---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 11, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 25

                            Headlines

1908 BRANDS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
21ST CENTURY: Refuses to Issue More Insurance Refunds, Odden Says
3M COMPANY: Scarlett Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Bid to Dismiss Migyanko Suit Nixed

ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks March 22 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Barrera Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
AMERICAN BROADCASTING: Bardet Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
AMERICAN HONDA: CRV Owners Sue Over A/C Defect
ASSET MGMT: Arbitration Award Confirmation in Ahern Suit Reversed

ASTORIA COMPANY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perlingiero Says
AURORA VISTA: Bobbitt Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Ct. Amends Oct. 20, 2021 CMO in MSP Suit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces ERISA-Related Class Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: AMA Capital Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial

BEXAR COUNTY: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Pruneda Suit Claims
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Files Bid for Class Certification
BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY: WCFEJ Files Petition Over Vaccine Mandate
BROOKSIDE, AL: Thomas Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Sues Over Alleged Discrimination

CELLULAR SALES: Deardorff Tossed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
CHOBANI LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Nacarino Third Amended Complaint
CIRCLE K: Deadline for Class Cert Filing Continued to April 4
CNA INSURANCE: Robison Appeals Final Judgment in PI Suit
COFFEE HOLDING: Faces Mislabeling-Related Class Suit

CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Mullen ADA Class Suit
CONWAY BEHAVIORAL: Fletcher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CREDIT SUISSE: Summary Judgment Bids in FX Antitrust Suit Denied
DAVID SHINN: Discovery, Class Certification Stayed in Satzsman Suit
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Plum Ridge Alleges

DEN BREAKFAST: Underpays Servers, Baristas, Foster-Hall Suit Says
DUFF & PHELPS LLC: Baer Sues for Negligence, Breach of Contract
ELECTRIC LAST MILE: Hacker Hits Share Drop Over Shady Financials
FLATBUSH DISCOUNT LIQUORS: Ganiev Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
FLIGHT SERVICES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Crockett COBRA Suit Over Health Care Coverage
HEMPSTEAD POULTRY: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Poultry Staff
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: 110 Sunport Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. Ga.
I&B CAPITAL: Court Trims Claims in Layani's 1st Amended Class Suit
ITL FOODS: Does not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Barker Says

JORDAN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Final Weeks of Work, Hood Alleges
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dennis Class Notice OK'd; Final Hearing on Oct. 13
JUUL LABS: Faces Greenbrier Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Gadsden City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
KPS AFFILIATES: Johnson-Cradle Seeks OT Pay for Security Guards

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED: Ohio Court Strikes Class Claims in Jones Suit
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Discovery Replies in Deakin Suit Partly Compelled
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Dang Sues Over Spices' Heavy Metal Content
MCGEE AIR: Esmyatar Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Dean Sues Over Data Breach

METHODIST LEBONHEUR: Coomer Seeks Pay for Time Spent on COVID Tests
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plan Holders Slam Misleading Insurance Benefit
MICHIGAN: Suit Says Sex Offenders Registration Act Unconstitutional
MORTON HOSPITAL: Von Malder Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
MYRIAD GENETICS: Carroll Sues Over Inaccurate Genetic Test Results

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Flores Files Discrimination Class Action
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: Appeals Stay of Prelim. Injunction Hearing
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Admin. Committee's Bid to Toss Bafford Suit OK'd
PANERA LLC: Killings Labor Suit Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Workers
PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Body Sprays Contain Benzene, Sullivan Suit Says

PRO SOUND: Alexander Sues Over False, Deceptive Selling Practices
PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Court Narrows Claims in Ahrendsen Class Suit
PURACY LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REALREAL INC: Cook-Farrar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REBEL DAWG: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Hoegh Suit Alleges

RENT-A-DAUGHTER: Acoff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RS&I INC: Gersuk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAGUARO BLOOM: Montour Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SFC MARKETS: Uy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SMARTLINK LLC: Sarahong Sues Over Project Coordinators' Unpaid OT

SOCLEAN INC: Brackins Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOCLEAN INC: Cupp Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOCLEAN INC: Hunter-Blank Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOCLEAN INC: Landers Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Pa.
SOCLEAN INC: Stahl Consumer Suit Moved From D. Kan. to W.D. Pa.

SOCLEAN INC: Wheeler Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SUNPATH LTD: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Morales TCPA Suit Recommended
TELOS CORPORATION: Firemen's Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop
TNG WORLDWIDE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez Suit Transferred to C.D. California

TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED STATES: Burger et al., Dismissed in Clark Suit
UNITED STATES: Keoughs Bid to Certify Class Nixed w/o Prejudice
V.S. EYE WEAR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VALIANT ACQUISITION: White TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

VALIANT ACQUISITION: White TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
VERIZON BUSINESS: Hogue Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
VICTORYBUY INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VILLA RESTAURANT: Jones Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
VIRGIN SCENT: Deans Suit Removed to S.D. California

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
VTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTERN CARE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Caregivers, Lapoint Says
WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Alfonso Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
WOODWARD HRT: Silva Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California

YWCA OF GREATER HARRISBURG: Tidwell Files Suit in Pa. Ct.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $10.6MM Estimated Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co Faces 29,958 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Thousands of PI Suits


                            *********

1908 BRANDS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
1908 BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09791-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling
order as follows:

   -- Any motion to amend or to join             March 8, 2022
      additional parties shall be filed
      no later than:

   -- Initial disclosures pursuant to            Feb. 22, 2022
      Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure shall be
      completed no later than:

   -- All fact discovery is to be                June 6, 2022
      completed no later than:

   -- Initial requests for production            March 8, 2022
      of documents shall be served by:

   -- All expert discovery, including            July 21, 2022
      disclosures, reports, production
      of underlying documents, and
      depositions shall be completed by:

   -- All discovery shall be completed           July 28, 2022
      no later than:

   -- A post-discovery status conference         July 28, 2022
      shall be held on:

1908 Brands manufactures, manages, and markets natural product
brands such as Boulder Clean, CompoKeeper, thrive TRIBE, Fruitivity
Snacks, Schultz's, Pasta Jay's, and Yummari.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B3Q3Zq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          www.mizrahikroub.com
          200 Vesey St., 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700

The Defendant is represented by:

          Taryn Jean Gallup, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER
          www.swlaw.com
          400 East Van Buren Street Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 382-6000

21ST CENTURY: Refuses to Issue More Insurance Refunds, Odden Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK ODDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE CO., Case No.
3:22-cv-00179-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2022) concerns the
Defendant's defiance to the California Department of Insurance
instruction to California insurers to issue more refunds resulting
from insurance claims dropped due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Across the United States, insurers selling personal auto insurance
in 2020 collected $42 billion in excess premiums as miles driven,
vehicle crashes, and auto insurance claims dropped because of the
COVID-19 pandemic and related government stay-at-home orders.
Instead of returning the COVID-19 windfall to consumers, insurers
increased payouts to senior management and stockholders.

The California Insurance Commissioner ordered insurance companies
to return premiums to Californians. The insurance companies are
defying that order, says the suit.

21st Century Insurance Company like many other auto insurers in
California and nationwide, has used the COVID-19 pandemic to enrich
itself by retaining millions in a windfall resulting from the
drastic decrease in driving, accidents, and auto risks associated
with pandemic-related shutdowns and stay-at-home orders.

Before the pandemic and government shutdowns, the Defendant
allegedly collected full premiums for car insurance that were
priced to insure against driving risks and behavior associated with
pre-pandemic behavior.

In March 2020, however, as California and other states enacted
shelter-in-place mandates and the vast majority of the workplace
switched either to remote work -- or no work at all, it became
clear immediately that car insurance companies like Defendant stood
to make windfalls if they fail to issue refunds to their
customers.

The Defendant issued a 15% refund for three months of premiums in
2020 to placate orders issued by the California Department of
Insurance. This represented a paltry amount of the windfall that
Defendant obtained from the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant pocketed
the rest of 25 premiums as profit.

The Defendant's unfair application of rates approved prior to the
beginning of COVID-2 pandemic is manifestly unfair and violates
California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code section
17200 et seq., says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: jsmith@bursor.com
                  krivoshey@bursor.com

3M COMPANY: Scarlett Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD SCARLETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00356-RMG
(D.S.C., February 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his alleged exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer, says the suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Alleges Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS SMITH and KAREN SMITH, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00357-RMG
(D.S.C., February 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff Thomas Smith as a result of his alleged exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including Mr. Smith, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Smith was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with leukemia, says the suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Bid to Dismiss Migyanko Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD MIGYANKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01095-NR (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered an order denying the
Aimbridge's motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "Aimbridge has violated the general accessibility
mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to
provide accessible beds in its purportedly accessible hotel rooms.
This Court agrees with Judge Colville's holding and applies it
here. As a result, the Court will deny Aimbridge's motion to
dismiss. In doing so, however, the Court makes these two additional
observations. First, while the Court agrees with the concept set
forth in Mullen , it finds the prevailing mode of analysis for
addressing claims like the one presented by this case somewhat
unworkable. Second, by denying Aimbridge's motion to dismiss, the
Court is not in any way suggesting that Aimbridge has failed to
make reasonable accommodations to provide an experience comparable
to that afforded to non-disabled guests. The Court notes that Mr.
Migyanko's theory appears to be that lowering the bed height in
Aimbridge's hotel rooms is the only accommodation that is
reasonable."

Mr. Migyanko filed this putative class action against Aimbridge
Hospitality seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief, which
would require Aimbridge to ensure that its beds and sleeping
surfaces in its accessible rooms comply with the requirements of
the ADA.

Mr. Migyanko, who uses a wheelchair, alleges that the beds in
Aimbridge's accessible rooms are too high for him to independently
transfer from his wheelchair seat to the bed. As a result, Mr.
Migyanko claims that Aimbridge has denied him an experience that is
functionally equivalent to that of the non-disabled guests of its
hotels.

Aimbridge operates as a property management company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34urRUa at no extra charge.[CC]

ALEXION PHARMA: Seeks March 22 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, VIKAS
SINHA, DAVID BRENNAN, DAVID J. ANDERSON, LUDWIG N. HANTSON, and
CARSTEN THIEL, Case No. 3:16-cv-02127-AWT (D. Conn.), the
Defendants Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Leonard Bell, David L.
Hallal, and Vikas Sinha ask the Court to enter an order for an
interim extension of time of 14 days, up through and including
March 22, 2022, to oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification (the "Second Extension Motion"), to provide the Court
with sufficient time to rule on Defendants' January 27, 2022 motion
for a 60-day extension of time to oppose Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

The Defendants' First Extension Motion seeks additional time to
file the Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification because
of challenges and delay in obtaining discovery from two German
investment advisors that engaged in transactions of Alexion
securities on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Erste Asset Management
GmbH's.

On February 1, 2022, Counsel for Plaintiffs informed the Court that
Plaintiffs intend to use the entire three-week period afforded by
Local Rule 7(a) to respond to the First Extension Motion. As such,
the Plaintiffs' opposition is due February 17, 2022, making any
reply due on March 3, 2022. Given the importance of the discovery
issues raised in the First Extension
Motion, the Defendants are not surprised that Plaintiffs need the
entire three weeks for their opposition. Unfortunately, the timing
necessary for full briefing on the First Extension Motion leaves
little opportunity for the Court to rule in advance of the current
March 8, 2022 deadline and thus is likely to require Defendants to
file opposition papers while their First Extension Motion remains
pending.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of AstraZeneca, is an
American pharmaceutical company headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts that specializes in orphan drugs to treat rare
diseases.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HD3iTk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Leonard Bell,
David L. Hallal, and Vikas Sinha, are:

          Jane B. O'Brien, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          Audra S. Soloway, Esq.
          Jonathan Hurwitz, Esq.
          Tamar Holoshitz, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
          GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1047
          Telephone: (202) 223-7327
          E-mail: jobrien@paulweiss.com
                  dkramer@paulweiss.com
                  asoloway@paulweiss.com
                  jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
                  tholoshitz@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          David A. Ring, Esq.
          Robyn E. Gallagher, Esq.
          WIGGIN & DANA
          265 Church Street
          P.O. Box 1832
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (860) 297-3703
          E-mail: dring@wiggin.com
                  rgallagher@wiggin.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Barrera Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRISTIAN BARRERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-02122, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00146-AWI-BAM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay all wages upon separation, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.

Amazon.com Services LLC is an electronic commerce company based in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Telephone: (213) 229-7000
         Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
         E-mail: bhamburger@gibsondunn.com

                - and –

         Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Esq.
         Victoria C. Granda, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036-5306
         Telephone: (202) 955-8500
         Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
         E-mail: akilberg@gibsondunn.com
                 vgranda@gibsondunn.com

AMERICAN BROADCASTING: Bardet Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAPHAELLE BARDET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV00195, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00816 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide rest
breaks, waiting time penalties, failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful business
practices.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. is an American multinational
commercial broadcast television network, headquartered in New York,
New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Emma Luevano, Esq.
         Corey G. Singer, Esq.
         MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
         2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
         Telephone: (310) 312-2000
         Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
         E-mail: eyl@msk.com
                 cgs@msk.com

AMERICAN HONDA: CRV Owners Sue Over A/C Defect
----------------------------------------------
Eunice Adler and Judith Looker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor
Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00544 (D. N.J., February
3, 2022), seeks recovery of out-of-pocket damages caused by
defective air-conditioning systems, injunctive relief requiring
Honda to extend its warranty coverage to include repair and
replacement of said defect for at least 10 years, reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such other and further relief resulting from breach
of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and for
violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

Honda is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California and has its principal place of business at 1919 Torrance
Boulevard in Torrance, California. It is an overseas subsidiary of
Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation.

Looker owns a 2017 model year Honda CRV while Adler leases a 2018
model year Honda CRV. Plaintiffs allege that their CRVs'
air-conditioning system no longer generates cool air because of
refrigerant leaks and part failures requiring parts replacement
that manifested after the warranty period. Said defect allegedly
stems from a transition to a new type of chemical refrigerant in
air conditioning systems in vehicles sold in the U.S. and require
considerable upgrades to component quality and robustness.

Looker's 2017 Honda CRV manifested a leaking refrigerant requiring
replacement of the compressor, condenser and clutch as early as May
2021, while Adler's 2018 Honda CRV experienced the same in
September 2021 when the Class Vehicle had just 57,687 miles on the
odometer and in service for merely 35 months. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Howard T. Longman, Esq.
     LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
     354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 1800
     Livingston, NJ 07039
     Tel: (973) 994-2315
     Fax: (973) 994-2319
     Email: hlongman@longman.law

            - and -

     Patrick Slyne, Esq.
     SLYNE LAW LLC
     800 Westchester Ave., N641
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Tel: (914) 279 7000
     Fax: (914) 653 8122
     Email: patrick.slyne@slynelaw.com


ASSET MGMT: Arbitration Award Confirmation in Ahern Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS AHERN, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
ASSET MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. B309935 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Seven, reversed the
trial court's judgment confirming the arbitration award, and
remanded with directions to the trial court to deny the petition to
confirm the arbitration award and to grant the Ahern parties'
petition to vacate the award.

I. Introduction

The superior court granted the petition filed by Asset Management
Consultants, Inc. (AMC), BH & Sons, LLC and James R. Hopper
(collectively BH parties) to confirm an arbitration award
dismissing the investment fraud claims of Thomas Ahern and Amlap
Ahern, LLC (collectively Ahern parties) as barred by the governing
statutes of limitation; denied the Ahern parties' petition to
vacate or correct the award; and entered judgment in favor of the
BH parties. The arbitration was conducted pursuant to the
arbitration provision in the cotenancy agreement between BH & Sons,
on the one hand, and tenant in common investors in commercial
property located on East La Palma Avenue in Anaheim (the Amlap
property), including Amlap Ahern, on the other hand.

On appeal the Ahern parties contend arbitration should not have
been compelled because the cotenancy agreement was void as an
unlawful contract to provide services requiring a real estate
broker's license, which BH & Sons did not (and could not) have,
and, in any event, their investment fraud claims were outside the
scope of that agreement's arbitration provision. Ahern separately
contends he was not a party to the cotenancy agreement and should
not have been compelled to arbitrate his dispute with the BH
parties. Even if arbitration was properly ordered, the Ahern
parties argue, the award should have been vacated under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(4) and (5), because
the arbitrator exceeded his powers by applying a statute of
limitations not authorized by California law and refusing to hear
material evidence relating to the BH parties' limitations defense.

II. Background

Based on tax advice from their lawyers and accountants, Ahern and
his wife, Priscilla Ahern, sold a fractional tenant in common
interest in property on South Robertson Boulevard in Los Angeles in
mid-2006 and reinvested a portion of the net proceeds from that
sale in a tenant in common interest in the Amlap property, an
office building in Anaheim, which had been acquired by BH & Sons
from iStar CTL I (iStar) to market to tax-motivated investors.

BH & Sons and its manager, AMC, provided preliminary information to
qualified sophisticated investors in connection with the investors'
evaluation of the property. After receiving that information,
interested investors were provided with a property information
package (or private placement memorandum) with due diligence and
underwriting material and a tenant in common purchase and sale
agreement. Both the property information package and the purchase
and sale agreement stated the purchase price for the Amlap property
was $34.55 million. The property information package also
disclosed, "At closing, AMC will receive a real estate commission
of $1.3 million from the Seller."

The tenant in common purchase and sale agreement for direct
investors like the Aherns provided BH & Sons was selling a property
interest to the investor and assigning and transferring to the
investor BH & Sons's rights and remedies under the iStar agreement
with respect to the investor's property interest. Those investors
were required to form their own single purpose limited liability
companies to hold the investment. Amlap Ahern was the Aherns'
limited liability company. Other investors in the Amlap property
became limited partners in Amlap Venture, L.P., which then
purchased a tenant in common interest in the property. Ultimately,
Amlap Venture had 39 limited partners and owned a 24.17 percent
interest in the property as a tenant in common; 13 newly formed
limited liability companies owned remaining portions of the
property as tenants in common. The tenants in common acquired the
Amlap property through a combination of $12.6 million contributed
by them and a loan from PNC Bank.

The venture performed according to expectations for approximately
three years (through September 2009) when the lease of the sole
tenant (Cingular Wireless) ended; no replacement tenant was found.
The secured lender foreclosed on the Amlap property in May 2010,
eliminating the tenant in common investors' interests.

Ahern initially filed the lawsuit in May 2012 against BH & Sons,
AMC, Hopper and a number of others, including several affiliated
attorneys and accountants, alleging in a 77-page,
16-cause-of-action putative class action complaint that he had been
fraudulently induced to enter into the Amlap investment through the
promotional materials developed and distributed by BH & Sons and
AMC. Specifically, Ahern alleged the offering materials falsely
represented the purchase price for the Amlap property was $34.55
million and a $1.3 million commission was to be paid by the seller
to AMC and related individuals as the buyer's broker.

In fact, the true purchase price was $30 million or less and "what
was purported to be a commission was an illegal and secret mark-up
of the Property purchase price in which the Defendants conspired to
inflate the price to hide the fact the Property could have been
purchased for $30 million or less." That is, the purported real
estate commission did not reduce the negotiated purchase price
received by the seller, as it would if the seller truly paid the
commission, but was added to the negotiated price so that its
economic burden was shifted to the investors, thereby diluting the
value of the investment.

The BH parties and three related defendants (Gloria Hopper, Argent
Associates, LLC and Argent Real Estate Associates, L.P.) demanded
arbitration and then petitioned the court to compel arbitration
pursuant to the mandatory arbitration provisions in the iStar
purchase and sale agreement and the cotenancy agreement. The trial
court granted the petition based solely on the arbitration
provision in the iStar purchase and sale agreement.

Following the court's order the Ahern parties elected not to pursue
their claims against the BH parties and the related defendants who
had successfully moved to compel arbitration, and voluntarily
dismissed the complaint as to them. On Jan. 3, 2013, pursuant to a
stipulation between the Ahern parties and the remaining defendants,
the court dismissed the complaint's class allegations without
prejudice; and the Ahern parties were permitted to proceed
individually.

Notwithstanding their dismissal from the litigation, the BH parties
initiated arbitration pursuant to the court's order compelling
arbitration, seeking a determination their dismissal was with
prejudice; a finding they had not orchestrated a fraudulent scheme
to induce the Ahern parties to purchase fractional interests in the
Amlap property in order to earn a secret profit; and contractual
indemnity from Ahern under the tenant in common purchase and sale
agreement and from Amlap Ahern under the cotenancy agreement. The
Ahern parties did not participate in the arbitration hearing,
maintaining their objection that there was no valid arbitration
agreement between them and the BH parties and that the arbitrator
thus lacked jurisdiction over them.

Proceeding in the absence of the Ahern parties as permitted under
the governing arbitration rules, the arbitrator found no merit to
the Ahern parties' claims against the BH parties. As a result, the
Ahern parties were found liable for $399,000 in contractual
indemnity. The superior court confirmed the award and entered
judgment in favor of the BH parties.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in Ahern v. Asset
Management Consultants, Inc. (Aug. 11, 2015, B253974 & B257684)
[nonpub. opn.], holding the trial court had erred in compelling
arbitration and thereafter confirming the arbitration award against
the Ahern parties based on the arbitration provision in the real
estate purchase and sale agreement between iStar and BH & Sons. The
matter was remanded with directions to the superior court to vacate
its Sept. 19, 2012 order compelling arbitration, to deny the BH
parties' petition to confirm the arbitration award and to grant the
Ahern parties' petition to vacate that award.

The Ahern parties, who had filed a first amended complaint on March
13, 2013, were granted leave to file a second amended complaint on
Oct. 13, 2016, which, among other changes, reinstated the BH
parties, identified Thomas Ahern as Priscilla Ahern's surviving
spouse and conformed certain allegations to be consistent with
discovery and investigation following the filing of the first
amended complaint. The second amended complaint was filed Oct. 19,
2016.

In December 2016 the BH parties moved to compel arbitration of the
Ahern parties' claims based on the arbitration provision in the
cotenancy agreement. The Ahern parties opposed the petition,
arguing their tenant in common interest in the Amlap property had
been acquired through the tenant in common purchase and sale
agreement, which did not contain an arbitration provision, and had
been promoted through misrepresentations and omissions in the
marketing and offering materials.

The trial court rejected the Ahern parties' arguments and granted
the motion to compel arbitration on Jan. 27, 2017. The arbitrator
issued an interim award in favor of the BH parties and other
demurring parties in the consolidated proceedings. In April 2020
the arbitrator adjudicated the issue of attorney fees for the BH
parties as prevailing parties and issued a final award. Following a
motion by the Ahern parties, the arbitrator issued a corrected
final award on June 24, 2020, rejecting the Ahern parties' requests
by making two corrections sua sponte that did not affect the fees
awarded.

The Ahern parties petitioned to vacate the award or, in the
alternative, to correct it. The BH parties cross-petitioned to
confirm the award. After hearing oral argument, the trial court on
Sept. 8, 2020 granted the petition to confirm the award and denied
the petition to vacate. Judgment was entered in favor of the BH
parties and against the Ahern parties on Oct. 28, 2020. The Ahern
parties filed a timely notice of appeal.

III. Discussion

The Court of Appeals holds that the cotenancy agreement provided
for the operation and management of the Amlap property and the
respective rights of the tenants in common in those decisions once
the tenant in common interests had been acquired, not the purchase
(or marketing) of those interests. Although the purchase and sale
and cotenancy agreements were related to each other, the
acquisition of the tenant in common interests was accomplished
entirely through the purchase and sale agreement. None of the terms
for the purchase of the tenant in common interests was contained in
the cotenancy agreement; and the alleged misrepresentations and
omissions by AMC, BH & Sons and Hopper that induced the Aherns'
investment, to the extent based on written materials, occurred in
connection with the sale of the tenant in common interests, not the
execution of the cotenancy agreement.

In sum, the Court of Appeals concludes that the Ahern parties'
lawsuit does not involve the interpretation or enforcement of a
provision of the cotenancy agreement; their claims are not "rooted
in" the cotenancy agreement; and applying Civil Code section 1642's
interpretative tool does not justify requiring arbitration of a
dispute that relates to the acquisition of the Amlap investment,
not to its management and operation. The trial court erred in
ordering arbitration in January 2017, and the ensuing order
confirming the arbitration award and judgment in favor of the BH
parties must be reversed.

IV. Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the
judgment confirming the arbitration award. It remanded the matter
with directions to deny the petition to confirm the arbitration
award, to grant the petition to vacate the award and to vacate the
Jan. 27, 2017 order compelling arbitration. The Ahern parties are
to recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc4nj2ke from Leagle.com.

Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite --
kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- Nicole M. Catanzarite-Woodward --
ncatanzarite@catanzarite.com -- and Eric V. Anderton --
eanderton@catanzarite.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants Thomas
Ahern and Amlap Ahern, LLC.

Jackson Tidus and Charles M. Clark -- cclark@jacksontidus.law --
for Defendants and Respondents Asset Management Consultants, Inc.,
BH & Sons, LLC and James R. Hopper.


ASTORIA COMPANY: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Perlingiero Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MERANDA PERLINGIERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASTORIA COMPANY LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00097-O
(N.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2022) is a class action complaint against the
Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard
electronically stored, personally identifiable information that
Defendant collected and maintained, including, without limitation,
first and last names, mailing addresses, email addresses, phone
numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and/or driver's
license number and state, and in some instances employment
information.

Astoria is a company that operates what is known as a "lead
exchange," which seeks to connect "consumers with the products and
services they seek in near-real-time across multiple industries."
This includes "processing customer information in connection with
expressed interest in obtaining an auto loan, mortgage or other
financial service."

As a result of its business, Astoria maintains contact details and
other personal information about individuals even if the
individuals have not had direct relationships with Astoria.

Individuals entrust the Defendant, or the companies that do
business with Defendant, with an extensive amount of their
sensitive PII. The Defendant makes public statements that they
understand the importance of protecting such information. For
example, in its website Privacy Policy, Astoria represents that it
"respects the privacy of its users," and further represents that it
takes "security of your Personally-Identifying Information
seriously" and uses "reasonable electronic, personnel, and physical
measures to protect it from loss, theft, alteration, or misuse."

Despite these proclamations, however, on or before February 8,
2021, Defendant learned that an unauthorized actor breached its
system and accessed and acquired electronic files containing the
PII of Defendant's customers, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' data (the "Data Breach").

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals, the suit says.

The alleged exposed PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was already
listed for sale on the dark web. The Plaintiff and Class Members
have already been the victims of actual fraud perpetrated with the
PII stolen from Defendant, and face a present and immediate
lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the
loss of their birthdates, Social Security numbers, and driver's
license numbers.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete injury as a
result of Defendant's conduct, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: 214-744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          David Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
                  dlietz@masonllp.com

AURORA VISTA: Bobbitt Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXIS BOBBITT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AURORA VISTA DEL MAR, LLC and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 56-2021-0056558-CU-OE-VTA, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00850 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide meal period, failure to provide
rest period, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to timely pay wages, and unfair competition.

Aurora Vista Del Mar, LLC is a mental health care company based in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Christopher Ward, Esq.
         FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
         555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
         Telephone: (213) 972-4500
         Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
         E-mail: cward@foley.com

                - and –

         Kevin Jackson, Esq.
         FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
         11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
         San Diego, CA 92130-2594
         Telephone: (858) 847-6700
         Facsimile: (858) 792-6773
         E-mail: kjackson@foley.com

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Ct. Amends Oct. 20, 2021 CMO in MSP Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-23841
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia A. Seitz entered an order
amending the Court's October 20, 2021 Case Management as follows:

   -- Class Fact Discovery shall be          Feb. 17, 2022
      completed by:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class       Feb. 18, 2022
      certification is due on or before:

   -- The Defendant opposition to            March 11, 2022
      Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification is due (with
      Plaintiffs' reply due seven
      days after Defendant's
      opposition is filed):

As requested in the Motion, the Defendants are granted seven
additional days to respond to Plaintiffs' Requests to Admit,
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production, say Senior Judge
Seitz.

Auto-Owners is a mutual insurance company that provides life, home,
car and business insurance.

The suit alleges violation of the Medicare Act.[CC]

AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces ERISA-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing Inc. (ADP) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January
31, 2022, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, that it
is potentially facing two class action lawsuits asserting
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey. The complaints assert
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
in connection with the ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's
fiduciary administrative and investment decision-making.

The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Automatic Data Processing Inc. provides computer processing and
data preparation services in New Jersey.


BANK OF AMERICA: AMA Capital Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claimant AMA Capital Management, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES CONTANT, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-3139 (LGS), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

This lawsuit alleges Citigroup, MUFG Bank, Standard Chartered,
Societe Generale, Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan, Morgan
Stanley, RBC, RBS, and UBS (the "Defendants") conspired to fix
foreign currency ("FX") instrument prices causing people to be
overcharged when purchasing an FX Instrument from an individual or
entity and that individual or entity transacted in an FX Instrument
directly with a Defendant or one of Defendants' alleged
co-conspirators.

The Defendants maintain that these claims lack merit. On November
19, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
Settlements. The Defendants assert that the Settlements are not
evidence of liability or wrongdoing.

On November 19, 2021, Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that Claimant
AMA Capital LLC's claims already accepted for payment will be
accepted by the Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator for
calculating AMA's pro rata award.

On Sept. 23, 2021, the Class Counsel filed a letter requesting
review of an unresolved dispute with AMA and stating the Class
Counsel's position on the dispute. On Oct. 7, 2021, AMA filed a
response in opposition. On Oct. 18, 2021, the Class Counsel filed a
reply.

On Oct. 19, 2021, a group of settling defendants filed a letter
requesting an opportunity to be heard if the dispute is resolved
based on the appropriate class definition.

The Class Counsel advances four reasons for denying AMA's claim:
(1) untimeliness, (2) insufficient documentation, (3) failure to
meet the class definition, including through purchase of access to
a trading platform and use of a prime broker, and (4) the potential
for duplicate recovery of claims submitted in the case and in In re
Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, No. 13 Civ.
7789.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 6, 2022, Claimant
filed an appeal from the District Court's post-judgment Order dated
November 16, 2021, denying AMA's outstanding claims in this class
action, and all preceding orders regarding AMA's claim, including
without limitation the Order dated October 29, 2021, granting in
part and denying in part certain portions of AMA's claim and
requesting further briefing.

On January 5, 2022, the Court entered another Order granting
Claimant's Letter Motion to Seal, and terminating its Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Claimant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Contant v. Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 21-3058, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 25, 2022.[BN]

Claimant AMA Capital LLC is represented by:

          Damian R. Cavaleri, Esq.
          HOGUET NEWMAN REGAL & KENNEY, LLP
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 689-8808
          Facsimile: (212) 689-5101
          E-mail: dcavaleri@hnrklaw.com

               - and -

          Scott O. Luskin, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          200 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 825
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 689-1764
          Facsimile: (310) 689-1755
          E-mail: SOL@paynefears.com


BEXAR COUNTY: Underpays Deputy Sheriffs, Pruneda Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTIN PRUNEDA, BRIAN BARRICK, BRIAN CURTIS, CHRISTOPHER MOLLEDA
and DARRELL SANDERS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00104 (W.D. Tex., February 7, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act including failure to pay overtime, failure to award
compensatory time off, and failure to pay for unused compensatory
time off upon termination of employment.

The Plaintiffs worked as deputy sheriffs in Bexar County, Texas.

Bexar County is a political subdivision of the state of Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Curt Hesse, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre
         440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
         Houston, TX 77002-1055
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net

BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Eddlemon Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01264-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
      and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      -- the Tuition Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made for
         tuition for on-campus classes for the Spring 2020
         Semester;"

      -- the Activity Fee Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made, for an
         Activity Fee for the Spring 2020 Semester;" and

      -- the Course Surcharge Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made for a
         Course Surcharge Fee for the Spring 2020 Semester;"

   2. appointing him as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff's action arises out of Defendant Bradley's decision
during the Spring 2020 Semester to retain the full amount of
tuition and full amount of Activity and Course Surcharge Fees paid,
despite being unable to provide students, like Plaintiff, with the
entire 15 weeks of in-person and on-campus educational services
that they agreed to, contracted for, and paid for.

The Plaintiff paid for the Spring 2020 tuition, Activity Fee, and
Course Surcharge Fees in exchange for in-person and on-campus
educational services, experiences, and opportunities as detailed in
Bradley's marketing, advertisements, and other public
representations.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bradley canceled all
in-person and on-campus educational services and then transitioned
to online only education. Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class did
not receive the benefit and services that they bargained for when
they paid Bradley tuition, the Activity Fee, and Course Surcharge
Fees.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff properly asserts claims for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment. This Court's earlier decision
denying Bradley's Motion to Dismiss confirms the same.

Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gB0k5S
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, No. 105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: mpeterson@vandwlaw.com
                  jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                  ckoerner@vandwlaw.com

BROOKDALE UNIVERSITY: WCFEJ Files Petition Over Vaccine Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Women of Color For Equal Justice, R. Toussaint, E. Pallas, D.
Chery, P. Thompson, J. Garcia, D. Chong, A. Richardson, T.
Crossman, T. Sherman, L. Bain, M. Mosejczuk, W. Harris, T. Beswick,
T. Anglin, J. Baptiste, B. Williams, C. Bryan, S. Pagano, S.
Byfield, N. Jack, H. Leckie, and K. Tantillo individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, Petitioners v. BROOKDALE
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM,
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, THE BROOKLYN
HOSPITAL CENTER, UNITED METHODIST HOMES, STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY
HOSPITAL NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC., NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL,
NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., MT. SINAI HEALTH
SYSTEM, BROOKHAVEN REHAB & HEALTH CARE CENTER, AND NEW YORK CITY
HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION/BELLEVUE AND DOES 1-20,
Respondents, Case No. 150690/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
Jan. 26, 2022), is brought to file a petition about the reckless
and erroneous interpretation of the "so called" Vaccine Mandate
statute by all Respondents who are healthcare providers that would
rather fire front line healthcare workers who they regard as having
a "perceived disability" because of their unvaccinated status
rather than spend the millions of dollars they received from
Federal Health and Human Services Provider Relief Fund1 (which
comes from U.S. tax payers) so that they could purchase
"appropriate" Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) capable of
reducing the risk of the spread of Covid-19 to almost zero while
allowing healthcare workers with perceived disabilities to remain
in their jobs so that they can continue save lives.

Specifically, this Petition seeks certain preventative and
mandatory injunctive relief spelled out in detail in the supporting
Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction, which requests the
following, but are not limited to, 1) that Respondents are enjoined
from communicating the false narrative to employees that the
Vaccine Mandate prohibits exemptions, specifically religious
exemptions, 2) that Respondents are required to distribute notice
to all their employees that they have the right to remain
unvaccinated or to refuse the booster under the Vaccine Mandate,
and 3) that Respondents immediately reinstate all unvaccinated
healthcare workers who were wrongly terminated by Respondents and
denied the Authorized Accommodations because of their "perceived
disability". Respondents' acts and omissions were flagrant and
reckless in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL) under Admin.

As of December 31, 2021 or earlier, Petitioners who are all
unvaccinated healthcare employees of Respondents were terminated
from their jobs because all Respondents conjured up this contorted
interpretation of the Vaccine Mandate claiming that mandate only
had one exemption (medical exemptions) and that in order for
Respondents to comply with the Vaccine Mandate they were required
by the law to terminate all Petitioners and remove them from their
facilities in order to maintain a "safe" workplace for patients and
all vaccinated employees.

Consequently, Respondents refused to provide Petitioners the
minimum options required by law, which are: 1) the option to be
provided with a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) mask safety
equipment that healthcare providers are mandated by OSHA to provide
to healthcare employees during the outbreak of any communicable
disease; or 2) the option to work remote, if Petitioner's job could
be worked remotely. Both options are "Authorized Accommodations"
mandated to be provided by Respondents pursuant to the NYCHRL
Guidelines and OSHA standards which have been in place over 15
years, says the complaint.

The Petitioner, Women of Color for Equal Justice (WOC4EJ) is a
policy and litigation subsidiary affiliate of the Huntsville
Madison County Community and Economic Development Corporation
(HMCCED) incorporated in Alabama and has members and operates
affiliates organizations in various regions of the United States to
seek redress for social justice harms to communities of color.

Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center is a
not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of New York.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Tricia S. Lindsay, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF TRICIA S. LINDSAY, ESQ.
          531 E. Lincoln Ave., Suite 5B
          Mount Vernon, New York 10552
          Phone: 860-783-8877
          Fax: 914-840-1196
          Email: TriciaLindsayLaw@gmail.com
          Email: attorney@tricialindsaylaw.com
          Website: https://tricialindsaylaw.com


BROOKSIDE, AL: Thomas Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Town of Brookside
Alabama. The case is styled as Corey Thomas, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated v. The Town of Brookside Alabama, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00157-SGC (N.D. Ala., Feb. 6, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.

Brookside -- https://www.brooksidealabama.com/ -- is a town in
north-central Jefferson County, Alabama, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allan L Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER LLC
          2820 Columbiana Road
          Birmingham, AL 35216
          Phone: (205) 205-1529
          Fax: (866) 601-2692
          Email: armstrong.atty@gmail.com

               - and -

          Brian M Clark, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Phone: (205) 314-0500
          Fax: (205) 254-1500
          Email: Bclark@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Darrell L Cartwright, Esq.
          CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION
          PO Box 383204
          Birmingham, AL 35238-3204
          Phone: (205) 222-5900
          Fax: (205) 823-5374
          Email: dcartwright@gmail.com

               - and -

          Hansel Eli Lightner, II, Esq.
          J Mark White, Esq.
          WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P.C.
          2025 Third Avenue North, Ste. 500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 323-1888
          Fax: (205) 323-8907
          Email: elightner@whitearnolddowd.com
                 mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com

               - and -

          William J Baxley, Esq.
          BAXLEY JACKSON
          300 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 3200
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Phone: (205) 290-5262
          Fax: (205) 290-5263
          Email: bill@baxleyjackson.com


CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Sues Over Alleged Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA VISS, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA
BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA
GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN
WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA
SULCS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for unequal allocation of athletic
financial aid in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against San Diego State University's (SDSU) female varsity
student-athletes by depriving them of equal athletic financial aid.
SDSU has not paid its female varsity student-athletes equal
athletic financial aid for over a decade, failed to pay them over
$1,200,000 in equal athletic financial aid in the last two academic
years, and is not paying them equal athletic financial aid this
academic year. The Plaintiffs and Class member seek monetary
damages and injunctive relief to prevent ongoing sex discrimination
in SDSU's varsity athletics program, says the suit.

San Diego State University is a constituent institution of the
California State University System. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
         CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
         110 Laurel Street
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 238-1811
         Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
         E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com

                   - and –

         Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
         1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 272-8000
         Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
         E-mail: abryant@baileyglasser.com

CELLULAR SALES: Deardorff Tossed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA DEARDORFF, et al., Plaintiffs v. CELLULAR
SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
19-2642-KSM (E.D. Pa.), Judge Karen S. Marston of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a
Memorandum:

   a. granting Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. ("CSOKI")'s
      motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and

   b. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
      amended complaint.

I. Background

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiffs Jessica Deardorff and David Chapman,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed
this class action lawsuit against Defendants Cellular Sales of
Knoxville, Inc. ("CSOKI"), Cellular Sales of Pennsylvania ("CSPA"),
and Cellular Sales of North Carolina, LLC ("CSNC"). The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants failed to pay them proper overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and equivalent state statutes.

In September 2019, CSPA moved to compel individual arbitration of
Deardorff's claims and to dismiss or transfer Chapman's and the
opt-in Plaintiffs' claims.  Shortly thereafter, in November 2019,
CSOKI and CSNC moved to dismiss all claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction. On Aug. 25, 2020, the Court dismissed CSNC as a
Defendant and found that limited jurisdictional discovery was
appropriate to determine whether this Court may exercise personal
jurisdiction over CSOKI.

After the parties engaged in limited jurisdictional discovery, on
Jan. 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief opposing
Defendants' motion to dismiss CSOKI for lack of personal
jurisdiction. In their supplemental brief, the Plaintiffs now argue
that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over CSOKI under
the alter ego theory -- i.e., CSPA (an entity that is undisputedly
subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction) and CSOKI's other
subsidiaries act as alter egos of CSOKI within this forum. The
Defendants disagree.

About a month later, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint, in which they seek to add Cellular
Sales Management Group, LLC ("CSMG") and Cellular Sales Services
Group, LLC ("CSSG") as Defendants. The Defendants oppose the
motion.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

First, Judge Marston turns to CSOKI's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2). Following jurisdictional discovery, the Plaintiffs filed
a supplemental memorandum opposing CSOKI's motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. They argue that the Court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over CSOKI (the parent holding
company) pursuant to the alter ego theory, since it is undisputed
that the Court already has personal jurisdiction over CSPA (the
subsidiary). The Plaintiffs assert that CSOKI -- through two of its
other wholly owned subsidiaries, CSSG and CSMG -- exercises control
over CSPA's day-to-day operations.

In response, CSOKI maintains that because it is simply a holding
company and does not conduct business operations, does not conduct
sales or provide any products or other services, and does not have
employees, the alter ego doctrine is inapplicable and this Court
cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over it.

Judge Marston explains that under the alter ego theory, "if a
subsidiary is merely the agent of a parent corporation, or if the
parent corporation otherwise 'controls' the subsidiary, then
personal jurisdiction exists over the parent whenever personal
jurisdiction (whether general or specific) exists over the
subsidiary."

Courts in the Circuit consider 10 factors to determine whether a
subsidiary is the alter ego of its parent: (1) the parent owns all
or a significant majority of the subsidiary's stock; (2) common
officers and directors; (3) a common marketing image; (4) common
use of a trademark or logo; (5) common use of employees; (6)
integrated sales system; (7) interchange of managerial and
supervisory personnel; (8) the subsidiary performs business
functions that would ordinarily be handled by a parent corporation;
(9) the subsidiary acts as the marketing arm of the parent
corporation or as an exclusive distributor; and (10) the parent
exercises control or provides instruction to the subsidiary's
officers and directors.

Judge Marston holds that the first four factors point towards a
finding that CSPA is an alter ego of CSOKI. However, the remaining
six factors cut the other way. Therefore, she concludes that CSPA
is not the alter ego of CSOKI, and that the evidence the Plaintiffs
point to "does not reveal an extraordinary level of control of
CSOKI over CSPA, other than the kind of control associated with
parent-subsidiary relationships." Because alter ego jurisdiction is
not proper, Judge Marston grants CSOKI's motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

B. Motion to Amend

Next, Judge Marston turns to the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add CSSG and CSMG as Defendants.

1. Rule 15(c)

The Plaintiffs argue that they may amend their complaint to add
CSMG and CSSG as Defendants under the relation back doctrine and
therefore the expired statute of limitations for their FLSA claims
does not bar the amendment.

Under Rule of Federal Procedure 15(c), an amendment naming a new
party will relate back to the original complaint if the following
three conditions are satisfied: (1) the claim in the amending
pleading arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence
set forth in the original pleading; (2) within 120 days of the
institution of the action, the party to be brought in by amendment
received notice of the action such "that the party will not be
prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits"; and (3) within
120 days of the institution of the action, the party to be brought
in by amendment knew or should have known that "but for a mistake
concerning the identity of the proper party" the action would have
been brought against that party.

Judge Marston holds that the first prerequisite is met because the
FLSA claims against the new Defendants, CSMG and CSSG, arise out of
the same set of facts or occurrence set forth in the original
complaint -- namely, that the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs,
the Plaintiffs worked overtime, and the Plaintiffs were not paid
for that overtime. The second prerequisite is also satisfied
because notice of the lawsuit may be imputed to CSSG and CSMG under
the identity of interest theory. Judge Marston finds that the third
requirement is also satisfied. CSSG and CSMG should have known at
the time the Plaintiffs filed the complaint that they had made a
mistake in naming CSOKI instead of them.

2. Rule 15(a)

The Plaintiffs argue that because all three requirements of Rule
15(c) are met in the case, the Court need not conduct a Rule 15(a)
analysis. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows a party to
"amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after
serving it, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21
days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),
whichever is earlier."

Judge Marston holds that because the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege that CSSG and CSMG were their employers within the
meaning of the FLSA, the second amended complaint, as currently
pled, fails to state a FLSA claim against CSSG and CSMG. Therefore,
granting the Plaintiffs leave to file the proposed second amended
complaint is futile, and Judge Marston denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend.

Because she finds that the Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that
CSSG and CSMG were their employers within the meaning of the FLSA,
Judge Marston need not consider the Defendants' other futility
argument--namely, that the amendments are futile because the
Plaintiffs will be compelled to arbitrate under the terms of the
Dealers Compensation Agreement ("DCA") that each Plaintiff signed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Marston granted CSOKI's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/th7h3p8m from Leagle.com.


CHOBANI LLC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Nacarino Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA NACARINO v. CHOBANI,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-07437-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward
M. Chen entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss third amended
      complaint; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      motion to strike Plaintiff's new allegations in the TAC.

Plaintiff Nacarino brings this putative class action against
Chobani based in California consumer-protection law over allegedly
unlawful labeling on a Chobani yogurt container.

The Plaintiff now specifically alleges that the "unqualified
'Vanilla' representation on the front of the packaging, which she
relied upon in making her purchase, violated FDA regulations in
that the vanilla flavor of the Product is not independently derived
from the vanilla plant but rather contains other non-vanilla plant
flavoring that simulates, resembles, or reinforces the
characterizing vanilla flavor of the Product."

The Court previously noted that this case was one of many recent
putative class actions targeting allegedly deceptive labeling on
vanilla food products that are not flavored, either exclusively or
in significant part, with vanilla extract or vanilla bean. Notably,
many plaintiffs have focused on manufacturers' use of the term
"vanilla" on product labels.

The Plaintiff's counsel filed this case on behalf of Plaintiff
Elena Nacarino and a purported class of California consumers on
October 23, 2020. After a hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint, this Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's second amended complaint with leave to amend.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ut8d5M at no extra charge.[CC]

CIRCLE K: Deadline for Class Cert Filing Continued to April 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. PETTERSEN, v.
CIRCLE K STORES INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00237-H-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Bernard G. Skomal entered an order granting the joint
motion to modify scheduling order extending class certification
deadline and fact discovery deadline:

   -- The deadline for fact discovery is continued from February
      18, 2022 until April 4, 2022. This extension is only for
      the discovery identified in the parties joint motion.

   -- The deadline for filing a motion for class certification
      is continued from February 17, 2022 until April 4, 2022.

   -- No other deadlines in the Scheduling Order are modified.

Circle K is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by
the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lub2tx at no extra charge.[CC]

CNA INSURANCE: Robison Appeals Final Judgment in PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeremy Robison, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Robison v. CNA Insurance,
Case No. 1:17-CV-508, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Beaumont.

The lawsuit arises from personal injury-related claims. It was
removed from the 136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
(Case No. 200849) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Beaumont on November 30, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek a review from the January 6, 2022 Memorandum
and Order, and Final Judgment entered by the Court, granting in
part and denying in part Defendant Continental Casualty Company's
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Bruce McDaniel; granting
Defendant Continental Casualty Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment; and entering final judgment in favor of Continental.

The appellate case is captioned as Robison v. CNA Insurance, Case
No. 22-40071, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
filed on Feb. 3, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jeremy Robison, individually and on behalf of
his son, a MINOR, and all similarly situated persons; Diantoinette
Jones, individually and on behalf of minor child, PP; Schmiker
Traylor, individually and on behalf of minor child, RD; Janice
Gobert, individually and on behalf of minor child, CB; and Jessica
Prejean, individually and on behalf of minor child, IW, are
represented by:

          Mark Christopher Sparks, Esq.
          FERGUSON LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          350 Pine Street
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 832-9700

Defendant-Appellee CNA Insurance Company is represented by:

          Susan Elizabeth Egeland, Esq.
          FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, L.L.P.
          1717 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75201-7367
          Telephone: (469) 357-2533

               - and -

          Charles Michael Seely, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-2099
          Telephone: (713) 276-5979

               - and -

          David Howard Timmins, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, L.L.P.
          1900 N. Pearl Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 999-6185

COFFEE HOLDING: Faces Mislabeling-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31,
2022, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, that it was named
as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on or about December 21, 2020. It has yet to be served with the
complaint.

The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond, purporting to
represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products at
Aldi, Inc., a supermarket chain, generally allege that Aldi sold
private label coffee products manufactured by the company and by
Pan American Coffee Co., LLC, which falsely described the number of
cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of product
purchased.

Aldi and Pan American are also named as defendants in the action.
The complaint asserts a variety of claims under New York and
California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other
forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.

Coffee Holding Co. Inc. is an integrated wholesale coffee roaster
and dealer in New York.


CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Court Refuses to Dismiss Mullen ADA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARTLEY MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORD HOSPITALITY
ENTERPRISES COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-RJC
(W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant Concord's
Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

I. Background

The Plaintiff claims that Concord has engaged in illegal disability
discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12181-12189, by
failing to provide beds or sleeping surfaces that are readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
including individuals who use wheelchairs, in Concord's
"accessible" rooms at the hotels Concord owns, manages, and/or
operates. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff sets forth the following
factual allegations relevant to the Court's consideration of
Concord's Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident who is dependent upon a
wheelchair for mobility as the result of an illness that
necessitated the above-the-knee amputation of his legs. Concord
owns, manages, and/or operates hotels throughout the United States,
and provides, as a part of its operations, hotel rooms that contain
beds to its customers.

The seat height of a standard wheelchair is approximately 18 to 20
inches from the floor or ground, and the seat height of the
Plaintiff's wheelchair is approximately 18 inches from the floor or
ground. The Plaintiff can safely, easily, and independently
transfer from his wheelchair to horizontal surfaces, such as dining
chairs, toilet seats, benches, lower passenger vehicle seats, and
bed surfaces, that are approximately the same height as Plaintiff's
wheelchair seat. It is difficult and dangerous for the Plaintiff to
transfer from his wheelchair to horizontal surfaces that are
significantly higher than his wheelchair seat, as he must lift his
bodyweight up to the height of a higher surface relying primarily
on upper body strength. When transferring to such higher horizontal
surfaces, the Plaintiff risks injury due to falling or straining
his shoulders, and he has previously fallen while attempting to
transfer from his wheelchair to a hotel bed.

When the Plaintiff stays at a hotel, he stays in an accessible room
that includes special features calculated to accommodate his
mobility impairment. Over approximately the last decade, hotel room
bed height, measured from the floor to the height of the top of the
sleeping surface, has increased from approximately 21 inches to
approximately 25 to 30 inches, including in otherwise accessible
hotel guest rooms. This increase in hotel room bed height can cause
it to be virtually impossible for an individual such as the
Plaintiff, who relies on a wheelchair for mobility and who has
limited use of his arms and legs, to independently transfer from
his wheelchair to the hotel room bed surface due to the disparity
between the height of a typical wheelchair and the height of the
mattress surface. The Plaintiff avers that this increase in bed
height results in a purportedly accessible hotel room becoming
utterly inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a proposed
class of individuals "who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility
and who have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and
equal enjoyment of accessible sleeping surfaces (i.e. beds) at
hotels owned, operated and/or controlled by Concord." He seeks,
inter alia, declaratory relief in the form of a finding that
Concord has violated Title III of the ADA, and a permanent
injunction requiring that: a) Concord offers the required number of
accessible rooms with accessible sleeping surfaces (i.e. beds) at
each of the hotels that it manages and/or operates, consistent with
the ADA's room dispersal requirements; and b) Concord changes its
policies and practices necessary to afford all offered goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodation to
individuals with disabilities related to the provision of
accessible sleeping surfaces (i.e. beds) at each of the hotels that
it manages and/or operates.

The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing the Complaint on Oct.
9, 2020. Concord filed its Motion to Dismiss, along with a Brief in
Support on Nov. 4, 2020. The Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition
on Dec. 4, 2020. Concord filed its Reply Brief on Dec. 17, 2020.

On June 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority advising the Court that the United States of America had
filed a Statement of Interest in the case of Migyanko v. Aimbridge
Hospitality, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01095-NR (W.D. Pa.), a case pending
before the Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan in the District that
involves similar claims and arguments to those that have been
raised in the present action. Concord has not filed a response to
the Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority.

Upon review of the Notice of Supplemental Authority and the
attached Statement of Interest, Judge Colville agrees with the
Plaintiff that the United States' Statement of Interest directly
addresses arguments raised in Migyanko that are materially
identical to arguments that have been raised by Concord in the
case. In light of the same, he acknowledges the filing of the
United States' Statement of Interest in Migyanko, and considers the
arguments set forth and case law cited therein in resolving the
issues presently before the Court, especially in the absence of any
stated objection by Concord.

II. Discussion

Concord asserts that the Complaint should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Concord's Motion to Dismiss presents a single legal issue that is
appropriate for resolution at this stage of the proceedings:
Whether the Plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of the ADA
Standards for Accessible Design ("ADA Standards") necessarily
establishes that he cannot state a claim under Title III of the ADA
against Concord related to Concord's hotel rooms.

Both the Plaintiff and the United States argue that a court's
analysis does not end with the ADA Standards where the ADA
Standards fail to address a specific issue, and further assert
that, in cases such as this, a court must also look to whether the
Plaintiff has stated a claim under the general nondiscrimination
requirements of Title III of the ADA.

Concord asserts that, because the ADA Standards provide certain
accessibility requirements for hotel rooms, and because the
Plaintiff fails to allege a violation of these requirements, the
Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the ADA.

Judge Colville opines that the only issue presented by Concord's
Motion to Dismiss is whether Concord's failure to provide usable
beds to individuals with disabilities can constitute discrimination
under the ADA where the ADA Standards set forth certain
requirements for hotel rooms, but do not address bed height. In the
absence of any mention of hotel rooms in the ADA Standards, it is
clear that the Plaintiff's Complaint would survive at this stage of
the proceedings under the general nondiscrimination requirements of
the ADA and the ADA's overarching equal access mandate.

Next, Judge Colville notes that some of the cases relied upon by
Concord are readily distinguishable and irrelevant in the matter
for the reasons discussed in the United States' Statement of
Interest. In the present case, the Plaintiff alleges that Concord
maintains a policy and practice of providing purportedly accessible
hotel rooms at the hotels it operates that exclusively contain beds
whose sleeping surface height renders the beds inaccessible to and
unusable by individuals with disabilities, such as Plaintiff, who
use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility. Concord offers no true
argument at this juncture that it provides beds/sleeping surfaces
in its accessible hotel rooms that are accessible to or usable by
the Plaintiff or similarly situated individuals, but rather argues
that it is not required to provide a usable bed in its purportedly
accessible hotel rooms because it has complied with the ADA
Standards for hotel rooms.

Judge Colville also notes that the Court has not been tasked,
especially at this juncture, with determining what, if any, form of
injunctive relief may be appropriate should the Plaintiff prove
successful in this action. Concord advances no argument as to this
issue at this stage of the proceedings, and any such argument
would, in any event, be premature.

Judge Colville finally notes that it is not opining on whether the
Plaintiff will likely prevail on the merits of his claim, or
whether he may prove successful or unsuccessful in eventually
moving to certify a class in the matter. Rather, Concord's Motion
to Dismiss has tasked the Court with determining whether the
factual allegations in the Complaint, accepted as true, are
sufficient to state a claim against Concord for a violation of
Title III of the ADA. Judge Colville finds that the Plaintiff has
very clearly set forth a cause of action under the general
nondiscrimination requirements of the ADA, and Concord does not
truly advance any argument to the contrary. The only argument
raised by Concord in its Motion to Dismiss is that the Plaintiff's
failure to allege a violation of the ADA Standards necessarily
establishes that the Plaintiff cannot set forth a claim for a
violation of the ADA with respect to Concord's hotel rooms. As
discussed, Judge Colville disagrees with Concord's contention, and
will deny Concord's Motion to Dismiss.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Colville denied Concord's
Motion to Dismiss. An appropriate Order of the Court follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ys7nnudm from Leagle.com.


CONWAY BEHAVIORAL: Fletcher Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Fletcher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Conway Behavioral Health, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00091, (E.D. Ark., February 2, 2022)
seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees for failure to pay lawful minimum and
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Conway Behavioral Health is a treatment center that provides
inpatient, outpatient, and partial hospitalization programs for
adolescents and adults with mental health disorders where Fletcher
was employed as a Registered Nurse at their location in Conway,
Arkansas. She claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week  without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Burks, Esq.
      WH LAW, PLLC
      1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
      North Little Rock, AR 72114
      Telephone: (501) 891-6000
      Email: chris@wh.law


CREDIT SUISSE: Summary Judgment Bids in FX Antitrust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued an Opinion and Order denying CS Defendants' motion
for summary judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are over-the-counter ("OTC") purchasers of foreign
exchange ("FX") spot, forward and/or swap trades who transacted
directly with the Defendants. Over-the-counter transactions involve
counterparties who trade directly with each other without an
intermediate exchange. CS Defendants participate in the FX market
as dealers, market-makers or liquidity providers.

The FX market is the largest and most actively traded financial
market in the world. Between Dec. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2013 (the
"Class Period"), as much as $5.3 trillion per day was traded in the
FX market worldwide. Trading occurs 24 hours per day and over 252
trading days per year. During the Class Period, FX trading by
volume was primarily conducted OTC. Currencies are bought or sold
in pairs.

The case concerns an alleged conspiracy, or conspiracies, among
banks to fix prices in the FX market. On Sept. 3, 2019, a Rule
23(c)(4) class was certified on two issues: (1) the existence of a
conspiracy to widen spreads in the FX spot market and (2)
participation in the conspiracy by Defendants Credit Suisse Group
AG, Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
(collectively, the "CS Defendants" or "Credit Suisse"). The CS
Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that there is no
single conspiracy or that the CS Defendants did not participate in
such a conspiracy. The Plaintiffs cross-move for summary judgment
on the basis that there is a conspiracy and the CS Defendants
participated in it.

In the action, the Plaintiffs sued 16 defendant banks, which are
among the world's largest banks engaged in trading in the FX
market. Fifteen of the sixteen banks have settled with the
Plaintiffs, paying over $2.31 billion, one of the largest antitrust
settlements in the Sherman Antitrust Act's 125-year history. The 15
banks settled after filing motions to dismiss. In the case of each
bank, the final order approving the settlement included a term
barring claims for contribution or indemnification against the
settling banks for any amounts awarded in this or any other action
by way of settlement, judgment or otherwise.

With only Credit Suisse remaining, the Plaintiffs moved to certify
two Rule 23(b)(3) classes. The Plaintiffs' motion was denied -- one
class because of the lack of predominance, and the other class
because of the absence of adequacy. Instead, a Rule 23(c)(4) class
was certified. The two issues certified, and the only issues that
remain on a class basis, are: (1) the existence of a conspiracy to
widen spreads in the FX spot market and (2) Credit Suisse's
participation in the conspiracy. The decision certifying the issues
noted that "if the CS Defendants are found not to have joined any
conspiracy, then all of the claims against it are resolved."

The two certified issues have great financial significance because
an adverse finding on both of these issues would mean that Credit
Suisse is potentially liable for all of the wrongful conduct of the
conspiracy, and thus Credit Suisse could be liable for all of the
damages that have not already been paid through the settlements
with the other banks.

Credit Suisse moves for summary judgment on the basis that there
was no "single conspiracy" to widen spreads in the FX spot market.
Tellingly, it does not directly argue that no conspiracy existed.

II. Discussion

A. Existence of a Conspiracy

Construing the evidence in favor of the Plaintiffs on CS
Defendants' motion, a reasonable jury could find that a single
conspiracy existed to fix spreads in the FX market and that the
supporting evidence tends to exclude the possibility that the
alleged co-conspirators acted independently. Conversely, construing
the evidence in favor of CS Defendants on the Plaintiffs' motion, a
reasonable jury could conclude that no single overarching
conspiracy existed, and that only multiple smaller conspiracies
existed. While significant uncontroverted evidence shows at least
some conspiratorial activity in the FX market in which Credit
Suisse participated, questions remain about the scope of the shared
illegal goal and extent of the conspirators' mutual dependence and
assistance. "If the evidence at trial supports an inference that
there was more than one conspiracy, then, whether multiple
conspiracies existed is a question of fact for the jury."

1. Economic Plausibility

The Plaintiffs allege a horizontal price fixing scheme in which the
Defendants, who are frequently competing dealers in the FX spot
market, conspired to fix the bid-ask spreads for 52 currency pairs
in the foreign exchange market. By fixing the spreads, the
Defendants could keep the spread wide while buying low and selling
high. Most dealers want wider spreads because wide spreads increase
their probability of making money.

CS Defendants do not specifically contest the economic plausibility
of the Plaintiffs' theory. They argue that the number of
currencies, the global 24/7 nature of trading and the speed at
which liquidity conditions changed would require "an extraordinary
level of coordination and monitoring" among traders at the 16
Defendant banks.

Judge Schofield opines that because th Plaintiffs advance a
plausible economic theory behind the alleged conspiracy, this is
not a situation where they must come forward with more persuasive
evidence to support their claim than would otherwise be necessary.
The Plaintiffs' overall burden is not low, however, because the
conspiracy alleged is vast and its impact is complex.

2. Evidence of a Conspiracy

First, Judge Schofield finds that chat transcripts between Credit
Suisse and the other Defendants provide direct evidence of an
agreement and common goal to widen spreads and shows cooperative
and parallel conduct to achieve that goal. Next, she finds that the
Plaintiffs offer significant evidence of "plus factors" in support
of finding a conspiracy (i.e., agreement) to widen spreads,
including a high level of communication among the conspirators,
conduct that was sometimes against the conspirators' economic
self-interest, and invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination.

Third, she finds that the Plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence of
a single conspiracy to survive the CS Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, but facts in dispute preclude Plaintiffs from
prevailing on their motion for summary judgment. In other words, a
reasonable jury could find for either the Plaintiffs or the
Defendants on the issue of whether there existed a single
conspiracy, as the Plaintiffs allege, or multiple conspiracies, as
the Defendants' argue, depending on the inferences that are drawn
and the evidence that is credited.

Finally, Judge Schofield finds that viewing the overall picture,
the Plaintiffs' evidence tends to exclude the possibility that the
Defendant banks acted independently, but the parties dispute the
material facts of the scope of the purported conspiracy. As the
Defendants argue, parallel conduct in the abstract is not enough to
prove a conspiracy. But as the Plaintiffs argue, the chatrooms and
their participants here were all engaged in illegal conduct,
unrestricted to any particular chatroom, currency pairs or traders.
Those facts plus the others discussed above could support the
inference of a global conspiracy or may be found to support only
independent conspiracies. Ultimately, the weighing of inferences
and conclusions to be drawn are for the finder of fact, precluding
summary judgment for either the Plaintiffs or the Defendants.

B. Credit Suisse's Participation

Neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of
Credit Suisse's participation in the purported conspiracy because
the scope of the conspiracy or conspiracies is disputed. The
question of whether or not there was a single conspiracy or
multiple conspiracies needs to be resolved before asking whether
and what Credit Suisse joined. However, there is uncontroverted
evidence that Credit Suisse participated in at least some
conspiratorial conduct in the FX market, and CS Defendants do not
argue that, even if there was a conspiracy, they did not
participate in it. Credit Suisse erroneously argues that they could
not have participated in a single global conspiracy because "there
is no evidence suggesting that anyone was aware of some enormous
worldwide scheme." This argument attempts to inject a new
requirement for the proof of a conspiracy. A conspirator need only
know of a conspiracy's "general nature and extent" to have joined
it. One need not have full knowledge of all the details of a
conspiracy or its scope to be a member.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Schofield denied (i) CS
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and (ii) the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 1574 and 1580.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2dytj4pa from Leagle.com.


DAVID SHINN: Discovery, Class Certification Stayed in Satzsman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzsman, et al., v.
David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge James F. Metcalf entered an order:

   A. granting the Parties' joint motion to stay;

   B. staying all discovery, class certification, and
      dispositive motion deadlines, including kitchen
      inspections at three Arizona Department of Corrections,
      Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) prison complexes to be
      conducted by Plaintiffs' counsel and their religious
      expert previously, through March 3, 2022;

   C. directing the Parties to continue to participate in an
      informal exchange of information as set forth in the
      Motion; and

   D. directing the Parites, On or before March 3, 2022, to
      submit a joint status report to the Court the status of
      their informal exchange of information, and whether they
      will proceed with litigation, whether they wish to
      participate in a settlement conference, or whether all or
      part of the claims have been resolved.

The Court finds good cause but notes that by the expanded date, the
matter will have been stayed some six months and pending for almost
15 months. In light of the potential for conversion to a class
action and the attendant delays and complexities, the Court is not
inclined to continually defer pressing the matter forward.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jcgxed at no extra charge.[CC]

DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Plum Ridge Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PLUM RIDGE FARMS, LTD., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-50030 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, promissory estoppel, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of the
repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment
with onboard central computers known as engine control units
(ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for
repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with
ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible to
farmers and independent repair shops. Furthermore, John Deere's
network of highly-consolidated independent dealerships is not
permitted through their agreements with John Deere to provide
farmers or repair shops with access to the same software and repair
tools the dealerships have. As a result of the Defendant's
monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have derived
supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and maintenance
services, says the suit.

Plum Ridge Farms, Ltd. is a farm owner and operator in Illinois.

Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robert M. Foote, Esq.
         Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
         Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
         Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
         Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
         FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
         10 W. State Street, Suite 200
         Geneva, IL 60134
         Telephone: (630) 232-7450
         Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
         E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com
                 kcc@fmcolaw.com
                 mjh@fmcolaw.com
                 ecc@fmcolaw.com
                 bkp@fmcolaw.com

                - and –

         Marc C. Gravino, Esq.
         John J. Holevas, Esq.
         WILLIAMSMCCARTHY LLP
         P.O. Box 219
         Rockford, IL 61105
         Telephone: (815) 987-8936
         E-mail: mgravino@wilmac.com
                 jholevas@wilmac.com

DEN BREAKFAST: Underpays Servers, Baristas, Foster-Hall Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAZMINE FOSTER-HALL, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. DEN BREAKFAST, LLC, d.b.a. SNOOZE A.M. EATERY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00344 (D. Colo., Feb. 7, 2022) implicates Den Breakfast for
violating the tip credit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Colorado Wage Claim Act and failing to pay the Plaintiff and all
similarly-situated workers their earned federally- and
state-mandated minimum wages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant pays its tipped
employees, including servers and baristas, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the FLSA's and, in Colorado, the
CWCA's, tip credit provisions. Under the tip credit provisions, an
employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay
those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip
credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the
tips received from customers.

The Colorado Class Members are all current and former tipped
employees who worked for Defendant for at least one week in
Colorado during the three-year period prior to the filing of this
action to the present.

The Defendant is a full-service restaurant that employ servers and
baristas to provide services to customers.

A server gathers orders from customers and delivers food and drinks
to the customers. A barista makes various beverages and serves them
to customers. The Defendant allegedly pays its servers and baristas
less than the minimum wage under state and federal law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

DUFF & PHELPS LLC: Baer Sues for Negligence, Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Baer, individually and as trustee of the Andrew J. Baer
Trust, Michael Rosenbloom, individually and as Trustee with Robyn
Rosenbloom of the Michael Rosenbloom Revocable Trust, Wing Point
Investments LLC, Eytan Turjeman, Naamith Heiblum, Mordehai Heiblum,
Rachel Heiblum, Yehudith Heiblum, Zohar Heiblum, Reuven Heiblum,
Greg Isaacs, Bernard E. Francois, as Trustee of the Bernard E.
Francois Living Trust, Seth Rosenberg, Deborah Loughman, John
Miller, individually and as Trustee of the Miller Trust, and Sierra
Springs Diversified Income Fund, LP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Duff & Phelps, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00994 (S.D. N.Y., February 3, 2022),
alleges negligence and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs are investors and limited partners in two feeder funds,
the Domestic Fund and the Offshore Fund, whose assets were invested
in DLI Capital, Inc. It invested in, or made loans, to various
businesses or third-party borrowers who were primarily lenders
which made loans or extensions of credit to others. DLI retained
Duff & Phelps to provide fair value opinions as to value of its
investment portfolio and provided quarterly valuation reports for
the period ending September 30, 2016 through the period ending
September 30, 2018.

Plaintiffs allege that Duff & Phelps aided and abetted DLI and
certain other parties by turning a blind eye to numerous red flags
and failing to perform basic valuation procedures, including those
identified in its engagement agreement with DLI. Plaintiff claim
that investors will suffer cash losses totaling $250.7 million as
of March 31, 2019 based on the shortfall between the amount of net
invested capital and the estimated future distributions to
investors; that there was an aggregate underreported allowance for
doubtful accounts and bad debt expense of $501.4 million relative
to the obligations of loan counterparties as of March 31, 2019;
that of the $1.7 billion in funding for loans to counterparties,
only $465.2 million has been repaid in full, with interest, as of
July 31, 2020; the accounting records and account statements
delivered to investors did not reflect appropriate reserves for
uncollectable assets and included inflated "mark-ups" relative to
appropriate asset valuations, both of which resulted in a
misrepresentation of income, value of assets and net worth as well
as overstated net asset values; and that as of November 2019, the
funds' net asset values was materially overstated by $465.7
million. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 214-5858

             - and -

      Marion C. Passmore, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 612-7735
      Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
      Email: passmore@bespc.com


ELECTRIC LAST MILE: Hacker Hits Share Drop Over Shady Financials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott T. Hacker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a
Forum Merger III Corp.), James Taylor, Jason Luo, David Boris,
Marshall Kiev, Albert Li and Robert Song, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00545, (D. N.J., February 3, 2022), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Electric Last Mile Solutions (ELMS) purports to be a pure-play
commercial electric vehicle company. On June 25, 2021, Electric
Last Mile, Inc. and Forum Merger III Corp., a special purpose
acquisition company or blank check company, closed a merger which
resulted in ELMS. James Taylor, Jason Luo, David Boris, Marshall
Kiev, Albert Li and Robert Song served on its board of directors.

Hacker claims that ELMS failed to disclose to its investors the
that its previously issued financial statements were false and
unreliable and would need restatement and that certain ELMS
executives and/or directors purchased equity in the company at
substantial discounts to market value without obtaining an
independent valuation.

On February 2, 2022, after trading hours, the company issued a
press release announcing the resignation of CEO and President James
Taylor and Chairman Jason Luo and advised the "Non-Reliance on
Financial Statements" and that the latter will be restated. On this
news, the company's share price fell $2.88 per share, or 51%, to
close at $2.71 per share on February 2, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume, damaging investors.

Hacker purchased ELMS securities at allegedly artificially inflated
prices and was economically damaged thereby, says the suit. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10116
      Phone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


FLATBUSH DISCOUNT LIQUORS: Ganiev Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ulugbek Ganiev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Flatbush Discount Liquors Inc., E & F
Discount Liquors, Inc., Yefim Rzhishchev, Alexandra Nevelev and
Laura Drannik, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00607 (E.D. N.Y., February
2, 2022), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover
unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated and
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New York State Labor Law and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate liquor stores located in Brooklyn, NY, where
Ganiev was employed as a cashier, stockperson and general worker.
Ganiev claims unpaid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times
his hourly wage rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
      Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
      LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 792-0046
      Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


FLIGHT SERVICES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Mayra Corina Gonzalez on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 220V393952, Cal. Super., February 3, 2022), seeks unpaid
overtime wages and interest thereon, redress for failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
maintain time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage Orders.

Flight Services & Systems is in the business of staffing employees
to perform work at various airports around the country where
Gonzales worked as a non-exempt employee in a customer service
position at the Fresno Yosemite International Airport from
approximately July 2018 until approximately May 31, 2021. She
routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per work day and/or more than
40 hours per work week but did not receive overtime compensation,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
      STAINSBURY BROWN LAW
      2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
      Venice, CA 90291
      Tel: (323) 207-5925
      Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Crockett COBRA Suit Over Health Care Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA R. CROCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-10240-DML-KGA (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class
adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage
under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

As a result of these alleged violations, which threaten Class
Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff
seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses, and other appropriate relief.

The Plaintiff is a Michigan resident, resides in this district and
was a participant in the Plan prior to her termination.

The Defendant is the plan sponsor of the General Motors Health Care
Program Plan ("Plan").

The Plan provides medical benefits to employees and their
beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1) and a group health plan within
the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1167(1).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE, LLC
          1205 N. Franklin St.
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 254-1777
          Facsimile: (813) 254-3999

HEMPSTEAD POULTRY: Castro Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Poultry Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CASTRO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEMPSTEAD POULTRY, LLC, HEMPSTEAD POULTRY
FARMS, INC., and JORGE PEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00671
(E.D.N.Y., February 7, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Castro has been employed by the Defendants as a chicken cutter
from November 24, 2019 through the present.

Hempstead Poultry, LLC is a poultry farm owner and operator, with
its principal place of business located at 39 Newmans CT,
Hempstead, New York.

Hempstead Poultry Farms, Inc. is a poultry farm owner and operator,
with its principal place of business located at 39 Newmans CT,
Hempstead, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: 110 Sunport Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled 110 SUNPORT LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC and SIX
CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00844, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on February 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00456-ELR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract and
violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and the Sherman
Act by requiring the Plaintiff and similarly situated hotel
franchisees to use certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the
purchase of virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain
and to operate a hotel.

110 Sunport LLC is a franchisee that owns and operates a hotel
located at 1921 Yale Boulevard SE in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC is a hotel company,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., doing business as Intercontinental
Hotels Group, is a hotel company, headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kristina Martinez, Esq.
         EGOLF + FERLIC + MARTINEZ + HARWOOD, LLC
         123 W. San Francisco St., Second Floor
         Santa Fe, NM 87501
         Telephone: (505) 986-9641
         E-mail: KMartinez@Egolflaw.com

                  - and –

         Justin M. Klein, Esq.
         MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
         63 Riverside Avenue
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 747-7100
         Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
         E-mail: justin@marksklein.com

                  - and –

         Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq.
         Mark Fishbein, Esq.
         MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
         1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318
         Northbrook, IL 60062
         Telephone: (312) 206-5162
         Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
         E-mail: andrew@marksklein.com
                 mark@marksklein.com

                  - and –

         Justin E. Proper, Esq.
         WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
         1650 Market Street
         One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
         Telephone: (215) 864-7165
         E-mail: properj@whiteandwilliams.com

I&B CAPITAL: Court Trims Claims in Layani's 1st Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERARD LAYANI, et al., Plaintiffs v. ISAAC OUAZANA, et
al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 20-00420-SAG (D. Md.), Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action
Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Gerard Layani, Britt Investment Baltimore LLC, Yehuda
Ragones, RDNA Investments, LLC, Kandy, LLC, Henya Karniel, Yonason
S. Keyak, Devora A. Keyak, 4802 Frankford Ave, LLC, Yossef Keyak
("Y. Keyak"), Issac Krausz ("Krausz"), and Haim Taub, are
individuals and their wholly-owned entities who invested in various
real estate properties with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have
filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint, FAC, asserting
civil RICO claims and a variety of state law claims pertaining to
those real estate transactions. Defendants Isaac Ouazana and
Benjamin Ouazana ("the Ouazanas"), along with their respective
companies, I&B Capital Investments LLC, WAZ-Brothers, LLC,
WAZ-Investments, LLC, and WAZ-Management, LLC, have filed a motion
to dismiss the FAC.

United States District Judge Ellen L. Hollander issued an 82-page
memorandum opinion in the case on March 3, 2021, which contained a
detailed explication of the factual background of this case and the
relevant legal standards. Because the FAC only adds new information
to those facts the Plaintiff originally alleged, the Court declines
to duplicate Judge Hollander's efforts, and incorporates the
factual background and legal standards sections of her opinion by
reference. The following facts, however, were added to the FAC to
try to rectify the deficiencies that resulted in dismissal of the
original Complaint. They are assumed true for purposes of
adjudicating the Defendants' motion.

At the time the FAC was filed, the Plaintiffs' investigation had
identified 392 Baltimore properties sold by the Ouazana Defendants
to over one hundred investors/putative class members. In connection
with those transactions, Isaac Ouazana referred the investors
(including Plaintiff Layani) to an accountant, Philippe Lerner, to
provide bookkeeping services for the properties' holding companies.
Lerner noticed that the accounting information the Ouazanas were
providing about the properties consisted only of manual entries
into Excel spreadsheets, without including the requisite backup
information or complying with accepted accounting standards. He
also identified fabricated entries regarding the amount of rent
received and for expenses that were not actually incurred. He
repeatedly asked the Ouazanas for accountings and for access to
their books and records, including their "Buildium" property
management platform, but those requests were rebuffed.

The Plaintiffs later learned that the Defendants have been
repeatedly sued by the Maryland Department of the Environment
("MDE") for lead paint hazards at the properties they managed. The
Ouazanas settled those cases, on behalf of nearly 70 affected
investors, without disclosing the lawsuits to the investors,
because the presence of the lead paint violations would have
revealed that the Defendants did not perform the renovations they
had promised.

After learning that Plaintiff Ragones intended to file the lawsuit,
Isaac Ouazana told Ragones that he knew "where the Ragones family
lives and where the children go to school." Isaac Ouazana also
"threatened Ragones to drive him to bankruptcy by increasing his
legal costs with bad faith legal maneuvers in the instant lawsuit
if Ragones persisted with it." He also threatened other victims by
telephone, leading Plaintiff Taub to change his phone number. The
Ouazanas verbally harassed the wife of the accountant, Lerner, in a
kosher supermarket. Isaac Ouazana also showed up at Lerner's office
and "screamed at him, demanding that he stop providing information
about their practices." Additionally, the Ouazanas tried to procure
a former tenant to post a fake negative review online about
Lerner's business.

The original Complaint, and Judge Hollander's opinion, described
allegations of fraud surrounding the joint purchase, management,
and eventual sale of 4004 Oakford Avenue. The original Complaint
contained a notice of Lis Pendens for that property. The FAC
alleges that nonetheless, the "Defendants have attempted to sell
this property again, without informing the Layani Plaintiffs and
without informing the prospective buyers or listing agent of the
existence of the Lis Pendens."

Isaac Ouazana entered into a written Partnership Agreement with
Plaintiff Ragones on Aug. 29, 2017, in which they agreed that they
would be 50% partners in four properties: 3335 Edmondson Avenue
(owned by Ouazana), 18 North Kussuth Street (owned 50/50), 4800
Frederick Avenue (owned by Ragones), 4048 Edgewood (owned by
Ragnones). Unbeknownst to Ragones, Ouazana had already conveyed
3335 Edmondson to a third-party in July of 2016, and therefore
could not contribute it to the partnership. The Partnership
Agreement provided that Ragones would renovate 3335 Edmondson
Avenue to bring it up to code. When eventually confronted about the
unauthorized sale, Isaac Ouazana told Ragones that he thought
Ragones did not want the property and that the sale had not been
fully consummated. In the end, Ragones contributed his properties
to the partnership and Isaac Ouazana did not actually contribute
any.

As for 18 North Kossuth Street, the Ouazana Defendants told Ragones
that they would pay 50% of the $65,000 price of the property and
would be 50% partners with Ragones, who contributed $30,000.
Ragones later learned that the actual price of the property was
$20,000, meaning that Ragones paid 150% of the property price and
only obtained 50% ownership. Id. With respect to all of Ragones's
properties, the Ouazana Defendants converted the rental income and
charged Ragones for fake expenses, while denying him access to
accounting records and information.

The Defendants took similar actions towards a variety of other
victims, most of whom are (1) retired or otherwise financially
vulnerable, (2) inexperienced with real estate and investing, (3)
typically Jewish, which allows the Defendants to insist they submit
to religious court before asserting claims in civil court, and (4)
residents of states or countries other than Maryland. Some of the
victims also speak limited English, which makes it more difficult
for them to understand real estate transactions or to seek help
from U.S. authorities.

II. Discussion

A. RICO Allegations

Judge Gallagher opines that the new allegations in the FAC, taken
as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, successfully move the
Plaintiffs' claims into the realm of civil RICO. The FAC clarifies
the extensive scope of the Defendants' alleged conduct, consisting
of 392 transactions in which they systematically targeted
vulnerable individuals, such as retirees living some distance from
Baltimore with limited English skills. While, to be sure, the
predicate offenses are mail and wire fraud, the nature and scope of
the alleged conduct is far from routine, as modified by the new
allegations.

First, the FAC adds some particularity about the total number of
victims and the identities and descriptions of some additional
victims. Second, the FAC describes in detail the Defendants'
efforts to suppress the participation of other victims in the
litigation, including their use of deception, threats, and a
purported requirement to seek prior authorization from Jewish
religious court. Third, the number and variety of the fraudulent
acts alleged, over many years, is sufficiently pervasive to remove
this case from the context of "garden variety fraud." A prior
federal lawsuit brought by another victim entity, Jet Properties,
LLC, did not deter the continued conduct. Fourth, the Defendants'
conduct poses a "special threat to social well-being" due to the
nature of the victims allegedly solicited -- retirees on fixed
incomes for whom significant financial losses imperil their ability
to pay basic living expenses.

B. Class Allegations

Because the two RICO claims survive dismissal, the Plaintiffs'
class claims are not critical to the continued existence of federal
subject matter jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Defendants seek
their dismissal.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs purport to
sue on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated who:

      a. Purchased a full or fractional interest in properties sold
directly or indirectly by the Defendants, and who, within four
years before the filing of this action were entitled to receive,
requested or otherwise asked the Ouazana Defendants to render
accounts and provide true and complete information regarding the
person's investment funds; or

      b. Had a property managed directly or indirectly by the
Ouazana Defendants, and who, within four years before the filing of
this action were entitled to receive, requested or otherwise asked
the Ouazana Defendants to render accounts and provide true and
complete information regarding the management of the person's
property.

In other words, the class claims focus exclusively on the
Defendants' alleged failure to provide accountings to a large
number of investors.

Judge Gallagher holds that the burden of showing that the Rule 23
requirements have been met will rest with the Plaintiffs as the
party seeking certification. In the case, however, she believes it
would be premature to require the Plaintiffs to make that showing
without the benefit of discovery. In the case in particular,
documents obtained through discovery may render the Plaintiffs'
accounting claims moot, or at least put the Plaintiffs on different
footing from the class members they currently deem "similarly
situated." For the time being, however, Judge Gallagher will deny
without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the class
claims. In the scheduling order, a deadline by which to file a
motion for class certification will be set, and the Defendants can
re-raise their arguments in opposition to that motion.

C. Individual State Law Claims

a. Counts Five (Fraud) and Six (Constructive Fraud)

The FAC is a highly cumbersome, 167-page document loaded with
myriad, often duplicative allegations. Judge Gallagher Court does
not doubt that, within the 167-page document, certain fraud and
constructive fraud claims may be stated with particularity. The
issue, however, is that the way in which those claims are alleged
in Counts Five and Six does not give Defendants adequate notice of
the particular claims to allow them to prepare a defense. Further,
it does not permit the Court to assess whether any claim has been
pled with the requisite particularity. Simply stating that
misrepresentations and concealments are contained "in paragraphs
32-506" does not provide sufficient guidance to the Defendants or
the Court about which fraud claims the Plaintiffs are trying to
assert, and which particular facts support each claim. Counts Five
and Six will therefore be dismissed, with the Plaintiffs granted
leave to file a Second Amended Complaint for the limited purpose of
stating specifically, via separate counts or via a table, the
particular fraudulent representations or omissions they are relying
on to support their fraud and constructive fraud claims.

b. Counts Seven and Eight (Breach of Contract); Count Ten
(Conversion); and Count 11 (Unjust Enrichment)

While these state law claims do not require pleading with the same
degree of particularity as fraud claims, they suffer the same fatal
deficiency noted. In their counts, the Plaintiffs have not
identified the particular sales or management contracts they allege
to have been breached, or the precise property they allege to have
been converted, or the transactions that resulted in unjust
enrichment. Instead, they simply refer by reference to wide swaths
of the FAC. Any attempt by the Court to parse the 506 paragraphs in
the fact section of the FAC to determine which facts support the
various claims that are being brought would be an exercise in
speculation, and could result in the Defendants or the Court
assessing a claim Plaintiffs never intended to advance. Thus, Judge
Gallagher will dismiss the four counts listed above, granting leave
to amend to particularize the claims being asserted.

Because she is granting leave to amend, Judge Gallagher will
briefly address the Defendant's claim that certain of the
Plaintiffs' counts are duplicative or inconsistent. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to plead claims in the
alternative. The Plaintiffs will not ultimately be able to recover
both contractual and quasi-contractual remedies, but it is
premature to dismiss either set of claims on that basis.

c. Count Nine (Breach of the Partnership Agreement)

Judge Gallagher will not dismiss Count Nine, which adequately
alleges a breach of the August 29, 2017 partnership agreement by
Isaac Ouazana. However, Count Nine does not, as pled, adequately
allege a claim against WAZ-M. WAZ-M is not named anywhere in the
count, other than in the caption. To the extent the Plaintiffs
intended to include WAZ-M as a defendant in Count Nine, they will
be afforded leave to amend the complaint to add factual allegations
regarding WAZ-M's role. Of course, the amendment may also correct
the typographical errors referenced in the Plaintiffs' Opposition.

d. Count Twelve (Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

While the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs have not alleged a
fiduciary relationship on which to premise a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty, the FAC alleges an agent-principal relationship in
several places. Under Maryland law, agency constitutes a fiduciary
relationship. Without reaching other arguments made by the
Plaintiff in support of the count's viability, the existence of the
agent-principal allegations renders dismissal Count Twelve
inappropriate.

e. Count Thirteen (Accounting)

The Defendants' motion to dismiss this count is premature. Judge
Gallagher agrees with the Defendants that if the Plaintiffs receive
the information they would obtain in an accounting via discovery in
the case, they are unlikely to be able to maintain their claim. As
she noted, that aspect of the case may doom the Plaintiffs' present
class action aspiration. Nevertheless, the issue will be best
addressed after the Defendants have produced the relevant
accounting materials in discovery, at which point they may again
seek dismissal of the accounting claim. At this time, the motion to
dismiss Count Thirteen will be denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Gallagher granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC. She granted
the motion in that Counts Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven
of the FAC will be dismissed, along with Count Nine insofar as it
purports to state a claim against WAZ-M. Limited leave to amend is
granted as described. Judge Gallagher denied the remainder of the
motion to dismiss. A separate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/m95n8b69 from Leagle.com.


ITL FOODS: Does not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Barker Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Barker, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. ITL Foods, LP, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00342 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2022), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay owed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

ITL Foods operates numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores where Barker
worked as a delivery driver. He uses his own automobile to deliver
pizza. ITL allegedly use a flawed method to determine reimbursement
rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any
reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
unreimbursed expenses cause wages to fall below the federal minimum
wage.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
     Josephson Dunlap Law Firm

JORDAN RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Final Weeks of Work, Hood Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zak Hood, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Jordan Restaurant Group HQ LLC d/b/a Hen Quarter; Jordan Restaurant
Group, LLC; Jordan Hospitality Group, LLC; Ron Jordan; Keith
Warren; John Doe Corporations 1–10; John Doe 1–10, Case No.
2:22-cv-00486-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 7, 2022) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly-situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and damages under the theory
of unjust enrichment.

The Defendants operated the restaurant "Hen Quarter" in Dublin,
Ohio until early January 2022.

The Defendants closed Hen Quarter in early January 2022 and did not
pay Defendants' employees for the employees' final weeks of work.

In other words, the Defendants have not paid Hen Quarter employees
wages earned for all of their hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees he seeks to
represent worked for the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Riley E. Kane, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  rkane@billerkimble.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Dennis Class Notice OK'd; Final Hearing on Oct. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.,
FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT
DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., AND
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK
OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V.,
RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW
ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA,
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC RANKING CORPORATION,
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED,
LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD.,
MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC,
MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.,
TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-50, Defendants, Docket No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York grants the Representative
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Approving Class Notice Plan and
Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement.

Except for the terms expressly defined herein, Judge Kaplan adopts
and incorporates the definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. (collectively, "JPMorgan") dated Nov. 20, 2018, including to
the extent modified by the Amendment to the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated March 1, 2021 and the Second
Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Jan.
13, 2022 (Exhibit 4 to the Joint Declaration of Vincent Briganti
and Christopher McGrath, dated Jan. 13, 2022).

A Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's
convenience on Oct. 13, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. The foregoing date,
time, and place of the Fairness Hearing will be set forth in the
Class Notice, but will be subject to adjournment or change by the
Court without further notice to the Settlement Class Members, other
than that which may be posted at the Court or on the Settlement
Website at www.BBSWSettlement.com.

Judge Kaplan appoints A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement
Administrator for purposes of the Settlement.

On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will cause copies of
the mailed notice, in the form (without material variation) of
Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration to begin being mailed to the
following: (a) JPMorgan's and any other Settling Defendants' known
counterparties for BBSW-Based Derivatives during the Class Period
based on transactional and other data provided by (or to be
provided by) JPMorgan and any other Settling Defendants; (b) non
settling Defendants' known counterparties for BBSW-Based
Derivatives, to the extent they are identified during the course of
discovery and prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to
this Order; (c) market participants that provided names of
counterparties in BBSW-Based Derivatives pursuant to a subpoena and
prior to the deadline to complete mailing pursuant to this Order;
and (iv) A.B. Data's proprietary list of banks, brokers, and other
nominees, which are likely to trade or hold BBSW-Based Derivatives
on behalf of themselves and/or their clients. The foregoing initial
mailing will be completed no later than 150 days after the date of
the entry of the Order.

On May 2, 2022, the Settlement Administrator will begin to cause to
be published a publication notice, without material variation from
Exhibit 3 to the Joint Declaration, as follows: (a) one time in the
Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Financial
Times, Stocks & Commodities, Global Capital, Fledge Fund Alert, and
Grant's Interest Rate Observer; (b) for at least two weeks on
websites Zacks.com, Traders.com, GlobalInvestorGroup.com, and
GlobalCapital.com; (c) once in e-newsletters from Global Investor
Group, Stocks & Commodities, Zacks.com, and Barchart.com; (d) one
email "blast" to subscribers of Stocks & Commodities and Zacks.com;
and (e) one news release via PR Newswire's US1 Newsline.

The Settlement Administrator will continue to maintain the
Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com, until the termination
of the administration of the Settlement.

The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive
voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to
frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers
to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail
box.

Judge Kaplan approves, in form and substance, the mailed notice,
the publication notice, and the Settlement Website as described.

At least 90 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, on July 15, 2022,
the Representative Plaintiffs will file with the Court a copy of
the proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release. The
proposed Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release will be
posted on the Settlement Website as soon as practicable after it is
filed with the Court.

At least 60 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, on July 1, 2022 the
Settlement Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement
attesting to compliance with the notice provisions in paragraphs 6
to 9 of the Order.

Except for good cause shown, no such Person other than Class
Counsel and JPMorgan's counsel will be heard and no papers, briefs,
pleadings, or other documents submitted by any such Person will be
considered by the Court unless, not later than 60 days prior to the
Fairness Hearing, Aug. 15, 2022, the Settlement Class Member files
with the Court a statement, of the objection or motion to
intervene, as well as the specific legal and factual reasons for
each objection or motion to intervene. Persons who have timely
submitted a valid Request for Exclusion are not Settlement Class
Members and are not entitled to object.

All objectors will make themselves available to be deposed by any
Party in the Southern District of New York or the county of the
objector's residence or principal place of business within seven
business days of service of the objector's timely written
objection.

Any Settlement Class Member that fails to object or move to
intervene in the manner described in the Order will be deemed to
have waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) or
to intervene and will be forever barred from raising such objection
or seeking to intervene in this or any other action or proceeding
related to or arising out of the Settlement. Discovery concerning
any purported objections to the Settlement and any purported
motions to intervene will be completed no later than seven days
before the Fairness Hearing. The Class Counsel, JPMorgan's counsel,
and any other Persons wishing to reply to or otherwise oppose
timely-filed objections in writing may do so not later than seven
days before the Fairness Hearing.

The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and
JPMorgan's counsel with copies of any and all objections, motions
to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and any other
communications from purported Settlement Class Members concerning
objections that come into its possession (except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) as they become
available.

Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the
Settlement Class must be sent in writing by U.S. first class mail
(or, if sent from outside the U.S., by a service that provides for
guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing)
to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice
not later than Aug. 15, 2022.

The Parties may request leave of the Court to seek discovery,
including by subpoena, from any Settlement Class Member who submits
any Request for Exclusion.

The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for
Exclusion that it receives and provide to the Class Counsel and
JPMorgan's counsel copies of the log, each Request for Exclusion
(including all documents submitted with such requests), and any
written revocations of Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible
after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and in no event later
than two business days after receipt.

At least 15 days before the Fairness hearing, the Settlement
Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying all Persons,
if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for Exclusion from
the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, and
an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the opt-out list. The
Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the
Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list
with the Court.

All Proof of Claim and Release forms will he submitted by the
Settlement Class Members to the Settlement Administrator as
directed in the mailed notice and must be postmarked no later than
75 days after the Fairness Hearing (Dec. 30, 2022).

The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper
communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year
after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and will maintain a
copy of all electronic communications related to the Settlement for
a period of three years after distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, after which time all such materials will be destroyed, absent
further direction from the Parties or the Court.

The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final
approval of the Settlement no later than July 29, 2022. Any reply
briefs concerning the Class Counsel's motions for payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards,
and for final approval of the Settlement will be filed no later
than Oct. 7, 2022.

The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set
forth in the Order without notice to members of the Settlement
Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the
Settlement Website, www.BBSWSettlement.com. The Class Counsel may
move the Court for permission to combine notice of the Settlement
with any other settlements that may be reached.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/thvc7czm from Leagle.com.


JUUL LABS: Faces Greenbrier Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENBRIER COUNTY COMMISSION, GREENBRIER COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00752 (N.D. Cal., February 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Greenbrier County Commission is a school district with its offices
located at 912 Court Street North, Lewisburg, West Virginia.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

                   - and –

         Charles R. "Rusty" Webb
         THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
         716 Lee St. E.
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 344-9322
         E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com

JUUL LABS: Gadsden City Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GADSDEN CITY SCHOOLS, ETOWAH COUNTY, STATE OF ALABAMA, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00756 (N.D. Cal.,
February 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Gadsden City Schools is a school district with its offices located
at 1026 Chestnut Street, Gadsden, Alabama.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

KPS AFFILIATES: Johnson-Cradle Seeks OT Pay for Security Guards
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONALISA JOHNSON-CRADLE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. KPS AFFILIATES INC., PPB INC. d/b/a PRIME
PROTECTIVE BUREAU, and TERRY ENGLISH, Case No. 1:22-cv-01052
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2022) is a civil action for damages and
equitable relief based upon Defendants' alleged flagrant and
willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard.
Throughout Plaintiff's tenure, the Defendants allegedly failed to
pay the Plaintiff all of the overtime which she worked.

KPS Affiliates is a security agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED: Ohio Court Strikes Class Claims in Jones Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. LUBRIZOL ADVANCED
MATERIALS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00511 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the motion to
strike the class allegations in the Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint.

The motion was filed by Defendants The Lubrizol Corp. and Lubrizol
Advanced Materials, Inc., Cresline Plastic Pipe Company Inc., and
Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Co. pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Rule 23.

I. Background

The case remains in the early stages of discovery following the
Court's ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Based on the
Court's ruling, each of the named Plaintiffs has a claim for breach
of express warranty under the law of the State in which he or she
lives. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have two additional claims (for
negligence and negligent failure to warn) under Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of individuals
and entities who have owned houses or other structures in which
FlowGuard Gold sold by Charlotte Pipe (or its predecessor Thompson
Plastics) or Cresline was installed since Jan. 1, 1991.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide
class comprising: "All individuals and entities that own or have
owned homes or other structures located in the United States in
which FlowGuard Gold CPVC sold by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry
Company, Thompson Plastics, Inc., or Cresline Plastic Pipe Co.,
Inc. is or was installed from January 1, 1991 to present."

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of four State classes -- for
houses or other structures located in Arizona, Massachusetts,
Michigan, and Washington. For the Arizona, Massachusetts, and
Washington classes, the Plaintiffs name Charlotte Pipe as the
Defendant.

Other than the particular State, each seeks to certify a class of:
"All individuals and entities that own or have owned homes or other
structures located in the State of Arizona in which FlowGuard Gold
CPVC sold by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company or Thompson
Plastics, Inc. is or was installed from Jan. 1, 1991 to present.

For the proposed Michigan class against Cresline Plastic, the
Plaintiffs define the class as including: "All individuals and
entities that own or have owned homes or other structures located
in the State of Michigan in which FlowGuard Gold CPVC sold by
Cresline Plastic Pipe Co., Inc. is or was installed from Jan. 1,
1991 to present."

None of the classes the Plaintiffs define include Lubrizol.

II. Discussion

Rule 23 directs that courts determine "at an early practicable
time" whether to certify a class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). At
the outset, the parties dispute whether a motion to strike before
much discovery has occurred presents a procedurally appropriate
device to raise the question of certification. The Defendants bring
their motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) and Rule 23.

Judge Calabrese begins by considering the procedural propriety of
each option.

A. Rule 12(f)

Under Rule 12(f), a "court may strike from a pleading an
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter." On the face of the Rule, class allegations do
not present "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter" subject to striking under Rule 12(f). Nor does the Rule
contemplate dismissal of a pleading in whole or in part. Other
provisions of the rules do that more substantive work. A motion to
strike class allegations, then, amounts to a square peg the
Defendants try to hammer into a round procedural hole.

Other procedural difficulties accompany using Rule 12(f) for such a
motion. The Rule has timing requirements. But that deadline lapsed
long ago. Further, Rule 12(g)(2) limits the ability of a litigant
to file multiple or successive motions directed at the pleadings.

Judge Calabrese opines that the Defendants could have moved to
strike class allegations as part of their prior motions to dismiss,
if Rule 12(f) provided a proper procedural vehicle to do so.
Therefore, the bar on multiple Rule 12 motions forecloses a second
motion now, including a motion to strike class allegations under
Rule 12(f).

B. Rule 23

Rule 23 demands rigorous analysis and proof sufficient for
Plaintiffs to carry their burden of meeting the requirements for
class certification. Judge Calabrese limits the inquiry in the
current procedural posture of the case to a threshold determination
whether Plaintiffs may or may not maintain any of their remaining
claims on behalf of a class as a matter of law. In this respect, he
treats the motion to strike as something of a pleading-stage
determination. Such a decision will have value for the parties and
the Court because of the potential effects on the scope and
proportionality of discovery and judicial management of any
certified class.

Judge Calabrese determines that the class allegations in the
amended complaint may not be maintained as a matter of law because
the Plaintiffs cannot show that members of the putative classes
have standing, and no amount of discovery will be able to overcome
this defect.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class under Rule
23(b)(2) requesting injunctive and declaratory relief. Rule
23(b)(2) only permits certification where a single declaratory
judgment will apply to every class member. This is so because of
the indivisible nature of declaratory relief at issue, which will
apply to all class members or none of them.

Judge Calabrese opines that two features of Rule 23(b)(2) make
certification of a class in the case improper on the face of the
classes the Plaintiffs seek to certify. First, according to the
Supreme Court, Rule 23(b)(2) "does not authorize class
certification when each class member would be entitled to an
individualized award of monetary damages." Individualized monetary
claims belong in Rule 23(b)(3). Second, the Supreme Court held that
Rule 23(b)(2) does not permit class certification where the
monetary relief is not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory
relief.

Lastly, under Rule 23(f), a court of appeals may grant
interlocutory review "from an order granting or denying
class-action certification." Obviously, Rule 23(f) does not
describe an order under Rule 23(d)(1)(D). Nonetheless, with respect
to standing, the Defendants' motion to strike "involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground
for difference of opinion," and "an immediate appeal from the order
may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation."

In Judge Calabrese's opinion, the questions of law addressed in the
Opinion and Order, over which there is substantial ground for
differences of opinion among reasonable jurists and lawyers, might
well prove outcome-determinative in the case. Without class
allegations, the Plaintiffs might have little incentive to pursue
their claims. Therefore, appellate review will materially advance
the resolution of the case on the merits. Without review, the
action is likely at or near its end. Accordingly, he certifies the
Order for interlocutory review under Section 1292(b).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Calabrese granted the Defendants'
motion to strike. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 23(d)(1)(D), he
ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to eliminate class
allegations and to do so no later than 21 days from the date of his
Order. When amending the complaint, he directed the Plaintiffs to
comply with the Court's Civil Standing Order for filing amendments
and to make no other substantive amendments or changes to the
complaint. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Judge
Calabrese certified the Order for interlocutory review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5a3p9kd8 from Leagle.com.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Discovery Replies in Deakin Suit Partly Compelled
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAUREEN DEAKIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAGELLAN HEALTH,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 17-773 MIS/KK (D.N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico issued an order granting in part and denying
in part:

   a. the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs'
      First Set of Discovery, filed Oct. 13, 2021; and

   b. the Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants'
      Discovery Requests, filed Oct. 28, 2021.

I. Background

On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff Maureen Deakin filed the putative
collective and class action for payment of overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act. The Court entered a scheduling order on Oct. 20, 2017, setting
deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
of a FLSA collective action and for discovery on issues related to
conditional certification. On Oct. 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed
her motion for conditional certification, and on Dec. 12, 2017,
with the Court's leave, she filed a first amended complaint.

On Oct. 5, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the matter as a
collective action under the FLSA on behalf of the "Defendants'
current and former, non-supervisory employees who worked for the
Defendants in at least one workweek for over 40 hours in one
workweek over the past three years; who received their pay on a
salary basis; worked under a job title within Defendant's care
management job family containing the terms Care Coordinator or Care
Manager; and whose job duties included Care Management Work."

The Plaintiffs sent notice to potential members of the collective
action on Nov. 19, 2018. Ultimately, about 223 Plaintiffs opted to
join the case.

On Oct. 17, 2019, with the Court's leave, the Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint, adding putative class action claims for
payment of overtime wages under Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
New York, and Pennsylvania law, and also adding a class
representative from each of these states as named Plaintiffs. The
Defendants answered the second amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2019.

At a scheduling conference on Jan. 24, 2020, the Court and the
counsel agreed that the parties would take discovery regarding
class certification and decertification, and would also take merits
discovery at depositions and "as appropriate where there's
overlap," but that there will need to be "an additional merits
phase" of discovery if class certification is granted. On Jan. 27,
2020, the Court entered an order setting case management deadlines,
including a discovery deadline and a subsequent deadline for
"pretrial motions including motions to certify/decertify class and
motions for summary judgment." It also set discovery limitations,
pursuant to which Defendants may depose the six named Plaintiffs
and up to 22 opt-in Plaintiffs of the Defendants' choice, and may
serve written discovery requests on the six named Plaintiffs and up
to 60 opt-in Plaintiffs, half selected by the Plaintiffs and half
by the Defendants.

On Feb. 3, 2020, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of three
Defendants without prejudice, leaving two Defendants -- Magellan
Health, Inc. and Magellan HRSC, Inc. -- in the case. After a stay
during which the parties tried but failed to negotiate a resolution
of the matter, the Court reset case management deadlines and later
extended them twice. The current phase of discovery is now set to
close on June 1, 2022, and pretrial motions including motions to
certify or decertify are due by July 21, 2022.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel on Oct. 13, 2021,
asking the Court to compel the Defendants to respond more fully to
their first sets of written discovery requests. The Defendants
responded in opposition to the motion on Oct. 27, 2021, and the
Plaintiffs replied in support of it on Nov. 10, 2021.

The Defendants, in turn, filed their motion to compel on Oct. 28,
2021, asking the Court to compel nine opt-in Plaintiffs to respond
substantively to their first sets of written discovery requests.
The Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion on Nov. 11,
2021, and the Defendants replied in support of it on Nov. 26,
2021.

II. Analysis


A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set
of Discovery

1. The Defendants will specify a reasonable end date by which they
will complete their document production.

In their motion to compel, the Plaintiffs first argue that the
Defendants "must provide an end date to their rolling production
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B)." Rule 34 plainly
requires the Defendants to specify the end date by which they will
complete their production of documents and ESI responsive to the
Plaintiffs' first set of requests for production. Moreover, the end
date must be within a reasonable period of time.

Judge Khalsa declines to require the Defendants to complete their
production with seven days, as the Plaintiffs request. Rather, he
will direct the Defendants to specify the reasonable end date by
which they will complete their document production and to abide by
that end date. Nevertheless, he reminds both sides that Rule 26(e)
requires parties to supplement their discovery responses "in a
timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the
response is incomplete or incorrect."

Judge Khalsa has specifically ordered that the parties must
supplement their disclosures or discovery responses pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) within 21 days of learning any disclosure
or response is incomplete or incorrect. After the close of
discovery, they must supplement their disclosures or discovery
responses as soon as possible, but no later than three days after
learning of the need to supplement. The Plaintiffs should
anticipate that Defendants may locate and produce some responsive
documents after this date by way of Rule 26(e) supplementation.

2. Defendants need not respond to all of Plaintiffs' discovery
requests with information about every putative class member.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to issue a blanket ruling
requiring Defendants to respond to their first sets of discovery
requests with information about every putative class member, and
not just the Discovery Plaintiffs In making this request, they
reference Defendants' objections to providing information about
every putative class member in response to Interrogatories Nos. 1,
4-8, and 10, and Requests for Production Nos. 7-8, 11-12, 17,
19-21, 25, 27-28, and 31. The Plaintiffs limit their specific
arguments in this regard to Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for
Production No. 11.

Judge Khalsa declines to issue a blanket ruling requiring the
Defendants to respond to all of the Plaintiffs' discovery requests
with information regarding every putative class member. Further,
given the Plaintiffs' failure to provide any request-specific
input, he declines to undertake the painstaking request-specific
analysis that would be required to determine whether the Defendants
should nevertheless respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4-5, 7-8,
and 10, and Requests for Production Nos. 7-8, 12, 17, 19-21, 25,
27-28, and 31, in particular, with information specific to each
putative class member individually.

Unless and until the FLSA collective action and/or one or more Rule
23 classes are finally certified, the Plaintiffs are directed to
limit their discovery requests seeking information specific to
individual putative class members to the Discovery Plaintiffs,
except that they may seek leave to serve a very limited number of
requests pertaining to a larger group of individuals. If the
Plaintiffs elect to file such a motion, they should attach the
proposed requests to the motion and clearly explain why they need
the requested information about the larger group in this phase of
the litigation.

3. The Court will not overrule Defendants' "undue burden"
objections en masse.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to overrule the Defendants'
"undue burden" objections to Interrogatories Nos. 6-8, and Requests
for Production Nos. 10, 15, 21, 25, and 35 en masse, because (a)
the Defendants have not submitted "evidence to show the nature of
the burden," and (b) in the case, which "involves a national
collective and six state law classes, any reasonable discovery is
likely going to be burdensome," but this "does not mean that the
burden is 'undue.'"

Judge Khalsa rejects the the Plaintiffs' sweeping invitation to
overrule Defendants' undue burden objections en masse. Further,
given the Plaintiffs' failure to provide any request-specific
input, he declines to undertake the meticulous request-specific
analysis that would be required to determine whether
Interrogatories Nos. 7-8 and Requests for Production Nos. 15, 21,
25, and 35, in particular, are unduly burdensome in this phase of
the litigation.

4. In response to Requests for Production Nos. 10, 25, 31, 34, and
35, Defendants will describe the documents they are withholding or
the scope of the production they are willing to make.

The Plaintiffs next argue that the Court should compel the
Defendants to state whether they are withholding documents
responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1-14, 16, 18, 20, and
22-45. The Defendants counter that they have either identified the
categories of any documents they have withheld or sufficiently
"described the scope of the production they are willing to make,"
and have thereby satisfied Rule 34(b)(2)(C)'s requirements.

Judge Khalsa cannot determine whether the Defendants' responses and
objections to Requests for Production Nos. 1-5, 13-14, 23-24, and
36-45 comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(C) because the Plaintiffs have
failed to provide the Court with these requests and/or the
Defendants' complete responses and objections to them in violation
of Local Civil Rule 37.1. Thus, he will not require the Defendants
to supplement their responses to these requests.

With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 6-9, 11-12, 16, 18,
20, 22, 27-28, and 32, Judge Khalsa finds that the Defendants have
described the scope of the production they are willing to make
sufficiently to facilitate an informed discussion of their
objections. With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 26, 29,
and 33, he finds that the Plaintiffs' Rule 34(b)(2)(C) argument
does not apply to these requests. Finally, Judge Khalsa finds that
the Defendants did not sufficiently describe the scope of the
production they are willing to make in response to Requests for
Production Nos. 10, 25, 31, 34, and 35.

Because their responses to Requests for Production Nos. 10, 25, 31,
34, and 35 do not comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(C), Judge Khalsa will
require the Defendants to supplement these responses by describing
either the documents they are withholding or the scope of the
production they are willing to make, in sufficient detail to
facilitate an informed discussion of their objections.

5. Defendants need not provide additional information about ESI at
this time.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to compel Defendants to provide
"basic information regarding what ESI is in the Defendants'
possession, custody, or control." However, they fail to identify
any requests in their first sets of written discovery that seek
such information, or any authority that would require the
Defendants to provide it without a request. Judge Khalsa will
therefore deny this portion of the Plaintiffs' motion to compel.

6. In response to Interrogatory No. 6, Defendants will identify
each Discovery Plaintiff's primary job duty that supports
Defendants' claimed exemption defenses.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' answer
to this interrogatory was limited to "the exemptions they will be
asserting for the general categories of the Plaintiffs," and ask
the Court to compel the Defendants to answer the interrogatory
"fully." The Defendants respond that the Court should uphold their
overbreadth and undue burden objections to this interrogatory
because it is an improper contention interrogatory that "would have
them provide a detailed account of their exemption defenses -- the
key substantive issue in the case -- as applied to more than 900
individuals."

Judge Khalsa will not expand the scope of Interrogatory No. 6
beyond the Discovery Plaintiffs at this time. Rather, he will
compel the Defendants to supplement their answer to this
interrogatory to identify the primary job duties that they contend
support their exemption defenses, but only for the Discovery
Plaintiffs.

7. In response to Request for Production No. 10, Defendants will
produce final, complete, unredacted copies of the 26 customer
contracts and Missouri policies and procedures that define the
scope of putative class members' work.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to compel the Defendants to
respond more fully to Request for Production No. 10, which seeks
"all contracts with health care providers, health insurance plans,
or other entities for the performance of case management services
(either by the Defendant or by the other entity) to which the
Defendant was a party during the Relevant Time Period."

In light of the Defendants' argument and evidence, Judge Khalsa
finds that requiring the Defendants to produce more than 1,300
customer contracts for Missouri would be disproportionate to the
needs of the case, because the burden and expense of producing
these contracts would outweigh their likely benefit. This ruling,
however, depends in part on the accuracy of the Defendants' current
position that their policies and procedures, rather than customer
contracts, govern the scope of putative Missouri class members'
work. Notably, this position appears to be inconsistent with
Defendants' earlier representations

Thus, Judge Khalsa cautions the Defendants that, should they later
abandon their current position or rely on evidence that contradicts
it, the Court may revisit its ruling and/or impose sanctions. His
present ruling is also dependent on the Defendants' producing the
policies and procedures that govern the scope of putative Missouri
class members' work, and he will compel the Defendants to produce
these documents to the extent they have not already done so.

8. Defendants need not supplement their response to Request for
Production No. 11, except to identify and briefly explain any
missing phone logs.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to compel theDefendants to
respond more fully to Request for Production No. 11, which seeks
"all documents and records in electronic, delimited, and importable
format that reflect the times Plaintiffs performed work-related
activities during the Relevant Time Period, including but not
limited to, computer sign-in data, case management system data,
facsimile logs, telephone logs and reports, time-stamped entries or
documents, email meta data, time studies, security logs, invoices,
expense reports, bills, work schedules, or other documents.: The
Defendants objected to this request on the grounds of irrelevance,
disproportionality, overbreadth, undue burden.

Judge Khalsa holds that to the extent the Defendants are unable to
produce a complete set of phone logs for each Discovery Plaintiff,
they should briefly explain which logs are missing and why. In all
other respects, the Defendants need not respond to Request for
Production No. 11 more fully than they have already indicated they
are willing to do.

9. Defendants will respond to Request for Production No. 26 as
narrowed by Plaintiffs' reply.

In their Request for Production No. 26, the Plaintiffs seek "all
documents relating to any licenses, accreditations, or
certifications held by Defendant at any time during the Relevant
Time Period that related to Care Management Employees and/or their
responsibilities. This includes, but is not limited to, license,
accreditation, and/or certification by the National Committee for
Quality Assurance (NCQA) or the Utilization Review Accreditation
Commission (URAC), and any communications, marketing/informational
materials, applications, audits, assessments, reviews, standards,
policies or procedures submitted to these or other such entities
during the Relevant Time Period." In response, the Defendants
objected that this request "is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
seeks information that is not relevant to either party's claims or
defenses in the action nor proportional to the needs of the case."

Judge Khalsa finds that the Request for Production No. 26 seeks
information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the
case. He will therefore compel the Defendants to produce any
internal policies incorporating NCQA and/or URAC accreditation
standards responsive to Request for Production No. 26 that they
have not yet produced. In addition, he will require the Defendants
to provide Plaintiffs with a comprehensive list identifying which
internal policies are being produced in response to the request.

10. Defendants need not respond to Request for Production No. 29.

The Plaintiffs next ask the Court to compel the Defendants to
respond to Request for Production No. 29, which seeks "all
documents concerning performance reviews and evaluations of all
employees who had any responsibility for managing and supervising
Plaintiffs or any Care Management Employees that worked in the Rule
23 States during the Relevant Time Period." The Defendants objected
that this request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks
information that is irrelevant, disproportionate, and invasive of
non-parties' privacy. They made no response to the request.

Judge Khalsa finds that Request for Production No. 29 is facially
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of
the case, because it seeks voluminous documents that are, at best,
tenuously related to the issues before the Court at this stage of
the litigation. He will therefore sustain the Defendants'
objections and deny the Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling
the Defendants to respond to Request for Production No. 29.

11. The Court declines to apportion the parties' expenses
associated with Plaintiffs' motion.

Finally, because he will grant the Plaintiffs' motion in part and
deny it in part and both sides' positions were substantially
justified in part, Judge Khalsa declines to apportion the
reasonable expenses the parties incurred in relation to the
motion.

B. Defendants' Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' Discovery
Requests

The Defendants in their motion to compel assert that nine Discovery
Plaintiffs objected but did not substantively respond to
Defendants' first sets of written discovery requests. In their
response to the motion, the Plaintiffs simply observe that since
the Defendants filed their motion, two of the nine Discovery
Plaintiffs have substantively responded to the Defendants'
interrogatories and requests for production; three have
substantively responded to the Defendants' requests for production
but not their interrogatories17; and, the Plaintiffs' counsel have
been unable to obtain substantive responses from the remaining four
but continue to try to do so.

As the Plaintiffs tacitly concede, the Defendants are plainly
entitled to substantive responses to their interrogatories and
requests for production. Moreover, the Defendants are not obliged
to wait indefinitely while the Plaintiffs' counsel tries to obtain
responses from their clients. Thus, Judge Khalsa will grant the
Defendants' motion and require the Plaintiffs to provide the
Defendants with the missing substantive discovery responses within
21 days of entry of the Order.

The thornier issue the Defendants' motion presents is whether the
Court should award Defendants the reasonable expenses they incurred
in bringing the motion. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are
not entitled to an award of expenses under Rule 37(a)(5) because
they failed to make a reasonable effort to obtain the responses at
issue without Court intervention. In their reply, the Defendants
counter that their counsel's deficiency letter satisfied Rule 37's
requirements because their motion to compel was due by Oct. 28,
2021, and the letter merely asked the Plaintiffs' counsel to
"confirm whether they will be providing complete responses and
curing the deficiencies" identified in the letter by the close of
business on Oct. 27, 2021.

Judge Khalsa denied the Defendants' request for an award of
expenses under Rule 37 at this time. Given the short deadline it
imposed and its peremptory language, the defense counsel's
deficiency letter did not satisfy the Defendants' obligation to
confer with the Plaintiffs before filing their motion to compel.
Judge Khalsa expects the counsel to engage with one another and
with the Court in meticulous good faith at all times, and cautions
the counsel that it will impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent
authority, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or both, if the
Court deems it necessary and appropriate to ensure counsel's
unflagging compliance with their legal, ethical, and professional
obligations.

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Khalsa granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs'
First Set of Discovery as follows:

      a. The motion is granted in the following respects:

            (1) By Feb. 8, 2022, the Defendants were to specify the
reasonable end date by which they will complete their production of
documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' first set of requests for
production, and will abide by this end date except as otherwise
ordered;

            (2) By Feb. 22, 2022, the Defendants will supplement
their responses to Requests for Production Nos. 10, 25, 31, 34, and
35 by describing the documents they have withheld or the scope of
the production they are willing to make, in sufficient detail to
facilitate an informed discussion of their objections;

            (3) By Feb. 22, 2022, the Defendants will supplement
their answer to Interrogatory No. 6 to identify each Discovery
Plaintiff's primary job duty that the Defendants contend supports
their claimed exemption defenses;

            (4) By the reasonable end date identified pursuant to
subparagraph (1), supra, and in response to Request for Production
No. 10, the Defendants will produce complete, final, unredacted
copies of the 26 unique customer contracts and Missouri policies
and procedures that define the scope of putative Plaintiff class
members' work;

            (5) By the reasonable end date identified pursuant to
subparagraph (1), supra, and to the extent the Defendants are
unable to produce a complete set of phone logs for each Discovery
Plaintiff in response to Request for Production No. 11, they will
briefly explain which logs are missing and why;

            (6) By the reasonable end date identified pursuant to
subparagraph (1), supra, and in response to Request for Production
No. 26, Defendants will produce responsive NCQA and URAC
accreditation standards that any of the Discovery Plaintiffs were
required by contract to directly consult in performing their job
duties, and also any responsive NCQA and URAC accreditation
standards that dictated any Discovery Plaintiffs' minimum licensure
or education unless Defendants' internal policies incorporated
these requirements;

            (7) By the reasonable end date identified pursuant to
subparagraph (1), supra, the Defendants will also produce their
internal policies incorporating NCQA and/or URAC accreditation
standards responsive to Request for Production No. 26, along with a
comprehensive list identifying which internal policies are being
produced in response to the request; and,

      b. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Further,
unless and until a FLSA collective action and/or one or more Rule
23 classes are finally certified, the Plaintiffs will limit their
discovery requests seeking information specific to individual
putative class members to the Discovery Plaintiffs, except that
they may move for leave to serve a very limited number of requests
pertaining to a larger (or different) group of individuals.

Judge Khalsa granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Responses to Defendants' Discovery Requests as
follows:

      a. The motion is granted in that (1) opt-in Discovery
Plaintiffs Bemer, Luscomb, Messinger, and Watts will respond
substantively to Defendants' first sets of interrogatories and
requests for production no later than Feb. 22, 2022; and, (2)
opt-in Discovery Plaintiffs Meier, Potts, and Shanahan will
substantively answer Defendants' first sets of interrogatories no
later than Feb. 22, 2022; and,

      b. The motion is denied in that, at this time, the Court will
not award the Defendants the reasonable expenses they incurred in
bringing the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyxzctxm from Leagle.com.


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Dang Sues Over Spices' Heavy Metal Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tam Dang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00657 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2022), brings claims for
consumer fraud and seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees under California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

McCormick & Company is one of the premier manufacturers and
distributors of spices and seasonings in the United States. Hoffman
claims that said products contain heavy metals, including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead at levels above what is considered safe for
children and adults. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
      134 Kings Hwy E., 2nd Fl.
      Haddonfield, NJ 08033
      Tel: (856) 772-7200
      Fax: (856) 210-9088
      Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
             klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
      Washington, DC 20016
      Phone: (202) 429-2290
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Phone: (202) 429-2290
      Fax: (202) 429-2294
      Email: gklinger@masonllp.com


MCGEE AIR: Esmyatar Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SULAMAIN ESMYATAR, OSWALDO DANIEL RAMOS MONTES DE
OCA, and MOHAMED IBRAHIM, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. MCGEE AIR SERVICES INC., Case No. 21CV004842,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on February 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00744 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.

McGee Air Services Inc. is an aviation services company based in
Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
         Patricia M. Jeng, Esq.
         Melissa Hughes, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                 pjeng@sheppardmullin.com
                 mhughes@sheppardmullin.com

MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Dean Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Patricia A. Dean, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Medical Review Institute of
America, LLC and Health Care Service Corporation (d/b/a Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Illinois), Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00619
(N.D. Ill., February 3, 2022), seeks to obtain damages,
restitution, and injunctive relief for violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and to address
Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Private Information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide adequate
notice to those affected that their information had been subject to
the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely
what specific type of information was accessed.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois is a division of Health Care
Service Corporation and provides and administers health insurance
in the state of Illinois while the Medical Review Institute of
America provides external review of medical, dental, behavioral
health, pharmacy, vision, disability, workers' compensation, and
auto claims for insurance carriers, employers, self-administered
union groups, pharmacy benefit managers, human resource consultants
and departments of insurance throughout the country.

On November 9, 2021, Medical Review Institute learned that it was
the victim of a sophisticated cyber-attack where private
information was accessed without authorization, including the
personal information, including health and financial information,
Social Security numbers, and demographic information of certain
members and clients of Blue Cross. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrance R. Coates, Esq.
      MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO
      119 E. Court St.
      Cincinnati, OH
      Telephone: (513) 651-3700
      Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
      Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com

             - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
      Washington, DC 20016
      Phone: (202) 429-2290
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
      227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Phone: (202) 429-2290
      Fax: (202) 429-2294
      Email: gklinger@masonllp.com


METHODIST LEBONHEUR: Coomer Seeks Pay for Time Spent on COVID Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Coomer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare (MLH),
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-02060, (W.D. Tenn., February 1, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages
owed to Plaintiff, who is a former employee of MLH who received a
medical or religious accommodation exempting him from a mandatory
COVID-19 vaccination policy under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates hospitals and medical treatment facilities
throughout the greater Memphis area where Coomer worked as an
emergency room technician. On November 1, 2021, MLH implemented a
COVID-19 protocol that required all of its employees to receive a
COVID-19 vaccine or otherwise obtain a legally recognized
accommodation, requiring employees with medical and religious
accommodations to undergo COVID-19 testing from the approved
COVID-19 testing provider at least twice weekly where there must be
more than 48 hours between the two weekly tests.

MLH allegedly failed to compensate its employees for time spent
waiting to be tested for COVID-19, getting tested, and waiting for
result. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
      Robert E. Turner, Esq.
      B. Alan Matthews, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
      Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
             rturner@jsyc.com
             rmorelli@jsyc.com
             amatthews@jsyc.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Plan Holders Slam Misleading Insurance Benefit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia Bott, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00129, Defendants (E.D. Mo., February 1, 2022) seeks
compensation and other relief arising from alleged fraud, breaches
of contract in connection with the pricing, marketing and sale of
Met Life's individual long-term care insurance policies in
violation of various states' consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices acts.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company provides insurance, annuities
and employee benefit programs.

Plaintiffs claim that Met Life's "5% Automatic Compound Inflation
Protection Rider" that was sold as an additional benefit with the
long-term care policies, promised policyholders that their benefit
amounts will automatically increase each year with no corresponding
increase in premium. Plaintiffs paid more than double their base
premiums in exchange for said benefit. However, their base premiums
and those premiums paid for said rider were directly tied or
related to the increasing daily benefit amounts provided by the
rider where there was a corresponding rate increase. The premiums
increased multiple times as a direct result of the benefit amount
increases provided by the rider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
      DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
      161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 202-3283, 818-4415

             - and -

      Steven Mikuzis, Esq.
      MAG MILE LAW, LLC
      535 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (708) 576-1624
      Email: info@magmilelaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas C. Cronin, Esq.
      CRONIN & CO., LTD.
      120 North LaSalle Street, 20th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 500-2100
      Email: tcc@cronincoltd.com

MICHIGAN: Suit Says Sex Offenders Registration Act Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Does A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mary Doe and Mary Roe, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of the State of Michigan, and Col.
Joseph Gasper, Director of the Michigan State Police, in their
official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10209, (E.D. Mich.,
February 2, 2022), seek declaratory and injunctive relief for
violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs are individuals who were convicted of sexual offenses
and were registered under Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act
(SORA). They hold the SORA as unconstitutional on due process and
First Amendment grounds. They also claim that the SORA undermines
successful reentry of registered sex offenders into society and
SORA's registration requirements serve no legitimate public safety
purpose. According to the Plaintiffs, they are burdened by
compelled speech, ongoing reporting, surveillance, and supervision
limitations on access to housing limitations, on access to
employment limitations, on access to education limitations, on
travel limitations, on speech, and use of the internet public
stigmatization, false information, and social engagement, criminal
enforcement of SORA and vagueness. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Miriam J. Aukerman, Esq.
      Rohit Rajan, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
      1514 Wealthy SE, Suite 260
      Grand Rapids, MI 49506
      Tel: (616) 301-0930
      Email: maukerman@aclumich.org
             rrajan@aclumich.org

             - and -

      Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
      American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
      2966 Woodward Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Tel: (313) 578-6824
      Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org

             - and -

      Paul D. Reingold, Esq.
      Cooperating Counsel
      American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
      Univ. of Michigan Law School
      802 Legal Research Building
      801 Monroe Street
      Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
      Tel: (734) 355-0319
      Email: pdr@umich.edu

             - and -

      Roshna Bala Keen, Esq.
      LOEVY & LOEVY
      Cooperating Counsel
      American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan
      311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Tel: (312) 243-5900
      Email: roshna@loevy.com


MORTON HOSPITAL: Von Malder Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCIS J. VON MALDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MORTON HOSPITAL, A STEWARD
FAMILY HOSPITAL, INC., and MORTON HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., Case No. 2283-CV-00026, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of Massachusetts, Plymouth County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on February 7,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-10201 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged nonpayment of earned
wages in violation of the Massachusetts General Law, breach of
union agreement, and wrongful termination.

Morton Hospital, A Steward Family Hospital, Inc., is a medical
center in Taunton, Massachusetts.

Morton Hospital and Medical Center, Inc. is a medical center in
Taunton, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Howard M. Cooper, Esq.
         Seth J. Robbins, Esq.
         TODD & WELD LLP
         One Federal Street, 27th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 720-2626
         E-mail: hcooper@toddweld.com
                 srobbins@toddweld.com

MYRIAD GENETICS: Carroll Sues Over Inaccurate Genetic Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Carroll, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00739 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2022), seeks to recover damages
and restitution for breach of express warranty and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission and for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and False Advertising Law.

Myriad Genetics is a molecular diagnostic company based in Salt
Lake City, Utah specializing in genetic tests that determine the
risk of developing disease, assess the risk of disease progression,
and guide treatment decisions. It markets and sells "Prequel
Prenatal Screen" as genetic, prenatal screening tests for pregnant
women that screen for various chromosomal and genetic conditions
affecting a baby's health and markets these tests as "accurate."

Carroll claims that Prequel Test results indicating a genetic
disorder are incorrect approximately 85 percent of the time, thus
making them worth far less than their market price and expecting
mothers are often unnecessarily subjected to further diagnostic
testing, genetic counseling, and even the erroneous termination of
a viable pregnancy.

Carrol paid $295 for the Prequel Test when she visited her doctor
in June 2021. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

      Rachel L. Miller, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 330-5512
      Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
      E-mail: rmiller@bursor.com

              - and -

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


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Flores Files Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flores, as a Class Representative, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The National Football
League, New York Football Giants, Inc., Miami Dolphins, Ltd.,
Denver Broncos and John Doe Teams 1 through 29, Defendants, Case
No. 22-cv-00871 (S.D. N.Y., February 1, 2022), seeks an award of
injunctive relief to address discriminatory policies and practices,
award of compensatory damages for, including, but not limited to,
loss of reputation, loss of opportunity and mental anguish,
punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all
amounts due, award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief resulting from Discrimination under
Section 1981 of the U.S. Constitution, New York State Human Rights
Law, New York City Human Rights Law and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

Brian Flores is a black man and the former Head Coach of the Miami
Dolphins. Flores applied as Head Coach of the New York Giants but
claims to be subjected to a sham interview in an attempt to appear
to provide a black candidate with a legitimate chance at obtaining
the job.

The National Football League is a trade association made up of 32
professional football teams and with a principal place of business
located in New York, NY.

The New York Football Giants, Inc. is a corporation that owns and
operates the New York Giants professional football team. New York
Football Giants, Inc. The Miami Dolphins, Ltd. is a corporation
that owns and operates the Miami Dolphins professional football
team. Miami Dolphins, Ltd. The Denver Broncos, former corporate
name PDB Sports, Ltd., is a corporation that owns and operates the
Denver Broncos professional football team. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
      Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
      David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
             mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com
             dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com


NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL: Appeals Stay of Prelim. Injunction Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Pennsylvania governmental
entity, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
styled JOHN DOE 1, JANE DOE 1, in their own capacity and as parent
of CHILD DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, in her own capacity and as parent of
CHILD DOE 2 and CHILD DOE 3, and JANE DOE 3, in her own capacity
and as parent of CHILD DOE 4 and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
Pennsylvania governmental entity, RICHARD MCCLURE, ELIZABETH
BLACKBURN, MARCIE CROW, LESLIE BRITTON DOZIER, PAIGE HARDY, KEVIN
MAHLER, VIDYA SZYMKOWIAK, ELIZABETH WERNER, SHANNON YEAKEL, all
individual elected officials sued in their individual capacity and
in their capacity as members of the NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, a Pennsylvania elected legislative body, and
NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, a Pennsylvania
elected legislative body, Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-00055, in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the parents of four
children filed the class action lawsuit on Jan. 11, alleging the
mask policy forces parents of medically vulnerable students to
choose between keeping them at home where "they will likely suffer
continued learning loss" or sending them to school in "an
environment that presents a serious risk to their health and
safety."

District officials acknowledged the court order in an email to
parents on Jan. 17. Officials declined further comment citing the
pending litigation.

The lawsuit does not identify the four students but indicated all
have medical conditions that leave them particularly vulnerable to
covid-19, according to the lawsuit. It also claims that there are
as many as 1,557 district students who are "medically fragile
disabled students who require the protection afforded by universal
masking."

On Jan. 17, 2022, Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered a temporary
restraining order sought by pro-mask parents in North Allegheny
School District, meaning all students, staffers and visitors in
district buildings must wear masks when classes resumed last Jan.
18.

The restraining order was requested by parents seeking to overturn
the district's mask-optional policy that they say violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant took an appeal from the temporary restraining order.

That appellate case filed on Jan. 26, 2022 in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, was captioned John Doe 1,
et al. v. North Allegheny School Dist, et al., Case No. 22-1160.

On February 1, 2022, Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order
staying the scheduling of a Preliminary Injunction hearing until
after the Third Circuit rules on the certified questions for
interlocutory appeal.

The Defendants seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as North Allegheny School District,
et al. v. Jane Doe 2, et al., Case No. 22-8006, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Feb. 3,
2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
Pennsylvania governmental entity; ELIZABETH BLACKBURN; LESLIE
BRITTON DOZIER; MARCIE CROW; PAIGE HARDY; KEVIN MAHLER; RICHARD
MCCLURE; NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS VIDYA
SZYMKOWIAK; ELIZABETH WERNER; and SHANNON YEAKEL are represented
by:

          Steven P. Engel, Esq.
          MAIELLO BRUNGO & MAIELLO
          Southside Works
          424 South 27th Street, Room 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15235
          Telephone: (412) 242-4400

Plaintiffs-Respondents JANE DOE 2, in her own capacity and as
parent of Child Doe 2 and Child Doe 3; JANE DOE 3, in her own
capacity and as parent of Child Doe 4 and on behalf of those
similarly situated; JOHN DOE 1; and JANE DOE 1, in their own
capacity and as parent of Child Doe 1, are represented by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          BEHREND LAW GROUP
          428 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-4460
          E-mail: krbehrend@behrendlawgroup.com  

               - and -

          Alexander W. Saksen, Esq.
          GOLDBERG KAMIN & GARVIN
          437 Grant Street
          1806 Frick Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1119
          E-mail: alexanders@gkgattorneys.com

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Admin. Committee's Bid to Toss Bafford Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN H. BAFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs v. NORTHROP
GRUMMAN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-10219-ODW
(Ex) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California issued an order:

   a. granting the Administrative Committee's motion to dismiss
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) with
      limited leave to amend;

   b. deferring ruling on Alight Solutions LLC's motion to
       dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
       12(b)(6); and

   c. directing the Plaintiffs and Alight to show cause regarding
      supplemental jurisdiction.

I. Background

In the case, Plaintiffs Stephen H. Bafford, Laura Bafford, and
Evelyn L. Wilson bring a putative class action against Defendants
Northrop; the Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman
Pension Plan; and Alight Solutions LLC for damages arising from
miscalculation of the Plaintiffs' retirement benefits. The
operative Second Amended Complaint, filed Aug. 13, 2021, sets forth
a claim against the Administrative Committee for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and two state-law
claims against Alight.

The Plaintiffs are retirees and former employees of Northrop. They
began working for Northrop in the late 1980s, during which time
they accrued pension benefits under two defined benefit subplans of
Northrop's pension plan. The Administrative Committee is the Plan
Administrator and fiduciary of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan
pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002(16)(a)(i), 1002(21). It
is therefore responsible for, among other things, providing pension
benefit statements to Northrop Plan participants in accordance with
the requirements of ERISA. Beginning in 2008, the Administrative
Committee delegated this responsibility to Alight's predecessor.

In the late 1990s, the Plaintiffs stopped working for Northrop and
began to work for the TRW Corp. As TRW employees, they accrued
pension benefits under TRW's pension plan.

In December 2002, Northrop acquired TRW and, as a result, the
Plaintiffs became Northrop employees again. The Plaintiffs
continued to accrue benefits under the TRW Plan as Northrop
Employees. The TRW Plan and its benefits are not at issue in the
lawsuit.

Beginning in 2010, the Plaintiffs began requesting pension benefit
statements for their Northrop Plan benefits through Alight. In the
SAC, Bafford sets forth a chart indicating the 12 pension benefit
statements he received between March 2010 and June 2016, all of
which indicated a monthly 100% joint and survivor annuity benefit
of approximately $2,100. Wilson requested similar statements from
Alight.

Ms. Wilson retired in 2014, and Bafford apparently retired in 2016.
They each began receiving monthly pension benefits in accordance
with the estimates and statements Alight had provided them. Then,
in late 2016 and early 2017, they received from Northrop a
recalculation notice informing them of a systemic error that
resulted in Northrop substantially overestimating and overpaying
the Plaintiffs' pension benefits. Northrop informed Bafford that
his monthly benefit would be reduced from approximately $2,000 to
approximately $800. Northrop similarly informed Wilson that her
benefits should have been less than half of what they had been up
to that point and requested that Wilson repay over $35,000 of the
benefit she had already received.

The error occurred as follows. The subplans in which the Plaintiffs
are participants are defined benefit pension plans, in which
"retirees receive a fixed payment each month, and the payments do
not fluctuate with the value of the plan or because of the plan
fiduciaries' good or bad investment decisions." A retiree's fixed
payment is based on a pension calculation formula set forth in that
retiree's subplan.

Under the Plaintiffs' subplans, a final average pay formula is used
to calculate the amount of the defined benefit payments, and the
two main considerations are: (1) the number of years of service
compared to the employee's age; and (2) the average rate of annual
salary ("average earnings") during the employee's highest three
years of salary out of the last ten years the employee was covered
under the Plan. The second consideration is the one Alight
miscalculated.

The Plaintiffs accrued benefits under the Northrop Plan during
their earlier years with Northrop. When they later returned to
Northrop after its acquisition of TRW, they continued to accrue
retirement benefits under TRW's plan, not Northrop's. Thus, the
second variable should have been calculated based on Plaintiffs'
average earnings during their early years with Northrop, in the
late '80s and early '90s. Instead, Alight calculated the
Plaintiffs' benefits based on their average earnings during their
later years with Northrop, which were higher than their salaries
many years prior. On the basis of this miscalculation of average
earnings, Alight overstated -- and Northrop overpaid -- the
Plaintiffs' benefits.

Based on these events, the Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of employees against the Defendants
for: (1) violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a), against
Northrop and the Administrative Committee; (2) violation of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a), against Alight; (3) violation of ERISA,
29 U.S.C. Section 1025; (4) professional negligence, against
Alight; (5) negligent misrepresentation, against Alight; and (6)
violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a), against all the
Defendants.

In April 2019, the Administrative Committee and Alight each moved
to dismiss the FAC, and the Court granted the Defendants' motions,
dismissing the fourth and fifth claims with prejudice and without
leave to amend, and dismissing all other claims with leave to
amend. Instead of amending, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intent
Not to Amend, and the Court entered Judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs appealed, and on April 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit
issued its Opinion, affirming in part and vacating in part the
Court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal
of the ERISA claims (the first, second, third, and sixth) and
confirmed that the Court was correct to provide leave to amend the
third claim. It proceeded to find that, contrary to the Court's
prior determination, the Plaintiffs' negligence and negligent
misrepresentation claims were not preempted by ERISA. It
accordingly vacated the dismissal of the negligence and negligent
misrepresentation claims and remanded for further proceedings.

Following the Ninth Circuit's mandate, the Plaintiffs filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint. They omit the first, second,
and sixth claims from their Second Amended Complaint, maintaining
the third claim against the Administrative Committee and the fourth
and fifth claims against Alight. The Administrative Committee and
Alight each move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

A. Administrative Committee's Motion: ERISA Requirement to Furnish
Pension Benefit Statements, 29 U.S.C. Section 1025(a)(1)(B)

The Plaintiffs' claim against the Administrative Committee is for
failure to furnish pension benefit statements as required by 29
U.S.C. Section 1025(a)(1)(B). The Administrative Committee moves to
dismiss the remaining ERISA claim on the grounds that (1) part of
the claim is beyond the scope of the Ninth Circuit's remand, (2)
the entire claim is insufficiently pleaded, and (3) the entire
claim is time-barred.

Judge Wright holds that the Plaintiffs have not stated and cannot
state a claim for ERISA violations under the third theory. By
contrast, given their allegations in the SAC and in light of the
Ninth Circuit's mandate, he finds that the Plaintiffs may be able
to state a claim for ERISA violations under one of the first two
theories. He will therefore dismiss the entire claim and provide
leave for the Plaintiffs to plead two distinct causes of action
that focus narrowly on the Administrative Committee's alleged
failures to provide any benefit statements at all. Judge Wright
begins with theory number three.

Under Plaintiffs' third theory, the Administrative Committee
violated ERISA Section 105 when it, through Alight, provided the
Plaintiffs with pension benefit statements that contained highly
inaccurate benefit estimates. The Defendants again argue that ERISA
Sections 105(a) and 502(c) do not provide for a statutory penalty
for an inaccurate statement.

Judge Wright finds that the parties cited no precedent, and he
could find none, that directly answers the question whether
providing a participant with an inaccurate pension benefit
statement constitutes an ERISA Section 105 violation. Based on all
the foregoing observations, he concludes that the provision of an
inaccurate figure on a pension benefit statement does not, in and
of itself, constitute a violation of ERISA Section 105.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' ERISA claim is dismissed to the extent
it is based on inaccuracies in their pension benefit statements.
Moreover, even if benefit statement inaccuracies constitute
"technical" violations of ERISA, Judge Wright would nevertheless
find that the Plaintiffs failed to set forth any allegation
suggesting the Administrative Committee's errors were active,
deliberate, or in bad faith. He would also find that the Plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead that the Administrative Committee
breached its duty of loyalty.

For all these reasons, the Plaintiffs have not stated and cannot
state a claim for relief for violation of ERISA Section 105 based
on inaccurate figures in their statements. Accordingly, to the
extent the Plaintiffs' ERISA claim is based on inaccuracies in
pension benefit statements, the claim is dismissed with prejudice
and without leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs' two remaining theories of ERISA Section 105
violations are the Administrative Committee's (1) failure to
provide an automatic triennial benefit statement or an automatic
annual notice of how to obtain a benefit statement, as required by
29 U.S.C. Sections 1025(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1025(a)(3)(A); and (2)
failure to provide any benefit statement at all in response to the
Plaintiffs' written requests, as required by Section
1025(a)(1)(B)(ii).

In light of the Ninth Circuit's mandate and the Plaintiffs' new
allegations, Judge Wright holds that it is plausible that the
Plaintiffs have stated or could state a claim for these two
particular violations. The problem with the SAC, however, is that
the Plaintiffs' failure-to-provide-statements allegations are so
intertwined with their inaccurate-figures-on-statements allegations
that it is impossible for the Court to determine if they have
stated a claim for the former while disregarding allegations of the
latter.

Accordingly, Judge Wright will proceed by dismissing the ERISA
claim in its entirety with leave to amend as follows. The
Plaintiffs are granted narrow leave to assert two new, separate
claims: One for failure to provide an automatic triennial statement
or an automatic annual notice of how to obtain a statement, as
required by 29 U.S.C. Sections 1025(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1025(a)(3)(A);
and a second for failure to provide any benefit statement at all in
response to the Plaintiffs' written requests, as required by
Section 1025(a)(1)(B)(ii). If the Plaintiffs choose to so amend,
they must plead a complete set of case-specific facts to illustrate
the alleged ERISA violations and must not rely on conclusory
assertions that "merely track the language of the statute itself,
without providing facts to substantiate the claimed legal
conclusions." Moreover, in order to avoid ambiguities which might
support further dismissal, the Plaintiffs are strongly encouraged
to include all facts supporting each of these claims under the
heading for that claim.

B. Alight's Motion: State-Law Claims

Remaining at issue is Alight's Motion and the two claims asserted
against Alight: Professional negligence and negligent
misrepresentation. Both claims are California state law claims.

Should the Plaintiffs choose not to amend their ERISA claim
pursuant to the narrow leave provided above, or should their ERISA
claim otherwise ultimately be dismissed with prejudice, Judge
Wright finds that the Court would be left with only supplemental
jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Moreover, even if the
Plaintiffs do ultimately plead one or more viable ERISA claims for
failure to provide statements automatically or as requested, the
Court would maintain doubts about whether exercise of supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claims would be
appropriate. Supplemental jurisdiction is proper where the
relationship between the federal and state claims is such that they
"form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution."

The ERISA claims the Plaintiffs have leave to plead are quite
attenuated from their claims against Alight, such that supplemental
jurisdiction may not be appropriate even if the Plaintiffs' ERISA
claims are ultimately viable. Based on these considerations, Judge
Wright deferred ruling on Alight's motion and orders the parties to
show cause.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Wright granted the
Administrative Committee's Motion to Dismiss. He dismissed the
Plaintiffs' ERISA claim is with prejudice and without leave to
amend to the extent the Plaintiffs seek relief for inaccuracies in
their pension benefit statements. The ERISA claim is otherwise
dismissed with leave to amend to assert (1) a claim for failure to
provide an automatic triennial statement or an automatic annual
notice of how to obtain a statement, as required by 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1025(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1025(a)(3)(A); and/or (2) a claim for
failure to provide any benefit statement at all in response to the
Plaintiffs' written requests, as required by Section
1025(a)(1)(B)(ii).

The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, if any, is due no later
than 21 days from the date of the Order. If the Plaintiffs do not
file a Third Amended Complaint, then as of the lapse of their
deadline to amend, the ERISA claim will be deemed dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice.

Judge Wright deferred ruling on Alight's Motion to Dismiss. If the
Plaintiffs choose not to further amend, then the Court will, upon
expiration of the deadline to amend, decline supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining claims. If, on the other hand, the
Plaintiffs choose to amend their Complaint, then the Court requires
additional briefing on supplemental jurisdiction.

The parties are therefore conditionally ordered to show cause. If
the Plaintiffs timely amend their Complaint, then they are ordered
to file a brief, no later than three days from the date they file
their Third Amended Complaint, explaining why the Court should not
dismiss the state-law claims due to lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Alight may then file an opposition no later than
seven days from the date the Plaintiffs file their OSC Response.
Briefs will be no more than 10 pages. The parties should understand
this Order to be an inquiry into both the facial and the factual
sufficiency of the parties' showing of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Failure to comply may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims
against Alight. To be clear, the Conditional Order to Show Cause
will be deemed discharged if the Plaintiffs do not timely amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh5ywyh from Leagle.com.


PANERA LLC: Killings Labor Suit Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHIMON'E KILLINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, Case No. Case 1:22-cv-00108
(W.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages for the Plaintiff and similarly
situated non-exempt hourly positions such as baristas, counter
workers, associates, cashiers, cleaners, bakers, sandwich/salad
makers, and other cooks (collectively, "Hourly Workers") who work
or have worked for Panera LLC at their "Panera Bread" cafes in New
York.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Panera owns and operates
several hundred cafes around the United States. According to its
website, Panera operates at least 115 Panera Cafes in New York
State alone.

The Defendant allegedly maintains and policy and practice whereby
Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers are subject to time shaving at
the hands of their store managers. This time shaving causes
Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers to not be paid the appropriates
overtime wages when they in fact work over 40 hours in a workweek
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

In weeks where Plaintiff and Hourly Workers do not pass the 40-hour
per week mark, the NYLL mandates that Plaintiff and Hourly Workers
be paid at their agreed upon wage rates.

Despite being manual workers, the Defendant failed to properly pay
Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers in New York their wages within
seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages
were earned, added the suit.

Killings was employed by Panera as an Hourly Worker from August
2021 through December 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

PRESTIGE CONSUMER: Body Sprays Contain Benzene, Sullivan Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GWEN SULLIVAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRESTIGE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-01049 (S.D.N.Y., February 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of New York
General Business Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Summer's Eve Ultra Freshening Spray product. The Defendant does
specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of the
product but fails to disclose that it contains benzene, a known
human carcinogen. The Plaintiff and Class members lost the entire
benefit of their bargain when what they received was a body spray
product contaminated with benzene. Had they known the truth, they
would not have purchased the product, says the product.

Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its principal place of business located in
Tarrytown, New York. [BN]

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

                 - and –

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

PRO SOUND: Alexander Sues Over False, Deceptive Selling Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ALEXANDER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO SOUND GEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-20377-RNS (S.D. Fla., February 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and marketing of its products. The
Defendant's deceptive practices include: (1) falsely advertising
the sale of goods that it has no intention of actually selling; (2)
intentionally shipping goods that are either defective or different
than what people ordered; (3) issuing fake refunds to complaining
consumers; and (4) falsely claiming the consumer's bank must not
have processed the refund correctly. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered
damages.

Pro Sound Gear, Inc., is a consumer goods manufacturer,
headquartered in Doral, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robert C. Gindel Jr., Esq.
         1500 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 220
         Boynton Beach, FL 33426
         Telephone: (561) 649-2344
         Facsimile: (561) 965-8550

                  - and –

         Matthew R. Osborne, Esq.
         11178 Huron Street, Suite 7
         Northglenn, CO 80234
         Telephone: (303) 759-7018
         Facsimile: (720) 210-9870

PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Court Narrows Claims in Ahrendsen Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARI AHRENDSEN, et al. v. PRUDENT FIDUCIARY SERVICES,
LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 21-2157 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey
Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the motions of the
Defendants to dismiss the action.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Shari Ahrendsen, Barry Clement, and Lisa Bush have sued
Defendants Prudent Fiduciary Services LLC, Miguel Paredes, James A.
Wells, James R. Wells, and Richard G. Wells in the putative class
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001, et seq.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of World Travel, Inc. and
current and former participants in the World Travel, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan, a pension plan. Defendants Prudent Fiduciary
Services LLC ("PFS") and Miguel Paredes are alleged to have been
the Trustee of the Plan at the time of a transaction in which
defendants James A. Wells, James R. Wells, and Richard G. Wells
(collectively "the Wells Defendants"), the founders of World
Travel, sold all their shares to the Plan.

In essence, the Plaintiffs claim that they and the class they seek
to represent were deprived of their hard-earned retirement benefits
due to the actions of the Defendants. They seek declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold the Wells Defendants liable for their
knowing participation in a prohibited transaction and as
co-fiduciaries for the Trustee's breach. They maintain that as
selling shareholders, directors of World Travel, and participants
in the ESOP transaction, the Wells Defendants knew or should have
known that the Trustee engaged in a prohibited transaction and
breached its fiduciary duties.

Before the Court are the motions of the Defendants to dismiss the
action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Defendants rest their argument in large part on the
Plaintiffs' failure to meet the pleading requirements under Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as informed by the Supreme
Court's decisions in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

II. Discussion

On a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court may consider
"allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the
complaint and matters of public record." The court may also
consider "matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
orders, and items appearing in the record of the case."

A. Count I

The Plaintiffs aver in Count I that Defendants Paredes and PFS as
Trustee engaged in a prohibited transaction in violation of 29
U.S.C. Section  1106(a) and (b). Paredes and PFS move to dismiss
arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts
to infer that the exemption listed in Section 1108(e) does not
apply and to infer deficiencies with the Trustee's process for
reviewing the transaction. The Plaintiffs counter that a sale
between the Plan and parties in interest is enough to find a
prohibited transaction under Section 1106(a) and that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss fails because they are relying on
Section 1108(e), an affirmative defense, which the Plaintiffs have
no obligation to negate.

Judge Bartle finds that although the Plaintiffs do not make
specific reference to Section 1108(e) in their amended complaint,
they clearly allege that there was inadequate consideration for
this transaction. The allegations include specific claims regarding
the deficiency of the sale price and the inadequacy of the
consideration based on this deficiency as well as the Trustee's
failure to properly evaluate the sale price. Judge Bartle is also
aware that the Plaintiffs do not plead any specifics as to what the
fair market value of World Travel stock should have been, and they
make many of their claims with the qualifier that these allegations
"will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery." Hence, he
concludes that sufficient facts in the amended complaint that the
Trustee acted against the interests of the Plan and the Plan's
participants and beneficiaries to state a claim under Section
1106(b).

B. Count II

The Plaintiffs bring Count II for breach of fiduciary duties in
violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a) against Defendants Paredes
and PFS. Section 1104(a) provides that a fiduciary will operate
under the "prudent man standard of care." They claim that the
Trustee violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA when it failed to
conduct an appropriate and independent investigation into the fair
market value of World Travel stock and the merits of the investment
before approving the Plan's purchase of World Travel shares. They
aver that this lack of due diligence resulted in overpayment by the
Plan for World Travel shares thereby causing them as Plan
participants and beneficiaries to receive diminished stock
allocations, excessive debt to finance the transaction, and caused
losses to the individual accounts.

The Defendants argue that te Plaintiffs do not allege insufficient
process on the part of the Trustee. They further argue that the
Plaintiffs should be held to the Rule 9 pleading standard for fraud
because these claims sound in fraud.

Judge Bartle finds sufficient facts in the amended complaint to
support a plausible claim that the Trustee breached its fiduciary
duties as imposed by ERISA in failing to conduct a proper
investigation into the sale price of World Travel shares for
purposes of this ESOP transaction. He says, the Plaintiffs include
facts about financial information that the Trustee failed to
evaluate when it approved the sale price as well as the information
the Trustee did not take into account. They also allege losses as a
result of the Trustee's actions in approving this sale. These
claims are properly pleaded as a breach of fiduciary duty rather
than fraud. The motion of Paredes and PFS to dismiss Count II of
the amended complaint will therefore be denied.

C. Count III

The amended complaint states in Count III that Paredes and PFS
violated Section 1110 by having an indemnification agreement that
relieves them from liability and that accepting this
indemnification agreement was a breach of their fiduciary duties.
Section 1110 provides that, with some exceptions, "any provision in
an agreement or instrument which purports to relieve a fiduciary
from responsibility or liability for any responsibility,
obligation, or duty under this part will be void as against public
policy." The Plaintiffs allege that World Travel agreed to
indemnify the Trustee in connection with the ESOP transaction and
that this agreement is void as against public policy. They do not
attach a copy of the indemnification agreement to the amended
complaint.

Judge Bartle finds that the Plaintiffs allege in the amended
complaint that no such exemption exists in the indemnification
agreement as to violations of Section 1106(a). Accordingly, he will
permit Count III to proceed.

D. Count IV

The Plaintiffs assert Count IV against the Wells Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) for a prohibited
transaction. They claim that the Wells Defendants, as parties in
interest, directors, and selling shareholders, participated in a
transaction they knew or should have known to be prohibited under
Section 1106(a)(1)(A) and (D) when they sold their shares in World
Travel to the Plan.

Judge Bartle finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead any specific
facts as to how James R. Wells or Richard Wells knowingly
participated in a prohibited transaction. Their knowledge of the
transaction itself is not enough to plead that they knew the
transaction was prohibited, that is it was not for adequate
consideration under Section 1108(e). The facts in the amended
complaint regarding the lack of adequate consideration, that is
that the Plan paid the Wells Defendants too much, do not implicate
in any way James R. Wells or Richard Wells. The Plaintiffs do not
plead any specific allegations that these two defendants knew that
the transaction was not for adequate consideration.

In the absence of any specific allegations regarding the knowing
participation of James R. Wells or Richard Wells in a prohibited
transaction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), Judge Bartle
will dismiss Count IV against James R. Wells and Richard Wells.
Count IV as to Jim Wells will remain.

E. Count V

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege in Count V that the Wells Defendants
are liable as co-fiduciaries for breach of fiduciary duties under
29 U.S.C. Section 1105(a). They allege that the Wells Defendants,
as directors of World Travel with access to World Travel's
financial information and as selling shareholders in the ESOP
transaction, knew or should have known of the Trustee's breach of
its fiduciary duties in failing to perform due diligence in
approving the sale price for more than fair market value.

Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded
facts that defendant Jim Wells had actual knowledge that the sale
price was more than fair market value due to his knowledge of the
liabilities from revenue sharing agreements that were not reflected
in the financial projections and his role in the transaction.
However, as for Defendants James R. Wells and Richard Wells, the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded any facts that these two Defendants
"participate[d] knowingly" in a fiduciary's breach, enabled a
fiduciary to commit a breach, or "had knowledge of a breach" as is
required to state a claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105(a). Count V
against Jim Wells will stand.

III. Conclusion

Judge Bartle granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4xexfhp from Leagle.com.


PURACY LLC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Puracy LLC. The case
is styled as Robert Weekes, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Puracy LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00984
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2022).

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

Puracy -- https://puracy.com/ -- creates the most natural and
organic, plant-based, hypoallergenic, and effective cleaning
essentials that are safe for the entire family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REALREAL INC: Cook-Farrar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Realreal, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Lakeshia Cook-Farrar, as an individual
and on, behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Realreal,
Inc., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22597986 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 3, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Non-Exempt Complaints.

The RealReal, Inc. -- https://www.therealreal.com/ -- is an online
and brick-and-mortar marketplace for authenticated luxury
consignment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          515 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-381-1515
          Fax: 213-465-4885
          Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Fax: 213-488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito St # 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: 831-531-4214
          Fax: 831-634-0333
          Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


REBEL DAWG: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Hoegh Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Hoegh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Rebel Dawg, Inc., Stacie
Amador, and David Yett, Case No. 1:22-cv-00674 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7,
2022) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover unpaid
overtime wages, spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff claims that he was not compensated properly under the
New York City Administrative Code ("NYC Charter"), Title 20:
Consumer Affairs, Chapter 10 section 20-927 et seq. for failure to
provide an appropriate written contract, under Section 20-928, and
failure to pay on time under section 20-929.

Plaintiff Hoegh was employed as an office worker and web developer
at the Defendants' apparel and accessories company. He was employed
as a non-managerial employee from July 2021 through and including
October 2021.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control a French restaurant,
known as "Rebel Dawg", located at 61 Greenpoint Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York. The Individual Defendants possess operational control
over the Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the
Corporate Defendant, and control significant functions of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed FLSA Collection Action
are:

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

RENT-A-DAUGHTER: Acoff Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JoAnne Acoff, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rent-a-Daughter, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00193 (N.D. Ohio, February 2, 2022), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Defendant provides home care and health care assistance where Acoff
worked as a nurse's aide from approximately December 2020 through
December 2021. Acoff claims to have regularly worked over 40 hours
per week but was paid straight time, instead of overtime, for the
time she worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
      Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      34555 Chagrin Boulevard
      Moreland Hills, OH 44022
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
             alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
             matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com


RS&I INC: Gersuk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RS&I, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Matthew Gersuk, and similarly situated
employees v. RS&I, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00314556-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
26, 2022).

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

RS&I -- https://www.rsiinc.com/ -- is a national sales and
distribution company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
          Phone: 916-525-0716
          Fax: 916-760-3733
          Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com


SAGUARO BLOOM: Montour Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saguaro Bloom
Diagnostics LLC. The case is styled as Danielle Montour,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Saguaro Bloom Diagnostics LLC doing business as: Bloom Labs,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01041 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2022).

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

Saguaro Bloom -- https://www.bloomlabs.co/ -- provides fast
COVID-19 testing in the heart of Old Town Scottsdale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


SFC MARKETS: Uy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SFC Markets
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Benito III Uy,
individually and on behalf of all, others similarly situated v. SFC
Markets Incorporated, Fortune Management Company, Inc., Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22597850 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Jan. 26, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

SFC Marketplace, Inc. specializes in Retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com



SMARTLINK LLC: Sarahong Sues Over Project Coordinators' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHAJEEMAS SARAHONG and LUCIE SAETHER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMARTLINK, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00328-BPG (D. Md., February 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages and failure to pay wages owed at the termination of their
employment in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law, and the Washington Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs Sarahong and Saether were employed by the Defendant as
project coordinators at its offices in Maryland, Arizona, and
Washington from December 2018 until December 2020 and from October
2020 until December 2020, respectively.

Smartlink, LLC is a national staffing company, headquartered in
Annapolis, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
         Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
         Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
         36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
         Baltimore, MD 21201
         Telephone: (410) 244-7005
         Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
         E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                 snevin@nicholllaw.com
                 kaburgy@nicholllaw.com

SOCLEAN INC: Brackins Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paul Brackins, Rosetta Dejarnett, Shelly Key,
Jonathan Griffin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00651 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
Feb. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00225-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jubal L. Hamil, Esq.
          DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC
          P.O. Box 1031
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Phone: (251) 432-6020
          Fax: (251) 471-4497
          Email: jhamil@dshfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Alan Burkhart, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          PO Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35203-4642
          Phone: (205) 226-8753
          Fax: (205) 488-4642
          Email: cburkhart@balch.com

               - and -

          Jason Brent Tompkins, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 226-8743
          Fax: (205) 488-5721
          Email: jtompkins@balch.com


SOCLEAN INC: Cupp Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Cupp, Vunor Wood, Mark Wright, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01309 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00227-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jubal L. Hamil, Esq.
          DEAKLE, SHOLTIS & HAMIL, LLC
          P.O. Box 1031
          Mobile, AL 36633
          Phone: (251) 432-6020
          Fax: (251) 471-4497
          Email: jhamil@dshfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Alan Burkhart, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          PO Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35203-4642
          Phone: (205) 226-8753
          Fax: (205) 488-4642
          Email: cburkhart@balch.com

               - and -

          Jason Brent Tompkins, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 226-8743
          Fax: (205) 488-5721
          Email: jtompkins@balch.com


SOCLEAN INC: Hunter-Blank Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Larry Hunter-Blank, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02425
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Feb. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00233-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cassandra R. Valentine, Esq.
          James D. Lawrence, Esq.
          W. Perry Brandt, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP - KCMO
          1200 Main Street, Suite 3800
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 374-3280
          Fax: (816) 855-3280
          Email: cassie.valentine@bclplaw.com
                 jdlawrence@bclplaw.com
                 perry.brandt@bclplaw.com


SOCLEAN INC: Landers Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVE LANDERS, SR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00919, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00226-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, failure to warn, and medical monitoring by
advertising and selling a defective product used to clean
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines.

SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in New Hampshire. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
         Eric Berger, Esq.
         Laura E. Cox, Esq.
         WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
         200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
         Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
         Telephone: (501) 371-0808
         Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
         E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com
                 eberger@wlj.com
                 lcox@wlj.com

SOCLEAN INC: Stahl Consumer Suit Moved From D. Kan. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL L. STAHL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02424,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00232-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, failure to warn, and medical monitoring by
advertising and selling a defective product used to clean
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines.

SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
         KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC
         3304 NE Ralph Powell Road
         Lee's Summit, MO 64064
         Telephone: (816) 461-3800
         Facsimile: (816) 254-8014
         E-mail: mike@kapkewillerth.com

                  - and –

         John M. Deakle, Esq.
         Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
         Ronald V. Johnson, Esq.
         DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
         802 N. Main Street
         P.O. Box 2072
         Hattiesburg, MS 39403
         Telephone: (601) 544-0631
         Facsimile: (601) 544-0699
         E-mail: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
                 rljohnson@djlawms.com
                 rvjohnson@djlawms.com

                  - and –

         Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
         Andrea Barient, Esq.
         PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN
         24110 Eden Street
         P.O. Drawer 71
         Plaquemine, LA 70765
         Telephone: (888) 725-2477
         Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
         E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                 abarient@pbclawfirm.com

SOCLEAN INC: Wheeler Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Wheeler, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00837
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00230-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          24110 Eden St
          PO Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70764
          Phone: (225) 687-6396
          Fax: (225) 687-6398
          Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald Johnson, IV, Esq.
          Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
          DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C
          PO Box 2072
          Hattiesburg, MS 39403
          Phone: (601) 325-8992
          Email: rvjohnson@djlawms.com

               - and -


          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 901-0419
          Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Durell, Esq.
          Lauren M. Fincher, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          600 Congress Ave., Suite 2200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 305-4714
          Fax: (512) 391-4778
          Email: daniel.durell@lockelord.com
                 lfincher@lockelord.com


SUNPATH LTD: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Morales TCPA Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KURT MORALES II, BRANDON CALLIER, and LUCAS HORTON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUNPATH LTD., a Delaware corporation, NORTHCOAST
WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., Delaware corporation, Defendants, C.A. No.
1:20-cv-01376-RGA-MPT (D. Del.), Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat
Thynge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
recommended that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Class Action Complaint with Prejudice be denied.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs initiated the action on Oct. 9, 2020, alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47
U.S.C. Section 227, and its implementing regulations, including 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(2). The original complaint was amended
three times.

On June 3, 2021, Plaintiffs Kurt Morales II, Brandon Callier, and
Lucas Horton filed the two-count Third Amended Class Action
Complaint ("TAC") alleging violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.
Sections 227(b) and 227(c) by Defendants Sunpath Ltd. and
Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. The Defendants filed the Motion
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on
June 23, 2021.

The Defendants allegedly violated the TCPA by making unsolicited
and unauthorized phone calls using artificial or prerecorded voice
messages, without written consent, to sell vehicle service
contracts ("VSCs").

The TCPA was enacted to restrict the use of sophisticated
telemarketing equipment that could make calls to millions of
consumers en masse; exactly like those allegedly made by the
Defendants. The Defendants allegedly create lists of thousands of
vehicle owners from various public records and employ aggressive
and illegal sales techniques using artificial or prerecorded voice
messages to market their VSCs. The messages solicit warranty
extensions by purportedly relaying false information concerning the
imminent expiration of manufacturers' auto warranties. In fact, the
VSCs are neither actual warranties, nor "extensions" of
manufacturers' warranties. The Defendants' allegedly unlawful
behavior is documented in numerous prior legal actions and consumer
complaints to the Better Business Bureau.

The Plaintiffs, individually and behalf of Classes of all others
similarly situated, seek damages and an injunction that requires
the Defendants stop their purportedly unlawful calling practices.

II. Discussion

The parties' dispute centers on the interpretation of the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Barr v. American Association of
Political Consultants, Inc. ("AAPC"). The Supreme Court there
considered whether a government-debt exception to the TCPA violated
the First Amendment, and the severability of that exception.

In 1991, the TCPA was enacted to "generally prohibit robocalls to
cell phones and home phones." In 2015 the TCPA was amended to
"allow robocalls that are made to collect debts owed to or
guaranteed by the Federal Government." The plaintiffs in AAPC,
"political and nonprofit organizations that want to make political
robocalls to cell phones," argued "the 2015 government-debt
exception unconstitutionally favors debt-collection speech over
political and other speech" in violation of the First Amendment,
and sought invalidation of "the entire 1991 robocall restriction,
rather than simply invalidating the 2015 government-debt
exception." The court held "the 2015 government-debt exception
added an unconstitutional exception to the law. We cure that
constitutional violation by invalidating the 2015 government-debt
exception and severing it from the remainder of the statute."

The Defendants argue the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the Plaintiffs' claims because as a result of finding the 2015
government-debt exception unconstitutional, liability cannot attach
to cans made between 2015 and the AAPC decision. They maintain the
TCPA cannot be applied retroactively, and that retroactive
application of the TCPA violates principles of due process. Even if
the Court determines it has subject matter jurisdiction, the
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because they do not allege the
Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing system ("auto
dialer" or "ATDS") with the capacity to use a random or sequential
number generator to either store or produce phone numbers to be
called.

The Plaintiffs argue the Defendants' constitutional challenge to
the TCPA robocall restriction is barred by laches. Separately, they
insist subject matter jurisdiction exists because the TCPA's
general robocall restriction remains enforceable after the
unconstitutional government-debt exception was severed, and
retroactive enforcement of that restriction does not violate due
process. The Plaintiffs also maintain the TAC adequately pleads
violations of the TCPA's robocall restriction based of the
Defendants' use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and calls to
phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNC
Registry").

A. Laches

Laches is "generally defined as an unreasonable delay" resulting in
"material prejudice" to the other party. Laches arises where: "(1)
the plaintiff delayed in filing suit for an unreasonable and
inexcusable length of time after the plaintiff knew or reasonably
should have known of its claim against the defendant; and (2) the
defendant suffered material prejudice or injury as a result of the
plaintiff's delay."

The Plaintiffs argue the government-debt exception amendment to the
TCPA was enacted in 2015, yet the Defendants delayed until 2020 to
assert their constitutional challenge to that exception "for the
sole purpose of avoiding liability for placing telemarketing calls
to Plaintiffs in violation of the TCPA." They assert that delay was
unreasonable and materially prejudicial to them.

The Defendants maintain the Plaintiffs' argument would require them
to seek an impermissible advisory opinion because prior to being
sued by the Plaintiffs they had no avenue to raise their
constitutional challenge. They also note Justice Gorsuch's
statement suggesting it is questionable whether similarly situated
parties would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of
the government-debt exception.

Judge Thynge determines that the Defendants' argument is not barred
by laches. She says, the Defendants raised their laches defense in
a motion to dismiss the original complaint and aver diligence in
asserting their defenses through three amendments to that original
complaint. The Plaintiffs' assertions of unreasonable delay and
material prejudice have not been demonstrated and are thus
rejected.

B. Impact of AAPC on the Court's Jurisdiction

The Defendants argue AAPC determined the 2015 government-debt
exception to the TCPA was unconstitutional and severed that
exception on a prospective basis. They contend the TCPA cannot be
applied retroactively and that retroactive application would
violate principles of due process. Thus, no liability can arise
under the act for their purported violations between 2015 and the
issuance of the AAPC decision in 2020. Because all calls the
Plaintiffs complain of were made during that time period, the
Defendants insist the TAC should be dismissed with prejudice. They
also argue retrospective application of the TCPA would violate
principles of due process.

Judge Thynge disagrees with both arguments. She holds that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction to reach the merits of the
matter. She agrees with the Plaintiffs' contention that due process
is not implicated because the Defendants are not government-debt
collectors and, thus, could not have relied on the severed
amendment when placing unlawful calls to sell VSCs. Hence, Judge
Thynge determines that application of the Plaintiffs' TCPA claims
to the Defendants does not violate their due process rights. Thus,
she recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Rule
12(b)(1) be dismissed.

C. Alleged Failure to State a Claim under the TCPA

The Defendants argue even if dismissal is not required under Rule
12(b)(1), the Motion must nevertheless be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under the TCPA. They
argue the Supreme Court's Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid opinion
demonstrates the TAC fails to state a claim because it does not
allege defendants used an auto dialer employing "a random or
sequential number generator either to store or produce phone
numbers to be called." In Facebook, the Court stated that "No
qualify as an 'automatic telephone dialing system,' within the
meaning of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(1)(A), a device must
have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random
or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number using a
random or sequential number generator."

The Plaintiffs assert Facebook demonstrates dismissal pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) is not warranted because the TAC adequately pleads
violations of the TCPA based on the Defendants' use of an
artificial or prerecorded voice and calls to phone numbers on the
DNC Registry.

Judge Thynge finds Facebook supports the Plaintiffs' argument.
There, she finds that the Supreme Court made clear "the statute
separately prohibits calls using 'an artificial or prerecorded
voice' to various types of phone lines, including home phones and
cell phones, unless an exception applies. Their decision does not
affect that prohibition." In the case, the Plaintiffs similarly
"reserve the right to argue that he Defendants used an automatic
telephone dialing system to place the calls to them and the Class
members should facts uncovered in discovery support that argument."
Thus, Judge Thynge recommends denying the Defendants' request to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

III. Recommended Disposition

Consistent with her findings, Judge Thynge recommended that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), and D. DEL. LR
72.1, any objections to this Report and Recommendation will be
filed within 14 days limited to 10 pages after being served with
the same. Any response will be limited to 10 pages and filed within
14 days thereafter. The parties are directed to the Court's
Standing Order in Non-Pro Se Matters for Objections Filed under
FED. R. CIV. P. 72 dated Oct. 9, 2013, a copy of which is found on
the Court's website (www.ded.uscourts.gov.)

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2022 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/7n4hfrmf from
Leagle.com.


TELOS CORPORATION: Firemen's Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TELOS CORPORATION, JOHN
B. WOOD, MICHELE NAKAZAWA, and MARK BENDZA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00135
(E.D. Va., Feb. 7, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all persons
and entities that purchased Telos common stock between November 19,
2020 and November 12, 2021, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Telos is an Ashburn, Virginia-based company that focuses on
developing and implementing cyber, cloud, and enterprise security
technology and products. The Company provides services to
government, military, and Fortune 500 companies across the world.
For instance, some of the entities Telos has inked contracts with
include the Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, Oracle, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and DLT Solutions.

Among the Company's product offerings is "ID Trust 360," which is
an FBI-certified, enterprise-class digital identity risk platform
for extending software-as-a-service and custom digital identity
services. It is designed to reduce threats by integrating advanced
technologies that fuse biometrics, credentials, and other identity-
centric data to continuously monitor for data integrity.

In July 2020, Telos announced it was one of three vendors chosen by
the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA") for a
ten-year contract to provide TSA PreCheck (TM) enrollment services
using the ID Trust 360 platform.

Then, in October 2020, Telos announced a ten-year,
multibillion-dollar contract with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services ("CMS") using ID Trust 360.

On the shoulders of the TSA and CMS contract announcements, Telos
held its initial public offering ("IPO") on the NASDAQ Global
Market (the "NASDAQ"), after the Company's shares had previously
traded over-the-counter for several years.

In connection with its IPO, on October 6, 2020, Telos filed a Form
S-1 Registration Statement, which was declared effective on
November 18, 2020. Therein, the Company touted "rapidly
accelerating revenue growth beginning in 2021 and 2022" due in part
to the significant revenue stream the TSA and CMS contracts would
generate. In fact, the Company forecasted that these two contracts
would generate "in excess of $135 million in revenue in 2021 and
2022." By the time of Telos' first earnings call as a public
company in March 2021, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") John B. Wood
("Wood") projected the Company would earn "almost $1 billion of
annual revenue within 5 years" with the CMS and TSA contracts
substantially contributing to that figure.

The Defendants repeatedly assured the market that it was on track
to commence work on the TSA and CMS contracts as scheduled, that
revenues would be recognized from these contracts in 2021, and that
the guidance it was providing was "conservative."

Unbeknownst to investors, throughout the Class Period, Telos lacked
a reasonable basis for its repeated assurances regarding the
schedule for executing the crucial TSA and CMS contracts and its
associated revenue guidance. Despite being in constant
communication with the TSA and CMS, Defendants did not disclose
that these two contracts were in continual delay and management
could not accurately forecast when work on these two contracts
would commence, says the suit.

Specifically, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the TSA
and CMS contracts, which constituted a majority of the Company's
future revenues, were not on track to commence as represented at
the end of 2021 and in 2022.

The truth regarding Telos' inability to execute these contracts on
the schedule repeatedly promised was revealed by CFO Bendza during
the Company's earnings call regarding its third quarter 2021
results held on November 15, 2021 before the markets opened. CFO
Bendza shocked the market by disclosing that the CMS and TSA
PreCheck contracts would be delayed with only the TSA PreCheck
commencing in 2022, while the CMS contract was pushed back after
full year 2022.

Despite CEO Wood admitting that Telos had been "in near daily
communication with TSA program officials," Telos blamed the TSA
PreCheck delay on new mandatory cybersecurity requirements being
imposed due to the hacking scandal. Telos blamed the delay of the
CMS contract on the fact that "government agencies have not been
reverting back to full in-person fingerprinting" due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

In reaction to these revelations, Telos' stock price fell $6.84 per
share, or more than 28 percent, from a close of $24.38 per share to
a close of $17.54 per share on November 15, 2021 -- representing a
$328 million decline in market capitalization.

Analysts were quick to excoriate Telos and its management,
specifically criticizing management for their prior
misrepresentations and even going so far as to state that Telos'
"credibility [was] shredded." Despite Telos' assurances that work
with the TSA would commence at the start of 2022, one analyst
proclaimed, "management has shown an inability to accurately
forecast when the project will go live, and we are thus not baking
in any TSA revenue contribution our revised numbers until
Q2'2[2]."

As a result of Defendants' alleged false and misleading statements
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis provides retirement,
disability, death, and survivor benefits to nearly 2,000 active and
retired firefighters in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and their
beneficiaries. The Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis
oversees approximately $435 million in assets.

The Plaintiff purchased Telos common stock during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law
violations and the alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.

Telos was founded in 1968 and offers advanced technology in the
field of cybersecurity.  The Company provides products and services
to the government, military, and Fortune 500 companies. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave, NW| Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
                  ravan@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

TNG WORLDWIDE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TNG Worldwide, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TNG Worldwide, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00960 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2022).

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

TNG -- https://www.tngworldwide.com/ -- has beauty products and
essential health supplies from some of the top brands available
here on their online store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOYOTA MOTOR: Perez Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Javier Perez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,
Toyota Motor Corporation, Southeast Toyota Distributors, LLC, Case
No. 0:21-cv-62117 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Feb. 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00780-CAS-RAO to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Geoffrey S. Stahl, Esq.
          Rachel Ann Bentley, Esq.
          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          GORDON & PARTNERS, PA
          4114 Northlake Blvd.
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Phone: (561) 333-3333
          Email: GStahl@fortheinjured.com
                 rbentley@fortheinjured.com
                 scalamusa@fortheinjured.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 alperstein@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave., 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian Michael Ercole, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 415-3416
          Fax: (305) 415-3001
          Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Matthew Michael Papkin, Esq.
          Melissa Marie Coates, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 S Biscayne Blvd # 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 415-3392
          Fax: (305) 415-3001
          Email: matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com
                 melissa.coates@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert Eric Sacks, Esq.
          Joshua Zipper, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & HERMANN, P.A.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Phone: (561) 477-7800
          Fax: (561) 477-7722
          Email: rsacks@sbwlawfirm.com
                 jzipper@sbwh.law


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Higley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tractor Supply
Company, et al. The case is styled as Shelby L. Higley, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tractor Supply Company,
Does 1 - 10, Case No. 34-2022-00314620-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 26, 2022).

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

Tractor Supply Co. -- https://www.tractorsupply.com/ -- is the
source for farm supplies, pet and animal feed and supplies,
clothing, tools, fencing, and so much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com



UNITED STATES: Burger et al., Dismissed in Clark Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA CLARK, ELLEN
GASS, NATHANIEL WEST, ROWAN MAHER, and GARRISON DAVIS, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v.CHAD WOLF,
Acting Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security, et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01436-IM (D. Or.), the Court entered an order
granting Defendants Russel Burger, Richard Cline, Allen Scott
Jones, Mark Morgan, Gabriel Russell, and Andrew Smith's motion to
dismiss, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants
for failure to state a claim.

Before the Court is the motion to dismiss brought by Russell,
Regional Director, Region 10, Federal Protective Service ("FPS");
Jones, Deputy Director of Operations, FPS; Cline, Principal Deputy
Director, FPS; Morgan, former Acting Commissioner, United States
Customs and Border Protection ("CPB"); Burger, former United States
Marshal for the District of Oregon, United States Marshals Service
("USMS"); and Smith, Assistant Director for Tactical Operations,
USMS.

The Defendants seek to dismiss all claims asserted against them
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the bases
that a Bivens remedy is inappropriate in these circumstances, and
that even if this Court were to recognize such a remedy, Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs Angelica
Clark, Ellen Gass, Nathaniel West, Rowan Maher, Robert Evans, and
Garrison Davis. The putative class consists of individuals who
attended one or more of the protests in support of the Black Lives
Matter movement that occurred during July 2020 near the Mark O.
Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and who were
exposed to tear gas.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to unreasonable use
of force and unlawful arrest or detention by federal officers
during these protests.

The Plaintiffs seeks monetary damages from the federal officers in
their individual capacities under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for alleged violations of
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.

The Defendants include KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary United States
Department of Homeland Security; GABRIEL RUSSELL; ALLEN JONES;
RUSSEL BURGER; ANDREW SMITH; MARK MORGAN; RICHARD CLINE; LEONARD
ERIC PATTERSON; DONALD WASHINGTON; DERRICK DRISCOLL; JEFF TYLER;
FPS SUPERVISORY OFFCIERS NOS. 2, 6, 8, 14, 16, 41, 42, and 44; ICE
SUPERVISORY OFFICER NO. 1; USMS SUPERVISORY OFFICERS CD, CG1, and
OT1; CBP SUPERVISORY OFFICERS NOS. 1, 2, 85, 87, 89, 90, 17, 91,
28, 94, 95, 96, 33, 98, 100–104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113,
67, 69, 114, 115, 72, 74, 116, 75, 119, 121, and 122; and JOHN DOE
SUPERVISORY AND PATROL-LEVEL DEFENDANTS 1–140; agents of the U.S.
Marshals Service, Federal Protective Service, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, acting in
concert and in their Individual capacities.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          Sugerman Dahab, Esq.
          David D. Park
          707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          ELLIOT & PARK, P.C.
          324 SW Abernethy St.
          Portland, OR 97239

               - and -

          Michelle R. Burrows, Esq.
          MICHELLE R. BURROWS P.C.
          1333 Orenco Station Parkway No. 525,
          Hillsboro, OR 97124

               - and -

          Jane L. Moisan, Esq.
          PEOPLE'S LAW PROJECT
          818 SW 4th Ave. No. 221-3789
          Portland, OR 97204

               - and -

          Erious Johnson, Jr.
          HARMON JOHNSON LLC
          1415 Commercial St. SE,
          Salem, OR 97302

               - and -

          Christopher A. Larsen
          Pickett Dummigan McCall LLP
          210 SW Morrison St., 4th Fl.
          Portland, OR 97204

               - and -

          Gabriel Chase
          CHASE LAW, PC
          621 SW Alder St., Ste. 600
          Portland, OR 97205

               - and -

          Joe Piucci, Esq.
          PIUCCI LAW LLC
          900 SW 13th Ave., Ste. 200
          Portland, OR 97205

The Defendants are represented by:

          Glenn Greene, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC 20044

UNITED STATES: Keoughs Bid to Certify Class Nixed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KEOUGH AND NANCY
KEOUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-10311-DJC
(D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs motion to certify class without prejudice
given the filing of amended complaint, and pendency of a responsive
pleading to same.

This ruling is without prejudice to renewing the motion on a
schedule to be set by the Court at the initial scheduling
conference, says Judge Casper.

On March 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class
as follows:

   "All persons who were charged a debt collection fee or
   administrative fee as a result of a judgment by a government
   agency that was not related to a loan issued by an agency of
   the Federal government, which the Defendants calculated as a
   percentage of the debt or other means rather than the actual
   or reasonably estimated actual costs of collection of the
   debt purportedly owed to Defendants."

The suit alleges Violation of the 5th & 8th Amendments.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Borrelli, Esq.
          806 Fox Run
          Middleboro, MA 02346
          Telephone: (781) 983-7983
          E-mail: Lawyer2@earlthlink.net

V.S. EYE WEAR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against V.S. Eye Wear, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. V.S. Eye Wear, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00645 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2022).

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

V.S. Eyewear -- https://www.vseyewear.com/ -- offers a broad
selection of products to our industrial users such as Radiation
Protection Glasses, Welding Safety Glasses, Laser Safety Glasses
and Glass Working supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


VALIANT ACQUISITION: White TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES WHITE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VALIANT ACQUISITION CORP. d/b/a
GUARDIAN AUTO SHIELD, Case No. 16-2021-CA-006229-XXXX-MA, was
removed from the Circuit Court for the 4th Judicial Circuit in and
for Duval County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-00135-HES-LLL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Valiant Acquisition Corp., doing business as Guardian Auto Shield,
is a provider of auto protection services doing business in
Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Carl Taylor Smith, Esq.
         ROTH JACKSON
         1519 Summit Ave., Suite 102
         Richmond, VA 23230
         Telephone: (804) 729-4440
         Facsimile: (804) 441-8438
         E-mail: tsmith@rothjackson.com

VALIANT ACQUISITION: White TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James White, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Valiant Acquisition Corp. doing
business as: Guardian Auto Shield, Case No. 16-2021-CA-006229 was
removed from the Circuit Court for the 4th Judicial Circuit, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 7,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00130 to the
proceeding.

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

Valiant Acquisition Corp. doing business as Guardian Auto Shield --
https://www.guardianautoshield.com/ -- offer the nation's premier
full coverage auto protection options.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


VERIZON BUSINESS: Hogue Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY HOGUE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES,
LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV47026, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
February 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00852 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide compliant meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay wages at
termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair business practices.

Verizon Business Network Services, LLC is a telecommunications
company, headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.

Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. is a telecommunications
company, located in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
         Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 830-0600
         Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
         E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
                 nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com

VICTORYBUY INC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victorybuy Inc. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Victorybuy Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01002 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2022).

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

Victorybuy -- https://victorybuy.com/ -- is an online retailer
specializing in plastic army men and other classic toys since
2002.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VILLA RESTAURANT: Jones Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villa Restaurant
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Nicholas Jones, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Villa Restaurant
Group, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00575 (D.N.J, Feb. 4, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Villa Restaurant Group -- https://www.villarestaurantgroup.com/
-- is comprised of quick service restaurants like Villa Italian
Kitchen, Green Leaf's Beyond Great Salads, Bananas Smoothies &
Frozen Yogurt, South Philly Cheesesteaks & Fries, Tony + Benny's
Authentic Brooklyn Pizzeria and The Market, among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sofia Balile, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Phone: (917) 981-0849
          Fax: (888) 953-6237
          Email: sofia.balile@gmail.com


VIRGIN SCENT: Deans Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pamela Deans, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Virgin Scent, Inc. doing business as:
Artnaturals, Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
37-02021-00048846-CU-BC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court,
San Diego County, State of CA, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Feb. 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00164-BTM-BGS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Class Action
Fairness Act.

Virgin Scent, Inc. doing business as ArtNaturals --
https://artnaturals.com/ -- offers skin care products which
increase beauty and are for nature lovers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elisa Pineda, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 696-9006
          Fax: (619) 564-6665
          Email: elisa@consumersadvocates.com
                 kas@consumersadvocates.com
                 mike@consumersadvocates.com
                 ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark A Neubauer, Esq.
          Stephanie Grace Chau, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2913
          Phone: (310) 843-6300
          Fax: (310) 843-6301
          Email: mneubauer@carltonfields.com
                 schau@carltonfields.com


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Fischer Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peter Fischer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing
business as: VPX Sports, Does 1 through 10, Case No. 21SL-CC04977
was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Feb. 3,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00136-MTS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing business as VPX Sports --
https://bangenergy.com/ -- is one of the hottest names in the
supplement industry with their VPX Bang Energy Drinks and Master
Blaster Pre-Workout.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Harvath, Esq.
          HARVATH LAW GROUP LLC
          75 W. Lockwood, Suite 1
          St. Louis, MO 63119
          Phone: (314) 550-3717
          Email: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael T. Crabb, Esq.
          KUCKELMAN AND TORLINE
          10740 Nall,Suite 250
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 951-5651
          Fax: (913) 948-8611
          Email: mcrabb@ktk-law.com


VTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vtech Communications,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Vtech Communications, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01003-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2022).

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

VTech -- http://www.vtech.com/-- is a global supplier of
electronic learning products from infancy to preschool.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTERN CARE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Caregivers, Lapoint Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEISHA M. LAPOINT, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. WESTERN CARE, INC. D/B/A AMADA SENIOR CARE
AUSTIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00101 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 7, 2022) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and its other Caregivers
overtime wages at the correct hourly rate when they work more than
40 hours in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Specifically, the Defendant paid Plaintiff and its Caregivers for
all hours worked including hours worked over forty in a workweek,
but failed to include "bonus" payments in the calculation of its
overtime rate. As a result, Defendant allegedly violates the
overtime wage provisions of the FLSA.

The Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and its other Caregivers
for all hours worked. Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and its other Caregivers for the time spent driving
between clients’ homes, picking up supplies, travelling to and
from the office to submit required forms and paperwork, and other
company required duties as required by the FLSA. As a result,
Defendant violates the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the
FLSA, the suit added.

The Plaintiff and the similarly situated workers she seeks to
represent, are current and former hourly paid Caregivers who worked
for the Defendant for any work week during the period of three
years prior to the Court certifying a collective action to the
present ("the Class Members").

Western Care provides home care services to elderly and/or invalid
clients. To do that, Defendant employs a class of workers called
"Caregivers" who offer assistance to clients with one or more of
the following services: bathing, grooming, toileting,
transfer/ambulation, exercise regimens, medication administration,
feeding, meal preparation, cleaning, laundry, shopping and
escort.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES: Alfonso Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katya Alfonso, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Williams & Associates and Donald H.
Williams, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00206, (D. Nev., February 3,
2022), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Williams & Associates is a law firm with an office and principal
place of business in the State of Nevada that regularly engages in
debt collection. Sometime prior to August 2021, Alfonso allegedly
incurred financial obligations to an original creditor, Republic
Silver State Disposal, Inc. She allegedly defaulted on the alleged
Debt and sometime thereafter Williams & Associates was assigned the
alleged debt.

Williams & Associates sent a collection letter on August 30, 2021,
but failed to inform Alfonso that the communication was from a debt
collector, the e-mail was an attempt to collect a debt, and that
any information obtained would be used for the purpose of the
collection of a debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
     Mona Amini, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     6069 South Fort Apache Road, Suite 100
     Las Vegas, NV 89148
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
             mona@kazlg.com


WOODWARD HRT: Silva Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALFREDO SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WOODWARD HRT, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV42692, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
February 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00782 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
required meal periods, failure to provide required rest periods,
failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses.

Woodward HRT, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and service
provider of control solutions for the aerospace and industrial
markets, headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gerald L. Maatman, Jr, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606-6448
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com

                  - and –

         Timothy L. Hix, Esq.
         Meagan S. O'Dell, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
         Telephone: (213) 270-9600
         Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
         E-mail: thix@seyfarth.com
                 modell@seyfarth.com

YWCA OF GREATER HARRISBURG: Tidwell Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YWCA of Greater
Harrisburg. The case is styled as Heather Tidwell, and all others
similarly situated v. YWCA of Greater Harrisburg, Case No.
2022-CV-00488-CV (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Dauphin Cty., Jan. 25,
2022).

The case type is stated as "Civil."

YWCA of Greater Harrisburg -- http://www.ywcahbg.org/-- is a youth
social services organization in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Phone: 717-260-3646


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $10.6MM Estimated Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has an estimated net asbestos-related
aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between
$5,800,000 and $10,600,000, net of insurance recoveries, using
actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years
from December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Columbus McKinnon said: "The Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles approximates $7,765,000.
The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance
recoveries of $9,077,000 as a liability in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2021. The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable
federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and
the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a
number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately $2,400,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment
of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management
believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not
have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or
its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities
recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.

A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement. The reimbursement net of retro-premiums is
approximately 47% which resulted in a $1,830,000 increase to the
Company’s asbestos liability during the second quarter of fiscal
2021.

"In addition, the insurance carriers were required to reimburse the
Company for past defense costs through the date of the settlement
amounting to $3,006,000 which was paid during the second quarter of
fiscal 2021. The reimbursement for past cost was recorded net of a
contingent legal fee of $1,500,000 which was paid in the third
quarter of fiscal 2021. Further, the insurance carriers are
expected to cover 100% of indemnity costs related to all covered
cases. Estimates of the future cost sharing have been included in
the loss reserve calculation as of December 31, 2021 and March 31,
2021. The Company has recorded a receivable for the estimated
future cost sharing in Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet at December 31, 2021 in the amount of $9,077,000,
which offsets its asbestos reserves."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3B4EUrr


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co Faces 29,958 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of December 31, 2021, was a defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of the 29,958 pending claims as of December
31, 2021, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of
which approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were
filed over 15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court
orders.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the years ended December 31,
2021, 2020 and 2019 totaled $55.2 million, $50.9 million and $66.2
million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement
and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in
the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some
fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement
amounts are not made until all releases and other required
documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both
settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due
to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer
to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain
reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement
and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the
years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 totaled $44.9 million,
$31.1 million and $41.5 million, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/34kMliq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent.  We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3J8RSr1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Thousands of PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of their products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Currently there are a few thousand claimants
in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show
that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we
have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity
of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation
make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of
asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility
of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these
uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos
claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3oA0ZsZ



                            *********

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 ***