social media, was not immediately returned.

Uncertain class
Forest River Farms Inc., was established April 22, 2004. The
company's agent name is Blair, according to the North Dakota
Secretary of State's office. A son, Luke J. Blair, is associated
with the farm. Separately, in 2016 Luke established Blair Farm &
Seed in nearby Gilby, North Dakota.

Agweek was unable to reach the farm by phone. Kenneth A. Wexler in
Chicago is heading the farm's legal team, advised Agweek not to
"directly" contact the farm. Wexler promised to refer questions to
colleagues but did not immediately do so. Among the questions are
whether there will be other named plaintiffs, or if the class has
been approved. The judges have not yet certified the class.

According to documents in the case the lawsuit is assigned to Judge
Martha M. Pacold in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern Illinois, and designated as magistrate judge Judge Maria
Valdez. The suit alleges Deere & Co. (John Deere), based in Moline,
Illinois, has monopolized the repair service market for John Deere
brand agricultural equipment with onboard central computers known
as engine control units, or ECUs.

The plaintiffs said that of 1,544 Dealerships affiliated with
Deere, 91% are owned by a "Big Dealer," defined as a dealer that
"owns five or more individual locations," the suit said. Out of the
top ten dealers listed in the suit, two are based in North Dakota
— RDO Equipment, with 32 locations in nine states and Brandt
Holdings, with 32 locations in five states.

Significantly, the suit is against not only Deere itself, but also
the company's wholly-owned subsidiaries and dealerships "and/or
conspirators" including "independently-owned (John Deere)
dealerships."

Corner on repairs
The 52-page complaint alleges John Deere has monopolized repairs
for John Deere equipment with "onboard central computers known as
engine control units," or ECUs, by making "crucial software and
repair tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops."
Elsewhere in the suit, they described this as a "boycott" of the
information.

The plaintiffs allege the company's "highly-consolidated
independent dealerships" are not permitted "through their
agreements with Deere" to provide farmers and repair shops with
access to the same software and repair tools. John Deere has
"cornered" the "multi-billion dollar" repair market for their
machines and has "derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of
repair and maintenance services."

John Deere is the No. 1 manufacturer of ag equipment but also sells
construction equipment. The other large manufacturers are CNH Inc.
and AGCO The plaintiffs allege Deere's repair business is "three to
six times more profitable than its sales of original equipment."
From 2013 to 2019, Deere's parts sales went up 22% while total ag
equipment sales declined 19%.

In 2000, Deere's net income was about $500 million. Projected net
income in 2021 was $5.7 billion — 11 times its income in 2000,
and twice its net income of $2.75 billion in 2020.

The plaintiffs allege Deere requires proprietary software and
repair tools to complete many repairs. For example, a tractor owner
can replace the transmission but the tractor won't operate unless
Deere software "approves the newly-installed part.

"This allows dealers to charge and collect "supracompetitive prices
for its services every time a piece of equipment requires the
software to diagnose or complete a repair."

Plaintiffs allege that a trade group "representing Deere" in 2018
made a "highly-publicized promise " to make software tools
available by January 2021, but that "investigative journalists"
could not verify that ever happened.

Iron 'tying' deals
Customers have purchased "extremely expensive tractors," and the
company locks them into "paying for expensive and inconvenient"
repairs through dealers, with a "tying arrangement," where service
is tied to the initial purchase, the lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs ask that the Deere Repair Services Market be
"enjoined and dismantled." John Deere machines run "firmware" that
has become as vital to basic functioning as a "steering wheel or an
engine." The ECU monitors sensors. (The S7760 combine has 126
sensors) Error messages put the machines into "limp mode" which
prevent full operation until the "error code is cleared."

In about 2000, Deere tractors started using Controller Area Network
bus ("CAN bus") systems. Dealer technicians can use laptop
computers to plug into the system using a "Service ADVISOR"
computer program. This requires mechanics and farmers to call the
dealership to send a technician to "repair, or clear fault codes,"
which can lead to lost time and crop losses.

The plaintiffs say that as of 2021, Deere's repair services are
$150 to $180 per hour for travel and parts. When a farmer calls a
dealer for repair, the farmer "is at the mercy of the dealer's
schedule" and must pay pay "whatever the cost is -- including
travel expenses -- even if the problem could be fixed in 15 minutes
with the access to the software."

Fosston dealer
The plaintiffs assert John Deere is forcing dealer consolidations.
In the court case, they quoted a 2009 story in Agweek , where Roy
Dufault, whose family had owned a dealership since 1969 at Fosston,
Minnesota, was quoted as saying Deere had told him to "get out of
the way" to allow large dealers to grow. Customers then worried
about dealer access and in 2021 there is "not a Deere Dealership
within 20 miles of Fosston, and none within 100 miles that are not
owned by a Big Dealer."

In the past decade, the industry-wide number of agricultural
equipment stores owned by big dealers increased by 59%, and that
91% of John Deere's "independent" dealerships are owned by big
dealers. "Deere dictates who the purchaser can be, funneling
dealership sales to preferred big dealers" and will "terminate its
affiliation with the dealership altogether if the dealership
refuses to sell to the specified buyers," the lawsuit says.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs quote an unnamed farmer from an
unnamed location who complained: "I can go to a JD dealer 20 miles
away. Or one 40 miles away in another direction. Or 80 miles away
in a different direction. But they all have the same name. All
owned by the same franchise. So, I get 10 to 15 choices all of
which are exactly the same."

Turning points
The plaintiffs listed a number of alleged "right-to-repair" turning
points:

2015: Deere argued it can prevent tractor purchasers from
"bypassing Technical Protection Measures" to perform "repair, or
aftermarket personalization, modification or other improvement"
because the owners didn't "actually own the software." The U.S.
Copyright Office disagreed.

2016: Deere issued an end-user "License Agreement for John Deere
Embedded Software," forbidding customers from "accessing,
reverse-engineering or modifying the software running on its
tractors."

2018: Equipment Dealers Association (EDA) a trade and lobbying
group for Deere and other manufactures that "often acts as Deere's
mouthpiece" promised to stave off "right to repair legislation"
around the country by making repair tools, software and diagnostics
available to the public by Jan. 1, 2021.

2018: "Vice Motherboard" , a magazine, reported the new EDA
commitment "contained several carve-outs that allow tractor
manufacturers to continue using software locks that could prevent
repair." A spokesman for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers
in Milwaukee, "another manufacturers' lobbying and trade group that
often represents Deere," told Vice that repair and diagnostic
information is available through "the vast majority" of "authorized
dealers" for manufacturers, but then didn't respond when asked for
a "single instance" where that is the case.

2021: Natalie Higgins, former vice president of government
relations, and currently as manager for state public affairs for
John Deere, in an Ag Equipment Intelligence magazine article on
March 30, 2021, blamed a "lack of communication" for the
availability of resources. The EDA has sponsored a webinar about
"reasons the EDA opposes Right to Repair."

Deere added a web page for "Customer Service ADVISOR." One dealer
described it as a way customers could access "much of the same"
information used by dealership technicians. The plaintiffs allege
this is a "pared-down" system with costs that "start at $8,500 for
the first year alone."

Security risks?
The plaintiffs say the Federal Trade Commission in May 2021
reported to Congress that ag equipment manufacturers had "scant
evidence" to rationalize repair restrictions, based on "security
risks." They said manufacturers provided "no empirical evidence"
that providing tools to independent repair shops caused
"reputational harm" or liability. They note the automotive industry
has been providing similar information to vehicle owners and
independent repair shops for eight years.

John Deere allegedly asserted that providing the software and
repair tools would "allow farmers to bypass emissions and safety
controls," but the FTC said there is a "clear difference between
resetting an error code and ignoring or overriding safety codes."

The FTC said that "in order to override emission controls on a
tractor, the entire operating system on the machine would have to
be erased and then replaced with new, modified software that either
does not have emissions and safety controls or allows a farmer to
ignore them." This would be illegal and separate from the issue of
access to software and not what is being lawyers wrote.

While John Deere has claimed repair software is becoming more
available, the plaintiffs said there are "plenty of examples" where
that isn't true.

In 2020, they quote a so-far unnamed independent shop in Nebraska
that reported "about half" of the repairs he sees are "code faults
triggered by emission-control systems." The faults "render vehicles
inoperable." The shop can replace "exhaust filters and particulate
traps" that trigger the code, but the dealerships withhold software
to restart the tractor, forcing the shop to haul the tractor to a
Deere shop or pay for a house call.

"One farmer reported that he purchased a new tractor for $300,000
and spent nearly $8,000 into clearing fault codes over the course
of a few years," the plaintiffs said. This cuts into "already thin
profit margins." [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Romoff Disputes "Non-drowsy" Tag on Cough Meds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Romoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00075, (S.D. Cal., January 20, 2022),
seeks damages, including statutory, treble, and punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, and other just equitable relief, pre-
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
as allowed by law and any additional relief for breach of express
warranty and for violation of various states' consumer protection
acts.

Defendant makes, sells, and markets "Tylenol" over-the-counter
cough medicine which contain the active ingredient Dextromethorphan
Hydrobromide and state prominently on the front of their label that
they are "Non-Drowsy." Romoff disputes that these products do cause
drowsiness, and that drowsiness is a known side-effect of
Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
      Simon Franzini, Esq.
      Alex Van Dyke, Esq.
      DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
      201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 656-7066
      Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
      Email: jonas@dovel.com
             simon@dovel.com
             alex@dovel.com


KHOSROW SADEGHIAN: Marquis Loses Bid for Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY MARQUIS, et. al., v.
KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and AMY JO SADEGHIAN, Case No.
4:19-cv-00626-RWS-KPJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert W.
Schroeder III entered an order:

   1. adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report as the opinion of
      this Court;

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for certification.

The Marquis action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636. On December 30, 2021, the
Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and a
recommendation (the "Report") that Plaintiffs Billy Marquis, Alexis
Marquis and Anthony Marquis's Amended Motion for Certification be
denied.

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report have been
filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District
Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations. Except on
grounds of plain error, the parties are barred from appellate
review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted and adopted by the District Court.

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion and the Magistrate
Judge's Report and agrees with the Report.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fQzYwp at no extra charge.[CC]

KODA RESOURCES: Reherman Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Reherman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Koda Resources, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00078 (D. Del., January 20, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Koda is into the acquisition and development of oil and gas
properties in the Rocky Mountain Region. Reherman worked for Koda
as a company man in Utah. He claims to be paid a day rate with no
overtime compensation and was misclassified as an independent
contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rrustmann@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
      Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
      Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
      FARNAN LLP
      919 North Market St., 12th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 777-0300
      Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
      Email: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
             bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
             mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Stewart Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTISHA STEWART, TERRY
BROWN, EDUARDO CANTIZZANO, LISA HILL-GREEN, THERESA HILL, YOLANDA
JONES, MICHAEL CLARK, and CHRISTOPHER PETERSON, v. LEXISNEXIS RISK
DATA RETRIEVAL SERVICES, LLC a/k/a LexisNexis Risk Data Management
and LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC.,Case No. 3:20-cv-00903-JAG
(E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminary approving the Settlement Agreement and Release
      under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)
      (3);

   2. certifying the Settlement Classes;

   3. appointing Class Counsel and Class Representative;

   4. approving of the proposed class notices and notice plans;

   5. appointing settlement administrator; and

   6. scheduling of a final fairness hearing.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32mqOEO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
           Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
           CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
           763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
           Newport News, VA 23601
           Telephone: (757) 930-3660
           Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
           E-mail: len@clalegal.com
                   craig@clalegal.com

                - and -

           Kevin A. Dillon, Esq.
           Drew Sarrett, Esq.
           CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
           626 E Broad Street, Suite 300
           Richmond, VA 23219
           Telephone: (804) 905-9904
           Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
           E-mail: kevin@clalegal.com

                - and -

           Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
           Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
           Casey Nash, Esq.
           J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
           KELLY GUZZO, PLC
           3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
           Fairfax, VA 22030
           Telephone: (703) 424-7572
           Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
           E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                   aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                   casey@kellyguzzo.com
                   pat@kellyguzzo.com

                - and -

           James A. Francis, Esq.
           John Soumilas, Esq.
           Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
           FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
           Land Title Building
           100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1902
           Philadelphia, PA 19110
           Telephone: (214) 735-8600
           Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
           E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                    jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                    jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

                - and -

           Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
           BERGER MONTAGUE
           1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
           Minneapolis, MN 55413
           E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

                - and -

           Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
           William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
           Keogh Law, LTD.
           55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
           Chicago, IL 60603
           Telephone: (312) 726-1092
           Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
           E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

                - and -

           AJ Stecklein, Esq.
           Michael Rapp, Esq.
           Matthew Robertson, Esq.
           STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED
           748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
           Kansas City, KS 66101

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Insurers Must Disclose UM/UIM Limits in Crutcher
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY CRUTCHER, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, and SAFECO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case
No. S-1-SC-37478 (N.M.), Judge David K. Thomson of the Supreme
Court of New Mexico issued an Opinion requiring every insurer to
adequately disclose the limitations of minimum limits of UM/UIM
policies in the form of an exclusion in its insurance policy.

I. Background

The case comes to the Court on certification from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico. It requires it to determine
whether the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage on a policy that
provides minimum uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) limits of
$25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident is illusory for an insured
who sustains more than $25,000 in damages caused by a minimally
insured tortfeasor. If so, then it must decide whether insurance
companies may charge premiums for such a policy. While the
allegations contained within the Class Action Complaint are
broader, Judge Thompson's opinion addresses only the certified
question.

In 2006, Defendant First National issued a minimum limits
automobile insurance policy to Gregory Crutcher. The policy
provided Mr. Crutcher with the statutory minimum of both liability
insurance and uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance, or
coverage up to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence.

In 2008, the policy was transferred from First National to
Defendant Safeco. Every month for 12 years (2006-2018), Mr.
Crutcher paid two premiums towards his auto insurance policy: One
for liability insurance and one for UM/UIM insurance. Safeco
renewed Mr. Crutcher's policy annually through 2018.

In 2017, Mr. Crutcher was involved in a car accident when another
driver (tortfeaser) failed to stop at a traffic signal and crashed
into his car. As a result of the collision, Mr. Crutcher sustained
injuries, including a broken collarbone. Like Mr. Crutcher, the
tortfeasor had purchased only a minimum limits automobile insurance
policy. That is, he carried auto liability insurance of $25,000 per
person and $50,000 per occurrence. Damages resulting from Mr.
Crutcher's injuries exceeded $50,000.

Following the accident, Mr. Crutcher filed a claim with the
tortfeasor's insurance company (USAA). In response to his claim,
USAA paid Mr. Crutcher $25,000, or the full amount of the
tortfeasor's liability policy which covered some of the expenses
incurred by the accident. After receiving the $25,000 liability
coverage limit from the tortfeasor's insurance company, Mr.
Crutcher filed a claim with his own insurance company, assuming he
would receive at least $25,000 through his uninsured/underinsured
motorist benefits to recover the balance of his damages. However,
Safeco denied the claim, giving rise to this dispute.

Mr. Crutcher and Safeco present alternate reasoning for the denial
of the claim. In denying his claim, Mr. Crutcher inferred that
Safeco applied the offset rule the Supreme Court announced in
Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
1985-NMSC-073, 103 N.M. 216, 704 P.2d 1092. The Schmick offset rule
allows an accident victim's insurance company to subtract whatever
the driver receives from the tortfeasor's insurance company from
the payment due to its own policyholder. Mr. Crutcher reasoned that
Safeco applied Schmick and deducted what he received from USAA
($25,000) from what he was eligible to receive through his Safeco
policy's UM/UIM coverage ($25,000), and the resulting benefit was
zero.

Although Safeco agreed that the application of the Schmick offset
rule would have resulted in no UIM payment, its denial of Mr.
Crutcher's claim was not based on this rule. Rather, Safeco
concluded that the tortfeaser did not meet the definition of an
uninsured motorist pursuant to the statute because the total limits
of liability insurance were equal to Mr. Crutcher's UM/UIM coverage
limits. Regardless of the reason for Safeco's denial of Mr.
Crutcher's claim, the Supreme Court must determine whether it may
charge a premium for a policy that cannot be fulfilled.

Following Safeco's denial of his claim, Mr. Crutcher filed a class
action lawsuit in the Second Judicial District Court against
Safeco, Liberty Mutual, Liberty Personal, and Safeco National. He
sought class certification for insured persons who find themselves
with no UIM coverage, despite having paid regular premiums for it.
On behalf of the class of plaintiffs, Mr. Crutcher alleged that
Defendants failed to meaningfully explain to their policyholders
how the Schmick offset rule works to cancel out UIM benefits that
policyholders like Mr. Crutcher expected to receive. Mr. Crutcher
alleged that the UIM coverage sold by the Defendants to the class
members was "illusory" because UIM premiums sold on minimum limits
policies are valueless if the policyholder is in an accident with a
tortfeasor who carries liability coverage equal to the
policyholder's UM/UIM coverage.

Mr. Crutcher and the class members alleged seven violations under
New Mexico common law and consumer protection statutes. The
Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) (2018). The
Plaintiff and the Defendants then cross-moved the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico to certify a controlling
question of law to the New Mexico Supreme Court. The federal
district court granted the motions and submitted a certification
order to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether underinsured
motorist coverage at the minimum level is illusory, and, if so,
whether insurers can charge a premium for it. The federal district
court stayed the matter pending the Court's answer to the certified
question.

II. Discussion

The Supreme Court's task is to determine (1) whether underinsurance
motorist coverage on a policy that offers minimum
uninsured/underinsured motorist limits is illusory for an insured
person who sustains more than $25,000 in damages caused by a
minimally insured tortfeasor, and (2) if this type of coverage is
illusory, whether an insurance company may charge premiums for such
a policy. This analysis requires the Supreme Court to interpret New
Mexico's statute governing underinsurance motorist coverage.

Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which the Supreme
Court reviews de novo." "When the Court construes statutes, its
charge is to determine and give effect to the Legislature's
intent." To determine legislative intent, it looks not only to the
language used in the statute, but also to the purpose to be
achieved and the wrong to be remedied."

First, Judge Thomson opines that read together, Section
66-5-215(A)(1)-(2) and Section 66-5-301(A)-(B) require motorists to
carry liability insurance limits of at least $25,000 per person and
$50,000 per occurrence and uninsured motorist coverage (which
includes underinsured motorist coverage) of at least the same
amount. Again, only if the motorist purchases higher than minimum
liability coverage may higher than minimum UM/UIM coverage be
purchased.

Second, Judge Thomson holds that Mr. Crutcher, like other
policyholders who are not fully versed in the intricacies of
insurance law, may not have understood that he was not eligible to
receive underinsurance coverage from his policy despite paying a
premium for it. He concludes that the Legislature intended to place
the burden on the policyholders to determine how much protection
they want and are willing to pay for, and that this burden is
conditioned upon the policyholders having knowledge of what they
are purchasing. The certified question asks the Supreme Court to
resolve this point and to determine whether an insurer may charge a
premium for such policies.

Third, Judge Thomson finds that the law allows an insurer to sell
minimum limits UM/UIM coverage to a policyholder and only provide
coverage for uninsured motorist coverage, and that insurers may
charge a premium for such coverage as long as they make a proper
disclosure to the policyholder.

Finally, he says it is the obligation of the insurer to draft an
exclusion that clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage."
Therefore, the insurer will bear the burden of disclosure to the
policyholder that a purchase of the statutory minimum of UM/UIM
insurance may come with the counterintuitive exclusion of UIM
insurance if the insured is in an accident with a tortfeasor who
carries minimum liability insurance. Consistent with the purpose
and intent of the UIM statute, this disclosure will allow
purchasers to make a fully informed decision when selecting UM/UIM
insurance coverage.

In sum, Judge Thomson opines that this type of policy is illusory
in that it may mislead minimum UM/UIM policyholders to believe that
they will receive underinsured motorist benefits, when in reality
they may never receive such a benefit. He therefore holds that an
insurer must adequately disclose the limitations of minimum UM/UIM
coverage -- namely, that under the policies described in the case,
a  policyholder may never receive underinsurance motorist coverage.
Without this disclosure, an insurer may not charge a premium for
minimum underinsurance coverage.

III. Conclusion

Judge Thomson concludes that UM/UIM coverage at the minimum level
is permitted because the law not only allows, but requires, it to
be sold as was done so in the present case. However, such coverage
is illusory because it is misleading to the average policyholder.
As such, Judge Thomson will now require every insurer to adequately
disclose the limitations of minimum limits UM/UIM policies in the
form of an exclusion in its insurance policy. If the insurer
provides adequate disclosure, it may lawfully charge a premium for
such coverage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p976acf from Leagle.com.

Law Office of Kedar Bhasker, Kedar Bhasker, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.

Corbin Hildebrandt, P.C., Corbin P. Hildebrandt --
corbin@hildebrandtlawnm.com -- in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Law Offices of Geoffrey R. Romero, Geoffrey R. Romero, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward, P.A., David Alan
Freedman, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the Plaintiff.

Allen Law Firm, P.C., Meena H. Allen, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Baker & Hostetler LLP, Rodger L. Eckelberry --
reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- in Columbus, Ohio, for the Defendants.

Allen, Shepherd, Lewis & Syra, P.A., Brant L. Lillywhite, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Amici Curiae American Property and,
Casualty Insurance Association and National, Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies.


LOUISIANA: Prison's Mental Health Care 'Insufficient,' Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Chrastil at thelensnola.org reports that mental health care -
from screening, to staffing levels, to suicide watch - at the
restrictive housing unit of a Louisiana state prison is all but
non-existent, the former chief psychiatrist for the Ohio state
prison system testified in a federal class-action suit against the
state Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

Dr. Kathryn Burns was called as an expert witness by civil rights
attorneys for people in held in solitary at David Wade Correctional
Center, a state prison in Claiborne Parish, who allege that the
conditions of their confinement are unconstitutional. A four-week
trial in the lawsuit, which was filed in 2018, began. It covers
conditions at the prison up until March of 2020.

In the first week of the trial, several people who were formerly
held in restrictive housing at David Wade testified about the
conditions at the facility, saying they were kept in often filthy
cells for up to 23 hours a day with little social interaction other
than the relentless taunting and humiliation from prison staff.
They also said that people in custody with obvious signs of mental
illness received little, if any, treatment.

Burns corroborated much of that testimony. Over the course of the
pretrial discovery period, Burns visited the prison twice - in 2018
and 2019 - during which she interviewed over 30 people being held
in solitary confinement. She also reviewed medical and mental
health records of prisoner and prison policies.

Burns said that her overall impression from the visits and review
was that mental health care for people in restrictive housing at
David Wade was "insufficient, and almost non-existent except for
medication." And even medication, she said, "was not accurately
administered, or documented, or supervised."

The lack of care, she said, initiates a cycle in in which extended
stays solitary - sometimes lasting years - exacerbate mental health
problems among prisoners. Then, the symptoms of prisoners'
deteriorating mental states are treated as disciplinary
infractions, leading to write-ups, and more time in solitary
confinement. The cycle has the potential to end in prisoners
harming themselves or others, or result in guards using force
against them.

Dr. Gregory Seal, the prison's only contracted psychiatrist, also
testified. He said that he visited the prison twice a month for
about six hours each time, during which he would meet with
individuals for about 3-5 minutes each, and was primarily
responsible for diagnosing patients and prescribing medication. (If
it was a new patient, Seal said those visits would be closer to 10
minutes, on average.)

Seal also said that he was not aware of any mental health risks
associated with prisoners with mental illness being placed in
restrictive housing, despite the fact that the American Psychiatric
Association warns against using restrictive housing for prisoners
with mental illness.

Lawyers for the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections have argued that no one with a serious mental illness
that is not stable or in remission are held at David Wade in the
first place, and those individuals that are held there in
restrictive housing are given sufficient treatment in the form of
medication.

Even before the trial began, the state paid nearly three million
dollars to private attorneys to defend the case over the last
several years, according to reporting from the Louisiana
Illuminator. Those contracts are overseen by Attorney General Jeff
Landry.

The plaintiffs are seeking changes to the administration of mental
health care and the conditions of restrictive housing at David
Wade, not monetary damages.

Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murill told the Illuminator that
Landry opposes settlements in cases where the state may lose
control of its budget, and would prefer to take them to trial so
the state would be able to potentially appeal a ruling for the
plaintiffs.

Surveillance and treatment
Chief among Burns' criticism of care at David Wade was that regular
mental health evaluations - conducted 30 days after a person is
first placed in solitary confinement, and every 90 days after that
- were typically brief and perfunctory. (Since March of 2020, those
evaluations have been increased to every 30 days, according to
Burns.)

What's more, the sessions weren't private. They were instead done
"cell-front," meaning they were not confidential and could be
overheard by other prisoners housed nearby, along with corrections
staff.

The documentation produced by mental health staff for the
interviews primarily consists of a checklist of mental health
indicators, and very little individual detail. She said that most
of the prisoners she talked to weren't even aware that they had
participated in a mental health evaluation.

Without adequate and confidential surveillance of prisoners' mental
state while in solitary confinement, Burns said, new issues won't
be brought to the prison psychiatrist's attention for treatment,
and a prisoner can deteriorate without receiving necessary
treatment.

She also said that the "individualized" mental health treatment
plans she reviewed for prisoners were all exactly the same, and did
not change based on a person's changing condition.

Burns elaborated on the plans in a January report filed in the
suit. Every treatment plan contains both long-term and short-term
goals for each prisoner - things like "maintain compliance with all
institutional rules and regulations." The goals identified in the
files she reviewed were all identical.

She questioned whether or not they could even be considered mental
health treatment plans, and said they were not of any practical
use.

She also was critical of the fact that none of the prisoners were
offered any individual or group therapy for their mental illness.

"I did see places where inmates requested counseling," Burns said.
"I did not see it provided."

Despite potential security challenges, Burns said that it was
possible to provide counseling for and confidential mental health
interviews with prisoners on extended lockdown, with the proper
infrastructure and staffing. She said that soundproof rooms with
windows could provide auditory confidentiality while still allowing
security to monitor what was going on, and that certain restraints
- which she called "high-security furniture" - can be used during
therapy sessions to ensure the safety of everyone involved.

Rather than counseling, prisoners with mental illness were treated
solely with drugs. But even medication treatment was not being
carried out correctly, Burns said. Prison records showed that
medicine was not being regularly delivered to patients on extended
lockdown, and that she saw instances in which there were "days, and
sometimes weeks of missing medications for people."

Dr. Gregory Seal, the prison psychiatrist, said that he had
encountered prisoners held in restrictive housing who he said could
have benefitted from psychotherapy, and told that to the mental
health staff. But he said he couldn't recall any instances in which
psychotherapy was incorporated into a treatment plan for a person
being held in restrictive housing.

"I may have said that they might benefit from therapy, but I didn't
write it anywhere," Seal said.

He also said that he wasn't involved in making a determination
about whether a person with mental illness was put in restrictive
housing, and was unaware of the conditions of confinement on the
restrictive housing tiers - such as how much out-of-cell time a
person receives, whether or not they are allowed phone calls or
visitation.

Staffing
Burns testified that one of the main issues preventing David Wade
from delivering adequate mental health care for people on extended
lockdown is too few - and insufficiently trained - mental health
staff.

Seal, the sole psychiatrist at the jail, is there on a contract
basis. And he only works part time. His contract calls for 18 hours
a month - which he divides between two days. His commute time is
counted as part of his work hours under the contract. He spends six
of his 18 monthly hours driving back and forth from Shreveport.

"People can't get in to see Dr. Seal timely because he's only there
one day, every other week," Burns said. "So if they're not taking
their medicine or they need a medication change, or the person is
decompensating, it might be two weeks before he can see somebody.
It might be two months."

She testified that for a facility of David Wade's size - which has
an incarcerated population of around 1,000 - should have at least
one full-time psychiatrist on full-time.

She also said that the prison should have more qualified mental
health staff. As of March 2020, in addition to Seal, there were
three people on mental health staff at David Wade who provided
direct services to prisoners. But Burns said that it was "clear
from the records that some of the mental health staff at the time
were not aware of psychiatric signs and symptoms, didn't
necessarily recognize them, didn't document them." [GN]

MAISON DE'VILLE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Feb. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Jay C. Zainey entered an order granting
the unopposed motion to extend Deadline for Seeking Class
Certification filed by the Plaintiffs, Janice Verdin, Catherine
Naquin, Mary Helmer, Olivia Helmer and Lauren Helmer.

All Plaintiffs are granted an additional 30 days, or until February
26, 2022, to file their motion for class certification.

Maison De'ville is a senior living provider in Harvey, Louisiana.
Saint Elizabeth's 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 Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3FDwMyV at no extra charge.[CC]


MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Manzo Class Action Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
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-1175-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action and
PAGA settlement:

  1. The Plaintiff's Renewed Motion is granted.

  2. The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement
     Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for
     settlement purposes only in accordance with the terms of
     the Settlement Agreement:

     a. A "June 2, 2020 Settlement Subclass" consisting 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; and

     b. An "April 6, 2019 Settlement Subclass" consisting 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 26 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.

   3. For settlement purposes only, Plaintiff's counsel,
      Diversity Law Group, A Professional Corporation, Polaris
      Law Group, Hyun Legal, APC, and Law Offices of Choi &
      Associates, P.C, are appointed as class counsel.

   4. For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiff Gennifer Manzo
      is appointed as the class representative.

   5. On the basis of the findings set forth herein, the Court
      preliminarily approves the settlement as fair, reasonable,
      and adequate. The Court will evaluate the requested
      attorney's fees, costs, and service award at Final
      Approval. If the Court grants final approval and decides
      to award less than the amounts requested, any unawarded
      amounts shall revert back to the Settlement Class Members
      only, to be distributed in accordance with the approved
      distribution formula.

   6. The method of notice to the class members, is approved.

   7. ILYM is approved to serve as the neutral, third-party
      Settlement Administrator in accordance with the Settlement
      Agreement and consistent with this Order.

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. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32lRYvH at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2677: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in DFS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Re: DAILY FANTASY SPORTS
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:16-md-02677-GAO (D. Mass.), the Class
Representative Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of the Family
Member Settlement Class, ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Preliminarily approving the settlement between the
      Parties, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   2. Certifying the following settlement classes as the Family
      Member Settlement Class:

      a) "District of Columbia Family Member Settlement Class"
         means all persons in the District of Columbia who are
         authorized by District of Columbia law, including D.C.
         CODE ANN. section 16-1702 and/or related statutes, to
         bring claims on behalf of a family member or next-of-
         kin who is or was a DFS Participant;

      b) "Georgia Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of Georgia who are authorized by
         Georgia state law, including OFFICIAL CODE. GA. ANN.
         section 13-8-3 and/or related statutes, to bring claims
         on behalf of a family member or next-of-kin who is or
         was a DFS Participant;

      c) "Illinois Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of Illinois who are authorized by
         Illinois state law, including 720 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.
         5/28-8 and/or related statutes, to bring claims on
         behalf of a family member or next-of-kin who is or was
         a DFS Participant;

      d) "Indiana Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of Indiana who are authorized by
         Indiana state law, including IND. CODE ANN. section 34-
         16-1-4 and/or related statutes, to recover for claims
         brought on behalf of a family member or next-of-kin who
         is or was a DFS Participant;

      e) "Kentucky Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of Kentucky who are authorized by
         Kentucky state law, including KY. REV. STAT. section
         372.010 to section 372.040 and/or related statutes, to
         bring claims on behalf of a family member or next-of-
         kin who is or was a DFS Participant;

      f) "Massachusetts Family Member Settlement Class" means
         all persons in the State of Massachusetts who are
         authorized by Massachusetts state law, including MASS.
         GEN. LAWS ANN. CH. 137, section 1 and/or related
         statutes, to bring claims on behalf of a family member
         or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS Participant;

      g) "New Jersey Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of New Jersey who are authorized
         by New Jersey state law, including N.J. STAT. ANN.
         section 2A:40-6 and/or related statutes, to bring
         claims on behalf of a family member or next-of-kin who
         is or was a DFS Participant.

      h) "New Mexico Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of New Mexico who are authorized
         by New Mexico state law, including NEW MEXICO STAT.
         ANN. section 44-5-l to section 44-5-3 and/or related
         statutes, to bring claims on behalf of a family member
         or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS Participant;

      i) "Ohio Family Member Settlement Class" means all persons
         in the State of Ohio who are authorized by Ohio state
         law, including OHIO REV. CODE ANN. section 3763.04
         and/or related statutes, to bring claims on behalf of a
         family member or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS
         Participant;

      j) "South Carolina Family Member Settlement Class" means
         all persons in the State of South Carolina who are
         authorized by South Carolina state law, including S.C.
         CODE ANN. section 32-1-10 to section 32-1-20 and/or
         related statutes, to bring claims on behalf of a family
         member or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS Participant;

      k) "South Dakota Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of South Dakota who are authorized
         by South Dakota state law, including S.D. CODIFIED LAWS
         sections 21-6-1, 21-6-2, and/or related statutes, to
         recover for claims brought on behalf of a family member
         or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS Participant; and

      l) "Tennessee Family Member Settlement Class" means all
         persons in the State of Tennessee who are authorized by
         Tennessee state law, including TENN. CODE ANN. section
         28-3-106, section 29-19-l04 to section 29-19-l05,
         and/or related statutes, to bring claims on behalf of a
         family member or next-of-kin who is or was a DFS
         Participant;

   3. Preliminarily appointing the following Class
      Representative Plaintiffs: Leah Boast, Crystal Turner,
      Rebecca McGuire, Michelle Hodge, Aurora Walker, and
      Hillary Williams;

   4. Approving the proposed procedure for Class Notice;

   5. Scheduling a Fairness Hearing on a date approved by the
      Court;

   6. Appointing Class Counsel, Taylor C. Bartlett, to serve as
      counsel for the Family Member Settlement Class; and

   7. granting the proposed Preliminary Approval Order.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rEdww5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

MDL 2918: Parties in HDD Antitrust Suit Stipulates Case Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re: Hard Disk Drive
Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:20-cv-01217-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate, subject to
Court approval, Case Schedule as follows:

  1. The close of fact discovery            August 22, 2022
     will be on:

  2. Defendants' FTAIA summary              June 3, 2022
     judgment brief will be due on:

  3. Plaintiffs' FTAIA responses            August 17, 2022
    will be due on:

  4. The Defendants' FTAIA reply            October 7, 2022
     will be due on:

  5. Class Plaintiffs' motions              July 26, 2022
     for class certification
     and expert reports in
     support of class
     certification will
     be due on:

  6. The Defendants' oppositions            September 23, 2022
     to class certification and
     expert reports in opposition
     to class certification will
     be due on:

  7. Class Plaintiffs' replies              November 17, 2022
     and expert rebuttal reports
     in reply to oppositions to
     class certification will be
     due on:

On August 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
against many manufacturers of hard disk drive (HDD) suspension
assemblies alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate market
shares.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KxtTTV at no extra charge.[CC]

The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for End-User Plaintiffs, are:

          Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2006 Kala Bagai Way, Suite 22
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: asheanin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com

               - and -

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING LLP
          30 E. 7th Street, Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MH 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Seagate Technology LLC, Seagate
Technology (Thailand) Ltd., Seagate Singapore International
Headquarters Pte. Ltd., and Seagate Technology International, are:

          Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 947-2160
          E-mail: korourke@wsgr.com

Counsel for the Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK Spring
Precision (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd.,
NHK International Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., and
NAT Peripheral (Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., are:

          Mark H. Hamer, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          815 Connecticut Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 452-7077
          Facsimile: (202) 416-7177
          E-mail: Mark.Hamer@bakermckenzie.com

Counsel for Defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK International
Corporation, NHK Spring (Thailand) Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral (Dong
Guan) Co., Ltd. and NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd., are

          Craig Y. Lee, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 419-2114
          E-mail: craiglee@huntonak.com

Counsel for the Defendants TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision
Technology Public Co. Ltd., Magnecomp Corporation, SAE Magnetics
(H.K.) Ltd., and Hutchinson Technology Inc., are:

          J. Clayton Everett, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-3000
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001

MDL 2984: Plaintiffs Directed to File SAC in Folgers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Folgers Coffee Marketing, Case No.
21-2984-MD-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an
order:

   1. directing the Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended
      Consolidated Complaint (SAC) within seven days; and

   2. directing the Defendants to file an Answer to the SAC
      within 21 days of (1) when the SAC is filed or (2) when
      the Court rules on any motion to dismiss the SAC,
      whichever is later. Since the Court has already ruled on
      Defendants' motion to dismiss the original Amended
      Consolidated Complaint, any motion to dismiss the SAC
      shall address only the claims from the new tag-along
      cases.

Additionally, the following deadlines are amended:

  -- Initial expert reports are now due     June 10, 2022;

  -- Rebuttal expert reports are now due    July 22, 2022;

  -- Reply expert reports are now due       August 8, 2022;

  -- Expert discovery closes                August 22, 2022;

  -- Plaintiffs' motion for class           September 23, 2022;
     certification is now due

The actions in MDL 2984 share factual questions arising out of
allegations that Folgers engaged in deceptive advertising and
marketing practices with respect to the labeling of its coffee
products. The Plaintiffs in each action allege that Folgers'
labeling misrepresents the number of servings that can be made from
its coffee canisters. All plaintiffs assert similar claims for
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and/or
violation of state consumer protection laws, and plaintiffs seek to
represent overlapping nationwide and statewide classes of
purchasers of Folgers coffee products.

Folgers Coffee is a brand of ground, instant, and single-use pod
coffee produced in the United States, and sold there, and also in
Asia, Canada and Mexico.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KBRi6y no extra charge.[CC]

MIKA JAYMES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mika Jaymes, Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Mika Jaymes, Inc. doing
business as: Mika Jaymes, Case No. 1:22-cv-00495 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
19, 2022).

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

Mika Jaymes -- https://mikajaymes.com/ -- offers timeless fashion
essentials crafted on piece at a time in Downtown L.A.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


MOON VALLEY: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moon Valley Natural
Products LLC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moon Valley
Natural Products LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00471 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19,
2022).

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

Moon Valley Natural Products -- https://www.moonvalleyorganics.com/
-- offers highly effective, affordable organic skin care line, that
works hard to cleanse, moisturize, heal and protect your skin every
single day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MY PILLOW: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due September 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETHANY GAUDREAU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MY
PILLOW, INC., Case No. 6:21-cv-01899-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion
requesting deadline and briefing schedule with respect to
plaintiff's motion for class certification:

                     Event                       Deadline

  -- The Plaintiff(s) shall file their      September 8, 2022
     Motion for Class Certification by:

  -- The Defendant shall file its           October 10, 2022
     Response to Plaintiff(s)
     Motion for Class Certification
     by:

  -- If permitted, subject to Local         14 days after
     Rule 3.01(d), Plaintiff shall          the filing of the
     file her Reply in Support of           Response
     Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification by:

This putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act was removed to this Court on November 11, 2021.

On December 23, 2021, the parties filed their Joint Scheduling
Report, which included, among other proposed deadlines, a date for
the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

On January 12, 2022, the Court entered its Scheduling Order setting
various deadlines for the completion of discovery and the filing of
dispositive motions, but the order did not contain a deadline for
the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

My Pillow is an American pillow-manufacturing company based in
Chaska, Minnesota.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H5MjZy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew D. Parker, Esq.
          Ryan P. Malone, Esq.
          PARKER DANIELS KIBORT LLC
          888 Colwell Building
          123 N. Third Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 355-4100
          Facsimile: (612) 355-4101
          E-mail: parker@parkerdk.com
                  malone@parkerdk.com

               - and -

          David P. Hartnett, Esq.
          HARTNETT LAW P.A.
          8900 S.W. 107 Avenue, Suite 301
          Miami, FL 33176
          Telephone: (305) 598-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 675-6171
          E-mail: dhartnett@thehartnettfirm.com

NETFLIX INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Franchise Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Bologna, writing for Bloomberg Tax, reports that cities
in Indiana won a critical victory in their bid for millions in
purportedly unpaid local franchise fees from Netflix, Hulu, Disney,
Dish Network, and DirecTV after a judge rejected the companies'
motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the municipalities.

Presiding Judge Heather Welch of the Indiana Commercial Court
Docket in Marion County on Jan. 18 found no basis for halting a
class action filed against the streaming entertainment and
satellite TV companies by four cities including Indianapolis. [GN]


NEW HAMPSHIRE: To Create Fund to Settle Child Sex Abuse Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Ramer, writing for Concord Monitor, reports that New
Hampshire would create a $100 million fund to settle claims of
child sex abuse at its state-run youth detention center under a
bipartisan bill that lawyers for the victims call offensive.

Ten former workers at the Youth Development Center in Manchester
and one from a pre-trial facility in Concord were charged in April
with either sexually assaulting or acting as accomplices to the
assault of more than a dozen teenagers from 1994 to 2007. The
center, now called the Sununu Youth Services Center, has been the
target of a criminal investigation since 2019, and more than 400
men and woman have come forward with a llegations involving 150
staffers from 1960 to 2018.

Victims have filed about 350 nearly identical lawsuits against the
state since a judge dismissed a class action lawsuit in May, and
another 100 were expected to be filed by Thursday, Jan. 20, when a
House committee holds a public hearing on a late-drafted bill that
would create an alternative way to address their claims. One of the
bill's sponsors said the attorney general's office requested the
legislation "as a way to help some of the victims get a speedier
outcome with less trauma."

"I think this is going to really help some people move on and not
have the trauma of the courtroom," said Rep. Kimberly Rice,
R-Hudson.

Under the proposal, those who were held at the center from 1980
onward would have one year to file claims, starting in October.
Participants would waive the right to seek compensation in court.
Individual claims would be capped at $1.5 million and could be paid
over a period of up to 10 years.

While the bill appropriates $100 million, the fund's administrator
could request additional money from the Legislature if a shortfall
is likely to occur.

Attorney Rus Rilee called the bill tone-deaf but said he's hopeful
lawmakers will work with the survivor community to develop a fair,
trauma-informed process. As it stands, the proposal requires
victims to give up their legal rights with no guarantee that the
state will compensate them fairly for their suffering, he said.

"This version of the bill is offensive to the hundreds of brave
survivors of decades of systemic governmental child abuse who have
come forward to tell their stories," he said on Jan. 17.

Until recently, Rilee represented nearly all of the alleged
victims. He has since teamed up with Nixon Peabody, an
international law firm with more than 600 attorneys. One of them,
David Vicinanzo, said on Jan. 18 if the settlement fund is enacted,
the state must tread carefully with victims who have very little
reason to trust the state given that they were abused by it.

"They have an uphill climb to win back that trust, and that trust
will need be earned," said Vicinanzo, who previously served as a
federal prosecutor including as the top assistant U.S. attorney for
New Hampshire. He and five other attorneys from his firm have
signed on to the youth center cases.

"There is no greater honor than to be trusted to seek justice for
those who have been brutalized and neglected as children by our
society and government, and who have no reason to trust anyone," he
said.

Another sponsor of the legislation, Republican Sen. Jeb Bradley of
Wolfeboro, said it shows that the state is taking responsibility
for the abuse. Rep. Patrick Long, a Manchester Democrat, agreed.

"It is absolutely a shame on the state," he said. "I'm of a belief
that we should accept what they say, compensate those that want to
be compensated and ensure that this never happens again."

The Manchester facility serves children ordered to a secure
institutional setting by the juvenile justice system. Though it
once held upwards of 100 youth, the typical population now is about
a dozen teens, and the current state budget calls for replacing it
with a much smaller facility in 2023. [GN]

NEW HANOVER, NC: Trial Set to Start Against Director Over Sex Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Hoover at Wilmington StarNews reports that former New
Hanover County Schools teacher Peter Michael Frank will soon appear
in court to begin his trial after being charged with 29 counts of
sex abuse.

Frank was originally scheduled to appear in court Jan. 24 to begin
the trial, but it was postponed and a new date has not been
selected, said Nazneen Ahmed, the press secretary for North
Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein. Ahmed said the date was
pushed back due to concerns around the recent surge in COVID-19
cases. It's unclear when a new date will be set.

Frank was charged on Jan. 24, 2020, and later fired by the New
Hanover County Board of Education after he was accused of several
sexual offenses dating back to 1999 and as recently as 2019, when
he was a band director at Roland-Grise Middle School. He was
indicted on 29 counts including first-degree sexual offense;
statutory sex offense with a person who is 13, 14 or 15; sexual
activity with a student; and indecent liberties with a student. His
alleged victims were students at Roland-Grise during those years.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the board of education
over teacher-student sexual abuse, naming Frank. In light of
Frank's arrest, the district's then-Superintendent Tim Markley and
then-Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources John Welmers
resigned from their positions.

Frank was arrested after law enforcement received a complaint from
a 30-year-old former student, who said Frank allegedly picked her
up from the beach one day and drove her to his home where he kissed
her. Law enforcement found several other alleged incidents,
including Frank making inappropriate comments on social media about
a student in a bathing suit, taking one of his students home to
play video games and keeping a bottle a 13-year-old student had
used to simulate oral sex.

After Frank's arrest, police obtained his personnel file, which
revealed the former teacher had been counseled several times by New
Hanover County Schools for alleged "inappropriate relationships"
with students.

He also allegedly told law enforcement he was attracted to
middle-school-aged girls, the StarNews reported, and photos of
"clothed-backsides of female students" were allegedly found on his
phone and computer.

The case was directed to Bladen County after it was handed to the
North Carolina Attorney General's office by New Hanover District
Attorney Ben David for a conflict of interest. Frank's defense team
also argued the case was getting too much publicity in New Hanover
County.

Bruce Mason, Frank's attorney, declined to comment on the upcoming
court date. Ahmed also declined to comment further because the case
is ongoing.

Reporter Sydney Hoover can be reached at 910-343-2339 or
shoover@gannett.com.

This article originally appeared on Wilmington StarNews: Former New
Hanover teacher's sex abuse trial postponed due to COVID-19. [GN]

NEW YORK: Scheduling Order Entered in Sughrim Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sughrim, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07977-RA-SDA
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered a scheduling
order as follows:

  -- The parties must complete necessary      April 15, 2022
     discovery related to Plaintiffs'
     injunction claims anticipated
     motion for class certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs will either               May 6, 2022
     supplement their motion for
     preliminary injunction or file
     a new motion addressing their
     claims for injunctive relief, and
     Plaintiffs will file a
     motion for class certification:

  -- The Defendants will file any            June 17, 2022
     opposition to Plaintiffs'
     injunction and class
     certification motions:

  -- The Plaintiffs will file any            June 24, 2022
     reply papers in support of
     their injunction and class
     certification motions.

The Plaintiffs include BRIAN SUGHRIM, DAVID FELICIANO, DEREK
GLEIXNER, KHALDOUN ALSHAMIRI, and ROLAND SOFO.

The Defendants include STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI,
Acting Commissioner (in his official capacity); JOHN A. SHIPLEY,
Director of Labor Relations (in his personal and official
capacities); NA-KIA WALTON, Assistant Director of Labor
Relations/ADA Coordinator (in her personal and official
capacities); LEROY FIELDS, Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional
Facility (in his personal and official capacities); STEPHEN
URBANSKI, Deputy Superintendent for Security Services of Fishkill
Correctional Facility in his personal and official capacities);
JAMES JOHNSON, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services of
Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal and official
capacities); ALAN WASHER, Corrections Captain (in his personal and
official capacities); WILLIAM LEE, Superintendent of Eastern
Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities);
MICHAEL BERTONE, Deputy Superintendent of Security at Eastern
Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities);
THOMAS NAPOLI, Deputy Superintendent and Designee for Reasonable
Accommodation of Cayuga Correctional Facility (in his personal and
official capacities).

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHwNg2 at no extra charge.[CC]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Class Expert Deposition in Romano Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v.
Northrop Grumman Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order
amending the class certification expert deposition and briefing
deadlines are amended as follows:

  -- Defendants shall depose plaintiffs'      March 4, 2022
     class certification experts by:

  -- Service of defendants' response to       June 10, 2022
     plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion and
     defendants' class certification
     expert reports shall be completed by:

  -- The plaintiffs shall depose              August 19, 2022
     defendants' class certification
     experts by:

  -- The plaintiffs shall serve reply         September 19, 2022
     brief to Rule 23 motion and
     rebuttal expert reports and
     file the fully briefed motion by:

Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace
and defense technology company.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product
Liability.[CC]

NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("NRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NRXP; NRXPW) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, and docketed under 22-cv-00066, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired NRx securities
between June 1, 2021 and November 4, 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) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired NRx
during the Class Period, you have until March 21, 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.

NRx is a clinical-stage small molecule pharmaceutical company that
develops various therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous
system disorders and life-threatening pulmonary diseases. The
Company's products include, among others, ZYESAMI, an
investigational pre-commercial drug for COVID-19 related
respiratory failure.

In June 2021, NRx announced that it filed an application with U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") requesting Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") for ZYESAMI (Aviptadil-acetate) to treat
critically ill COVID-19 patients suffering with respiratory failure
(the "ZYESAMI EUA Application").

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 ZYESAMI EUA Application
contained insufficient data regarding the potential benefits and
risks of ZYESAMI; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve
the ZYESAMI EUA Application in its present form; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2021, NRx issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has declined to issue an [EUA] for ZYESAMI® (aviptadil).
The FDA stated that it was unable to issue the EUA at this time due
to insufficient data regarding the known and potential benefits of
the medicine and the known and potential risks of ZYESAMI in
patients suffering from Critical COVID-19 with respiratory
failure."

On this news, NRx's stock price fell $2.27 per share, or 25.45%, to
close at $6.65 per share on November 5, 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]

NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 18
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NRXP; NRXPW) between June 1, 2021 and November 4, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). 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 21, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased NRx 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 NRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2241.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 21, 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 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: (1) the
ZYESAMI EUA Application contained insufficient data regarding the
potential benefits and risks of ZYESAMI; (2) accordingly, the FDA
was unlikely to approve the ZYESAMI EUA Application in its present
form; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To join the NRx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2241.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.

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]

OTTAWA, CANADA: Indian Boarding School Class Suit Set to Be Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tailor Stone, writing for The Bobr Times, reports that another
class action lawsuit against Ottawa will be heard in an attempt to
gain recognition for a forgotten Indian residential school that
once operated near Val -d'Or until 1991, under the direction of a
pedophile priest.

The place located in the forest village of Louvicourt was named "
Pavillon Notre-Dame-de -la-Route".

From 1975 to 1991, he housed the children of Kitcisakik, an
Anicinapek community of 350 people located in the La Verendrye
wildlife reserve, five hours north of Montreal.

But he was kicked out of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement
Agreement (IRSSA), which established a multi-billion dollar fund to
help former students heal childhood wounds. The ex-residents of
Louvicourt were therefore not entitled to any compensation.

"Not recognizing the residence is condemning us to remain in the
dark. The country continues to deny what we experienced there,"
ex-resident Jimmy Papatie breathes.

To correct the situation, his community filed a class action
lawsuit. But federal lawyers tried to abort the proceedings for
months, before finally giving up a few days ago.

The ex-residents will therefore finally be able to appear in court
in the coming weeks to try to convince a judge to listen to their
story.

Sexual predator in charge

"We stayed there 10 months a year. The supervisors slept with the
young boys. They beat us with belts, rulers, sticks, they
humiliated us", says Mr.Papatie.

He stayed a year and a half in Louvicourt after having been at the
Saint-Marc boarding school -de-Figuery, in Amos, where he was
locked up from the age of 6. The Notre-Dame-de-la-Route pavilion
was opened when the boarding school closed.

Funded by the state, the place was run by Father Edmond Brouillard,
a "sex predator". convicted in 1995 of touching children, the court
documents recall.

Mr. Papatie saw the Oblate at work, erect penis on the buttocks of
the little boys whom he fiddled around taking them to his lap where
he had lured them with pink popcorn, gum or liquor.

The Anicinapek was later assaulted himself by one of the victims of
the priest, who tried to rape him.

A classless boarding school

No classes were given at Louvicourt. The children resided there and
were transported daily to the Amik-Wiche school in the neighboring
community of Lac-Simon.

This is why the establishment was excluded from the CRRPI, unlike
the Amos boarding school.

Yet the children underwent "most of the experience" there. boarding
schools, write the lawyers of the community, Mes David Schulze and
Marie-Alice D'Aous.

For them, the establishment was "an integral part of the system of
primary and secondary education managed by the federal
government".

At 57, Mr.Papatie is not fighting for himself, but for the youngest
boarders who have known only Louvicourt.

" When we were compensated for Amos, they said to us "what about
us?". They spent their childhood there. Now they are young parents
and they cannot connect with their children. They are placed. We
will fight until the end for them," he said. [GN]

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Time to File Class Cert Reply Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villarino, et al., v.
Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60192
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting
Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

   -- Response due is by Feb. 1, 2022, says Judge Raag Singhal.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pacesetter provides employment services. The Company offers
temporary assistance, general, and skilled labor.[CC]


PARETEUM: Ivkovich, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Pareteum Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:19-cv-09767-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein entered an order:

   1. granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. certifying action to proceed as a class action pursuant to
      Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure;

   3. appointing Kevin Ivkovich, Stephen Jones,
      Keith Moore, Nicholas Steffey, and Robert E.
      Whitley, Jr., as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35eS3T0 at no extra charge.[CC]

PAYSAFE LTD: Faces O'Brien Suit Over Common Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PAUL O'BRIEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PAYSAFE LIMITED f/k/a FOLEY TRASIMENE
ACQUISITION CORP. II, WILLIAM P. FOLEY, II, RICHARD N. MASSEY,
BRYAN D. COY, PHILIP MCHUGH, and ISMAIL DAWOOD, Case No.
1:22-cv-00567 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2022) is a federal class action
on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Paysafe and/or FTAC securities between December
7, 2020, and November 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 7, 2020, FTAC announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement and plan of merger with Paysafe Group Holdings
Limited ("Legacy Paysafe"). In connection with this announcement,
Defendants represented that the transaction would position Paysafe
for strong, accelerated growth.

FTAC and Legacy Paysafe completed their business combination on
March 30, 2021 (the "Merger"). Following the Merger, the combined
company began operating as Paysafe. Additionally, FTAC common stock
stopped trading under the "BFT" ticker symbol and Paysafe began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"PSFE," representing the combined company.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Paysafe was executing well against its strategy and
was positioned for strong growth throughout 2021. However,
investors began to learn the truth about Paysafe's prospects on
August 16, 2021, when the Company announced its financial results
for the second quarter of 2021 and provided disappointing guidance
for the third quarter of 2021. Allegedly, Defendants projected
third quarter revenue of between $360 million and $375 million --
well below analysts' estimate of $389 million. The Defendants
attributed this weak guidance to challenges in the Company's
Digital Wallet segment, including "some softness in the online
gambling space" in European markets.

Nonetheless, Defendants assured investors that the Company would
rebound in the fourth quarter of 2021, stating that "Q4 is where
[you] start seeing the double-digit growth in Digital Wallet's
revenue," and reiterating that despite a weak third quarter, the
Company still expected full-year 2021 revenue of between $1.53
billion and $1.55 billion due to strong fourth quarter expected
results, says the suit.

On this news, the price of Paysafe common stock declined $1.58 per
share, or more than 15%, from a close of $10.20 per share on August
13, 2021, to close at $8.62 per share on August 16, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' reassurances proved to
be false. On November 11, 2021, Paysafe announced its third quarter
2021 financial results --including below-guidance quarterly revenue
of $353.6 million -- and lowered its full-year 2021 guidance for
revenue and other financial metrics. Specifically, Defendants
revealed that, due to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key
European markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital
Wallet segment," as well as "modified scope and timing of new
eCommerce customer agreements relative to the Company's original
expectations for these agreements," they now expected  full-year
2021 revenue of between $1.47 billion and $1.48 billion.
Additionally, Defendants provided disappointing guidance for the
fourth quarter of 2021, projecting quarterly revenue of between
$355 million and $365 million.

On this news, the price of Paysafe common stock plummeted $3.03 per
share, or more than 41%, from a close of $7.27 per share on
November 10, 2021, to close at $4.24 per share on November 11,

This 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that Paysafe was being
negatively impacted by gambling regulations in key European
markets.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Paysafe and FTAC securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

Paysafe, a Bermudian company with principal executive offices in
Hamilton, Bermuda, provides end-to-end payment solutions through
three primary business segments: Integrated Processing, which
processes payments for merchants; Digital Wallet, which enables
consumers to make digital payments for purposes such as e-commerce,
online gambling, and gaming; and eCash Solutions, which allows
consumers to use cash for digital payments by purchasing prepaid
digital vouchers. Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.

FTAC was a special purpose acquisition company formed for the
purpose of acquiring or merging with an existing private company,
thereby allowing the private company to go public without
conducting a traditional initial public offering. FTAC's common
stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "BFT."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
          Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
          Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                  rdegnan@ktmc.com
                  bschwartz@ktmc.com
                  ksauder@ktmc.com

PFEIL & HOLING: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfeil & Holing, Inc.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Pfeil & Holing, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00472 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Pfeil & Holing, Inc. -- https://cakedeco.com/ -- is a store
specializing in supplies for bakers & cake decorators, from
figurines to utensils & molds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLAID INC: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Users' Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We're talking about the fintech-not a shirt pattern-and the Silicon
Valley company recently settled a class action suit accusing it of
collecting excessive data from users. As a result, it will pay $58
million to all those consumers who have linked a bank account to
any of Plaid's 5,500-plus client apps, which include popular
services like American Express, Venmo, Robinhood, Coinbase, and
Betterment.

Plaid, a middleman connecting bank accounts to other fintech
services, says it's been used by tens of millions in North
America.

According to the settlement website, Plaid allegedly obtained "more
financial data than was needed" and set up log-in pages that
deceptively mimicked those of the user's own bank account, but fed
the credentials directly to itself. For its part, Plaid has denied
any wrongdoing and argued it was transparent about its practices.

It agreed to the $58 million deal in August, which also required it
to change some business practices. Its lead counsel said the
lawsuit's claims "go back to the earliest days of the company-as
such, the underlying claims and challenged conduct do not reflect
today's Plaid."

For those wondering if they're eligible for a claim, the settlement
website offers a searchable list of Plaid's clients (which also
include Acorns, Chime, SoFi, and Upstart, to name a few more). Full
terms and filing deadlines are found here.

If you want to cash in, you must do so in the next three
months-although given the size of the potential claimant pool, you
could expect another Equifax-like frenzy in which your payout
becomes a couple of dollars, if anything. [GN]

POSTE ITALIANE: Judge Tosses Class Suit Over Postal Savings Bonds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking Latest News reports that a cold shower for almost five
thousand savers: an order of the court of Rome has in fact declared
inadmissible the class action brought by Federconsumatori to
protect the holders of Q series postal savings bonds, which
according to the association (and some court sentences) have
yielded less money than promised on the contract.

An opinion, that of the sixteenth section of the Capitoline court,
contested by the association, which considers the decision to be
"irrational" whose reasons are "in some ways questionable". [GN]



PROCTER & GAMBLE: Watson Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and THE GILLETTE COMPANY
LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-40010 (D. Mass., Jan. 21, 2022) This is a
class action against the Defendants for the marketing, manufacture
and/or sale of consumer products (the Products), the warranties of
which include statements that condition the continued validity of
the warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service and/or
authorized replacement parts (a "tying arrangement").

The complaint asserts that tying arrangements that condition a
consumer product's warranty on the use of a specific repair service
in this manner violate state and federal law. Allegedly, the
Defendants exacerbate these violations by stating on the outside of
the product packaging that the Products include a one-year limited
warranty, but the unlawful repair restriction is not revealed to
the consumer until after the point of sale. Thus, a reasonable
consumer would rely on the warranty mentioned on the outside of the
packaging.

The Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendants individually and
on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of
the Products for: (i) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
(ii) unjust enrichment, (iii) fraud, and (iv) fraudulent omission.

Mr. Watson is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, a
resident of Shirley, Massachusetts and a citizen of Massachusetts.
In or about June 2019, Mr. Watson purchased one Braun Electric
Shaver from a Target store located at 86 Orchard Hill Park Dr,
Leominster, Massachusetts. Mr. Watson purchased the Product,
reasonably believing its warranty complied with state and federal
law and believing that he would have the ability to repair the
product if it malfunctioned. However, the Product Mr. Watson
purchased did not comply with state and federal law because of the
unlawful repair restriction attached to the warranty which
prohibited him from repairing the Product. Mr. Watson would not
have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less
for the Product, had he known that the Product did not comply with
state and federal law.

The unlawful repair restriction attached to his warranty was only
revealed to him after purchasing the product and opening the
packaging at home, the suit added.

The Product that Mr. Watson purchased began to slightly malfunction
shortly after he purchased it. He would have liked to endeavor to
repair his product himself during the warranty period, but his
warranty as written prohibited him from doing so.

Gillette a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business at 1 Granite St, Boston, Massachusetts. Gillette
markets and distributes the Products throughout the United States.
Gillette sells its products to consumers on websites and retail
stores nationwide. Gillette is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Defendant The Procter & Gamble Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          Neal Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7011
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Richardson's Bid to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY RICHARDSON and MANDY LARSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, J.D. POWER & ASSOCIATES, AND MITCHELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-715-Ftm-99MRM
(M.D. Fla.), Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, entered an
Opinion and Order:

   (1) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
       and

   (2) denying as moot Defendants Mitchell International, Inc.
       and J.D. Power & Associates' Motion To Exclude Hubele
       Affidavit from Consideration in Connection With
       Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

I. Introduction

The matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the Defendants'
Motion To Exclude. The Court heard oral argument on Dec. 18, 2020.
With the permission of the Court, the parties thereafter filed a
Joint Submission Regarding "Market Value Subclass."

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 Defendants, asserting
that the settlement amounts they accepted were less than they were
due under their insurance policies and Florida law. The Plaintiffs
seek to proceed as a class action, and to certify a Florida class
with two sub-classes.

In mid-2011, Progressive entered into a contract with Defendant
Mitchell International, Inc. (Mitchell International) to utilize a
proprietary product called the "Work Center Total Loss" system (the
WCTL system) to assist Progressive in the valuation of total loss
vehicles. Since then Progressive has used the WCTL system to
determine the value of all Florida total loss vehicles covered by
its policies.

II. Background

Plaintiffs Richardson and Larson filed a five-count Class Action
Complaint (the Complaint) in state court, which was removed to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

As currently constituted after resolution of a motion to dismiss,
the following claims are asserted:

In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that Progressive breached its
contract (the insurance Policies) by (a) "failing to properly
investigate and confirm the statistical validity of the WCTL
Valuation methodology," and (b) "wrongful failure to properly
adjust and pay the amount due and owed to the the Plaintiffs for
their total losses, sufficient for them to obtain comparable
replacement vehicles." Richardson alleges that the breaches
deprived him of $1,455.06, which is the approximate amount of the
downward condition adjustment to his vehicle. Larson alleges that
the breaches deprived her of $667.39, the amount of the downward
condition adjustment to her vehicle. This is the only count against
Progressive.

In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that J.D. Power and Mitchell
International "wrongfully interfered with Progressive's contractual
obligations to Plaintiffs by knowingly and intentionally selling to
Progressive a statistically invalid and wholly arbitrary total loss
valuation product for the specific purpose of enabling Progressive
to underpay the claims of total loss insureds, including the
Plaintiffs."

In Count IV, the Plaintiffs claim to be third-party beneficiaries
of the contract between Progressive and Mitchell International
concerning the valuation methodology of total loss claims.
Plaintiffs sue J.D. Power and Mitchell International for breach of
contract for "providing Progressive with total loss valuations that
were not statistically valid and were wholly arbitrary in the
manner in which Progressive valued total losses, including
Plaintiffs' total losses."

In Count V, the Plaintiffs alleged a civil conspiracy between J.D.
Power and Mitchell International to "utilize WCTL Valuations to
provide improper total loss valuations."

All counts incorporate language which alleges that Florida law, and
therefore the Policies, require that when a vehicle is declared a
total loss the insurer must pay a cash settlement based upon the
actual cost to purchase a comparable motor vehicle, including sales
tax. This is required, the Complaint alleges, by the Claims
Settlement Practices section of the Florida Unfair Insurance Trade
Practices Act (FUITPA), Fla. Stat. Section 626.9743(5) (referred to
in the Complaint as "Florida's Total Loss Statute"). The Complaint
alleges that each step of the WCTL system used by Progressive is
"statistically invalid," and the methodology for making downward
condition adjustments is completely invalid. The Complaint asserts
that the dollar amounts assigned to the condition adjustments are
"improper in all respects and should be disregarded in valuing a
Progressive insured's total loss vehicle."

The Plaintiffs seek to certify one statewide Florida class with two
subclasses, asserting they have satisfied all the requirements of
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

With certain exclusions, the class and subclasses are defined as:

     a. A Statewide Florida Class defined as: All persons and
entities that have made first-party claims since Oct. 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.

     b. A Condition Adjustment Subclass defined as: All Florida
insureds whose total loss claims were reduced by negative or
downward condition adjustments; and

     c. 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
Section 626.9743(5)(a)(2)(b), as determined by Guidebooks.

For the condition adjustment subclass, the Plaintiffs assert that
damages are measured by the dollar amount of the downward condition
adjustments on a total loss vehicle. For the market value subclass,
they assert that damages are measured by the difference between the
amount paid by Progressive, using the WCTL system, and what would
have been the value of the total loss vehicles using Guidebook
retail valuations. The Plaintiffs also assert that "final
injunctive relief is appropriate as to the Class as a whole" and
that the injunction should "prohibit Progressive from continuing to
utilize WCTL Valuations in Florida."

III. Discussion

The Plaintiffs assert they have satisfied all the requirements for
proceeding as a class action, while the Defendants assert that the
Plaintiffs have established almost none of the requirements.

Judge Steele finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class and
subclasses are overbroad, but a modified class is adequately
defined and ascertainable; both the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
shown their standing to represent the modified class and
subclasses; and the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

The following modified class definition is adequately defined given
the circumstances of the case: All persons and entities that have
made first-party claims on or after Oct. 1, 2012, on a vehicle
insurance policy issued by Progressive American Insurance Company
or Progressive Select Insurance Company within the state of Florida
for a vehicle which (1) was declared a total loss by either
Progressive company, and (2) was valued using the J.D. Power and
Mitchell International Work Center Total Loss (WCTL) system; and
(3) whose vehicle valuation was either: (a) reduced by a negative
or downward condition adjustment to the vehicle; or (b) given a
vehicle market value and settlement amount less than the actual
retail value for the vehicle as determined by the NAPA Guidebook;
or (c) Both (a) and (b).

However, Judge Steele finds that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied
any of the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3) or the
requirements of Rule 23(c). The Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy
the predominance requirement at this juncture because they are
unable to demonstrate that the alleged injury in the case "capable
of proof at trial through evidence that was common to the class
rather than individual to its members," and that damages be
"measurable on a class-wide basis through use of a common
methodology." Therefore, the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). And because predominance
is not satisfied, the class action will not constitute a superior
method of adjudication.

As Judge Steele finds that predominance has not been demonstrated,
certification of an issue class is also inappropriate.

IV. Order

Judge Steele, in the exercise of his discretion, denied the
certification of the proposed or modified class. The motion to
exclude the affidavit is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cshdmrd from Leagle.com.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Parmenter Slams Illegal Insurance Rate Hikes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara M. Parmenter, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Prudential Insurance Company
of America, Tufts University and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-10079, (D. Mass., January 20, 2022) seeks to recover all
losses to plan profits, equitable or remedial relief and redress
for breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Tufts University was Parmenter's employer at the time she enrolled
in the group long-term care insurance plan insured by Prudential.
Prudential sold group long term insurance plans nationwide
allegedly representing that premium rates could only be increased
if approved by the state of issuance's "Commissioner of Insurance"
despite the fact that the Commissioner of Insurance has no rate
approval authority over group long term care insurance rates.

Parmenter claims to have paid premium increases that have not been
approved by government regulators. Her policies lapsed for failing
to pay premiums after she was charged with increases that she
claims were never approved by government regulators. She exercised
a non-forfeiture provision to avoid a policy in consideration of
substantially limiting the value of benefits under the policy.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean K. Collins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
      184 High Street, Suite 503
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (855) 693-9256
      Fax: (617) 227-2843
      Email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

             - and -

      Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM
      184 High Street, Suite 503
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 357-9700
      Fax: (617) 227-2843
      Email: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com


PULTE HOME: Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Surreply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY MASSEY MOUNT, et
al., v. PULTE HOME COMPANY, LLC and S&ME, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-02314-RBD-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01 and the Court's CMSO,
granting its motion for leave to file a surreply of no more than
seven pages to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification.


The Plaintiffs sought and received, leave to file a reply brief to
"address new, unanticipated issues and concerns" Pulte raised in
its response brief. Instead, the Plaintiffs used their reply brief
to introduce new evidence not included in their motion, and raise
new (and flawed) arguments about how they will identify class
members and provide notice. Pulte objects to Plaintiffs' late
evidence, disagrees with its new, misguided arguments in favor of
class certification, and seeks to clarify the record, Pulte
contends.

Pulte is located in Scottsdale, Arizona, and is part of the
residential building construction industry.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KvhQGx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Kobylinski, Esq.
          S. Maxwell Karrick, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, 16 th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: tkobylinski@forthepeople.com
                  mkarrick@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN (NASHVILLE)
          810 Broadway, Ste 105
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 490-0943
          E-mail: kbarnett@forthepeople.com

The Pulte Home Company, LLC is represented by:

          Joseph S. Justice, Esq.
          Tara Stephens Lopez, Esq.
          Martin Thomas Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY SEACORD & JUSTICE P.A.
          200 S Orange Ave Ste 2850
          PO Box 4922
          Orlando, FL 32802-4922
          Telephone: (407) 841-3800, Ext 103
          E-mail: service-justice@bsj-law.com
                    tlopez@bsj-law.com
                    mbuckley@bsj-law.com

               - and -

          Susan McNeill McKeever, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Douglas, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Turner, Esq.
          BUSH, SEYFERTH & PAIGE, PLLC
          100 W Big Beaver Rd Ste 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 822-7815
          E-mail: mckeever@bsplaw.com
                  douglas@bsplaw.com
                  turner@bsplaw.com

Counsel for S&ME, Inc., are:

          Edward M. Baird, Esq.
          Mark T. Snelson, Esq.
          BAIRD LAW, PLLC
          1104 Solana Avenue
          Winter Park, FL 32789-3781
          Telephone: (407) 906-7615
          E-mail: eddie@baird.law
                  mark@baird.law

QIHOO 360: Case Mng't Plan, Scheduling Order Entered in Altimeo
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT
and ODS CAPITAL LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Case No.
1:19-cv-10067-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:

  -- Motion for Alternative Service:       January 28, 2022

  -- Response to Motion for                February 11, 2022
     Alternative Service, if any:

  -- Reply in support of the               February 18, 2022
     Motion for Alternative
     Service, if any:

  -- Deadline to Serve Answers             March 15, 2022
     and to Serve Initial
     Disclosures:

  -- Motion for Class                      May 31, 2022
     Certification and
     Plaintiff to Serve
     Expert Report(s) in
     Support of Class
     Certification:

  -- Substantial Completion                June 28, 2022
     of Plaintiffs' Document
     Production:

  -- Deposition(s) of Plaintiffs           July 12, 2022
     and Plaintiffs' Class
     Certification Expert(s)

  -- Status Conference with the            August 8_, 2022
     Court on Issues regarding
     Discovery:

  -- Opposition to Motion for              August 30, 2022
     Class Certification and
     Defendants Serve Expert
     Report(s) in Opposition
     to Class Certification:

  -- Deposition(s) of                      September 20, 2022
     Defendants' Class
     Certification Expert(s)

  -- Reply Papers in Support               September 30, 2022
     of Class Certification
     and Rebuttal Report(s):

Qihoo 360 is a Chinese internet security company that has developed
the antivirus software programs 360 Safeguard and 360 Mobile Safe,
the Web browser 360 Secure Browser, and the mobile application
store 360 Mobile Assistant.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHJkQE at no extra charge.[CC]

REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over 37% Decline of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL AND CONTRACTORS' PENSION FUND OF OHIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., J. WARREN HUFF, and COLIN
J. MEYER, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00041 (E.D. Tex.,
January 20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) about Reata's business in order to trade Reata
securities at artificially inflated prices between November 14,
2016 and December 6, 2021. The Defendants failed to disclose that:
(i) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) disagreed with Reata on
several key factors relating to the Phase III clinical trial
designs for bardoxolone, Reata's drug candidate intended to treat
chronic kidney disease (CKD) caused by Alport syndrome; (ii) as a
result, Reata's SEC filings concealed the true risks faced by the
company in gaining FDA approval for bardoxolone; and (iii) as a
result, the company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

After the FDA released its briefing document on December 6, 2021
before the Advisory Committee Meeting to determine whether
bardoxolone would be recommended for approval, Reata's stock price
plummeted 37 percent, falling from $78.83 per share to close at
$48.92 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging
investors, says the suit.

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         William B. Federman, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         212 W. Spring Valley Road
         Richardson, TX 75081
         Telephone: (405) 235-1560
         E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
         Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
         Nathaniel Silver, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
         E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
                 jake@blockleviton.com
                 nate@blockleviton.com

REBELZ GENTLEMEN'S: Withheld Wages, Tips From Dancers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bret Pallotto at centredaily.com reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed claimed a Centre County strip club
withheld wages, tips and other money owed to dancers. Former Rebelz
dancer Briana Harris, of Mifflin County, accused owners Heather and
Pablo Varando of violating "basic federal and state labor laws."
Mandatory deductions of wages and tips were illegally diverted to
the business to subsidize their labor costs for other workers, like
security staff and DJs, attorney James Goodley wrote in the 17-page
lawsuit. Dancers retained "far less" than 50% of their customer
compensation after the deductions were applied, Goodley wrote. More
than 60 women danced at the club in the past three years. "On
multiple occasions, dancers complained to Heather Varando that they
had been shorted tips and suffered from illegal deductions from
their tips," Goodley wrote. "In response, Heather either ignored
the complaints or took disciplinary action against dancers who
raised these complaints by reducing their work shifts or firing
them." [GN]

REVIV IP LLC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reviv IP, LLC. The
case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Reviv IP, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00476 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Reviv offers hydration clinic services, namely, intravenous
hydration, intravenous electrolyte replacement therapy, intravenous
vitamin infusion therapy, intravenous free radical reduction
therapy, intravenous fluid cleansing therapy, intravenous hangover
alleviation therapy, supplemental oxygen therapy, and massage
therapy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROHR INC: Feb. 4 Extension on Class Cert Bid Hearing Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation;
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS
AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order that the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification shall be continued to a date convenient for the Court
on or after February 4, 2022.

On April 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification in the above-captioned action. The Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification has been fully briefed, and is currently
scheduled to be heard on January 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

Rohr, Inc. is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula
Vista, California, south of San Diego.

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]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore Subramaniam, Esq.
          Julia Z. Wells, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, Ca 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: matern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  jwells@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Romtin Parvaresh, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                  rparvaresh@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Bernard Olshansky, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  bolshansky@seyfarth.com

SAFESPEED LLC: Seeks Feb 18 Extension to File Oppositions
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MARSO, v.
SAFESPEED, LLC and VILLAGE OF NORTH RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS, Case No.
2:19-cv-02671-KHV-KGG (D. Kan.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending a time of 21 days, up to and including
February 18, 2022, for them to file their Oppositions to
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.

This case is set for trial on November 7, 2022, and this extension
will not affect the trial date or any of the pre-trial proceedings.
The Plaintiff's counsel has been contacted and does not oppose this
21 day requested extension of time, the Defendants say.

Given that the Plaintiff's motion seeks certification of a
nationwide class, this extension is reasonable to allow them
necessary time to address the issues raised by the Plaintiff in the
motion, the Defendants add.

SafeSpeed provideS red light enforcement systems that are used with
the goal of providing safer roadways for communities.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rIEhjb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Pennington Ketchum, Esq.
          Anne Lindner Saghir, Esq.
          DYSART TAYLOR COTTER MCMONIGLE
          & BRUMITT, P.C.
          700 West 47 th Street, Suite 410
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 931-2700
          Facsimile: (816) 931-7377
          E-mail: aketchum@dysarttaylor.com
          asaghir@dysarttaylor.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Safespeed, Inc., are:

          Andrew M. Spangler, Jr., Esq.
          CHICO & NUNES, P.C.
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1420
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: aspangler@chiconunes.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Village of North Riverside, Illinois,
are:

          Matthew A. Hurd, Esq.
          ANCEL GLINK, P.C.
          140 S. Dearborn -- 6th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: mhurd@ancelglink.com

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Williams Labor Suit Slams Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00062 (W.D. Okla., January 20, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sandridge leases and develops oil and gas acreage throughout the
Mid-Continent Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. Williams worked for
Sandridge as a Completions Consultant. He claims to be paid a day
rate with no overtime compensation and was misclassified as an
independent contractor. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rschreiber@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SANOFI CONSUMER: Dulcolax Contains Synthetic Ingredients, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sanofi Consumer Healthcare and Chattem, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00574 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of Sanofi with respect
to the marketing and sales of Defendants' Dulcolax products that
represent that they are natural.

The Defendants allegedly manufacture, sell, and distribute the
Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around
claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that their
Products are natural; however, Defendants' advertising and
marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the
Products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated who bought the Products
in New York ("Class Members") relied on Defendants'
misrepresentations that the Products are natural when purchasing
the Products. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for
the Products based upon their natural representation, and, as a
result suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid. The
Plaintiff and the other Class Members are entitled to statutory
damages as well as other relief, the suit says.

The Defendants' alleged conduct violated and continues to violate,
inter alia, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The
Defendants have been and continue to be unjustly enriched.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants on
behalf of himself and Class Members who purchased the Products
during anytime from January 21, 2016 to the date of final judgment
(the "Class Period").

Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of
synthetic, artificial and chemical ingredients in food, dietary
supplements, cleaning products, bath and beauty products and
everyday household products. Companies such as Defendants have
capitalized on consumers' desire for purportedly "natural
products." Indeed, consumers are willing to pay, and have paid, a
premium for products branded "natural" over products that contain
synthetic ingredients. In 2015, sales of natural products grew 9.5%
to $180 billion. Reasonable consumers, including the Plaintiff and
Class Members, value natural products for important reasons,
including the belief that they are safer and healthier than
alternative products that are not represented as natural.

Despite the Products containing a number of synthetic ingredients,
Defendants market the Products as being natural. The Defendants'
alleged representations that the Products are natural, are false,
misleading, and deceptive because the Products contain multiple
ingredients that are synthetic.

   a. Citric Acid is (2-hydroxy-propane-1, 2,3-tricarboxylic acid)
      is a synthetic substance. While the chemical's name has the
      word "citric" in it, citric acid is no longer extracted from

      the citrus fruit but industrially manufactured by fermenting

      certain genetically mutant strains of the black mold fungus,

      Aspergillus niger.

   b. D&C Red No. 28 is a synthetic color additive or food dye.

   c. FD&C red no. 40 is a synthetic color additive or food dye.

   d. Glycerin is a factory-produced texturizer that is created by

      complex processing. It is recognized by federal regulations
      as synthetic.

   e. Sorbitol is a type of sugar alcohol used as a thickener and a

      skin conditioning agent.

   f. Soy Lecithin is a phospholipid that is widely used as an
      emulsifier in food industries. Soy lecithin comprises of
      phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine,
      phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidic acid, other minor
      phospholipids, glycolipid, and neutral lipids. It is derived

      from GMO's and/or GE seeds in which DNA splicing has been
      used to place genes from another source into a plant. Soy
      Lecithin is heavily processed to remove the natural bean
      flavor so that the finished "soy" product no longer tastes
      like soy.

   g. Xanthan Gum is a polysaccharide derived from the fermentation

      of sugars by anthomonas campeseri bacterium and purification

      using isopropyl alcohol. It is listed as a synthetic
      ingredient by federal regulation and is typically used as a
      thickening or stabilizing agent in beverages and as
      emulsifiers in salad dressings.

The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products
anywhere in New York state during the Class Period (the "Class").

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer who, at all times material
hereto, was a citizen of New York, New York. The Plaintiff
purchased the Products during the Class Period at retail stores in
Manhattan. The packaging of the Products Plaintiff purchased
contained the representation that they were natural. The Plaintiff
believes that products that are labeled as natural do not contain
synthetic ingredients.

Had Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive
representation that the Products were natural, Plaintiff would not
have been willing to pay the same amount for the Products, and,
consequently, would not have been willing to purchase the Products,
added the suit.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, and distribute the
Products throughout the United States. They allegedly created
and/or authorized the false, misleading and deceptive
advertisements, packaging and labeling for the Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  cmoore@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

SEED HEALTH: Tavarez Must File Class Cert. Bid by June 17
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO
TAVAREZ,Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SEED HEALTH, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09881-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          Feb 17, 2022
     additional parties shall be
     filed no later than:

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

  -- All fact discovery shall be             May 18, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- All expert discovery, including         May 18, 2022
     reports, production of underlying
     documents, and depositions,
     shall be completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production         Feb. 17, 2022
     of documents shall be served by:

  -- Interrogatories pursuant to             Feb. 17, 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           June 17, 2022
     for/to class certification no
     later than:

  -- Any opposition shall be filed           July 19, 2022
     by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:            Aug. 16, 2022

  -- The next pretrial conference            May 24, 2022
     is scheduled for:

Seed Health is a microbial sciences company pioneering applications
of microbes for human and planetary health.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o5Ny3R at no extra charge.[CC]

SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Decision on Class Certification Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELSIE ROMERO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; CALIFORNIA
REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-06369-TJH-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order deciding on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Local Rule 83-9.1 provides that the Court shall render and file its
decision on motions within 120 days after the matter is submitted
for decision. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-9.1.1(ii), a motion shall
be deemed submitted for decision on the date the last memorandum or
other document is permitted to be filed, if no oral argument is
conducted on the motion.

The last memoranda or documents permitted to be filed in connection
with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was Plaintiffs'
reply which was filed on September 17, 2021. Therefore, it has been
more than 120 days since the matter
was deemed submitted.

Select Employment is a staffing company.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Jan. 19, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33zDSHD at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  ladolph@maternlawgroup.com

SIROB IMPORTS: Lainas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATHANASIOS LAINAS, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. SIROB IMPORTS, INC., and NIKOLAOS BOBORIS,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00369 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2022) seeks injunctive
and declaratory relief against the Defendants' unlawful actions and
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, pay, statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, for over two years, Plaintiff
Athanasios Lainas, was ostensibly employed as a Truck
Driver/Delivery Person at Defendants' business. The Defendants
employed the Plaintiff as a driver/delivery worker from January 3,
2020, until August 12, 2021. Throughout his employment with
Defendants., the Plaintiff's work duties included delivering food
to customers.

He worked up to 56 hours per week in average. Throughout his
employment, Mr. Lainas did not receive the statutory minimum wage,
and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per week. Additionally,
the Plaintiff did not receive wage notices, or wage statements at
the end of each pay period, the suit says.

Sirob owns, operates, and is in the business of importing,
manufacturing, distributing, and exporting of a large line of fine
food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

SPLENDID SPOON: 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. Splendid Spoon LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-09949-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 8, 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           Aug. 9, 2022
     by:

  -- Any reply shall be filed by:            Sept. 8, 2022

  -- The next pretrial conference            June 9, 2022

Splendid Spoon is a meal delivery service that provides fully
prepared, plant-based meals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FGUn1H at no extra charge.[CC]

SPRAGUE OPERATING: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to March 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Agudelo v. Sprague
Operating Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00407 (D.R.I.), the Hon.
Judge John J Mcconnell, Jr. entered an order granting second motion
for an extension of time of fact discovery deadline:

  -- All Factual Discovery in support           Feb. 28, 2022
     of or opposition to a Motion
     for Class Certification shall
     be completed by:

  -- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosures             April 15, 2022
     shall be made by:

  -- The Defendant's Expert Disclosures         May 15, 2022
     shall be made by:

  -- The Plaintiff's Motion for                 March 30, 2022
     Class Certification shall be
     filed by:

  -- The Defendant's opposition to              June 5, 2022
     that Motion shall be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff's reply shall                June 25, 2022

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

Sprague Operating retails petroleum products. The Company offers
home heating oil, diesel and residual fuels, kerosene, low-sulfur
diesel, bio fuels, bunker fuels, and gasoline products.[CC]

STATE FARM: Millwood Seeks Approval of Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GETTYS BRYANT MILLWOOD,
JOHN BAKER MCCLANAHAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
MELISSA BUCHANAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:19-cv-01445-DCC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their class certification bid pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

State Farm sells term life, whole life and universal life insurance
policies to individuals.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nHQ6ol
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  ngiddings@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Fetsick, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, Floor 14
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: kfetsick@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Tele: 202-350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          MITCHELL DeCLERCK
          202 West Broadway Avenue
          Enid, OK 73701
          Telephone: (580) 234-5144
          Facsimile: 580-234-8890
          E-mail: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net
                  rle@mdpllc.com

               - and -

          George Brandt, III, Esq.
          HENDERSON, BRANDT & VIETH, P.A.
          360 E. Henry St., Suite 101
          Spartanburg, SC 29302
          Telephone: 864-583-5144
          Facsimile: 864-582-2927
          E-mail: gbrandt@hbvlaw.com

STICKER MULE: Class Settlement in Bonefort Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIERRA BONEFORT, on behalf
of herself, and all Others similarly situated, v. STICKER MULE, LLC
and PRINT BEAR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01222-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting final approval of the settlement;

   2. certifying the proposed settlement class, for settlement
      purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)
      (3);

   3. approving the Service Payment set forth in the Agreement;

   4. granting Plaintiff's' request for attorneys' fees and out-
      of-pocket costs and expenses;

   5. approving the selection of Worker Justice Center of New
      York, Inc. ("WJCNY") as a cy pres designee as per Section
      3.5(B) of the Agreement;

   6. enjoining the Plaintiff and all Class Members who did not
      file valid exclusion requests from seeking to reopen or
      filing any claims against Defendants that were released by
      the Agreement;

   7. dismissing the litigation with prejudice; and

   8. retaining jurisdiction over the interpretation and
      implementation of this Agreement, as well as any and all
      matters arising out of, or related to, the interpretation
      or implementation of this Agreement and of the settlement
      contemplated thereby.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KzMvT1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Conditionally Certified
Settlement Class, are:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Scott P. Quesnel, Esq.
          GIRVIN & FERLAZZO, P.C.
          20 Corporate Woods Blvd.
          Albany, NY 12211
          Telephone: (518) 462-0300
          E-mail: spq@girvinlaw.com

STONE PARK: Asks to Toss Red Light Camera Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that the village of
Stone Park says a motorist whose red light camera ticket was waived
shouldn't be allowed to lead a class action lawsuit that accuses
Stone Park of improperly forcing people to challenge red light
camera tickets that should never have been issued.

Last November, plaintiff Michael Tock filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court, seeking to bring a class action lawsuit against
Stone Park on behalf of potentially hundreds of others who had
received red light camera tickets for allegedly failing to stop
when turning right on red at an intersection in the suburb watched
over by a red light camera system.

According to the complaint, Tock had been ticketed, allegedly
despite coming to a complete stop when he was turning right on red
at the intersection of Mannheim Road and Lake Street in Stone Park,
not far from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

Tock's lawsuit claims others have been similarly ticketed.

While he successfully challenged the ticket, his lawsuit asserts
the village has banked on the knowledge that many others will
choose to simply pay the $100 fine, rather than invest the time and
money to take a chance on getting the ticket dismissed at an
administrative hearing.

The complaint notes state law specifically forbids counties, cities
and villages from using such automated traffic law enforcement
systems to ticket motorists who come to a complete stop before
entering the intersection, when turning right on red, even if they
stop "at a point past a stop line or crosswalk," unless pedestrians
are present.

On Dec. 29, however, attorneys for the village argued Tock's
lawsuit should be tossed.

They said the dismissal of Tock's ticket indicates he and other
would-be plaintiffs are afforded their constitutional right to
challenge the citations, whether they believe the tickets were
justified or not.

However, even if there may be cause to bring a class action, they
argued Tock cannot be the one to lead it.

First, they again noted Tock's ticket was dismissed, meaning he was
never forced to pay any fine, whether justified or not.

Then, they further argued video evidence allegedly indicates Tock
may have been properly cited, as they claim the wheels of his
vehicle never actually stopped moving when he was making his turn.

They argued Tock had "misrepresented material facts in order to
concoct a cause of action."

"Plaintiff (Tock) never came to a 'complete stop,' nor did he stop
before entering the intersection," Stone Park asserted in its
brief. "Plaintiff's case in controversy ended when he was found not
liable for a red-light violation citation after going before the
hearing officer.

"Therefore, he has no standing to seek the declaratory relief on
his behalf and on behalf of other putative plaintiffs."

Stone Park is represented in the case by attorney Dominick L.
Lanzito, of Peterson Johnson & Murray Chicago LLC, of Chicago.

Tock is represented by attorneys Richard F. Linden, of the firm of
Lipman & Linden; Robert Fioretti, of Roth Fioretti; and Peter
Bustamante, all of Chicago. [GN]

STRATEGIC BENEFITS: Data Breach Triggers Probe Into Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, Console & Associates, P.C. announced the firm's intention
to open an investigation into the recent Strategic Benefits
Advisors, Inc. data breach to determine the legal remedies of those
impacted by the breach. If Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc. did
not take the necessary steps to secure consumers' information or
otherwise mishandled consumer data, the company may be liable
through a data breach class action lawsuit.
The information accessed and obtained through a data breach is
sometimes retained by the party conducting the cyberattack or sold
to another party. Regardless of who ends up with the information,
affected consumers are at an increased risk of identity theft or
financial losses.

While there is not yet any evidence suggesting that Strategic
Benefits Advisors, Inc. was negligent in the maintenance of
consumer data, the breach raises serious questions about the
company's efforts to keep consumer data secure. If it turns out
that Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc. mishandled or failed to
protect consumer data, affected parties may be able to pursue
financial compensation through a class action lawsuit.

Attorney Richard Console explains, "It's easy to place all the
blame for a data breach on the person who hacks into a company's
system; however, this ignores the legal and moral obligation
businesses owe to their customers. When someone gives a company
their business, they trust that the information in the company'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 companies must
take seriously."

On September 19, 2021, Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc. was the
victim of a "criminal cyberattack." On October 19, 2021, the
company sent data breach notifications to all affected parties,
informing them of the breach and what they can do to protect
themselves. While the company did not release details on how the
third party was able to access consumers' data, a subsequent
investigation revealed that the names and Social Security numbers
of 58,431 individuals were compromised.

Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc. reports that the company does not
know which data was accessed or if any data was removed from the
company's systems. However, an investigation is ongoing. On
November 12, 2021, Strategic Benefits Advisors sent a follow-up
letter outlining additional details about the breach.

If it turns out that Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc. did not take
the necessary steps to ensure the security of consumers' data,
affected patients may be able to name Strategic Benefits Advisors,
Inc. in a class action data breach lawsuit.

While the investigation into the breach is ongoing, those in
receipt of a data breach letter from Strategic Benefits Advisors,
Inc. should take the following steps to protect themselves:

-- Carefully review the letter sent by Strategic Benefits Advisors,
Inc.;
-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by
Strategic Benefits Advisors, Inc.;
-- 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
-- Notify all banks and credit card companies of the 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]

SUNDANCE INC: Vedder Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Clark, Esq., and Julia L. Koechley, Esq., of Vedder Price, in
an article for The National Law Review, report that one of the best
ways for companies facing media and privacy risk to protect
themselves from expensive class action litigation is by including
an arbitration provision in the applicable terms and conditions.
While it's not always clear at the outset of litigation whether the
plaintiff agreed to the terms, companies often have to invoke
arbitration quickly out of fear that they will be found to have
waived arbitration. But in its coming term, the U.S. Supreme Court
is now poised to address the critical point of whether prejudice to
the plaintiff is a necessary element for a finding of waiver.

The Court agreed to decide whether prejudice is a required element
in determining whether the right to arbitrate has been waived when
it granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Robyn Morgan v.
Sundance, Inc. (No. 21-328). The case reached the Supreme Court
after the Eighth Circuit found that Sundance, Inc., a company that
owns over 150 Taco Bell franchises nationwide, did not waive its
right to arbitrate the plaintiff's claims, despite waiting almost
eight months after the filing of her Complaint to move to compel
arbitration.

There is, at a present, a circuit split on the question of whether
prejudice plays a role in the waiver analysis. Nine out of the
twelve federal circuit courts -- the First, Second, Third, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits -- have
explicitly found that prejudice is a required element to establish
a waiver of the right to arbitrate. But the remaining three circuit
courts -- the Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits -- have held that
prejudice is not a required element.

In this case, the plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a proposed
putative class, filed suit against Sundance on September 25, 2018
in the U.S. Southern District of Iowa, alleging that it had failed
to pay employees for overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Because an action containing nearly identical
allegations had been pending in the Eastern District of Michigan
for nearly two years, Sundance first filed a motion to dismiss or
stay the claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), which the District
Court ultimately denied.

Thereafter, Sundance, plaintiff, and the plaintiffs in the Eastern
District of Michigan action voluntarily attended mediation in an
attempt to achieve a global resolution of the claims asserted
against Sundance. Plaintiff's claims were not resolved at the
mediation, and three weeks later (nearly eight months after the
case had been filed), Sundance moved to compel arbitration.

The motion to compel arbitration was filed before the parties
attended an initial scheduling conference with the District Court
and before the parties had engaged in any discovery. Nonetheless,
the District Court denied the motion, finding that Sundance had
waived its right to arbitration because it acted inconsistently
with its right by invoking the "litigation machinery," which
prejudiced plaintiff.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed on
appeal, finding that -- in light of the totality of the
circumstances -- plaintiff had not been prejudiced by Sundance's
eight-month delay because, during that time, the parties were
briefing the quasi-jurisdictional issue raised in the motion to
dismiss or stay and then waiting on the District Court's ruling on
same, rather than litigating the merits of the claim.

Plaintiff sought review by the Supreme Court, asking it to answer
the following question: "Does the arbitration specific requirement
that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice
violate this Court's instruction [in, 563 U.S. 333, 339 (2011)]
that lower courts must 'place arbitration agreements on an equal
footing with other contracts?'"

In response, Sundance argued that despite the apparent split, the
Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits nonetheless consider prejudice in
determining if the right to arbitrate has been waived. Per
Sundance, "[a]t bottom, all of the Circuits are looking at the
totality of the circumstances, as they should, in assessing waiver,
and all are considering the existence of prejudice, whether as a
mandatory or non-mandatory factor, as part of the assessment, based
upon highly overlapping facts."

Only time will tell whether the Supreme Court agrees, but we will
continue to track and report on this case. [GN]

SWISHER INTERNATIONAL: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swisher
International, Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Swisher International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00479 (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
19, 2022).

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

Swisher -- https://swisher.com/ -- is an international tobacco
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Talis Biomedical Corporation
("Talis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TLIS) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Talis common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
February 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/tlis.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient
sensitivity to support the Company's EUA application for Talis One
COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for
the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
commercialization timeline would be significantly delayed; 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tlis or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Talis you have until March 8, 2022, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contacts

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

TALIS BIOMEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Talis Biomedical Corporation ("Talis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TLIS) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's February 2021
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Investors have
until March 8, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Talis develops diagnostic tests to enable accurate, reliable, low
cost, and rapid molecular testing for infectious diseases and other
conditions at the point-of-care. The Talis One tests are being
developed for respiratory infections, infections related to women's
health, and sexually transmitted infections.

On February 12, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement.
In the IPO, the Company sold 15,870,000 shares of common stock at a
price of $16.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of
approximately $232.6 million from the Offering. The proceeds from
the IPO were purportedly to be used for commercial activities
(including the hiring and training of sales and marketing
personnel), research and development, and working capital and other
general corporate purposes.

On March 8, 2021, Talis announced that it had withdrawn its
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for the Talis One
COVID-19 test. In a press release, the Company revealed that "[i]n
late February, the FDA informed the company that it cannot ensure
the comparator assay used in the primary study has sufficient
sensitivity to support Talis's EUA application." As a result, Talis
"intends to initiate its previously planned clinical validation
study in a point-of-care environment" to submit its EUA application
"early in the second quarter of 2021." This study "was designed
with a different comparator assay, which Talis believes will
address the FDA's concerns." On this news, the Company's stock
price declined by $1.80 per share, or approximately 12.29%, from
$14.65 per share to close at $12.85 per share on March 8, 2021.

Then, on August 10, 2021, Talis revealed that its "development
timelines have been extended by delays in the launching of
[Talis's] COVID-19 test and manufacturing scale." As a result,
Talis "expect[s] to see [its] first meaningful revenue ramp in
2022." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by $0.58
per share, or approximately 6.47%, from $8.97 per share to close at
$8.39 per share on August 11, 2021.

On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, Talis announced that
its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Brian Coe, had "stepped down"
as President, CEO, and Director. On this news, the Company's stock
price declined by $1.00 per share, or approximately 11.04%, from
$9.06 per share to close at $8.06 per share on August 31, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser was
appointed as President, CEO, and Director of Talis effective
December 1, 2021. However, a week after his appointment, on
December 8, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser had stepped
down from his positions. On this news, the Company's stock price
declined by $0.55 per share, or approximately 11.39%, from $4.83
per share to close at $4.28 per share on December 8, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient
sensitivity to support Talis's EUA application for Talis One
COVID-19 test; (2) as a result, Talis was reasonably likely to
experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis
One COVID-19 test; (3) as a result, the Company's commercialization
timeline would be significantly delayed; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Talis securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

TELECHECK SERVICES: Beaudry Files Certiorari Petition in FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Estate of Cheryl Beaudry filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled ESTATE OF CHERYL BEAUDRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.;
TELECHECK INTERNATIONAL INC.; AND FIRST DATA CORPORATION,
Respondents, Case No. 21-1031, on Jan. 21, 2022.

Response is due on February 22, 2022.

The Plaintiff petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the case titled Cheryl Beaudry v. Telecheck Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-6018.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting
TeleCheck's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether
Beaudry had suffered an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article
III Section 2 of the United States Constitution standing.

The question presented is: When presenting checks to merchants for
payment, did named Plaintiff Cheryl Beaudry suffer an injury in
fact sufficient to confer Article III standing for an action under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act when TeleCheck provided inaccurate
consumer reports to merchants about Beaudry by failing to include
positive checkwriting information stored in TeleCheck's files,
thereby increasing the risk that Beaudry would receive check
declines?

This is a putative class action brought by Beaudry, individually
and on behalf of a putative class of over 1.4 million consumers who
were victims of TeleCheck's widespread practice and procedure of
failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy of information about consumers when providing consumer
reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit revived this class action accusing foreign
check-verification companies of ignoring a numbering change in
Tennessee's driver's license system, making it appear as if
"hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of consumers were
first-time check writers. U.S. District Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger
dismissed the case, saying Beaudry failed to allege injury--namely,
that she had a check rejected or transaction canceled because of
the error.

TeleCheck moved for summary judgment based on Beaudry's alleged
lack of standing. The district court granted TeleCheck's motion. In
analyzing standing, the district court ruled that to establish
Article III standing, a plaintiff must prove that she suffered an
injury in fact. The district court noted that Beaudry could
establish standing in one of three ways by proving that: 1) the
statutory violation created an injury in fact because she had a
check decline; 2) the statutory violation did not injure her in any
traditional way, but the risk of injury was so imminent that it
satisfies Article III; or 3) the statutory violation did not create
an injury in any traditional sense, but Congress had authority to
establish the injury in view of its identification of meaningful
risks of harm in this area.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Estate of Cheryl Beaudry,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center
          424 Church Street, Suite 800
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com

TOP FOOD TRADING: Qun Tian Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qun Tian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Top Food Trading Inc., John Doe 1-5, Jane
Doe 1-5 and Company ABC 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00345,
(E.D. N.Y., January 20, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation and illegally withheld wages already
earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
labor laws.

Defendants operated a wholesale business in Queens, NY where Qun
Tian worked as a driver, from about June 1, 2016 to about November
30, 2019. He claims to have worked 6 days per week, and at least 70
hours per week without being paid overtime. He also claims to work
through his breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heng Wang, Esq.
      HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      305 Broadway, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 203-5231
      Fax: (212) 203-5237
      Email: all@wanggaolaw.com


TOSHIBA CORP: Pension Fund Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MARK
STOYAS, NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, and
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, a Japanese Corporation, v.
TOSHIBA CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation, Case No.
2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

On June 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class
action against Defendant, alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and the Financial
Instruments & Exchange Act of Japan (JFIEA) in connection with
allegations of accounting fraud and misrepresentations.

The Plaintiffs allege that on March 23, 2015, AIPTF purchased
36,000 shares of unsponsored Toshiba American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) "through transactions on the OTC Market in the United States
thereby acquiring an ownership interest in 216,000 shares of common
stock issued and authorized for sale by Toshiba."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24, 2022, the Hon.
Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order denying plaintiffs' motion
for class certification of:

   "All persons who purchased securities listed under the ticker
   symbols TOSYY or TOSBF [between May 8, 2012 and November 12,
   2015] using the facilities of the OTC Market (American
   Securities Purchasers)";

      - and -

   "All citizens and residents of the United States who
   purchased shares of Toshiba 6502 common stock [between May 8,
   2012 and November 12, 2015] (6502 Purchasers)."

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this ruling denying their class
certification motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Mark Stoyas, et al. v. Toshiba
Corporation, Case No. 22-80001, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Jan. 21, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND and
NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND are
represented by:

          Joseph David Daley, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Dennis Herman, Esq.
          Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: willowr@rgrdlaw.com  

Defendant-Respondent TOSHIBA CORPORATION is represented by:

          Jaime Manuel Crowe, Esq.
          Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
          Reuben J. Sequeira, II, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-3640

               - and -

          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE, LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700

TOUR RESOURCE: Delcavo Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANTHONY DELCAVO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOUR RESOURCE
CONSULTANTS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02137-JWL-ADM (D. Kan.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case for class treatment on behalf of;

      "All persons who were charged a cancellation fee by
      Defendant for tour reservations that were booked before
      January 1, 2020 but cancelled during the COVID-19
      pandemic;"

   2. appointing him  as representative of the class;

   3. appointing Mr. McInnes and Mr. Waddell (and their
      respective firms) as class counsel;

   4. approving the proposed Notice and schedule for Notice
      dissemination; and

   5. granting any such further relief as may be just and proper
      under the circumstances.

The Plaintiff seeks damages from the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, conversion, breach of contract, and violation(s) of the
Kansas Consumer Production Act (KCPA). The Court should certify
this proposed class because all the Rule 23 requirements are
clearly satisfied, says the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is a travel company that specializes in organizing
and facilitating various group travel experiences. Its services
include assisting in creating an initial plan for tours to proceed,
booking travel, entertainment and lodging associated with those
tours, and promoting those tours.

In early 2019, the Plaintiff made a reservation for a trip to Italy
as part of a trip that Defendant organized on behalf of his son's
orchestral group, the Bach Festival Society of Winter Park, Inc.

The Plaintiff was one of many individuals that planned to attend
this trip, which was scheduled to occur in June of 2020. Delcavo
paid an initial, $400.00 deposit for the purpose of reserving his
place on Bach's Italy trip on November 8, 2019. Although he had not
been provided a copy of Defendant's cancellation policy, he saw
Defendant's terms and conditions online at the time of booking.
These terms and conditions indicated that "all refunds will be
based upon the cancelation schedule provided." In or around January
2020, the Plaintiff was provided a trip itinerary with the
cancelation schedule, which was included in Defendant's
"Cancellation Policy," the lawsuit says.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Austin O. Jaspers, Esq.
          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Ashworth, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 West 75 th Street, Suite 220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
                  ben@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          1900 West 75 th Street, Suite 220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (816) 914-5365
          Facsimile: (913) 273-1671
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due March 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENN KESSELMAN, an
individual, behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et
al., v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation;
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06010-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order setting briefing schedule re
class certification.

   1. The Plaintiffs shall file their         March 3, 2023
      Motion(s) for Class
      Certification on or before:

   2. The Defendants shall take the           March 17, 2023
      deposition of any expert
      disclosed in connection
      with Plaintiffs' Motion(s)
      for Class Certification by:

   3. The Defendants shall file their        April 28, 2023
      Opposition(s) to any Motion(s)
      for Class Certification
      on or before:

   4. The Plaintiffs shall take the          May 12, 2023
      deposition of any expert
      disclosed in connection
      with Defendants' Opposition(s)
      to any Motion(s) for Class
      Certification by:

   5. The Plaintiffs shall file their        June 9, 2023
      Reply to any Opposition(s) to
      the Motion(s) for Class
      Certification on or before:

   6. The hearing date for the               June 30, 2023
      Motion(s) for Class
      Certification shall be:

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is the North American Toyota sales,
marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States
market. Founded in 1957 in California, TMS currently employs more
than 6,500 people. As of spring 2017 Toyota moved to a new campus
in Plano, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tIvxw2 at no extra charge.[CC]

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hoffman Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN; SARAH
DOUGLASS; ANTHONY KIM; and IL KIM and DARIA KIM, husband and wife
and the marital community comprised thereof, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED; PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C; MATTHEW CHEUNG, and the
marital community comprised of MATTHEW CHEUNG and JANE DOE CHEUNG;
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-2; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST
2005-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-1; NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3; NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT
LOAN TRUST 2007-4, Case No. 2:18-cv-01132-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following
class and two subclasses under Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. and/or 23(b)(2) on
behalf of persons from whom the Defendants have collected or
attempted to collect on student loans which Defendant National
Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (NCSLTs) purport to own:

  -- Class:

     "All persons residing in Washington against whom the
     Defendants sought to collect an alleged debt allegedly
     owned by the Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan
     Trust 2004-2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-
     2, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, National
     Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1, National Collegiate
     Student Loan Trust 2006-3, and National Collegiate Student
     Loan Trust 2007-4 (collectively, the "NCSLTs," and each
     individually, a "NCSLT"), on or after June 20, 2014;"

  -- Subclasses:

     CPA Judgment Subclass:

     "All persons in the Class against whom the Defendants
     obtained a judgment in any Washington court where a NCSLT
     was a Plaintiff and the judgment was obtained using a
     declaration of a Transworld Systems, Inc. employee;" and
  -- Post-CFPB TSI Consent Order Subclass:

     "All persons in the Class against whom the Defendants
     maintained or filed a lawsuit to collect an alleged debt
     owed to a NCSLT after September 18, 2017, the date the
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") /Transworld
     Systems Incorporated Consent Order was entered in CFPB
     Administrative Proceeding File No. 2017-CFPB-0018."

In 2004, Ms. Hoffman obtained a $6,000 student loan from Bank of
America. She was later sued by NCSLT 2004-2, which alleged that it
owned the debt. Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. (P&F) was the law firm
that represented the NCSLT in the Summons and Complaint, and
Matthew Cheung was the attorney that signed them. After Ms. Hoffman
was served with the in 2013, she made some payments to P&F on the
alleged debt. P&F sent Ms. Hoffman numerous collection letters.

From 2005 to 2007, Anthony Kim obtained six student loans totaling
$76,500 from Bank One (which later merged with JP Morgan Chase
Bank) and Bank of America. Anthony's parents, Kim and Daria Kim,
co-signed for several of the loans. Anthony Kim and Il Kim were
served with one lawsuit for NCSLT 2006-3 and served a pro se Notice
of Appearance and Answer. They also made a payment arrangement with
P&F for $50 a month, which Anthony Kim and his parents believed
applied to any amounts they allegedly owed to a NCSLT.

The NCSLTs are Delaware statutory trusts. The NCSLTs have no
employees. Instead, they act through agents like TSI and P&F. The
NCSLTs collect from numerous consumers in Washington. As of July
18, 2014, the start of the class period, NCSLT 2004-2 claimed to
own the loans of 759 consumers with Washington
addresses.

The Plaintiffs seek a WCPA injunction preventing the Defendants
from attempting to collect on student loans alleged to be owned by
the Defendant NCSLT.

Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and
management services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/33uuBRj at
no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sam Leonard, Esq.
          LEONARD LAW, PLLC
          3614 California Ave. SW, No. 151
          Seattle, Washington 98116
          Telephone: (206) 486-1176
          Facsimile: (206) 458-6028
          E-mail: sam@seattledebtdefense.com

               - and -

          Guy W. Beckett, Esq.
          BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP
          1708 Bellevue Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (206) 441-5444
          Facsimile: (206) 838-6346
          E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com

               - and -

          Christina Henry, Esq.
          HENRY & DeGRAAF, P.S.
          119 -- 1st Ave. S., Ste. 500
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 330-0595
          Facsimile: (206) 400-7609
          E-mail: chenry@HDM-legal.com

               - and -

          Amanda N. Martin, Esq.
          NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 805-0989
          Facsimile: (206) 805-1716
          E-mail: Amanda@NWCLC.org

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Protests to Oct. 23 Order in Michelo Overruled
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MUTINTA MICHELO, KATHERINE SEAMAN, MARY RE SEAMAN,
and SANDRA TABAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN
TRUST 2007-2, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2007-3,
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., in its own right and as successor to NCO
FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.; EGS FINANCIAL CARE INC., formerly known as
NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.; and FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, Defendants.
CHRISTINA BIFULCO, FRANCIS BUTRY, and CORI FRAUENHOFER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2004-2,
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-4, TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS,
INC., in its own right and as successor to NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS,
INC.; EGS FINANCIAL CARE INC., formerly known as NCO FINANCIAL
SYSTEMS, INC.; and FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, Defendants, Case Nos. 18
Civ. 1781 (PGG) (BCM), 18 Civ. 7692 (PGG) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York overruled Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc.'s
objections to the Oct. 23, 2020 order of Magistrate Judge Barbara
C. Moses denying TSI's motion for a protective order, and directing
it to comply with Request No. 19.

I. Introduction

In these consolidated putative class actions, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants have orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently
obtain state court default judgments against them, and that the
Defendants have carried out this scheme by, inter alia, "submitting
false or deceptive affidavits" in those state court proceedings.
The Plaintiffs allege that employees of Transworld Systems, Inc.
("TSI") "have falsely attested to personal knowledge" of the
information contained in those affidavits.

On March 19, 2020, the Court entered a Consolidated Amended Civil
Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, and on April 28, 2020,
the Court referred the case to Judge Moses for general pretrial
supervision.

II. Background

On Sept. 14, 2020, TSI moved for a protective order as to the
Plaintiffs' Document Request No. 19, which seeks "all documents"
TSI produced to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in
connection with In re Transworld System, Inc., No. 2017-CFPB-0018,
and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate
Master Student Loan Trust et al., No. 17-CV-01323-UNA (D. Del.).
TSI argues that this request is "overbroad," that the documents the
Plaintiffs seek are only "tangentially related" to the issues in
the instant cases, and that responding to this request would be
unduly burdensome. It notes that the CFPB investigation extended
beyond New York and that the time period at issue in the CFPB
investigation and lawsuit does not significantly overlap with the
time period relevant in the case.

TSI also argues that "production of the materials submitted by TSI
to the CFPB would force TSI to violate the process for the
treatment of confidential information produced pursuant to a CFPB
[Civil Investigative Demand ("CID")]." Finally, TSI argues that --
if the CFPB-related documents are produced -- the Plaintiffs would
be able to "reverse engineer" the CFPB's investigative process,
which would undermine the "free flow of information between CFPB
and CID responders."

In an Oct. 23, 2020 order, Judge Moses denied TSI's motion for a
protective order, and directed TSI to comply with Request No. 19.
Judge Moses Notes that TSI had not shown "that it would be
difficult, time-consuming, or expensive to re-produce the same
documents to the Plaintiffs," or that it would be easier to produce
a subset of the CFPB production.

Judge Moses also rejects TSI's contention that documents involving
consumers outside of New York are not relevant to the Plaintiffs'
claims," noting that the Consolidated Complaint "alleges a
nationwide class," and that Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure broadly "permits discovery of any nonprivileged
matter that is `relevant to any party's claim or defense'" and
"proportional to the needs of the case."

On Nov. 6, 2020, TSI filed objections to the Oct. 23, 2020 order,
repeating arguments it made to Judge Moses: (1) that Request No. 19
is overbroad; (2) that complying with Request No. 19 would violate
CFPB regulations regarding confidentiality; and (3) that complying
with Request No. 19 would enable parties to reverse engineer the
CFPB investigative process.

III. Discussion

TSI argues that Judge Moses "did not appropriately balance
Plaintiffs' litigation needs with TSI's protectable interests. It
further argues that it was "clear error" for Judge Moses to find
that the Consolidated Complaint asserts a nationwide class.
According to TSI, the Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie
showing that the class action requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
will be satisfied, or that the discovery sought is "likely to
produce substantiation of the class allegations." Judge Moses
therefore "improperly shifted the burden to TSI to explain why the
requested production was irrelevant."

As an initial matter, in arguing that the "Plaintiffs' claims are
predicated entirely on New York law," and are based exclusively on
conduct that occurred in New York state courts, Judge Gardephe
holds that TSI mischaracterizes the Consolidated Complaint. The
Plaintiffs plead claims under the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), alleging the Defendants violated the
FDCPA by making false and misleading representations in connection
with lawsuits filed against Plaintiffs in the collection of student
loan debt. In sum, in arguing that the Consolidated Complaint is
premised solely on New York law, TSI has misrepresented the
Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Gardephe likewise sees no error in Judge Moses' finding that
the Consolidated Complaint pleads a nationwide class that is not
limited to New York consumers. Nothing in the Consolidated
Complaint limits the Plaintiffs' claims to New York consumers. As
to TSI's overbreadth argument, Judge Gardephe sees no error in
Judge Moses' conclusions that TSI merely asserts in vague terms
that it produced 'thousands' of documents to the CFPB, but it makes
no showing that it would be difficult, time-consuming, or expensive
to re-produce the same documents to the Plaintiffs.

TSI further argues that Judge Moses erred in not requiring the
Plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case that Rule 23 requirements
could be satisfied. Judge Gardephe finds no error in Judge Moses'
conclusion that the discovery at issue is relevant. Given these
circumstances, TSI bears the burden to show that the requested
production is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Judge Moses
committed no error in determining that TSI had not substantiated
its claims of burden.

Finally, TSI argues that Judge Moses "committed clear error by not
giving weight to TSI's arguments that requiring it to produce its
entire production to the CFPB would violate confidentiality rules
and allow private parties to reverse engineer entire regulatory
investigations." Judge Gardephe finds no clear error in Judge
Moses' analysis of 12 C.F.R. Sections 1070.30-1070.37. These
regulations do not apply to materials in the possession of private
litigants.

As Judge Moses makes clear in her May 15, 2020, Aug. 31, 2020, and
Oct. 23, 2020 orders, "the protections and privileges that TSI
describes would be assertible, if at all, by the CFPB, which has
now unequivocally declined to do so." And in rejecting TSI's
"reverse engineering" arguments, Judge Moses found both that TSI
had "failed to provide case law to support its position," and that
other courts had required defendants to produce in discovery
material that they previously had produced to the CFPB.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Gardephe concludes that TSI has not demonstrated that Judge
Moses committed "clear error" in her Oct. 23, 2020 order, or that
her rulings are contrary to law. Accordingly, TSI's objections to
the Oct. 23, 2020 order are overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8xuzva from Leagle.com.


TRAVELERS CO: Donnellan Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DALY DONNELLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRAVELERS COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20 C 06064 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca
R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Travelers' motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff Donnellan has auto insurance issued by the Defendant.
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Travelers gave
Donnellan a 15% credit on her car insurance premiums. Donnellan
believes that amount of credit is inadequate. In the lawsuit, she
alleges that as a result of the pandemic, Travelers' policyholders
in Illinois spent less time on the road, meaning that there were
fewer accidents and fewer insurance claims, and that Travelers
enjoyed an unfair windfall in profits.

Ms. Donnellan asserts that Travelers had the obligation to act in
good faith in exercising its discretion under a provision of its
contract titled "Changes." She notes that Travelers had discretion
to adjust premiums when the "use of insured vehicles," under
section B.1 of the policy, changed during the pandemic. Though she
does not quote from it, the Plaintiff also states the name of the
endorsement, under section A of the policy, that directly led to
her 15%: "stay-at-home."

Ms. Donnellan asserted five counts in her original class action
complaint, which she filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. Her proposed class action was "brought on behalf of all
Illinois residents who were auto insurance policyholders of
defendant The Travelers Company, Inc. as of March 1, 2020, and who
have thereafter continued to be The Travelers Company, Inc. auto
policyholders."

Travelers timely removed the case to this court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). CAFA provides this
court with original jurisdiction over the action because (i) it
involves 100 or more putative class members; (ii) at least one
putative class member is a citizen of a state different from that
of Travelers; and (iii) the amount in controversy more likely than
not exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.

As Travelers explained in its Notice of Removal, it has nearly
90,000 auto policies in force in Illinois, all of whom are putative
class members. Minimal diversity for CAFA is satisfied because
Donnellan is a citizen of Illinois and Travelers has its principal
place of business in Connecticut. And the amount in controversy
plausibly meets the CAFA threshold of $5 million.

In her first amended complaint, Donnellan brings claims for
bad-faith breach of contract (Count I), violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") (Count
II), and unjust enrichment (Count III). As her amended complaint
includes the same putative class members, maintains minimal
diversity, and maintains a sufficient amount in controversy,
jurisdiction under CAFA is secure.

Travelers now files a motion to dismiss.

II. Discussion

A. Bad-Faith Breach of Contract

In Count I, Donnellan argues that Travelers breached the duty of
good faith and fair dealing. The duty exists in every contract and
"is an implied promise between the parties that they will not do
anything to injure the other party's right to enjoy the benefits of
the contract." The duty is meant "to ensure that parties do not
take advantage of each other in a way that could not have been
contemplated at the time the contract was drafted." The duty does
not provide an aggrieved party with a stand-alone cause of action;
rather, it is a "gap-filling" tool "used as a construction aid in
determining the intent of the parties where an instrument is
susceptible to two conflicting constructions."

A breach can arise, as alleged in the present case, if "the
contract vested the opposing party with discretion in performing an
obligation under the contract and the opposing party exercised that
discretion in bad faith, unreasonably, or in a manner inconsistent
with the reasonable expectations of the parties." The only
remaining issue is whether the decision Travelers made -- to
provide insureds with a 15% premium credit—was in bad faith. Put
another way, the question is whether the Plaintiff has alleged that
Travelers exercised its discretion "arbitrarily, capriciously, or
in a manner inconsistent with the reasonable expectation of the
parties." The endorsement states that Travelers "will determine, at
its exclusive discretion, the amount, frequency, and method of
payment(s), if any."

Judge Pallmeyer opines that insurance contracts include ex ante
risk for both the insurer and the insured. It would not be a
windfall to Donnellan, ex post, if she had filed numerous claims in
March 2020 that exceeded the value of the premiums she paid to
Travelers. Nor is it a windfall to Travelers where, as Donnellan
alleges, fewer claims were made during the start of the pandemic.
It was not objectively reasonable for Donnellan to expect Travelers
to exercise its exclusive discretion to award her a premium credit
in any particular amount, let alone in an amount greater than the
15% premium it extended. Count I is dismissed.

B. Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

In Count II, Donnellan asserts that Travelers violated the ICFA,
815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. The ICFA is "intended to protect consumers
against fraud, unfair methods of competition, and other unfair and
deceptive business practices." For an ICFA unfairness claim, courts
consider three factors: "(1) whether the practice offends public
policy; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or
unscrupulous; and (3) whether it causes substantial injury to
consumers." A plaintiff need not necessarily establish all three
factors. Rather, "a practice may be unfair because of the degree to
which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it
meets all three."

1. Public policy

Donnellan asserts that Travelers' conduct violates Illinois public
policy in two separate ways. First, she states that it violates the
policy "that insurance premiums are to be based on risk." Second,
she states that it violates the policy "reflected in the State of
Illinois's desire to curb and urge the reporting of price-gouging
and fraud as a result of COVID-19, reflecting a public policy
against taking financial advantage of the pandemic.

Judge Pallmeyer holds that Donnellan has not adequately pleaded
that Travelers offended a public policy that premiums ought to be
based on risk. She says, a public policy requiring that premiums be
based on risk is not the same as a public policy requiring that
premiums set ex ante ought to be refunded if, ex post, the risk
turns out to be different from what the actuaries calculated ex
ante.

Ms. Donnellan's other public policy argument concerns the March 9,
2020 Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation and related press release.
But as Travelers points out, nothing in either of those documents
establishes any kind of public policy that is implicated by the
allegations in Donnellan's complaint. Donnellan specifies that she
is referring to the Attorney General's statement that "now more
than ever, it is crucial to put people before profits." But
Donnellan makes no logical connection between that comment, made in
the context of the state's commitment to preventing price gouging
on essential medical supplies, and Travelers' decision to lower
Donnellan's premium payments. Donnellan has not alleged an
actionable violation of public policy.

2. Immoral, unethical, and unscrupulous

Ms. Donnellan states that "Travelers' conduct is immoral, unethical
and unscrupulous because Travelers has taken advantage of the
global COVID-19 pandemic for its own financial gain."

Judge Pallmeyer finds that it is not, of course, immoral,
unethical, or unscrupulous to seek financial gain. And the Illinois
Supreme Court has stated that "charging an unconscionably high
price generally is insufficient to establish a claim for
unfairness."  Donnellan's insurance contract with Travelers
included the potential that she would make claims exceeding her
premiums (and Travelers would lose money), as well as the
possibility that Donnellan would not make such claims (and
Travelers would profit). Donnellan has not sufficiently pleaded
that Travelers' conduct--which, recall, was to lower Donnellan's
premium--was immoral, unethical, or unscrupulous

3. Substantial injury

Ms. Donnellan alleges that the injury caused by Travelers' conduct
is significant in light of very conservative calculations that a
30% minimum average premium refund would be required to correct the
unfair windfall just for the time period from mid-March through the
end of April 2020. Further, the injury is significant because
Travelers' excessive premiums have allowed the company to obtain an
unfair windfall at the expense of its customers.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that to state a claim, Donnellan must allege
the injury was "(1) substantial; (2) not outweighed by any
countervailing benefits to consumers or competition that the
practice produces; and (3) one that consumers themselves could not
reasonably have avoided." In Judge Pallmeyer's view, Donnellan's
allegations fall short on all three factors.

Ms. Donnellan received a partial refund of her auto insurance
premium -- even if that amount is less than she believes is
appropriate, these circumstances cannot be characterized as a
"substantial" injury. As to countervailing benefits, it appears
that several car insurance companies offered premium credits in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic -- meaning that Travelers'
decision to do so may have kept it competitive with those other
insurance companies, while benefiting Travelers' own customers.
With respect to Donnellan's ability to avoid injury: Donnellan has
not pleaded that she was unable to cancel her policy and protect
herself against the allegedly excessive premium payments to
Travelers. In fact, she willingly chose to renew her policy for
July 2020 and beyond. The complaint fails to allege unfair conduct
under the ICFA. Count II is dismissed.

C. Unjust Enrichment

In Count III, Donnellan pleads "in the alternative to Count I" that
"if Travelers' conduct does not constitute a breach of an express
contract, Travelers is nevertheless liable for unjust enrichment."
Since "unjust enrichment is unavailable where the conduct at issue
is the subject of an express contract between the plaintiff and
defendant," the parties largely focus their argument on whether
Donnellan is able to plead unjust enrichment in spite of her other
contract-related claims. That issue aside, Donnellan's claim of
unjust enrichment relies on her allegation that "Travelers engaged
in unlawful and improper conduct in violation of ICFA, as described
above in Count II."

But Judge Pallmeyer found Donnellan did not state a claim on Count
II. And the Seventh Circuit in Toulon v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 877 F.3d
725, 741 (7th Cir. 2017) "agreed with the district court that the
Count III is dismissed.

D. Primary Jurisdiction and Filed Rate

Travelers argues that "the action should be dismissed pursuant to
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because the Department of
Insurance Director has the authority under the Insurance Code to
investigate and regulate" the issues involved in the case. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction instructs courts to delay ruling
on an issue "that is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the regulatory agency to resolve," but it does not strip federal
courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Travelers also
argues the case should be dismissed due to the "closely related
filed rate doctrine." That doctrine "protects public utilities and
other regulated entities from civil actions attacking their rates
if the rates must be filed with the governing regulatory agency and
the agency has the authority to set, approve, or disapprove them."

Where the insurer-defendant made the same arguments as Travelers,
"it is not clear that the Illinois Department of Insurance has the
authority to approve or disapprove insurance rates." And, Judge
Pallmeyer need not "reach the filed-rate and primary-jurisdiction
questions" because Donnellan has not stated a claim for relief.

III. Conclusion

Judge Pallmeyer granted Travelers' motion to dismiss. Donnellan's
First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; she has
leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5df6ym24 from
Leagle.com.


TREASURY WINE: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Treasury Wine Estates
Americas Company. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Treasury Wine Estates Americas Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00477
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Treasury Wine Estates -- https://www.tweglobal.com/ -- is one of
the world's largest wine companies, listed on the Australian
Securities Exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Cremation Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Webb, writing for Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, reports that
leader of the United National Congress (UNC) Kamla Persad-Bissessar
is threatening to bring a class action suit against the Government,
for discrimination on behalf of families who were denied the right
to cremate their dead according to the Hindu open-pyre tradition.

Government lifted the ban on open-air pyre cremation for covid 19
fatalities, after there were numerous calls for its revocation and
legal challenges were mounted, one by the Maha Sabha, and another
by a family who was prevented from cremating their loved one
according to Hindu rites.

Speaking at the UNC on Jan. 17 Virtual Report, Persad-Bissessar
said Government must not be allowed to do what it wanted and get
away with it.

She said there was no justification for the ban and therefore
Government must pay families who suffered greatly because they not
only lost their loved ones to covid but had to forsake their sacred
rites.

"I was horrified when I read on the newspapers Faris (AG Faris
Al-Rawi) and others complimenting themselves for lifting the ban on
open pyre restrictions. I was horrified that they pat themselves on
their backs like they did something so great, when they were the
ones in the first place who placed that restriction and they cannot
provide a shred of evidence, a shred of science, a shred of data to
say why they put that ban on open-pyre cremation."

Persad-Bissessar said they should not be given a free pass.

"We should not praise them for saying the come to an agreement and
they happy like pappy when for a year they lock down this religious
ritual to make you feel like they give you something, when in the
first place they took it away."

Although the Maha Sabha has agreed to withdraw its lawsuit,
Persad-Bissessar said there is a matter still pending, which former
AG Anand Ramlogan brought on behalf of a family which will be
moving forward.

"You (Government) would have to pay money, damages, and I would ask
every citizen who has gone through that inhumane treatment by this
Government to come forward. We will go to court. They would have to
pay for your suffering because you could not open-pyre cremate your
loved one. Every one of you has a case and there is no statute of
limitation. Come to any MP's office and bring the death certificate
of your loved ones and we will take it up in court.

"We will challenge you in the Parliament, outside the Parliament
and in the courthouse," she cahallenged the Government.

She demanded Government apologise to the Hindu community and others
who used open-pyre cremation, which costs less than indoor
cremation.

"Every rope has an end. Time longer than twine. So we are coming
for you, Rowley, we are coming for your Government, and we will not
stop until we move you from office by legal means." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Ferdinand Files Suit in W.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America, et al. The case is styled as Gertrude Romain Ferdinand,
Marc Anderson, Pierre Ilcon Tanis, Jean-Enel Clotaire Lazare,
Ritzard Weetney Clotaire, All Haitians Effected by the Defendant's
Actions, Directly or Indirectly, in Haiti or Abroad; All Haitians
Detained in Western District of Texas and/or Deported Without An
Asylum Hearing, and Haitians Similarly Situated, et al; Jeffrey
Cherisme, MarcArthur Occenat v. United States of America; Joe
Biden, President; Anthony Blinken, U.S. State Sec.; Alejandro
Majorkas, Sec. HLS; Donald Trump; Republic of Colombia, Embassy of
Colombia; Republic of Chile, Embassy of Chile; Republic of Panama,
Embassy of Panama; Republic of Mexico, Embassy of Mexico; Case No.
2:22-cv-00003-AM-VRG (W.D. Tex., Jan. 19, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

The U.S. -- https://www.state.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


UNITED STATES: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 25
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CLAXITO, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
an order on Defendants' motion for an extension of time, the
following schedule shall govern future proceedings:

   a. The Defendants' response to       January 25, 2022
      Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification due
      on or before:

   b. The Plaintiffs' reply in          February 15, 2022
      support of the Motion for
      ClassCertification
      due on or before:

   c. The certified list of the         January 25, 2022
      contents of the
      administrative record
      due on or before:

  d. The parties shall meet             January 25, 2022
     and confer in accordance
     with Rule 16.3 of the
     Local Civil Rules and
     shall file a Joint Status
     Report on or before:

The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3fO8PKs at no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.F.O.P., et al., v.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his capacity as Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-11556-TSH (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order staying the briefing schedule as to Plaintiffs'
class-certification motion until the Court decides Defendants'
Motion to Stay Proceedings.

If the Court denies their Motion to Stay Proceedings, then they
would request 14 days after the Court's denial for them to file
their response to Plaintiffs' class- certification motion.
Alternatively, they request an additional 14 days, up to and
including February 7, 2022, in which to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. They have conferred with
Plaintiffs' counsel about this motion, and Plaintiffs stated that
they oppose, the Defendants contend.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on September 21, 2021. The
Defendants were named in the Complaint and properly served.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on November 7, 2021,
bringing class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).

The Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on December 27,
2021. See ECF No. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to
Defendants' motion on January 10, 2022. The Defendants moved for
leave to file a reply on January 18, 2022.

On January 19, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion for
leave, and the Defendants filed their reply brief.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3Ispek8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
          William C. Peachey, Esq.
          Wiliam C. Silvis, Esq.
          Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          District Court Section
          P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, D.C. 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-0120
          E-mail: katelyn.masetta.alvarez@usdoj.gov

UNIVERSAL BRANDS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Brands LLC.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Universal Brands LLC Case No.
1:22-cv-00474 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2022).

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

Universal Brands USA -- https://www.universalbrandsusa.com/ --
carries wholesale & general merchandise products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK BROWN, ATIBA
FLEMONS, and JEFFREY TAYLOR On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:19-cv-02020-JBM-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline
to file their Motion for Class Certification to January 28, 2022.

The University of Illinois Board of Trustees consists of 13
members, 11 who have official votes. Nine are appointed by the
Governor for terms of six years, and three student trustees (one
from each university) are elected by referenda at their university
for one-year terms.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GVoYtM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua M. Friedman, Esq.
          Jesse M. Centrella, Esq.
          Rebecca Houlding, Esq.
          Shilpa Anant Narayan, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & HOULDING LLP
          1050 Seven Oaks Lane
          Mamaroneck, NY 10543
          Telephone: (888) 369-1119
          Facsimile: (866) 731-5553
          E-mail: Josh@friedmanhouldingllp.com
                  Jesse@friedmanhouldingllp.com
                  Rebecca@friedmanhouldingllp.com
                  Shilpa@friedmanhouldingllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher B. Wilson, Esq.
          Jonathan Buck, Esq.
          James A. Kilcup, Esq.
          Keith G. Klein, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite No. 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603-5559
          Telephone: (312) 324-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 324-9400
          E-mail: CWilson@perkinscoie.com
                  JBuck@perkinscoie.com
                  JKilcup@perkinscoie.com
                  KKlein@perkinscoie.com

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fires President Over Sexual Misconduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Michigan's Board of Regents recently announced
that President Mark Schlissel has been removed due to an alleged
inappropriate relationship with a university employee. MLive
reports that Schlissel was fired for breaking the very same rule he
himself announced and implemented at a July Board of Regents
meeting aimed at overhauling the school's inadequate sexual
misconduct policies. During the meeting, Schlissel stated there
would be a "zero-tolerance" policy for anyone in a leadership
position to solicit a personal or romantic relationship with
someone they have a supervisory authority or career influence
over.

Many on campus found Schlissel to be an inconsistent leader in the
wake of the recent allegations, including hundreds of survivors who
filed a federal class action lawsuit in March 2020 over the
university's alleged role in former doctor and athletics program
physician Robert Anderson's decades-long sexual abuse of students.
According to a campus safety report, almost 1,200 rapes related to
Anderson's abuse were reported to UofM just last year.
Horrifyingly, the student sexual abuse case against Dr. Robert
Anderson is thought to reflect the greatest number of sexual abuse
allegations made against a single individual in U.S. history.

A companion suit to the March 2020 class-action headed by UofM
senior Josephine Graham aims to have the federal courts force the
University to implement further sexual misconduct policy changes.

"This further highlights the need for institution-wide changes
around these issues that involves input from all stakeholders,"
Lieff Cabraser partner Annika Martin noted in response to
Schlissel's firing. Ms. Martin is co-lead counsel representing
survivors and students in the class-action lawsuit.

A federal judge will decide if that case goes to oral arguments in
a hearing presently set for March 2022. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: Court Trims Claims in Johnson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REGINA JOHNSON, on behalf of, herself, Individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v.
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI and CLAY JONES, Individually and in his
capacity as Director of Human Resources, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-CV-62-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

I. Introduction

Ms. Johnson alleges in a class action complaint that since her
hiring in December of 1993, the University of Mississippi and Clay
Jones, the University's Human Resources Director, have engaged in
discrimination in hiring, promoting, and compensating employees.
The University and Jones have moved to dismiss Johnson's
complaint.

II. Background

The University's "workforce and employees are overwhelmingly
white." It "hires African Americans almost exclusively for, or
makes initial assignments of newly hired African American employees
almost exclusively to, low paying jobs offering limited
compensation and opportunities for advancement, irrespective of
their qualifications." The University also fails "to inform
qualified African American employees of managerial, supervisory and
higher paying job openings, to recruit African American employees
for such positions, or to permit them to transfer to such
positions."

At the University, African American employees are not compensated
similarly to white employees and temporary or part-time African
American employees are not promoted to full-time or permanent
positions. Id. Additionally, the University "terminates, demotes
and reprimands African American employees and tolerates or
encourages racially charged and hostile remarks and actions towards
African American employees by co-workers and supervisors."

Ms. Johnson, an African American female, was employed by the
University from Dec. 17, 1993, until "her forced termination on
June 30, 2020." At the end of her employment, she was the Senior
Assistant Director of Human Resources. Johnson was "removed by her
white boss and her job duties were split between Craig Richmond
(29-30 years old), a white male and Desha Ferguson, a white female
age 40-41." Jones was the Director of Human Resources at the
University and was personally involved in the termination of
Johnson's employment.

Ms. Johnson filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on Feb. 22, 2020. The
charge states in its entirety: "I began working for the above-named
employer on December 17, 1993. My most recent position was Senior
Assistant Director of Human Resources. I am the only Black manager
in my department. On September 26, 2019, I was subjected to a
hostile work environment when Director of Human Resources, Clayton
Jones informed me that I could take a demotion or retire. I am
aware of older White employees who have not been threatened with
demotion or forced into retirement. I immediately filed an internal
complaint with the Equal Opportunity of Regulatory Compliance
office. In retaliation for filing my complaint, I have [been]
subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment. I have
been banned from my office and replaced with a younger White female
and placed on administrative leave. Additionally, after filing my
complaint, White staff and managers received raises. I believe I
have been discriminated against because of my race (Black) and
retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended. Also because of my age (49) in violation
of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)."

Ms. Johnson received a "Notice of the Right to Sue" on Feb. 16,
2021.

On May 14, 2021, Johnson, on behalf of herself and "all similarly
situated persons," filed a complaint against the University of
Mississippi and Clay Jones, individually and in his official
capacity as the University's Director of Human Resources. Johnson
asserts four claims (without distinguishing whether they are
brought against the University and/or Jones in either his official
or individual capacity): (1) a race discrimination claim under
Title VII; (2) a race discrimination claim under Section 1981; (3)
a retaliation claim under Title VII, on behalf of herself and class
members; and (4) a Section 1983 claim, on behalf of herself and
class members, identical to the retaliation claim.

On Aug. 5, 2021, the University and Jones filed a motion to dismiss
Johnson's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and (b)(6). They filed an answer to the complaint the same
day. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed.

III. Discussion

The Defendants argue Johnson's "class action claim should be
dismissed because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
or state a plausible claim on behalf of the purported class." They
also submit that Johnson "failed to exhaust her remedies for a sex
discrimination claim, has not stated a claim for relief against the
University under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 or Section 1983, and any
claims she purports to bring against Defendant Clay Jones must also
be dismissed."

A. Section 1981 Claims and Title VII Individual Capacity Claims

In response to the motion to dismiss, Johnson explicitly concedes
that "the Fifth Circuit has held that 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 does
not give rise to an independent cause of action against a state
actor" and "her complaint fails to state a federal claim against
Clay Jones in his individual capacity under Title VII and that he
should be dismissed." As such, these claims will be dismissed.

B. Section 1983 Claims against the University

The Defendants argue that Johnson cannot bring a Section 1983 claim
against the University because it is not a "person" under the
statute and that the University is entitled to Eleventh Amendment
sovereign immunity.

"The purpose of the Eleventh Amendment is to recognize state
sovereignty by shielding states, absent their consent or an
explicit act of Congress, from money judgments assessed in federal
court." "Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, a state's sovereign
immunity in federal courts extends to private suits against state
agencies, state departments, and other arms of the state." As a
result of this immunity, "federal courts are without jurisdiction
over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in
his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign
immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it."

Judge Brown finds that there is no doubt that the University is an
arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity. Congress has not
abrogated state sovereign immunity under Section 1983." Mississippi
also has not waived its state sovereign immunity and consented to
suit in federal court. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Johnson's Section 1983 claims against the University.

C. Section 1983 Official Capacity Claims

For the same reasons explained, sovereign immunity also bars
Section 1983 claims against Jones in his official capacity, Judge
Brown holds. However, she says, even if the claims against Jones
were proper, they would still be subject to dismissal based on the
Ddefendants' additional argument that because Jones is no longer
employed at the University, he cannot provide Johnson with any
prospective relief. As proof Jones is no longer employed at the
University, the Defendants cite only a Louisiana State University
website. Johnson argues her claims against Jones in his official
capacity "fall within the Ex Parte Young doctrine."

"The Ex parte Young exception permits suits for prospective relief
against state officials acting in violation of federal law."
However, as the Defendants point out, Johnson fails to argue or
show that Jones is still employed by the University and able to
provide her with the prospective relief she seeks. Accordingly,
Johnson's Section 1983 claims against Jones in his official
capacity will be dismissed without prejudice.

D. Exhaustion of Title VII Class Claims

The Defendants argue that because Johnson's EEOC charge "alleged
specific isolated actions she claimed constituted unlawful
discrimination," she has failed to exhaust administrative remedies
as to the class claims because "the EEOC's investigation of her
allegations of individual discrimination could not have reasonably
been expected to grow into an investigation of the University's
treatment of all its African American employees in employment
decisions far afield of the individualized allegations in Johnson's
EEOC charge."

In response, Johnson sets forth law related to "the single filing
rule" and a Title VII plaintiff's ability "to 'piggyback' on the
allegations contained in another Title VII plaintiff's EEOC
charge." However, as the Defendants point out, Johnson "does not
explain how the class she purports to represent actually meets the
necessary conditions such that 'piggybacking' is appropriate for
the class."

Johnson's EEOC charge alleges that due to her race and age, she
alone was forced by the head of one department to "take a demotion
or retire;" replaced by a younger, white individual; and retaliated
against after complaining of discrimination, in addition to
receiving unequal pay. The class claims allege that the University
discriminates on the basis of race in making initial assignments;
informing employees of "managerial, supervisory and higher paying
job openings;" applying "objective job-related criteria for
promotions;" promoting "temporary or part-time employees to
full-time/permanent positions;" and demoting employees. The class
action claims alleging discrimination by the University in all
departments in hiring, promoting, compensating, and demoting are
far broader than the specific discriminatory conduct to which only
Jones was subjected as alleged in her EEOC charge.

In that regard, Judge Brown holds that the class claims are not
sufficiently "like or related to allegations contained in Johnson's
charge" such that an EEOC investigation into the class claims would
"reasonably be expected to grow out" of an investigation of the
conduct in the charge. And Johnson does not present any argument
that the EEOC investigation actually encompassed such claims.
Accordingly, Johnson has failed to exhaust her class claims and
such claims will be dismissed. However, in accordance with Fifth
Circuit precedent, dismissal will be without prejudice.

E. Individual Title VII Claims against the University

Although the Defendants move the Court "to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint in its entirety," they do not present any argument in
relation to Johnson's individual, rather than class, Title VII race
and retaliation claims against the University. Judg Brown will not
grant dismissal on these claims in the absence of any argument as
to why dismissal is proper.

F. Title VII Official Capacity Claims

The Defendants argue Johnson's Title VII claims against Jones fail
because "individuals cannot be liable under Title VII either in
their individual or official capacity."

Judge Brown finds that Johnson fails to address this argument in
her response. Regardless, "the Fifth Circuit has held that relief
under Title VII is available only against an employer, not an
individual supervisor or fellow employee." As such, Johnson's Title
VII claims against Jones in his official capacity are properly
dismissed.

G. Section 1983 Individual Capacity Claims

The Defendants argue that Johnson fails to state a Section 1983
claim against Jones in his individual capacity because the only
"constitutional or statutory violation by Jones for which Johnson
seeks redress under Section 1983" is a violation of Title VII and,
as such, must be addressed under that law. They further argue Jones
is entitled to qualified immunity because Johnson fails to allege a
violation of her clearly established constitutional rights.

In response, other than to expressly concede that certain claims
discussed should be dismissed, Johnson does not address her claims
against Jones in his individual capacity. The Defendants' reply
argues that because Johnson failed to address their arguments that
she cannot state a claim against Jones under Section 1983 and that
Jones is entitled to qualified immunity, she has abandoned those
claims and they must be dismissed.

Judge Brown agrees that Johnson's failure to respond amounts to an
abandonment of the claims. These abandoned claims will be
dismissed.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Brown granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. She granted the motion such that Johnson's class
claims, personal Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims against all
the Defendants, and Title VII claims against Jones in both his
official and individual capacities are dismissed without prejudice.
She denied it in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4kabhp7b from Leagle.com.


UPPER SAINT CLAIR: Doe Appeals Denial of TRO Bid
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 1, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled 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, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was
filed on 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.


On Jan. 19, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for 1)
temporary restraining order; 2) order restraining the School Board
of the Upper Saint Clair School District and the Board Members from
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act; and 3) order to show cause why a
preliminary injunction should not issue.

On Jan. 21, 2022, Judge William S. Stickman entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' emergency motion for temporary restraining
order.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as John Doe 1, et al. v. Upper
Saint Clair School Dist, et al., Case No. 22-1141, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Jan. 23,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOE 1, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 1; JANE DOE 1, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 1; JOHN DOE 2, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 2; JANE DOE 2, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 2; JOHN DOE 3, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 3; JANE DOE 3, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 3; JOHN DOE 4, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 4; JANE DOE 4, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 4; JOHN DOE 5, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 5; and JANE DOE 5, in their own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 5 and on behalf of those similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          BEHREND LAW GROUP
          428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-4460
          Facsimile: (412) 391-5073
          E-mail: krbehrend@behrendlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees UPPER SAINT CLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
Pennsylvania governmental entity; PHILLIP J. ELIAS; DAPHNA GANS;
BARBARA L. BOLAS; PATRICK A. HEWITT; LOUIS P. MAFRICE, JR.; 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; and UPPER SAINT CLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, are represented by:

          Rebecca Hall, Esq.
          Annemarie K. Harr, Esq.
          Jocelyn P. Kramer, Esq.
          Aimee R. Zundel, Esq.
          WEISS BURKARDT KRAMER
          445 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 503
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219

URBAN INNOVATIONS: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Gagorik Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKE GAGORIK, et al., v.
URBAN INNOVATIONS, LLC d/b/a THE CIRCUIT ARCADE BAR, et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00255-MHL (E.D. Va.), the parties move the Court for
Conditional Class Certification and Judicial Notice under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Urban Innovations is a commercial real estate development firm in
Chicago, specializing in property management, leasing, and
construction.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qSj3jv at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Siegrist, Esq.
          Ben Johnson, Esq.
          Joshua L. Jewett, Esq.
          PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC
          313 E. Broad St., Ste. 72
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (757) 901-4382
          Facsimile: (757) 257-0387
          E-mail: asiegrist@piercemccoy.com
                  bjohnson@peircemccoy.com
                  jjewett@piercemccoy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joan C. McKenna, Esq.
          Michael E. Barnsback, Esq.
          O'HAGAN MEYER, PLLC
          411 East Franklin St., Ste. 500
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 403-7100
          Facsimile: (804 237-0250
          E-mail: jmckenna@ohaganmeyer.com
                  jmckenna@ohaganmeyer.com

VERVENT INC: Court Stays Class Certification Bid in Aliff Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODY ALIFF, et al., v.
VERVENT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order staying class
certification motion pending resolution of the pending motion for
summary judgment.

Following disposition of the motion for summary judgment, the Court
will issue a new scheduling order for the class certification
motion, says Judge Sabraw.

Vervent provides loan and lease servicing, call center services,
backup servicing, third- party collection services, and credit card
servicing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32f4Q6N at no extra charge.[CC]


VI-JON LLC: Joint Bid to Extend Deadlines OK'd in Macormic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC
HOWARD, CONNOR HENRICHS, and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA
(E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order
granting joint motion to extend deadlines as follows:

  1. All motions for joinder of          April 21, 2022
     additional parties or
     amendment of pleadings
     shall be made by:

  2. The parties are to make             December 31, 2021
     all disclosures required by
     Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R.
     Civ. P. By:

  3. The Plaintiff shall disclose        May 18, 2022
     all class certification
     expert witnesses and shall
     provide the reports required
     no later than:

  4. The Defendant shall disclose       July 18, 2022
     all class certification
     expert witnesses and shall
     provide the reports required
     no later than:

  5. The Plaintiff shall disclose       August 18, 2022
     all class certification
     rebuttal experts and shall
     provide the reports no
     later than:

  6. The parties shall complete         August 18, 2022
     all class discovery in this
     case no later than:

  7. Any motion for class               May 18, 2022
     certification must be
     filed no later than:

  8. Opposition briefs shall            July 18, 2022
     be filed no later than:

  9. Any reply brief may be             August 18, 2022
     filed no later than:

Vi-Jon is an American health and beauty care company that produces
both Private Label and brand name products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ApwnyT at no extra charge.[CC]

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Extension of Time to File Opposition Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER NELSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting an extension of time for Defendant to file its
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Collective
Class Action Certification and for the related Reply deadline.

This is the parties second request for an extension of these
deadlines. The first request was made on November 19, 2021 and
granted on December 2, 2021.

The current deadline for filing Defendant's Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional and Collective Class Action
Certification is January 21, 2022 with a Reply deadline of February
11, 7 2022.

The Defendant is requesting up to and including March 4, 2022 to
file its Opposition, to which Plaintiff sees no objection.
Accordingly, the new deadline for filing the Opposition would be
March 4, 2022 and Plaintiff's Reply would be due April 8, 2022.

Additionally, given that the parties are extending the remaining
deadlines on the Motion for Conditional and Collective Class Action
Certification, it only makes sense to do the same for the Rule 23
Motion for Class Certification. The current deadline for filing the
Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 Class Certification is March 4,
2022 with responses due April 4, 2022 and replies due April 18,
2022.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated Jan. 21, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GUg8wi at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          
The Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., are:

          Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
          Dana B. Salmonson
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10801 W. Charleston Blvd. Ste. 500
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Telephone: (702) 369-6800
          Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
          E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
                  dana.salmonson@ogletreedeakins.com

WESTERN EXPRESS: Sanders Seeks to Certify Class of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
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:

   1. certifying this case as a class action under Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, for the following class:

      "All current or former Washington residents who worked for
      Defendant as drivers at any time beginning three years
      prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date
      notice is mailed to the Class;"

   2. appointing his counsel, Joshua H. Haffner and Vahan
      Mikayelyan of Haffner Law PC, to serve as counsel to the
      class; and

   3. authorizing notice to the class of the pending action and
      its members' right to opt-out under Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, Rule 23(d)(2).

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/3fHeLow
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

WESTWARD MANAGEMENT: Robbins DiMonte Discusses Property Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anastas Shkurti, Esq., of Robbins DiMonte Ltd, in an article for
Lexology, reports that every condominium owner, director and
property manager will be impacted by a recent Appellate Court
decision in the case of Channon v. Westward Management, Inc. It
gave every condominium seller the right to sue the property
manager, as agent of a condominium association or board of
directors, based on allegations that the property manager charged
excessive fees for the production of information required to be
disclosed to a prospective buyer.

This case arose out of a very common fact pattern. Plaintiffs filed
a class action lawsuit against the property management agent.
Plaintiffs alleged that, when they sold their unit in 2016, the
agent charged excessive and unreasonable fees totaling $245 to
provide them with the documents and other information they were
required to provide to the buyers of their unit.

The Appellate Court did not rule whether the $245 that plaintiffs
paid to defendant was indeed excessive and unreasonable. Plaintiffs
will still have to argue that issue back at the trial court.

The Appellate Court recognized a new cause of action in favor of
condominium sellers. Previously, Illinois courts case extended such
protection to buyers only. At first sight, this opinion may appear
a mere extension of rights from current buyers to those same buyers
who will one day become sellers. However, any newly recognized
cause of action will excite prospective litigants to take their
grievances to court. It should also be easier to certify a class of
"sellers" (past and present) within a condominium association that
it would be for a group of similarly situated "buyers". In real
life, it is seller who pays the bulk of disclosure fees. If buyer
is asked to pay a disclosure fee which buyer deems excessive, a
seller may be forced to pay it with the hope of not losing the
deal.

Finally, this case spotlights the relationship between condominium
associations, their boards of directors, and the property managers
that they hire. It is not just the condominium owners who are
impacted by this decision, but the board members as well. If a
property manager is now exposed to liability for the fees that it
charges in connection with producing disclosures with each sale, it
will certainly try to shift that responsibility back to the
association and the board of directors. The directors will have to
revisit soon the issue of protecting themselves from property
managers' indemnification claims under management agreements. [GN]

WING BIKES: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wing Bikes Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Wing Bikes Inc. doing
business as: Wing Bikes, Case No. 1:22-cv-00496 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19,
2022).

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

Wing Bikes -- https://wingbikes.com/ -- are the world's best
electric bicycles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


WORKHORSE GROUP: Scheduling Order Entered in Farrar Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAM FARRAR, et al., v.
WORKHORSE GROUP, INC., et al., Sam Farrar v. Workhorse Group, Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02072-CJC-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order:

  1. All discovery, including discovery      November 9, 2023
     motions, shall be completed by:

  2. The parties shall have until            January 8, 2024
     to file and have heard all
     other motions, including motions

  3. A pretrial conference will be           March 11, 2024
     held on:

  4. The case is set for a jury trial:       March 19, 2024

  5.  The parties shall have until           November 23, 2023
      to conduct settlement
     proceedings:

  6. The Plaintiff shall have until          June 12, 2023
     to file and have heard any
     class certification motion:

Workhorse designs and builds battery-electric vehicles and
aircrafts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33xPc7i at no extra charge.[CC]

X TEAM INTERNATIONAL: Perez Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. X Team International, Inc., X Team, Inc.,
Sayers Services LLC, Sayware Enterprises, LLC, Don Hudson, Tammi
Hudson and Daniel Sayers, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00045, (W.D.
Tex., January 20, 2022), seeks all available relief, including
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and other damages allowed by law, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a national urban wildlife control business that
operates through corporate owned facilities and franchises where
Perez was employed at their San Antonio, Texas location from
approximately January 2021 until August 2021. She claims to be
misclassified as exempt from overtime and paid a day rate for each
day worked, with no overtime compensation regardless of the number
of hours worked each week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


XTO ENERGY: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Salvatora
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER A. SALVATORA, SANDRA
E. SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P., HEASLEY'S
NURSERIES, INC., RODNEY L. LANG, BONITA A. LANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01097-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
entered an amended case management order as follows:

  1. The Plaintiffs shall amend their        January 28, 2022
     complaint consistent with the
     newly proposed class
     definitions by:

  2. The Defendant shall answer by:          February 9, 2022

  3. Discovery related to the                February 23, 2022
     amended class definitions
     due with discovery to
     commence immediately:

  4. The Plaintiffs' motion                  March 23, 2022
     for class certification
     due with brief limited
     to 20 pages:

  5. The Defendant's response                April 25, 2022
     due by: with brief
     limited to 20 pages

  6. The Plaintiffs’ reply                   May 9, 2022
     due by with brief
     limited to 5 pages:

XTO Energy is an American energy company, principally operating in
North America, specializing in the drilling and production of
unconventional oil and natural gas assets, typically from shale
rock through a process known as hydraulic fracturing. It is a
subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kr1wXd at no extra charge.[CC]

YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAITY RUILOVA and EILEEN BRANNIGAN, Individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL AND TAX EXEMPT AFFILIATES TAX
SHELTERED ANNUITY PLAN v. YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE INVESTMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF THE YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL AND TAX EXEMPT
AFFILIATES TAX SHELTERED ANNUITY PLAN; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose
Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 3:22-cv-00111 (D. Conn., Jan.
21, 2022) is a class action suit brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, individually in their capacity as former participants
of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and Tax Exempt Affiliates Tax
Sheltered Annuity Plan (Plan), and a class of similarly-situated
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against the Defendants
for breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), and related breaches of applicable law
beginning six years prior to the date this action is filed and
continuing to the date of judgment, or such earlier date that the
Court determines is appropriate and just (the Class Period).

Defined contribution plans (e.g., 401(k) and 403(b) plans) that are
qualified as tax-deferred vehicles have become the primary form of
retirement saving in the United States and, as a result, America's
de facto retirement system. Unlike traditional defined benefit
retirement plans, in which the employer typically promises a
calculable benefit and assumes the risk with respect to high fees
or under-performance of pension plan assets used to fund defined
benefits, 401(k) and 403(b) plans operate in a manner in which
participants bear the risk of high fees and investment
underperformance.

The importance of defined contribution plans to the United States
retirement system has become pronounced as employer-provided
defined benefit plans have become increasingly rare as an offered
and meaningful employee benefit.

As of December 31, 2020, the Plan had 26,416 participants with
account balances and assets totaling approximately $1.66 billion,
placing it in the top 0.1% of all defined contribution plans by
plan size. Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like
the Plan, have significant bargaining power and the ability to
demand low-cost administrative and investment management services
within the marketplace for administration of defined contribution
plans and the investment of defined contribution assets.

The Defendants maintain the Plan, and are responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that
provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative
services. The Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such,
owe a series of duties to the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, including obligations to act for the exclusive
benefit of participants, ensure that the investment options offered
through the Plan are prudent and diverse, and ensure that Plan
expenses are fair and reasonable.

The Defendants have allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the Plan. The Defendants failed to fully disclose the expenses and
risk of the Plan's investment options to participants; and allowed
unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants.

To remedy these fiduciary breaches and other violations of ERISA,
Plaintiffs bring this class action under Sections 404, 409 and 502
of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. sections 1104, 1109 and 1132, to recover and
obtain all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty. In
addition, the Plaintiffs seek such other equitable or remedial
relief for the Plan and the proposed class as the Court may deem
appropriate and just under all of the circumstances.

Ruilova is a former employee of Yale-NH Hospital and former
participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7). Ruilova is
a resident of Stratford, Connecticut.

Brannigan is a former employee of Yale-NH Hospital and former
participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Brannigan is a
resident of New Haven, Connecticut.

Yale-NH Hospital is a Connecticut nonprofit corporation
headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. Yale-NH Hospital, the
flagship hospital of the Yale-New Haven Health System, is the
largest acute-care provider in southern Connecticut and one of the
Northeast's major referral centers, as well as the primary teaching
hospital for the Yale School of Medicine.

The Board appointed "authorized representatives" of Yale-NH
Hospital, including the Administrative Committee, as plan
fiduciaries. Does No. 1-10 are members of the Board who were/are
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sections
1002(21)(A) because each exercised discretionary authority to
appoint and/or monitor the Administrative Committee, which had
control over Plan management and/or authority or control over
management or disposition of Plan assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          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.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          Miller Shah LLP, 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
                  kctang@millershah.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, 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
                  donr@capozziadler.com

[*] Dane County, Wis. Takes Legal Action Against PFAS Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With the Dane County Regional Airport facing growing costs to
replace firefighting foam that contains "forever chemicals" that
can contaminate water, the county may join a lawsuit to force
manufacturers of those chemicals to pay for their cleanup.

Dane County will authorize its legal counsel to pursue legal action
against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) manufacturers
for their responsibility in contaminating and negatively impacting
the environment in the county, according to a Thursday, Jan. 20
county news release. The Dane County Board will introduce a
resolution authorizing Dane County's Corporation Counsel to enter
into an agreement with an outside legal firm to join class action
litigation against PFAS manufacturers.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies PFAS as
widely used, long-lasting chemicals that break down very slowly
over time. Both the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources have recently identified PFAS as emerging contaminants.
Last October, the EPA released their action plan outlining a "whole
of government" approach to tackling PFAS contamination, according
to the news release.

County executive Joe Parisi said the Dane County Regional Airport
faces "substantial costs to investigate and remediate PFAS
impacts." The airport has been legally mandated by the Federal
Aviation Administration to use a firefighting agent containing
PFAS, known as Aqueous-Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), for training and
emergencies, which has been discharged on airport property,
according to the news release.

"PFAS manufacturers made millions selling these products, and we
owe it to the taxpayers of Dane County to make sure they aren't
forced to pay for cleaning up the contamination that resulted from
using firefighting foam," he said in the news release.

Numerous airports and other public entities have filed suit against
PFAS manufacturers to recover their existing and future costs to
investigate and remediate PFAS contamination resulting from AFFF
use. Dane County joining a multi-jurisdictional litigation process
to hold PFAS manufacturers liable for contamination would be
similar to the action taken by the county against opioid
manufacturers.

The airport is conducting a pilot project to capture and remove
PFAS contamination at the location with the highest PFAS
concentrations, with the hope of "significantly reducing" them
according to the news release. If the results are promising, the
airport will expand its use to other areas of the property where
PFAS has been detected. [GN]

[*] Loot Box Class Action Suits Against Apple, Google Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Northern District of California against Apple ( Taylor, et al.,
v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-CV-03906-RS) and Google (Coffee, et al., v.
Google, LLC, No. 20-CV-03901-BLF). Both lawsuits raise the issue of
loot box mechanics in mobile games hosted on both Apple and
Google's respective app stores. As of January 10, 2022, the
district court has dismissed both cases for similar reasons.

Background

While loot boxes can take various forms, they are usually videogame
mechanisms that generate randomized virtual items when 'opened' by
players. Loot boxes typically contain in-game items such as
weapons, virtual apparel for the player's character (also commonly
referred to as "skins"), or even additional loot boxes. Players may
purchase loot boxes with earned in-game virtual currency or virtual
currency purchased using real currency. In both lawsuits, the
Plaintiffs alleged that the loot boxes in certain games on the
respective app store are a form of gambling because players do not
know what the loot box contains until it is opened.

Apple and Google use app stores as a way for smart phone users to
download apps, such as mobile games. Generally, these app stores
serve as the primary means of distribution for third-party app
developers and publishers. Further, distributors such as Apple and
Google typically collect a 30% fee from any in-app purchases made
through their respective app store. It is this participation of
distribution through app stores upon which the Plaintiffs in both
lawsuits premise Apple and Google's liability, despite each company
not being the developer of the games at issue.

Both the Taylor and Coffee Plaintiffs originally alleged three
causes of action against Apple and Google, respectively: (1) Apple
and Google have violated California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") through "unlawful" and "unfair" business practices; (2)
Apple and Google have violated California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (3) a standalone claim for common law
unjust enrichment. In effect, Plaintiffs allege that virtual loot
boxes should be considered a "slot machine or device" under
California Penal Code Sec 330a and are therefore in violation of
California law. Although California state law does not define
gambling, California courts have crafted three general elements
that, when present, constitute gambling: "(1) a prize, (2) which is
distributed by chance, and (3) consideration paid for the
opportunity to win the prize." See Trinkle v. California State
Lottery, 105 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 1406 (2003).

January 4, 2022: The Taylor Dismissal

On January 4, 2022, the Taylor court granted Apple's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend. After Apple's first motion to
dismiss was granted on March 19, 2021, Plaintiffs had amended their
complaint to break the UCL claim into two separate claims for
relief under the "unlawful" prong and the "unfair" prong and
reasserted their original claims under the CLRA and unjust
enrichment. The district court focused on Plaintiffs' lack of
standing and lack of merit in its decision, primarily addressing
Plaintiffs' claims under the UCL before summarily dismissing all of
Plaintiffs' claims.

California law requires that plaintiffs seeking relief under the
UCL must have suffered a cognizable economic injury, a more
stringent standard than federal standing requirements. See Kwikset
Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 324 (2011). In its first
dismissal order, the Taylor court noted that Plaintiffs, by failing
to state a cognizable injury, lacked standing to bring suit against
Apple. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint, alleging
that Plaintiffs "lost money when [Taylor's son] purchased virtual
coins to buy chances on loot boxes." However, the court found this
explanation insufficient because it offered no additional
substantial factual support to demonstrate Plaintiffs suffered
economic harm. The fact remained that Plaintiffs received an equal
exchange of in-game currency for real currency, and Plaintiffs
chose to use such in-game currency to purchase loot boxes.

The district court also found that Plaintiffs failed to allege any
additional factual allegations that supported their claims that
Apple violated the UCL, thus lacking sufficient merit to survive a
motion to dismiss. The UCL defines unfair competition as any
"unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice."
Plaintiffs alleged that Apple violated the UCL through both
"unlawful" and "unfair" business practices by hosting and
distributing a game on Apple's App Store. However, Apple's alleged
"unlawful" and "unfair" business practices rests on the connection
between loot boxes and California's statutory regulation of
gambling devices - a connection Plaintiffs failed to establish.
Existing statutory law in California does not currently prohibit
loot boxes. In following this reasoning, the district court
similarly dismissed Plaintiffs' claims that Apple's alleged conduct
violated the CLRA as "deceptive" business practices and constituted
unfair enrichment.

Yet notably, Apple reasserted in its second Motion to Dismiss that
Plaintiffs' claims should be entirely barred by the Federal
Communications Decency Act ("CDA"). Section 230 of the CDA permits
courts to dismiss claims where the alleged conduct exceeds the
scope of defendant's role as a publisher of third-party content.
Here, the district court again rejected Apple's argument. The court
briefly commented that Apple's participation in the "marketing and
distribution" of an illicit gambling device would support Apple's
liability with regards to similar claims. The district court
explained that Apple's argument remains a moot point, as
Plaintiffs' claim lacks standing and merit to proceed. Accordingly,
the district court dismissed the Taylor Plaintiff's lawsuit without
leave to amend.

January 10, 2022: The Coffee Dismissal

The Coffee lawsuit followed a similar pattern to the Taylor
lawsuit: on February 10, 2021, the district court granted Google's
motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding that the Plaintiffs
had failed to state a claim. Yet, unlike the Taylor court, the
Coffee court's prior dismissal order found meritorious Google's
argument that it was immune to liability under Section 230 of the
CDA. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a first amended complaint,
separating their claims to the "unlawful" prong and the "unfair"
prong under the UCL. Plaintiffs also realleged their original
claims that Google violated the CLRA and brought the same
standalone claim for unjust enrichment.

In its recent decision, the Coffee court dealt first with the
alleged Section 230 immunity Google asserted and noted that
liability may be imposed against defendants only "if it contributed
materially to the alleged illegality of the conduct." The court
cited to the Ninth Circuit three-prong Barnes test where immunity
from liability exists for "(1) a provider or user of an interactive
computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state
law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information
provided by another information content provider." See Dyroff v.
Ultimate Software Grp., 934 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2019). The
district could held that Google satisfied the first prong and third
prongs under the Barnes test, as determined in the court's previous
dismissal order.

Under the second prong, Plaintiffs cited the unpublished Taylor
order, arguing that Plaintiffs did not seek to hold Google liable
as a publisher, but rather for its own conduct in promoting and
selling loot boxes through games hosted on Google's app store.
Additionally, Plaintiffs argued that the revenue-sharing structure
between Google's app store and the game developers exceeded the
scope of immunity granted by Section 230. However, the district
court rejected Plaintiffs' argument, noting that Google's conduct
of processing in-app purchases and collecting a 30% cut of such
transactions through its app store is lawful conduct. Rather, the
Google app store offers a "neutral means" for third-party
developers to publicize their content. Therefore, the court
reasoned that Google's alleged conduct "falls squarely within the
protection of [Section] 230" and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims on
the basis of Section 230 immunity.

The district court similarly addressed Plaintiffs' lack of
standing. Just as the Taylor court found, the Coffee court held
that Plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable economic injury
resulting from Google's conduct and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims
under the UCL. Additionally, regarding Plaintiffs' claim under the
CLRA, the district court found that the absence of unlawful conduct
and lack of a cognizable injury bars Plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs
purchased virtual currency directly from third-party game
developers and received "exactly what they paid for," similarly
undermining the merits of the unjust enrichment claim.

Lastly, the court briefly touched on the connection Plaintiffs
asserted between illegal slot machines and loot boxes. Plaintiffs
argued that loot box prizes have subjective value that could be
traded in legitimate digital markets. However, the court noted that
a virtual item cannot be a thing of value where the sale of the
item would violate any applicable terms of use, and therefore loot
box prizes are not things of value under California law. As with
the Taylor lawsuit, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims without leave to amend and with prejudice.

Conclusion

Both the Taylor and Coffee Plaintiffs made identical policy
arguments that loot boxes are a form of gambling that may lead to
depression and addiction, citing that the Federal Trade Commission
recently raised the issue of loot boxes in a workshop hosted in
Washington D.C. on August 7, 2019. Since then, formal efforts to
regulate loot boxes have not yet proven successful in the U.S.,
despite other countries such as Japan, the Netherlands, and Belgium
enacting loot box policies. Both courts suggested that the solution
for loot boxes, if truly as problematic as Plaintiff claims, is a
problem for the Legislature to solve. [GN]

[*] Newtown, CT Joins Class Action Against Opioid Manufacturers
---------------------------------------------------------------
WLAD reports that Newtown was among the towns that signed onto a
class action suit against the Opioid manufacturers and distributors
in 2017. Newtown received pro bono representation. Globally, the
settlement can be up to tens of billions, but First Selectman Dan
Rosenthal recently told the Board of Selectmen and Legislative
Council that it's unclear how much each municipality will receive.
Each town has to sign off on the settlement. Newtown plans to
direct the funds to drug education. Among the organizations that
could benefit include, but are not limited to, Newtown Youth and
Family Services, the Parent Connection and the Social Services
Department. [GN]

[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Trends in COVID Workplace Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that During 2021, COVID-19 class action litigation
became more pervasive in reaching across new industries and
spawning new challenges on the workplace class action front. The
COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on all aspects of life
in 2021 and a profound impact on the workplace, in particular. In
2020, as state and local governments responded to the COVID-19
threat, many employers moved their employees to tele-work or
work-from-home arrangements, or laid off or furloughed workers, and
many businesses and courts shut down or postponed critical
operations. In 2021, as state and local governments continued to
manage the COVID-19 threat, vaccines became widely available, and
many employers attempted to move their employees to "return to
work" or "hybrid" work arrangements.

Such developments prompted federal regulators to enact
vaccine-or-test mandates and fueled employers to adopt or expand
health screenings, temperature check protocols, and mandatory
vaccination policies. These steps, in turn, led to waves of
controversy as workplace class actions brought by states, employee
advocates, unions, and employer groups erupted over regulatory
actions and employer policies.

Challenges to federal actions, to date, have produced mixed
results. On September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive
Order 14042. Through its terms, the EO required entities that
contract with the federal government to agree to require
vaccinations for their employees. The EO proclaimed that it
"promoted economy and efficiency in Federal procurement by ensuring
that the parties that contract with the Federal Government provide
adequate COVID-19 safeguards to their workers performing on or in
connection with a Federal Government contract or contract-like
instrument." On November 30, 2021, in State of Louisiana v.
Becerra, No. 3:21-CV-03970 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2021), however, the
district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining
enforcement of the rule.

On a similar front, on November 4, 2021, the U.S. Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its long-awaited
Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that required employers with 100
or more employees, among other things, to develop, implement, and
enforce policies requiring most employees to get vaccinated or to
undergo weekly testing for COVID-19. The ETS became effective upon
publication in the Federal Register on November 5, 2021, and set
January 4, 2022, as the deadline for employees to receive their
final vaccine dose or to begin testing. The ETS covered all
employees of covered employers, whether full-time, part-time or
temporary, except for employees (a) working alone (in a location
where other individuals are not present); (b) working from home; or
(c) working exclusively outdoors.

Litigants filed at least 27 lawsuits in 12 different federal
circuit courts of appeals challenging such agency rule-making on
the grounds that, among other things, it exceeded executive
authority to regulate employment conditions. On November 12, 2021,
in BST Holdings, LLC v. OSHA, No. 21-60845 (5th Cir. Nov. 12,
2021), the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS and ordered OSHA to refrain
from taking steps to implement or enforce the mandate until further
court order, reasoning that the petitioners' challenges to the
mandate were likely to succeed on the merits because, even if the
mandate passed constitutional muster, it was the "rare government
pronouncement" that was both under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
Despite such pronouncement, on December 17, 2021, a Sixth Circuit
panel designated to rule on the consolidated challenges lifted the
stay, reasoning that the harm caused by keeping the emergency
temporary standard frozen outweighed any damage that would stem
from letting it go into effect.

The Sixth Circuit's ruling was quickly appealed on an emergency
basis to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 22, 2021, the U.S.
Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on an expedited basis at a
special session on January 7, 2022, and to consider whether it
should allow the ETS and another rule, issued by the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services requiring vaccinations for employees
at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid
healthcare programs, to go into effect. Both cases challenge the
authority of administrative agencies and the federal government to
issue such sweeping mandates in the context of the pandemic. A
ruling is anticipated in the first quarter of 2022.

Challenges to state government actions have proven less successful.
For instance, healthcare workers sued to block COVID-19 vaccine
mandates in both Maine and New York and sought preliminary
injunctions contending that such mandates violated their
constitutional rights because they did not include religious
exemptions. In both cases, the reviewing courts, respectively,
refused to grant injunctive relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined requests to intervene in both actions. In total, of the 41
motions for preliminary injunctive relief filed in 2021 to prevent
enforcement of vaccination rules, only 15, or 41% were granted.

Challenges to policies adopted by private employers faced worse
odds in 2021. In 2021, litigants challenged employer policies on
various grounds, including on the grounds that they supposedly
discriminated against employees because they failed to provide
disability or religious accommodations or retaliated against
workers who expressed COVID-related concerns or sought such
accommodations.

In Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 21-CV-1074 (N.D. Tex.
Nov. 8, 2021), for instance, a group of employees filed a putative
class action alleging that United violated Title VII by refusing to
engage in an interactive process, by failing to provide reasonable
religious accommodations, and by retaliating against them for
engaging in protected activity. After granting in part defendant's
motion to dismiss in part on personal jurisdiction grounds, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on the
basis that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that,
without such an order, they would suffer imminent, irreparable
harm.

On December 13, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied an emergency motion
for an injunction pending appeal of the order in Sambrano v. United
Airline, Inc., No. 21-11159 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2021).

By contrast, in Fraternal Order Of Police Chicago Lodge No. 7 v.
City of Chicago, No. 2021 CH 5376 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 1, 2021), a
group of police officers filed an action seeking a temporary
restraining order to enjoin the implementation of defendant's
COVID-19 vaccination policy until the parties could arbitrate their
grievances pursuant to their collective bargaining agreements. The
court granted the motion in part. The court reasoned that, if all
employees complied with the vaccine requirements, as of the end of
the year, there would be no grievances to adjudicate and no remedy
that an arbitrator could award. The court, therefore, ruled that
plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable injury, stayed compliance with
the vaccination requirement until the parties completed their
arbitrations, and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction.

In total, courts have issued 65 opinions on motions to dismiss
class action claims related to COVID-19 in 2021, and have granted
82% of those motions in whole or in part.

In sum, the pandemic has continued to spike class actions (of all
varieties) and litigation over all types of workplace issues. To
date, however, defendants have achieved high rates of success in
defeating these claims by overcoming motions for preliminary
injunction and by prevailing on motions to dismiss in whole or
part. Employers are apt to see these workplace class actions
continue to expand and morph in 2022 as the pandemic endures. [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 ***