/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220202.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 18

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Treckman Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
AMAZON.COM INC: May Face Suit Over Refusal to Hire Ex-Convict
AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Faces Suit Investigation After Data Breach
ANTARES PHARMA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lungu Securities Suit
BAIDU INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 14 Deadline

BUMBLE INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 25 Deadline
CLARIVATE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 25 Deadline
COMPLETE CARE: Triplett Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT Wages
CREDIT BUREAU: Appeals Ruling Granting Atty.'s Fees in Basset Case
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations

CULLEN AND DYKMAN: Stillitano Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
DAVID'S BRIDAL: Florida Woman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DESKTOP METAL: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Feb. 21 Deadline
DISCOVERY INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 8 Deadline
DISCOVERY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline

EAGLE BANCORP: Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
ETHEREUMMAX: Executives, Celebrities Sued in Crypto Class Action
EVENFLO COMPANY: Judge Tosses Suits Over Deceptive Booster Seats
FALCON MOVING: Faces Walczak Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Illinois
FARADAY FUTURE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 22 Deadline

FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 15 Deadline
GATOS SILVER: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Suit
GOOGLE LLC: U.S. Federal Judge Dismisses Breach of Contract Claims
HP INC: District of Delaware Dismisses Twardzik Suit With Prejudice
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 28 Deadline

JAMES SCHIEBNER: Smith's Motion for Class Certification Nixed
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Actions Over Machine Recall Pending
LG ELECTRONICS: Samsung Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in White
LIBERTY OILFIELD: More Time to File Reply Brief Sought in Correa
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Wharton Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

META MATERIALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 4 Deadline
META MATERIALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 4 Deadline
MISSOURI: Class Action Settlement Reached Over Illegal Court Fees
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: MissPERS Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Walton Collapse

NCI GROUP: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
NEW HORIZON: Bid for FLSA Collective Conditional Cert. Withdrawn
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to May 12
OHIO NATIONAL: Time to File Class Cert Bid Reply Extended
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses

PLAID INC: April 28 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
PRATT & WHITNEY: Strong Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
RELIQ HEALTH: March 23 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bills Customers Despite Work Stoppage, Suit Says
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
ROOSEVELT FIELD: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 1
SANTANDER BANK: Sanchez Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
SLEEP NUMBER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 14 Deadline
ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baqer Loses Class Certification Bid

STANDARD LITHIUM: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STANDARD LITHIUM: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STATE FARM: David Toms Files Bid for Class Certification
SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ecolab's OxyCide Product
TI GROUP: Stipulated Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Brady

TOSHIBA CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Stoyas Securities Suit Denied
TRUE HEALTH: Data Breach Prompts Investigation Into Class Action
UNION SECURITY: Amended Sched Order Entered in Lewis-Abdulhaadi
UNITED STATES: 2nd Circuit Affirms Injunction in Barrows v. Becerra
UNITED STATES: Black U.S. Marshals' Class Action Suit to Proceed

UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detainees Won COVID-19 Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Reaches Groundbreaking Settlement in COVID-19 Suit
UNITED STATES: Social Security Opens to Same-Sex Couple Survivors
UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Movie Trailer
VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Seeks to Certify Class of Stock Purchasers

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunshine's 1st Amended Suit
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 14, 2022 Order
WELLS FARGO: Pays $12M for Wrongly Denying Mortgage Modifications
WESTEN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Abuse, Hazing
WESTERN ALLIANCE: Acquires Leading Digital Payments Platform

[*] Arbitration Impact of Workplace Class Actions Discussed

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Treckman Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIM TRECKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, L.P., THE ANSUL COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., NATIONAL FOAM,
INC., KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE FIREFIGHTING, INC., U.S. PUMP
COMPANY, LLC, and WILLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00076 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2022) is a class action
seeking damages for Plaintiff's personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), an industrial firefighting foam which contains
toxic chemicals known to cause harmful health outcomes in humans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of the health and
environmental hazards for years and yet failed to warn consumers
and the public of the dangerous effects of PFAS chemicals.
Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to manufacture AFFF
containing PFAS chemicals including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA")
and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") that would be released
into the environment during firefighting operations.

As a direct and proximate result of this alleged failure to warn,
the PFAS chemicals in AFFF products were permitted to enter the air
and came into contact with the Plaintiff and Class Members. As
such, harmful PFAS chemicals are now in Plaintiff's and Class
Members' bodies affecting their health, added the suit.

Mr. Treckman worked as a firefighter for the City of Austin Fire
Department and stationed at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport
where he was exposed to AFFF which contained PFAS chemicals.

The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hodges, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          Jerry W. Mason, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
                  dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  jmason@hftrialfirm.com

AMAZON.COM INC: May Face Suit Over Refusal to Hire Ex-Convict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a federal judge said
Amazon.com Inc and its Whole Foods unit can be sued over the
refusal to hire a convicted murderer who claimed to be
rehabilitated after nearly 23 years in prison.

In a Wednesday night decision, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni
in Manhattan said Henry Franklin could pursue a proposed class
action after being turned down for a grocery delivery job at
Cornucopia Logistics, which serves Amazon and Whole Foods.

Amazon determined after a background check that Franklin had lied
on his April 2019 job application by answering "no" when asked if
he had a criminal record.

New York law bars employers from rejecting job applicants based on
their criminal histories unless the crimes relate directly to the
jobs sought, or hirings would pose an unreasonable risk to the
public.

Without ruling on the merits, Caproni said the defendants failed to
show that either exception applied, adding that Franklin "has
adequately alleged that he is rehabilitated and no longer poses a
threat to the public."

She also said she was "sympathetic to defendants' likely position
that they do not want a convicted murderer delivering groceries to
their customers' homes."

The defendants and their lawyers did not immediately respond on
Thursday to requests for comment. Franklin's lawyers did not
immediately respond to similar requests.

Amazon and Whole Foods had argued that Franklin's lie was reason
enough turn him down, and he lacked standing to sue them because
neither was his "prospective" employer.

Caproni called Franklin's pleading on the latter issue "barely"
sufficient.

According to court papers, Franklin was convicted of second-degree
murder in June 1995 and paroled in June 2018.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Amazon and Whole Foods job
applicants in New York state and New York City with criminal
records.

The case is Franklin v Whole Foods Market Group Inc et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 20-04935. [GN]

AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Faces Suit Investigation After Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
digitaljournal.com reports that recently, the law firm of Console &
Associates, P.C. opened an investigation into the recent American
Osteopathic Association data breach to determine the legal remedies
of those affected by the breach. If evidence turns up indicating
that the American Osteopathic Association failed to take the
necessary steps to protect consumers' data or otherwise mishandled
consumers' sensitive information, the organization may be
financially liable through a data breach class action lawsuit.
A data breach is often the result of a cyberattack, where an
unauthorized party hacks into an organization's IT systems. In most
cases, the data accessed through a breach is either retained by the
party conducting the cyberattack or sold to another party. In
either case, affected consumers are at an increased risk of
experiencing identity theft or financial losses. While the
investigation into the American Osteopathic Association's
data-privacy practices is ongoing, the breach raises questions
about the organization's efforts to keep consumer data secure. If
evidence emerges that the American Osteopathic Association
mishandled or failed to protect consumer data leading up to the
breach, affected parties may be eligible for 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 an
organization's system; however, this ignores the legal and moral
obligation that these organizations owe to customers. When someone
gives an organization their business, they trust that the
information in the organization's possession will remain
private—and out of the hands of criminals. While protecting
consumer data requires an organization to undergo some effort and
expense, in our current environment of widespread hacking, this is
a cost of doing business that all organizations must take
seriously."

According to their consumer notice, on June 25, 2020, the American
Osteopathic Association first noticed suspicious activity on some
of its servers. In response, the American Osteopathic Association
worked with a third-party cyber-security firm to investigate the
incident. It was determined that certain consumer data was removed
from the organization's servers. However, due to the burdens
imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association did not discover
the full list of affected parties until the following year.
Eventually, the investigation revealed that the sensitive
information of nearly 27,500 individuals was compromised. This data
includes:

-- Full names,
-- Social Security numbers, and
-- Financial Account Information.

The American Osteopathic Association notes that, to date, there
have been no reports that the unauthorized third party used or
intends to use the data obtained through the cyberattack. However,
an investigation is ongoing. On July 1, 2021, the company sent data
breach notifications to all affected parties, informing them of the
breach and what they can do to protect themselves.

If it turns out that American Osteopathic Association did not
adequately protect the privacy of consumers' data, affected
patients may be able to name American Osteopathic Association in a
class action data breach lawsuit.

While the investigation into the breach is ongoing, those in
receipt of a data breach letter from the American Osteopathic
Association should take the following steps to protect themselves:

-- Carefully review the letter sent by American Osteopathic
Association;
-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by
American Osteopathic Association;
-- 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.

To learn more about this data breach, please visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/data-breach-alert-american-osteopathic-association/.

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]

ANTARES PHARMA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Lungu Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGHEI LUNGU; RANDY SMITH, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ANTARES PHARMA INC; ROBERT F.
APPLE; FRED M. POWELL; LEONARD S. JACOB Serghei Lungu, Appellant,
Case No. 21-1624 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff-Appellant Lungu challenges the District Court's decision
to grant the Defendants-Appellees' motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. The Plaintiff, an individual investor, brought a
federal securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Antares
Pharma Inc. stock between Dec. 21, 2016 and Oct. 12, 2017. The
District Court concluded that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently
plead a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5. As a result, the District Court determined that the
Plaintiff's claim under Section 20(a) also failed.

II. Background

The Plaintiff sued Antares, as well as three senior officers and
directors -- Robert Apple, Fred Powell, and Leonard Jacob -- in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming they
made material misstatements and omissions while bringing a certain
drug delivery device to market.

Antares develops, manufactures, and commercializes therapeutic
products using its drug delivery systems. The product at issue --
Xyosted -- is an auto injector product designed for testosterone
replacement therapy. It is currently approved by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") but with certain labeling requirements,
including a black box warning and a "Warnings and Precautions"
section.

In his third amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements related
to product safety during the FDA approval process of Xyosted,
resulting in a 37.8% decline in Antares's stock. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misled investors by
downplaying and misstating the incidence of certain adverse events
-- hypertension, suicidality, and depression -- observed in the two
Phase 3 clinical studies of Xyosted. Based on these allegedly false
and misleading statements, the Plaintiff asserts that Antares
overstated the approval prospects for Xyosted and artificially
inflated its share price.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the
Plaintiff failed to state a claim pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u et seq., and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The District Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's third amended complaint with prejudice. The District
Court determined, among other things, that the Plaintiff failed to
sufficiently plead the first element of a Section 10(b) claim
because the statements in question were either opinions
interpreting clinical data that were not actionable or vague and
general statements of optimism that were not material. Because
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act requires an underlying violation
of Section 10(b) by the controlled person, the District Court also
dismissed the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim against Apple,
Powell, and Jacob. The Plaintiff timely appealed.

III. Analysis

A. False or Misleading Statements

The Third Circuit opines that the District Court correctly
concluded that the Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead an
actionable material misrepresentation or omission. First, contrary
to the Plaintiff's assertion, the occurrence of hypertension,
suicide, or depression do not render false or misleading Antares's
statements about the treatment pain experienced by patients, or the
levels of testosterone administered over the course of therapy.
Potential adverse reactions to Xyosted are not implicated by either
statement. These statements are not actionable.

Second, although Antares conceded that the case of completed
suicide may have had its roots in depression, the Third Circuit
finds that it was neither false nor misleading to categorize the
event as a completed suicide. Indeed, the correlative relationship
between depression and suicide is so commonplace that no reasonable
investor would be materially misled by a disclosure of a completed
suicide that omitted that the person who died of suicide was also
depressed. Thus, the Plaintiff's allegation about the allegedly
undisclosed occurrence of depression is not actionable.

Third, the statement is an opinion about the timing of Xyosted's
regulatory milestones. It does not speak to the substance or
contents of the FDA's review, only that Xyosted was "working with
the FDA to hit the application review period end-date of Oct. 20,
2017." Plus, there is no basis to conclude (nor is one alleged)
that Apple did not genuinely believe what he was saying at the time
he said it. Nowhere in the complaint does the Plaintiff allege that
the risks arising out of the FDA's feedback were out of the
ordinary or that they presented a special challenge not normally
confronted by pharmaceutical companies seeking FDA approval for
their drugs. Finally, Antares did not need to disclose the 2016
interim feedback from the FDA.

Lastly, the third Circuit finds that the statements "anyone who is
diagnosed with testosterone deficiency, we believe, is the perfect
candidate for Xyosted" and that "there isn't any particular patient
population that has testosterone deficiency that we're excluding or
that we think is a better candidate" are immaterial because they
would not alter the total mix of relevant information available to
a reasonable investor. Given that the FDA approved the methods and
procedures employed in the second clinical study, no reasonable
investor would be concerned with patient enrollment data with which
the FDA did not take issue.

B. Section 20(a) Liability

Control-person liability under Section 20(a) hinges on liability
under Section 10(b). Because the Plaintiff failed to adequately
allege a primary violation of Section 10(b), his section 20(a)
claim against the individual Defendants also fails, as the District
Court correctly concluded.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment
of the District Court granting the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8f4f2z from Leagle.com.


BAIDU INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a
securities class action lawsuit have been filed on behalf of those
who acquired Baidu, Inc. securities from March 22, 2021 to March
29, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges throughout the
Class Period, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount
of their shares in the company while in possession of material,
non-public information about Archegos and its need to fully
liquidate its position in the company because of margin call
pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined. Investors have
until the deadline below to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuits.

Baidu, Inc. ("Baidu" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIDU)

Pending Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 14, 2022

For additional information on the Baidu lawsuit please visit this
website.

                      About Kirby McInerney

Kirby McInerney 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's website: www.kmllp.com.

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

BUMBLE INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Bumble Inc. ("Bumble") (NASDAQ: BMBL). The action
charges Bumble with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Bumble's materially misleading statements to the public, Bumble
investors have suffered significant losses.

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR BUMBLE LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE
FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/bumble-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=bumble


LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: March 25, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: Purchasers of Bumble Class A common stock in Bumble's
secondary public stock offering on September 10, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com  

BUMBLE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Bumble provides online dating and social networking platforms.
Specifically, Bumble owns and operates websites and applications
that offer subscription and credit-based dating products.

On September 7, 2021, Bumble filed a registration statement on a
Form S-1 for Bumble's secondary public stock offering (the "SPO").
On September 9, 2021, the SEC declared the registration statement
effective, and on September 13, 2021, Bumble filed the final
Prospectus for the SPO, which forms part of the registration
statement (collectively, the "Registration Statement"). The SPO
allowed controlling stockholder Blackstone Group Inc. to sell 20.7
million shares of Bumble Class A common stock at $54 per share,
generating more than $1.1 billion in gross proceeds.

On November 10, 2021, Bumble announced its third quarter 2021
financial results and revealed that, rather than growing paying
users, Bumble's total paying user count had actually declined to
2.86 million, well below Bumble's 2.9 million reported paying users
as of June 30, 2021 as highlighted in the Registration Statement.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose any problems plaguing Bumble's dating apps or the slowdown
in Bumble's paying user growth.

As of the date the initial complaint was filed, Bumble Class A
common stock traded below $27 per share, a decline of more than 50%
from the SPO price.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Bumble investors may, no later than March 25, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Bumble investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]

CLARIVATE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired securities of
Clarivate Plc (the "Company" or "Clarivate") (NYSE: CLVT) between
February 26, 2021 and December 27, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clarivate securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Clarivate Plc Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joe
Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.
Clarivate is an information services and analytics company. On
October 1, 2020, the Company acquired 100% of the assets,
liabilities, and equity interests of CPA Global, an intellectual
property software and tech-enabled services company. Before and
after its acquisition of CPA Global, Clarivate assured investors of
the core effectiveness of its financial controls and procedures.
For example, even after Clarivate disclosed in April 2021 that it
had a material weakness in its financial controls related to
accounting for certain warrants issued in connection with a 2019
business combination, the Company specifically cabined the scope of
that material weakness to its accounting for the warrants at issue,
while assuring investors that the remainder of its controls and
procedures were effective. The complaint alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clarivate maintained
defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a
material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting;
(ii) the foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the
Company accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate failed
to properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition
of CPA Global; (iv) accordingly, the Company was reasonably likely
to restate one or more of its previously issued financial
statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 27, 2021, Clarivate disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that "[o]n December 22,
2021, Clarivate . . . concluded that the financial statements
previously issued as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020,
and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021, and
September 30, 2021, should no longer be relied upon because of an
error in such financial statements[.]" Specifically, Clarivate
reported that "[t]he error relates to the treatment under U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) relating to an
equity plan included in the CPA Global business combination which
was consummated on October 1, 2020 (the CPA Global Transaction)[,]
and that [i]n the affected financial statements, certain awards
made by CPA Global under its equity plan were incorrectly included
as part of the acquisition accounting for the CPA Global
Transaction." Later that same day, an hour before market trading
hours closed, StreetInsider.com published an article on Clarivate
entitled "Clarivate Plc (CLVT) PT Lowered to $29 at Stifel on
Accounting Error."

Following Clarivate's SEC filing and the StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell $0.16 per share, or 0.65%, to
close at $24.58 per share on December 27, 2021. As the market
continued to digest the SEC filing and StreetInsider.com article,
Clarivate's ordinary share price fell an additional $1.70 per
share, or 6.92%, to close at $22.88 per share on December 28, 2021
- a total decline of $1.86 per share, or 7.52%, over two
consecutive trading days.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 25, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CLVT securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/clarivateplc-clvt-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-480/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

COMPLETE CARE: Triplett Seeks Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAKISHA TRIPLETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETE CARE MANAGEMENT LLC and WAUKESHA
HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00111 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 27, 2022) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws arising from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime and regular wages to the
Plaintiff and class members.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants from September 2020 as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of certified
nursing assistant working at Defendants' "Kensington Care & Rehab
Center" location.

Complete Care Management owns, operates, and manages skilled
nursing facilities and assisted living facilities in multiple
States across the county, including but not limited to, the State
of Wisconsin.

Waukesha Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, commonly known as
"Kensington Care & Rehab Center," is a skilled nursing facility
located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CREDIT BUREAU: Appeals Ruling Granting Atty.'s Fees in Basset Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Bureau Services, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling awarding attorney's fees in the lawsuit styled KELLY M.
BASSETT, individually and as heir of JAMES M. BASSETT, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT
BUREAU SERVICES, INC., and C. J. TIGHE, Defendants, Case No.
8:16CV449, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
- Omaha.

The Plaintiff brought this class action under both the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Kelly Bassett had sought a $7,500 incentive payment as
class representative. Ms. Bassett submitted a declaration stating
she participated in numerous meetings and telephone calls in
preparation for the case, as well as reviewing documents and
attending trial.

The Plaintiff class also sought reimbursement of costs and
expenses, including the cost of notice to the class, and fees for
net worth expert and accountant. The class argued that the expert
report was necessary because the defendants failed to answer the
Plaintiffs' net worth inquiries sincerely. They also contended that
Mr. Basi's expert report and rebuttal resulted in the net worth
stipulation, which shortened the trial and benefitted the class.

The Defendants objected to the award of fees. They argued that the
hours expended are unreasonable and the hourly rates are excessive,
contending that a reasonable rate would be no more than $225 per
hour. The Defendants contended that any fee award should be limited
to a maximum of $60,000, in view of the small recovery to the
class. They also argued that certain charges are duplicative and/or
excessive and challenge the incentive award and expert witness fee.
Further, they asserted that the Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient documentation for the costs and expenses.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13, 2022, Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff class' motion for attorney fees;

   (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to stay the injunction; and

  (iii) denied the Defendants' motion for approval of a bond in
        the amount of $52,000.

The Defendants now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Credit Bureau Services, Inc., et
al. v. Kelly Bassett, Case No. 22-1206, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on Jan. 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on March 8, 2022;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J.
Tighe is due on March 8, 2022; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Credit Bureau Services, Inc. and C.J. Tighe
are represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          Shilee T. Mullin, Esq.
          SPENCER & FANE
          13520 California Street, Suite 290
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 965-8600
          E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com
                  smullin@spencerfane.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Kelly Bassett, individually and as heir of James
M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Owen Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ & HORWITZ
          25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602-0000
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT
          2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1135
          Omaha, NE 68124-0000
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net  

               - and -

          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. REINBRECHT
          2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          E-mail: billr205@gmail.com

CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 6, 2022, Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane & Conway, LLP ("Peiffer
Wolf") and Daren A. Luma, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit against
Credit Suisse AG ("Credit Suisse") alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 17 CFR Section 240.10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Gomez vs. Credit Suisse AG, No. 1:22-cv-00115-JPC-DCM.
The lawsuit seeks to represent all persons who initiated a short
position in DGAZ or DGAZF prior to August 3, 2020, and thereafter
purchased DGAZF on the over-the-counter market to cover that
position, in whole or in part.

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse made untrue statements of
material fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices, and a
course of business that operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
holders of short positions in DGAZ/DGAZF notes. Specifically, it is
alleged that Credit Suisse approved and disseminated a materially
false and misleading Press Release announcing that DGAZ was being
delisted and that Credit Suisse would cease issuance of additional
notes without disclosing that market conditions were such that a
short squeeze was imminent, and that the price of DGAZ would become
completely dislocated from the underlying Index value. The
complaint further alleges that because of Credit Suisse's actions,
short holders subsequently paid artificially inflated prices on the
OTC Pink market to cover outstanding short positions.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court; from attorney
Daren A. Luma (dluma@lumalegal.com), or from Peiffer Wolf attorneys
Joe Peiffer (jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com), Jason Kane
(jkane@peifferwolf.com), Dan Centner (dcentner@peifferwolf.com)
and/or Grace Hancock (ghancock@peifferwolf.com).

Not later than 60 days after the date on which this notice is
published, any member of the purported class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.

The Law firms Peiffer Wolf and Daren A. Luma, PLLC concentrate on
representing investors in securities, consumer class actions, and
individual cases around the country. Please visit
https://www.peifferwolf.com and https://www.lumalegal.com for more
information.

Responsible Attorneys, Daren Luma and Dan Centner

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contacts

Joe Peiffer (jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com)
Dan Centner (dcentner@peifferwolf.com)
Grace Hancock (ghancock@peifferwolf.com)
Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane & Conway LLP
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr Dr., 1st Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130

Jason Kane (jkane@peifferwolf.com)
95 Allens Creek Bldg. 1, Suite 150
Rochester, NY 14619

Daren A. Luma, PLLC (dluma@lumalegal.com)
75 South Broadway, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601 [GN]

CULLEN AND DYKMAN: Stillitano Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN STILLITANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00718 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2022) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff for damages and declaratory relief arising from
the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

According to the complaint, sometime prior to November 23, 2021,
the Plaintiff allegedly incurred a financial obligation to C&C
Sprinkler Inc. The Plaintiff and C&C Sprinkler did not enter into a
written contract prior to the commencement of the service allegedly
performed by C&C Sprinkler. Prior to the said date, C&C Sprinkler,
either directly or through intermediate transactions assigned,
placed, or transferred the alleged obligation to Defendant Cullen
and Dykman for the purpose of collection.

The Defendant caused to be delivered to Plaintiff a letter dated
November 23, 2021, concerning the alleged C&C Sprinkler obligation.
The letter allegedly does not contain any of the notices required
by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) through (5) to be given to
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has suffered damages and other harm as a direct
result of the Defendant's actions, conduct, omissions and
violations of the FDCPA, says the suit.

Cullen and Dykman LLP is a full-service law firm based in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Plaza
          60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

DAVID'S BRIDAL: Florida Woman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
fox13news.com reports that a Bay Area woman has filed a
class-action lawsuit against David's Bridal, claiming the store has
bombarded her with dozens of text messages -- even though she's
never shopped there.

Cheri Aul's attorneys filed the lawsuit in Pinellas County against
the wedding formal wear retailer back in September.

According to the complaint, Aul -- who had recently gotten a new
cell phone number, began to receive automated text messages from
David's Bridal. The company sent at least 50 text messages to Aul's
cell phone from April 2021 to September 2021, even though she said
she never gave them permission to send her messages.

Court records show that each time Aul received an automated text,
she would reply "STOP" to a different number as instructed by the
store's "How to unsubscribe" website, and would even receive
confirmation messages each time that said she had opted out.
Nevertheless, the lawsuit said the unwanted texts just kept coming
-- prompting her to call an attorney.

The class-action lawsuit filed asks for $500 in damages for every
unsolicited text sent by David's Bridal to every person in
Florida.

Attorneys argue the texts, which are sent by automatic dialing
devices, are illegal thanks to the new Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act, or FTSA, that does not allow telemarketers to use
such technology without written permission.

Some of the texts, as seen in the lawsuit filed in Pinellas County
court records.
However, lawyers for David's Bridal responded to the complaint in
mid-January, filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that
Florida's new law is unconstitutional by violating the First
Amendment. They wrote that the FTSA "singles out one specific type
of speech - a 'telephonic sales call' regarding 'consumer goods or
services' - for unique treatment, burdening this type of speech
based on the content alone."

Additionally, David's Bridal said whoever had Aul's phone number
previously had consented to receive their text messages, and that
they did not know that person had relinquished their number --
which was eventually reassigned to Aul.

Further, they argued that Aul did not actually follow the proper
unsubscribe procedures.

"While most people would simply text 'STOP' to cease these
messages, Plaintiff did not do so," defense attorneys wrote.
"Instead, she communicated with a different David's Bridal number,
immediately took screenshots of those communications, then turned
around and sued David's Bridal for allegedly invading her privacy
rights."

A hearing before a Pinellas circuit judge is scheduled for April
22, 2022. [GN]

DESKTOP METAL: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Feb. 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE:
DM), Chegg, Inc. (NYSE: CHGG), KE Holdings (NYSE: BEKE), and
DocuSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOCU). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

Desktop Metal, Inc. (NYSE: DM)

Class Period: March 15, 2021 - November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022

On February 16, 2021, the Company acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc. and
certain of its affiliates (collectively, "EnvisionTEC"), a provider
of volume production photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use
parts.

On November 8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop Metal
disclosed that it was conducting an internal investigation into
certain matters, including "manufacturing and product compliance
practices and procedures with respect to a subset of its
photopolymer equipment and materials at its EnvisionTec US LLC
facility." The Company also stated that the Chief Executive Officer
of EnvisionTec US LLC had resigned.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at
$8.81 per share on November 9, 2021.

Then, on November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company
stated that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") of "compliance issues with certain shipments of
EnvisionTEC's Flexcera dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to close at
$6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC's
manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (2)
that the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the
commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Desktop Metal class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DM

Chegg, Inc. (NYSE: CHGG)

Class Period: May 5, 2020 - November 1, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022

The complaint charges Chegg, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, and others with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose known adverse facts about Chegg's business, operations,
and prospects, including that: (i) Chegg's increase in subscribers,
growth, and revenue had been a temporary effect of the COVID-19
pandemic that resulted in remote education for the vast majority of
United States students and once the pandemic-related restrictions
eased and students returned to campuses nationwide, Chegg's
extraordinary growth trends would end; (ii) Chegg's subscriber and
revenue growth were largely due to the facilitation of remote
education cheating an unstable business proposition rather than the
strength of its business model or the acumen of its senior
executives and directors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
current business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong
as it had led the market to believe during the Class Period.

Following these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell $30.64
per share, or 48.82%, to close at $32.12 per share on November 2,
2021.

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

KE Holdings (NYSE: BEKE)

Class Period: August 13, 2020 - December 16, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 28, 2022

The action arises out of the Company's misstatements materially
overstating its store count, agent counsel, new home sales gross
transaction value ("GTF"), and revenues. The complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions, and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market. The trust
began to come to light when Muddy Waters Capital LLC, a research
based equity investor, revealed that KE Holdings was overstating
the agents and stores on its platforms, its GTV, and its revenues,
among other wrongdoing. These misstatements artificially inflated
the price of KE Holdings' ADS and operated as a fraud or deceit on
the Class. When the truth was revealed, the Company's ADS price
fells substantially and has continued falling since.

For more information on the KE Holdings class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BEKE

DocuSign, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOCU)

Class Period: May 27, 2020 - December 2, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 21, 2022

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on DocuSign's
business was positive, not negative; (2) DocuSign misrepresented
the role that the Covid-19 pandemic had on its growth; (3) DocuSign
downplayed the impact that a ‘return to normal' would have on the
Company's growth and business; and (4) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On this news, DocuSign's stock price plummeted $98.73 per share, or
over 42%, to close at $135.09 per share on December 3, 2021,
damaging investors.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

DISCOVERY INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a
securities class action lawsuit have been filed on behalf of those
who acquired Discovery Inc. securities from March 22, 2021 to March
29, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges throughout the
Class Period, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount
of their shares in the company while in possession of material,
non-public information about Archegos and its need to fully
liquidate its position in the company because of margin call
pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants Goldman Sachs and
Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses combined. Investors have
until the deadline below to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Discovery Inc. ("Discovery" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DISCA,
DISCK)

Pending Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022

For additional information on the Discovery lawsuit please visit
this website.

                  About Kirby McInerney

Kirby McInerney 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's website: www.kmllp.com.

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

DISCOVERY INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Discovery, Inc. (NASDAQ: DISCA,
DISCK) between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important March 8, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Discovery 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 Discovery class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2239.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 8, 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. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. and Morgan Stanley sold a large amount of Discovery shares
during the Class Period while in possession of material non-public
information about Archegos Capital Management (at the time a family
office with $10 billion under management) and its need to fully
liquidate its position in Discovery because of margin call
pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants in the case,
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses
combined.

To join the Discovery class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2239.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

EAGLE BANCORP: Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bethesda Beat reports that lawyers for Eagle Bancorp, the parent
company of EagleBank, are asking a federal court for final approval
of a $7.5 million settlement the parties have agreed to in a
class-action lawsuit against the Bethesda bank related to its
business dealings.

Eighth-grade climate activist draws from family's history

Early this school year, eighth-grader Rosie Clemans-Cope walked
into Chad Lenz' science classroom at Julius West Middle School in
Rockville on a mission.

She wanted Lenz to sponsor Fridays For Future, a student-led
climate initiative modeled after Swedish activist Greta Thunberg's
climate strike outside her country's parliament. [Maryland
Matters]

Bill would require schools to have diverse history lessons

One lawmaker is attempting to change the way students learn
American history.

The bill would require all Maryland public schools to include more
history lessons on racial, ethnic and other groups in America whose
stories often are left untold. [Maryland Matters] [GN]

ETHEREUMMAX: Executives, Celebrities Sued in Crypto Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cryptocurrency, social media, and celebrity or influencer mentions
have all been front and center recently, including for advertisers.
A recently filed lawsuit asks a federal court to consider the
intersection of these areas, with potential implications for
advertisers looking to expand into the cryptocurrency space.
EthereumMax executives ("Executive Defendants") and a few
well-known celebrities including Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather,
Jr. and Paul Pierce ("Celebrity Defendants") recently encountered a
class action lawsuit in California federal court filed on behalf of
all purchasers of EMAX tokens from EthereumMax between May and June
2021. Plaintiff alleges that defendants devised a scheme to
deceptively promote and sell EMAX tokens, cryptocurrency digital
assets, through of social media advertisements and other
promotional activities, while failing to adequately disclose
material ties between EthereumMax and the famous EMAX-endorsing
defendants. Hugherich c. Gentile, #2:22-cv-00163 (CD Cal. Jan. 7,
2022).

Plaintiff alleges that Executive Defendants used celebrity
endorsements and promotions of Famous Defendants to falsely
advertise EMAX tokens on social media, in what Plaintiff calls a
"pump and dump" scheme. For example, the requester cites a Tweet
from Paul Pierce stating, "@espn, I don't need you. I got
@ethereum_max I made more money from this crypto in the last month
than you all did in a year. . . my own boss. . . Check it out for
yourself." According to the claimant, on the same day, EthereumMax
issued a press release announcing that it was "now the exclusive
accepted cryptocurrency for online ticket purchases for the event.
highly anticipated Floyd Mayweather vs. Logan Paul Pay-Per-View".
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these advertisements, EMAX's
trading volume increased nearly five times from the previous day.

According to the complaint, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. then promoted
EMAX at the "Bitcoin 2021" conference in Miami, where he and his
entourage wore EthereumMax t-shirts. The complaint alleges that Kim
Kardashian also posted her own solicitation for EthereumMax on her
Instagram account, stating, "ARE YOU GUYS IN CRYPTO??? . . . SHARE
WHAT MY FRIENDS TOLD ME ABOUT THE ETHEREUM TOKEN MAX! A FEW MINUTES
AGO, ETHEREUM MAX BURNED 400 BILLION TOKENS - LITERALLY 50% OF
THEIR ADMIN PORTFOLIO GIVING BACK TO THE ENTIRE E-MAX COMMUNITY.
His post included a disclosure at the bottom right, reading "#AD
The plaintiff cites survey results indicating that up to 21% of US
adults and nearly half of all cryptocurrency owners have seen the
ad, with 19% of respondents saying they saw the ad. announces to
invest in EMAX accordingly.

According to the plaintiff, the celebrity defendants received EMAX
tokens and other forms of compensation in exchange for their
promotional posts. The plaintiff alleges that the celebrity
defendants failed to adequately disclose the fact that they were
paid for their endorsements. In particular, the plaintiff alleges
that Mayweather and Pierce did not include a disclosure of any
kind, while Kardashian's "#AD" disclosure "hidden at the very
bottom right of the post" was not sufficiently visible.

Plaintiff further alleges that the Executive Defendants capitalized
on the hype they caused via the Famous Defendants by artificially
inflating the interest and price of EMAX tokens, causing investors
to purchase the digital assets at inflated prices. About a month
after these promotional activities, EMAX reportedly saw its price
drop by 98%.

With the disclosure of hardware connections being a hot topic for
the FTC and NAD (as documented in our "On Notice" series), this
class action lawsuit may provide one of the first glimpses into how
these issues will be handled in the future. cryptocurrency space.
In the cryptocurrency space, in particular, disclosure issues may
continue to come to the fore; by receiving cryptocurrency in return
for their review, the endorser may receive an equity stake in the
business (instead of just receiving compensation), which may not be
obvious from the context. We will continue to monitor this case and
any similar cryptocurrency advertising class action lawsuits that
may be filed. [GN]

EVENFLO COMPANY: Judge Tosses Suits Over Deceptive Booster Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic at Reuters reports that a federal judge in Boston
on dismissed 28 lawsuits seeking class action status against
Evenflo Company Inc, alleging that it misled consumers about the
safety of side impacts and testing of its "Big Kid" vehicle booster
seats. [GN]

FALCON MOVING: Faces Walczak Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
JARED WALCZAK, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. FALCON MOVING
LLC AND JASON ROSKO, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00483 (E.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2022) is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act to recover from the Defendants unpaid
back wages, including overtime and minimum wages of Plaintiff and
similarly situated hourly employees.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants as a mover and
laborer in approximately May 2021. He separated from Defendants in
December 13, 2021.

Falcon Moving LLC is an Illinois limited liability company that
owns and operates a moving company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

FARADAY FUTURE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Faraday Future Intelligent
Electric, Inc. (NASDAQ: FFIE), Arrival SA (NASDAQ: ARVL), FirstCash
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCFS), and Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MMAT). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Faraday Future Intelligent Electric, Inc. (NASDAQ: FFIE)

Class Period: January 28, 2021 - November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2022

On October 7, 2021, J Capital Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that Faraday Future was unlikely to ever sell a
car, noting that after eight years in business, the Company has
"failed to deliver a car," "has reneged on promises to build
factories in five localities in the U.S. and China," "is being sued
by dozens of unpaid suppliers," and "has failed to disclose that
assets in China have been frozen by courts." Moreover, the report
alleged that Faraday Future's claimed 14,000 deposits are
fabricated because 78% of these reservations were made by a single
undisclosed company that is likely an affiliate. The report further
alleges that contrary to representations of progress toward
manufacturing made by Faraday Future in September 2021, former
engineering executives did not believe that the car was ready for
production.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35 per share, or
more than 4%, to close at $8.05 per share on October 8, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, Faraday Future announced that it would be
unable to file its Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September
30, 2021 on time. Faraday Future further announced that its board
of directors "formed a special committee of independent directors
to review allegations of inaccurate disclosures," including the
claims in the J Capital report.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.28 per share, or
approximately 3%, to close at $8.83 per share on November 16,
2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had assets in China frozen by
courts, (2) that a significant percentage of its deposits for
future deliveries were attributable to a single undisclosed
affiliate; (3) that the Company's cars were not as close to
production as the Company claimed; (4) that, as a result of
previously issued statements that were misleading and/or
inaccurate, Faraday Future could not timely file its quarterly
report; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

Arrival SA (NASDAQ: ARVL)

Class Period: November 18, 2020 - November 19, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2022

On November 8, 2021, Arrival announced the Company's financial
results for the third quarter of 2021, including a loss of €26
million, and adjusted EBITDA loss for the quarter of €40 million.
The Company also significantly scaled back its long-term
projections, pushing its production and sales timelines into later
time periods.

On this news, shares of Arrival plummeted $4.33, or 24%, to close
at $13.46 on November 10, 2021. Only a week later, on November 17,
2021, Arrival announced a $200 million offering of green
convertible senior notes due 2026, intended to finance the
development of EVs. On the same day, November 17, 2021, Arrival
announced the commencement of an underwritten public offering of 25
million ordinary shares pursuant to a registration statement on
Form F-1 filed with the SEC in a bid to raise around $330 million
in cash.

On this news, Arrival shares again dropped $0.82, or approximately
8%, to close at $9.91 on November 18, 2021.

The Complaint alleges Arrival made false and misleading statements
to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational,
and financial prospects. Specifically, Arrival made false and/or
misleading statements concerning: (i) the Company would record a
substantially greater net loss and adjusted EBITDA loss in the
third quarter of 2021 compared to the third quarter of 2020; (ii)
the Company would experience far greater capital and operational
expenses required to operate and deploy its microfactories and
manufacture EVs than disclosed; (iii) the Company would not
capitalize on or achieve profitability or provide meaningful
revenue in the time periods disclosed; (iv) the Company would not
achieve its production and sales volumes; (v) the Company would not
meet the disclosed production rollout deadlines; (vi) accordingly,
the Company materially overstated its financial and operational
position and/or prospects; and (vii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

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

FirstCash Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCFS)

Class Period: February 1, 2018 - November 12, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 15, 2022

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.

Despite these assurances, unbeknownst to investors throughout the
Class Period, FirstCash was engaged in widespread and systemic
violations of the MLA and had made thousands of loans to
active-duty service members and their dependents at usurious rates.
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.

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

Meta Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT)

Class Period: September 21, 2020 - December 14, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 4, 2022

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the business combination of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.
and Metamaterial Inc. would result in an SEC investigation and
subpoena in the matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy
Resources, Inc.; (2) the Company has materially overstated its
business connections and dealings; (3) the Company has materially
overstated its ability to produce and commercialize its products;
(4) the Company has materially overstated its products' novelty and
capabilities; (5) the Company's products did not have the potential
to be disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced
its products too high; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

On this news, Meta's stock fell $0.18 per share, or 5.83%, to close
at $2.91 per share on December 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

For more information on the Meta Materials class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MMAT

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed
against FirstCash Holdings, Inc. ("FirstCash") (NASDAQ: FCFS). The
action charges FirstCash with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of FirstCash's materially misleading statements to the
public, FirstCash investors have suffered significant losses.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: March 15, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: February 1, 2018 through November 12, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com

FIRSTCASH'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

FirstCash operates retail pawn stores that lend money on the
collateral of pledged personal property and retails merchandise
acquired through collateral forfeitures on forfeited pawn loans and
over-the-counter purchases of merchandise directly from customers.

The Military Lending Act ("MLA") provides protections for
active-duty service members and their dependents in connection with
the extension of consumer credit. In November 2013, Cash America
International, Inc. (which subsequently merged with FirstCash)
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 (the "Order").

Then, on November 12, 2021, the CFPB announced that it had filed a
complaint against FirstCash for violations of the MLA and the
Order. Specifically, the complaint alleged that "between June 2017
and May 2021 (the only period for which the Bureau currently has
Defendants' transactional data), [FirstCash and its subsidiary Cash
America West, Inc.] together made over 3,600 pawn loans to more
than 1,000 covered borrowers in Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and
Washington." The CFPB found that, in all of the loans at issue,
FirstCash imposed interest rates over 36%, with rates frequently
exceeding 200%. Additionally, the CFPB found that FirstCash's
usurious loan practices had been ongoing since at least October
2016 in violation of the Order. A CFPB release describing the
agency's action against FirstCash stated that FirstCash had
"cheated" and "gouged" military families and "robbed them of their
rights to go to court."

Following this news, FirstCash common stock dropped from $85.84 per
share on November 11, 2021, to $78.64 per share on November 12,
2021, an 8% decline.

WHAT CAN I DO?

FirstCash investors may, no later than March 15, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages FirstCash investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

Contacts

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

GATOS SILVER: Rosen Law Probes Firm for Possible Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO) resulting from
allegations that Gatos Silver may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Gatos Silver 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-2245.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, 2022, after market hours, Gatos
Silver revealed that "there were errors in the technical report
entitled 'Los Gatos Project, Chihuahua, Mexico' with an effective
date of July 1, 2020 . . . . as well as indications that there is
an overestimation in the existing resource model." Further, "[o]n a
preliminary basis, the Company estimates a potential reduction of
the metal content of the mineral reserve ranging from 30% to 50% of
the metal content remaining after depletion."

On this news, Gatos Silver's stock price fell $7.02 per share, or
68%, to close at $3.17 per share on January 26, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: U.S. Federal Judge Dismisses Breach of Contract Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ananya Upadhya at jurist.org reports that Chief US District Judge
Richard Seeborg for the Northern District of California dismissed
two claims Tuesday from a proposed class action against Google,
ruling that a promise to avoid collecting user data did not amount
to a contract.

The case, Anibal Rodriguez, et al. v. Google LLC, revolves around
Google's privacy framework, specifically the "Web & App Activity"
(WAA) button feature which allows a user to control whether data
related to her activity on Google sites, apps and services can be
saved in her Google account. The plaintiffs are suing Google for
continuing to collect their data despite their turning off the WAA
button.

The plaintiffs' first claim was that Google violated Section 631 of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which penalizes tapping or
learning the contents of a communication while it is in transit.
There is a distinction between the higher standard of simultaneity
required by Section 631 and mere "recording followed by
transmission". While the plaintiffs had previously averred that
Google recorded and then transmitted their data (amounting to a
claim for improper recordings under Section 632 instead), they now
modified their claim to one under Section 631 but failed to prove
how the alleged processes such as "real-time ad bidding" were
simultaneous.

The second claim was that by turning off the WAA button under
Google's privacy controls, a user creates a unilateral contract
with Google, binding it not to collect users' data. The judge held
while the WAA button might create an expectation among users that
data will not be collected, such expectation is insufficient to
give rise to a contract.

Even though the user is performing a certain act, this act is not
"bargained for" by Google, since Google does not request, or even
suggest, the turning off of this button. Further, both unilateral
and bilateral contracts require mutual obligations and only differ
in their mode of acceptance. Since Google was not offering anything
"in exchange" for turning off the WAA button, the WAA page cannot
be the source of an additional contract between the user and Google
distinct from the Terms of Service.

The judge contrasted this with an offer by Google where users in
its Local Guides program could carry out activities to reach "Level
4" (which Google is "bargaining for") to avail of one TB of free
storage "in exchange", thus forming a contract.

The judge denied the plaintiffs further opportunities to amend
their claims, given their multiple unsuccessful amendments so
far.[GN]


HP INC: District of Delaware Dismisses Twardzik Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK TWARDZIK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP INC., NVIDIA
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00396-SB (D. Del.), Judge
Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware granted HP and NVIDIA's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

I. Background

Mr. Twardzik wanted to buy a small but powerful laptop to play
video games "while travelling." So he scoured the internet for the
perfect machine and quickly zeroed in on HP's Envy 13. He consulted
third-party reviews, which suggested that it could run video games
"in high settings a[t] the full resolution." Impressed, he bought
it.

But soon the Plaintiff was disappointed; his laptop glitched while
running video games. When he investigated the problem, he realized
that HP had purposely slowed down the graphics card in the Envy
13.

Understanding HP's decision requires a little technical background.
Many of its laptops, including the Envy 13, contain a powerful
NVIDIA MX150 graphics card. But that card does not work as well
when installed in small computers. To combat the problem, HP used
software to slow the card in those machines. Doing so meant that
the card needed less power and put out less heat, though HP let
users manually increase its speed.

HP never told buyers that it had slowed the cards down. Buyers
could find out which card they got only by examining a computer
itself. Even so, HP stressed that its slower laptops provided
"amazing gaming performance" and "fantastic high-resolution
entertainment." NVIDIA piled on, touting the MX150 as offering
excellent gaming performance.

Given all of that, Twardzik felt misled. So he brought the
class-action lawsuit against HP and NVIDIA, alleging
consumer-protection violations, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment. He seeks monetary damages from both defendants, plus
equitable relief against HP. He brought these claims under the law
of his home state, Maryland, but anticipated that other class
members might have claims under their own states' laws.

After letting Twardzik amend his complaint once, HP and NVIDIA now
move to dismiss it. They say Twardzik lacks standing to seek
damages and equitable relief. Plus, they argue, he lacks standing
to bring claims on behalf of other class members under other
states' laws. Even if he does, they say he has not stated a claim.

II. Discussion

Judge Bibas opines that Twardzik does have standing to bring claims
for damages, though not for equitable relief. Even so, he fails to
state a claim.

A. Twardzik Has Standing to Seek Damages, Not Equitable Relief

The doctrine requires plaintiffs to show a "personal stake" in any
case they bring to federal court. HP and NVIDIA say Twardzik lacks
a personal stake in the case sufficient for damages, an injunction,
or rescission. Plus, they see a standing problem with a class
action suit brought under the laws of nearly three dozen states.

1. Damages

To establish "standing to seek monetary damages," Twardzik must
point to (1) "an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision." He meets his burden by
pleading enough "facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest
that he has standing to sue."

The parties dispute whether Twardzik has an "injury in fact." An
injury in fact is "an invasion of a legally protected interest"
that is "concrete," "particularized," and "actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.

Judge Bibas opines that Twardzik wins this battle. He claims that
he "paid for diagnoses, repairs, and replacements," along with
"software and hardware" that did not work on the laptop. Plus, he
has plausibly pled that his laptop did not do what he "expected it
to do": Run video games and display high-resolution images. So,
Judge Bibas can presume that Twardzik got less than he bargained
for. Because Twardzik has plausibly alleged that the laptop was
"worth less than what he paid for," he has shown an injury in fact
and has standing to seek damages.

2. Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief is a different matter. "In order to have standing
to seek injunctive relief, Twardzik must establish that he is
likely to suffer future injury from the defendant's conduct."

Mr. Twardzik does not, Judge Bibas finds. Twardzik says that HP
will continue "marketing, advertising, selling, and leasing"
laptops. If so, he might buy another one someday. But this supposed
injury is "hypothetical." After all, no one will force Twardzik to
buy another HP product. Judge Bibas cannot consider "this sort of
'stop me before I buy again' claim."

3. Rescission

Mr. Twardzik also seeks a "rescission" order forcing HP to
"repurchase the laptops for their full cost." HP says that
Twardzik's injury is not "redressable" by a rescission order, so he
lacks standing to seek it.

Judge Bibas holds that HP is right. Rescission is a contract remedy
letting one party to the contract "unmake" it for some "legally
sufficient reason," such as "the other party's material breach" or
"fraud." It is available only against anyone who "participated" or
"ha[s] interests" in the purchase." Yet Twardzik seeks rescission
against a company that did not sell him the laptop. True, HP
manufactured the laptop. But he bought it from a "third-party
retailer." Because HP did not sell him the laptop, Judge Bibas
cannot order it to buy it back. So Twardzik cannot get rescission.

4. Class Standing

Mr. Twardzik sues on behalf of others under the deceptive-practices
statutes of 33 different states. HP and NVIDIA say he lacks
standing to do so. Twardzik counters that any problem with these
claims goes to the class's validity under Rule 23, not standing.

Mr. Twardzik is right: This is not a standing problem. As Judge
Bibas has discussed, standing doctrine requires only that the
Plaintiffs show that "they have been injured, that the Defendants
caused that injury, and that the injury can be redressed by a
judicial decision." Twardizk has shown that. And because he has
standing, the proposed class does too.

Because Twardzik has standing, Judge Bibas will not consider the
putative class's other state law claims until the certification
stage. To summarize: Twardzik cannot seek an injunction or
rescission, but he does have standing to seek damages. And because
he has standing, Judge Bibas need not consider the challenges
inherent in a multi-state class yet.

B. Twardzik Does Not Sufficiently Plead Fraud

Mr. Twardzik brings three claims: (1) violations of consumer
protection laws, (2) fraud and fraudulent concealment, and (3)
unjust enrichment. All three claims are based on fraudulent
activity. So all three are subject to the heightened pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b).That Rule requires plaintiffs "alleging
fraud" to "state their claims with particularity."

Mr. Twardzik advances two theories of fraud. First, he says HP and
NVIDIA "made false representations concerning the performance and
quality of the laptops." Alternatively, he says the companies
"actively concealed and suppressed material facts."

Both theories fail, Judge Bibas opines. He finds that Twardzik has
not explained exactly how HP and NVIDIA "made a false
representation" that he reasonably "relied on." Twardzik provides
no information to support that he relied on their misleading
marketing -- even after HP and NVIDIA flagged this deficiency in an
earlier motion to dismiss. He is right that the standard for
omissions is "lower." But the substantive elements of the claim do
not change. Either way, the Plaintiffs must show reliance. Because
Twardzik has not done that, his omission theory fails too.

III. Conclusion

Judge Bibas concludes that Twardzik fails to show that he relied on
anything HP or NVIDIA did or did not say. So he dismissed
Twardzik's claims. And because Twardzik has amended his complaint
once already, Judge Bibas won't not let him amend again.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/52e6t6j6 from Leagle.com.

Peter Bradford deLeeuw -- brad@deleeuwlaw.com -- DELEEUW LAW LLC,
in Wilmington, Delaware, counsel for the Plaintiff.

Kelly E. Farnan -- farnan@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON, & FINGER,
PA, in Wilmington, Delaware; Laurence Pulgram --
lpulgram@fenwick.com -- Molly Melcher -- mmelcher@fenwick.com --
FENWICK & WEST LLP, in San Francisco, California, counsel for the
Defendants.


INSTADOSE PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Instadose Pharma Corp. f/k/a Mikrocoze, Inc.
("Instadose", "Mikrocoze", or the "Company") (OTCMKTS: INSD; MZKR)
and one of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virgina, Norfolk Division, and docketed under
21-cv-00675, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Instadose
securities between December 8, 2020 and November 24, 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 one of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Instadose securities during
the class period, you have until February 28, 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.

Instadose does not have significant operations and was at all
relevant times classified as a "shell" company. Instadose was
formerly known as "Mikrocoze, Inc.", which was organized to sell
micro-furniture for small spaces via the Internet.

The Company has since pivoted its business to focus on growth and
acquisition of pharmaceutical grade agricultural products.

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

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) Instadose had performed
inadequate due diligence into the Business Combination and/or
ignored significant red flags associated with Instadose Canada;
(ii) Instadose's internal controls and policies were inadequate to
detect and/or prevent impermissible trading activity by control
persons of the Company; (iii) the foregoing subjected Instadose to
a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public stateem ments were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

Then, on October 15, 2021, Instadose Canada announced that an
overwhelming majority of its shareholders voted in favor of the
Business Combination, which remains subject to customary closing
conditions, including approval by a Canadian court. Following
completion of the Business Combination, Instadose expected that its
Board of Directors would consist of, among others, Sanders.

Then, on November 24, 2021, in a filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Instadose disclosed that "[o]n
November 23, 2021, the Company was notified by the SEC that it had
ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the [Exchange Act], that
trading in the securities of [Instadose] is suspended for the
period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on November 24, 2021, through 11:59 p.m.
EDT on December 8, 2021." Instadose advised investors that the
SEC's order specifically stated that "it appears to the [SEC] that
the public interest and the protection of investors require a
suspension in the trading of [Instadose] securities . . . because
of questions and concerns regarding the adequacy and accuracy of
information about Instadose . . . in the marketplace, including:
(1) significant increases in the stock price and share volume
unsupported by the company's assets and financial information; (2)
trading that may be associated with individuals related to a
control person of Instadose . . .; and (3) the operations of
Instadose[]'s Canadian affiliate."

On this news, and after Instadose's common stock began publicly
trading again on December 9, 2021, the Company's stock price fell
$22.61 per share, or 91.87%, to close at $2.00 per share on
December 9, 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]

JAMES SCHIEBNER: Smith's Motion for Class Certification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK LEE SMITH v. JAMES
SCHIEBNER, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00878-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's requests for class certification
      and to honor the Eastern District of Michigan's referral
      to early mediation;  and

   2. denying that Plaintiff's motion to unseal motion for
      assignment to a District Judge and complete removal of
      Magistrate Judge Berens, motion to stay, and motion
      objecting to the judicial assignment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o0Z0O4 at no extra charge.[CC]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Actions Over Machine Recall Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bart Meijer, writing for Reuters, reports that Dutch health
technology company Philips (PHG.AS) said on Jan. 24 it expects
sales to recover strongly in the second half of the year, while a
steep decline due to global shortage of parts is likely to persist
in the coming months.

Philips earlier in January warned that supply chain woes would hit
profit and a ventilator recall needed to be expanded, sending its
shares down over 15% on their worst day on the financial markets in
decades. read more

"We expect to start the year with a comparable sales decline,
followed by a recovery and strong second half of the year," Chief
Executive Officer Frans van Houten said in a statement.

This should lead to between 3% and 5% growth in comparable sales in
2022, with a 40 to 90 basis points improvement in the adjusted
earnings before interest, tax and amortisation (EBITA) margin, he
added.

Overall growth will be held back by the sleep & respiratory care
unit, which is still working on the massive recall of breathing-aid
machines launched last year, amid concerns that a type of foam used
in the devices could degrade and become toxic. read more

Growth, excluding this unit, is expected to reach 5% to 6%, Van
Houten said.

Philips has set aside 725 million euros ($820.41 million) to repair
and replace some 5 million devices worldwide, but that sum does not
cover the possible costs of litigation, with the company facing
more than a hundred class action suits. Fears of a large claims
bill already lopped around 15 billion euros off Philips' market
value in the past nine months.

The Amsterdam-based company said its comparable sales fell 10% in
the fourth quarter of 2021, while adjusted EBITA dropped 35% to 647
million euros, in line with provisional numbers released on Jan.
12. [GN]

LG ELECTRONICS: Samsung Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in White
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS ROGER WHITE,
JR., DAVID ESPINOZA, and CHRISTOPHER MILLS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LG ELECTRONICS,
INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELCTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SONY CORPORATION, and SONY
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and John and Jane Does (1-Unlimited) and
ABC Corporations (1-Unlimited}, Defendants, Case No. 2-17-cv-01775,
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
class of all persons similarly situated under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act to obtain injunctive relief
and compensation against Defendants LG Electronics Inc., LG
Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Sony Corporation, and Sony Electronics
Corporation, and to prevent them from continuing to engage in
unconscionable commercial practices, misrepresentations, false
promises and/or omissions of material fact in violation of the CFA,
and other statutes and laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' "smart" generation of
televisions, through automatic tracking software that is installed
and/or used by the Defendants, collect personally identifying
information about consumers - including information that identifies
a person as having obtained or requested specific video materials
or services. The Defendants allegedly disclose and transmit this
private, confidential information about consumers to third parties,
such as advertisers and data brokers.

On May 4, 2021, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion to
compel individual arbitration and strike Plaintiffs' class claims.

On December 29, 2021, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order
denying the said motion filed by Samsung Electronics.

The Defendant seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Samsung Electronics America Inc.
v. Thomas White, Jr., et al., Case No. 22-1162, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Jan. 27,
2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC. is represented
by:

          Kate E. Janukowicz, Esq.
          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          GIBBONS, PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4913
          E-mail: kjanukowicz@gibbonslaw.com
                  mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee PATRICIA CAULEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mack Press, Esq.
          9 Pimlico Drive
          Commack, NY 11725
          Telephone: (516) 330-7213

Defendant-Appellee SONY ELECTRONICS INC. is represented by:

          Siobhan A. Nolan, Esq.
          RIKER DANZIG SCHERER HYLAND & PERRETTI
          744 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 451-8345

LIBERTY OILFIELD: More Time to File Reply Brief Sought in Correa
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIPRIANO CORREA, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
LIBERTY OILFIELD SERVICES INC., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00946-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their joint motion to extend deadline for
plaintiffs to file reply brief in support of motion for class
certification.

On December 8, 2021, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which,
among other things, set forth a schedule for the parties to brief
class certification. The Plaintiffs have filed their Class
Certification Motion and Defendants have filed their opposition to
the Class Certification Motion in accordance with the Scheduling
Order.

The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply papers in support of the Class
Certification Motion is February 14, 2022. The Plaintiffs submit
that certain discovery -- including a deposition of Defendants'
expert as well as production of certain documents -- is needed for
Plaintiffs to address the points raised in Defendants' opposition
papers.

Liberty operates as an oilfield service company. The Company
specializes in hydraulic fracturing, stimulation, and engineering.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34lNBS0 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yu Shi, Esq.
          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  yshi@rosenlegal.com

The Attorneys for Liberty, the Individual Defendants, and the
Riverstone Defendants, are:

          Lee F. Johnston, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          1050 17 th Street, Suite 1800
          Denver, CO 80265
          Telephone: (303) 382-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 382-6210
          E-mail: lee.johnston@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
          Daniel H. Gold, Esq.
          Matthew A. McGee, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          2828 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 271-5777
          E-mail: thad.behrens@shearman.com
                  dan.gold@shearman.com
                  matt.mcgee@shearman.com

               - and -

          Benjamin G. Goodman, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 651-5000
          Facsimile: (214) 651-5940
          E-mail: benjamin.goodman@haynesboone.com

The Attorneys for the Underwriter Defendants are:

          William Leone, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3050
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 801-2750
          E-mail: william.leone@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Brian S. Weinstein, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4972
          Facsimile: (212) 701-5972
          E-mail: brian.weinstein@davispolk.com


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Wharton Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA WHARTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00144-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 27, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's illegal policies and practices that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Ohio, was employed by the Defendant
within the last three years as a warehouse operator. Ms. Wharton
asserts that she and other similarly situated employees were not
paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40
each workweek.

Based in Northfield, Illinois, Medline Industries, LP is a
for-profit limited partnership that engages in the manufacturing
and distributing of medical supplies throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

META MATERIALS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Meta Materials Inc. ("Meta
Materials" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MMAT) and reminds investors
of the March 4, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Meta
Materials stock or options between September 21, 2020 and December
14, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi &
Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330
(Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/MMAT.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the business combination of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. and
Metamaterial Inc. would result in an SEC investigation and subpoena
in the matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy
Resources, Inc.; (2) the Company has materially overstated its
business connections and dealings; (3) the Company has materially
overstated its ability to produce and commercialize its products;
(4) the Company has materially overstated its products' novelty and
capabilities; (5) the Company's products did not have the potential
to be disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced
its products too high; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

On November 15, 2021, after market hours, the Company filed with
the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2021 (the "3Q21 Report"). The 3Q21 Report announced
the SEC subpoena, stating the following in pertinent part:

In September 2021, the Company received a subpoena from the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement, in a
matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.
The subpoena requests that the Company produces certain documents
and information related to, among other things, the merger
involving Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. and Metamaterial Inc.
The Company is cooperating and intends to continue to cooperate
with the SEC's investigation. The Company can offer no assurances
as to the outcome of this investigation or its potential effect, if
any, on the Company or its results of operation.

On this news, Meta's shares fell 3.9% to close at $4.58 per share
on November 16, 2021, damaging investors.

On December 14, 2021, during market hours, market analyst
Kerrisdale Capital published a report entitled "Meta Materials,
Inc. (MMAT): A 'Photonics' Company That's an Optical Illusion"
which alleges several issues at the Company including:
"[d]isappearing segments, misleading product claims, fake medical
devices, research funding for subsidiaries that don't exist, and
circumstances so questionable around a penny stock reverse merger
that it's now the subject of an SEC Enforcement subpoena."

On this news, Meta's common stock price fell 5.8% to close at $2.91
per share on December 14, 2021.

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

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Meta Materials' conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

META MATERIALS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.
("Meta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MMAT; TRCH) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, and indexed under
22-cv-00463, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of the Company between September 21,
2020 and December 14, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable 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.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Meta
securities during the Class Period, you have until March 4, 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.

Meta purports to be a developer of high-performance functional
materials and nanocomposites. Before the Company's business
combination with Metamaterial Inc. which closed June 28, 2021 (the
"Business Combination"), the Company was known as "Torchlight
Energy Resources, Inc."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statement and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Business Combination would result in an Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") investigation and subpoena in the
matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy Resources,
Inc.; (2) the Company has materially overstated its business
connections and dealings; (3) the Company has materially overstated
its ability to produce and commercialize its products; (4) the
Company has materially overstated its products' novelty and
capabilities; (5) the Company's products did not have the potential
to be disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced
its products too high; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

On November 15, 2021, after market hours, the Company filed with
the SEC its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2021 which announced the SEC subpoena.

On this news, Meta's shares fell 3.9% to close at $4.58 per share
on November 16, 2021, damaging investors.

On December 14, 2021, during market hours, market researcher
Kerrisdale Capital released a report alleging, among other things,
that "Meta has habitually made outlandish and misleading claims
about the feasibility, development, and commercial potential of
various technologies only to repeatedly move the goalposts or
retrospectively alter its claims, often just quietly dropping
entire projects they had previously touted as pivotal."

On this news, Meta's shares fell 5.8% to close at $2.91 per share
on December 14, 2021, further damaging investors.

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. [GN]

MISSOURI: Class Action Settlement Reached Over Illegal Court Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
fox4kc.com reports that if you've been stopped for speeding, or
cited for breaking another municipal law, you may be owed money
because of a settlement in a class action lawsuit.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled last year that it was illegal to
collect court fees to fund the state's Sheriffs' Retirement Fund.
Many people who have been cited and paid municipal fines in
Missouri over the years have also paid the $3 fee.

Two class action lawsuits were filed over the fee, and a settlement
has been reached.

Thousands of people have been notified of the settlement by mail.
If you received a postcard from the Claims Administrator for the
Missouri Sheriffs' Retirement System, it is not junk mail. It means
you can submit an online claim form to recoup the fees.

Petition seeks to change Chiefs logo amid playoff run
The settlement provides $4.50 for each $3 fee paid, and you may be
eligible for more than one payment.

If you received a post card, like the one pictured above, it
includes your claim number above your name. You will be able to
enter that number when you file a claim online.

There is also an option if you believe you paid the fee, but do not
already have a claim number.

Your claim form must be submitted or postmarked by March 7, 2022.
[GN]

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: MissPERS Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI ("MissPERS"), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC.
and JEFFREY S. LORBERBAUM, Case No. 4:20-cv-00005-ELR (N.D. Ga.),
the Lead Plaintiff MissPERS asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure on behalf of a class defined as:

      "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired publicly traded common stock of Mohawk between
      April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019, inclusive, and who were
      damaged thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) the
      officers and directors of Mohawk at all relevant times;
      (c) members of Defendants' or the officers' or directors'
      immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
      agents, affiliates, successors or assigns; (d) Defendants'
      liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or
      subsidiaries thereof; and (e) any entity in which
      Defendants or their immediate families have or had a
      controlling interest;"

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff to serve as Class
      Representative; and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
      Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(g).

This securities-fraud action asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mohawk Industries and its
Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Lorberbaum. Like most
securities-fraud actions, this one is ideally suited for class
treatment because it arises from common misrepresentations and
omissions that harmed tens-of-thousands of investors in Mohawk's
common stock during the Class Period in a like manner, the suit
says.

Mohawk's senior leadership allegedly presided over a fraudulent
scheme to mislead investors. As a series of partial disclosures
revealed the truth to investors, the price of Mohawk common stock
plunged, wiping out $7.4 billion in shareholder value.

On March 18, 2020, the Court appointed MissPERS as Lead Plaintiff
and approved Bernstein Litowitz as Lead Counsel for the Class.

MissPERS manages over $33 billion in assets for its beneficiaries,
who include current and retired public employees of the State of
Mississippi.

MissPERS purchased 247,729 shares of Mohawk common stock on the
open market during the Class Period and suffered damages when
Mohawk's stock price plummeted as the truth gradually came out.

On June 29, 2020, Lead Plaintiff MissPERS filed the Complaint,
detailing both Defendants' fraudulent scheme and how it damaged
investors.

On October 27, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss, raising arguments
common to all class members, including that the Complaint
purportedly failed to plead scienter, that the Complaint
purportedly failed to plead an actionable misstatement or omission,
that Mohawk's reported financial statements were purportedly not
false or misleading, and that the Complaint purportedly failed to
plead loss causation.

The Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, a
governmental defined benefit pension plan qualified under Section
401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, is the retirement system for
nearly all non-federal public employees in the state including
employees of the state, public school districts, municipalities,
counties, community colleges, state universities, and such other
public entities as libraries and water districts.

Mohawk is an American flooring manufacturer based in Calhoun,
Georgia, United States. Mohawk produces floor covering products for
residential and commercial applications in North America and
residential applications in Europe.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 26, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G6K1sa at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel for the Class,
are:

          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Alexander T. Payne, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com
                  alex.payne@blbglaw.com

               v- and -

          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          Richard D. Gluck, Esq.
          Lauren M. Cruz, Esq.
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 819-3470
          E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  rich.gluck@blbglaw.com
                  lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com

Liaison Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, are:

          H. Lamar Mixson, Esq.
          Amanda Kay Seals, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Peterson, Esq.
          Georgia Bar No. 601355
          BONDURANT MIXSON &
          ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: mixson@bmelaw.com
                  seals@bmelaw.com
                  peterson@bmelaw.com

Additional Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff, are:

          John L. Davidson, Esq.
          DAVIDSON BOWIE, PLLC
          1062 Highland Colony Parkway
          200 Concourse, Suite 275
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 932-0028
          E-mail: jdavidson@dbslawfirm.net

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Walton Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bleby, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that National Australia Bank faces claims worth more than $200
million in a class action brought by subcontractors who allege the
bank breached Australian Consumer Law by allowing Queensland
builder Walton Group to trade while insolvent ahead of its collapse
in 2013.

Documents served on NAB claim nearly $80 million in unsecured debts
to some 1400 creditors, interest and consequential damages --
losses arising from the non-payment of debts to the subcontractors
at the time -- and could top $200 million, the claimants' lawyer
Robert Anderson said.

The case hinges around actions NAB, the builder's main funder, took
to ensure Walton Group was able to repay some $16 million it owed
before the company went into administration in early October 2013.

"NAB managed things so they had time to secure their loans and
recover those and as soon as they had done that, they liquidated
it," Mr Anderson told The Australian Financial Review.

"[Walton] ought to have called in a receiver. Instead, what they
did was appoint a restructuring group on the strong recommendation
of the NAB. It allowed them 6 months to delay putting in
receivership while they secured and recovered their funds. Almost
the next day it went into receivership."

NAB declined to comment.

It is an opening claim and any substantial court hearing could be
two years away. A first case management hearing will only take
place this month. The federal court case against NAB is being
funded by an unidentified US-based litigation funder.

The case could prevent banks stepping into failing companies and
restructuring them to take out money, a move Mr Anderson said was
"something that happens regularly".

But even if the subcontractors successfully prosecute a claim
against NAB, it may not be precedent-setting, as any future case
would likely depend on its individual circumstances, said John
Murray, the author of a 2017 federal government review into
security of payments for subcontractors.

"It's a pretty long, tortuous, expensive route to try and have your
case heard and secure payment for work carried out," Mr Murray told
the Financial Review on Jan. 24.

True change would only come if state governments enacted cascading
statutory trusts -- a policy the federal Labor Party said it would
support at its annual conference last year -- which would stop
banks from being able to take a security over the cash payments
made to builders for work completed and owed mostly to
subcontractors, Mr Murray said.

"What that will mean is that banks will become more vigilant in
their dealings with builders and the loans that they give because
the banks will want to be satisfied the builder has the capacity to
trade and meet obligations without relaying on cashflow as working
capital," he said.

Walton was a large builder, with annual turnover between $150
million and $500 million. At the time it was placed into
administration in October 2013, cost blowouts from the Queensland
company's expansion into the NSW commercial construction market
were seen as part of the problem.

The subcontractors' case is strengthened by a separate Federal
Court judgment that in 2018 found the failing building company's
management appointed Mawson Restructure and Workouts and that the
consultancy's restructuring work was "for the purposes of advancing
the interests of the National Australia Bank".

"What emerged was that the 'restructuring' services provided by
Mawson were for the purposes of advancing the interests of the
National Australia Bank, which was the major secured creditor, and
limiting the exposure of [company director] Mr [Craig] Walton and
others associated with him pursuant to guarantees which had been
provided to the Bank," the court found.

The aftermath of the company's collapse has already revealed
problems with the wind-up process. In July 2014, the full bench of
the Federal Court ordered the removal of liquidators from firm
Lawler Draper Dillon, or LDD (later known as PKF Lawler) –
appointed by restructurer Mawson.

The company's failure also prompted the introduction last year of
statutory trust accounts, a measure to ring fence payments to
subcontractors, starting with public projects and expanding this
year to the private sector.

"Walton had a big impact in Queensland and because of its big
impact, the Queensland government moved forward," Mr Murray said.
"That's the only state government that has moved forward in
addressing that issue."

Les Williams, the founder of Gold Coast-based Subcontractors
Alliance and a member of the litigation management committee
representing the claimants said he was pleased the action against
NAB was going ahead.

The first statement of claim against the bank was filed in 2019,
which gave the subcontractors time to seek a funder to back the
action without any time limit on claims expiring.

"We are pleased that we have been able to secure the backing of a
major US funder who is committed to supporting this legal action on
our behalf and which has allowed trade creditors and subcontractors
who have been adversely affected by the conduct of the NAB and wish
to pursue rightful restitution in the matter," Mr Williams said.
[GN]

NCI GROUP: Initial Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTURO GONZALEZ on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. NCI GROUP, INC., dba NCI BUILDING SYSTEMS; and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-00948-AWI-SKO (E.D. Cal..), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Provisionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes
      only;

   2. Preliminarily approving the class action settlement
      embodied in the Stipulation and Settlement of Class Action
      Claims;

   3. Approving the Class Notice and the plan for distribution
      of the Notice;

   4. Appointing the Settlement Administrator; and

   5. Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.

This motion is set for determination on February 28, 2022, at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 2 before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii in Robert
E. Coyle United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street,
Eight Floor, Fresno, California.

The Plaintiff Gonzalez, a former employee of Defendant NCI Group,
alleges that NCI fails to provide legally compliant meal and rest
breaks, fails to pay all wages owed, fails to pay all wages at
termination, fails to provide compliant pay stubs, and violates
California's Unfair Competition Law.

NCI manufactures and markets metal building systems and components
for the nonresidential construction industry. To carry out its
business, NCI employs warehouse workers. This lawsuit alleges that
NCI violated various California wage and hour laws applicable to
NCI's warehouse workers. Mara

The Plaintiff filed this matter in Merced County Superior Court on
June 6, 2018. NCI filed an Answer on July 12, 2018 and removed this
matter on July 12, 2018.

    a. Settlement Terms

       -- The proposed Settlement is a non-reversionary $600,000
          Maximum Settlement Amount ("MSA") on behalf of
          approximately 274 Class Members.
       -- The Settlement is projected to pay each Class Member
          an average of $1,350, less employee taxes.

    b. Settlement Negotiations

       -- The Parties attended a mediation on November 19, 2019
          and engaged in extensive arm's-length negotiations
          mediated by retired Superior Court Judge and well-
          respected mediator, Honorable Joan A. Lewis (Ret).
          On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for
          preliminary approval.

    c. The Proposed Class and Subclasses

       -- The Class is comprised of:

          "All non-exempt current and former employees who
          worked for  Defendant NCI Group as hourly warehouse
          workers, industrial workers, shipping checkers,
          distribution employees, shipping clerks, packers,
          stackers, loaders, packaging clerks, machine
          operators, receiving clerks, production workers, and
          all other similarly situated employees in California
          at any time during the time period of June 6, 2014
          through February 24, 2020. There are approximately 274
          individuals who fall within this Class definition."

          The Class is comprised of three (3) subclasses:

          Meal, Rest, and Unpaid Wages Subclass: This subclass
          includes all Class Members.

          Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: This subclass
           includes all Class Members who worked for Defendant
           at any time from June 6, 2015 through February 24,
           2020, and who are no longer employed by Defendant.

           Wage Statement and PAGA Subclass: This subclass
           includes all Class Members who worked for Defendant
           during the period of time from June 6, 2017 through
           February 24, 2020.

    d. Attorneys' Fees and Costs

       -- Subject to Court approval, Plaintiff's Counsel shall
          request an award of attorneys' fees in an 12 amount
          not to exceed $150,000 (25% of the MSA).

    e. Payment to the LWDA

       -- Subject to Court approval, the Settlement allots
          $60,000 of the MSA to PAGA penalties ("PAGA Payment").
          As required by the California Labor Code, 75%
          ($45,000) of the PAGA Payment shall be paid to the
          LWDA, and 25% ($15,000) of the PAGA Payment will be
          paid out to Wage Statement and PAGA Subclass Members.

    f. Settlement Administration Expenses

       -- The Parties have agreed to the appointment of Rust
          Consulting, Inc. as the settlement administrator. Rust
          is an experienced class administration company that
          has acted as claims administrator in numerous wage and
          hour cases. The Settlement allots an amount not to
          exceed $15,000 to administer this Settlement, which
          falls within the range of estimates Class Counsel has
          received in the past for settlements of similar size
          and circumstances.

    g. Settlement Payments to Class Members

       -- After all deductions have been made, it is estimated
          that $370,000 ("Net Settlement Amount" or "NSA") will
          be available for disbursement to Settlement Class
          Members.

       -- The money available for payout to these individuals
          comes out of the NSA, which is what remains of the MSA
          after subtracting all Court approved attorneys' fees
          and costs, the class representative enhancement,
          settlement administration costs, and the PAGA Payment.

NCI Group designs, manufactures, and markets metal products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32Nnva8
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Mara, Esq.
          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048

NEW HORIZON: Bid for FLSA Collective Conditional Cert. Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tahirou v. New Horizon
Enterprises LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00281 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Sarala V. Nagala entered an order withdrawing motion for
conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective and motion to certify class Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
Rule 23 , in light of Plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawal of Motions
for Class Certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Horizons provides environment consulting services.[CC]

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert. Filing Extended to May 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH VILLAFAN, et al., v.
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered the following Minute
Order as follows:

   1. The Parties' Second Stipulated Motion for Continuing Class
      Certification Discovery Deadline is granted.

   2. The deadline for completing  discovery on class
      certification issues is extended to April 5, 2022.

   3. The deadline for motions on class certification is
      extended to May 12, 2022.

   4. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order
      to all counsel of record.

Founded in 1995, Northwest Motorsport operates car dealerships in
various locations in Washington state. It offers new and used
trucks, cars, and SUVs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ou2War at no extra charge.[CC]


OHIO NATIONAL: Time to File Class Cert Bid Reply Extended
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veritas Independent
Partners, LLC v. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00769 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole
entered an order granting parties' joint motion for extension of
time to file response and reply to plaintiff's motion to certify
class:

  -- The Defendant to file response by:       Feb. 22, 2022

  -- The Plaintiff to file reply by           March 15, 2022.

The nature of suit states  Diversity -- Other Contract.

Veritas Independent Partners provides financial brokerage
services.

Ohio National is a mutual insurance company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. Along with its affiliated
companies, the Ohio National group offers life insurance,
annuities, disability insurance, group retirement plans, and
investment products.[CC]

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Remick Seeks to Certify Class, Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS REMICK, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01959-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), certifying a class and three
subclasses of persons who are entitled to injunctive and
declaratory relief, consisting of:

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

   Within this class there exist subclasses as follows:

   -- Pretrial Subclass

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

   -- Sentenced Subclass

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

   -- Disability Subclass

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

The Plaintiffs commenced this class action seeking relief from
unconstitutional conditions of confinement that existed at that
time and which, absent judicial intervention, will continue to
exist in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons ("PDP").

The Plaintiffs filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, on April 20, 2020, to compel Defendants City of Philadelphia
and Commissioner Blanche Carney to protect individuals incarcerated
in the PDP from the risks of serious harm they face from the twin
dangers of COVID-19 and prolonged isolation in their cells.

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

On January 28, 2021, the Court ordered Defendants to increase
out-of-cell time and provide all individuals incarcerated in PDP
with a minimum of two hours of daily out-of-cell time by February
10, 2021, and a minimum of three hours of daily out-of-cell time by
February 24, 2021, with exceptions made only for individuals on "a
medically necessary quarantine" and
"operational emergencies."

The Named Plaintiffs Thomas Remick, Nadiyah Walker, Jay Diaz,
Michael Alejandro, Michael Dantzler, Robert Hinton, Joseph Weiss,
Joseph Skinner, Saddam Abdullah, and James Bethea, were, at the
time of the filing of the original Complaint and the related Motion
for Class Certification, held in the PDP subject to the conditions
alleged in the Complaint.

The Third Amended Complaint added Clay Pizarro, Michael Flynn,
Nasir Lewis, Dyquill Pledger, Troy Harley, and Christian Maldonado
as named Plaintiffs. These newly added Plaintiffs, in addition to
Michael Alejandro and Nadiyah Walker, are, as of the time of the
filing of the Third Amended Complaint and the instant Third Amended
Motion for Class Certification, held in the PDP subject to the
conditions alleged in the Third Amended Complaint.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AKOTCg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


PLAID INC: April 28 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Richard, writing for Tech Times, reports that Venmo and
Robinhood are among the apps that include themselves in using
Plaid's services to link the bank accounts from its platforms to
the online services to transfer money digitally. However, the
recent lawsuit found that Plaid got more financial data than it was
telling users and the companies, now facing a class-action
settlement to all its victims.

Plaid is a company that significantly plays a role in FinTech. This
is because the company holds massive data required to verify its
identity and collect data. However, it is now the focus of a
class-action lawsuit that came to a settlement for its victims,
especially now that it compromised the users' data.

The company partnered with a lot of the world's leading FinTech
companies, mainly as they started their services to bring its
promise of data security. Plaid did not exactly leak their data,
but the dispute now is that the company overstepped in its
boundaries and got more of what they intended from users, and it is
harmful to many.

Plaid is offering its services to help people get the proper
compensation from them for the inconvenience and supposed breach
that they did against the users of multiple platforms. It is not
only Venmo and Robinhood to face its effects, especially as the
company has a lot of clients on its list.

From 2013 through 2021, applications to different fintech
platforms, Plaid will include the users affected on the settlement.


Moreover, the claims website will only accept submissions by April
28 this year.

Plaid will settle $58 million for the case, divided into the claims
made by affected users.

Venmo, Robinhood, and other Online Platforms
Venmo is a known fintech app that came from PayPal, bringing a
platform that allows to split the bill and invite friends into the
purchase without the need for lengthy transfers and transactions.
It is also known for many disputes now, including a friends list
leak that compromised a user and their contacts within the app.

On the other hand, Robinhood is a known platform to trade stocks
and invest on different platforms, companies, and listed features
in the application. Last year, towards early November, the company
faced a massive hack that involved almost seven million users that
suffered victims to the threat actors that breached Robinhood.

The world of FinTech and online currency is massive and dangerous,
especially as it talks about sensitive financial data that needs to
be available online for verification.

Plaid is one of the services that offer the feature to users and
help connect bank accounts from one platform to another. However,
overstepping their boundaries is a significant dispute that harms
people, hence settling the lawsuit and bettering its use of the
information available to them. [GN]

PRATT & WHITNEY: Strong Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL STRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC.; BELCAN LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00153 (D. Conn., Jan. 27, 2022) is a class action brought
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising from a no-solicitation
and no-hiring agreement, combination, or conspiracy among
Defendants pursuant to which each agreed not to recruit or hire
each other's employees without prior approval.

According to the complaint, beginning at least by 2011 and
continuing until at least 2019, senior executives and managers at
Defendants restrained competition in the labor market for employees
-- principally engineers and other skilled aerospace workers -- by
suppressing job mobility and compensation. Moreover, the Defendants
successfully concealed the no-poach agreement's existence for
years. It was only recently that the conspiracy was first revealed
publicly, when on December 9, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice
unsealed a criminal complaint against Mahesh Patel, a former
manager and (later) director at Pratt & Whitney, says the suit.

The alleged no-poach agreement, and the anticompetitive agreements
between and among Defendants and co-conspirators in furtherance
thereof, are and were naked restraints of trade that constitute per
se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiff worked as an engineer (with various titles including
senior engineer and staff engineer) for Pratt & Whitney from 1992
until he retired in 2019.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
          AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP
          311 Centerpoint Drive
          Middletown, CT 06457
          Telephone: (860) 724-2160
          E-mail: jms@aetonlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622-1851
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

RELIQ HEALTH: March 23 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Did you acquire securities of Reliq Health Technologies Inc.
between February 23, 2018 and October 15, 2018 (inclusive) or
acquire units in the Reliq private placement that closed around
January 9, 2018?

A settlement has been reached in a class action against Reliq
Health Technologies Inc. ("Reliq") and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The class action alleges that there
were misrepresentations in certain of Reliq's public disclosures
and in documents provided to investors to solicit their investment
in a private placement that closed on or around January 9, 2018.

The settlement provides for payments by the defendants in the class
action and their insurers of the total amount of CAD$2,500,000 to
resolve those claims. The settlement is a compromise of disputed
claims and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by Reliq
or any of the other defendants.

The settlement must be approved by the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. A settlement approval hearing has been set for April 14,
2022. At the hearing, the Court will also address an application to
approve Class Counsel's fees, which will not exceed 30% of the
recovery plus reimbursement for expenses incurred in the ligation.

The Court has appointed RicePoint Administration Inc. as the
Administrator of the settlement. To be eligible for compensation,
Class Members must submit a completed Claim Form to the
Administrator by no later than 11:59 pm Vancouver (Pacific) time on
July 21, 2022. If the settlement is approved, and if you do not
file a claim by this deadline, you may not be able to claim a
portion of the settlement and your claim will be extinguished.

If you do not want to be part of this class action and be bound by
the terms of the settlement, you must opt out by 11:59 pm Vancouver
(Pacific) time on March 23, 2022.

Class Members may also express their views about the proposed
settlement to the Court. If you wish to express your views, you
must do so in writing by March 31, 2022.

For more information about the certification of the class action,
who qualifies as a class member, the settlement, how to make a
claim for compensation from the settlement, and your rights to opt
out of the class and the Settlement or object to the Settlement,
see the long-form notice available online at
www.siskinds.com/class-action/reliq-health-technologies-inc/ or
call toll free at 1 (800) 461-6166 ext. 7802. [GN]

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Bills Customers Despite Work Stoppage, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against garbage
hauler Republic Services on behalf of a Carmel Valley resident who
alleges the company continued to bill customers during the
month-long strike while trash services were suspended in various
parts of San Diego County.

The company and unionized sanitation workers reached an agreement
to end the labor dispute and resume trash services in various parts
of San Diego and Chula Vista, where trash piled up for weeks.

Republic Services declined to comment on the suit filed Tuesday in
San Diego federal court, which states that plaintiff Qihai Chen was
billed at the regular rate during the work stoppage and has not
been refunded despite the lack of services.

Chen's attorneys also seek to represent county residents charged
for services while their trash was not picked up.

According to the lawsuit, the company "intentionally charged
Plaintiff's and the Class members' debit and credit cards in the
full amount of recurring fees despite the interruption of services
that occurred between December 2021 and January 2022."

It also states, "at the minimum, Defendants could have used the
funds received to hire others to remove the trash while the strike
was active."

Sanitation services resumed Jan. 18, one day after unionized
employees voted to accept the company's final offer. Union leaders
said the agreement provides for wage increases and some
improvements to health insurance, but fell short of what workers
were seeking. [GN]

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Revance Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RVNC), Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS),
Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCUR), and Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ:
SNBR). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVNC)

Class Period: November 25, 2019 - October 11, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Revance, a biotechnology company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and commercialization of neuromodulators for various
aesthetic and therapeutic indications in the United States and
internationally. The Company's lead drug candidate is
DaxibotulinumtoxinA for injection ("DAXI"), which has completed
phase III clinical trials for the treatment of glabellar (frown)
lines and cervical dystonia; is in phase II clinical trials to
treat upper facial lines, moderate or severe dynamic forehead
lines, and moderate or severe lateral canthal lines; and has
completed Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of adult upper
limb spasticity and plantar fasciitis.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had issued a Form 483
notifying Revance of serious issues that the FDA had observed
during its inspection of the Company's Northern California DAXI
manufacturing facility. Among other deficiencies, the FDA observed
that "[t]he current manufacturing process is not the process
proposed for licensure" and Revance's "Quality Unit lacks the
responsibility and authority for the control, review, and approval
of outsourced activities[.]" Significantly, the Form 483 only came
to light as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
directed to the FDA. On this news, the price of the Company's
shares declined by $6.85 per share, or approximately 25%, from
$27.30 per share to close at $20.45 per share on October 12, 2021.

On October 15, 2021, Revance issued a press release announcing that
it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA,
indicating that the FDA has determined "it is unable to approve the
BLA in its present form and indicated that there are deficiencies
related to the FDA's onsite inspection at [Revance's] manufacturing
facility." On this news, the price of the Company's shares declined
by $8.90 per share, or approximately 39.19%, from $22.71 per share
to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) quality control deficiencies existed at the
Company's manufacturing facility for DAXI; (ii) the foregoing
deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would approve
the DAXI BLA in its current form; (iii) accordingly, it was
unlikely that the DAXI BLA would obtain FDA approval within the
timeframe the Company had represented to investors; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Revance Therapeutics class action go
to: https://bespc.com/cases/RVNC

Cloopen Group Holding Limited (NYSE: RAAS)

Class Period: February 6, 2021 - May 10, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2022

Cloopen claims to be the largest multi-capability cloud-based
communications solution provider in China. In its February 2021
United States IPO, Cloopen sold 23 million ADSs (including the full
exercise of the underwriter defendants' over-allotment option) at
$16 per ADS, netting approximately $342 million in proceeds from
the offering.

The Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges that the Registration
Statement led Cloopen ADS purchasers to believe that Cloopen's
much-touted growth strategy, which relied upon cross-selling,
up-selling, optimizing existing solutions, and developing new
features, was effective. Indeed, as portrayed in the Registration
Statement, Cloopen appeared to be retaining and even expanding its
customer base, as well as maintaining its key sales metrics such as
dollar-based net retention rate, which reflected its ability to
increase existing customer revenue. Yet, Cloopen's representations
concerning its successful growth strategy were materially false and
misleading. In fact, as the Cloopen class action lawsuit alleges,
Cloopen's growth strategy was not working and its existing
customers were abandoning the company. The Cloopen class action
lawsuit further alleges that Cloopen's Registration Statement
failed to disclose that an increasing number of its customers were
refusing to pay, forcing Cloopen to record massive increases in its
accounts receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts. The
Registration Statement also allegedly failed to disclose that
Cloopen was weighted down by massive liabilities related to the
fair value of certain recently-granted warrants.

On March 26, 2021, just over six weeks after its IPO, Cloopen
reported fourth quarter of 2020 revenues of just $39.6 million - $2
million shy of analysts' consensus - net losses of $46.8 million,
representing a 466.9% increase year-over-year, and operating
expenses of $27.6 million, representing a 30% increase over fourth
quarter of 2019. Cloopen blamed a "change in fair value of warrant
liabilities of . . . $34.4 million" for Cloopen's remarkable net
loss and "an increase in the provision for doubtful accounts
resulting from increased in accounts receivables" for the 59.2%
increase in general and administrative expenses. On this news, the
price of Cloopen's ADSs fell by more than 18%.

Weeks later, as Cloopen belatedly revealed additional facts about
its failed growth strategy and withering customer base, including
that its dollar-based net retention rate by year end 2020 fell far
below historical periods, Cloopen's share price fell again.

At the time the Cloopen class action lawsuit was commenced,
Cloopen's share price has dropped as low as $2.70 per ADS, a
decline of more than 80% from the $16 IPO price.

For more information on the Cloopen Group class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RAAS

Exicure, Inc. (NASDAQ: XCUR)

Class Period: March 11, 2021 - November 15, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 11, 2022

On November 15, 2021, after the market closed, Exicure filed a Form
12b-25 with the SEC stating that it could not timely file its
quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2021. It
explained that the Company was investigating "a claim made by a
former Company senior researcher regarding alleged improprieties
that researcher claims to have committed with respect to the
Company's XCUR-FXN preclinical program for the treatment of
Friedreich's ataxia."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.30, or 28%, to
close at $1.07 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there had been certain improprieties in
Exicure's preclinical program for the treatment of Friedreich's
ataxia; (2) that, as a result, there was a material risk that data
from the preclinical program would not support continued clinical
development; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

Sleep Number Corporation (NASDAQ: SNBR)

Class Period: February 18, 2021 - July 20, 2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 14, 2022

On April 21, 2021, Sleep Number released its first quarter 2021
financial results, missing consensus sales estimates as a result of
supply chain disruptions due to Winter Storm Uri in February 2021.
Specifically, "more than $50 million of deliveries (two weeks)
shifted out of the quarter due to temporary foam supply
constraints," representing nearly 9% of the Company's entire sales
for the quarter.

On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.80, or 12%, to close at
$110.13 per share on April 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on July 20, 2021, Sleep Number released its second quarter
2021 financial results. Once again, the results missed consensus
estimates, which the Company blamed on supply constraints and
component shortages.

On this news, Sleep Number's stock fell $14.46, or 12.88%, to close
at $97.78 per share on July 21, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

For more information on the Sleep Number class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SNBR

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Revance Therapeutics, Inc.
("Revance Therapeutics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RVNC) and
reminds investors of the February 8, 2022 deadline to seek the role
of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has
been filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Revance
Therapeutics stock or options between November 25, 2019 and October
11, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi &
Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330
(Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/RVNC.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
quality control deficiencies existed at the Company's manufacturing
facility for DAXI; (2) the foregoing deficiencies decreased the
likelihood that the FDA would approve the DAXI BLA in its current
form; (3) accordingly, it was unlikely that the DAXI BLA would
obtain FDA approval within the timeframe the Company had
represented to investors; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the
FDA had issued a Form 483 notifying Revance of serious issues that
the FDA had observed during its inspection of the Company's
Northern California DAXI manufacturing facility. Among other
deficiencies, the FDA observed that "[t]he current manufacturing
process is not the process proposed for licensure" and Revance's
"Quality Unit lacks the responsibility and authority for control,
review, and approval for outsourced activities[.]" Significantly,
the Form 483 only came to light as a result of a Freedom of
Information Act request directed to the FDA.

On this news, Revance's stock price fell $6.85 per share, or 25%,
to close at $20.45 per share on October 12, 2021.

Then, on October 15, 2021, Revance issued a press release
announcing that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL")
from the FDA, indicating that "the FDA has determined it is unable
to approve the BLA in its present form, and indicated that there
are deficiencies related to the FDA's onsite inspection at
Revance's manufacturing facility."

On this news, Revance's stock price fell $8.90 per share, or
39.19%, to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

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

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

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ROOSEVELT FIELD: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due June 1
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rainier Sapuy v. Roosevelt
Field Mall Dental, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-00322 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Anne Y. Shields entered a scheduling  order as follows:

  1. Fact discovery shall be                March 3, 2022
     completed by:

  2. Expert discovery shall be              May 2, 2022
     completed by:

  3. The deadline for making                June 1, 2022
     any class certification
     motion is:

  4. Any party seeking to make              July 1, 2022
     a dispositive motion shall
     initiate that process,
     consistent with Judge
     Azrack's Individual Rules,
     on or before:

  5. A joint pre-trial order shall          Aug. 1, 2022
     be filed on or before:

The status conference scheduled for February 3, 2022 is adjourned
to February 24, 2022 at 10:30 a.m., by telephone. All counsel shall
call the AT&T Teleconference Center at (877) 810-9415 at the time
of the conference and enter Access Code 9005911 when prompted, says
Judge Shields.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment.

Roosevelt Field is a dental clinic - Periodontics in Garden City,
New York.[CC]

SANTANDER BANK: Sanchez Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
SANTANDER BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05775-PGS-DEA
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement
      Agreement and Release;

   2. granting, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and for
      settlement purposes only, the following state law
      subclasses of individuals who worked for Defendant in the
      position of "Business Operations Manager" ("BOM"):

      a. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in New
         Jersey or New York anytime between June 29, 2015 and
         December 31, 2021;

      b. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in
         Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, or New
         Hampshire at any time between September 8, 2017 and
         December 31, 2017; and

      c. all individuals employed by Defendant as a BOM in Rhode
         Island at any time from September 8, 2018 through
         December 31, 2021;

   3. granting Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
      Certification for:

      "all individuals who (1) previously filed a valid consent
      to join the collective action lawsuit with this Court; and
      (2) have not previously filed a consent to join the FLSA
      collective with this Court, but who are members of the
      Rule 23(b)(3) proposed class is certified for settlement
      purposes under Section 216(b) of the FLSA;

   4. appointing Plaintiffs Crystal Sanchez, Rabia Ahmed, Andrea
      Blanchard, Pearl Monteiro, Shaunsey Jackson, Michelle
      Romano, Joni Henderson, and Peter Sano as class
      representatives of the settlement classes;

   5. appointing Mashel Law, LLC and Swartz Swidler, LLC as
      Class Counsel;

   6. approving Notice of Settlement which shall be mailed and
      emailed in accordance with the procedures outlined in the
      Settlement Agreement to all collective and class members
      by no later than 30 days following the issuance of this
      Order;

   7. directing Class Counsel to file the motion for final
      approval of the settlement sought in the Settlement
      Agreement within 90 days of the Court's Order
      Preliminarily Approving the Settlement; and

   8. scheduling a Final Settlement Fairness Hearing.

Santander Bank, formerly Sovereign Bank, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group. It is based in Boston
and its principal market is the northeastern United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rckPfC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephan T. Mashel, Esq.
          Amy Blanchfield, Esq.
          MASHEL LAW, L.L.C
          500 Campus Drive, Suite 303
          Morganville, NJ 07751
          Telephone: (732) 536-6161
          Facsimile: (732) 536-6165

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417

SLEEP NUMBER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sleep Number Corporation ("Sleep Number" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SNBR) common stock between February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021. You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sleep-number-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=22604&wire=4
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Sleep Number Corporation NEWS - SNBR NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (a) Sleep Number
had suffered a severe disruption in its supply chain for foam as a
result of Winter Storm Uri; (b) Sleep Number did not have in place
the supply chain flexibility, redundancies and fail-safes, as had
been represented to investors, sufficient to offset the foam supply
disruption caused by Winter Storm Uri; (c) because foam was a
necessary component for Sleep Number's production of its primary
mattress products, Sleep Number's ability to timely fulfill
customer orders had been materially impaired; (d) as a result of
(a)-(c) above, Sleep Number was unable to meet surging customer
demand for the Company's products; and (e) as a result of (a)-(d)
above, Sleep Number had been forced to delay mattress shipments to
end consumers, pushing millions of dollars' worth of sales into
subsequent quarters and negatively impacting the Company's
financial results.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Sleep
Number, you have until February 14, 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Sleep Number common stock between
February 18, 2021 and July 20, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sleep-number-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=22604&wire=4
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States. [GN]

ST. TAMMANY PARISH: Baqer Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, ET AL., v.
ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Case No.
2:20-cv-00980-WBV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Wendy B. Vitter
entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on behalf of:.

   "All detainees who have been or will be placed into the
   custody of the St. Tammany Parish Jail and were detained for
   at least two consecutive days in holding cells. The class
   period commences when this practice began, including but not
   limited to the time period commencing on March 22, 2019, and
   extends to the date on which St. Tammany Parish is enjoined
   from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice and
   custom of refusing to abide by appropriate detention and
   housing standards to all pre-trial detainees admitted to the
   St. Tammany Parish Jail and held in the intake and/or holding
   cell area. Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant
   and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal
   representatives, heirs, successors, employees or assignees."

The Baqer case is being consolidated with "KEVIN LOUVIERE, ET AL.,
v. ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT, ET AL., Case No. 20-1840-WBV-DPC
(E.D. La.)."

This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory
relief regarding the conditions of pretrial detention in the four
holding cells at St. Tammany Parish Jail. On March 22, 2020, Ahmed
Baqer, Klabert Joseph Guillot, Jr. and Klabert Joseph Guillot, Sr.
filed a Complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983,
asserting that they were forced to endure prolonged pretrial
detainment in dirty, cramped holding cells in St. Tammany Parish
Jail in violation of their constitutional rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Although several entities and individuals were named as defendants
in the Complaint, the only remaining defendants are: (1) Randy
Smith, in his individual and official capacity as the Sheriff of
St. Tammany Parish from July 1, 2016 to the present ("Sheriff
Smith"); and (2) Lacey Kelly, in her individual and official
capacity as Warden of the St. Tammany Parish Jail "[a]t all
relevant times" ("Warden Kelly").

Additionally, on April 23, 2021, the Court dismissed with prejudice
Klabert Joseph Guillot, Jr.'s claims against the remaining
defendants. 7 Thus, the only claims remaining in that matter are
those asserted by Baqer and Guillot, Sr. against Sheriff Smith and
Warden Kelly.

On June 29, 2020, Kevin Louviere, Terry Matthew Hall, Jr., and
Floyd Williams filed an identical Complaint in this Court against
the same defendants, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
and asserting that they were forced to endure prolonged pretrial
detainment in dirty, cramped holding cells in St. Tammany Parish
Jail in violation of their constitutional rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As in the
Baqer matter, several entities and individuals were named as
defendants in the Louviere matter, but the only remaining
defendants are: (1) Randy Smith, in his individual and official
capacity as the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish from July 1, 2016 to
the present ("Sheriff Smith"); and (2) Lacey Kelly, in her
individual and official capacity as Warden of the St. Tammany
Parish Jail "[a]t all relevant times" ("Warden Kelly").

Thereafter, on September 17, 2020, the plaintiffs in the Baqer
matter filed a Motion to Sever and Consolidate, seeking to sever
the individual claims of Guillot, Jr. and to consolidate the claims
of Baqer and Guillot, Sr. with the claims asserted in the Louviere
matter. 11 Because the Court had dismissed with prejudice the
claims of Guillot, Jr. on April 23, 2021, the Court thereafter
denied as moot the request to sever Guillot, Jr.'s claims and
granted the request to consolidate the two cases.

The Court also denied without prejudice the motions for class
certification previously filed in each case and gave the
consolidated plaintiffs ten days to file a motion for class
certification in the consolidated matter.

On May 6, 2021, a Motion for Class Certification was filed by "the
Plaintiffs, AHMED BAQER, et al." in this consolidated matter. The
Court notes that the term "Plaintiffs" is not defined anywhere in
the Motion or the Supporting Memorandum.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KQ3v82 at no extra charge.[CC]


STANDARD LITHIUM: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Standard Lithium Ltd. ("Standard Lithium" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SLI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and indexed under 22-cv-00507, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Standard Lithium securities between
May 19, 2020 and November 17, 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
Standard Lithium securities during the Class Period, you have until
March 28, 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.

Standard Lithium explores for, develops, and processes lithium
brine properties in the U.S. The Company's flagship project is the
Lanxess project with approximately 150,000 acres of brine leases
located in south-western Arkansas.

On May 19, 2020, Standard Lithium announced the successful start-up
of the Company's industrial-scale Direct Lithium Extraction
Demonstration Plant at Lanxess's South Plant facility in southern
Arkansas (the "Demonstration Plant"), a purportedly
"first-of-its-kind plant" using Standard Lithium's proprietary
LiSTR Direct Lithium Extraction ("LiSTR") technology. According to
the Company, one of the key features of the LiSTR technology was
that it increased lithium recovery efficiencies to more than 90%.

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 LiSTR technology's
extraction recovery efficiencies were overstated; (ii) accordingly,
the Company's final product lithium recovery percentage at the
Demonstration Plant would not be as high as the Company had
represented to investors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a short report
(the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report") alleging that Standard
Lithium's claims of achieving of 90% extraction rates of battery
grade lithium at its Arkansas demonstration site are not supported
by previously undisclosed data filed by the Company with the state
regulator, which indicated significantly lower recovery rates.

Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Standard Lithium's
common share price fell $1.86 per share, or 18.84%, to close at
$8.01 per share on November 18, 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. [GN]

STANDARD LITHIUM: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Standard Lithium Ltd. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 22-cv-00507, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Standard Lithium
securities between May 19, 2020 and November 17, 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.

Fighting for victims of securities fraud for more than 85 years
(PRNewsfoto/Pomerantz LLP)

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Standard Lithium securities during the Class Period, you have until
March 28, 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.

Standard Lithium explores for, develops, and processes lithium
brine properties in the U.S. The Company's flagship project is the
Lanxess project with approximately 150,000 acres of brine leases
located in south-western Arkansas.

On May 19, 2020, Standard Lithium announced the successful start-up
of the Company's industrial-scale Direct Lithium Extraction
Demonstration Plant at Lanxess's South Plant facility in southern
Arkansas (the "Demonstration Plant"), a purportedly
"first-of-its-kind plant" using Standard Lithium's proprietary
LiSTR Direct Lithium Extraction ("LiSTR") technology. According to
the Company, one of the key features of the LiSTR technology was
that it increased lithium recovery efficiencies to more than 90%.

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 LiSTR technology's
extraction recovery efficiencies were overstated; (ii) accordingly,
the Company's final product lithium recovery percentage at the
Demonstration Plant would not be as high as the Company had
represented to investors; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On November 18, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a short report
(the "Blue Orca Report" or the "Report") alleging that Standard
Lithium's claims of achieving of 90% extraction rates of battery
grade lithium at its Arkansas demonstration site are not supported
by previously undisclosed data filed by the Company with the state
regulator, which indicated significantly lower recovery rates.

Following publication of the Blue Orca Report, Standard Lithium's
common share price fell $1.86 per share, or 18.84%, to close at
$8.01 per share on November 18, 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. [GN]

STATE FARM: David Toms Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID TOMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-00736-KKM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)
      (2), (b)(3), and/or (c)(4):

      "All persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
      policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of
      Florida whose policy was in-force on or after January 1,
      2002, and who was subject to at least one monthly
      deduction;"

   2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
      23(g); and

   3. appointing him as the Class Representative.

The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the proposed Class,
challenges State Farm's interpretation and implementation of its
form universal life insurance policy -- "Form 94030."

The Plaintiff alleges State Farm is systematically taking more
money from policy owners' Account Values than the plain terms of
the Policy authorize. Whether State Farm's Account Value deductions
breach the Policy is a predominating, common question of liability,
the answer to which will resolve thousands of claims. Further,
Plaintiff's expert has mechanically calculated the damages caused
to each Florida policy owner using State Farm's policy
owner-specific transactional records, further supporting
certification of the proposed Class.

The Life Insurance Contracts Between State Farm and the Class.
State Farm began issuing the Form 94030 in 1994.

The Plaintiff contends the Policy provision requiring that monthly
COI Rates be based on the identified mortality factors means that
State Farm must determine COI Rates using only those factors, and
State Farm is not permitted to inflate COI Rates with undisclosed
factors. However, while State Farm developed "pricing mortality
rates" using only the listed factors. State Farm then inflated
those rates with undisclosed profit and expense loads, which it
charges to policy owners, the suit says.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3INPuFP
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice)
          Lindsay Todd Perkins (pro hac vice)
          Ethan Lange (pro hac vice)
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 275-9295
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

SUTTER HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ecolab's OxyCide Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ap Mcclatchy, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that Sutter
Health faced high rates of infection in its hospitals from a germ
that causes severe diarrhea, and to combat the problem, the company
procured a cleanser so noxious that dozens of employees have
reported illnesses after using it, according to a lawsuit filed in
Alameda Court.

The new product, Ecolab's OxyCide, was cheaper than a two-step
cleaning process that workers had previously used, saving
Sacramento-based Sutter millions of dollars, attorneys alleged in a
suit that seeks class-action status to represent 1,800
environmental services workers.

"Rather than eliminate the product when confronted with its
effects, Sutter wrote off the harm as user error and put the
workers through re-training, doubling down on knowingly false
claims to all EVS workers that the product was essentially
harmless," according to the lawsuit.

Following The Bee's request for comment, Sutter Health released a
statement saying that the health and safety of employees is the
company's highest priority and that Sutter leaders are proud of
efforts being taken by affiliates to reduce hospital-acquired
infections, including those caused by clostridioides difficile, or
the c. diff bacterium.

"Our hospitals exceed both state and national measures of quality
in this and many other measures," Sutter officials noted in the
statement. "We disagree with the claims in the lawsuit or that it
accurately characterizes our affiliates' efforts to watch out for
the health and safety of our employees and patients. We feel
confident in our position in this case and will continue our
emphasis on patient and employee safety."

The lawsuit, which names Dionna Bradshaw, Bianca Minix, Eva Osorio,
Barbara Smillie, and Lawana Williams as plaintiffs, said that
multiple physicians warned Sutter not to force environmental
service workers to use OxyCide.

Dr. Sophie Cole, a Yale University-trained internist with 30 years
of experience, stated that according to data from the National
Institute for Occupational Safety & Health: "[S]afety should be a
major concern for anyone using it (OxyCide) because it is corrosive
to the eyes, the skin and the respiratory tract. Symptoms from
inappropriate exposures can include cough, labored breathing,
shortness of breath and burns to the eyes."

After an evaluation of Minix, Cole told Sutter that Minix's
exposure to OxyCide resulted in reactive airways disease, a
condition that occurs when a person's bronchial tubes overreact to
an irritant swell and make it difficult to breathe air into the
lungs.

Williams told her supervisors that OxyCide caused a severe burning
sensation in her eyes and uncontrollable coughing after her initial
exposure. She was so concerned that she drafted a petition
protesting the use of the product, garnering signatures from 140
workers.

While some Sutter workers complained to the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health and other regulatory agencies in an
attempt to get help, court documents state others filed workers'
compensation claims from injuries they said they sustained from the
use of OxyCide.

Sutter had assembled a systemwide team of experts who had
researched OxyCide and other potential cleansers, attorneys said,
and this group included environmental services managers or
directors as well as a group known as the Sutter Infection Control
Counsel that was headed by a Sutter Health employee and made up of
representatives from the company's hospitals.

Any research of the Ecolab product should have turned up "an
avalanche of scientific and medical literature damning the
product," the Sutter employees' suit stated, "including a 2016
posting to the NIOSH website titled, ‘Are Hospital Cleaning Staff
at Risk When Using a One-step Cleaner?'"

An environmental risk consultant for Sutter, Mark Shirley,
acknowledged reviewing literature that concluded OxyCide was
hazardous, the lawsuit alleged, but he dismissively summarized it
as describing only "a tickle in the throat or a little runny nose
or watery eyes."

Sutter and its affiliates maintained that OxyCide is safe in
communications with environmental services workers, the plaintiffs
said, even though they knew it was not. The company wanted savings
achieved from use of the product but also wanted to eliminate as
many c. diff and other hospital-acquired infections as possible
because Medicare does not cover the cost of treating those
illnesses, plaintiffs said.

This means Sutter or its affiliates would have to pay out an
average of $1,100 to care for each patient who acquired those types
of infections, stated the lawsuit, filed by Erickson Kramer Osborne
LLP of San Francisco.

Sutter, however, said that "every affiliate in the Sutter system
assesses its own circumstances and implements best practices to
reduce c.diff infections."

The case, assigned to Judge Frank Roesch, has not been scheduled
for trial. [GN]

TI GROUP: Stipulated Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Brady
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BRADY,on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. TI GROUP AUTOMOTIVE
SYSTEMS, L.L.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-11905-AJT-CI (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Paul D. Borman entered a stipulated amended scheduling
order as follows:

  1. The Plaintiffs shall file their           March 2, 2022
     Motion for Class Certification
     on or before:

  2. The Defendant shall file its              April 1, 2022
     Response Brief in Opposition to
     the Plaintiffs' Motion for
     Class Certification on or before:

  3. The Plaintiffs shall file their           April 18, 2022
     Reply Brief in Support of their
     Motion for Class Certification
     on or before:

TI Group designs and manufactures automotive fluid systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GnzjO9 at no extra charge.[CC]


TOSHIBA CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Stoyas Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, a Japanese
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194 DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

I. Background

Named Plaintiffs Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund ("AIPTF")
and New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund
("NETTPF") are pension funds formed for the benefit of auto
industry and trucking workers. Defendant Toshiba is a "worldwide
enterprise that engages in the research development, manufacture,
construction, and sale of a wide variety of electronic and energy
products and services," headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.

On June 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class
action against the 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 Market2 in the United
States thereby acquiring an ownership interest in 216,000 shares of
common stock issued and authorized for sale by Toshiba." The
Plaintiff further asserts that between April 1, 2015 and Oct. 27,
2015, NETTIPF purchased 343,000 shares of Toshiba's common stock.
According to the Plaintiffs, both AIPTF and NETTIPF "utilized the
services of professional investment managers to direct the purchase
and sale of Toshiba securities on their behalf."

In their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs indicate
that AIPTF accessed the OTC market through AIPTF's investment
manager, ClearBridge Advisors LLC. On March 20, 2015, Clearbridge
placed a buy order for unsponsored ADRs in New York, through its
broker, Barclays Capital LE, also located in New York. Barclays
thereafter "purchased [the ADRs] for AITPF on the OTC Market using
the OTC Link trading platform." On March 26, 2015, AIPTF paid for
the ADRs by transferring $922,057.20 to Barclays from its custodian
bank in New York.

The Plaintiffs now bring a motion to certify a class of securities
purchasers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), defined
as: "All persons who purchased securities listed under the ticker
symbols TOSYY or TOSBF between May 8, 2012 and Nov. 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)."

AIPTF and NETTPF bring JFIEA claims on behalf of all proposed class
members. AIPTF also brings claims under the Exchange Act on behalf
of the American Securities Purchasers.

II. Discussion

A. The Exchange Act Claims

The Defendant argues that AIPTF has not satisfied the typicality
requirement under Rule 23(a).

To satisfy the typicality requirement, "the claims or defenses of
the representative parties" must be "typical of the claims or
defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). "The purpose of
the typicality requirement is to assure that the interest of the
named representative aligns with the interests of the class.
Typicality refers to the nature of the claim or defense of the
class representative, and not to the specific facts from which it
arose or the relief sought. The test of typicality is whether other
members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is
based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and
whether other class members have been injured by the same course of
conduct."

The question before the Court is whether AIPTF incurred irrevocable
liability to take and pay for the ADRs in the United States or in
Japan.

The Plaintiffs argue that AIPTF incurred irrevocable liability in
the United States, and thus acquired the ADRs in a domestic
transaction, "when Barclays executed its ADR order." Specifically,
they contend that AIPTF could no longer cancel the transaction when
Clearbridge agreed to the terms of the buy order -- namely, the
foreign conversion rate, commission equivalent, and price of the
ADRs.

In the case, Judge Pregerson points out that the fact that Barclays
acted in a "riskless principal" capacity only further supports the
proposition that AIPTF incurred liability in Japan. The evidence
indicates that Barclays executed the purchase of ordinary stock in
Japan on behalf of its client, ClearBridge. Barclays did not assume
any risk of loss for purchasing the underlying shares because it
already knew that ClearBridge would purchase the converted ADRs at
market price. Because ClearBridge was ready and willing to purchase
the ADRs, it was bound to complete the ADR trade, beginning with
the trade of underlying Toshiba common stock. Thus, the triggering
event that caused ClearBridge (and by extension, AIPTF) to incur
irrevocable liability occurred in Japan when Barclays acquired the
shares of Toshiba common stock on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

For these reasons, Judge Pregerson concludes that AIPTF purchased
the ADRs in a foreign transaction. Because the Plaintiffs cannot
establish that AIPTF purchased the ADRs in a domestic transaction,
the Plaintiffs also cannot satisfy the typicality requirement.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to
their Exchange Act claims is denied.

B. The JFIEA Claims

The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements with
respect to their JFIEA claims. First, it argues that neither AIPTF
nor NETTIPF has statutory standing under Article 21-2 of the JFEIA,
thus extinguishing any legal interest they would have to pursue
JFIEA claims on behalf of the 6502 Purchasers. By Defendant's
logic, only agents/trustees or securities custodians who purchase
the foreign securities on the institutional investors' behalf may
pursue claims under the JFIEA. The Defendant also posits that the
Plaintiffs are not direct owners of Toshiba common stock because
they are not listed as registered shareholders within Toshiba's
Book-entry Transfer Institution in Japan.

The Plaintiffs contend that claimants under JFIEA are those who
have "sustained losses without reference to whether the shares were
nominally held via a broker or other financial institution."
According to them, other individual investors "are pursuing
litigation in Japan against Toshiba" and "have been awarded damages
in other JFIEA matters." Thus, it is their position that the
question of whether they are listed as named shareholders of
Toshiba common stock in Toshiba's book-entry transfer institution
is irrelevant, because investors "continue to exercise their legal
rights as investors and shareholders."

Judge Pregerson finds that the potentially dispositive questions of
law are more appropriate to a motion for summary judgment rather
than a class certification motion. The Plaintiffs' Motion is
therefore denied, without prejudice, with respect to the JFIEA
claims.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification regarding the Exchange Act claims.
He further denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
regarding the JFIEA claims, without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p836jus from Leagle.com.


TRUE HEALTH: Data Breach Prompts Investigation Into Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Console & Associates, P.C. recently released an announcement that
the firm initiated an investigation into the recent True Health New
Mexico data breach to determine the legal remedies those impacted
by the breach may have against the company. If True Health New
Mexico failed to take the necessary steps to protect against the
breach or otherwise mishandled sensitive consumer information, the
company may be liable through a data breach class action lawsuit.

The information accessed through a data breach such as this one is
usually either retained by the party conducting the cyberattack or
sold to another party. In either case, the party that ends up with
the information may use it to commit identity theft or for other
criminal purposes. While there is not yet any indication that True
Health New Mexico was negligent, the breach raises serious
questions about the company's efforts to keep consumer data secure.
If it turns out that True Health New Mexico mishandled or failed to
protect consumer data, those impacted by the breach may be able to
take legal action against the company.

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 October 5, 2021, True Health New Mexico learned that the company
had experienced a data security event. While details of the
incident are not available, True Health New Mexico informed
affected parties that a subsequent investigation revealed their
data was accessible by an unauthorized party in early October 2021.
The compromised patient information appears to include the
following:

-- Full names,
-- Physical addresses,
-- Age,
-- Email address,
-- Insurance information,
-- Medical information,
-- Date of birth,
-- Health account member ID,
-- Provider information,
-- Dates of service, and
-- Provider identification number.

True Health New Mexico does not know which patients' data was
accessible to the unauthorized party or if any consumer data was
removed from the company's systems. However, an investigation is
ongoing. More recently, the company revealed that the total number
of affected patients exceeds 62,000. On November 17, 2021, the
company sent data breach notifications to all affected parties,
informing them of the breach and what they can do to protect
themselves.

If it turns out that True Health New Mexico did not take the
necessary steps to ensure the security of consumers' data, affected
patients may be able to name True Health New Mexico in a class
action data breach lawsuit.

While the situation is still developing, those who received a data
breach letter from True Health New Mexico should take the following
steps to protect themselves:

-- Carefully review the letter sent by True Health New Mexico;
-- Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
-- Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by True
Health New Mexico;
-- 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.

To learn more about this data breach, please visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/data-breach-alert-true-health-new-mexico/.

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]

UNION SECURITY: Amended Sched Order Entered in Lewis-Abdulhaadi
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE
LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO., SUN LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AND MERAKEY, USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for class         May 16, 2022
      certification is due no later than:

   2. The Defendants' Briefs in                May 30, 2022
      Opposition to Class Certification
      are due by:

   3. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief in           June 13, 2022
      Further Support of Class
      Certification shall be due on:

   4. All fact discovery shall be              Dec. 21, 2022
      completed by:

   5. Any expert reports are due no            Jan. 23, 2023
      later than:

   6. If an expert report is intended          Feb. 23, 2023.
      solely to contradict or rebut
      evidence on the same subject
      matter identified by another
      party, counsel shall serve such
      report on counsel for every other
      party no later than:

   7. Any discovery depositions of             March 30, 2023
      expert witnesses shall be
      completed by:

   8. Any motions for summary judgment         May 1, 2023
      and/or Daubert motions shall be
      filed and served on or before:

   9. Any oppositions to summary               June 1, 2023
      judgment shall be filed no
      later than:

  10. Reply Briefs in Further Support          June 30, 2023
      of Summary Judgment shall be
      filed by:

  11. If the parties do not plan on            May 1, 2023
      filing summary judgment and/or
      Daubert motions, they shall so
      report to the Court (Chambers,
      Room 10614) on or before:

  12. A status conference is scheduled         March 28, 2022
      for:

Union Security operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGFVbR at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: 2nd Circuit Affirms Injunction in Barrows v. Becerra
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lee Barrows, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Michael Savage, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, George Renshaw, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Shirley Burton, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Denise Rugman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Ann Pelow, Executor of
the Estate of Richard Bagnall, James Mulcahy, Executor of the
Estate of Sarah Mulcahy, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Brenda Hardy,
Executrix of the Estate of Loretta Jackson, Gary Goodman, Estate of
Dorothy Goodman, Christina Alexander, Representative of the Estate
of Bernice Morse, Mary Smith, Representative of the Estate of
Martha Leyanna, Peggy Leider, for Irma Becker, William Hodges, for
Louis Dziadzia, Michael Holt, Executor of the Estate of Charles
Holt, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Richard Bagnall, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Sarah Mulcahy, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Jessie Ruschmann, Representative of the Estate of Frederick
Ruschmann, Bernice Morse, Frederick Ruschmann, Louis Dziadzia,
Loretta Jackson, Martha Leyanna, Charles Holt, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Irma Becker, Dorothy
Goodman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Intervenors-Plaintiffs v. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1642-cv (2d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut's issued injunction
ordering the Secretary to create a process for members of the class
to appeal their reclassification decision.

I. Background

The 11-year litigation stems from the different ways in which a
Medicare beneficiary may be classified when she stays at a
hospital. Whether a hospital classifies her as an inpatient or an
outpatient has major consequences in terms of the coverage provided
by Medicare. As a general matter, an inpatient's hospital and
post-hospital extended care is eligible for coverage under Medicare
Part A, while that of an outpatient is not. Accordingly, a
hospital's decision to reclassify a Medicare beneficiary from an
inpatient to an outpatient in some cases will have a significant
negative impact on the amount of care a patient receives that
Medicare will pay for. The Plaintiffs in the case challenge the
lack of a process to appeal that decision.

The Plaintiff-Appellee class members are Medicare Part A
beneficiaries who are formally admitted to a hospital as
"inpatients" before their subsequent reclassification as
outpatients receiving "observation services." The Plaintiffs
brought the suit alleging, inter alia, that Defendant-Appellant
Becerra, the Secretary of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services ("HHS"), violates their due process rights by
declining to provide them with an administrative review process for
the reclassification decision.

The Plaintiffs allege their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights are
violated when they are classified as receiving observation services
in the hospital rather than being classified as inpatients. In
2013, the district court dismissed the suit, finding in part that
the Plaintiffs failed to allege a property interest protected by
the Due Process Clause.

In 2015, the Second Circuit vacated in part, concluding that the
Plaintiffs' claim that they possessed a protected property interest
"in being treated as 'inpatients'" was sufficiently pleaded to
survive a motion to dismiss. It remanded to the district court to
consider whether they possessed such an interest. Over the next
four years, the district court denied two more motions to dismiss
and each party's summary judgment motion. The district court also
certified a nationwide plaintiff class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2).

In August 2019, the district court (Michael P. Shea) held a
seven-day bench trial. After post-trial briefing, the court issued
its decision on March 24, 2020. It held that the Secretary violates
the Due Process Clause by failing to provide an appeals process for
Medicare beneficiaries whose inpatient admission is changed to
observation status by a hospital's URC. The district court
concluded that: (1) a URC determination to reclassify a patient who
is initially admitted as an inpatient to an outpatient receiving
observation services is a state action; (2) class members have a
property interest in "Part A hospital coverage," and when patients
are reclassified after URC review they are deprived of that
interest; and (3) this deprivation occurs without the process that
is required under the Fifth Amendment. As a result, the district
court issued an injunction ordering the Secretary to create a
process for members of the class to appeal their reclassification
decision.

The appeal by the Secretary followed.

II. Discussion

On appeal, the Secretary argues that (1) the Plaintiffs lack
constitutional standing, (2) the case did not properly proceed as a
class action, (3) the district court abused its discretion by
redefining the due process analysis after trial, and (4) the Due
Process Clause does not require government-administered appeals of
a hospital's reclassification decision. The Second Circuit finds no
merit in these arguments and thus affirm the district court's
judgment.

A. Constitutional Standing

The Second Circuit reviews the question of standing de novo. A
plaintiff establishes Article III standing by demonstrating (1) an
"injury in fact" that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant and is (3) likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision. Where, as in the presen case, multiple
plaintiffs seek the same relief, "the presence of one party with
standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy
requirement." At trial, a plaintiff bears the burden of proof to
demonstrate the elements of standing.

1. Standing of a Named Plaintiff

The Secretary contends that no named plaintiff established
standing, and therefore that the case must be dismissed. In
particular, he alleges that no named plaintiff demonstrated that he
or she suffered any financial injury as a result of being
reclassified as receiving observation services. The Plaintiffs,
however, identify the named Plaintiff Martha Leyanna as satisfying
the standing requirement.

The Second Circuit finds that the evidence in the record refutes
the Secretary's argument and demonstrates that Ms. Leyanna would
have received Part A coverage for the SNF care if she had been
classified as an inpatient. At trial, the Plaintiffs introduced a
written document by CMS informing Ms. Leyanna that coverage under
Part A for her SNF care would be denied because she was not
classified as an inpatient during her hospital stay. Ms. Leyanna
sufficiently demonstrated that the injury she suffered by not
receiving Part A coverage for her SNF care can be traced back to
the Secretary, and she therefore satisfies the Article III standing
requirement as a named Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the class members' Part A benefits represent a
concrete property interest -- funds with which they assert a right
to have their medical bills paid. Te Second Circuit does not
believe that a beneficiary is uninjured when she is forced to use a
different payment for services that properly should have been
covered under Medicare Part A, regardless of her "out of pocket"
expenses.

2. Class Standing

The Secretary also alleges that the named Plaintiffs do not have
standing to pursue the injunction ordered by the district court.
The appeal procedures created by the injunction include both an
after-the-fact review process for patients who have been
discharged, and an "expedited process" for current hospital
patients to appeal a reclassification decision if they stayed (or
will have stayed) at the hospital for three or more consecutive
days. The named Plaintiffs have all left the hospital, and so they
have claims premised on after-the-fact review. The Secretary argues
that because none of them would benefit from an expedited review
process, the named plaintiffs do not have "class standing" to
pursue such a procedure.

The Second Circuit holds that the failure of the Secretary to
provide an appeals process for the reclassification decision
implicates a set of concerns -- namely, a loss of Part A coverage
-- for both the named Plaintiffs and the absent class members.
Accordingly, the "litigation incentives are sufficiently aligned"
so that the named Plaintiffs can properly assert claims on behalf
of those class members who will be hospitalized in the future.

B. Class Certification

The Secretary argues next that the district court improperly
certified the plaintiff class. The Second Circuit reviews a
district court's certification decision for abuse of discretion. A
court abuses its discretion when it rests its decision on a clearly
erroneous finding of fact or makes an error of law. It accords
greater deference to district court decisions granting class
certification than to decisions declining to certify a class."

To proceed properly as a class action under Rule 23(a), a plaintiff
must show that (1) "the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable" (numerosity); (2) "there are questions of
law or fact common to the class" (commonality); (3) "the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class" (typicality); and (4) "the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class" (adequacy).

In the case, as a class certified under Rule 23(b)(2), the
Plaintiffs must also show that the Secretary "acted or refused to
act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole." The Secretary
challenges the findings that the class satisfies the commonality
and typicality requirements.

The Second Circuit finds that (i) the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the commonality requirement was met;
(ii) although the named plaintiffs can only now seek retroactive
review of their reclassification decision, their claims are still
typical of those of future hospital patients because they arise
from the same conduct; and (iii) that the injunction includes both
a mechanism for retroactive review and prospective review does not
make the class unsuitable for relief under Rule 23(b)(2). hat the
injunction includes both a mechanism for retroactive review and
prospective review does not make the class unsuitable for relief
under Rule 23(b)(2).

C. Shift in the Due Process Theory

The Secretary next contends that the district court "abused its
discretion by materially changing the focus of the case after the
close of evidence." He objects to (1) the district court's
identification of Medicare Part A benefits as the Plaintiffs'
protected property interest under the Due Process Clause and (2)
the district court's identification of the URC decision to
reclassify a patient as the pertinent act for the state action
analysis.

While the issue of adequate notice to the party of a shift of focus
by the district court presents a close question, the Second Circuit
concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
either instance. It finds that the district court did not err or
abuse its discretion in framing the question of whether the
Plaintiffs suffered a due process violation by determining whether
the Plaintiffs had a protected property interest in Part A
coverage. It also rejects the Secretary's claim that the district
court abused its discretion in evaluating the URC decision to
reclassify a patient, and not the initial decision to classify a
patient as receiving observation services, as the decision that
could be considered a state action for purposes of the due process
analysis. The Secretary argues that he was prejudiced by the
district court's choice because he did not, but could have,
"presented evidence focused on the decision to reclassify
patients."

To be sure, the seven-day trial encompassed testimony on more than
just the reclassification question. The Secretary notes that the
Plaintiffs argued in post-trial briefing that other classification
decisions made in hospitals constitute state action. But the
district court was not constrained in its decision by either
party's legal arguments. Rather, the district court was entitled to
decide, based on the evidence presented at trial, whether one
decision -- the URC decision -- constituted state action. To do so
was not an abuse of discretion.

D. Merits of the Due Process Claim

The Second Circuit now turns to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claim
that the current Medicare structure violates their due process
rights. The district court concluded it does. On appeal from a
judgment after a bench trial, we review the district court's
finding of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo. Under clear
error review, the Second Circuit can properly reject a district
court's factual findings only if it is "left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

In order for the Plaintiffs to establish a due process violation
they must show that (1) state action (2) deprived them of a
protected interest in liberty or property (3) without due process
of law.

Ultimately, in balancing the three Mathews factors, the Second
Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs' substantial interests, the
current material risk of erroneous deprivation, and the likely
benefit of additional procedures outweigh the burden on the
Secretary, which is mitigated somewhat by the existence of similar
appeal procedures, in instituting an appeals process to challenge
the URC reclassification decision. The decision to reclassify a
hospital patient from an inpatient to one receiving observation
services may have significant and detrimental impacts on
plaintiffs' financial, psychological, and physical well-being. That
there is currently no recourse available to challenge that decision
also weighs heavily in favor of a finding that the Plaintiffs have
not been afforded the process required by the Constitution.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Secretary
violates their due process rights when URCs reclassify them from
inpatients to those receiving observation services without
providing a mechanism to appeal that decision.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment
of the district court and its grant of injunctive relief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/22b9rnks from Leagle.com.

ALICE BERS (Wey-Wey Kwok, on the brief), Center for Medicare
Advocacy, Willimantic, CT; David J. Berger, Steven Guggenheim, on
the brief, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, in Palo Alto,
California; Regan Bailey, Carol Wong, on the brief, Justice in
Aging, in Washington, D.C., for the Plaintiffs-Appellees and
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees.

ADAM C. JED (Michael S. Raab, on the brief), Attorneys, Appellate
Staff, for Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, in Washington,
D.C., for the Defendant-Appellant.

M. Geron Gadd, Kelly Bagby, William Alvarado Rivera, on the brief,
AARP Foundation, in Washington, D.C.; Kasey Considine, on the
brief, Disability Rights Connecticut, in Hartford, Connecticut, for
amici curiae AARP, AARP Foundation, National Disability Rights
Network, and Disability Rights Connecticut.

Erin G. Sutton, on the brief, American Medical Association, in
Chicago, Illinois, for amici curiae The American Medical
Association and Connecticut State Medical Society.

James F. Segroves -- jsegroves@reedsmith.com -- on the brief, Reed
Smith LLP, in Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae The American
Health Care Association.


UNITED STATES: Black U.S. Marshals' Class Action Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Knowles, writing for The Washington Post, reports that by
the time a jury awarded him $4 million, Matthew Fogg had spent
about 13 years fighting to prove that racism derailed his career at
the United States Marshals Service. Hearing the verdict in 1998, he
wept.

Weeks of testimony from more than 30 people had convinced jurors
that Fogg was up against something pervasive: a "hostile"
environment for Black employees, as a judge later summarized. Yet
decades later, a class action bearing Fogg's name -- and in which
more than 10,000 people may have a stake -- continues to inch
forward.

The end is in sight, lawyers say. An administrative judge for the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that
investigates claims of workplace discrimination, could soon hear
the evidence after years of procedural delay. But employees past
and present awaiting the outcome say that any vindication will be
tempered by disillusionment over the journey to this moment. Many
class members have left the agency. Some are ailing and unable to
testify, attorneys said. Others have died.

"It's a never-ending battle," said Fogg, now 70. That it's taken so
long is unsurprising, he said, because "the culture of racism is so
embedded in America -- is so deep."

Summing up the trial that found Matthew Fogg faced discrimination
at the Marshals Service, a judge said it showed "pervasive"
concerns from African American employees.

In interviews with The Washington Post, 15 current and former Black
employees of the Marshals Service detailed allegations of racial
bias that undercut career advancement. They say one of the
country's oldest federal law enforcement agencies -- tasked with
protecting courthouses, transporting prisoners, shielding witnesses
and tracking down fugitives -- has failed to confront decades of
discrimination.

They recounted stories of debilitating stress; needlessly
contentious hiring interviews that could end after a single
question; job openings suddenly closed after Black people rose to
the top of the selection process; and indignation at training White
newcomers who quickly became their supervisors. Some estimate they
lost out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in income. Many
remembered White colleagues telling racist jokes or using the
n-word to demean fellow employees and prisoners of color, without
apparent repercussions.

The Marshals Service declined to answer questions about the class
action or its members' underlying complaints of institutional
racism. A spokesman, James P. Stossel, deputy chief of public
affairs, said agency policy does not allow officials to speak with
the news media about ongoing litigation.

Class members are seeking individual compensation and "systemic
relief" -- which lawyer Saba Bireda said should start with the
Marshals Service vowing to change. "We're really looking for a new
system," she said.

Responding to a federal discrimination lawsuit that overlapped with
Fogg's case, Justice Department officials in 2012 denied that the
Marshals Service has a "long history of continuing discrimination"
or that a "good old boy network" is biased against African
Americans, court papers from that case show. Officials also argued
then that the Marshals Service "took reasonable care to prevent and
promptly correct race-based harassment." The lawsuit was dismissed
after lawyers for the plaintiffs said the pending EEOC case covered
their claims, and some complainants reached individual settlements
with the government, according to court documents.

Critics of the agency's record on racial equity see an opening for
change with the Biden administration's appointment of a new agency
director, Ronald Davis, who as the former executive director of
President Barack Obama's policing task force has denounced
deep-rooted racism in law enforcement. Davis is Black, as was his
predecessor.

Two current Black employees of the Marshals Service, speaking on
the condition of anonymity because of a fear of retaliation, said
they believe discrimination remains a problem at the agency,
echoing others who have retired in the past few years.

"There was a time where the overt racism was the predominant source
of racism -- you know, the nooses on people's desks and that type
of thing," said one current employee, who recalled getting a
promotion in the past few years only after filing an EEO complaint.
"I think I'm kind of more in the era of institutionalized racism,
where it's built into the processes. People are nice to you in your
face. When you peel all the layers back, the core of it's still
there and it's still perpetuating."

The other current employee said his managers have never
acknowledged allegations of hiring discrimination he made against
them in an EEO complaint. Officials did not find discrimination,
but this employee believes the filing sent superiors scrambling to
hire minorities.

"I know these people," this person said. "Not one time did they
come over to me and say, 'Hey, that's not how we are. That's not
who we are.' "

'Bigots with badges'
Other federal law enforcement agencies have resolved similar
long-running class actions alleging racial discrimination. The FBI
settled and promised reforms in the 1990s. In 2017, the Secret
Service agreed to pay $24 million to Black agents claiming bias in
its promotion process.

Secret Service agrees to pay $24 million in decades-old race-bias
case brought by black agents

The Marshals Service has been unwilling to come to the table in a
similar way, said lawyer David Sanford, whose firm Sanford Heisler
Sharp represents the class-action members -- more than 700 current
and former employees, plus thousands more unsuccessful job
applicants. That the case has languished for so long is
"unconscionable," Sanford said.

The EEOC closed the case in 1997 but reopened it in 2006,
attributing its earlier decision to a clerical misunderstanding.
Lawyers expect to get a hearing date soon, though the class action
could end in a settlement.

An equal-employment expert hired by plaintiffs in the federal
lawsuit concluded that African Americans were significantly
underrepresented in prestigious divisions and promotions from 2007
to 2012. The agency's expert argued that the analysis was flawed
and said that "borderline statistically significant" disparities in
hiring decisions would vanish if not for just a few outcomes.

In a 1994 complaint against the Marshals Service, Fogg said
discrimination had derailed his career and even led him to seek
treatment for stress. (Court documents)

Fogg said in the same 1994 complaint that the Marshals Service
ordered him back to work after he went on leave because of stress.
Fogg said he went to the ER after his blood pressure spiked the day
he returned to work. (Court documents)
The Marshals Service has acknowledged some problems over the years,
telling the EEOC in a 2000 report that it was reworking its deputy
hiring exam after the test was found to have a "significant adverse
impact" on African Americans. In the early 1990s, an agency report
described a gap in job satisfaction between Black and White
employees, and widespread perceptions among personnel that a "good
old boy network" disenfranchised minorities.

But lawyers behind the class action argue the Marshals Service has
never meaningfully addressed Black employees' concerns and said
they are unaware of any broad review of the agency's racial climate
since the 1990s.

"What case goes on for 27 years, of this magnitude, and can be kept
so quiet?" asked former D.C. deputy marshal Robert Byars, 63, who
retired from the Marshals Service in 2020. He spent nearly two
decades in lower-ranking and lower-paying positions before becoming
a deputy -- thwarted, he argued, by a culture where racism went
unreported or unpunished.

Fogg eventually went public with his complaints about the Marshals
Service. A 1997 New York Post series titled "Bigots with badges"
featured Fogg and two partners -- one Black, one White -- who
described rampant abuse, including racial slurs and threats for
speaking out, as well as White colleagues using a picture of Martin
Luther King Jr. for target practice. The Marshals Service declined
to comment on the claims at the time.

CBS News covered the story 1999. The Marshals Service again
declined to discuss specific claims but said it took discrimination
complaints seriously.

"Is it fair to paint us with a broad brush just because there have
been discrimination complaints filed?" Debbie Ridley, a Black
official in the agency's equal-employment office, said in an
interview for CBS's two-part series. "The answer to that is no. . .
. Do Black marshals feel that they have a problem being promoted in
the Marshals Service? Yes, they do."

Contacted recently, Ridley said she worked for the agency only
briefly and did not remember enough from her tenure there to
discuss the accusations of discrimination.

Louie McKinney, a longtime employee of the Marshals Service who
served as acting director under President George W. Bush, said in
an interview that racism remained a serious issue there when he
left in the early 2000s. But "now . . . things are different," he
said.

"We've got Black people in top jobs right now, you know. Things
that I started years ago, so I'm very proud of that," said
McKinney, who was the second Black person to lead the agency and
now serves as president of the U.S. Marshals Service Association,
an organization of current and retired employees.

'I was tired of fighting'
In interviews, current and former employees gave detailed accounts
of their allegations, some of which are described in the
class-action complaint. The Marshals Service declined to discuss
their individual claims.

Paul Rivers joined the Marshals Service in 1990 after four years in
the Marine Corps and experience in nuclear security. He was
recognized with a Purple Heart after the Beirut barracks bombing in
1983, which hospitalized him and killed 241 of his fellow service
members.

Rivers was determined to get promoted, he said, and thinks he did
everything right. He taught colleagues about weapons of mass
destruction and helped write agency policy on them, he said. He
took on extra projects and earned three college degrees while
working, including a $25,000 master's in strategic leadership that
sent him into debt.

Yet when Rivers left the Marshals Service in 2017, he said, he held
the lowest possible rank for a supervisor. He said he had been
stuck there about 15 years.

"Each time, you know, I put out the effort to improve myself,
thinking . . . 'Let me try even harder,' " he said. "I put it on
myself to push harder. And each time I was met with another brick
wall."

The numbers behind workplace discrimination

Rivers described a toxic culture in which some White colleagues
showed open disdain for Black people. "You know why they call that
place Division Street?" Rivers recalled a high-ranking White
official in the Marshals Service asking him during a stint in
Orlando, referring to a road that once separated Black and White
neighborhoods. "Because Blacks were on one side and Whites were on
the other, and they knew their place."

The former official, when reached by The Post, acknowledged having
told others about the street but never using those words. Rivers
said he didn't report the comments right away because at the time,
he was battling the agency over his eligibility for a top-secret
security clearance, which he said had been called into question
after someone put false information in a background investigation,
including a claim that Rivers had schizophrenia. By the time he
felt he could report the "Division Street" comments, he said, staff
at the Marshals Service headquarters told him it was too late.

Advertisement
In 2017, Rivers said, he retired early, sick of watching less
qualified White colleagues get preferential treatment and "continue
up the ladder where I got left behind."

"You can only keep hitting that wall with your head so many times
before your head starts to hurt," said Rivers, now in his 50s.
After years of fruitless complaints, he said, "I was tired of
fighting."

Former Georgia criminal investigator deputy Regina Holsey recalled
her first day on the job in 1995, when the White receptionist asked
if Holsey was a "voluntary surrender." Fifteen years later, Holsey
said, she was disrespected again when a position was abruptly
canceled within minutes of her completing what she felt had been a
strong interview. The job reopened months later with a more
advanced Spanish-language requirement -- she no longer qualified --
and went to a White Hispanic colleague who, she said, ridiculed her
driving and said she was like the "little Black lady on 'Police
Academy.' " She declined to identify the colleague.

Ten current, former Black female D.C. police officers sue the city,
claiming discrimination

An expert who analyzed several years of "canceled" positions for
the agency as part of the now-dismissed lawsuit said that six out
of 37 had Black candidates ranked first for the job.

Tracy Bryce, who left in 2015 after holding the same position in
D.C. for two decades, said she eventually stopped applying for the
higher-paying job of deputy marshal. Once, Bryce said, officials
told her that she had to interview in Ohio, and she paid to fly
there, only to realize later that White candidates for deputy were
interviewed in D.C.

Another time, Bryce said, a hiring panel asked her one question --
"Do you drink alcohol?" -- and refused to accept her response that,
no, she did not. Bryce said the interview was ended at that point.

White colleagues used the n-word for Black prisoners into the
2000s, Bryce said, even addressing people with the slur while
giving commands. One of the agency's current employees detailed
several instances of White colleagues using the n-word, including
to describe another member of the agency.

The class action touches on alleged racist comments only in
passing, but its members recounted a range of offensive language,
including White deputies who called Black colleagues "boy" and
"monkey man." They also mentioned repeated problems with violence
against Black inmates in one cellblock in D.C.

"I think that the code of silence pervades, and people thought
perhaps they could get away with events like this," a federal judge
said in 2008, noting the many Marshals Service members in the
courtroom as she sentenced Stephen Cook, a White former deputy in
D.C., to 24 months in prison for beating a handcuffed Black man.

When a deputy was recorded calling a suspect the n-word in 2018,
the Marshals Service put the Ohio employee on administrative leave
and said it had "zero tolerance for this type of behavior, which
does not represent our agency's core values of justice, integrity
and service." Later that year, an official said the unidentified
employee was no longer with the agency, local media reported.

Bryce, 55, said that many Black employees of the Marshals Service
stopped reporting incidents because "nothing got done." But she
said she felt compelled to do so when, for the first time in her
Marshals Service career, a White colleague made her fear for her
safety. She said she was escorting prisoners sometime in the 2000s
-- wearing a black suit, carrying a briefcase -- when a White
deputy walked up and demanded that she show ID. When Bryce refused,
she said, the deputy shoved her against a wall.

Bryce said she made a written report on the incident and told her
superiors but does not believe the White deputy faced discipline.
The Post was unable to reach the man she claims shoved her.

Former Black employees who advanced into leadership positions while
at the agency also said their path was harder. Thomas Hedgepeth,
who led an office in D.C., said officials took just long enough to
clear him of misconduct allegations that he had to relinquish a
promotion, after missing a day of training. Sylvester Jones said he
was confirmed as one of the agency's first African American
assistant directors -- but only following a months-long delay,
after an anonymous complaint raised allegations of misconduct that
already had been investigated and rejected.

Jones contrasted his experience with that of White colleagues. One,
Jones said, was so confident he'd get a job that he put his house
on the market. Another, who joined the agency a few years after
Jones, had two big promotions announced a day apart.

McKinney, the former acting director, recalled having to fight for
Jones's appointment when White colleagues sought to derail the
confirmation process. "I'm the director. . . . He's very well
qualified. . . . So why can't he have the job?" he said.

'They have an opportunity'
Former deputy Randy Foster said he applied for more than 50
promotions over roughly two decades. He received only a handful of
interviews, he said, despite an extensive military background,
experience in law enforcement and high-profile assignments
protecting Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the judge who
sentenced conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Foster, too, recounted positions "canceled" when he was marked a
top candidate.

Now 58, he said his old agency owes justice to people "putting
their life on the line."

Three class-action members Foster knew have died. He ticks through
all the presidencies the case has outlasted: Clinton, Bush, Obama,
Trump.

"Doesn't matter what political party is in office, discrimination
is wrong," Foster said. "And they have an opportunity."

On a recent conference panel of Black professionals held over Zoom,
Fogg was introduced simply as a retired member of the Marshals
Service. But his long war against the agency loomed over the
discussion on social justice and policing. Behind Fogg was a copy
of the New York Post's "Bigots with badges" Sunday cover story from
1997.

A mix of current and former members of law enforcement talked about
their dreams of changing stubborn systems from within. They spoke
about the Black Lives Matter movement that had put a new national
spotlight on the issues they raised many years ago.

Individual officers' actions are "a pebble in the ocean," one
panelist lamented. "You know, as opposed to really looking at the
root causes of things."

"I still have to be very careful speaking out," said one Black
police official. "Because again, I have bills to pay." The speaker
warned about people who find creative ways to "get rid of you."

Fogg said he had seen it all.

"When you really take a stand against that institution, you know
they're gonna come after you," he said. "All of us know that." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detainees Won COVID-19 Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Morgen at bakersfield.com reports that immigrants detained at
the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility in Bakersfield and the Yuba
County Jail have won a class action lawsuit against U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the private contractor that
operates the Bakersfield location.

In a settlement announced Thursday, ICE and Geo Group Inc. will be
compelled to continue to provide coronavirus mitigation measures,
which have been the subject of a long-running legal battle since
the start of the pandemic.

"When COVID hit, I was terrified because the government was
crowding so many of us together in such a dangerous place and not
doing anything at all to protect us from the virus," Brenda Ruiz
Tovar, a plaintiff who was released from custody as a result of the
lawsuit, said in a news release. "I am so grateful to have been
free for almost two years, and able to support my son and my family
and stay healthy."

She completed school after being released and now works as a dental
assistant.

"Still, I think every day about the people who are still locked up
in that place," she continued. "I'm happy that the settlement makes
conditions safer, but I cannot accept that the government is still
detaining people like me unnecessarily during a dangerous
pandemic."

Neither Geo Group nor ICE immediately responded to a request for
comment.

All parties have agreed to the terms of the settlement, but it must
be approved by the U.S. District Court before it goes into effect,
which lawyers for the plaintiffs believe will be sometime this
spring.

Immigrants detained at Mesa Verde are typically awaiting a judge's
decision on whether they can remain in the country, or are in the
process of being deported. In many cases, ICE alleges that
detainees represent a danger to their respective communities, while
the immigrants themselves say they should not be held in custody
while their civil cases proceed through the court system.

The facility has been hard-hit by the pandemic, with more than half
of all detainees testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. The
detainees themselves have fought hard for better conditions, with
some even participating in hunger strikes for multiple days in
protest.

Mesa Verde is one of three ICE processing centers in Kern County.
Two others, which Geo calls "annexes" of Mesa Verde, are located
around McFarland, and have 700 beds each.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs called the settlement "groundbreaking,"
and potentially precedent setting for other lawsuits around the
country.

"Across the country, ICE has demonstrated a pattern of failing to
protect the people in its custody from COVID," said Bree
Bernwanger, an attorney with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil
Rights, one of the groups representing plaintiffs in this case.
"What this settlement does is it holds ICE accountable for making
sure that it protects the people who are currently in its custody,
and the people who are released can remain with their families
unless there is a demonstrated grounds for their detention."

The settlement compels ICE to comply with numerous COVID-19
mitigation measures, including a quarantine for all new intakes and
access to vaccination.

Lawyers say one of the most important aspects in the settlement is
a protection for around 250 immigrants from being re-detained
unless they are deemed a safety or flight risk.

At Mesa Verde, which has a total capacity of 400, Geo must
institute a population cap of 52 if the facility is accepting new
intakes, or 78 otherwise for at least the next two months. The
private contractor is also compelled to follow Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention guidelines regarding social distancing in
congregant settings, potentially extending the strict population
cap.

ICE must also pay lawyers for the plaintiffs' $4 million in legal
fees.

"We hope that the hard work that we put in to reaching this
settlement is useful, and will serve at least as a floor for other
settlements around the country," said Sean Riordan, an attorney
with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern
California, "where they will be able to secure protections at least
as good as what we've achieved here." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Reaches Groundbreaking Settlement in COVID-19 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants detained by ICE during the COVID-19 pandemic in two
California detention facilities have reached a groundbreaking
settlement agreement to resolve a long-running class action lawsuit
against ICE and GEO, a private contractor who manages one of the
facilities. The settlement agreement will compel ICE and GEO to
preserve safety measures to protect people in immigration detention
from COVID-19. It will also limit ICE's authority to redetain the
hundreds of people released during the course of the lawsuit. The
plaintiffs in Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings today presented the
settlement agreement to Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District
Court of Northern California for preliminary approval.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in April 2020, at the early stage of
the pandemic, to challenge the unsafe conditions for immigrants in
custody at the two detention facilities, Mesa Verde Detention
Center and Yuba County Jail. Documents and testimony uncovered
during the lawsuit revealed that ICE and GEO delayed testing during
an outbreak, knowingly left people with COVID symptoms in a crowded
dormitory, and made repeated misrepresentations to the court
regarding their COVID response. Judge Chhabria recognized, in a
scathing December 2020 order, that "the conduct of the key ICE and
GEO officials in charge of operations" was "appalling."

"When we filed this lawsuit, ICE had put our clients and
communities at risk by detaining as many people as possible in
filthy, crowded dorms and cells, creating a tinderbox for
COVID-19," said Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

As a result of litigation and related organizing efforts, the
population in custody at these two facilities dropped from 462 to
62. The settlement agreement provides strong protections against
re-detention for the approximately 250 immigrants released from
custody as a result of the lawsuit.

The settlement agreement also provides three years of health and
safety protections for those remaining in custody. This includes a
temporary population cap and ongoing population limits to allow for
social distancing; testing and vaccination mandates for staff and
people in custody; the release of vulnerable people; and compliance
with CDC guidance.

"This settlement mandates important, potentially life-saving
measures that will reduce the spread of COVID in ICE detention
centers, and also limits the number of people in custody in these
facilities during this pandemic," said Sean Riordan, senior staff
attorney for the immigrants rights program at the ACLU of Northern
California. "During this dangerous pandemic, ICE officials should
be doing everything possible to release people from detention
facilities."

"When COVID hit, I was terrified because the government was
crowding so many of us together in such a dangerous place and not
doing anything at all to protect us from the virus," said Brenda
Ruiz Tovar, one of the plaintiffs in the case who was released from
custody as a result of the lawsuit. "I am so grateful to have been
free for almost two years, and able to support my son and my family
and stay healthy. Because of my release, I completed school and now
work as a dental assistant. Still, I think every day about the
people who are still locked up in that place. I'm happy that the
settlement makes conditions safer, but I cannot accept that the
government is still detaining people like me unnecessarily during a
dangerous pandemic."

"This groundbreaking settlement is the product of tremendous
bravery and perseverance from everyone involved, especially those
trapped inside," said Mano Raju, San Francisco Public Defender.
"While the fight is not over, this settlement takes us one step
closer to ending the inhumane practice of immigration detention."

Plaintiffs are represented by the San Francisco Public Defender's
Office, the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California,
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area, Lakin & Wille, LLP, and Cooley, LLP.

Additional Quotes from Plaintiffs' Legal Team:

"This settlement is the result of years of hard-fought litigation
to protect human beings from unconstitutional practices," said
Martin Schenker, partner at Cooley LLP. "Today's settlement is a
victory for the rights of detained people and the rule of law. It
holds ICE and its private-prison contractor accountable for their
conduct."

"We are humbled to stand alongside our class members as they
continue their tremendous fight for the right to be safe and with
their loved ones," said Judah Lakin, Partner at Lakin & Wille LLP.
"We will continue to fight to end immigration detention completely
as it is unnecessary and cruel as this pandemic has undoubtedly
shown." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Social Security Opens to Same-Sex Couple Survivors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Span, writing for The New York Times, reports that Helen
Thornton and Margery Brown began dating in 1979. After just a few
months, Ms. Thornton said, "I knew that I wanted to spend the rest
of my life with this person, and Margie felt the same way."

Over three decades, they bought a home in Olympia, Wash., took out
loans together, shared a checking account and attended family
gatherings and community events. They raised a son whose birth
certificate carried both their names. They talked about traveling
after retirement, maybe kayaking in Ireland.

But in 2003, Ms. Brown received a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ms.
Thornton cared for her through repeated rounds of chemotherapy and
intensifying illness until Ms. Brown died in 2006, at age 50.

In 2015, shortly before Ms. Thornton turned 60 -- the age at which
most widows and widowers are eligible for survivor's benefits from
Social Security -- she walked into the agency's local office,
carrying bank statements and the title to their house, and
applied.

"I figured I'd be rejected," she said, because under Social
Security, spousal survivor's benefits were limited to married
couples. She and Ms. Brown would have married had they been able
to, Ms. Thornton said. But same-sex marriages didn't become legal
in Washington State until 2012; they became legal in every state in
2015 after a Supreme Court ruling.

Nevertheless, Ms. Thornton intended to make a statement: "I wanted
Social Security to see that here was a lesbian couple that was
together for 27 years, and here are the consequences of not having
equal rights under the law."

Challenging the policy that limited survivor's benefits to married
couples took years and a class-action lawsuit that bears Ms.
Thornton's name. In November, the agency dropped its Trump-era
appeals against Thornton v. Commissioner of Social Security and Ely
v. Saul, two federal lawsuits brought by surviving same-sex
partners or spouses.

The Social Security Administration now allows gay men and lesbians
to receive survivor's benefits if they can show that they were in a
committed relationship and would have married had that been
possible. The change could mean greater economic protection for a
population with higher poverty rates than American adults overall.

Almost six million of the nation's 65 million Social Security
beneficiaries receive survivor's benefits, including children.
"Their whole purpose is to care for the survivors who lose their
romantic and economic partners, a huge financial hardship," said
Karen Loewy, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, which brought the
lawsuits along with local law firms.

Starting at age 60 -- or 50 for those who are disabled -- a
survivor can either apply for a deceased spouse's Social Security
benefits (if these are higher than the survivor's, or if the
survivor does not have the work history to qualify) or apply for
them temporarily and delay claiming their own (allowing their
benefit to increase until they reach full retirement age or
beyond).

"The surviving spouses can end up with a lot more income," said
Trinh Phan, senior staff attorney at Justice in Aging. The average
survivor's benefit, the Social Security Administration reports, is
$1,467 a month.

Ms. Thornton, for instance, had always worked for nonprofit
organizations -- first a food co-op, then a theater -- and never
earned as much as Ms. Brown, a staff member and instructor at The
Evergreen State College.

On her own, Ms. Thornton had to apply for Social Security early, at
62, and turned to pet-sitting to supplement her benefits of $953 a
month. She lived frugally and did not visit family often. "I
couldn't just buy a plane ticket and fly to California," she said.
"I had to postpone maintenance on my house for years."

Once Social Security began her paying survivor's benefits, however,
her monthly income nearly doubled, to $1,849. And she received a
lump sum of $72,000, retroactive payment for the years the agency
denied her application.

An unknown, and perhaps unknowable, number of people were never
able to marry their late same-sex partners. But a second group has
also become eligible for survivor's benefits: same-sex couples who
were married for less than nine months, the legal threshold for
survivor's benefits, before one spouse died.

Anthony Gonzales and his partner, Mark Johnson, lived together in
Albuquerque, N.M., for nearly 16 years, thinking they would never
be able to marry in their state.

But in August of 2013, their county clerk began issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples, and they wed in a joyous outdoor
group ceremony. "It was a beautiful day," Mr. Gonzales recalled.
New Mexico legalized same-sex marriage statewide a few months
later.

Mr. Johnson, who had AIDS, also developed rectal cancer and died in
hospice care in early 2014. Mr. Gonzales, his caregiver, lost his
accounting job at a nonprofit organization not long afterward and
had trouble finding another; he also helped care for his elderly
mother.

At 60, taking the advice of his financial adviser, he applied for
survivor's benefits and was denied because he and his husband had
been married for about six months, not nine.

"I decided to fight it," Mr. Gonzales said, adding that his husband
would have done the same had their positions been reversed. "We
both believed that as gay men we should have the same rights as
anybody else," he said. Lambda Legal cited his experience in the
Ely case in 2018.

When the Social Security Administration changed its policy, it
began sending Mr. Gonzales, now 66, about $1,800 monthly in
survivor's benefits, plus a one-time $90,000 retroactive payment.
That allows him to delay claiming his own benefit until it reaches
the maximum monthly amount, when he turns 70.

How can survivors prove that they would have married, or married
earlier, if they could have? They have to produce evidence like
joint bank accounts, leases, mortgages, insurance policies or wills
that name a partner as beneficiary or heir. "You shared a home,"
Ms. Loewy said. "Or you had a commitment ceremony. Even photos and
love letters. There are ways to demonstrate that you were in a
committed relationship."

Social Security agents, taking applicants' accounts in phone
interviews, are accustomed to making such determinations in cases
involving common-law marriages, she said.

But different-sex couples who presented themselves as married, even
if they never became legal spouses, may not have encountered the
same discrimination, fears or need for discretion as many same-sex
couples faced decades ago. Some never told employers, health care
providers or their families about their relationships.

"The challenge for Social Security, to do it right, is to
acknowledge the different situations," Ms. Phan said.

Advocates also worry that many surviving same-sex partners or
spouses don't know that they have become eligible for survivor's
benefits, so they hope the Social Security Administration will
conduct more public outreach.

The agency said in email that it had identified 700 people who had
applied and been denied survivor's benefits and notified them that
as members of either the Ely or Thornton classes, they can have
their cases reviewed; it plans to send a second notice. As of
October, fewer than 100 claims had been processed, the agency
said.

But at Lambda Legal, "we suspect there are thousands of people in
these long-term relationships who never bothered to apply, because
they thought it was futile," Ms. Loewy said.

They can start the process now, regardless of how long ago their
partners or spouses died. Lambda Legal has posted information to
guide applicants.

Margery Brown would have been glad that other same-sex partners
will benefit from her partner's activism, Ms. Thornton said. "She'd
be a little frustrated that it took as long as it did," she said,
"but proud that we took it on." [GN]

UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Movie Trailer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Schrader, writing for UPI, reports that fans of Ana de Armas
have filed a lawsuit against Universal Pictures alleging they were
tricked into renting "Yesterday" because the actress appeared in
the trailer despite her absence from the film.

Conor Woulfe, 38, of Maryland, and Peter Michael Rosza, 44, of San
Diego County, Calif., filed the consumer protection class action
lawsuit on Jan. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California because of the film's "false, deceptive and
misleading" trailer.

Rosza said in the lawsuit that he first watched the trailer for the
movie on Oct. 31 using Amazon's internet movie streaming service
before renting the $3.99 movie to watch at home. Woulfe similarly
said he watched the trailer for the film on July 12 before he too
rented the film.

"Nationwide advertising and promotion of the movie 'Yesterday'
represents to prospective movie viewers that the world-famous
actress Ana de Armas has a substantial character role in the film,"
the lawsuit reads. "Yesterday, however, fails to include any
appearance of Ana de Armas whatsoever."

The lawsuit includes a list of factual allegations, which describe
de Armas' fame in a bid to describe why the two fans would watch
the film solely for her appearance in it.

"Ana de Armas is a talented, successful, and famous actress, that
has starred in such movies as Blade Runner 2049, War Dogs and
Knives Out," the lawsuit reads. "Demonstrating her demand in the
film industry, Ms. de Armas was chosen to be a female lead in the
movie No Time to Die, co-starring Daniel Craig."

The lawsuit notes that de Armas has around 5.3 million followers on
Instagram and was nominated for a Golden Globe award for Best
Actress in a Comedy or Musical for her Knives Out role.

"De Armas is famous throughout America and the world because of her
successful movie and other media appearances," the lawsuit reads.

Screenwriter Richard Curtis told CinemaBlend in 2019 that de Armas
was "radiant" in her role but it was cut because audiences didn't
like that her character flirted with the film's main character,
played by Himesh Patel, who was in a committed relationship with
another character played by Lily James.

"I think the audience did not like the fact that his eyes even
strayed," Curtis said. "You know, it's one of those things where
it's some of our favorite scenes from the film, but we had to cut
them for the sake of the whole."

The film follows Patel's character, Jack Malik, a struggling
singer-songwriter in England who wakes up after a bus accident to
discover that The Beatles never existed. Jack introduces the world
to the band's music, leading him to rocket to fame but threatening
his relationship with his childhood best friend, Ellie, played by
James. [GN]

VANDA PHARMA: Gordon Seeks to Certify Class of Stock Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH GORDON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and MIHAEL H. POLYMEROPOULOS, Case No.
1:19-cv-01108-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
(b)(3) and (g):

   1. certifying a class of:

      "purchasers of the common stock of Vanda Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc. between November 4, 2015 and February 11, 2019,
      inclusive;"

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. designating Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
      as Class Counsel. In support of this motion.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company
is focused on the development and commercialization of a portfolio
of clinical-stage, small molecule product candidates for central
nervous system disorders.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GcsONK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff, are:

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
          Avital O. Malina, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com
                  amalina@rgrdlaw.com

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sunshine's 1st Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUNSHINE CHILDREN'S LEARNING CENTER, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. WASTE
CONNECTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-62123-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.), Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and to Strike Class
Allegations.

I. Background

The Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") on
Nov. 17, 2021, asserting two counts against the Defendant: Breach
of contract ("Count I"); and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing ("Count II"). The basis for the Plaintiff's claims
against the Defendant is that the Defendant increased its rates in
breach of the Parties' contract and in breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. The Contract enumerates two categories
of rate increases.

The Plaintiff also asserts class representation allegations.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss each Count in the Complaint. It
contends that the Contract permits rate increases, the Defendant
provided adequate notice of rate increases through invoices, the
voluntary payment doctrine applies, and the Plaintiff fails to
allege any damages. It also argues that the Court should dismiss
class representation allegations.

The Plaintiff responds that the rate increases required a
corresponding increase in costs or prior notice, neither of which
occurred, that issues regarding materiality, adequacy of notice,
and the voluntary payment doctrine cannot be addressed in a motion
to dismiss, and that the Complaint does allege damages. It also
argues that the Court should reject challenges to class
certification at this stage of the proceedings.

II. Discussion

A. Failure to State a Claim

i. Count I

In Count I, the Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim
against the Defendant. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
fails to state a breach of contract claim because: (1) the Contract
allows Defendant to raise rates in the absence of an objection; (2)
delayed notice of rate increases is not a material breach; (3) the
voluntary payment doctrine bars the claim; and (4) the Plaintiff
fails to allege that it was damaged by the alleged breach.

The Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Complaint states a breach of
contract claim by alleging that Defendant breached Section 5(a) of
the Contract; (2) materiality and adequacy of notice cannot be
decided in a motion to dismiss; (3) the plain language of the
Contract refutes Defendant's argument regarding materiality,
contractual conditions, and damages; and (4) the voluntary payment
doctrine cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings.

Judge Bloom finds that (i) by alleging either a breach of Section
5(a) or Section 5(b), the Plaintiff adequately alleges a breach of
the Contract; (ii) the Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant
did not send advance notice of rate increases and that the
Defendant consequently foreclosed the Plaintiff's right to object
to overcharges is sufficient to allege a material breach for the
purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss; (iii) because the
Plaintiff alleges not to have had full knowledge of the relevant
facts, all of the necessary facts for the voluntary payment
doctrine are not evident from the Complaint; and (iv) the Plaintiff
sufficiently alleges that the Defendant's failure to give notice of
the reason for the rate increases resulted in the Plaintiff's
inability to exercise its right to object.

ii. Count II

In Count II, the Plaintiff asserts a breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing against the Defendant. In the Motion, the
Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing because the Plaintiff fails to
allege that the Defendant breached the Contract. The Defendant
further argues that Count II should be dismissed because it seeks
to vary the express rights and obligations of the Contract.

The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant's first argument is
unavailing because the Complaint alleges that the Defendant
breached the Contract. It contends that the Defendant's second
argument is unpersuasive because the Contract requires notice of
Section 5(b) rate increases, Count II is based on the Defendant's
failure to provide adequate notice as required by the Contract, and
Count II, therefore, does not attempt to vary the express rights
and obligations of the Contract.

Judge Bloom agrees with the Defendant to the extent that a claim
for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing requires
the breach of an express term of a contract. However, as she noted,
the Complaint alleges a a breach of an express term of the
Contract. The Complaint alleges that Defendant breached Section
5(a) or Section 5(b) of the Contract by raising rates despite the
lack of cost increases or by failing to provide adequate notice.
Further, because Count II is based on the alleged failure to
provide adequate notice and the contention that the Plaintiff could
not exercise its right to object, the Plaintiff does not attempt to
vary the express terms of the Contract through Count II. As such,
Count II should not be dismissed.

B. Class Certification

Judge Bloom now turns to the Defendant's request to strike the
Plaintiff's class allegations. The Defendant argues that the Court
should strike the Plaintiff's class allegations because they do not
satisfy Rule 23. It contends that the proposed class definition is
overbroad because it includes class members who may not have signed
a similar contract with the Defendant and have no possible relation
to the Plaintiff's breach of contract allegations. It also argues
that the issue of notice is a purely individual issue.

The Plaintiff argues that the dismissal of class allegations at the
pleading stage is an "extreme remedy" that is appropriate only
where the Defendant can demonstrate from the face of the Complaint
that it will be impossible to certify the class.

Judge Bloom agrees with the Plaintiff. She explains, the Eleventh
Circuit requires a "rigorous analysis" when addressing class
certification, and courts generally cannot perform such an analysis
until discovery has taken place. While the Defendant raises a
legitimate concern that the contract it signed with other class
members may not be similar to the Contract it signed with the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges that the proposed class had
identical or substantially similar contracts. Even if discovery
revealed that such allegations were not true, the Court can address
the issue of similar or dissimilar contracts at the class
certification stage of the proceedings and certify subclasses if
necessary. Based on the Plaintiff's allegations, it is not evident
it would be "impossible" to certify the proposed class or cure
overbroad class definitions after discovery.

The Defendant relies on In re Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet Shingle
Prods. Liab. Litig., 321 F.R.D. 430, 444 (N.D. Ga. 2017), and
Cohen, D.M.D., M.S. v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 259 F.R.D. 617,
642 (S.D. Fla. 2008), to argue that notice is an individual issue
that cannot be addressed on a class-wide basis, but the cases are
inapposite, Judge Bloom holds. As the Plaintiff correctly points
out, the two cases involved notice from each of the customers to
the defendant, which is an individual issue. In contrast, the
disputed notice here was from the Defendant to the customers, and
the Complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in a generalized
practice regarding notice to all similarly situated customers.
Therefore, the issue of notice does not create individual issues in
the case, and the Defendant's request to strike class allegations
is denied.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Bloom denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. The Defendant
will file its Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint by no later than
Feb. 8, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4kr8zxaz from Leagle.com.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 14, 2022 Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA BOWLES, for herself
and all those similarly situated, and BRUCE TAYLOR, for himself and
all similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE by its BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS also sometimes known as CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE by
its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; ERIC R. SABREE, in his official and
personal capacity; COUNTY OF OAKLAND by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS;
and ANDREW MEISNER, in his official and personal capacity, Case No.
2:20-cv-12838-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the County of Wayne and its
Treasurer, Eric R. Sabree, ask the Court, pursuant to Local Rule
7.1(h), to enter an order granting their motion for Reconsideration
of the Court's January 14, 2022 Opinion and Order regarding the
Wayne County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion
to Certify.

Wayne County is the most populous county in the U.S. state of
Michigan.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o9iosj at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq.
          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          Theresa A. Munaco, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center, 37th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48243
          Telephone: (313) 568-6800
          E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com
                  nramin@dykema.com
                  tmunaco@dykema.com

WELLS FARGO: Pays $12M for Wrongly Denying Mortgage Modifications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo agreed to pay $12 million to more than 1,800 mortgage
borrowers to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the bank's
clients had loan modifications wrongfully denied due to calculation
errors in the bank's system.

A judge from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio approved the settlement on Tuesday after a hearing between the
parties.

A spokesperson for Wells Fargo, the largest depository residential
mortgage lender in the U.S., told HousingWire that the bank is
"pleased to be able to put this lawsuit behind us" but had no more
comments to add about the settlement.

The deal will provide $9 million to the class members, with the
remainder going to plaintiffs' attorneys, costs, service awards,
and settlement expenses. The benefit distribute date is currently
scheduled to occur on March 15.

Plaintiffs Diane Hawkins and Ethan Ryder filed the class action in
2019.

The lawsuit alleges that, between 2010 and 2018, Wells Fargo failed
to detect errors in its automated system to determine whether
consumers in default would be eligible for loan modifications with
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or under the U.S. Department of
Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

Also, the bank failed to audit the software for compliance with
government requirements, allowing life-changing error to remain
uncorrected for years. One caveat: the government provided a free
tool for the bank, but Wells Fargo decided to use its own software,
according to the lawsuit.

Wells Fargo publicly acknowledged the calculation error in 2018,
including the information in filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). The bank estimated that approximately
625 customers were incorrectly denied a mortgage modification, and
400 of them were foreclosed.

The bank set aside $8 million to be used to remediate the
customers, but plaintiffs filed the lawsuit alleging breach of
contract, fraudulent concealment, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Wells Fargo denies plaintiffs' allegations, and
the settlement document clarifies that it may not be used as an
admission, or evidence, of the validity of the claims.

In September, Wells Fargo was slapped with a $250 million civil
penalty by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for
"unsafe or unsound" practices pertaining t its home lending loss
mitigation program.

Specifically, the agency accused the bank of charging customers
mortgage interest rate lock extension fees, even though some of the
loan closings failed due to the bank's own volition.

The bank recently entered into a three-year deferred prosecution
agreement that required changes to Wells Fargo's management and its
board of directors. It also required a stronger compliance
program.

Wells Fargo appointed Derek Flowers as its new chief risk officer.
[GN]

WESTEN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Abuse, Hazing
------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reports that allegations of abuse against players
and volunteers coupled with coverups by teams who field complaints
are so widespread that they've turned off-ice misconduct into a
"cultural norm" within the Canadian Hockey League, a newly released
report has found.

The league, which includes the Western Hockey League, the Ontario
Hockey League and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, tasked an
independent panel with reviewing the CHL's policies and practices
around hazing, abuse, harassment and bullying in July 2020.

The panel -- chaired by former New Brunswick premier Camille
Theriault, and including former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy and
former Canadian women's hockey team coach Daniele Sauvageau --
submitted its report to the CHL in December 2020 but the league did
not make it public until Jan. 21.

The report found a "code of silence" existed when it came to
reporting misconduct.

"Maltreatment that, outside of hockey, would not be acceptable has
become an embedded behaviour in this hierarchal organization and
the level of acceptance is too high," the report's authors wrote.

The panel also found the league did not seek player feedback on
policies or education and awareness programs.

"This is a significant void," the report said. "It is
counter-intuitive to think that developing and implementing
structures to protect players from maltreatment would exclude their
voices regarding what they are experiencing and what they want and
need."

The misconduct suffered by players, many of whom are minors, will
live with them for the rest of their lives, the report added.

The CHL said in a statement that it is "committed to the
protection" of players and "will continue to make the changes and
investments required to provide the best possible player
experience."

As part of the report, the league engaged polling firm Leger to
conduct a survey of 31 general managers, 59 coaches, 98 staff
members, 212 families and 259 players. Respondents were asked to
weigh in on bullying, misconduct and experiences in reporting those
issues to the CHL.

First-hand comments from players who reported misconduct concerns
to staff members or general managers were recorded for the survey.

One player who was allegedly the subject of abuse from a coach said
he was traded after raising concerns, while another reported that
his complaints were dismissed with a comment that "boys will be
boys."

Another alleged that an equipment manager physically and mentally
abused a helper the respondent described as having "special
needs."

One player reported bullying allegations against a coach.

"I reported it to other coaches, I don't believe they spoke with
him as they were under his level and probably felt they couldn't
speak to him without being reprimanded themselves," he said.

In December 2021, the CHL followed up the independent panel's
report by tasking lawyer Rachel Turnpenney with reviewing the
league's current policies and programs.

In a separate report released by the league on Jan. 21, Turnpenney
wrote that the CHL should revisit what is currently in place to
create more effective player well-being programs, and that the
policies, procedures and programs currently in place lack cohesion
and clarity.

Days before the 2020 panel was formed, former NHL player Daniel
Carcillo and Garrett Taylor, who played in the Western Hockey
League from 2008-10, filed a class-action lawsuit against the CHL
detailing alleged abuse and hazing.

James Sayce, who is representing Carcillo and Taylor, said the
reports released on Jan. 21 appear to add credence to his clients'
claims.

"The independent panel's findings appear to mirror the experiences
of Mr. Carcillo, Mr. Taylor and the dozens of class members who
have come forward to share their stories of abuse," Sayce said in a
statement. "We will continue to push the class action to help
eradicate these systemic issues and to seek vindication for those
who were wronged."

None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]

WESTERN ALLIANCE: Acquires Leading Digital Payments Platform
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Alliance Bank announced it has completed the acquisition of
Digital Settlement Technologies, DBA Digital Disbursements, the
leading digital payments platform for the class action legal
industry. Joining forces with Digital Disbursements, which enables
the seamless integration of a customizable pay menu into settlement
claim forms and other payment selection websites, positions Western
Alliance as the leading digital payments platform for the class
action market and broader legal industry.

Since its launch in 2019, Digital Disbursements has quickly emerged
as the preferred digital payment services provider of claims
administrators. The Los Angeles-based company was created to fill
the digital payment void and address the evolving payment needs for
class actions and other business-to-consumer payments in the legal
industry. Digital Disbursements' proprietary platform enables
claimants to choose how they would like to receive their payments,
from direct-to-bank account options to popular digital wallets.

"The acquisition of Digital Disbursements is the latest investment
by Western Alliance that furthers our commitment to providing
differentiated technology solutions that address the evolving needs
of our clients," said Kenneth A. Vecchione, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Western Alliance Bank. "We look forward to
partnering with the Digital Disbursements team, with whom we have
built a close working relationship. This acquisition will allow us
to explore new capabilities and continue to deepen our expanding
suite of legal banking services while serving adjacent sectors that
will benefit from digital payments technology."

Digital Disbursements provides Western Alliance with the internal
capability to significantly increase efficacy and reduce
distribution costs. A broad menu of digital payment options also
addresses the needs of unbanked class members who are often
required to pay high fees for check-cashing services, which has
long been an issue in settlement fund distribution. Digital
Disbursements' platform also implements machine learning, strong
risk management infrastructure, and digital fingerprint analysis to
help administrators detect potential fraud.

"With more than 80 percent of recipients now preferring digital
payment options, our platform has played a leadership role in
driving the legal industry's adoption of digital payment
distribution for class action settlements," said Jeff Richardson,
Co-founder of Digital Disbursements and a 28-year class action
lawyer. "Partnering with Western Alliance will continue our mission
to improve the settlement distribution process for all stakeholders
– class members, administrators, lawyers, and courts."

"We couldn't be more thrilled that Digital Disbursements is
becoming part of the Western Alliance family," said Francesca
Castagnola, Senior Managing Director of Western Alliance's
Settlement Services team. "Combining Digital Disbursements'
leading-edge payments platform and technology with our expanding
suite of Settlement Services and juris banking offerings positions
Western Alliance for significant growth in the class action and
mass torts arena. Our team is always striving for new solutions and
technology to improve the settlement distribution process, and
Digital Disbursements will undoubtedly continue that momentum."

Post-closing, Digital Disbursements will operate as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Western Alliance Bank and be led by Jeff Richardson
and his team.

                     About Western Alliance

With more than $50 billion in assets, Western Alliance
Bancorporation (NYSE:WAL) is one of the country's top-performing
banking companies. The company is again #1 best-performing of the
50 largest public U.S. banks in the S&P Global Market Intelligence
listing for 2020, ranks high on the Forbes "Best Banks in America"
list year after year and was named #1 Best Emerging Regional Bank
in Bank Director's 2022 RankingBanking study. Its primary
subsidiary, Western Alliance Bank, Member FDIC, helps clients
realize their ambitions with teams of experienced bankers and
mortgage experts who deliver superior service and a full spectrum
of customized loan, deposit and treasury management capabilities,
including blockchain-based offerings. Business clients also benefit
from a powerful array of specialized financial services that
provide strong expertise and tailored solutions for a wide variety
of industries and sectors. Serving clients across the country
wherever business happens, Western Alliance Bank operates
individual, full-service banking brands and has offices in key
markets nationwide. For more information, visit
westernalliancebank.com.

                 About Digital Disbursements

Digital Disbursements is the leading digital payment solution for
class actions and other legal payments. Co-founded in 2019 by Adam
Jiwan and Jeff Richardson, Digital Disbursements facilitates the
secure selection, disbursement, and reporting of mass payments for
clients across legal and other industries. Digital Disbursements
partners with more than 60% of class action administrators and has
been awarded digital distribution projects involving more than $2.5
billion in payments to recipients in more than 130 countries. For
more information, visit digitaldisbursements.com. [GN]

[*] Arbitration Impact of Workplace Class Actions Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that Seyfarth Synopsis: Workplace arbitration
programs continued to have a profound impact on workplace class
action litigation in 2021. Such programs influenced the nature of
class action litigation filed and shifted the types of claims
asserted as the plaintiffs' bar continued to find ways to pivot
around such obstacles.

As employers clawed for cover from the increasing weight of
workplace class action litigation in recent years, workplace
arbitration has continued to gain traction, aided by the U.S.
Supreme Court's transformative ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). Epic Systems reaffirmed that the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce agreements
to arbitrate according to their terms, including mandatory
agreements that provide for individual proceedings and include
class action waivers.

Bolstered by such precedents, more than half of non-union,
private-sector employers and more than two-thirds of large
employers have adopted mandatory arbitration agreements. Such
programs have continued to shift class action litigation dynamics
in critical ways as they have led to more front-end attacks on
proposed class and collective actions and, as the result of such
attacks, to the defense bar dismantling more workplace class and
collective actions by fracturing those proceedings and diverting
them into individual arbitrations.

Workplace arbitration agreements with class action waivers were one
of the most potent tools of employers to manage their risk of class
action litigation in 2021. In the time period since the Supreme
Court decided Epic Systems, businesses facing class action lawsuits
have filed more motions to compel arbitration with a higher rate of
success than in the years before this landmark decision.

The latest class action litigation statistics show that, over the
past five years, motions to compel arbitration have become an
increasingly effective defense to class action lawsuits,
particularly since Epic Systems.

Over the past year, plaintiffs' class action lawyers continued to
attempt to find ways to end-run such agreements. These efforts took
shape on multiple fronts. In 2021, the plaintiffs' bar continued to
shift its efforts toward claims more apt to be immune from such
programs or toward populations less likely to have entered into
agreements with the defendants. This trend is illustrated by the
spike in filings asserting violations of the California Private
Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA"), which claims, according to current
California precedent, are not subject to arbitration based on
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348
(2014). Such filings have quadrupled over the past decade and, in
2021, continued their upward trajectory. The following graphic
illustrates this trend.

In a major turn of events for employers, on December 15, 2021, the
U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed in
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573 (Dec. 15, 2021),
to review whether courts can exclude claims brought under the PAGA
from federal arbitration requirements, paving the way for a
potentially transformative ruling. The Supreme Court's ruling could
dictate the future of the PAGA as a workaround to workplace
arbitration, especially as states outside California have
considered similar legislation.

On a different front, advocates for workers and labor expanded
their efforts to shift this landscape by backing new legislation
that would amend federal law to ban mandatory arbitration
agreements, depending on the bill, for employment, consumer,
antitrust, civil rights, or sexual harassment disputes.

Arbitration agreements have come under increasing scrutiny in
recent years, especially with regard to claims for sexual
harassment and assault arising during employment. A number of
states have attempted to limit employers' ability to require
arbitration of such claims, including states such as California,
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington, which have
passed statutes in recent years limiting employers' ability to
require arbitration. Most of these efforts, however, have
conflicted with the FAA. As a result, worker advocates have
targeted their efforts toward amending the FAA or passing laws that
limit or prohibit arbitration of workplace disputes.

Multiple proposals have made their way to Congress. In 2021,
Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
co-sponsored the "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault &
Sexual Harassment Act of 2021" (S. 2342). The bill has 17 other
sponsors, including 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans, and a companion
bill introduced in the House (H.R. 4445) has 14 Democratic and 5
Republican sponsors. The Act would amend the FAA to prohibit
predispute arbitration agreements, including agreements with class
or collective action waivers, for claims involving sexual assault
or sexual harassment.

The Resolving Sexual Assault and Harassment Disputes Act of 2021
(S. 3143) was introduced by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA). The bill
would amend the FAA to prohibit arbitration of sexual assault
claims and allow for arbitration of sexual harassment claims under
limited circumstances. Finally, the Build Back Better Act (H.R.
5376) contains, among many other provisions, language that would
overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems by banning
collective action waivers in arbitration agreements. This bill
passed the House but currently faces unanimous Republican
opposition in the Senate. Thus, its prospects are uncertain.

In light of current administrative priorities, the future remains
anything but clear as to whether arbitration programs will remain
viable tools to counter proposed workplace class actions in the
face of continued attacks on Epic Systems. These federal
developments suggest that some version of an arbitration bill,
particularly if tailored to sexual assault and harassment claims,
has a good chance of becoming law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [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 ***