---

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

              Thursday, February 17, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 29

                            Headlines

ABI JAPANESE: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Neri FLSA Suit
AIRBNB INC: March 28 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
AKELA CONTRACTING: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Flaggers Under FLSA
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: May Undergo Court Supervision After Agreement
ALLERGAN INC: Drops $30M Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Settlement

AM COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 24 Order in Grant
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Meds Price-rigging Row Pending in E.D. Pa.
AVNET INC: Heikkia, Lopez Seek to Certify Hourly Employee Class
BANKROLL CAPITAL: River Chiropractic Seeks to Add Defendants
BECTON DICKINSON: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Pleading in Kabak Suit

BIOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 8 Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Alzheimer's Drug
BLACK RIVER: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Suit Says
BNY MELLON: Prehearing Order Entered in Bernard Class Suit
BOSTON GLOBE: Subscriber Files Class Action Over Data Sharing

BRINKER INT'L: To File Reply Brief Over Credit Card Dispute Row
BSA LTD: Settles Sham Contracting Class Action for $20 Million
CANADA: July 13 Indian Day School Claim Submission Deadline Set
CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for General Managers
CHRIS BARBER: Plaintiff Expresses Opinion on Honking Class Action

CHRIS BARBER: Woman Seeks to Sue Protesters in $9.8M Class Action
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Judges Skeptical of COVID Business Losses
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Class Action Attorneys Appeal Dismissal Ruling
CONAGRA BRANDS: Order on Class Cert. Bid Entered in Alvarez Suit
CONAIR CORP: Gonsalves Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Services of Tractors, Brown Alleges
DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Coercion to Take COVID-19 Vaccines
ELECTRIC LAST: Shareholders Expected to Join Class Action
EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Securities Suit Dismissed
FB HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Abreu Alleges

FILA-MAR ENERGY: Barajas, Cerna Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
FLINT, MI: Judge Trims Atty. Fees Requested in Drinking Water Suit
FLINT, MI: Lawyers Get Close to $180M in Water Crisis Settlement
GARDEN COTTAGE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Says
GEICO CASUALTY: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Ohio Court Ruling

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Defective Airbag Suits
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Defective Battery Raps in US, Canada Courts
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Emissions Suits in US, Canada Courts
GENERAL MOTORS: Won et al., Seek to Certify 26 Purchaser Classes
GLOBAL FIXTURE: Michel Thompson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA

GOFUND ADVANCE: Faces Haymount Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
HEMPSTEAD POULTRY: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
HOST INT'L: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 24 Order in Schroeder
ILLINOIS: BIPA Claims Are Not Barred, Supreme Court Rules
ILLINOIS: Judge Denies Class Cert. in Mask Mandate Suit

ILUKA RESOURCES: Federal Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Settlement to Expand Services for Immigrants
LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs $14M Settlement in Immigration Suit
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FCRA Violations
MDL 2913: Byrne Suit Consolidated in JUUL Labs Product Case

MDL 2924: Two Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Liability Litigation
MDL 3014: Three Suits Consolidated in Philips Recalled CPAP Case
MDL 3019: Achermann Suit Consolidated in T-Mobile Data Breach Case
MDL 3021: 11 Suits Consolidated in SoClean Products Liability Case
MEAD JOHNSON: Infant Formulas Falsely Advertised, Class Suit Says

MINDGEEK USA: Violates Federal Sex Trafficking Laws, Doe Suit Says
NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson Suit
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Campbell FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suit Presents Evidence of Rooney Rule Violations
NEWBY COMMUNITIES: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 14

NOVA HEALTHCARE: Ganz Seeks to Recover Back Wages for PT Assistants
OCEAN 21: Castillo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Villarino Has Until Feb. 15 to File Reply
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces $9MM Class Action Over Misclassification
PHL VARIABLE: Joint Bid for Extension of Deadlines Filed

PILLPACK LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 22
PRACTICEFIRST MEDICAL: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Class Action
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Lawful OT Wages, Mills Class Suit Says
SHATTUCK LABS: Faces Aamoth Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suits Over Faulty Entertainment Systems

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Pandemic Refund Policy
TAL EDUCATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 5 Deadline
TELOS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 8 Deadline
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Heaps Sexual Assault Suits
UNUM GROUP: May Face Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit

WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Black Prisoners' Jail Conditions
WEST MONROE: Faces Ulery Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
ZOOM VIDEO: Lawyers to Take $21M Once Settlement Approved
[*] Consumer Product Liability Class Suits in 2022 Discussed
[*] Dentons Attorneys Dissect New Canadian Class Action Regimes

[*] Overdraft Fee Class Action Against Credit Union Dismissed
[*] Recognizing Cause of Action for Class Suit Standing Unclear

                            *********

ABI JAPANESE: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Neri FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abi Japanese Restaurant, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Marcos Leon Neri, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Abi Japanese
Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Abi Sushi, Abumi Japanese Cuisine Inc. d/b/a
Abi Sushi, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00581, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 10, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and others minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery person,
but he had additional unrelated inside duties, such as cleaning the
restaurant and packaging soy sauce. He asserts that he was working
roughly 68 hours per week. He alleges that the Defendants did not
provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for
employees to track their time worked.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not need to track his
time because he was not paid based on the hours he worked. Instead,
he was paid a fixed salary that did not vary based on his hours. As
a result, the Plaintiff's effective rate of pay was always below
the statutory federal and state minimum wages in effect at relevant
times.

In addition to his pay, the Plaintiff generally received tips for
his delivery work, which he pooled with the other delivery people.
However, the Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with any
notices or information regarding the "tip credit." The Defendants
did not keep records of the tips received by the Plaintiff, says
the complaint.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff contends that he and others similarly
situated are entitled to: compensation for wages paid at less than
the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law; back wages for overtime work for which the
Defendants willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay;
compensation for the Defendants' violations of the "spread of
hours" requirements of the NYLL; and liquidated damages pursuant to
the FLSA and the NYLL, because the Defendants' violations lacked a
good faith basis.

On April 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On December 1, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. The Court ruled that Plaintiff Marcos Leon Neri
is awarded a total of $120,966.72 against Defendants, and Plaintiff
Emilio Islas Concha is awarded a total of $53,044.87. If these
amounts remains unpaid within 90 days after judgment or after the
time to appeal has expired if no appeal is pending, the total
amount will be increased by 15% in accordance with NYLL.

The Defendants are taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Abi Japanese Restaurant, Inc. v.
Neri, Case No. 22-227, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on Feb. 1, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Abi Japanese Restaurant, Inc., DBA Abi Sushi;
Abumi Japanese Cuisine Inc.; and Kun Lin Chen, appear pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Marcos Leon Neri, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated; and Emilio Islas Concha are
represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 308-3444
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

AIRBNB INC: March 28 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court of Canada discusses Airbnb Class Action
Settlement:

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Was the Deloitte email a scam or junk/spam mail?

NO. The parties have reached a settlement of the action, without an
admission of liability on the part of Airbnb, which has been
approved by the Federal Court of Canada. Deloitte has been
appointed by the Federal Court as the claims administrator for this
settlement.

2. Why have I received the e-mail from Deloitte?

Receipt of the email does not in itself mean you will receive the
Airbnb credit.

You received this email because, according to Airbnb's records, you
are a resident of Canada, other than Québec, and between October
31, 2015 and June 25, 2019 you booked an accommodation via Airbnb
for purposes other than business travel. Therefore, you could be
eligible to receive a credit.

3. Am I eligible to obtain the Airbnb credit?

Receipt of the email does not in itself necessarily mean you will
receive the Airbnb credit.

You will have to access the Deloitte claims portal and answer the
questions to confirm your eligibility. The form can only be
submitted once, and no changes are allowed.

4. If I am eligible, how much is the Airbnb credit?

At this time, we are uncertain how many claimants there will be.
The actual amount of the Airbnb credit will depend on the total
number of approved claims and will be the same for each person
claiming.

5. What do I need to do to make a claim?

You must click the link you received by e-mail which will give you
access to the claim portal, and then verify your eligibility. Once
eligibility has been established by answering the questions in the
portal, it is anticipated that you will receive your Airbnb credit
sometime in the summer of 2022.

The Airbnb credit will be available to be redeemed automatically on
your next accommodation booking you make on the Airbnb Platform,
and will be valid for twenty-four (24) months from when it is
issued. It cannot be combined with any other offer, discount,
credit or coupon.


6. How long do I have to make a claim?

The Claims Deadline is March 28, 2022. No claims will be accepted
after the Claims Deadline, and no Airbnb Credit will be issued for
claims received after the Claims Deadline.

7. Why are there eligibility questions?

The questions are there to confirm that you fit within the defined
group of individuals that are eligible to claim a credit. The
questions are drafted in plain language terms and you should answer
them to the best of your ability.

Please bear in mind this is a formal claims procedure and the
claims are supervised by the court. Thus, if it is clear that you
are not entitled to make a claim, please do not submit a claim.

8. What if I have further questions?

If there are any technical questions about the claims portal (i.e.,
link not working, or form is not loading, etc.), please contact
airbnbsettlement@deloitte.ca.

If there are any questions about the settlement agreement that are
not answered in the court-approved notice or this FAQ, please
contact class counsel at airbnb-classaction@evolinklaw.com. Class
counsel will strive to answer your inquiries as soon as
practicable.

Please note that due to the volume of inquiries, there may be
delays in answering individual questions. [GN]

AKELA CONTRACTING: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Flaggers Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AKELA CONTRACTING LLC; CIVETTA COUSINS JV, LLC; JDV
SAFETY INC.; ALL EYES ON SAFETY INC; KARINE WILLIAMS, individually;
and BRIAN MCDERMOTT, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-01185
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022) seeks to recover overtime compensation
and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated flaggers who
work or have worked on private and public works construction
projects in New York City operated by Akela Contracting LLC,
Civetta Cousins JV LLC, and Karine Williams and JDV Safety Inc.,
All Eyes on Safety Inc. and Brian McDermott.

According to the complaint, Akela and JDV Safety avoided paying
flaggers the prevailing wage rates required by contracts with the
City of New York, failed to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, and paid flaggers on an untimely
bi-weekly basis despite being manual workers.

As a matter of economic reality, Akela and JDV Safety are joint
employers of all flaggers and were legally -- and contractually --
required to pay them the applicable prevailing wages and otherwise
ensure their pay structure complied with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law's mandate of no less than one and a
half times their rates of pay.

Mr. Smith was employed by Defendants as a flagger at various
locations throughout New York City from 2014 to September 15,
2021.

Akela is a construction contractor based out of Mount Vernon and
New Rochelle, New York and is a certified Minority and Women Owed
Business Enterprise (MWBE) with the City of New York.

Both Akela and JDV Safety are joint employers of Plaintiffs and
similarly situated flaggers. In this regard, both Akela and JDV
Safety maintain records of work performed, both provide day to day
supervision and direction of flaggers, and both provide various
equipment used by flaggers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: May Undergo Court Supervision After Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David DeBolt, writing for The Oaklandside, reports that a federal
judge on Feb. 7 approved an agreement that places Alameda County's
Santa Rita Jail under court supervision for at least six years.

U.S. Magistrate Nathanael Cousins' decision gives oversight power
to a San Francisco law firm and a team of experts to monitor a
massive reform program that will remake how mental health care is
provided at the Dublin Jail. The agreement, called a consent
decree, is the result of a lawsuit filed in 2018 on behalf of jail
detainees.

Santa Rita Jail is run by the Alameda County Sheriff's Office and
holds roughly 2,000 detainees on any given day, making it one of
the largest jails in the country. The jail's treatment of people
with mental disabilities was at the core of the class action
lawsuit—Babu v. Ahern—and the practice of locking people in
isolation for long periods of time has drawn outcry from attorneys
and activists.

Attorneys at Rosen, Bien, Galvan and Grunfeld in San Francisco,
which filed the class action lawsuit, were pleased with the
magistrate's decision and said they are ready to get to work.

"In our view, it's overdue. People in that jail have been suffering
and dying for years," attorney Kara Janssen told The Oaklandside.
"We think it's critical to hit the ground running."

Under the agreement, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office will be
required to hire new staff at the jail and build a new "therapeutic
housing unit." Other changes included giving incarcerated people
more time out of their cells, requiring the sheriff's office to
provide adequate mental health staff, making mental health
screenings routine at intake, and improving the jail's discharge
system of people with mental health disabilities.

Several organizations, some of which were members of the class
action suit, objected to the consent decree, arguing that the
agreement gives millions in funding to the sheriff's office instead
of funding programs to help people before they end up incarcerated.
Objectors included former state Sen. Loni Hancock, Alameda County
Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill, the Anti
Police-Terror Project, and the National Lawyers Guild's San
Francisco Bay Area chapter.

The National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area on Feb. 8
announced that the coalition of community organizations and civil
rights attorneys who objected to the consent decree are consulting
with people incarcerated at Santa Rita about whether to appeal
Cousins' decision. An appeal must be filed within 30 days and would
be heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Before approving the consent decree, Cousins last month heard
testimony from those organizations and, in an unusual and perhaps
unprecedented courtroom moment, from people incarcerated at Santa
Rita. Over the course of a five hour hearing, 37 detainees called
in from inside the jail to oppose the agreement, describing
inhumane conditions and abuse.

However, in his 10-page order released on Feb. 7, Cousins wrote the
objectors' arguments reinforced the need for reform at Santa Rita.


"Many spoke about inhumane conditions at the jail, citing minimal
out-of-cell time, lack of access to mental health resources, an
unresponsive grievance process, and unchecked uses of force," he
wrote. "The Court agrees that these conditions are
unconstitutional, and they demonstrate the need for the reforms
mandated in the Consent Decree."

Some of those problems were identified by the U.S. Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division in a report released last April. The
report showed that the county's system of mental health care
violates the 8th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Cousins' decision allows the U.S.
Department of Justice to assist in monitoring the jail reforms.

Janssen said she and fellow attorney Jeff Bornstein,
representatives of the DOJ, and experts agreed upon during the
settlement process will begin tours of Santa Rita beginning next
week. They will have unfettered access to jail records, including
deputy logs, medical records, and videos, and can interview
inmates.

Throughout the monitoring process, Janssen said the law firm will
publish publicly-available reports on the reform progress. The
consent decree will be in place for six years, but could take
longer if the sheriff's office is found out of compliance after
that period. A similar agreement placing the Oakland Police
Department under the watch of a federal judge and monitoring team
was supposed to be completed in five years but has gone on for
nearly two decades.

The consent decree sets a cap of $2.25 million to cover the work of
overseeing the jail until 2028. Rosen, Bien, Galvan and Grunfeld
will be paid about $2.1 million in attorney fees. [GN]

ALLERGAN INC: Drops $30M Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Allergan has agreed to pay nearly
$30 million to resolve claims it used anti-competitive tactics to
raise the price of Restasis eye drops.

The settlement benefits both consumers and third-party payors such
as employers and insurers.

Consumers are included in the settlement if they purchased Restasis
eye drops between May 1, 2015, and July 31, 2021, in Arizona,
California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

Third-party payors are eligible if they purchased Restasis eye
drops between May 1, 2015, and July 31, 2021, in Arizona,
California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Consumers and third-party payors in Arkansas are also eligible if
they purchased or paid for Restasis eye drops between May 1, 2015,
and July 31, 2017.

Restasis is an eyedrop medication used to treat chronic dry eye
syndrome, a permanent condition caused by aging, contact lenses,
medication, and other factors. The medication helps treat chronic
dry eye syndrome by increasing tear production.

Restasis has been widely successful due in part to the lack of
competing generic products. According to a class action lawsuit
against Allergan, this was intentional.

Plaintiffs in the Restasis class action lawsuit claim Allergan
obtained an illegal monopoly on the eyedrop medication through
anti-competitive tactics. As a result, generic alternatives for
Restasis were allegedly suppressed -- allowing Allergan to charge a
premium for the medication.

In order to secure the monopoly, Allergan allegedly secured
fraudulent patents based on misleading data which falsely claimed
that the company found new results for Restasis. The company then
used these patents to submit petitions to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and sue generic competitors, the plaintiffs
contend. When the scheme started to fall apart, Allergan allegedly
transferred its fraudulent patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
in an attempt to claim immunity.

As a result of these actions, consumers and third-party payors were
allegedly forced to pay a premium for brand-name Restasis eye drops
when they could have paid a lower cost for a generic alternative.

Allergan hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the
claims against it with a $29.99 million settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect a cash
payment.

Payment amounts will vary depending on how many units each Class
Member purchased, how much they paid, and other factors. However,
according to the settlement website, each Class Member will receive
at least $15.

The deadline for exclusion from the settlement is May 3, 2022.

The deadline for objection is June 7, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Restasis settlement is scheduled
for June 7, 2022.

In order to benefit from the settlement, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by Aug. 11, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits both consumers and third-party payors such
as employers and insurers.

Consumers are included in the settlement if they purchased Restasis
eye drops between May 1, 2015, and July 31, 2021, in Arizona,
California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.

Third-party payors are eligible if they purchased Restasis eye
drops between May 1, 2015, and July 31, 2021, in Arizona,
California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Consumer: If possible, submit any of the following:

Pharmacy records showing you purchased Restasis at least once
A doctor's note or records describing the amount of Restasis you
were prescribed
Third-Party Payors:

Unique patient identification number or code
NDC Number
Fill date or date of service
State of service
Amount billed, not including any dispensing fee
Amount paid by the third-party payor, net of co‐pays,
deductibles, and co‐insurance
A notation identifying claims for which, as of the date in item
above, you were not providing prescription drug coverage, and,
instead, acted in an administrative services only or third‐party
administrator capacity.

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
08/11/2022

Case Name
In Re: Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 18-md-2819 in the U.S.District Court for the
Eastern District of New York

Final Hearing
06/07/2022

Settlement Website
RestasisLitigation.com

Claims Administrator
Restasis Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173107
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@RestasisLitigation.com
877-868-6810

Class Counsel
GIRARD SHARP LLP

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP

JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM INC

ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP

Defense Counsel
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN]

AM COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 24 Order in Grant
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORPHEUS GRANT,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by AM COMMUNICATIONS LTD, AM COMMUNICATIONS LLC.;
AM COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO LLC; and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by AM COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.; AM COMMUNICATIONS
LLC; and AM COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO LLC, v. AM COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.;
AM COMMUNICATIONS LLC; AM COMMUNICATIONS OF OHIO LLC; and any
related entities, Case No. 3:20-cv-01526-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its Order dated January 24,
2022 and deny Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification to the extent it granted certification as to a
nationwide collective and limit the collective to Cable
Installation Technicians employed in New York during the relevant
time period, and grant Defendants such further relief as it deems
just and proper.

AM Communications operates as a telecommunication contracting
company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uI8ou3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 East Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

               - and -

          James E. Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Fax: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Billok, Esq.
          Richard C. White, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
          268 Broadway, Suite 104
          Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
          Telephone: (518) 533-3236
          Facsimile: (518) 533-3284
          E-mail: mbillok@bsk.com


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Meds Price-rigging Row Pending in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen Corp. disclosed in its 10-Q Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2022, that a motion to dismiss a
class action complaint is fully briefed and is awaiting a ruling
from the court by the parties.

In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail
pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil
antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers,
and also included claims against the company, H.D. Smith, and other
drug distributors and industry participants. The case is filed as a
putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent a class
of drug purchasers including other retail pharmacies and healthcare
providers.

The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the company
and others in the industry participated in a conspiracy to fix
prices, allocate markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs. In
March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint.

On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Amerisourcebergen Corp. is into the wholesale of drugs
proprietaries and druggists' sundries based in Pennsylvania.


AVNET INC: Heikkia, Lopez Seek to Certify Hourly Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angela Determan Heikkia
and Natalie Lopez, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Avnet, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01531-DJH (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of:

   "all hourly customer support employees and Inside Sales
   Representatives (ISRs) employed by the Defendant within the
   three years before the filing of Plaintiffs'’ Original
   Complaint and to approve notice to those current and former
   employees."

Both Plaintiffs worked as hourly-paid customer support employees
for Avnet. The Plaintiff Lopez also worked for Defendant as an
ISR.

The Plaintiffs brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and former hourly customer support employees and ISRs
who worked for Defendant and are similarly situated to Plaintiffs,
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Avnet is a distributor of electronic components headquartered in
Phoenix, Arizona, named after Charles Avnet, who founded the
company in 1921.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34tjDfk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail:courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com


BANKROLL CAPITAL: River Chiropractic Seeks to Add Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVER CHIROPRACTIC AND
WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, v. BANKROLL CAPITAL, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00688 (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order granting its motion for leave to amend its class action
complaint against Bankroll Capitalto add Narin Charanvattanakit aka
Narin Charan, Christina Duncan aka Christina Gonzales, and John
Does 1-10, inclusive as new party defendants.

Bankroll is a financial technology company located in Irvine,
California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3swffE3  at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David M. Krueger, Esq.
          John N. Dagon, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER
          COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
          E-mail: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com
                  jdagon@beneschlaw.com

BECTON DICKINSON: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Pleading in Kabak Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company disclosed in its 10-Q Quarterly
Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2022, that
the company moved to dismiss the newly amended pleading filed in
December 16, 2021 of violations of the Securities Act and is
pending in the court.

On February 27, 2020, a putative class action captioned "Kabak v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.," Civ. No. 2:20-cv-02155
(SRC) (CLW), now captioned "Industriens Pensionsforsikring v.
Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the company
and certain of its officers. The complaint, which purports to be
brought on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock from
November 5, 2019 through February 5, 2020, asserts claims for
purported violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks, among other things,
damages and costs.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed certain material
information regarding Alaris (TM) infusion pumps, allegedly
rendering certain public statements about the company's business,
operations and prospects false or misleading, thereby allegedly
causing investors to purchase stock at an inflated price.

The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to add certain
additional factual allegations on February 3, 2021, which the
company moved to dismiss on March 19, 2021. The motion to dismiss
was granted, resulting in the dismissal of the second amended
complaint on September 15, 2021. The court's dismissal order,
however, gave plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead, which it did on
October 29, 2021.

Becton, Dickinson and Company is a medical technology company based
in New Jersey.


BIOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Feb. 8 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or acquired Biogen Inc. ("Biogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BIIB)
common stock between June 7, 2021 and January 11, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Biogen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit or contact Joe Seidman
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com.

Biogen is a multinational biotechnology company well-known for
proprietary treatments for Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and other
chronic conditions. In March 2019, Biogen announced it was
abandoning Aduhelm, its potential blockbuster drug for treating
Alzheimer's disease.

The complaint alleges that, contrary to this decision, a group of
Biogen executives began to meet with the FDA's Director of the
Office of Neuroscience in an effort to gain FDA approval for
Aduhelm. Six months after announcing it was abandoning Aduhelm as
futile and that the drug failed to show any clinical benefit,
Biogen announced it was submitting the drug for FDA approval,
portraying the same supporting data as demonstrating the drug as
safe and effective. Aduhelm was approved through the FDA's
Accelerated Approval process for the treatment of Alzheimer's on
June 7, 2021. Shares of Biogen stock skyrocketed by over $100 per
share on June 7, 2021.

However, over the next six months, investors learned that Aduhelm
would not be the blockbuster drug to conquer Alzheimer's or replace
Biogen's MS drug line-up because the drug was dangerous and
ineffective, hospital networks refused to prescribe it, and major
insurance companies refused to pay for it, as the lawsuit alleges.
Members of the FDA advisory panel resigned in protest over
Aduhelm's approval, and Congress demanded to know how the drug had
been approved. By October 2021, Aduhelm was not selling well, and
in December other global regulators had denied its approval.

Following the publication of a draft opinion by the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Services on January 11, 2022, Biogen's stock
price fell to $225 per share, more than 40% lower than where shares
had traded on June 7, 2021 following the FDA approval
announcement.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 8, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased BIIB securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/biogeninc-biib-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-481/
or contact Joe Seidman toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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

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

Contact Information:

Joe Seidman
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]

BIOGEN INC: Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Alzheimer's Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Biogen is
facing a securities fraud class action lawsuit filed by investors
who allege Biogen announced that it would apply for U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm
(aducanumabab) despite nearly abandoning the medication.

The Aduhelm class action lawsuit alleges Biogen participated in
closed-door meetings with the FDA and subsequently decided to apply
for FDA approval based on a new interpretation of data from an
older clinical trial.

Once Biogen announced that it would seek FDA approval for Aduhelm,
shares of Biogen stock soared to more than $100 per share.

The FDA approved Aduhelm in June 2021, the first time the agency
had granted approval to an Alzheimer's drug since 2003,according to
the lawsuit. Various experts cautioned against the use of Aduhelm
due to its limited effectiveness and potential health risks, which
may include bleeding and swelling in the brain.

FDA advisory panel members resigned in protest over Aduhelm's
approval, according to the Biogen class action lawsuit. Further,
hospitals refused to prescribe the drug and insurance companies
allegedly refused to pay for Aduhelm, the investors allege.

Congress has launched a probe into Adulelm's approval process, and
Medicare reportedly released a draft of a coverage proposal that
would allow only clinical trial participants to be prescribed the
Alzheimer's medication.

In response to this information, Biogen's stock price dropped to
$225 per share, a decrease of more than 40% of the price that the
Biogen shares traded just after the FDA approval announcement.

The Biogen class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors
who purchased Biogen shares between June 7, 2021, and Jan. 11,
2022.

Aduhelm Clinical Trials Show Mixed Results
Aduhelm reportedly works by removing amyloid beta. Although one
phase 3 trial was stopped due to lack of efficacy, another trial
involving a higher dose allegedly showed reduced decline in
cognition, language, memory and activities of daily living.

The drug is administered with monthly infusions. Because of the
risks of bleeding and swelling in the brain, safe treatment
protocol may require patients to undergo regular brain scans.

In November 2020, a panel of FDA advisors voted against approving
Aduhelm, and some critics argued that there was insufficient
evidence to support the drug's approval without more clinical
trials, the class action lawsuit states.

Other Drugmakers Under Fire for Misrepresenting Alzheimer's Meds
Shareholders have also alleged biotech company Cassava Sciences
Inc. manipulated data about its Alzheimer's medication simufilam,
falsely inflating stock prices. A citizen petition submitted to the
FDA asked the agency to stop clinical trials of the drug due to "a
series of anomalies that are suggestive of systematic data
manipulation and misrepresentation." News of the citizen petition
caused Cassava's shares to drop at least 32%.

Annovis Bio Inc. is also facing a securities fraud class action
lawsuit filed by investors who allege the company made inflated
claims about the success of its Alzheimer's drug trial. After it
was revealed that the clinical drug trial participants were not
showing clinical improvement, Annovis's share price dropped 60%.
[GN]

BLACK RIVER: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. BLACK RIVER ROASTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01206
(S.N.D.Y., Feb. 11, 2022) is a civil rights class action against
defendant Black River for its alleged failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software.

The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all
other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the
United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and
have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or
services offered on the website during the past three years from
the date of the filing of the complaint.

In February 2022, Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on Defendant's website, blackriverroasters.com. The main
reason Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase
products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers
different specialty coffee roasts.

The Defendant and its website allegedly violate Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the New York
City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), as the website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant
seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory
relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Plaintiff is visually-impaired and/or legally blind. The
Plaintiff uses the NVDA screen-reader to access websites on the
Internet. During Plaintiff's visits to Defendant's website, the
last occurring in February 2022, Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the goods
and/or services offered to (and made available for) the general
public. These access barriers were the reason that Plaintiff was
denied the full enjoyment of the goods and/or services offered on
the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24 th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
                  jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                  wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

BNY MELLON: Prehearing Order Entered in Bernard Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BERNARD, WILLIAM
BERNARD, PAMELA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BNY MELLON, N. A., Case No.
2:18-cv-00783-RJC-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville
entered a prehearing order as follows:

  1. Evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs'       March 16, 2022
     Motion to Certify Class is set for:

  2. The parties shall meet and confer        Feb. 28, 2021
     and then file a joint notice with
     the Court as to whether the parties
     agree to the appearance of witnesses
     by videoconference technology at the
     hearing, in light of the ongoing
     COVID-19 pandemic and related
     difficulties with travel.

  3. The Plaintiff(s) shall file a final      Feb. 28, 2022
     list of hearing witnesses on or
     before:

  4. The Defendant shall file a final         March 7, 2022
     list of hearing witnesses on or
     before:

  5. Counsel shall file on CM/ECF a           March 11, 2022
     Joint Exhibit List Chart
     (with columns) setting forth all
     plaintiff and defendant hearing
     exhibits on or before:

  3. The parties shall submit a joint         March 11, 2022
     designation of excerpts from
     depositions, interrogatory answers,
     and responses to requests for
     admission to be offered at the
     hearing on or before:

  4. The parties shall file                   March 11, 2022
     consecutively numbered joint
     stipulations on or before:

BNY Mellon provides banking services. The Company offers
institutional asset management, mutual funds, private wealth
management, asset servicing, human resources, investor solutions,
and treasury services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JAZOld at no extra charge.[CC]


BOSTON GLOBE: Subscriber Files Class Action Over Data Sharing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Seiffert, writing for Boston Business Journal, reports that a
southern California man who says he has subscribed to the Boston
Globe since August 2020 has filed a class action lawsuit against
the media company claiming it illegally shares personally
identifiable information with Facebook in violation of a federal
law dating to 1988.

David Ambrose of Irvine, California, filed the suit in the U.S.
District Court in Boston on Feb. 7. In it, he says he discovered
last month that the Globe "knowingly disclos(es) its subscribers'
personally identifiable information -- including a record of every
video clip they view -- to Facebook without consent."

The lawsuit alleges this goes against the Video Privacy Protection
Act in 1988, which says the consumer has the right to "maintain
control over personal information divulged and generated in
exchange for receiving services from video tape service providers."


The lawsuit says the Globe ought to be considered a "video tape
service provider" under the law because it hosts and delivers
hundreds of videos on its website and is therefore "engag[ing] in
the business, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of
rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or
similar audio visual materials."

The suit defines the "class" of people who can join the suit as any
Globe subscriber who watches videos and has a Facebook account.

According to a court filing, the lawsuit seeks $5 million. In the
complaint, Ambrose says he wants the Globe to stop sharing the
data, as well as $2,500 per violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act, plus attorney fees.

David S. Godkin and James E. Kruzer of the Boston law firm Birnbaum
& Godkin LLP are representing the plaintiff in the case, along with
lawyers from Burson & Fisher PA in New York City and Miami,
Florida.

None of the lawyers named on the suit immediately returned an email
seeking comment. A spokeswoman for the Boston Globe declined to
comment.

Ambrose appears to be the lead plaintiff in at least one other
class action lawsuit in recent years. In June 2020, a person named
David Ambrose of Irvine, California filed a lawsuit against
Cincinnati-based grocery store giant Kroger Co. alleging that at
the time it sold a brand of disposable plates and bowls labeled as
"compostable" which contained PFAS, chemicals that don't break
down. In 2021, the two sides settled after Kroger agreed to change
the labeling.

In that case, Kroger paid $195,000 in attorney fees, $1,200 in
administrative fees and a $5,000 incentive award to Ambrose.

Attempts to reach Ambrose on Feb. 8 were unsuccessful.

The lawsuit was first reported by Universal Hub. [GN]

BRINKER INT'L: To File Reply Brief Over Credit Card Dispute Row
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. disclosed in its 10-Q Quarterly Report
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2022, that the
company's reply brief on a class action lawsuit is due on February
28, 2022.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida asserting various claims at the company's "Chili's"
restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek
monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

On November 16, 2021, the company submitted their appellate brief
to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the
district court's class certification orders. The US Chamber of
Commerce and the Restaurant Law Center/Retail Litigation
Center/National Retail Federation filed respective amicus briefs in
support of their position two weeks later. Plaintiffs filed their
response brief on January 6, 2022. The company's reply brief is due
on February 28, 2022.

Brinker International is engaged in the ownership, operation,
development and franchising of restaurants.


BSA LTD: Settles Sham Contracting Class Action for $20 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Chirgwin, writing for itnews, reports that telco
infrastructure services company BSA has provisionally agreed to pay
$20 million over three years to settle a class action over alleged
sham contracting arrangements.

The lawsuit was brought in 2020 by Shine Lawyers on behalf of
thousands of staff that Shine alleged had been misclassified as
contractors rather than employees, and were owed entitlements as a
result.

When it first announced the class action in August 2020, Shine's
Vicky Antzoulatos told the ABC staff were expected to bear the full
cost of buying their own vehicles, tools, equipment and insurance.

A statement of claim said the arrangements reached as far back as
2003.

The company's technicians have carried out work for Foxtel, Optus,
and NBN Co among others, and the class action involves potentially
thousands of workers.

In a statement to the ASX, BSA said a "provisional settlement" had
been reached, which indicates it still requires court approval.

BSA said it would pay $4.4 million by the end of June 2022, another
$6.6 million by June 30 2023, and $9 million by June 30 2024.

"The settlement will be funded by current and future operating cash
flows," the company said.

BSA said the settlement "is without admission of liability".

Shine Lawyers' class action practice leader Vicky Antzoulatos
confirmed the proposed settlement terms.

"Shine Lawyers believes the settlement is fair and reasonable and
in the interests of our clients and all group members who were
technicians for BSA between 2003 and 24 July 2020," she said. [GN]

CANADA: July 13 Indian Day School Claim Submission Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
With approximately six months to the claim submission deadline on
July 13, 2022, Class Counsel encourages all Class Members who
attended a Federal Indian Day School to submit a claim. Across
Canada, more than 130,000 individuals have already submitted a
claim towards the settlement, and this number is increasing by the
day.

Class Members who have yet to submit a claim do not have to
navigate this process on their own. All Class Members are eligible
for free legal support and help filling out their Claim Forms
through Class Counsel (Gowling WLG). In-community workshops are
provided to a number of communities, while online webinars are
accessible to anyone who has questions or requires more information
on how to complete their Claim Form. Additionally, 24-hour mental
health support is available to anyone in distress through the Hope
for Wellness Help Line.

"We recognize and honour the strength it takes to go through this
claims process," says Cam Cameron, Class Counsel lead for Indian
Day Schools Implementation. "For those who attended a Federal
Indian Day School but have yet to submit a Claim Form, we want you
to know we are here to help you. With a few months before the
deadline, we know there are still many people who have yet to file
a Claim Form. We hope to avoid anyone feeling rushed or being left
out. That's why we are encouraging people to take the next step
now."

Former students of Federal Indian Day Schools who suffered harm
while attending the school may be eligible for compensation,
ranging from $10,000 to $200,000 based on the personal harm
experienced. To be eligible for compensation, Claimants must have
attended one of the identified Day Schools listed on Schedule K of
the Settlement Agreement. More information about the Claims Process
and Schedule K can be found on the website at
indiandayschools.com.

The settlement also includes a Legacy Fund of $200 million, managed
by Day School survivors through the McLean Day Schools Settlement
Corporation, to support commemoration projects, health and wellness
projects, and language and culture initiatives.

Supports available for Class Members

Class Counsel is committed to supporting Class Members through the
Claims Process. Individuals can receive free legal support and help
filling out their Claim Forms by calling the Gowling WLG call
centre at 1-844-539-3815 or emailing dayschools@gowlingwlg.com

Class Counsel is also hosting online Claims Assistance Webinars via
Zoom that provide virtual support for communities. Webinars,
offered in both English and French, provide guidance on how to
complete a claim form. This virtual support will continue to the
July 13, 2022 deadline, ensuring uninterrupted service throughout
COVID-19. Dates and times for these webinars can be found online at
www.indiandayschools.com/en/contact/presentations/

Further, the Argyle Community Support Program is offering free,
one-on-one trauma-informed support completing Claim Forms in a
number of communities across Canada. Class Counsel is also
available to assist during the Argyle support sessions. Cultural
and mental health supports are available to all who participate. To
learn more about this program and support sessions available in
specific communities, please visit:
www.indiandayschools.com/en/community-support-program.

Mental health counselling and crisis support is available to Class
Members 24 hours a day, 7 days a week through Hope for Wellness
Hotline. Contact Hope for Wellness at 1-855-242-3310 or through
their online chat at www.hopeforwellness.ca. Counselling is
available in English, French, Cree, Ojibway and Inuktitut, on
request.

CONTACT: Ashley Kenley 647-967-9324 akenley@argylepr.com [GN]

CAPITAL VISION: Clark Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for General Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ALICE CLARK, CHRISTOPHER COULTER, AARON PEREZ and KEVIN
NELSON, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a MYEYEDR,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10236 (D. Mass., Feb. 11, 2022) seeks to recover
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of salaried, exempt-classified general
managers.

According to the complaint, the primary duties of GMs are the same
customer service duties performed by non-exempt employees
(including, but not limited to, checking in customers for
appointments, answering phones, scheduling appointments,
verifying/processing insurance, and eyewear sales), merchandising
and setting up displays, and cleaning the store. GMs spend the
majority of their time performing these duties, which are also
performed by non-exempt, hourly-paid employees.

The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated GMs were required
to work more than 40 hours in a workweek while employed by MyEyeDr
in order to complete their job duties. However, in accordance with
MyEyeDr's policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified
as exempt from overtime compensation and were not paid at the
mandated rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in a work week, the suit says.

MyEyeDr owns and operates over 500 optical stores across the United
States, including in Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina,
Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylania, Maryland, and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, PC
          www.fairworklaw.com
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3261
          Facsimile: (617)-488-2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com

               - and-

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren Bolno Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH LLP
          9800 4th Street North, Suite 200
          St. Petersburg, FL 33702
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com

CHRIS BARBER: Plaintiff Expresses Opinion on Honking Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Woods, writing for CTV News, reports that in the end, it
wasn't the might of the city bureaucracy or law enforcement who got
the constant blaring of truck horns to stop after more than week of
terrorizing downtown Ottawa residents.

It was a 21-year-old resident of Centretown who had simply had
enough.

"This situation, quite frankly, really ruffled my feathers," Zexi
Li, the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit told CTV
Morning Live on Feb. 8. "I really, really felt that no matter what,
I had to do something."

"If that something is to be a voice and be a face -- and even be
even a target -- for people to understand what really is going on
here, I was more than willing to do so."

An Ontario Superior Court judge granted a 10-day injunction on Feb.
7 ordering an end to the incessant honking by truckers parked on
downtown streets. Anyone who violates the injunction could be found
in contempt, which brings stiffer penalties than regular bylaw
charges.

"It's a big win, but it's also a baby step," Li said. "We really
did deserve some peace and we're glad to have some, at least for
the next 10 days."

Li said she has found the noise of the convoy protesters
"unbearable."

"I don't even have the worst of it," she said. "There are so many
people that live in my neighbourhood that can't live here anymore,
that have to have escape their own home, and that quite frankly is
completely unacceptable."

Christine Johnson, a lawyer with Champ and Associates and
co-counsel in the matter, told CTV's Power Play that Li has
suffered online abuse because of the lawsuit.

"While we've had an outpouring of support from many in the
community, across the country, both towards our law firm and our
very brave client we represent, she's had also received a lot of
vile hatred both directed at her," Johnson said.

"It takes a lot of courage, as you can imagine, for a young woman
to stand up on behalf of her neighbours … It's been stressful.
It's been overwhelming and I think she felt as though it was the
right thing to do."

This video is so wonderful. I live in Centretown but just outside
the worst of the "horn zone". When I walked those streets I
couldn't imagine how anyone could live through the constant
blaring. Felt terrible for my neighbours. Glad our team and Zexi Li
could help our community. https://t.co/lps2lvjrYS

-- Paul Champ (@PaulChampLaw) February 8, 2022

Li said she is also receiving a lot of messages of support from
people who sympathetic to what Centretown residents are going
through.

Asked how she thinks the trucker protest should be brought to an
end, Li said she is surprised the situation has reached the point
where her opinion on that is being sought.

"I think it's very interesting that my opinion is asked. Because
while I do understand it, at the end of the day, I am a
21-year-old, I am just barely an adult. I can't believe that it's
come to this point where people are asking me how I think it should
end."

Li did say she agrees with the course Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
has taken in not meeting with the convoy leaders.

"I fully agree that these people cannot be negotiated with," she
said.

The proposed class-action lawsuit is seeking $9.8 million in
damages on behalf of Centretown residents. The next hearing, on
whether the injunction will be extended, is set for Feb. 16.

"I can only hope that some kind of reparations will be seen for
people in my community, and that at the very least people recognize
the severity of what's going on here and what has happened to us,"
Li said.

"A lot of people have trauma because of this now, and it's trauma
that I personally don't think should have ever happened to them."

Ottawa police say people using horns in violation of the court
order may be arrested and charged for contravening it. Possible
penalties include up to two years imprisonment.[GN]

CHRIS BARBER: Woman Seeks to Sue Protesters in $9.8M Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Nuttall at Vancouver Bureau reports that with their GoFundMe
account now frozen, the participants in the "Freedom convoy" in
Ottawa are now also facing a lawsuit from an Ottawa woman who has
opened her case up for others to join as a potential class action.

On Friday, Ottawa resident Zexi Li filed a lawsuit in Ontario
Superior Court, seeking damages for emotional and mental distress,
headaches, sleeping difficulties, difficulty concentrating and
interference with quiet enjoyment of her home.

"The Class Members are living in daily torment caused by the
incessant blasting of truck horns," reads the statement of claim.

The suit seeks $9.8 million in damages plus costs for participants
in the potential class action.

The suit names Chris Barber, Benjamin Dichter, Tamara Lich and
Patrick King as organizers of the "Freedom convoy," based on them
being listed as such on social media accounts used to organize the
event.

A further 60 people listed as "John Doe" who own the trucks
currently parked in the protest area are also named, but their
exact identities were unknown at the time of the filing, says the
statement.

A week ago, the convoy reached Ottawa after travelling across
Canada to protest COVID-19 restrictions -- in particular vaccine
mandates for truckers crossing the Canada-U.S. border. Since then,
demonstrators have remained in the city's core near Parliament
Hill, honking semitruck, automobile and train horns.

The statement of claim says the use of horns 12 to 16 hours per day
has taken its toll on Li. It alleges the horn honking is being done
to cause distress to those living in downtown Ottawa, but also
alleges harassment by convoy members.

"When the Plaintiff ventures outside, she is almost immediately
subjected to heckling by members of the Freedom Convoy, yelling at
her to remove the mask she wears to protect herself and others from
contracting COVID-19," the claim says.

"When she ignores the heckles, members of the Convoy respond by
honking their horns which invariably causes the Plaintiff to
flinch. When the Plaintiff flinches, the hecklers cheer loudly."

It says the lack of action by Ottawa police, who have told her they
can't do anything about the noise, has contributed to her anxiety,
pointing out she has contacted them 14 times.

The suit is open to any residents in Ottawa who live within a
specific area of Ottawa most affected by the protest.

The Star asked Chris Barber, named as a defendant in the suit, if
he was aware he is being sued. He replied in a message: "haha for
what. My truck hasn't ran since Saturday. Tamara doesn't own a
truck and BJ has been in and out. Good luck."

Barber, a trucking company owner from Swift Current, Sask.,
according to court filings, also said he's tried "multiple times"
to get people to stop honking.

The suit notes the estimated damage of someone who joins the
lawsuit is $100 per day, adding some have incurred special costs,
such as those for seeking as alternative accommodations. [GN]

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Judges Skeptical of COVID Business Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that justices on Ohio's
top court expressed skepticism on Feb. 8 that commercial property
insurance policies cover any of the losses businesses sustained due
to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the third such case to reach a state's top court, the Ohio
Supreme Court appeared likely to join a majority of mostly federal
courts nationwide that have rejected hundreds of claims by
companies for insurance coverage amid the pandemic.

As a lawyer for an audiology services provider that brought a
proposed class action against Cincinnati Insurance Co argued the
virus could cause property damage entitling businesses to coverage,
justices questioned that premise.

"I'm struggling with how you define that as physical damage,"
Justice Sharon Kennedy said.

While insurance policies are governed by state law, the insurance
industry's victories fending off claims in similar cases have
largely come from federal courts. Only two other state's supreme
courts, in Massachusetts and Vermont, have taken up the issue.

The Ohio Supreme Court heard the case at the request of U.S.
District Judge Benita Pearson, the federal judge presiding over
Neuro-Communication Services Inc's lawsuit, who said it raised an
important state law question the justices should have a chance to
address.

Nicholas DiCello, a lawyer for Neuro-Communication Services at
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, said the coronavirus was no different
than other odorless, invisible gases or agents like carbon monoxide
or radon that can trigger property damage claims.

DiCello told the court a long line of pre-pandemic cases supported
coverage in incidents when those gases or agents render a business
unusable and argued that coronavirus particles can just as
similarly damage a property when someone emits them.

"They are physical particles that have a physical manifestation,"
he said. "They can be measured. They can be calculated."

"They can also be wiped away, as is evidenced by what took place
before this podium was used," Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor
retorted, noting that a court employee had cleaned the podium
DiCello spoke from shortly before his argument.

Some of the court's six other members including Kennedy and Justice
Patrick DeWine seized on that analogy to press DiCello on how a
business could sustain any physical damage from the virus that
would warrant coverage.

"It still exists," Kennedy said of the podium. "You wipe it off, it
still exists. It's unmarred, it's unharmed."

Neuro-Communication has argued it was harmed by being forced early
in the pandemic to close by order of Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a
Republican who is Justice DeWine's father, to slow the virus'
spread.

But Daniel Litchfield, a lawyer for Cincinnati Insurance at
Litchfield Cavo, argued that government closure did not mean that
the Neuro-Communication could recover its losses through property
insurance.

"Most government orders that I'm familiar with as a business person
do cost businesses money," he said. "That's part of the cost of
doing business in a regulated or partially regulated economy."

He said only a suspension in business caused by physical damage,
like a fire, could entitle a policyholder to coverage.

"We should not ignore the word 'physical,'" he said.

The case is Neuro-Communication Services Inc. v. The Cincinnati
Insurance Co, Ohio Supreme Court, No. 2021-0130.

For Neuro-Communication Services: Nicholas DiCello of Spangenberg
Shibley & Liber

For Cincinnati Insurance: Daniel Litchfield of Litchfield Cavo

(Note: This story has been updated to correct the number of state
supreme courts that have heard similar cases.) [GN]

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Class Action Attorneys Appeal Dismissal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
City News reports that efforts in court to win customer refunds
from Commonwealth Edison for its admitted bribery scheme in
Springfield are running out of steam.

A Cook County Circuit Court judge last month rejected the bid by
two class-action attorneys to reconsider her decision in December
to dismiss their lawsuit. They have appealed.

In the meantime, both Chicago attorneys -- Stephan Blandin of
Romanucci & Blandin and Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt Gutzler --
are fighting for ratepayer refunds in what is for now the last
arena left to them: the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The ICC, which regulates utilities, was empowered in the sweeping
clean-energy law enacted last September to probe whether ratepayers
should be repaid any of the hundreds of millions collected annually
by ComEd and parent Exelon under wide-ranging laws passed as ComEd
was engaged in influence-peddling in Springfield. But the authority
regulators were given was narrow in scope -- pertaining to money
ComEd charged ratepayers that was used directly in furthering its
scheme.

Class-action lawyers once saw potential to recover much bigger sums
for ratepayers, focusing on the hundreds of millions in annual
revenue increases ComEd and Exelon got from the Energy
Infrastructure Modernization Act of 2011 (the smart-grid law) and
the Future Energy Jobs Act of 2016 (the nuclear bailout).

When ComEd admitted the conspiracy in a July 2020
deferred-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's office in
Chicago, it agreed to pay a $200 million fine to the feds. Consumer
advocates quickly cried foul, saying ComEd customers -- not U.S.
taxpayers -- were the victims.

Multiple class-action lawsuits against ComEd were filed, most in
federal court. The federal lawsuits were dismissed quickly, leaving
the single one in state court remaining. Cook County Circuit Court
Judge Cecilia Horan dismissed that one on Dec. 23. The federal
plaintiffs refiled their cases in state court, but ComEd says it
will move to dismiss those soon.

Horan concluded that, without evidence the state laws enacted as
ComEd was bribing associates of then-House Speaker Michael Madigan
to win his favor were passed because of the illegal conduct, she
couldn't determine they were invalid.

"As Chief Justice John Marshall bemoaned more than 200 years ago,
that corruption should find its way into the government is a
circumstance most deeply to be deplored," she wrote in her
decision. "But the validity of a law does not depend upon the
motives of its framers. The constitutional separation of powers
principle precludes judicial review of the legislative process
behind (their) enactment."

In the ICC proceeding, ComEd in December proposed to make a little
over $21 million in refunds to ratepayers, to be paid in April
2023. That would mean very roughly about a $5 refund for the
average customer. The utility believes its offer goes beyond what
is required in the state law.

"The government has not alleged, nor has any court found, that
ComEd customers were harmed by the bipartisan legislation
referenced in the deferred prosecution agreement or that ComEd made
any excessive investments," ComEd spokeswoman Shannon Breymaier
said in an email." As with the federal investigation, ComEd
continues to cooperate with the ICC investigation required by the
state's new clean energy law."

That proceeding now is focused on what internal ComEd documents and
communications the class-action lawyers and others have the right
to see.

In briefs, the class-action attorneys asserted that the judge's
interpretation was mistaken. But for the bribery that won Madigan's
support, neither of the laws would have passed, they argued.

"The General Assembly could not consider the energy legislation
until after Madigan allowed the real legislative process to begin,"
they wrote in a motion for reconsideration, which Horan denied.
"The proposed complaint also establishes that Madigan acted with
corrupt and pecuniary motive when he finally advanced the energy
legislation only after ComEd paid him to do so."

Madigan hasn't been charged in the ongoing federal investigation
surrounding ComEd and has said he did nothing wrong. There is no
evidence in what's been filed so far in court that Madigan was paid
directly. Rather, it was close associates and political lieutenants
whom federal prosecutors have said were paid to curry Madigan's
favor. [GN]

CONAGRA BRANDS: Order on Class Cert. Bid Entered in Alvarez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hilda Alvarez v. Conagra
Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-09005-FMO-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order as follows:

   1. Joint Brief:

      The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
      fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
      position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
      party is immediately followed by the opposing
      party's/parties' response.

   2. Citation to Evidence:

      All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
      directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
      evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a
      deposition.

   3. Unnecessary Sections:

      The parties need not include a "procedural history"
      section, since the court will be familiar with the
      procedural history. The court is also familiar with the
      general standard for class certification, so that need not
      be argued.

   4. Page Limitation:

      Each separately-represented party shall be limited to 25
      pages, exclusive of tables of contents and authorities.

   5. Evidentiary Appendix:

      The joint brief shall be accompanied by one 24 separate,
      tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence
      (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts,
      etc.).

   6. Evidentiary Objections: All necessary evidentiary
      objections shall be made in the relevant section(s) of the
      joint brief.

   7. Schedule for Preparation and Filing of Joint Brief – The
      briefing schedule for the joint brief shall be as follows:

      A. Meet and Confer: In order for a motion for class
         certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet
         and confer must take place no later than 35 days before
         the deadline for class certification motions set forth
         in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order.

      B. No later than seven days after the meet and confer, the
         moving party shall personally deliver or e-mail to the
         opposing party an electronic copy of the moving party's
         portion of the joint brief, together with the moving
         party's portion of the evidentiary appendix.

      C. No later than 14 days after receiving the moving
         party's papers, the opposing party shall personally
         deliver or e-mail to the moving party an electronic
         copy of the integrated motion, which shall include the
         opposing party's portion of the joint brief, together
         with the opposing party's portion of the evidentiary
         appendix.

      D. No later than two days after receiving the integrated
         version of the motion and related papers, the moving
         party shall finalize it for filing. The moving party
         may not make any further revisions to the joint brief
         other than finalizing the document for filing.

Conagra Brands is an American consumer packaged goods holding
company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Conagra makes and sells
products under various brand names that are available in
supermarkets, restaurants, and food service establishments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jel5Rg at no extra charge.[CC]

CONAIR CORP: Gonsalves Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE GONSALVES, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CONAIR
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 8:21-cv-00138-JVS-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), with the following class
      definition:

      "All persons in the United States who purchased or
      otherwise acquired a 10 Cuisinart Digital AirFryer Toaster
      Oven TOA-65 in the State of California for personal,
      family, or household purposes. The Class Period is from
      January 22, 2017 to the present;"

   2. appointing her as the class representative of the Class;
      and

   3. appointing Robert M. Beggs, Esq. of The Beggs Law Firm,
      APC and Richard A. Crites, Esq. of The Crites Law Firm as
      class.

Conair is an American company based in Stamford, Connecticut which
sells small appliances, personal care products, and health and
beauty products for both professionals and consumers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gCORmr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Beggs, Esq.
          THE BEGGS LAW FIRM, APC
          3151 Airway Ave., S-1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 878-3773
          Facsimile: (949) 608-1741
          E-mail: robert@thebeggslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Crites, Esq.
          THE CRITES LAW FIRM
          1201 Puerta Del Sol, Ste. 310
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 940-8028
          Facsimile: (866) 562-4432
          E-mail: Richard@crites-law.com

DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Services of Tractors, Brown Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BROWN, D/B/A OTSEGO FORESTRY SERVICES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN
DEERE), Case No. 3:22-cv-50039 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2022) brought
by Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons
and entities similarly situated seeking to represent those persons
and entities who purchased repair services from Deere and/or Deere
affiliated Dealerships and technicians in the Deere Repair Services
Market for Deere tractors, combines, and other heavy equipment
containing engine control units ("ECUs") from January 12, 2018 to
the present.

This case is about John Deere's monopolization of the repair
service market for Deere brand agricultural and industrial Tractors
manufactured with the ECU Software. Deere Tractor owners have
traditionally had the ability to repair their own Deere Tractors as
needed, or else have had the option to bring their Deere Tractor to
an independent mechanic. However, in newer generations of its
Tractors that contain ECU Software, the Tractor owners no longer
have the option of self-repair or selecting an independent
mechanic.

Allegedly, Deere has deliberately monopolized the repair services
market by making crucial ECU Software and repair tools inaccessible
to either the Tractor owner or independent mechanics. A Tractor
owner or non-Deere related third-party mechanic may have the
necessary mechanical parts, knowledge, and the skill to make the
desired repair, but without access to the ECU Software, the repair
is not recognized by the ECU system, making the repair
ineffective.

Indeed, Deere precludes its network of highly-consolidated
independent dealerships (the "Dealerships") from providing Tractor
owners or repair shops with access to the critical ECU Software and
repair tools. As a result, Tractor owners have no choice but to
hire Deere Repair Services at a heighted and non-competitive price
for services that historically could be performed independent of
Deere and for less cost, says the suit.

As a result of its alleged monopolistic scheme, Deere's business
for its Repair Services is three to six times more profitable than
its sales of original equipment. Deere and the Dealerships are,
therefore, highly motivated to prevent competition, either from
independent repair shops selling Deere Repair Services, or from
Tractor owners with the knowledge and skills to perform their own
repairs. Deere violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forcing
consolidation of its affiliated Dealerships to eliminate
inter-brand competition for Repair Services. Deere also violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act through its arrangements with
Co-conspirator Dealerships to not sell the Software to farmers and
independent repair shops, added the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, treble and
exemplary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. As for equitable
relief, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Deere to make the
necessary Software available, at reasonable cost, to individuals
and repair shops.

Mr. Brown is a resident and citizen of New York. He is a sole
proprietor doing business as Otsego Forestry Services. He owns a
Deere 450 Dover that was manufactured with ECU and ECU software.
During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased Deere Repair
Services in New York from a John Deere dealership to diagnose and
repair the malfunctions and suffered antitrust injury as a result
of alleged Defendant's conduct.

John Deere wields significant economic power in the market for
large agricultural and industrial heavy equipment in North America
and has a larger market share than that of the next two biggest
tractor makers, Case New Holland and Kubota Corp., combined. Over
the past two decades, modern John Deere tractors, combines, dozers,
and other Deere agricultural and industrial equipment ("Deere
Tractors") have been manufactured with onboard central computers
known as ECUs. The ECU requires proprietary software and associated
repair tools (collectively referred to as "ECU Software") to
perform or complete both routine and complex repair work.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Timothy E. Jackson, Esq.
          Jessica Wieczorkiewicz, Esq.
          WALLACE MILLER
          111 W Jackson Blvd. Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 261-6193
          E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com
                  tej@wallacemiller.com
                  jw@wallacemiller.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
                  jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Joseph Lyon, Esq.
          Clint Watson, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM, LLC
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

DELTA AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Coercion to Take COVID-19 Vaccines
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PATRICK; JERRICKA KELLY, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., a Georgia Corporation;
PFIZER, INC., a New York Corporation; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00171 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2022) is a class action
complaint for damages and for preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief resulting from Defendants' Coercion
to take COVID-19 vaccines and other COVID-19 related Order.

The suit seeks to remedy judicial amnesia and realign the power
where it belongs -- with the people.

While the Supreme Court recently emphasized how "even in a
pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten," it
has been cavalierly disregarded in the handling of COVID-19 --
particularly under the current administration. From the unlawful
Executive Orders to the private employers like Delta incentivizing,
requiring, or coercing its employees to take harmful and oftentimes
deadly COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of employment, America's
identify as the "shining city on a hill" appears to have become a
dark shadow of its former self, the lawsuit says.

The Constitution enumerates those powers delegated to each branch
of the federal government with all others reserved to the States
(i.e., historical police powers such as health, safety, and
welfare) as expressed or codified in part by the Nineth, Tenth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. The problem here, however, are powers have
been unlawfully delegated by the government to the private sector
toward big corporations like Delta and Pfizer; while States' or We
the Peoples' rights have been trampled on and eclipsed. In short,
should any behavior be curtailed in the name of health/safety, such
decisions ought to be made in accordance with and pursuant to the
traditions our founders intended and the Constitution -- they must
be left for the States, the lawsuit adds.

Both Patrick and Kelly are employed by Delta and have been
subjected to Delta's, Pfizer's, and the Government's coercive,
manipulative, or mandates to induce inoculation.

Defendant Delta, regularly conducts business and maintains a large
workforce throughout Florida; and is otherwise sui juris. Among
other things, Delta has implemented coercive, COVID-19 vaccine
policies; as well as, discriminatory masks and PCR tests for all of
its employees.

By mid-March 2020, the "novel coronavirus," SARS-CoV-2, which can
cause the disease, COVID-19, had spread worldwide and wreaked havoc
on the United States' healthcare, economy, and well-being. While
SARS-CoV-2 was called ‘novel,' it was not some unrecognizable
virus -- just a new strain of coronavirus that resides in both
humans and animals. SARS-CoV-2 behaves like SARS-CoV that emerged
in China in 2002 which justifies why it was classified and named as
such. SARS-CoV-2 has the same genetic structure, uses the same host
cell receptor to begin the infection cycle, and causes the same
disease as SARS-CoV in humans.

Alarmingly, the most novel aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19
disease were the federal and state governments' responses. Due to
the growing number of COVID-19 cases, former U.S. Health and Human
Services ("HHS") Secretary, Alex M. Azar, II ("Azar"), determined
that a public health emergency existed and a national emergency was
declared. Among others, The Public Readiness and Emergency
Preparedness Act (PREP) was invoked and the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES"), H.R. 748, was
introduced to Congress and signed into law shortly thereafter, the
Plaintiff contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq.
          FERGUSON LAW, P.A.
          1 East Broward Blvd. Suite No. 700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 256-5646
          Facsimile: (954) 256-5655
          E-Mail: Wayne@FergusonLawPA.com

ELECTRIC LAST: Shareholders Expected to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Peterson, writing for WNDU, reports that hundreds, if not
thousands of ELMS shareholders are expected to join a class action
lawsuit that stems from false financial filings on the part of
company leaders.

ELMS stands for Electric Last Mile Solutions and the company has
been making electric commercial delivery vehicles in the Mishawaka
factory where civilian Hummers were once produced.

On February 1st, the company announced the resignation of its
co-founders amidst an investigation into certain sales of equity
securities made by and to individuals associated with the company
and the legal disclosure and tax consequences of the transactions.

A company press release indicates that certain executives purchased
equity in the company at substantial discounts to market value
without obtaining an independent evaluation, and that the company's
financial statements would have to be re-issued.

On this news, the company's share price fell $2.88 or 51 percent
per share by February 2, 2022.

The lawsuit states that ELMS securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated and "as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages." [GN]

EVOQUA WATER: McWilliams Securities Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. disclosed in its 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2022, that on
November 2, 2021, the Southern District of New York granted final
approval of the settlement and entered a judgment dismissing the
case captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., Case
No. 1:18-CV-10320.

In November 2018, a purported shareholder of the company filed a
class action lawsuit, captioned "McWilliams v. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp.," Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that
the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws
by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the
period leading up to the company’s October 30, 2018 announcement
of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year
fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a
transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment
operating model.

In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation. In March 2019, lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserted claims
pursuant to the Exchange Act and the Securities Act against the
Company, members of the company's board of directors, senior
management, a former executive, AEA Investors LP (AEA), and the
underwriters of the company's IPO and secondary public offering.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or deficient
disclosures concerning the company's integration of acquired
companies, its reduction-in-force and the financial results of
operations. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and an award of costs and expenses to the
plaintiff and class counsel.

In March 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
a portion of the claims, dismissing all claims predicated on
supposedly intentional misstatements or omissions, which were
brought under the Exchange Act. The claims that remained were those
brought under the Securities Act. The company filed an answer
denying the material allegations of the complaint, the parties
engaged in discovery, and lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in December 2020.

On June 1, 2021, following mediation, the parties filed a
stipulation agreeing to settle said securities litigation, subject
to court approval, for $16.65 million, all of which was paid by
insurance. On November 1, 2021, the court granted final approval of
the settlement and entered a judgment dismissing the Securities
Litigation.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. is a provider of mission-critical
water and wastewater treatment solutions based in Pennsylvania.


FB HOLDINGS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Abreu Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FB HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01204 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 11, 2022) alleges that the FB Holdings failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the
New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person. He
asserts this action individually and on behalf of all other
visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the United
States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and have
been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or services
offered on the website during the past three years from the date of
the filing of the complaint.

In February 2022, the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on Defendant's website, www.bounceu.com/west-windor-nj/.
The main reason Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia,
purchase products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers
different styles of bounce houses. The accessibility issues
Plaintiff experienced are still found on Defendant's website as of
the date of the filing of this complaint. Plaintiff still intends
to purchase certain goods and/or services from Defendant's website
in the future, but currently cannot, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant
seeking preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory
relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24 th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
                  jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                  wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

FILA-MAR ENERGY: Barajas, Cerna Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO BARAJAS AND JOSE CERNA, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. FILA-MAR ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 7:22-cv-00027 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 11, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiffs and on behalf of all current
and former employees of Fila-Mar who worked as sand coordinators
and forklift operators and during the past three years to recover
back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by
employing the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
"for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate
them] for [their] employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not
less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they
were or are] employed."

The Defendant employed Barajas in October 2018. Barajas is
currently employed at Fila-Mar. The Defendant also employed Cerna
in January 2019 until February 2020. The Defendant employed the
Plaintiffs as sand coordinators and forklift operators.

Fila-Mar is a proppant logistics and delivery service company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net

FLINT, MI: Judge Trims Atty. Fees Requested in Drinking Water Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan at Detroit Free Press reports that a federal judge on
awarded the attorneys who handled civil litigation arising from the
Flint drinking water crisis much of what they requested in terms of
legal fees and expenses, but reduced the total amount that will be
paid to lawyers from a $626.25-million partial settlement, mostly
paid for by the state of Michigan.

The request from attorneys -- which at the time was based on a
slightly larger total settlement amount -- could have potentially
resulted in attorney fees that topped $200 million.

The exact amount attorneys will receive remains unknown until the
claims process is completed, but it appears it will be less than
$180 million. The case arose from the lead poisoning of Flint's
drinking water that began in 2014.

U.S. District Judge Judith Levy granted in full one of the most
significant requests -- a 6.33% "common benefit fee" for the main
attorneys who negotiated the settlement on behalf of Flint
plaintiffs. That means they will get $39.6 million off the top to
divide.

But Levy capped almost all other attorney fees at 25% -- less than
the 27% requested.

She awarded expenses of $7.1 million, reducing the requested amount
by only about $11,000.

Despite years of litigation and several trips to courts of appeals
at both the state and federal level, "thus far, plaintiffs' counsel
have not been paid for their work or reimbursed for out-of-pocket
expenses in the Flint Water Cases at all," Levy said in a 99-page
ruling.

"Determining the appropriate fee award is a challenging task. As is
common in settlements -- plaintiffs' counsel's fees and costs will
be deducted from the $626.25 million total settlement, and
accordingly, every dollar awarded to the attorneys is a dollar less
for the claimants. Because of this, the court must balance
society's strong interest in paying lawyers for their work and
encouraging counsel to accept similar engagements in the future
with the important interest in maximizing the claimants' monetary
awards."

Experts told the Free Press the requested fees of nearly one-third
of the total settlement appeared to be excessive. They said in
large mass-tort and class-action lawsuits such as the Flint case,
the percentage of the contingency fee tends to go down as the total
amount of the settlement goes up.

In her ruling, Levy agreed parts of the request were too high.

Lead attorneys say they and lawyers from about 30 other firms have
collectively worked 182,000 hours on the case in the last five
years, fighting a deep-pocketed state of Michigan that made
immunity and other defense claims that had to be fought all the way
to the Michigan Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court before lengthy
and difficult negotiations resulted in a proposed settlement.

Levy gave final approval of the proposed settlement in November. It
is one of the largest civil settlements in state history.

Flint's water crisis began when a state-appointed emergency manager
switched the city's drinking water supply from Lake Huron water
treated in Detroit to Flint River water treated at the Flint Water
Treatment Plant. It was intended as a temporary, cost-saving
measure, but turned out to be a disastrous mistake. The Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality has acknowledged it failed to
require needed corrosion-control chemicals as part of the water
treatment process.

Before the 2014 water switch, the Flint City Council had backed a
plan to join the Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline to Lake Huron
as a new water source, though members have said they thought the
city would stay on Detroit water until the new pipeline was
completed.

After Flint River water began flowing, the more corrosive water
caused lead to leach from joints, pipes and fixtures, causing a
spike in toxic lead levels in the blood of Flint children and other
residents.

Flint switched back to Detroit water in October 2015, but the risk
remained because of damage to the city's water distribution
infrastructure.

Work to replace lead service lines to Flint households, funded
largely by the federal and state governments, is largely completed.
[GN]

FLINT, MI: Lawyers Get Close to $180M in Water Crisis Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
bridgemi.com reports that lawyers who helped win a $626-million
legal settlement tied to the Flint water crisis could receive close
to $180 million for their work, according to terms set forth in a
federal judge's ruling. It's less than they requested, but
considerably more than critics say should go to lawyers for such a
large class-action award.

In her decision, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy adjusted
some of the lawyers' requested fees downward, leaving them to
collect expenses and fees coming to what she described as "less
than 31.33 percent" of the total settlement amount of $626.25
million.

The exact dollar amount won't be known until administrative fees
and other details are worked out, but one lawyer who has closely
followed the case said he expects lawyers to take about $180
million.

The total cut for lawyers includes $7.1 million in reimbursements
for out-of-pocket expenses, plus a pooled fund of $39.6 million to
compensate lead attorneys. After those and other deductions,
including $35 million for future claimants who were minors during
the water crisis, lawyers will receive additional fees amounting to
up to 25 percent of the remaining pot. Those fees will vary
depending upon the amount of their clients' claim, the lawyers
involved, the type of clients they assisted, and when their clients
retained a lawyer.

Levy called it "a reasonable and fair result" that slightly reduces
lawyers' cut while awarding fees that "reflect their hard and
persistent work" over five years of litigation.

She stressed that the exact amount left for claimants won't be
known until a host of fees and costs are deducted.

In a statement, co-lead plaintiffs counsel Ted Leopold lauded the
settlement as a step toward justice for Flint residents, and
highlighted the work attorneys did to reach the legal agreement.

"As in every case, attorneys fees are calculated based on the
length and intensity of the litigation," Leopold said, "which in
this instance spanned more than five years and included millions of
pages of documents, roughly one hundred depositions, dozens of
expert witnesses, 10 appeals and 18 months of court-supervised
negotiations."

It's not unusual for lawyers to take up to a one-third cut of
awards in contingency fee civil cases, in which lawyers pay the
up-front expenses of litigation that they may or may not win. But
litigation experts say courts often reduce lawyers' cut in mega
class-action settlements, such as the Flint case.

The plaintiffs attorneys who took the state and other parties to
court for their role in the Flint water crisis argued their
requested fees were a reflection of more than 182,000 hours of work
by dozens of law firms and hundreds of lawyers, with no guarantee
of success, in hopes of securing a semblance of justice for people
who drank the city's lead-tainted water.

But some plaintiffs and outside groups had argued lawyers were
asking too much, and thus leaving Flint's struggling residents with
too little.

Levy generally rejected those complaints, noting that deducting
attorneys' fees from the overall pot of money "is a common
occurrence in every contingency fee case."

"This is the way the litigation system operates and it is
standard," she wrote. "Plaintiffs' Counsel have earned and are
deserving of reasonable compensation for their work."

But a lawyer for a D.C.-based nonprofit that fights for smaller
fees in class action suits said he was disappointed in a ruling
that he estimates will send about $180 million to lawyers. Noting
that he was still reading through the ruling, Frank Bednarz, an
attorney with the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton
Lincoln Law Institute, said Friday the judge had granted lawyers
compensation that is "not that much different than what they asked
for."

In hearings before Levy last year, Bednarz was among multiple
lawyers and Flint residents who had pushed for a smaller fee
structure. He accused some lawyers of overcharging for reimbursable
expenses, and noted other class-action suits in which attorneys had
received a far smaller cut of the total settlement.

But Michael Pitt, a co-lead counsel in the case from the Royal
Oak-based firm Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers, defended the
fees as appropriate. He noted that some law firms refused to take
the case because success was considered a longshot.

"I would not agree with anyone who says the fees are excessive," he
said. "They are not excessive when you understand what went into
doing this, and the amount of risk that we took."

More than 50,000 people have registered to participate in the
settlement, which settles a portion of claims tied to the water
crisis that emerged after a state-appointed emergency manager
approved the city's 2014 switch from Detroit's water supply to the
Flint River, without requiring anti-corrosion chemicals to prevent
lead from leaching out of aging pipes.

It's still unclear how much any individual Flint resident will
receive as part of the settlement — that depends on how many
people successfully file claims in a process that began last
month.

But Pitt said Friday's decision ensures "life-altering" amounts of
money — tens of thousands of dollars — for Flint residents who
were young children during the water crisis and can demonstrate
elevated lead levels or cognitive impairments.

So far, Pitt said, almost all of more than 350 children tested for
cognitive function have shown some type of impairment.

"This is a real opportunity for people to get some real
compensation for their kids," Pitt said. "They should take
advantage of it."

Potential claimants can learn more about how to file a claim here.
The claims period ends May 12.

After attorney fees, people who were children during the crisis
will receive nearly 80 percent of the remaining settlement, while
18 percent will go to adults who can prove health impacts from the
lead or a Legionnairre's Disease outbreak that emerged after the
water switch, or property damages. Smaller amounts will fund
special education programs and compensate businesses.

Some residents have criticized that payment structure, arguing it
shortchanges those who were adults during the crisis. Flint City
Council President Eric Mays said he has no problem with lawyers
taking their cut, but he wishes they would have held out for a
bigger settlement, with better terms for adults.

"I really wish they would negotiate a settlement that's in the best
interest of their clients, just as in the best interest of them
getting attorney fees," he said.

Mays said his lawyer "dropped me like a hot potato" when Mays
objected to the settlement. He is considering options to appeal the
settlement terms in court, he said.

SPONSOR

The settlement includes commitments of $600 million from the state
of Michigan, $20 million from the city of Flint, $5 million from
McLaren Regional Medical Center and $1.25 million from Flint-based
engineering firm Rowe Professional Services Co., for their
respective roles in the failure to protect city residents.

It resolves only a portion of civil suits tied to the Flint water
crisis. Lawyers are suing four other parties tied to the Flint
water crisis, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In a statement Friday, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel noted
that the settlement agreement bans her from voicing an opinion
about attorneys' fees.

But Nessel described Levy's order as a step toward monetary relief
for afflicted Flint residents and vowed to "remain steadfast in my
commitment to address the damage created by the Flint Water Crisis
in court."

Pitt said Flint residents should "stay tuned" for the outcome of
other litigation, including a lawsuit against two engineering firms
that declined to join the settlement.

Editor's note: Due to a calculation error, an earlier version of
this article overstated the maximum amount plaintiffs lawyers stand
to receive under the Friday ruling. It has since been
corrected.[GN]

GARDEN COTTAGE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GARDEN COTTAGE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01207
(S.N.D.Y., Feb. 11, 2022) is a civil rights class action against
defendant Black River for its alleged failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people who use screen-reading software.

The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all
other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the
United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and
have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or
services offered on the website during the past three years from
the date of the filing of the complaint.

In February 2022, Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on Defendant's website, www.gardencottage.com. The main
reason Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase
products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers
different specialty coffee roasts. The Defendant and its website
violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and the New York City Human Rights Law as the website is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant
seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory
relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Plaintiff is visually-impaired and/or legally blind. The
Plaintiff uses the NVDA screen-reader to access websites on the
Internet. During Plaintiff's visits to Defendant's website, the
last occurring in February 2022, Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the goods
and/or services offered to (and made available for) the general
public. These access barriers were the reason that Plaintiff was
denied the full enjoyment of the goods and/or services offered on
the website, added the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24 th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: jmizrahi@mizrahikroub.com
                  jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                  wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

GEICO CASUALTY: McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Ohio Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Ebeck, Esq., Chelsey Dawson Klein, Esq., and Alexander
Madrid, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
report that as we touched on last summer,[1] whether a district
court may certify a class action without resolving challenges to
the admissibility of fact or expert evidence is still an unsettled
question. This question is particularly important with respect to
expert evidence, given that class certification frequently hinges
on competing experts' opinions regarding the propriety of an
aggregate action. If an expert's opinion is deemed inadmissible,
the party proffering it is almost certain to be on the receiving
end of an adverse certification ruling.

While the Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
that it "doubts" the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert
testimony does not apply at class certification, it did not
definitively resolve the question and the Courts of Appeals have
not answered it uniformly.[2] Five Courts of Appeals have expressly
held that a court must conduct a full Daubert analysis, but
one—the Eighth Circuit—has held that only a "limited" Daubert
analysis is appropriate while the remainder have not issued clear
rulings. Among the appellate courts that have declined to render a
definitive ruling is the Sixth Circuit, which in 2020 stated it had
"yet to settle th[e] matter."[3]

On December 6, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio issued an opinion that squarely addressed the
question of whether Daubert applies at class certification. The
opinion, which surveyed the current state of the law, reaches the
carefully reasoned conclusion that expert testimony must be
admissible, and thus that any challenge to admissibility must be
resolved, at class certification. The decision thus serves as a
guidepost to other courts within the Sixth Circuit. And the court's
comprehensive reasoning may serve persuasive to other courts in
circuits that have yet to resolve this open question.

In Desai v. Geico Casualty Company,[4] the plaintiff brought a
putative class action alleging Geico failed to pay the actual cash
value of his vehicle after a total loss. Geico's approach to
calculating car value was to utilize a model that calculates the
average of the adjusted price of comparable cars. The plaintiff
alleged this approach breached the terms of its insurance policy
because it did not reimburse dealer, title, and license fees. In
support of his motion for class certification, plaintiff submitted
expert testimony on the total fees paid by members of the putative
class that were not reimbursed under Geico's approach. Geico filed
a motion to exclude the expert's testimony, arguing it did not meet
the Rule 702 standard for admissibility.

In considering the defendant's motion, the court first noted that
"whether Rule 702 applies to evidence presented on a motion for
class certification remains an unsettled question." The court noted
the Supreme Court's "doubt," expressed in Dukes, that Rule 702 does
not apply as well as the fact that the Court granted certiorari in
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend to address the question but ultimately
found it was not preserved for review.[5] The court then considered
the Sixth Circuit's statements on the subject. Although the Sixth
Circuit has expressly declined to resolve the question of whether
expert evidence must be admissible, in Lyngaas v. Curaden AG it
held that the admissibility of fact evidence need not be "decide[d]
conclusively at the class-certification stage."[6] The court then
surveyed the other Courts of Appeal, noting that "a majority of the
Circuits that have considered the question hold that on a motion
for class certification expert evidence must comply with Rule
702."[7]

Having surveyed the relevant decisions from the appellate courts,
the Desai court then turned to its own determination of whether
expert evidence must be admissible at class certification. The
court reasoned that the Federal Rules of Evidence, by their own
terms, "apply to proceedings in United States courts."[8] Because
the Rules of Evidence apply to all evidentiary proceedings with
only limited delineated exceptions, "nothing in Rule 23 or Rules
701 through 706" suggest they do not apply to class certification,
and the Supreme Court expressed "doubt" that the opposite
conclusion is true, the court held "Rule 702 applies to class
certification."[9]

Having concluded that Rule 702 applies, the court proceeded to
evaluate the plaintiff's expert's testimony under Daubert, striking
certain portions of his report while finding others admissible.
Ultimately, the court found the plaintiff could not demonstrate
predominance of common issues of fact and law over individual ones
under Rule 23(b)(3) and denied certification.

The Desai court's decision is significant in several respects. Its
comprehensive review of the appellate decisions in this area
provides an informative overview. The court's conclusion that Rule
702 must apply to class certification based on the language of the
Federal Rules of Evidence is also logically appealing and may prove
persuasive to courts within the Sixth Circuit and other Circuits
that have yet to resolve the question.

The court's conclusion that the Sixth Circuit's Lyngaas decision
(which held admissibility of fact evidence need not be resolved)
does not preclude it from finding Rule 702 applicable is also
notable. Under this reasoning, a litigant in the Sixth Circuit may
offer inadmissible fact evidence but only admissible expert
evidence at class certification. We have previously questioned
whether drawing distinctions between the treatment of fact and
expert evidence can be justified under the Federal Rules of
Evidence or Procedure.[10] Until the Supreme Court makes a
definitive determination, we expect courts to continue to reach
varying conclusions on this question.

[1] To view our previous analysis on this circuit split, see:
https://www.law360.com/articles/1402801/courts-clashing-standards-for-evidence-at-class-cert-part-1
and
https://www.law360.com/articles/1402822/courts-clashing-standards-for-evidence-at-class-cert-part-2.

[2] See 564 U.S. at 354 (2011).

[3] Hicks v. State Farm First & Casualty Co., 965 F.3d 452, 456
(6th Cir. 2020).

[4] No. 1:19-CV-2327, 2021 WL 5762999 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2021).

[5] 567 U.S. 933 (2012).

[6] 992 F.3d 412, 428 (6th Cir. 2021).

[7] Desai, 2021 WL 5762999, at *10.

[8] Id. at *11 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 101(a)).

[9] Id.

[10] See note 1.[GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Defective Airbag Suits
---------------------------------------------
General Motors Co. disclosed in its 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2022, that class actions
lawsuits were filed against General Motors alleging that its airbag
inflators installed in its vehicles were defective.

There are several putative class actions that have been filed
against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the
Provincial Courts in Canada and in Mexico, arising out of said
allegations.

General Motors Co. is into motor vehicles and passenger car bodies
based in Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Defective Battery Raps in US, Canada Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Co. (GM) disclosed in its 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2022, that class actions
lawsuits were filed against General Motors alleging that the
batteries contained in Bolt electric vehicles are defective.

Putative class actions have been filed against GM in federal courts
in the U.S. and in the Provincial Courts in Canada alleging said
defective.

General Motors Co. is in to motor vehicles and passenger car bodies
based in Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Emissions Suits in US, Canada Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Co. disclosed in its 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 2, 2022, that class actions
lawsuits were filed against General Motors alleging that various of
its vehicle models that were sold violate federal, state and
foreign emission standards.

There are several putative class actions pending against General
Motors in federal courts in the U.S. and in the Provincial Courts
in Canada alleging that various vehicles sold, including model year
2011-2016 Duramax Diesel Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra
vehicles, violate federal, state and foreign emission standards.

General Motors Co. is in to motor vehicles and passenger car bodies
based in Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Won et al., Seek to Certify 26 Purchaser Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY WON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-11044-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
following Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3):

   1. Florida Class, represented by Rhianna Meyers, Richard
      Sullivan, and Tait Thomas, certified for claims under the
      Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
      ("FDUTPA"):

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Florida new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

   2. Texas Class, represented by Darrin DeGrand, certified for
      claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
      ("TDTPA"), and breach of express warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Texas new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

   3. Alabama Class, represented by Brian Lloyd, certified for
      claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act
      ("ADTPA"), and breach of express warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Alabama new Class
      Vehicles from GM authorized dealers before March 1, 2019;"

   4. Arizona Class, represented by Maria Barallardos, certified
      for claims under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act:

      "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Arizona Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;”

   5. Arkansas Class, represented by James Paul Browne,
      certified for claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
      Practices Act, and breach of implied warranty:

     "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Arkansas Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;"

   6. Colorado Class, represented by Daniel Drain, certified for
      claims under breach of express warranty, and breach of
      implied warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Colorado new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

   7. Delaware Class, represented by Richard Filiaggi, certified
      for claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act ("DCFA"),
      breach of express warranty, and breach of implied
      warranty:

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Delaware new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

   8. Georgia Class, represented by Philip Weeks, certified for
      claims under breach of express warranty, and breach of
      implied warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Georgia new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

   9. Idaho Class, represented by Cary Sherrow, certified for
      claims under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act ("ICPA"),
      Idaho Code section 48-601 et seq., and breach of express
      warranty:

      "All original purchasers who purchased inIdaho new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

  10. Illinois Class, represented by Dennis Speerly, certified
      for claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
      Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), breach of express
      warranty, breach of implied warranty, and fraudulent
      concealment:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Illinois new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  11. Kansas Class, represented by Guy Clark, certified for
      claims under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA"),
      breach of express warranty, and breach of implied
      warranty:

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Kansas new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

  12. Kentucky Class, represented by James Norvell, certified
      for claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act
      ("KCPA"), and breach of express warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Kentucky new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  13. Louisiana Class, represented by Daniel Dykshorn, certified
      for claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and
      Consumer Protection Law ("LUTPA"), and fraudulent
      concealment:

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Louisiana new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  14. Maine Class, represented by Robert Higgins, certified for
      claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act
      ("MUTPA"), breach of express warranty, and breach of
      implied warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in Maine new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

  15. Michigan Class, represented by Louis Ray, certified for
      claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and
      breach of implied warranty:
      "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Michigan Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;"

  16. Minnesota Class, represented by Troy and Kimberly Coulson,
      certified for claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud
      Act ("MCFA"), breach of express warranty, and breach of
      implied warranty:

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Minnesota new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  17. New Hampshire Class, represented by Michael Banks,
      certified for claims under the New Hampshire Consumer
      Protection Act ("NHCPA"), breach of express warranty, and
      breach of implied warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in New Hampshire new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  18. New Jersey Class, represented by Randall Jacobs and
      Joseph Sierchio, certified for claims under the New Jersey
      Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), breach of express warranty,
      and breach of implied warranty:

     "All original purchasers who purchased in New Jersey new
      Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  19. New York, represented by Andre McQuade, certified for
      claims under the New York General Business Law section
      349, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
      warranty, and fraudulent concealment:

     "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in New
      York Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;"

  20. North Carolina Class, represented by Steven Brack,
      certified for claims under the North Carolina Unfair and
      Deceptive Acts and Practices Act ("NCUDPA"):

      "All original purchasers who purchased in North Carolina
      new  Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;"

  21. Oklahoma Class ("OCPA"), represented by John Ellard,
      certified for claims under the Oklahoma Consumer
      Protection Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of
      implied warranty:

      "All original purchasers who purchased in Oklahoma Class
      new Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1,
      2019;"

  22. Pennsylvania Class, represented by Katrina and William
      Fredo, certified for claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair
      Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law:

      "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Pennsylvania Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers
      before March 1, 2019;"

  23. South Carolina Class, represented by Donald Sicura and
      Jason Sinclair, certified for claims under breach of
      express warranty, and breach of implied warranty:

      "All buyers who purchased in South Carolina new Class
      Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;"

  24. Tennessee Class, represented by David Thompson, certified
      for claims for the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and
      fraudulent concealment:

      "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Tennessee Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019;"

  25. Washington Class, represented by Jerry and Kim Carroll,
      certified for claims under the Washington Consumer
      Protection Act ("WCPA"), breach of express warranty, and
      fraudulent concealment:

      "All buyers who purchased in Washington new Class Vehicles
      from authorized GM dealers before March 1, 2019;" and

  26. Wisconsin Class, represented by Dominic Eatherton,
      certified for claims under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade
      Practices Act:

     "All used purchasers/current owners who purchased in
      Wisconsin Class Vehicles from authorized GM dealers before
      March 1, 2019.

The Class Vehicles are General Motors Model Year ("MY") 2015–2019
vehicles with 8L transmissions, specifically: the 2015-2019
Chevrolet Silverado; 2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado; 2015-2019
Chevrolet Corvette; 2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro; 2015-2017 Cadillac
Escalade and Escalade ESV; 2016-2019 Cadillac CTS; 2016-2018
Cadillac CT6; 2015-2019 GMC Sierra; 2015-2017 Yukon and Yukon XL;
and 2017-2019 GMC Canyon.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for the appointment of
Plaintiffs Brian Lloyd, Daniel Drain, Richard Filiaggi, Richard
Sullivan, Tait Thomas, Rhianna Meyers, Philip Weeks, Cary Sherrow,
Dennis Speerly, Guy Clark, James Norvell, Donald Dykshorn, Robert
Higgins, Kimberly Coulson, Troy Coulson, Steven Brack, Michael
Banks, Joseph Sierchio, Randall Jacobs, Jon Ellard, Jason Sinclair,
Donald Sicura, Darrin DeGrand, Jerry Carroll, Kim Carroll, Maria
Barallardos, James Paul Browne, Dominic Eatherton, Katrina Fredo,
William Fredo, Andre McQuade, Louis Ray, and David Thompson as
Class Representatives; and the appointment of Theodore J. Leopold
as Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company. Headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, the
company is the largest automobile manufacturer based in the United
States and one of the largest worldwide.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33cv36j
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          E-mail: Tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

GLOBAL FIXTURE: Michel Thompson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHEL THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated v.GLOBAL FIXTURE SERVICES, INC., DUSTIN HUGHES,
Individually, and DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00484
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime that is
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Global and its owner, Dustin Hughes,
have a business plan that includes hiring traveling merchandisers
and misclassifying them as independent contractors despite the fact
that the workers are treated as and have all of the characteristics
of an employee.

Dolgencorp., which does business under the trade name of Dollar
General, knowingly utilizes Global workers and exerts enough
control over the day-to-day job functions of the Global
merchandisers to make Dollar General a joint employer with Global,
says the suit.

Global and Dollar General allegedly break the law in order to avoid
paying overtime pay to merchandisers, saving the Defendants money
and allowing them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who
follow the law in their employment practices.

Mr. Thompson is one of a number of salaried merchandisers hired by
Global and utilized by Dollar General.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, Texas 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

GOFUND ADVANCE: Faces Haymount Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE PC, AND ROBERT A. CLINTON, JR., individually,
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GOFUND ADVANCE,
LLC, FUNDING 123, LLC, MERCHANT CAPITAL LLC, ISAAC WOLF, and
YISROEL C. GETTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-01245 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2022)
is a class action against several related merchant cash advance
(MCA) companies that are controlled and manipulated by the
Defendants Wolf, and Getter, to carry out a fraudulent scheme to
collect upon unlawful debts and otherwise fraudulently obtain funds
from the Plaintiffs and hundreds of other similarly situated
victims through the use of their merchant cash advance agreements.

Allegedly, the Defendants operate out of New York but abuse an
apparent loophole under Connecticut procedural law to collect upon
their unlawful debts. In doing so, the Defendants freeze
out-of-state bank accounts by simply serving legal papers (which
have not been reviewed or scrutinized by any court) on a bank that
has a branch located in Connecticut. As justification for their
bank freezes, Defendants represent and attest under oath that their
small business victims owe them a debt and that Defendants are
unaware of any defenses to their claims.

According to Bloomberg News, this Connecticut loophole was used
more than 180 times just last year. The result of this tactic is
often catastrophic because the Defendants can freeze out-of-state
bank accounts without any notice whatsoever. Once frozen, the
Defendants can then extort payment under duress due to their
victims' need to save payroll or pay other necessary business
expenses, such as insurance, taxes, rent and inventory.

The Plaintiffs here have fallen prey to Defendants' unlawful
lending practices, and now bring this action on behalf of
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, to permanently enjoin
Defendants from their myriad unlawful practices, says the suit.

Plaintiff Robert A. Clinton Jr., MD is an individual and citizen of
North Carolina.

Haymount Urgent is a North Carolina professional corporation
organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, with its
principal place of business located in North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Shane R. Heskin, Esq.
         WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
         7 Times Square, Suite 2900
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 244-9500 or (215) 864-6329
         E-mail: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com

HEMPSTEAD POULTRY: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on Feb. 7, Edward
Castro filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New
York against Hempstead Poultry, LLC, Hempstead Poultry Farms, Inc.
and Jorge Perez alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Jorge Perez is the owner and president
of Hempstead Poultry, LLC and Hempstead Poultry Farms, Inc., which
are both businesses organized under the laws of New York with a
principal place of business in Hempstead, New York.

The complaint further states that Edward Castro is a resident of
Suffolk County, New York and has been employed by the defendants as
a chicken cutter since November 24, 2019. Castro states during his
employment he was paid a fixed salary in cash on a weekly basis.
Castro alleges that during his employment he worked the same
schedule; Tuesday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and
on Sundays from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., for a total of 61.5 hours
per week.

The plaintiff further alleges that his fixed salary during
employment varied from $420 per week to $650 per week, but he was
never paid overtime wages during his employment with the
defendants. Castro argues that he was not paid overtime wages nor
the required minimum wage because the defendants improperly
classified him as an exempt worker. He argues that he does not
qualify as an exempt employee under the FLSA or the New York Labor
Law.

The complaint states that many of the defendant's other employees
have also been misclassified as exempt and have not received the
proper minimum wage or overtime compensation. The complaint also
alleges that the class of plaintiffs never received wage statements
with their weekly cash wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law. Castro alleges that the defendants were well aware that the
plaintiffs did not qualify as exempt employees and their violations
of the FLSA and New York Labor Law were willful.

The plaintiff seeks certification of the class members, declaratory
and injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages with pre- and
post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, attorneys fees and
costs for the defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York labor Law. The plaintiff is represented by the Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC. [GN]

HOST INT'L: Seeks Reconsideration of Jan. 24 Order in Schroeder
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA SCHROEDER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. HOST
INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware; DIANA FLORES, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00428-MCS-E (C.D.
Cal.), Host asks the Court to reconsider its January 24, 2022 Order
Remanding Case to State Court with respect to standing and
jurisdiction over Karla Schroeder's claim for penalties triggered
by failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment under
California Labor Code Sections 201-203.

Host International provides catering services to travelers.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BbJtAe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq.
          Jennifer F. Dela Rosa, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: 310.820.8800
          Facsimile: 310.820.8859
          E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
                  vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
                  jdelarosa@bakerlaw.com


ILLINOIS: BIPA Claims Are Not Barred, Supreme Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the exclusivity provisions of
the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act ("IWCA") do not bar a claim
for statutory damages under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS Section 14/1, et seq. McDonald v.
Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511.

Background

On August 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit
against Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC ("Symphony") alleging that
Symphony had violated various statutory requirements of BIPA.
Symphony moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the claims were
barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the IWCA. The Cook
County Circuit Court denied Symphony's motion, rejecting the
argument that the IWCA preempted any claims for statutory damages
under BIPA. Symphony appealed and, in September 2020, the Illinois
Appellate Court affirmed. Symphony appealed to the Illinois Supreme
Court.

Illinois Supreme Court's Decision

The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. It reaffirmed that the test
for whether an employee suffers a compensable injury under the IWCA
is "whether there was a harmful change in the human organism -- not
just its bones and muscles, but its brain and nerves as well." By
contrast, violations of BIPA cause "personal and societal
injuries," which are "different in nature and scope from the
physical and psychological work injuries that are compensable under
the [IWCA]." Id. Accordingly, the Illinois Supreme Court found that
the Illinois Appellate Court correctly determined that the alleged
violations of BIPA at issue were not the type of injuries that are
compensable under the IWCA.

Notably, the Illinois Supreme Court was not moved by Symphony's
argument that ruling in plaintiff's favor would mean that Illinois
employers would have little protection from alleged injuries
stemming from technical violations of BIPA and would expose
employers to "potentially devastating class actions that can result
in financial ruin." Id. The Court found that issue "more
appropriately addressed to the legislature." Id.

Conclusion

McDonald eliminates a key defense on which defendant-employers were
relying. Many BIPA cases were stayed to await this ruling and will
likely now proceed. We will continue to monitor developments
relating to this decision. [GN]

ILLINOIS: Judge Denies Class Cert. in Mask Mandate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
thetelegraph.com reports that a Sangamon County circuit court judge
denied class certification in challenges over vaccine or testing
mandates for teachers and mask mandates and exclusion policies for
students issued by Gov. J.B. Pritzker last fall.

After days of oral arguments in separate challenges last month,
Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow denied
requests for class certification.

The 90 plaintiffs in the suit worked in 22 different school
districts, including Edwardsville, Highland, Triad, North Mac and
Staunton.

"Counsel has demonstrated to the court that the class is so
numerous that joinder is impracticable in that the proposed class
would include 711 parents and legal guardians whose almost 900,000
children attend school within the 145 school districts," Grischow
wrote in the case parents brought against mask and exclusion
mandates. "The Motion to Certify the Class is premature and is
denied."

Class certification is sought in a case where plaintiffs want their
cause of action to be accessed by others in similar situations.
Arguments in that case were heard over several days last month.

Grischow denied certifying the class in the case involving school
staff suing 22 districts, Pritzker and state education officials.

"The court is aware of educators on both sides of this issue,"
Grischow wrote in a separate order. "It appears the named
plaintiffs can maintain a cause of action but there is the
possibility of relief that could be potentially antagonistic to
non-represented class members. It is not appropriate for this court
to speculate that a class action is the most appropriate method and
that joinder may prove to be more time consuming and expensive.

"This court cannot find plaintiffs' claims can be efficiently or
fairly adjudicated as a class action," Grischow wrote. "Given the
procedural posture of this case, class certification is premature
and the motion to certify the class is denied without prejudice."

The judge left the door open for further filings on class
certification in both cases, giving plaintiffs leave to refile the
motion in the future, should they desire to undertake this once
more evidence has been discovered.

Pritzker was asked when he'd lift the mask mandate in Illinois.

"I believe that we should remove masks as soon as we possibly can,"
he said. "I'm constantly listening to the doctors and scientists
and encouraging them, 'when can we do this, what's the right time,
what's the right way to do it.' And so, very hopeful we can make an
announcement about that."

Separately, the Illinois State Board of Education said last month
after the close of public comments on a proposed rule that its
staff will make a recommendation on vaccine and testing mandates
for school staff that will be brought before the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules. [GN]

ILUKA RESOURCES: Federal Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that in only the
second Australian shareholder class action of its kind,
shareholders have lost against resources company Iluka in the
Federal Court.

After accusing Iluka resources of failing to inform shareholders of
its inability to achieve sales forecasts and provide reliable
forecasts for the 2012 calendar year, the Federal Court has
dismissed all the applicants and group members' claims against
Iluka.

The class action alleged that in the period from 12 April 2012 to 9
July 2012, Iluka should have been aware that it would not achieve
its zircon and titanium dioxide sales forecasts for 2012. This
information, had it been made public, would have a material effect
on the price for Iluka shares.

It is further alleged that in the period from 12 April 2012 to 9
July 2012, Iluka misled or deceived its shareholders as to forecast
zircon and titanium dioxide sales for 2012. The shareholders were
represented by Shine Lawyers.

However, in Bonham v Iluka Resources Limited, the Honourable
Justice Jagot found that Iluka had reasonable grounds for making
and maintaining its 2012 sales guidance throughout the claim period
and did not fail to disclose material information to the market.
Her honour also found that the process by which the 2012 sales
guidance was developed was reasonable, contrary to the applicant's
contention.

Herbert Smith Freehills represented Iluka, and the team was led by
partners Jason Betts and Ante Golem. Mr Betts said it was a
privilege to represent Iluka.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed the allegations and
favourably received Iluka's defence. It is a great credit to Iluka
that it pushed forward with the proceeding and defended the case to
trial, particularly given the enormous efforts involved in bringing
together the evidence of its former senior leaders. We thank Iluka
for its leadership and strategic focus in defending this claim," he
said.

Mr Golem added that this was an important milestone in Australia's
class actions history.

"The court's decision represents only the second dismissal of a
shareholder class action after a full trial, and we are proud to
have represented Iluka. This class action was first filed four
years ago in April 2018, following an application for preliminary
discovery which was brought in 2014. The trial itself was heard
over four weeks in March, April and May 2021," he said.

"Jason and I are extremely proud of the work of Herbert Smith
Freehills' market leading class action team in Perth and Sydney,
and are indebted to the lawyers, paralegals and support staff who
assisted on this matter.

"Iluka is understandably pleased with the outcome after such a
prolonged process and we congratulate them on this significant
win." [GN]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Settlement to Expand Services for Immigrants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
aclusocal.org reports that in a landmark settlement of a
decade-long lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department for unlawfully detaining tens of thousands of immigrants
for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a fund will
dramatically expand legal defense services provided by the L.A.
County Public Defender agencies for its noncitizen clients.

The first-of-its kind settlement agreement -- finalized today in
U.S. District Court in Los Angeles -- stipulates that the fund be
used to provide representation in deportation, immigration bond,
post-conviction, and other legal proceedings.

The funds will go to the L.A. County offices of the Public Defender
and the Alternate Public Defender for the hiring of immigration
attorneys, paralegals, and other specialists to carry out the
representation. This will be especially vital for persons facing
immigration consequences because of an arrest or conviction.

"The best possible way to protect county residents from unjust
deportations and keep families together is to ensure that everyone
has a lawyer to defend them," said Jennie Pasquarella, immigrant
rights' director for ACLU Foundation of Southern California.

"For indigent noncitizens facing criminal charges, it is just as
important that they have a public defender in their criminal
proceedings, as in their immigration proceedings. This agreement
will now make that possible in Los Angeles County."

The settlement is for the class action lawsuit Roy v County of Los
Angeles filed in 2012 on behalf of immigrants unlawfully detained
by the sheriff's department because of "ICE hold" requests. The
holds, also called "immigration detainers," forced individuals to
be held in county jails after they were legally entitled to be
released.

Co-counsels on the lawsuit were the civil rights law firm McLane,
Bednarski & Litt; the ACLU SoCal; the National Day Laborer
Organizing Network (NDLON); and the National Immigrant Justice
Center (NIJC).

"Unfortunately for the citizens and taxpayers of Los Angeles
County, the county jail has a long and consistent history of
violating prisoners' rights, which has resulted in several
multi-million dollar class action settlements," said Barry Litt of
the civil rights law firm McLane, Bednarski & Litt.

"This latest settlement not only compensates those whose rights
were violated, but provides critical legal support to future
immigrants caught in the ICE-County Jail legal web."

The original settlement of the lawsuit was $14 million approved in
2020 by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors as compensation to
class members who were detained from October 2010 to June 2014.
After those payments -- ranging from $250 up to $25,000 per person
-- are completed, the remaining funds, an estimated $5.3 million
will go to the public defender agencies' legal representation of
immigrants. [GN]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge OKs $14M Settlement in Immigration Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alene Tchekmedy at Latin American Times reports that a federal
judge on Friday approved a $14-million settlement in a class-action
lawsuit over the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's past
practice of holding people in jail beyond their release dates
because of requests from immigration authorities.

The settlement caps a nearly decade-long court battle for people
who were held in L.A. County jails illegally for days or months
because of pending investigations by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

Only a part of the settlement -- $3.7 million -- will go toward the
victims. While nearly 20,000 people qualified for relief because
they were held unlawfully between October 2010 and June 2014, only
1,166 people filed claims.

"It was very, very difficult to reach people, to locate people and
get them to file claims," said Lindsay Battles, an attorney
representing the plaintiffs. "For this case in particular, we faced
the additional challenge that many people had been transferred to
ICE and then deported."

Qualified claimants will be paid a maximum of $1,000 for each day
they were held beyond their release date. The payments range from
$250 to $25,000 per person.

An additional $4.2 million of the settlement will go toward the
plaintiffs' attorneys, which the judge said is "justified by the
fact that plaintiffs' attorneys achieved significant results for
the class and undertook lengthy and risky litigation."

The remaining money, about $5.3 million, will fund immigration
attorneys, paralegals and others to defend cases involving
immigrants at the L.A. County offices of the public defender and
alternate public defender.

"The best possible way to protect county residents from unjust
deportations and keep families together is to ensure that everyone
has a lawyer to defend them," Jennie Pasquarella, immigrant rights'
director for ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a
statement.

The lawsuit was filed against former Sheriff Lee Baca in 2012 by
British filmmaker Duncan Roy, who said he spent nearly three months
in L.A. County jails without a chance to post bail after his 2011
arrest. Roy said that the Sheriff's Department denied his requests
to post $35,000 bail because immigration agents had requested he be
held.

A federal judge concluded in 2018 that holding inmates beyond their
release dates under civil immigration detainers violated their 4th
Amendment rights.

The Sheriff's Department's policies and practices have changed
significantly since the lawsuit was filed.

Sheriff Alex Villanueva ended the Sheriff's Department's
participation in a federal grant program that required the
department to share with federal agencies information about inmates
who were believed to be in the country illegally.

In April 2020, he put a moratorium on transferring inmates to
immigration authorities over concerns about conditions at
immigration detention facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. He
made the moratorium permanent later that year, banning inmate
transfers unless the federal immigration agency obtained a judicial
warrant. [GN]

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR, reports that a home improvement
retailer is facing a proposed class action lawsuit claiming
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that prohibits
employers from taking adverse action against job applicants based
on their background check report without first giving them a copy
of the report, according to ClassAction.org.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina on February 3, 2022, the lawsuit HALE v. LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC. claimed that defendant Lowe's use of background reports to
screen job applicants violated the FCRA, a federal law that
regulates background checks for employment purposes.

The complaint claimed Plaintiff Hale was offered a job by Defendant
Lowe's in March 2020 contingent on him passing a background check
and Plaintiff was informed he did not pass in April 2020. Neither
Defendant nor its consumer reporting agency (CRA) gave Plaintiff a
copy of his report or a statement of his rights under the FCRA.

"Providing a copy of the criminal background report as well as a
statement of consumer rights before making an adverse employment
decision arms the nation's millions of job applicants with the
knowledge and information needed to challenge inaccurate,
incomplete, and misleading public-records-based reports," the
complaint said.

"Had Defendant bothered to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the
consumer report and given him the chance to explain the contents of
his report prior to taking adverse action against him, Defendant
would have learned that, contrary to the information in the report
. . ., Plaintiff has no felony convictions," the complaint
claimed.

"But Plaintiff was never given an opportunity to explain anything
to Defendant prior to his abrupt termination," the complaint
stated. "Defendant's termination of Plaintiff's employment caused
Plaintiff damages in the form of lost pay, and emotional damages
due to stress caused by the loss of a job he should certainly have
retained."

The FCRA allows consumers to dispute or explain inaccurate or
derogatory information in their background checks before a hiring
decision is made, and the Defendant's alleged conduct was
"egregious and willful" since a previous lawsuit BROWN v. LOWE'S
COMPANIES, INC. alleged an "identical violation," the complaint
stated.

"So while Defendant should know better about how it performs the
simple duties the FCRA imposes upon it in the employment context,
the settlement that resulted from Brown apparently caused no
substantive changes in the way in which Lowe's uses background
checks in the employment context," the complaint claimed.

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and
privacy of consumer information contained in the files of CRAs,
protects consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports, and regulates the
collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information. [GN]

MDL 2913: Byrne Suit Consolidated in JUUL Labs Product Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: JUUL Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2913, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring Byrne V. Juul Labs, Inc. et al, Case No.
813126/2021E (N.Y. Sup., November 3, 2022), to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned to
Judge William H. Orrick III for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiff in the Byrne action moved to vacate the panel's order
conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2913 while Juul
Labs opposed the motion.

Said action alleges that JUUL has marketed its nicotine delivery
products in a manner designed to attract minors, its marketing
misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and
addictive than cigarettes and JUUL products are defective and
unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors and
promotes nicotine addiction.

Byrne argued that his action should not be transferred because his
case was improperly removed from state court and the transferor
court lacks federal jurisdiction. The Panel consistently has held
that jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer. The panel says that the Byrne action
involve common questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to MDL No. 2913 and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 1, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3oPqcjj


MDL 2924: Two Suits Consolidated in Ranitidine Liability Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida and, with the
consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the two actions moved to vacate the panel's order
that conditionally transferred these actions to the Southern
District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2924. Defendants
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Boehringer Ingelheim
Corporation; Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation; Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. LLC; Sanofi US Services Inc; Chattem, Inc.; GlaxoSmithKline
LLC; GlaxoSmithKline Holdings (Americas) Inc.; Pfizer Inc.; and
Patheon Manufacturing Services LLC opposed said motion.

In support of their motion to vacate, Plaintiffs argued that
federal subject matter jurisdiction over their actions is lacking,
and that their pending motions for remand to state court should be
decided before transfer. The panel, however, held that such
jurisdictional objections generally do not present an impediment to
transfer.

Plaintiffs also attempted to distinguish their actions from those
in the MDL. They suggested that transfer is not appropriate because
Plaintiffs assert claims against a specific seller of the
ranitidine products allegedly consumed by them. Yet plaintiffs in
both actions allege that they developed cancer caused by use of
prescription and over-the-counter ranitidine products -- one of the
core allegations presented by the actions in the MDL. Plaintiffs in
both actions also assert product liability claims against
manufacturers of the ranitidine products where defendants'
ranitidine-containing medications allegedly break down to form an
alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine.

The panel concluded that the actions involve common questions of
fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924, and that
transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

Defendants include GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chattem Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Sanofi US Services Inc., Perrigo Research & Development Company,
Lannett Company, Inc., Novitium Pharma LLC, Aurobindo Pharma USA,
Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
USA, Appco Pharma LLC, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc.,
Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., Strides Pharma,
Inc., Teligent, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., CVS Health Corp., CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., The Kroger Co., Smith Food & Drug Centers, Inc.,
Fred Meyer, Inc., Target Corp., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
Walgreens Co., Walmart Inc., and Pfizer Inc.

A full-text copy of the Court's January 31, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3GSkfrY

MDL 3014: Three Suits Consolidated in Philips Recalled CPAP Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical
Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and one case from
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, all to
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and
assigned them to the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the three actions moved to vacate the panel's orders
that conditionally transferred these actions to the Western
District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3014 while
Defendants opposed the said motion. Plaintiffs argued that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over their respective actions is
lacking, and that their pending motions for remand to state court
should be decided before transfer. The panel, however, held that
such jurisdictional objections generally do not present an
impediment to transfer and that the actions involve common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3014, and
that transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

The actions here asserts overlapping claims for violations of state
consumer protection statutes, breach of warranties and unjust
enrichment arising from recalled ventilators and the potential harm
that can be caused by their alleged inherent defect. The panel
contends that centralization offers substantial opportunity to
streamline pretrial proceedings, reduce duplicative discovery and
conflicting pretrial obligations, prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel
and the judiciary.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 2, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3rRzooU

MDL 3019: Achermann Suit Consolidated in T-Mobile Data Breach Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In In re T-Mobile Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.
3019, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned
Achermann v. T−Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 3:21−08995 (N.D.
Cal., November 19, 2021) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned
it to Judge Brian C. Wimes for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The class actions present common factual questions concerning an
alleged data security breach of T-Mobile's systems that was
discovered in August 2021 and allegedly compromised the personal
information of approximately 54 million current, former, and
prospective customers of T-Mobile. Common factual questions include
data security practices and whether those practices met industry
standards, how the malfeasants obtained access to T-Mobile's
system, the extent of the personal information affected by the
breach when T-Mobile knew or should have known of the breach and
T-Mobile's investigation into the breach.

Plaintiff in the Achermann case moved to vacate the panel's order
that conditionally transferred the case to the Western District of
Missouri for inclusion in MDL No. 3019. T-Mobile USA, Inc. opposed
the motion. The Plaintiff argued that federal subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking and that his pending motion for remand to
state court should be decided before transfer. However, the panel
has held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not
present an impediment to transfer.

The panel also concluded that centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
including with respect to class certification and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The
panel also justified that the Western District of Missouri is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation since said
district is supported by defendants and, in the alternative, by
several plaintiffs, and the district presents a geographically
central and accessible venue for this nationwide litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 2, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3gMYAqp


MDL 3021: 11 Suits Consolidated in SoClean Products Liability Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the SoClean Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3021, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transfers 11 actions pending in nine districts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and with
the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Joy Flowers Conti
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The 11 actions consists of two cases each from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri and the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas; and one case each from the the
U.S. District Courts for the Middle and Northern District of
Alabama, Eastern District of Arkansas, Middle District of Georgia,
Western District of Louisiana, Southern District of Mississippi and
the Western District of Texas.

This litigation arises out of a February 27, 2020 safety
communication issued by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA)
stating that devices marketed for cleaning Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) machines and similar respiratory devices
with ozone may expose users to excessive levels of the gas, which
can worsen chronic respiratory diseases and increase vulnerability
to respiratory infection. Plaintiffs in the actions bring various
putative statewide class actions, asserting product liability and
consumer protection claims, and seeking damages for personal
injuries, economic loss, and medical monitoring. All actions share
common questions of fact arising from allegations that ozone
sanitizing devices sold by SoClean pose potential health hazards to
users and cause damage to foam and other components in CPAP
machines.

The panel concludes that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the Western District of
Pennsylvania will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.

With respect interested parties Philips RS North America LLC,
Koninklijke Philips N.V., and Philips North America LLC's request
that the panel transfer actions brought by plaintiffs who used
recalled Philips Respironics devices to the Western District of
Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3014, the Panel held that,
"In view of the factual overlap between MDL No. 3014 and the
SoClean actions in which plaintiffs used a Philips device,
coordination of pretrial proceedings between the two litigations in
a single district would appear to offer substantial efficiencies.
We are not persuaded, however, that Philips' proposal -- separating
the SoClean actions between two different MDLs -- would be
similarly efficient. Rather, we conclude that centralization of the
SoClean actions in the Western District of Pennsylvania before
Judge Joy Flowers Conti will allow for coordination with MDL No.
3014, as well as separate pretrial proceedings concerning the
SoClean actions."

A full-text copy of the Court's February 2, 2022 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3LyKozu

MEAD JOHNSON: Infant Formulas Falsely Advertised, Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
classaction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges Mead
Johnson & Company's characterization of its Enfamil infant formulas
as "milk-based powders" misleads consumers into believing the
products' primary ingredients are milk-based.

The 29-page lawsuit in California alleges that since the primary
ingredient of the powdered Enfamil products at issue -- which
include Enfamil Gentlease, Enfamil Enspire Gentlease, Enfamil
NeuroPro Gentlease and Enfamil NeuroPro Sensitive Infant Formula --
is actually corn syrup solids, and not "milk-based powders," Mead
Johnson & Company's marketing and advertising for the items is
false and deceptive.

According to the complaint, Mead Johnson & Company's "milk-based"
claim is aimed at parents looking to provide their infants with a
"superior form of nutrition" by way of a milk-based product, as
opposed to one made with less-nutritious ingredients. The suit says
that an infant who consumes 28 oz. of the Enfamil products at issue
consumes "56 grams of corn syrup solids every day, which is more
than the amount of a [sic] corn syrup in 16 oz. of Coca-Cola."

"Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products because they
reasonably believed - based on Defendant's representations - that
the primary ingredient in the Products is milk-based," the case
reads. "This is not unreasonable, given that many of Defendant's
competitor products, and other products in Defendant's own product
line, are milk-based when advertised as such."

Corn syrup solids, which the suit says are used as the primary
ingredient and carbohydrate source in the Enfamil products in place
of lactose, are made by removing most of the water from corn syrup,
according to the filing. Whether it's solid or liquid or contains
added fructose, corn syrup is nevertheless an added sugar that
could contribute to negative health effects, the suit relays,
claiming there is a "strong financial incentive" for Mead Johnson &
Company to use the cheaper, sweeter ingredient.

The lawsuit contends that consumers would have paid less for the
Enfamil products at issue, or would not have bought them at all,
had they known their primary ingredient was not "milk-based
powders," and instead corn syrup solids.

According to the case, the following Enfamil products are
deceptively advertised as "milk-based powder":

Enfamil NeuroPro Gentlease Infant Formula Tubs;
Enfamil NeuroPro Gentlease Infant Formula Super-Saver Refill Packs;

Enfamil NeuroPro Gentlease Infant Formula Sticks;
Enfamil NeuroPro Gentlease Infant Formula Ready To Use Liquid;
Enfamil Gentlease Infant Formula Cans;
Enfamil Enspire Gentlease Infant Formula Tubs;
Enfamil Enspire Gentlease Infant Formula Super-Saver Refill Packs;

Enfamil NeuroPro Sensitive Infant Formula Tubs; and
Enfamil NeuroPro Sensitive Infant Formula Super-Saver Refill Packs.


The case looks to cover consumers who bought any of the
above-listed products in California within the applicable statute
of limitations period. [GN]

MINDGEEK USA: Violates Federal Sex Trafficking Laws, Doe Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
MINDGEEK USA INCORPORATED, MINDGEEK S.A.R.L., MG FREESITES, LTD
(D/B/A PORNHUB), MG FREESITES II, LTD, MG CONTENT RT LIMITED, AND
9219-1568 QUEBEC, INC. (D/B/A MINDGEEK), Case No. 2:22-cv-01016
(Feb. 14, 2022) is a proposed class action for damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who
were under the age of 18 when they appeared in a video or image
that has been uploaded or otherwise made available for viewing on
any website owned or operated by Defendants in the last ten years.

According to the complaint, over the course of the last decade, the
Defendants have knowingly benefited financially from thousands --
if not millions -- of videos posted to their various websites
featuring victims who had not yet reached the age of majority.
Rather than address this horrifying and pervasive trend, for years,
the Defendants took almost no action, refusing to so much as
institute any semblance of an age-verification, or other, policy
that would prevent the uploading of this deeply problematic
content.

The Defendants chose to prioritize their profits over the safety
and welfare of children across the globe. The Defendants' decision
is not only upsetting, it is illegal. As the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") makes
clear, it is unlawful for any person or entity to knowingly
(whether because it knew or should have known) benefit financially
from sex trafficking, which includes any instance where a person
under the age of 18 is caused to engage in a commercial sex act,
the lawsuit added.

Plaintiff Jane Doe is an individual who is now the age of majority
under U.S. and California law. She is a United States citizen
residing in California. She is also an alleged victim of child sex
trafficking and child pornography.

The Defendants constitute a series of privately held companies that
operate many popular pornographic websites, including, among
others, Pornhub, RedTube, and YouPorn. The Defendants also operate
many adult film production companies, including Brazzers, Digital
Playground, Men.com, Reality Kings, Sean Cody, and
WhyNotBi.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Davida Brook, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          Halley W. Josephs, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          Tamar E. Lusztig, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: dbrook@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
                  hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com

NARRAGANSETT ELECTRIC: Scheduling Order Entered in Johnson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson, et al., v. The
Narragansett Electric Company d/b/a National Grid, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00643 (D.R.I.),  the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr.
entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Plaintiff Expert Disclosures shall       July 29, 2022
     be made by:

  -- The Defendant Expert Disclosures         Aug. 26, 2022
     shall be made by:

  -- All Expert Discovery to be               Sept. 30, 2022
     completed by:

  -- The Plaintiffs Deadline to file          Nov. 11, 2022
     Class Certification Motion:

  -- The Defendants Deadline for              Jan. 14, 2023
     Opposition to Class Certification
     Motion:

  -- The Plaintiffs Deadline for Reply        Jan. 28, 2023
     in Support of Class Certification
     Motion:

Narragansett Electric provides utility services.[CC]


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Campbell FDCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEEANNA CAMPBELL, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00287-jdp (W.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following class:

   "All persons (a) with a Wisconsin address, (b) to which
   National Enterprise Systems, Inc. sent, or caused to be sent,
   a written debt collection communication, (c) in connection
   with the collection of a consumer debt, (d) that RevSpring,
   Inc. printed and mailed, or had printed and mailed, (d) where
   National Enterprise Systems, Inc. provided RevSpring, Inc.
   with information contained in the debt collection
   communication between August 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020."

The Plaintiff additionally requests that the Court appoint her as
the representative for the proposed class, and appoint Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC and Lein Law Offices, LLP as
counsel for the proposed class.

From August 1, 2020 through August 31, 2020, National Enterprise
disclosed information about the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's alleged
debt, as well as materially identical information about
approximately 946 other Wisconsin consumers and their respective
alleged consumer debts, to a third-party, RevSpring.

RevSpring then used the information Defendant transmitted to it to
print and mail debt collection letters to Plaintiff and the 946
other alleged debtors, in connection with Defendant's efforts to
collect consumer debts. With this in mind, Plaintiff alleges that
by communicating with RevSpring regarding her alleged debt, and the
alleged debts of the approximately 946 other Wisconsin consumers --
including by disclosing, for example, the existence of the alleged
debts, the amounts
of the alleged debts, the alleged creditors of the alleged debts,
and other related information, to RevSpring -- the Defendant
violated section 1692b(c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

On August 16, 2020, RevSpring, on behalf of Defendant, printed and
mailed a debt collection letter to Plaintiff. The Letter, which was
addressed to Plaintiff, referenced an alleged debt (the "Debt") and
disclosed, among other things, (a) the truncated account number for
the Debt, (b) the current creditor to whom the Debt was owed, (c)
Plaintiff's home address, (d) Defendant's account number for the
Debt, (e) a description of the Debt, and (f) the balance of the
Debt.

The Defendant did not print and mail the Letter; rather, RevSpring
did so on its behalf. With respect to the Letter, Defendant
provided RevSpring with, among other pieces of information, the
Plaintiff's name and address, the account number for the Debt, the
current creditor to whom the Debt was owed, Defendant's account
number for the Debt, a description of the Debt, and the balance of
the Debt.

National Enterprise operates as a full-service debt collection
agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 7,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BdSuIZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew C. Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES, LLP
          15692 Highway 63 North
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Telephone: (715) 634-4273
          Facsimile: (715) 634-5051
          E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suit Presents Evidence of Rooney Rule Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jemele Hill, writing for The Atlantic, reports that in a damning
58-page class-action lawsuit against the NFL, Brian Flores presents
screenshots of a text-message exchange that crystallizes the
dilemma Black coaches routinely find themselves in: They're
supposed to play along with a hiring system that officially
requires teams to consider minority candidates for top jobs but
that, in practice, is plainly biased against them.

Flores, recently fired as the Miami Dolphins' head coach, was
considered to be a top candidate for the New York Giants'
head-coaching job. In late January, the New England Patriots coach
Bill Belichick, Flores's former boss, sent Flores a text
congratulating him on being hired by the Giants. The problem,
however, was that Flores hadn't even interviewed with the team
yet.

Belichick quickly realized his error. "Sorry -- I fucked this up,"
Belichick texted. "I double checked and misread the text. I think
they are naming Brian Daboll. I'm sorry about that." At a point
when Flores, who is Black, thought he had a real shot at the Giants
job, word was spreading among NFL insiders that it had already been
filled.

The accidental revelation was a crushing blow to Flores -- and was
one more unfortunate example of how NFL owners have made a mockery
of the league's Rooney Rule, which requires teams to interview
minority candidates for head-coaching jobs and front-office
positions. Daboll, another assistant who served under Belichick, is
white. The Belichick-Flores exchange suggests that the Giants were
interviewing Flores only to satisfy a requirement and not because
he'd just led the Dolphins to their first consecutive winning
seasons since 2003—which, ironically, is the same year the Rooney
Rule was instituted.

Jemele Hill: The continuing humiliation of Black NFL coaches

For Flores, concluding that he'd been granted only a token
interview with the Giants prompted him to file a lawsuit in a
Manhattan federal court. (The Giants have denied that the interview
was a sham and insist that Belichick was offering only his own
opinion.) Appearing on ESPN's morning show Get Up the next day,
Flores said:

We didn't have to file a lawsuit for the world to know there's an
issue. We need change. That was the No. 1 reason. I know there's
sacrifice, there's risk to that, but at the end of the day, we need
change. I know many capable Black coaches who I know, when given an
opportunity, will do a great job during their interview. This isn't
about me. It's bigger than football. This is about equal
opportunity for qualified Black candidates—not just in football
but everywhere, in all industries.

The lawsuit also names the Giants, the Dolphins, and the Denver
Broncos. Flores accuses the Broncos of disingenuously interviewing
him for their head-coaching position in 2019 and Stephen Ross, the
Dolphins owner, of offering to pay him $100,000 to lose games for a
better draft pick. (The Broncos and the Dolphins also deny Flores's
allegations.)

By going to court, Flores could force a historic reckoning for the
NFL. The league successfully avoided being sued for its
discriminatory hiring practices back in 2002, when a report
commissioned by the attorneys Cyrus Mehri and Johnnie Cochran Jr.
found that Black coaches weren't being hired at the same rate as
their white counterparts, despite outperforming white coaches when
given head-coaching opportunities. Mehri and Cochrane threatened to
file a class-action lawsuit against the NFL then, but as a
compromise the league created what became known as the Rooney
Rule.

Nine head-coaching positions were open when this recent hiring
cycle began, and two teams hired a minority candidate as their head
coach—the Dolphins hired Mike McDaniel, who is multiracial, and
the Houston Texans chose Lovie Smith, who is Black. Before this, a
minority coach had yet to be hired.

Outwardly, these hires might suggest progress. But even Smith's
belated emergence as a candidate for the Houston job underscores
the obstacles that Black applicants face. Smith wasn't even on the
Texans' radar, until magically he was. NBC Sports recently reported
that the finalists included Flores, whose lawsuit against the
league and three of its franchises took him out of the running, and
Josh McCown, a white journeyman NFL quarterback whom the Texans
appeared eager to hire even though his only coaching experience is
as a volunteer at a high school. Widespread attention to Flores's
suit made someone as inexperienced as McCown an untenable choice,
NBC hypothesized. So the Texans turned to Smith, who was Houston's
assistant coach and defensive coordinator. Smith is a respected
coach who in 2006 guided the Bears to the Super Bowl. He was most
recently a head coach in 2015 with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Before this, only three of the most recent 33 head coaches hired
were Black—and all three of those coaches were later fired,
including Flores.

If Flores has already made NFL owners think more deeply about who
they're hiring, the ripple effect might be greater still if more
Black candidates join his lawsuit.

Flores, who is clearly jeopardizing his own career to make a much
more significant point, is hardly the first Black coach to be
written off before even getting a chance to interview. If other
Black coaches don't support him vehemently, Flores might meet the
same fate as Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers
quarterback who began kneeling during the national anthem at games
in 2016 to protest police violence against Black people.

Kaepernick's protest has essentially ended his football career.
While a few players knelt with him, including Dolphins wide
receiver Kenny Stills and then–49ers safety Eric Reid,
Kaepernick's close friend, the majority of players chose not to get
involved. (Full disclosure: I have signed on as a producer of an
ESPN documentary series about Kaepernick that he and the director
Spike Lee are collaborating on.)

Jemele Hill: 'Some team has to want me'

Had significantly more players been willing to support Kaepernick,
the league and its owners would have had a harder time ostracizing
him and Reid, who both left the 49ers and eventually filed
grievances accusing the NFL and its owners of colluding to freeze
them out because of their protests. The NFL settled the complaint.
But no other team has signed Kaepernick. Reid was signed by the
Carolina Panthers but cut after the 2019 season, despite being the
team's second-leading tackler. He, too, remains unsigned. The
implicit lesson is that people who speak up may never work in
professional football again.

That's why it's incumbent on Black coaches besides Flores to help
end the NFL's charade of inclusion. Initially, the NFL responded
defensively to Flores's lawsuit. "We will defend against these
claims, which are without merit," the NFL statement read.

But on Feb. 5, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to every
team reiterating the league's commitment to diversity and
inclusion. Goodell wrote: "There is much work to do, and we will
embrace this moment and seize the opportunity to become a stronger,
more inclusive league."

So now Goodell is admitting that there's a problem. As usual in the
NFL, Goodell is taking the public-relations hit for something that
isn't exactly up to him to solve. Flores is asking a federal court
to recognize a clear pattern of discrimination and demand
accountability for it. The blame lies squarely with the league's
owners, who have already shown that they'll go only as far as they
are forced to. [GN]

NEWBY COMMUNITIES: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 14
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nancy Oliver, Dawn Pease,
Ray Jordan, Dyan Matheson and Martha Akers, v. Newby Communities
d/b/a Newby Management, Todd Newby, Neil Brown, Timothy Newby,
Barry Campbell, Woodalls, Inc. and Newby Communities, Inc. doing
business as Newby Management, Case No. 8:21-cv-00140 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for enlargement of time (10 Additional
Days) to February 14, 2022, to file their renewed motion for class
certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Newby Management is a property management company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

NOVA HEALTHCARE: Ganz Seeks to Recover Back Wages for PT Assistants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GANZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NOVA HEALTHCARE, P.A, U.S. OCCMED TEXAS, PLLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-00477 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 11, 2022) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all current and former
employees of the Defendants who worked as a physical therapist
assistant during the past three years to recover back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Nova and Occmed allegedly violated the FLSA by employing Ganz and
other similarly situated employees "for a workweek longer than 40
hours [but refusing to compensate them] for their employment in
excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate at which [they were or are] employed."

Nova and Occmed willfully violated the FLSA because it knew or
showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices were
unlawful, says the suit.

Ganz is an individual who resides in Harris County, Texas and who
was employed by Nova and Occmed during the last three years.

Nova and Occmed are health care service companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Aimara Flores, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  aimara@mooreandassociates.net

OCEAN 21: Castillo Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. OCEAN 21, LLC (D/B/A OCEAN 21 COMPANY) and ERIC
SILVERSTEIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00786 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Plaintiff Castillo seeks certification of this action as a
collective action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, he
adds.

Mr. Castillo is a former employee of Defendants Ocean 21, LLC
(d/b/a Ocean 21 Company) and Eric Silverstein.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a residential building,
located at 535 East 21 Street, Brooklyn New York under the name
"Ocean 21 Company".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Villarino Has Until Feb. 15 to File Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villarino, et al., v.
Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc,. et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-60192
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file reply in support
of motion for class certification.

   -- Replies due by Feb. 15, 2022.

   -- The reply shall not exceed 17 pages and shall be double-
      spaced, in 12-point font, with no excessive footnotes.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pacesetter provides employment services.[CC]


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces $9MM Class Action Over Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier Post, reports that a class action
lawsuit against a snack firm owned by Campbell Soup Co. seeks
potential damages of more than $9 million, a court filing says.

The suit argues Pepperidge Farm Inc. improperly classifies its
distributors as independent contractors, rather than as employees.

It demands reimbursement of the drivers' expenses, including
"improper pay deductions" made by Pepperidge Farm to cover the
costs of required equipment and warehousing.

The suit seeks to represent all Pepperidge Farm distributors with
New Jersey routes in the past six years.

The proposed group is believed to hold hundreds of people.

"We look forward to seeking justice under the law for the sizable
class," said Marlton attorney Charles Kocher, who filed the suit on
behalf of a distributor with a route in North Jersey.

Pepperidge Farm denies the suit's claims, according to a filing by
lawyers for the snack firm.

The company's filing also estimates that, if the drivers were to
win their case, Pepperidge Farm could face exposure for more than
$9.5 million for the entire class.

Connecticut-based Pepperidge Farm makes Goldfish crackers, Milano
cookies and other baked goods. It's considered a "power brand" for
Camden-based Campbell, where snacks make up more than 40 percent of
net sales.

The suit says delivery drivers are required to pay "for
employment-related expenses, including the cost of providing
appropriate vehicles and vehicle expenses such as fuel, maintenance
(and) repair."

The company requires drivers to pay for expenses a hand-held
computer device and printer used on delivery routes, as well as for
pallet fees and expenses for products returned as stale by
retailers.

Distributors also must pay for business liability insurance, the
suit adds.

But Pepperidge Farm disputes that the plaintiff, Coleman McMillan
of Staten Island, paid the disputed expenses.

It contends McMillan's independent business, Nobody Owns Me LLC,
buys Pepperidge Farm products on consignment, delivers them to
stores and receives a commission on its sales.

Coleman's lawsuit acknowledges the drivers purchase an "assigned
distribution territory" from Pepperidge Farm, but it also says the
company monitors its drivers, directs the number of store visits
and can cancel its contracts with distributors.

It says Pepperidge Farm's "right to control and extensive actual
control . . . is such that the distributors are actually employees
under New Jersey law."

Connecticut-based Pepperidge Farm makes Goldfish crackers, Milano
cookies and other baked goods. Snacks represented about 42 percent
of Campbell's net sales in its latest quarter.

The suit, initially filed in state court in Passaic County, was
moved to Newark federal court at the request of Pepperidge Farm.

Jim Walsh covers public safety, economic development and other
beats for the Courier-Post, Burlington County Times and The Daily
Journal. [GN]

PHL VARIABLE: Joint Bid for Extension of Deadlines Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA, and James Kenney v. PHL Variable Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-03444-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for expert
disclosures and briefing class certification to allow the Parties
to continue settlement discussions as follows:

                Event             Current         Proposed
                                  Deadline        Deadline

-- Discovery – depositions      Feb. 17, 2022    Feb. 23, 2022
   to be completed no later
   than:

-- Plaintiffs' expert           March 1, 2022    April 19, 2022
   disclosures:

-- Defendant's rebuttal         April 4, 2022    May 30, 2022
   expert disclosures:

-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal         May 2, 2022      June 27, 2022
   expert disclosures:

-- Motion for class             May 16, 2022     July 8, 2022
   certification:

-- Joint letter regarding       May 19, 2022     July 28, 2022
   status of the case:

-- All expert discovery to      May 19, 2022     July 28, 2022
   be completed no later
   than:

-- Post-discovery conference:   May 26, 2022     Aug. 4, 2022

-- Opposition to class          June 20, 2022    Aug. 15, 2022
   certification:

-- Reply in support of class    July 11, 2022    Sept. 5, 2022
   certification:

On January 20, 2022, the Parties participated in a mediation with
Professor Eric Green of Resolutions LLC. The Parties made progress
at mediation toward a settlement agreement and are continuing their
negotiations.

Extending the deadlines for expert disclosures and class
certification briefing will allow the Parties to focus on ongoing
settlement negotiations, while postponing costs related to expert
reports and briefs that may prove unnecessary.

Extending the deadlines will also allow plenty of time for
Plaintiffs' experts to evaluate Defendant's witnesses' deposition
testimony, especially in connection with Defendant's 30(b)(6)
deposition, which had to be rescheduled from February 3, 2022 to a
later date due to the contraction of COVID 19 by a witness's
immediate family. The parties expect that 30(b)(6) deposition to
take place on February 23, 2022, less than a week after the current
deadline for completing depositions.

This is the Parties' sixth joint request for an extension. The
first request was granted on October 10, 2019; the second request
was granted on December 4, 2019; the third request was granted on
November 23, 2020; the fourth request was granted on November 8,
2021; and the fifth request was granted on January 10, 2022.

PHL Variable operates as an insurance firm.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHnD4x at no extra
charge.[CC]

          The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Steven G. Sklaver
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 140
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas F.A. Herrington, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
          E-mail: tom.hetherington@mhllp.com

PILLPACK LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due April 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS v. PILLPACK
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David
G. Estudillo entered an order setting class certification briefing
schedule as follows;

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class        April 22, 2022
     certification due:

  -- The Defendant's Response due:           May 20, 2022

  -- The Plaintiff's Reply due:              June 3, 2022

  -- Hearing on class certification:         TBD

PillPack is an American online pharmacy which is a subsidiary of
Amazon.com.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lr0g6Z at no extra charge.[CC]

PRACTICEFIRST MEDICAL: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that a judge of
the US District Court for the Western District of New York
recommended the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit against medical
management company Practicefirst, citing insufficient evidence of
actual harm resulting from a December 2020 data breach.

In July 2021, Practicefirst began notifying over 1.2 million
individuals of a healthcare ransomware attack targeted at the
medical billing, coding, and practice management vendor that
potentially exposed protected health information (PHI) and
personally identifiable information (PII).

A few days after the notification, victims filed a complaint
alleging that "after receiving notification of the data breach,
they spent time reviewing their account statements and credit
reports for any indication of actual or attempted identity theft,
and that this was valuable time which could have been spent on
other activities," the filing stated.

In Ramirez v. TransUnion, the Supreme Court ruled that data breach
victims must demonstrate actual injury and prove that the
defendant's conduct caused the damage. The June 2021 ruling
signified a significant shift in how data breaches are handled in
court. Plaintiffs must now prove that they suffered a concrete
injury to claim Article III standing.

In the PracticeFirst case, plaintiffs alleged that the breach
caused actual injuries, including a diminished PHI value, a
violation of their privacy rights, and the possibility of future
harm due to the increased risk of identity theft.

"Here, defendants argue that plaintiffs lack Article II standing to
sue because they fail to allege an injury-in-fact," the judge's
motion stated.

"Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiffs have not shown
that they experienced concrete harm arising from the data breach or
a threat of future harm that is actual or imminent."

As a result, the court recommended the dismissal of the class
action complaint.

In addition, the motion noted that the primary goal of any
ransomware attack is "the exchange of money for access to data, not
identity theft."

"Plaintiffs seem to concede this fact," the motion continued.
"However, plaintiffs maintain that because their [PII] and PHI was
exfiltrated or copied from defendants' system as part of the
ransomware attack, the hacker must intend to use the data, in the
future, for identity theft or fraud."

The judge argued that this suggestion was purely speculative and
noted that of the 1.2 million people impacted, not one has come
forward with a claim of actual identity theft in the year following
the ransomware attack.

The motion also emphasized that the plaintiffs could not prove that
the value of their PHI and PII had diminished.

"The complaint contains general and conclusory allegations that
PII/PHI is a 'valuable commodity' on the 'cyber black-market' and
that 'many companies now offer consumers an opportunity to sell
this information to advertisers and other third parties,'" the
document continued.

"However, plaintiffs do not allege that they attempted to sell
their personal information and were forced to accept a decreased
price, nor do they allege any details as to how their specific,
personal information has been devalued because of the breach."

Lawsuits are extremely common in the wake of large-scale data
breaches. But due to the previous Supreme Court ruling and other
landmark decisions, it may become increasingly harder to prove
actual harm due to a data breach. [GN]

ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Fails to Pay Lawful OT Wages, Mills Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Mills, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Rocky Mountain Concrete Specialists, LLC, and
Greg Johnson, Case No. 1:22-cv-00396 (D. Colo., Feb. 14, 2022) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
lawful overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Colorado Wage Act and
the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Wage Order. The complaint asserts
that the Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed
violations of the FLSA, the CWA and the CMWO.

The Plaintiff and other Laborers met at Defendant's shop and drove
Defendant's vehicles to the job site for the day. At the end of the
day, they drove back to the shop together. The  Plaintiff and other
Laborers were often required to pick up materials on their drive
back to the shop, unload the vehicles once they got back to the
shop or wash the vehicles once they got back to the shop, says the
suit.

The Defendant allegedly refused to pay the Plaintiff and other
Laborers for the time they spent driving back to the shop, picking
up materials, unloading the vehicles or washing the vehicles. The
Defendant recorded the time of Plaintiff and other Laborers while
Plaintiff and other Laborers did not record their own time.

The Defendant owns and operates a concrete construction
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          April Rheaume, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

SHATTUCK LABS: Faces Aamoth Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER AAMOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHATTUCK LABS, INC., TAYLOR SCHREIBER, ANDREW NEILL,
JOSIAH HORNBLOWER, HELEN M. BOUDREAU, NEIL GIBSON, GEORGE
GOLUMBESKI, MICHAEL LEE, BROUS, and VICTOR STONE, Case No.
1:22-cv-00795 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2022) is a class action on behalf
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Shattuck securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Shattuck's October 2020 initial public offering; and/or (2)
between October 9, 2020 and November 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On or about October 9, 2021, the Defendants held the IPO, issuing
approximately 13,664,704 shares to the investing public at $17.00
per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement. By the
commencement of this action, the Company's shares trade
significantly below the IPO price. As a result, investors were
allegedly damaged.

On October 13, 2020, Shattuck filed with the SEC the final
prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. In the IPO, Shattuck sold 13,664,704 shares
at $17.00 per share.

The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation, the Plaintiff contends.

The Registration Statement emphasized the importance of Shattuck's
August 8, 2017 collaboration agreement with Millennium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Takeda, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd. The Registration Statement
states the following, in pertinent part, regarding SL-279252,
Takeda, and the Collaboration Agreement. The statements contained
were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Registration Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to
disclose that the Collaboration Agreement with Takeda was not
solid, added the suit.

On November 13, 2020, Shattuck filed with the SEC its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020 (the
"3Q20 Report") which was signed by the Defendants Schreiber and
Neill.

On November 9, 2021, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Shattuck Labs Reports Third Quarter 2021 Financial Results and
Recent Business Highlights" which announced the termination of the
Collaboration Agreement.

On this news, Company's share price fell $5.45 per share, or 28%,
to close at $13.59 per share on November 9, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Since the IPO, and as a result of the disclosure of material
adverse facts omitted from the Company's Registration Statement,
Shattuck's share price has fallen significantly below its IPO
price, damaging Plaintiff and Class members. On February 10, 2022,
the Company's share price closed at $5.13 per share.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices pursuant to the IPO and during the Class Period and
was damaged upon the revelation of the corrective disclosure.

Defendant Shattuck purports to be a clinical-stage biotechnology
company pioneering the development of bi-functional fusion proteins
as a new class of biologic medicine for the treatment of cancer and
autoimmune disease. The Company's programs include SL-172154
(SIRPα-Fc-CD40L) and SL-279252 (PD1-Fc-OX40L). The Individual
Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Suits Over Faulty Entertainment Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ewing, writing for New York Times, reports that about six
months after Gary Gilpin leased a Subaru Outback from a California
dealer, the screen went blank and wouldn't come back on. Mr. Gilpin
took the car to the dealer for what he figured would be a quick
reset.

"It was a whole month before I got my car back," said Mr. Gilpin,
who runs a sailboat chartering and brokerage business.

Some people would have just fumed. Mr. Gilpin sued.

He is among thousands of car owners, encouraged by plaintiffs'
lawyers, who have joined class-action lawsuits that accuse
carmakers of selling vehicles with faulty entertainment and related
systems. Their complaints are as numerous as they are varied:
screens that freeze, flicker or go dark; sound that cuts out or
unexpectedly blasts at high volume; backup cameras that fail. Often
the problems involve the way in which the hardware interacts with
Apple's CarPlay or Google's Android Auto software, which allow
drivers to use their phones to navigate, communicate or listen to
music and podcasts.

Buggy car software may seem like a mere inconvenience. But
plaintiffs have successfully argued that a malfunctioning dashboard
display is a serious distraction and potential safety hazard.

The suits are a symptom of the automakers' rocky transition to the
digital age and their struggle to integrate the latest technology
into vehicles, which must meet safety requirements that smartphones
and other electronics do not. Old-line automakers are losing ground
to Tesla and other young electric carmakers that have placed much
greater emphasis on software. And in their own cars, established
automakers are effectively handing over more power to Apple and
Google, which dominate the digital world.

So far, the settlements that automakers have had to pay are
relatively modest. In 2020, Subaru settled the suit brought by Mr.
Gilpin and others; it cost the company an estimated $8 million,
including lawyer fees and an extra two years of warranty
protection.

In December, Honda of America and its Acura subsidiary agreed to
settle a similar class action for an estimated $30 million,
according to plaintiffs' lawyers, including extending the warranty
on systems that buyers complained were flawed. Neither Subaru nor
Honda admitted any wrongdoing. Honda declined to comment, and
Subaru did not respond to requests for comment.

The case that set the precedent was brought by Ford Motor customers
who complained of defects with the MyFord Touch system. The
automaker settled that lawsuit in 2019 for $17 million without
admitting any wrongdoing.

The sums hardly compare with the hundreds of millions of dollars
that Toyota and other carmakers paid to people injured by faulty
airbags, or the billions that Volkswagen paid to owners of cars
with software designed to mask illegal pollution levels.

But the stakes for carmakers go far beyond the cost of the
lawsuits.

As the lawsuits indicate, traditional carmakers have struggled to
develop navigation systems and other services that work as well as
the ones found in Apple and Google devices. They are also far
behind Tesla, which loads the large interactive screens in its cars
with software developed in house and does not support CarPlay or
Android Auto.

Established carmakers have been forced to cede valuable dashboard
real estate to Silicon Valley, while remaining the target of
consumer ire -- and class-action lawsuits -- when something goes
wrong.

Before Big Tech invaded car interiors, the automakers were lords of
their realm, dictating terms to suppliers. But Apple and Google
command financial resources and software expertise that even auto
giants cannot match.

"The game has completely changed," said Axel Schmidt, a senior
managing director at Accenture who manages the consulting firm's
automotive division. The big automakers, he said, "are not used to
dealing with partners that are much stronger and bigger than
themselves."

Software makers' clout over the car industry will only grow as
vehicles incorporate more and more driver-assistance systems and
other digital technology.

The automakers are in a tough spot. They operate on timelines that
are out of step with the speed of digital technology. A new vehicle
typically takes four years to develop, including laborious safety
testing. Owners often drive the same car for more than a decade, an
eternity in the tech world.

"The time window of developing vehicles and putting the hardware
into those vehicles is quite different than for a cellphone," said
Mark Wakefield, co-leader of the automotive and industrial practice
at AlixPartners, a consulting firm. "When a vehicle is done, it's
done. Software is never really done."


Apple introduces a new iPhone about once a year, and releases new
versions of its operating system even more frequently, as does
Google. Carmakers face the nearly impossible task of designing
entertainment systems that work flawlessly with software and
devices that haven't been invented yet.

"After every update we get complaints CarPlay is not working," said
Serhat Kurt, who operates a website, macReports, that provides
advice on fixing problems with Apple devices.

Mr. Kurt faulted both the carmakers and Apple — the carmakers for
being "not very good with software," and Apple for not doing enough
to ensure that software updates work with older vehicles.

Lawsuits so far have blamed established carmakers, not Apple or
Google. Sean Matt, a partner in Seattle at Hagens Berman, the law
firm that represented owners in the suit against Honda, said he
"can sympathize with the engineering challenge" that carmakers face
in designing systems that work flawlessly with ever-changing
smartphone software.

But Mr. Matt added, "They are giving you a product and saying it
will work, and ultimately the onus is on them."

That does not mean that Apple and Google are immune. If the Subaru
lawsuit hadn't been settled, there "would have been a real
possibility that they could have been brought in," said Benjamin
Johns, a partner at the Pennsylvania firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner
& Donaldson-Smith, which represented Subaru owners.

A Google spokeswoman, Sofia Abdirizak, said in an email: "Our
general practice is to provide manufacturers with sufficient notice
ahead of major updates." She declined to comment further.

Apple, which provides automakers and other software developers with
beta versions of iPhone updates before their general release,
declined to comment.

Such lawsuits are not just a problem for the old-line carmakers.
Tesla emerged from Silicon Valley, and its software is regarded as
being far more advanced than that of the Detroit giants. But last
year, under pressure from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Tesla recalled more than 100,000 S and X models
built before 2018 because their touch screens could fail. The
defect is also the subject of a class-action lawsuit, which Tesla
is contesting.

Tesla is able to send software updates to its cars over cellular
connections, regularly adding features, even in cars that have been
on the road for years. A vast majority of cars made by old-line
auto companies can't be updated remotely in the same way.

As established carmakers pack vehicles with more and more
technology, flawed software seems likely to continue to generate
lawsuits. The Chimicles firm is working on two potential cases
based on complaints from car owners, Mr. Johns said, though the
suits have not yet been filed. He declined to name the automakers,
but the firm is advertising on its website for owners of Mazda or
Volvo cars whose dashboard screens have frozen or suffered other
problems.

The carmakers "are getting better at technology," Mr. Johns said.
"But the technology is continuing to evolve." [GN]

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Pandemic Refund Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ford, Esq., James Simon, Esq., Chelsea Thompson, Esq., and
Lori Thompson, Esq., of Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that Syrause University was hit with
another class action over pandemic refund policy.

"She is looking to represent an estimated tens of thousands of
students who paid for tuition in the spring semester of 2020."

Why this is important: Colleges and universities around the country
continue to face proposed class action lawsuits in connection with
their decisions to move classes online in response to the pandemic.
In December 2021, a Syracuse University student filed a proposed
class action against the school, arguing that she did not receive
the benefit of the on-campus education for which she had paid.
Three similar lawsuits have been filed against Syracuse, although
one was withdrawn and another was dismissed. Plaintiffs in these
types of lawsuits seeking reimbursement of tuition and fees
typically face an uphill battle because courts often require the
plaintiffs to identify specific representations the school made
regarding in-person education. So far, we have not seen students
achieve much success with these claims. [GN]

TAL EDUCATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against TAL Education Group ("TAL Education" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TAL) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired TAL Education securities
between April 26, 2018 and July 22, 2021, both dates included, (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until April 5, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

TAL provides K-12 after-school tutoring services in China.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) TAL's revenue and
operational growth was the result of deceptive marketing tactics
and illicit business practices that flouted Chinese laws,
regulations, and policies, and exposed TAL to an extreme risk that
more draconian measures would be imposed on TAL; (ii) TAL had
engaged in misleading and fraudulent advertising practices,
including the provision of false and misleading discount
information designed to obfuscate the true cost of TAL's programs
to its customers, the creation of fake customer reviews designed to
fraudulently lure new customers to TAL programs, the
misrepresentation of teacher qualifications and course qualities,
and the marketing of rigged promotional events; (iii) TAL had
defied Chinese policies designed to alleviate the burden imposed by
tutoring services on students and their families, including by
imposing hefty advances and recurring debt payments on course
enrollees, by offering courses designed to give affluent students
unfair advantages, by holding courses outside of allowable tutoring
hours, and by linking for-profit courses to government-mandated
schooling; (iv) as a result, TAL was subject to an extreme
undisclosed risk of adverse enforcement actions, regulatory fines,
and penalties, and the imposition of new rules and regulations
adverse to TAL's business and financial interests; and (v)
consequently, TAL's historical growth was not sustainable or the
result of legitimate business tactics as represented, and
defendants' positive statements about TAL's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable factual basis.

From March 4, 2021 through March 11, 2021, China held its annual
"Two Sessions" parliamentary meetings. Media reports stated that
attendees of the ongoing Two Sessions conference had proposed
"stricter regulations" to rein in the online education industry,
such as regulations aimed at enhancing teacher quality, limiting
fee scams, reducing market "abuse" by large players like TAL, and
reducing the stress that for-profit tutoring companies had placed
on students in the Chinese educational system.

As news of the government's focus on the after-school tutoring
industry spread, the price of TAL ADSs began to drop from $76.04
when the market closed on March 5, 2021, to $56.31 by April 1,
2021, a 26% decline.

Then, on May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that the impending
government crackdown on for-profit tutoring companies in China
would be much more drastic and far reaching than previously
publicly known. Sources stated that anticipated rules would include
measures such as banning on-campus tutoring classes, the provision
of tutoring services during weekend hours, and the imposition of
industry-wide fee limitations.

On this news, the price of TAL ADSs dropped 13% over a two-day
period.

Then, on June 1, 2021, Chinese regulators announced they had fined
15 off-campus training institutions, including TAL, for illegal
activities such as false advertising and fraud. Among the
violations by the 15 offenders were reportedly fabricating teacher
qualifications, exaggerating the effects of training, and
fabricating user reviews. The regulators gave examples of how TAL's
subsidiary, Xueersi, had advertised false parent user reviews in
Beijing and Shanghai. The offending companies, including TAL, were
hit with maximum penalties for their illegal business practices,
totaling a combined $5.73 million. Officials stated that the
crackdown on the for-profit tutoring industry had grown out of the
Two Sessions parliamentary meetings held earlier in the year and
followed a deluge of complaints against bad industry actors,
including 155,000 complaints and reports for education and training
services received by authorities in 2020 alone and over 47,000
similar complaints and reports received by authorities in the first
quarter of 2021. In addition to the issues outlined above, TAL was
reportedly found to have: (i) forced students to pay hefty advances
and take on recurring debt payments in violation of Chinese law;
(ii) offered courses that gave students unfair advantages in
contravention of Chinese government policies; (iii) engaged in
illegal bait-and-switch tactics; (iv) misrepresented teacher
qualifications and course qualities; (v) mishandled user data; and
(vi) rigged promotional events to defraud consumers.

On this news, the price of TAL ADSs dropped approximately 18% over
a two-day period.

Finally, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of
its education sector, banning companies that teach the school
curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public.
This drastic measure effectively ended any potential growth in the
for-profit tutoring sector in China.

On this news, the price of TAL ADSs plummeted from $20.52 when the
market closed on July 22, 2021, to just $4.40 by market close on
July 26, 2021, a nearly 79% decline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired TAL Education shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

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

TELOS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Telos Corporation (NASDAQ: TLS)
between November 19, 2020 and November 12, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 8, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Telos class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2252.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 8, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the TSA and CMS contracts,
which constituted a majority of Telos' future revenues, were not on
track to commence as represented at the end of 2021 and in 2022;
(2) Defendants lacked a reasonable basis and sufficient visibility
to provide and affirm Telos' 2021 guidance in the face of the
uncertainty surrounding the TSA and CMS contracts; (3) COVID- and
hacking scandal-related headwinds were throwing off the timing for
performance of the TSA and CMS contracts and their associated
revenues; (4) as a result, the guidance provided by Defendants was
not in fact "conservative"; (5) as a result of the delays, Telos
would be forced to dramatically reduce its revenue estimates; and
(6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Telos' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Telos class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2252.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Settles Heaps Sexual Assault Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Jung, writing for Daily Bruin, reports that the University
of California Board of Regents and 203 plaintiffs in sexual assault
and misconduct lawsuits against former UCLA OB-GYN James Heaps have
reached a $243.6 million settlement.

The settlement announced on Feb. 8 does not contain confidentiality
or nondisclosure clauses, according to a press release from Manly,
Stewart & Finaldi and The Garza Firm, which represent more than 150
of Heaps' accusers.

Heaps was previously a faculty member at the David Geffen School of
Medicine and an OB-GYN at UCLA Health. He was indicted in May on 21
counts of felony sexual assault, and two of his motions to overturn
that indictment were denied in state court.

The new settlement followed a $73 million class action settlement
approved in early 2021, paying out between $2,500 and $250,000 to
thousands of Heaps' former patients.

The class action lawsuit automatically applied to any of Heaps'
former patients, who were required to opt out of the settlement by
May 6 if they did not wish to be a part of it. Class members in the
suit are barred from filing individual civil suits against Heaps
for past sexual assault.

UCLA Health said in an emailed statement on Feb. 8 that it hopes
the settlement will help plaintiffs receive healing and closure and
that it has taken steps to prevent future sexual misconduct by
clinicians.

"The conduct alleged to have been committed by Heaps is
reprehensible and contrary to the University's values," the
statement read. "Our first and highest obligation will always be to
the communities we serve, and we hope this settlement is one step
toward providing healing and closure for the plaintiffs involved.
We admire the courage of the plaintiffs in coming forward and
appreciate plaintiffs' counsel's commitment to resolving the
claims." [GN]

UNUM GROUP: May Face Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Console & Associates, P.C. is currently looking into whether those
consumers affected by a recent data breach at Unum Group have any
legal recourse against the company. If an investigation uncovers
evidence that Unum Group negligently maintained consumer data,
despite the prevalence of widespread cyberthreats, the company may
be held liable for any resulting damages through a data breach
class action lawsuit.

The Unum Group data breach is only one recent example of the many
security breaches that have occurred over the past few months, as
hackers and other cybercriminals continue to prey on companies with
vulnerable data-security systems. Of course, companies whose
computers are hacked are not the only victims in a data breach -
the most serious harms can fall upon the individual consumer.

There are many potential causes of a data breach. Often, these
cyberattacks start with a hacking event, malware attack, phishing
scam or other attack designed to bypass a network's security
system. While the hacker who orchestrates a cyber-attack is the
only one who knows their true intentions, these events are
frequently intended to obtain consumer data that can later be used
to commit identity theft.

News of the Unum Group data breach only recently broke, and more
details are expected in the coming weeks. However, the situation
raises legitimate concerns about the company's efforts to keep
consumer data secure.

Attorney Richard P. Console explains,

"When consumers do business with a company or provide their
personal information to an organization, they assume that it will
remain private. And, after a data breach, it's natural to assign
all blame to the hacker or other criminal party responsible for
orchestrating the cyberattack. However, this overlooks the
obligations that organizations owe to consumers. It isn't just
about "good business"; organizations also assume a legal duty when
they hold a consumer's information. This duty requires companies to
implement data security measures that adequately protect consumer
information from various cyberthreats. While developing a robust
data security system requires a significant amount of capital and
effort, it is a necessary cost of doing business that all
organizations must take seriously in an environment in which the
threat of cyberattacks is ever-present."

News of the Unum data breach just broke, and details are sparse.
However, according to one source, on November 23, 2021, Unum Group
first discovered the breach. Through a subsequent investigation,
the company determined that the breach exposed consumer data
between the dates of October 28, 2021 and November 15, 2021. While
the investigation into this data security incident is still
ongoing, the company confirmed that the data breach resulted in the
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and health insurance
information of affected consumers being compromised. On January 28,
2022, Unum Group began sending out data breach notification letters
to affected parties.

Those receiving an Unum Group data breach letter should take the
following steps to protect themselves:

Carefully review the letter sent by Unum Group;
Retain a copy of the data breach notification letter;
Enroll in the free credit monitoring service provided by Unum
Group;
Change all passwords and security questions to online accounts;
Enable two-factor or multi-factor authentication, where it is
available;
Frequently review all credit card and bank account statements for
any signs of fraud or unauthorized activity;
Monitor credit reports for any unexpected changes or signs of
identity theft;
Contact a credit bureau to request a temporary fraud alert; and
Notify all banks and credit card companies of the data breach.

To learn more about this data breach and investigation go to
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/data-breach-alert-unum-group/.

Consumers can reach Console & Associates, P.C. through the firm's
website at https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/contact-us/.

Console & Associates P.C. is dedicated to protecting consumers'
privacy interests. The firm investigates all types of data
breaches, ransomware attacks, and other network intrusions to
determine the legal rights of consumers who trusted corporations
with their sensitive information. For more information, interested
parties may visit
https://www.myinjuryattorney.com/consumer-privacy-data-breach-lawyers/.
[GN]

WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Suit Over Black Prisoners' Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Weiner and Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for The Washington
Post, report that Black prisoners sentenced in D.C.'s local court
face harsher prison conditions than White people with similar
criminal histories sentenced in the District's federal court,
according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed by the city's
public defenders.

The suit said D.C. prisoners, more than 95 percent of whom are
Black, must battle violence, restrictive conditions and a lack of
programming in prison that those sentenced in the city's other
courts do not because of the way the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) makes security classifications.

The suit, filed on Feb. 3, sought to end alleged disparities that
have arisen since D.C. lost its local prison decades ago, sending
defendants from two different courts with different demographics to
the same system.

With the closure of Lorton Prison in 2001, prisoners from both the
local D.C. Superior Court and the federal U.S. District Court --
where the class action was filed -- have been sent to federal
institutions around the country.

Federal defendants get a security classification under national
sentencing guidelines, the suit said, while local defendants are
classified according to an "arbitrary and unequal" Bureau of
Prisons system that often puts them in higher-security prisons.

The federal scoring system limits consideration of juvenile
convictions, convictions from more than 15 years prior, suspended
sentences and misdemeanors, according to an affidavit from former
U.S. Sentencing Commission staffer Brent E. Newton accompanying the
lawsuit. The BOP system is not as lenient, Newton wrote, and its
calculations also rely on a national database that is often
inaccurate.

"I believe that the BOP program statement's criminal history score
calculus likely results in significantly higher criminal history
scores for many, if not most, of D.C. code offenders," Newton
wrote.

Black prisoners bear the brunt of this disparity, the suit said.
More than 95 percent of Superior Court defendants who go into BOP
custody are Black, while only 38 percent of the overall federal
prison population is.

The BOP criminal history score is used to determine whether
prisoners go to a high-, medium- or low-security facility, and also
whether they are eligible to be released to home confinement.
Prisoners in the lawsuit say they have less time outside their
cells, less ability to talk to loved ones, and less access to
religious and educational services. There are also more fights in
higher-security prisons, the plaintiffs say, and more lockdowns.

"Applying a harsher criminal history scoring system to the
majority-Black population of individuals . . . puts them at a
significant disadvantage to their majority-white federal
counterparts," the suit said. It added: "[T]hese individuals have
systematically higher criminal history scores, higher security
classifications, and more restrictive housing placements."

The suit sought an order that would force all D.C. prisoners to be
re-scored under the federal sentencing system.

A grandmother didn't answer her phone during a class. She was sent
back to prison.

A spokesman for D.C. Superior Court declined to comment, and the
D.C. Department of Corrections referred questions to the BOP or the
D.C. attorney general's office. The BOP did not return a request
for comment.

The suit recounted the case of Jonathan Blades, who is serving time
in a high-security federal prison in Louisiana. Blades was
convicted in 2015 in Superior Court of assault with intent to kill
after a shooting outside a K Street nightclub.

Blades wrote in a declaration that he learned of the security
classification disparity last year. At the high-security prison, he
said, people are only allowed out of their cells for two or three
hours a day, and gang violence is pervasive. Meanwhile, he is
deprived of programming he needs to succeed when he is released.

"Programming provides me the opportunity to rehabilitate myself and
let me build skills that I can use to find jobs when released," he
wrote. "I don't have the same opportunity to build skills and
improve my education right now, which puts me at a disadvantage."
He added: "I don't understand why I am being treated worse only
because I am from D.C."

Kavya R. Naini, one of the attorneys for the D.C. Public Defender
Service who filed the suit, said in an interview that some
prisoners seeking home confinement or compassionate release amid
the pandemic have seen their security classifications used against
them.

"What we know is there is a disproportionate racial impact," she
said.

In an email, Jonathan M. Smith, executive director of the
Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs,
said the current security classification system "has a harsh impact
on the prisoners, their families, and their communities."

"This is a very important case that seeks to solve a decades long
problem," he said. [GN]

WEST MONROE: Faces Ulery Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN A. ULERY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of
all other persons similarly situated v. WEST MONROE PARTNERS, INC.;
KEVIN MCCARTY; TOM BOLGER; GIL MERMELSTEIN; BARBARA DUGANIER;
BARBARA BENNETT; MAZEN GHALAYINI; DOUG ARMSTRONG; TOM HULSEBOSCH;
SUSAN STELTER; and ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00781
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 14, 2022) is a class action suit against
Defendants West Monroe, the Sponsor and Administrator of the West
Monroe Partners, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan on September
20, 2021, when Plaintiff's and the proposed class's Company stock
in the Plan was purchased by West Monroe; the Board of Directors of
West Monroe at the time of the Purchase Transaction; and Argent
Trust Company, the Trustee for the Plan at the time of the Purchase
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, who was vested in
shares of West Monroe allocated to his account in the Plan.

This action is brought under Sections 404, 406, 409, and 502(a) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended,
for losses suffered by the Plan and its participants, including
Plaintiff and the class, and other relief, caused by Defendants
when they caused the Company stock in Plaintiff's and the class
members' Plan accounts to be purchased for less than fair market
value in the September 20, 2021 Purchase Transaction rather than at
the fair market value paid by MSD Partners, L.P. ("MSD") for
Company stock in a transaction announced on October 14, 2021 (the
"MSD Transaction").

As alleged, the Plan has been injured and Plaintiff and the class
have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting
from Defendants' violations of ERISA.

West Monroe was a privately held company. West Monroe adopted the
Plan with a retroactive effective date of January 1, 2012, and the
Plan purchased West Monroe on December 31, 2012. The Plan was an
individual account plan under which a separate individual account
was established for each participant, and it was intended to be an
employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) designed to invest primarily
in the employer securities of West Monroe. Nearly 1,500 current and
former employees participated in the Plan at the start of 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendants cashed Plaintiff and the
other class members out of their Company stock on September 20,
2021, at a stock value determined by Argent as of December 31,
2020, that is, nearly nine months earlier. Regardless of whether
the December 31, 2020 valuation accurately reflected fair market
value as of that date, Defendants must have known by September 20,
2021, and certainly much earlier, that West Monroe stock was
substantially more valuable because it is utterly implausible that
West Monroe's Board of Directors and senior management did not know
or at least have a strong indication of transaction price well
before the MSD Transaction, expected to soon close in November, was
announced in an October 14, 2021 press release.

The Plaintiff seeks to enforce his rights under ERISA and the Plan,
to recover the losses incurred by the Plan and the class, and/or
the improper profits realized by Defendants resulting from their
causing, enabling or knowingly participating in prohibited
transactions and breaches of fiduciary duty, and equitable relief,
including rescission of the Purchase Transaction, surcharge, an
accounting for profits, and a constructive trust and/or equitable
lien on any funds wrongfully held by Defendants. The Plaintiff
requests that these prohibited transactions be declared void,
Defendants be required to restore any losses to the Plan and the
class arising from their ERISA violations, Defendants be ordered to
disgorge any profits, and any monies recovered for the Plan be
allocated to the accounts of the class members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1606
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 500-8680
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main St., Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 492-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 492-6290
          E-mail: rizardkrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

ZOOM VIDEO: Lawyers to Take $21M Once Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the class action
jackpot is nearly in the bank for lawyers who targeted Zoom after
the company's rise to popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Ahdoot & Wolfson on
Jan. 28 filed for final approval of their $85 million settlement
with the company that includes $21.25 million in lawyer fees. The
settlement refunds customers at least $25 or up to 15% of the money
they paid for subscriptions while the company allegedly had privacy
concerns.

Despite Zoom's argument that numerous class actions were filed
"under a scattershot array of loosely related factual and legal
theories, largely drawn from sensationalist news reports," the
company chose to settle.

Those lawsuits alleged Zoom was negligent in treatment of its
users' information and violated laws like the California Consumer
Privacy Act.

They said Zoom shared the user's personal information, including
the type of device and software the user has as well as their
network carrier and location, with third parties such as Facebook.
The lawsuits also claimed Zoom misrepresented its encryption
protocols and failed to prevent unwanted users from crashing
meetings (called "Zoombombing").

But the plaintiffs didn't allege they were harmed by the sharing of
any data, Zoom says, nor did they allege they ever relied upon any
specific Zoom representations about encryption.

Judge Lucy Koh approved the Ahdoot and Cotchett firms as lead
counsel after receiving applications from nine firms. She will now
likely give final approval to a deal she's already given
preliminary approval to.

The final motion for fees also seeks $5,000 each for 12 named
plaintiffs for "their time and effort in pursuing this action."

"All told, Class Counsel devoted thousands of hours and advanced
significant out-of-pocket expenses to develop and prosecute the
action and negotiate a favorable settlement for the settlement
class," the motion says.

Among the highlights of their work, they say, were:

   -- Successfully opposing Zoom's motion to dismiss by using "much
of which was new law" regarding the online collection, co-mingling
and sharing of consumer information.

   -- Subpoenas on more than a dozen third parties and
consultations with experts regarding search terms;

   -- Review of "tens of thousands of pages of documents produced
by Zoom"; and

   -- "Near-constant discovery disputes" that necessitated weekly
discussions and lengthy calls with Zoom's lawyers. [GN]

[*] Consumer Product Liability Class Suits in 2022 Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions has been following dozens of product liability
cases that have the potential to bring significant compensation to
those affected. Here are 10 of the top cases Top Class Actions is
watching in 2022.

Roundup Cancer Multidistrict Litigation
Mansanto's popular weed killer Roundup is the target of multiple
lawsuits filed by farm workers, landscapers and home gardeners who
claim they developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or other types of
cancer after using Roundup. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Roundup, has been linked to cancer.

Monsanto has already been ordered to pay significant compensation
to plaintiffs who claim they developed Roundup cancer, including a
$289 million award to a former school groundskeeper in California.

Benzene in Aerosol Products
Several spray deodorants and antiperspirants contain the toxin
benzene, according to the independent lab Valisure. Valisure also
discovered the presence of benzene in several popular sunscreen
products.

As a result, the Procter & Gamble Company is recalling 32 different
products of dry shampoo and conditioner from brands Pantene,
Aussie, Herbal Essences, Waterl

[*] Dentons Attorneys Dissect New Canadian Class Action Regimes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentons' Neil Rabinovitch & AJ Freedman dissect Ontario's new
regime & its impact on other provinces.

For some time, a common view shared by both the defence bar and the
courts has been that certain aspects of Canadian class action
regimes have been ripe for reform. This is particularly evident in
two key areas: (i) improving the speed at which class actions have
tended to proceed through certification; and (ii) implementing a
test for class certification that is fair to both plaintiffs and
defendants by operating as a genuine screening mechanism to weed
out actions that do not facilitate access to justice and judicial
economy.

The Ontario legislature has taken the lead implementing significant
reforms in these areas with amendments to its Class Proceedings
Act, 1992 ("CPA"), which came into force October 1, 2020. The
Ontario amendments arose from recommendations by the Law Commission
of Ontario ("LCO") in its Class Actions Objectives, Experiences and
Reforms Final Report, which called for sweeping changes to the CPA
("LCO Report").

As highlighted in the LCO Report, delay has been a longstanding
issue with Ontario class proceedings, which adversely impacts class
members and defendants alike. Delay also gives rise to judicial
economy issues that have become even more pressing in the wake of
the Covid-19 pandemic that has exacerbated court backlogs.
Accordingly, one of the government's primary stated objectives for
reforming the CPA was to resolve cases faster so people receive
compensation sooner, and businesses experience fewer financial and
reputational risks.[1]

To facilitate this goal, the legislature enacted the mandatory
dismissal for delay provision in s. 29.1 of the CPA. Section 29.1
requires the Court to dismiss a proposed class proceeding for delay
unless the plaintiff has filed their motion record for
certification or, alternatively, a timetable has been established
by the court or the parties for service of the motion record for
certification or for completion of one or more other steps required
to advance the proceeding.

Compliance with s. 29.1 is not overly onerous, nor is the provision
punitive in its operation. Since limitation periods are suspended
upon the commencement of a proposed class proceeding, most actions
dismissed for delay under s. 29.1 will be capable of being refiled
with a different representative plaintiff.

However, the amendment does shift the calculus for plaintiffs'
counsel, who, in the past, were able to take on as many cases as
they could find, without being required to advance actions at any
reasonable pace. All the while, the spectre of massive liability
often hung over defendants for years on end. Prior to the CPA
amendments, a number of court decisions have noted the issue of the
"glacial pace" at which Ontario class proceedings tended to
proceed.

On January 14, 2022, the first Ontario court decision considering
s. 29.1 was released in Bourque v. Insight Productions Ltd. et. al.
The decision confirms that, where the representative plaintiff has
failed to comply with s. 29.1, the action must be dismissed and the
Court retains no residual discretion to order otherwise. As stated
by Justice Belobaba in Bourque:

If s. 29.1 of the amended CPA is to achieve its intended purpose --
to help advance class action proceedings that otherwise tend to
move at glacial speed -- then it's to everyone's advantage (both
putative class members and defendants) that the mandatory dismissal
provision be interpreted and applied as written

In light of Bourque, plaintiffs have been put on notice that they
will no longer be able to unreasonably delay proceeding to
certification.

Going forward, s. 29.1 should greatly assist in combatting the
long-standing issue of dormant class proceedings and moving cases
toward a faster resolution. This is especially true in conjunction
with the new CPA s. 4.1 amendment which confers defendants a
presumptive right to have summary judgment motions heard prior to
certification, a reversal of the previous standard which presumed
certification would precede summary judgment.

The legislative amendment that arguably will have the greatest
impact on Ontario's class actions regime is the application of a
heightened standard for the preferable procedure prong of the test
for certification. As the LCO states in its Final Report,
"Certification is a defining moment in the life of a class action."
This is because, due to the often existential damages claims facing
class action defendants, the vast majority of class actions are
settled once the action is certified. Given the importance of the
certification stage, the LCO emphasized the need for a
certification test that was fair to the interests of all parties.
Prior to the CPA amendments, the certification process provably
favoured plaintiffs, with an estimated 73% of contested class
actions filed in Ontario since 1993 having been certified.

Under the new predominance and superiority standard, which largely
mirrors that of the U.S. Federal Rules of Procedure, the plaintiff
must satisfy the court that (a) the common issues predominate over
individual ones, and (b) a class action would be a superior means
of advancing those claims over any available alternative. Prior to
the amendment, to satisfy preferable procedure plaintiffs only
needed to establish that a class action was the preferable
procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common
issues.

The precise manner in which the new predominance and superiority
standard will be interpreted and applied is still not certain as
there has yet to be a certification decision applying the new test.
However, the new test clearly elevates the standard plaintiffs must
establish and represents clear direction from the legislature that
judges hearing certification motions must apply greater scrutiny to
whether a proposed class action is truly the preferable procedure
for resolution of the common issues. Whereas in the past, class
actions could be certified even where individual issues
considerably outweighed common issues, it is unlikely that such
cases can be certified under the new predominance standard.

The Impact of the Ontario Reforms on Other Provincial Class Action
Regimes
In response to the Ontario CPA amendments, it is likely that
plaintiffs will strategically select alternative forums where such
options are available. This already appears to be happening as more
class actions were filed in B.C. in the last year than ever before.
Compared to Ontario, B.C. presents less risks for plaintiffs
commencing class proceedings, in large part due to the fact that
there are no adverse costs, nor is there a predominance requirement
in their certification test. B.C. is also an attractive option
because, since 2018, it has permitted the certification of national
classes that include extra-provincial residents on an opt-out
basis. Other forums may similarly see an increase in class action
filings in response to the Ontario amendments – for example, more
competition class actions could be filed in the Federal Court as
the certification test under the Federal Court Rules is largely
identical to Ontario's pre-amendment certification test.

Class action reform in Canada is still in its infancy and it
remains to be seen whether the other provinces will follow
Ontario's lead in this area.

Recently, the Quebec bar has placed greater emphasis on initiatives
to improve judicial economy in their courts. This has culminated
with Quebec's Minister of Justice launching, in June 2021, a public
consultation in respect of proposed reforms to the Quebec class
action regime. Like in Ontario with the LCO's Final Report, the
proposed Quebec reforms arise from a research report from the Class
Actions Lab of the Université de Montréal. One of the avenues
proposed to speed up the pace of Quebec class actions is
integrating the class action authorization stage (similar to a
certification motion in common law provinces) into the proceedings
on the merits. This new hybrid mechanism, which would commence with
the filing of a class action claim (rather than an application for
authorization), would allow defendants to bring preliminary motions
to dismiss that would be decided by the court along with
authorization, following which the proceedings would commence on
the merits.

Another avenue for the contemplated reform is changing the
authorization criteria by eliminating the colour of right test,
which requires the Petitioner to demonstrate an arguable cause of
action, and is the most frequently used by defendants to attack the
proposed class action. Under the proposed reform, when faced with a
meritless claim, defendants would instead be allowed to present
preliminary exceptions to dismiss. The introduction of a summary
judgment procedure, which is not provided for under the Quebec
rules of civil procedure, is also being contemplated.

As things currently stand in the post-CPA amendments landscape,
there is significant variance in provincial class actions
procedure, as the other common law provinces have yet to announce
possible reforms similar to Ontario's. As Ontario-based plaintiffs'
counsel seek to commence more class proceedings in alternative
forums, the issues that precipitated changes in Ontario may become
more apparent and pressing in jurisdictions now seeing an uptick in
class actions filings. If so, more provinces may well move toward
similar reform.

This is a time of flux in the Canadian class action landscape. It
is still too early to predict whether other provinces will take
Ontario's lead, with the result being a turn toward great
homogeneity and coordination between provinces in respect of class
action procedure. Conversely, it is possible that there will
continue to be significant variance in class action procedure from
province to province. As business and in turn class actions become
more nationalized in scope, there is a strong basis for greater
coordination, which remains difficult in light of the current
landscape. Undoubtedly, the class actions bar will be watching
closely to see if other provincial legislatures prioritize similar
reforms. If not, it is likely that the proportion of Ontario class
action filings continues to decrease and strategic forum shopping
remains a major theme going forward. [GN]

[*] Overdraft Fee Class Action Against Credit Union Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani partners Peter G. Siachos and Eric T.
Evans, with the assistance of associate Qing H. Guo, successfully
secured a complete dismissal of a putative class action regarding
checking account overdraft fees against the firm's client, a New
Jersey credit union. The plaintiffs, checking account holders of
the credit union, claimed that they were wrongfully assessed tens
of millions of dollars in overdraft fees because they purportedly
had sufficient funds in their checking account to cover checks
under a "ledger balance methodology." A ledger-balance method
factors in only settled transactions in calculating an account's
balance; an available-balance method calculates an account's
balance based on electronic transactions that the institutions have
authorized but have not yet settled, along with settled
transactions. An available balance also reflects holds on deposits
that have not yet cleared.

In other words, the plaintiffs contended that pending debits from
their accounts, such as recent debit card transactions, e-checks,
ACH withdrawals, pre-authorizations and the such -- though pending
but not yet settled -- should not have been debited from the
plaintiffs' accounts when they wrote checks that, in the credit
union's eyes, were not backed by sufficient account funds. In
dismissing the complaint, the court rejected the plaintiffs'
claims, finding the plain language of the membership agreement
provided that the available balance (and not the ledger balance)
was used for assessing overdraft fees. The court found that the
agreement mentioned the term "available balance" multiple times,
and that the agreement was clear enough that the plaintiffs should
have used due diligence to understand their rights and obligations
-- including whether pending and unsettled transactions would
affect their available balance.

This is a tremendous victory for the firm's client, a
not-for-profit institution that provides credit to the underserved
community. As member-owned and cooperative institution, credit
unions provide a safe place for its members to save and borrow at
reasonable rates. Credit unions also operate to promote the
well-being of its members; meaning profits made by the credit union
are returned to its members in the form of reduced fees, higher
savings rates, and lower loan rates. Both the client and the firm
are thrilled with this result. [GN]

[*] Recognizing Cause of Action for Class Suit Standing Unclear
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court resolved some lower court confusion around how to
assess Article III's injury-in-fact requirement in lawsuits for
statutory damages when it decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez last
summer.

But the operative word is "some."

There's no doubt now that a risk of future harm isn't sufficiently
concrete to support a claim for damages, although it might be for
injunctive relief. And it's clear that a plaintiff's theory of
harm, even if legislatively recognized, must closely resemble a
traditionally recognized cause of action.

But under what circumstances is a plaintiff's theory of statutory
harm sufficiently analogous "in kind" to a traditionally recognized
cause of action to satisfy constitutional requirements? Unclear.
[GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***