---

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

              Monday, March 14, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 46

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hyatt Claims
3M COMPANY: Discusses Class Settlement Affecting 440,000 Residents
68TH GRILL: Rosa Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Delivery Workers
ABBOT LABORATORIES: Suit Says Baby Formula Not Safe for Infants
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: McCord Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formulas

AMERICAN BANKERS: Hildene Sues Over Intellectual Property Rights
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Supports Black Class Action Over Racism
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Cocke's Bid to Toss Accord's Claims Granted
ARIZONA: Nielsen Appeals Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
AURORA, CO: Minter, et al., File Bid for Class Certification

AYTU BIOPHARMA: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Paguia Suit Alleges
BATTERY SOLUTION: Smilasky Seeks Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cullors Balks at Heavy Metals in Baby Food
BIG INDIE: Shearer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Bid for Class Certification Nixed

BRIGHT SOLAR: Scheduling Order Entered in Hagerman Class Suit
C3.AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop
CANADA: Suit by Families of Medical Experiments Gets Go-Ahead
CARTER'S INC: Mayorga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION: Edens Files Suit Over Poor Service

CERENCE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of April 26 Deadline
CHEROKEE CONTRACTORS: Louvierre Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Faces Tessanne Suit Over First Amendment Right
CIOX HEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2nd Amended Deming Suit
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Wins Judgment on the Pleadings in Tsakos Suit

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Tapia Sues Over Mislabeled Product's Flavor
COMMUNICARE INC: Jeffreys Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA
CONDUENT INC: ERSPREPA Wins Class Certification Bid
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Machine Repair Services Market, Hapka Says
DENVER, CO: Bid for Summary Judgment in Epps Suit Granted in Part

DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile SeekS to Continue Class Cert. Deadline
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Karter Suit
EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Can't Enforce Class Settlement in Kay Suit
EXELA TECH: Directors Violate Delaware Bylaws, Ezzat Suit Says
FAIR HARBOR: Langley Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Whitney Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation
FERRERO USA: Kinder Joy Brand Contains Artificial Cream, Sneed Says
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Steinmetz Suit Over Collection Letter
FISHMAN GROUP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kline FDCPA Class Complaint
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Bid to Reopen Suit Over Cancelled Flights Denied

GEICO INDEMNITY: Moe Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
GOLDEN CHILD: Pritchette Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
GREAT LAKES: Kantrowitz Testimony Partly Struck in Dawson Suit
GRUBHUB INC: Postmates Can't Compel Arbitration in Micheli Suit
GUABA DELI: $15.5K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Ramos Suit

IBEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect PII, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says
IMEDIA BRANDS: Duffek Files Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification
INFINITY Q: Founder of Collapsed Fund Sued After Fraud Charges
INSTAGRAM LLC: Hunley Appeals Copyright Infrigement Suit Dismissal
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Bans Opioid Addiction Treatment, Suit Says

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Mason Suit Without Prejudice
JUUL LABS: Airport Community Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Newfield Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Parishville-Hopkinton Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Cadillac Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims
JUUL LABS: McBain Rural Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan
JUUL LABS: Munising Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Phelps-Clifton Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: R.G. Drage Career Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis

JUUL LABS: Scottsdale Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
JUUL LABS: Shenendehowa Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
JUUL LABS: Shiawassee Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Michigan
JUUL LABS: Thousand Islands Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Webster Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign

KELLER WILLIAMS: Hayhurst Files Bid for Class Certification
KENTUCKY: Bid to File Amended Complaint in Hammond v. FMC Denied
KKR & CO: Kentucky Court Allows Filing of Sur-Reply in Taylor Suit
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Deadlines Modified in Martinez
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Stillman Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.

KROGER CO: Rosales Has Until July 29 to File Class Status Bid
LAD-MB LLC: Faces Raczkiewicz Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
LAND O'LAKES: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Fla.
LENOVO INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Axelrod

LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Bid to File Opposition Sur-Reply
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Hofmann Appeals Tuition Fee Suit Dismissal
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Related Bids Continued to March 21
MANDARICH LAW: Felberbaum Appeals Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Mort Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA

MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE: Krinsky Seeks OT Pay for Customer Service Reps
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 10
NEMPR LLC: Motas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
NEVADA: Bid to Certify Detainees Class in Dillon v. NSDC Denied
NEW ORIENTAL: Faces Mijares-Ortega Suit Over Alleged ADS Price Drop

NISSAN NORTH: Kemp Seeks to Certify Putative Classes
OHIOHEALTH CORP: Court Denies Melgard's Bid to Amend FLSA Complaint
OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION: Case Schedule Modified in Melgard Suit
ONSITE FACILITY: Pickard Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
ONTRAK INC: Braun Files IPO-related Securities Class Action

PATRIOT HOME: Reduces Caregiver's Regular Rates, Williams Alleges
PIPELINE HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
POLLY INC: Hernandez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Class Settlement Will Average $3,500/Household
PRESIDENT & FELLOWS: Barkhordar Partly Granted Leave to Amend Suit

PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Burnett Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
QUANTUM HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 27 in Snider
RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Strike Caudullo Declaration Partly Granted
REDDIT INC: Plaintiffs Appeals to Revive Child Pornography Suit
RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Granted Leave to File Docs Under Seal

SAFEMOON LLC: Blacksher Sues Over Misleading Sale of Digital Tokens
SCALE MEDIA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Person, Paguada Says
SCHREIBER LAW: Faces Henderson Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
SL FARMS: Segura Seeks Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
STANFORD HEALTH: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Period, Veitch Says

STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Settlement in Moorer Wins Final Nod
STEVENSON BEER: Morgan Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Charleston Lawyer Files Class Suit
SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces Henderson Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Pomerantz Law Discloses Class Action

TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Portell Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TERRY LUMMA: Lawsuit Filed Over "Fake" Weapons Training Classes
U.S. BANCORP: Adams Sues Over Illegal Early Retirement Benefits
U.S. SUGAR: Class Action Suit Over Sugarcane Burning Dismissed
U.S. TENNIS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Weekes Says

UI GLOBAL: Abreu Suit Seeks Blind Customers' Access to Online Store
UNITED CONCRETE: Raul Motas Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
UNITED STATES: L.N.P. Appeals Ruling in Social Security Suit
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Sanchez-Angeles Labor Suit Seeks OT Wages
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Appeals Remand Ruling in Waltz Class Suit

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Schedule in Carlos
WASH PLUS: John Witter Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Hyatt Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD HYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00688-RMG (D.S.C., March 3, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraud by
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

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

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Discusses Class Settlement Affecting 440,000 Residents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lawson at whnt.com reports that a lawsuit that began in 2002
against 3M over chemical contamination is awaiting final approval
from a judge, in a case that will affect 440,000 residents in six
North Alabama counties.

The case is St. John vs. 3M. For residents in Colbert, Franklin,
Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone and Morgan Counties, the settlement
is not expected to provide financial payments but lawyers handling
the case said residents across the area will benefit from the
extensive PFAS chemical cleanup 3M is set to undertake.

3M Class Action Settlement
Deadline is Looming: What you should know
Residents of those areas who think they may have a claim over
chemical contamination and want to pursue such a claim have to
opt-out of the settlement by March 17 or their lawsuit options
could be significantly limited. News 19 has extensive reporting on
the process which can be found at the link above.

3M made PFAS chemicals in Decatur for a long time until around
2002.

"We see them in the containers we use to pop popcorn, in Scotchgard
and in our clothes. We also know in order for those chemicals to be
in those places they have to get manufactured, and so what we have
is a legacy of those chemicals, being manufactured and used. Waste
from those manufacturing processes have literally contaminated land
and soil in and around plant sites and in other locations," said
Leon Ashford an attorney for the St. John plaintiffs.

The chemicals have been linked to a number of health effects and
now after multiple lawsuits and regulatory action, 3M has agreed to
expand its cleanup efforts.

Owners of North Alabama pain clinic convicted of $50M health care
fraud and distributing opioids
Court documents describe it as a $300 million cleanup settlement.
About $100 million of that will go to Decatur-related projects,
nearly $150 million in cleanup costs already spent and about $60
million will go toward future 3M cleanup expenses.

Tennessee Riverkeeper lawyer Bill Matsikoudis detailed what the
cleanup will include, "There's going to be sampling of the soil, of
the groundwater, of the surface water, of the fish, they're going
to, 3M that is, inject dye into the groundwater and use technology
to find out where it's coming up in the river. So we understand how
the groundwater plumes are taking this into the river, where it
might be coming up through the sediment. To understand how the PFAS
is impacting the water so we can come up with the solution to how
to remediate this."

Ashford said 3M will also give plaintiffs testing samples for their
own inspections.

Lawrence County Community Advocate Brenda Hampton, who's warned of
PFAS contamination for years is hopeful given the recent
settlements.

"I feel confident now that they will address the situation because
they've been exposed now. And so everyone knows that they are the
cause of the problem that's in this area and I think the CEO they
have now do want to clean up this area," she told News 19.

3M is also under a cleanup order from the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM).

Decatur announces proposed site for new ball fields
The settlement includes lawyers' fees to be paid by 3m and other
defendants. Ashford's firm is asking for about 15% of the $300
million settlement, that's about $46 million. Ashford said their
litigation helped spur the settlements 3M reached with the
Riverkeeper group, the City of Decatur, Morgan County and ADEM. He
added he is glad to explain the large fee. His firm has been
working on the case since 2002.

"We attempted to prove personal injury claims, for exposure for
employees and their families, we couldn't do that because of the
science and the medicine, and we stuck with it," Ashford explained.
"We actually engaged in conversations with 3M about potentially
doing a medical monitoring class action, even though the law in
Alabama did not provide for that. That fell apart when the
litigation in Minnesota came about. We then pursued these claims
for property damage. Stayed the course for 15 or so years, with no
enforceable limit for soil or water in Alabama then or today.

The settlement doesn't include caps on costs for future cleanup
work and there is $2.5 million to cover the costs for plaintiffs'
experts to review material.

So far, the deal will cost 3M far less than the $850 million
lawsuit settlement reached with the state of Minnesota. The laws
there can impose liability for environmental damage.

Ashford is a Limestone County native, he said state law doesn't
support everything he'd like to accomplish but he said the
settlement is a resolution. And just the start.

"This is not a perfect settlement, this is a settlement that makes
a big difference to the people in North Alabama. It brings together
the best experts in the world, who don't work for 3M and others
like 3M. We have accomplished something that I think is a great,
great, start, to a long-term project," Ashford said.

We know the lawyers are getting paid well and we know Alabama's law
limit what the state can collect from polluters. What we don't know
is how long it will take to clean up this mess, if ever.

A final settlement hearing for the case is scheduled in Morgan
County Circuit Court for April 21. [GN]

68TH GRILL: Rosa Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Delivery Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN AGUILAR ROSA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 68TH GRILL INC. (D/B/A AMERICA'S CAFE & GRILL) and
PETER NIKOLAKAKOS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01823 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022)
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiff Aguilar worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, allegedly 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,
failed to pay Plaintiff Aguilar appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium, says the suit.

Plaintiff Aguilar was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
washing dishes, sweeping the floor, mopping the floor, taking out
the trash, cleaning tables, cleaning the kitchen, bringing items
from the basement for the cooks, and refilling the stations for the
cooks.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe and grill, located
at 1159 3rd Avenue No. 6067, New York, New York under the name
"America's Cafe & Grill".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ABBOT LABORATORIES: Suit Says Baby Formula Not Safe for Infants
---------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that a South Carolina woman has filed a
class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories Inc., alleging the
company deceptively marketed its Similac, Alimentum and Elecare
brand infant formula as safe for infant consumption.

In reality, the baby formula products can cause serious health
problems, such as bacterial infections and gastrointestinal
illnesses, according to the class action lawsuit.

Similac baby formula is marketed as "nutrition you can trust" and
promises to "help keep your baby fed, happy and healthy," Plaintiff
Katie Steele alleges.

"But recent testing at one of Abbott Nutrition's manufacturing
facilities tells a different story - one of broken promises,
mistrust and concealment," according to the Similac class action
lawsuit.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reportedly received consumer
complaints of cronobacter sakazakii and salmonella infections. An
investigation confirmed that environmental samples taken from
Abbott's facility in Sturgis, Michigan, had several positive
cronobacter sakazakii results.

The Similac Alimentum class action lawsuit points to a Feb. 18
Politico article that reported the FDA first received a report of
foodborne illness potentially linked to Abbott baby formula in
September after four babies were reportedly hospitalized and one
died.

Similac, Alimentum and Elecare baby formula products were recalled
due to possible contamination in February 2022. Senators Patty
Murray and Bob Casey are demanding information from Abbott
regarding the recalled baby formula.

"It is completely unacceptable that manufacturing conditions
allowed a contaminated product to reach babies, and that it took
months for the company to act to warn parents and caregivers about
this danger," the senators wrote to Abbott CEO and chair Robert
Ford.

Similac Class Action Says Formula Caused Gastrointestinal Issues
The plaintiff says she purchased Similac Alimentum baby formula for
her infant in January. After her child consumed the tainted
formula, the baby allegedly developed gastrointestinal issues,
including overwhelming diarrhea, abdominal pain, severe diaper
rash, dehydration, sleeplessness and other injuries.

The child continues to suffer gastrointestinal and bowel problems,
Steele says.

"Plaintiff incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses,
has suffered and will continue to suffer pain, loss of enjoyment of
life, emotional distress, and medical problems in the future as a
direct and proximate result of her ingestion of the contaminated
baby formula," Steele alleges in the Alimentum class action
lawsuit.

She says she would not have purchased the Similac Alimentum infant
formula if she had known the true nature of the harmful chemicals
it contained.

The Similac Alimentum class action lawsuit asserts claims for
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, failure to warn and design defect.

Abbott is facing another contaminated baby formula class action
lawsuit in Florida federal court.

Did your child become sick after consuming recalled Abbott baby
formula? Learn more about your legal options here.

Steele is represented by Paul Doolittle, Eric M. Poulin, Roy T.
Willey IV and Blake G. Abbott of Anastopoulo Law Firm LLC.

The Similac Alimentum Baby Formula Class Action Lawsuit is Katie
Steele v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00571-DCN, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. [GN]

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: McCord Sues Over Contaminated Infant Formulas
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY MCCORD on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01182 (N.D.
Ill., March 4, 2022) is a civil class action lawsuit brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of all consumers who purchased Abbott's
powdered infant formula products, including Similac (TM), Similac
PM 60/40  (TM), Alimentum (TM) and EleCare (TM) products, which
were manufactured at the Abbott Nutrition facility in Sturgis,
Michigan ("Sturgis Facility").

The United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), in
conjunction with the Center for Disease Control ("CDC"), announced
on February 17, 2022, that it was investigating the Defendant's
Similac (TM), Alimentum (TM), and EleCare (TM) products following
several consumers complaints of Cronobacter sakazakii and
Salmonella Newport contamination. The FDA's advisory notice alerted
consumers to avoid purchasing or using Defendant's Similac (TM),
Alimentum (TM) and EleCare (TM) products, and Abbott initiated a
voluntary recall of those products ("First Formula Recall").

Abbott later announced that it found evidence of Cronobacter
sakazakii at the Sturgis Facility. On February 28, 2022, Abbott
recalled Similac PM 60/40 ("Second Formula Recall") "after learning
of the death of an infant who tested positive for Cronobacter
sakazakii and consumed Similac PM 60/40 from this lot," says the
suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Abbott knew about the
ongoing risk of contamination and related noncompliance issues at
its Sturgis Facility, and Abbott should have initiated a product
recall and taken other preventative measures in September of 2021.
Instead, the Defendant waited a full five months before it decided
to recall the products, and that decision came after the FDA
publicly announced that it was investigating Abbott. The
consequences were dire. Abbott's failures harmed consumers,
sickened infants, and ultimately led to the death of at least two
children. Abbott's First Formula Recall and Second Formula Recall
(collectively the "Formula Recall") are too little too late, the
suit added.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies for herself and
the putative Class, economic loss suffered as a result of the
Formula Recall and Defendant's negligence, deceptive practices, and
related business practices.

The Defendant was, and continues to be, engaged in the manufacture,
distribution, marketing, and sale of its powdered infant formulas,
including Similac (TM), Similac PM 60/40 (TM), Alimentum (TM) and
EleCare (TM) brand products.

Abbott allegedly sold contaminated infant formulas throughout the
United States, including the State of Illinois and State of
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Russell Busch, Esq.
           MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
           PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
           979 Green Bay Rd
           Highland Park, IL 60035
           Telephone: (865) 247-0080
           Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
           E-mail: rbusch@milberg.com

AMERICAN BANKERS: Hildene Sues Over Intellectual Property Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, FACTSET
RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., and S&P GLOBAL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01929
(S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2022) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, the New York General
Business Law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of
contract, and injunctive relief.

Hildene, on its own behalf, also brings this action for a
declaratory judgment that Hildene's use of CUSIPs is a "fair use"
that does not infringe on any purported intellectual property
rights of Defendants over CUSIPs.

CUSIPs are strings of numbers and letters that identify financial
instruments. CUSIPs identify financial instruments just as social
security numbers identify persons, or license plates identify cars.
Just as social security and license plate numbers play an important
public function of identifying people and vehicles, CUSIPs serve
the public function of identifying individual financial
instruments. Data concerning individual financial instruments is
largely useless if unattached to a unique identifier like CUSIPs;
the data become like baseball statistics unattached to specific
players' names, says the suit.

The ABA asserts intellectual property rights to the CUSIP system.
CUSIP Global Services ("CGS"), a division of S&P's wholly owned
subsidiary until March 1, 2022, has the exclusive right to license
CUSIPs. S&P owned, operated, and managed CGS on behalf of the ABA
since the creation of CUSIPs until it transferred CGS to FactSet
for $1.925 billion through an asset sale agreement on March 1,
2022. FactSet now owns, operates, and manages CGS.

This action arises from S&P's abuse of its monopoly power in the
financial instruments identification market, and Defendants'
conspiracy to maintain S&P's (and now FactSet's) monopoly power and
unreasonably restrain trade in the financial instruments
identification market, in order to extract artificially inflated
payments from investors and other users of financial data through
subscription agreements to access CUSIP numbers.

The Plaintiff, like other members of the Class, receive no
financial data services from the Defendants; but rather obtain
financial data from other sources that necessarily include CUSIP
numbers. The Defendants can hold up the Plaintiff and members of
the Class to pay prices unilaterally determined by Defendants not
because there is anything special or valuable about the string of
numbers and letters they generate, but simply because CUSIPs have
been designated as the standard.

Additionally, Defendants have conspired to prevent competition
from, and the implementation of, alternative free, or far more
cost-friendly financial instruments identifiers of equal or
superior efficiency and quality. The motive for their exclusion of
competition is simple: CUSIPs are worthless except for the fact
that they are the standard.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants collected fees through
subscription agreements through the uninterrupted flow of
transactions in interstate commerce throughout the United States,
including within this District. The  Defendants' unlawful
activities that are the subject of this Complaint were within the
flow of, and have had a direct and substantial effect on,
interstate trade and commerce.

Hildene Capital provides investment management services.

The American Bankers Association is a Washington, D.C.-based trade
association for the U.S. banking industry, founded in 1875. They
lobby for banks of all sizes and charters, including community
banks, regional and money center banks, savings associations,
mutual savings banks, and trust companies.

FactSet is an American financial data and software company
headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Wollmuth, Esq.
          R. Scott Thompson, Esq.
          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          Ryan A. Kane, Esq.
          Grant J. Bercari, Esq.
          WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 382-3300
          E-mail; dwollmuth@wmd-law.com
                  sthompson@wmd-law.com
                  raranoff@wmd-law.com
                  rkane@wmd-law.com
                  gbercari@wmd-law.com

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Supports Black Class Action Over Racism
--------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Amnesty International announced its support to the Black
Class Action's landmark pursuit of justice for current and former
Black members of the federal public service.

"For too long, Black employees have faced dehumanizing experiences
of racist exclusion at the hands of the government. Amnesty
International supports the work led by the Black Class Action to
bring justice to Black federal employees in Canada and prevent
further harm from taking place" said Ketty Nivyabandi, Secretary
General of Amnesty International Canada's English-speaking branch.

Since the launch of the Black Class Action in December 2020, 1,300
Black employees have courageously shared deeply personal stories of
their experiences working for the Public Service of Canada. They
describe how they were denied promotions, mentorship, and other
opportunities that were available to non-Black colleagues and were
confined to low-level positions.

These dehumanizing experiences send the message that Black
employees are not fit for public service in Canada and perpetuate
stereotypes and biases about Black people's worth and capabilities.
As a result, current and former employees continue to suffer deeply
painful and significant harms. For Black employees who are members
of other marginalized groups, such as Black women, Black people
with disabilities, and Black LGBTQ2S+ individuals, the impacts of
discrimination are even greater.

"We are grateful for the support of Amnesty International as
together we call on the Government of Canada to take real action
against anti-Black discrimination within its workforce", said
Nicholas Marcus Thompson, spokesperson for the Black Class Action.

"This government has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of
anti-Black racism in its institutions but has failed to take real
action in response. Black public service workers deserve better and
expect no less."

Despite calls to address anti-Black racism from Black employees,
the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African
Descent, and the Prime Minister, it persists in the Public Service.
Black employees continue to face denials of their rights under
Canadian and international human rights law, including the right to
be free from discrimination and the right to have equal promotion
opportunities based only on seniority and competence.

Amnesty International supports the efforts of the Black Class
Action in pressing the Government of Canada to implement long term
solutions that address systemic racism and discrimination in
Canada's Public Service. This includes the establishment of a fund
to compensate Black employees for the harms experienced because of
workplace discrimination; the establishment of a Black Equity
Commission to investigate and address systemic barriers and to
create a framework for Black employees to be heard; and the
establishment of a designated category for Black employees under
the Employment Equity Act. It also includes the immediate
establishment of culturally sensitive, trauma informed counselling
and mental health supports for current, former, and future Black
employees.

Together, the Black Class Action and Amnesty International urge the
government to answer its own call to recognize the daily
contributions that Black Canadians make to Canada, by
comprehensively implementing the measures called for by the Black
Class Action.

The Black Class Action lawsuit is a landmark case formally known as
Nicholas Marcus Thompson et al v. Her Majesty The Queen, filed with
the Federal Court of Canada on December 1, 2020. The claim filed by
both current and former Black public servants seeks to represent
thousands of workers who have faced systemic discrimination in the
hiring and promotion process in the Federal Public Service of
Canada. We invite the public to visit www.blackclassaction.ca to
learn more. [GN]

ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Cocke's Bid to Toss Accord's Claims Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et
al. Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00077 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli
Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted Defendant Cocke County's
Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

I. Background

On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff Accord was arrested by Tennessee
Highway Patrolman Paul Kilday in Cocke County, Tennessee. Kilday
prepared a complaint-affidavit on a State of Tennessee Uniform
Citation Form. The Plaintiff then was prosecuted using the Uniform
Citation Form/Affidavit of Complaint as a charging instrument. He
was charged with a DUI, which was eventually reduced to reckless
endangerment. He was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail,
with a suspended sentence.

The Plaintiff filed the present case on Feb. 1, 2021 as a class
action complaint against every county in Tennessee (but no one
else). Thereafter, he filed an Amended Complaint against the same
Defendants, which asserted (in Counts I-III) several claims under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for various kinds of alleged violations of
the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a
Tennessee common law claim for false light invasion of privacy (in
Count IV).

Upon motion of the Plaintiff, the Court dismissed Counts II and
III. This left remaining a single count asserting claims under
Section 1983 (as well as the state-law claim in Count IV). That
count (Count I) was styled as one for violations of the Fourth,
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and of
Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 7.

Various Defendants then filed motions to dismiss, including the
present Motion whereby Defendant Cocke County (and various other
counties) requested dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ultimately, during its review of some of these
motions, the Court determined that the Plaintiff had failed to
establish standing to bring a claim against any Defendant except
Cocke County. Accordingly, it ordered that all Defendants except
Cocke County be dismissed (and administratively terminated as
parties) and that the present Motion remain pending only as to
Cocke County.

Cocke County, the sole remaining Defendant, subsequently filed a
purported "supplement" to its Motion, requesting dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(3) based on allegedly improper venue, or alternatively,
a transfer of venue to the Eastern District of Tennessee pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a). (Doc. No. 172). The Court treated the
supplemental filing as an independent motion but declined to
dismiss on the basis of improper venue, as venue remained proper in
this district as to Cocke County under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(1). However, the Court did inform the parties that it was
considering sua sponte transferring the case to the Eastern
District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Both parties
were given the opportunity to provide notice to the Court of their
position regarding the potential transfer. In doing so, the
Plaintiff suggested that the Court should refrain from transferring
venue until it had ruled on the present Motion, and the Defendant
did not oppose this suggestion. Accordingly, the Court will proceed
with consideration of the Defendant's Motion for dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

In its Motion, the Defendant brings multiple arguments for why the
Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed. Its first argument is that
the "Plaintiff's claims are barred by Tennessee's one-year statute
of limitations." The Defendant states that the Plaintiff's causes
of action accrued on June 29, 2018, the date on which he was
arrested or "at the latest, on Dec. 3, 2018 -- the date of the
Plaintiff's guilty plea to the charge resulting from said arrest."
It argues that causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are
subject to the same limitations period as Tennessee personal injury
actions, which is one year. Additionally, the Defendant contends
that the Plaintiff's state-law claim brought pursuant to the
Tennessee Government Tort Liability Act ("TGTLA") is also subject
to a one-year limitations period. As the Plaintiff did not file
this action until Feb. 1, 2021, his claims would be time-barred if
they accrued on either June 29, 2018, Dec. 3, 2018, or any date
before Feb. 1, 2020.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that "when the underlying conduct
is the fact that the Defendant counties lacked jurisdiction to
proceed because there were no proper charging instruments that
commenced the criminal proceedings, then a statute of limitations
defense does not apply," citing State v. Ferrante, 269 S.W.3d 908
(Tenn. 2008).

Judge Richardson opines that this statement is very problematic
from the get-go; it suggests that the absence of jurisdiction can
constitute "conduct," (which is non-sensical). He is at a loss as
to how Ferrante could have been cited for the proposition for which
it was cited. The Plaintiff's argument about the alleged automatic
inapplicability of a statute-of-limitations defense is entirely
without merit. Thus, Judge Richardson proceeds to determine whether
the Defendant in fact has established a valid
statute-of-limitations defense even at this very early stage.

Judge Richardson has no doubt that the rule is that the limitations
period generally begins to run from the date of accrual, and thus
for purposes of the general rule treats the date of accrual as
synonymous with the date of the beginning of the running of the
limitations period, consistent with how federal courts so often
essentially equate the two dates. Accordingly, the question of
whether the Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of
limitations hinges on when his causes of action accrued.

As noted, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's causes of
action accrued either on June 29, 2018 (when he was arrested) or on
Dec. 3, 2018 (when he pled guilty to a lesser offense). Judge
Richardson is inclined to agree. All of the Plaintiff's claims rely
on the same alleged facts and theory: That the Affidavit of
Complaint used to prosecute the Plaintiff was not a proper charging
instrument and that "no arrest warrant/charging instrument was ever
prepared or signed by any official of the General Sessions Court of
Cocke County, Tennessee" so the Plaintiff was unconstitutionally
prosecuted. The latest point that the Plaintiff (or his defense
counsel) should have become aware that no proper charging
instrument was being utilized to prosecute the Plaintiff was the
day he entered his guilty plea: Dec. 3, 2018.

Rather than make an argument that the correct accrual date was
within a year of the date the Plaintiff filed the action, the
Plaintiff asserts that "courts determine when the statute of
limitations bars an action by determining when a prosecution is
commenced" and that because no prosecution was ever "properly
commenced" then "there is no cognizable date" the action accrued.
To support his argument, he cites to State v. Grieco, which says,
"In order to determine whether the prosecution is barred by the
statute of limitations, we must first determine when the
prosecution was commenced." No. E201501110CCAR3CD, 2017 WL 956345,
at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 10, 2017).

This quote, according to Judge Richardson, makes clear the
Plaintiff's mistake: Perhaps the determination of when a criminal
prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations is properly
based on the date when the prosecution was commenced, but, a
determination of when a civil cause of action is barred by the
statute of limitations is based upon when a party knew or should
have known of his injury -- and this reality is not altered in
those situations where a civil cause of action is in turn based on
an underlying criminal prosecution. Th Plaintiff makes no argument
that he could not have known of his injuries until Feb. 1, 2020,
the date on or after which his claims must have accrued to not be
time-barred given his filing date of Feb. 1, 2021. Nor does his
Amended Complaint allege any disability that would have prevented
him (or his counsel) from understanding the documents used to
charge him, or from reasonably investigating their validity.

The Plaintiff's additional argument that the statute-of-limitations
defense cannot apply to his claims because he is (supposedly)
challenging the subject-matter jurisdiction of the state court is
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed. Finally, in a last-ditch
argument for why a limitations defense would be futile, the
Plaintiff states, that even if his Section 1983 claims were
precluded by the statute of limitations, he and the putative class
could then directly challenge their unconstitutional convictions,
as direct constitutional challenges are available when Section 1983
is not."

Judge Richardson holds that the Plaintiff provides no citations to
case law supporting this theory, nor would he be likely to find
any. In fact, he has failed to mention copious authority from
within this circuit that is on point and directly contrary to his
unsupported position.

In the Sixth Circuit post-Monell, Section 1983 is the Plaintiff's
exclusive means of bringing claims for constitutional violations
against a municipality, like Cocke County. But as discussed, the
Plaintiff failed to bring his claims within the one-year
limitations period applicable to Section 1983 claims filed in
Tennessee's federal courts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section
1983 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. His state-law
claim under the TGTLA likewise is subject to a one-year limitations
period and is therefore barred. As the Plaintiff's claims will be
dismissed in accordance with the Defendant's statute-of-limitations
argument, Judge Richardson declines to consider the Defendant's
other bases for dismissal outlined in its Motion.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he indicated, Judge Richardson concludes that
one-year limitations apply to each of the Plaintiff's claims. He
granted the Defendant Cocke County's Motion to Dismiss.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58zvyfd2 from Leagle.com.


ARIZONA: Nielsen Appeals Prisoner Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Nielsen, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jeffrey Nielsen, Larry
Hilgendorf, Terry Brownell, Arizona State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as an
organization and on behalf of its members, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. David Shinn, Director,
Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his
official capacity, Case No. 2:20-cv-01182-GMS-JZB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Nielsen and Brian Boudreau are prisoners
incarcerated in a privately run prison under contract with the
Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry
(ADCRR). They, and Plaintiff Arizona State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, have
filed an "Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief" on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, challenging the Arizona statutes authorizing ADCRR to
contract with for-profit, private prisons in Arizona. Named as
Defendant in his official capacity is the current ADCRR Director,
David Shinn.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of ADCRR
prisoners who are or may be incarcerated in private prisons
contracted with ADCRR.

In an Order dated March 8, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs'
original Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. On
April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.

On May 4, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim which the Court granted on January 31, 2022
through an Order signed by Judge Douglas L. Rayes. The Order
further held that Plaintiff will take nothing, and that the
complaint and action are dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Nielsen, et al. v. David
Shinn, Case No. 22-15302, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 2, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Arizona State Conference of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Brian Boudreau
and Jeffrey Nielsen Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 9,
2022;

   -- Appellants Arizona State Conference of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Brian Boudreau
and Jeffrey Nielsen opening brief is due on May 2, 2022;

   -- Appellee David Shinn, Director answering brief is due on May
31, 2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY NIELSEN and BRIAN BOUDREAU, on behalf
of themsleves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Thomas A. Zlaket, Esq.
          THOMAS A. ZLAKET, P.L.L.C.
          310 South Williams Boulevard
          Tucson, AZ 85711-4446
          Telephone: (520) 750-0250

Defendant-Appellee DAVID SHINN, Director, Director, Arizona
Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his
official capacity, is represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC
          3100 W Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600

AURORA, CO: Minter, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY MINTER, et al., on
behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
AURORA, COLORADO, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02172-RMR-NYW (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certify the
following classes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3):

   1. Free Speech And Assembly Class:

      "Those persons who were present on June 27, 2020 at the
      Great Lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center, or the
      immediately adjacent areas, toattend the violin vigil
      honoring the life of Elijah McClain at any time between
      8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., who were not engaged in any
      behavior that would pose an immediate and specific threat
      to the safety of law enforcement officers or others, and
      who were dispersed by law enforcement officers and
      prevented from assembling at and participating (or from
      continuing to assemble and participate) in the violin
      vigil;"

   2. Force Class:

      "Those persons who were present on June 27, 2020 at the
      Great Lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center, or the
      immediately adjacent areas, to attend the violin vigil
      honoring the life of Elijah McClain at any time between
      8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., who were not engaged in any
      behavior that would pose an immediate and specific threat
      to the safety of law enforcement officers or others, and
      who were hit, or threatened, by law enforcement officers
      with force;" and

   3. Due Process Class:

      "Those persons who were present on June 27, 2020 at the
      Great Lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center, or the
      immediately adjacent areas, to attend the violin vigil
      honoring the life of Elijah McClain at any time between
      8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., who were not engaged in any
      behavior that would pose an immediate and specific threat
      to the safety of officers or others, and who were
      dispersed by law enforcement officers without any warning,
      time and opportunity to disperse, or clear path for
      dispersal."

Additionally, Plaintiffs propose that this Court certify the
following class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2):

   1. Injunctive Relief Class:

      "Those persons who were present on June 27, 2020 at the
      Great Lawn of the Aurora Municipal Center, or the
      immediately adjacent areas, to attend the violin vigil
      honoring the life of Elijah McClain at any time between
      8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., who were not engaged in any
      behavior that would pose an immediate and specific threat
      to the safety of law enforcement officers or others, and
      who were dispersed by law enforcement officers and
      prevented from assembling at and participating (or from
      continuing to assemble and participate) in the violin
      vigil and who plan to exercise their rights of free speech
      and assembly in the future in Aurora, Colorado."

On June 27, 2020, a peaceful violin vigil was organized to honor
and remember the life of Elijah McClain, who was brutally murdered
by Aurora Police Department officers that, at the time, continued
to be employed by Aurora. A large cross-section of the community
gathered to participate in the vigil on the Great Lawn of the
Aurora Municipal Center. Attendees showed up to the vigil to
demonstrate support for their community and the family of Elijah
McClain. Vigil participants included people from every walk of life
and socioeconomic status. The crowd included men, women, and
children. Entire families attended the vigil. Somewhere between two
hundred and five hundred people attended the violin vigil, and the
vigil attendees covered the Great Lawn.

The officers' actions stopped those who had gathered for the violin
vigil from peacefully assembling and expressing themselves, the
lawsuit says.

The actions of the law enforcement officers on scene had been
planned in advance of June 27, 2020, and all actions were outlined
in a coordinated plan prepared and communicated to officers by
Aurora Police Chief Vanessa Wilson and other high-ranking Aurora
law enforcement officials, the lawsuit adds.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pIF2sc
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andy McNulty, Esq.
          Mari Newman, Esq.
          KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
          1543 Champa St., Ste. 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 571-1000
          Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
          E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
                  amcnulty@kln-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric M. Ziporin, Esq.
          Jonathan N. Eddy, Esq.
          SGR, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 700
          Denver, CO 80210
          E-mail: eziporin@sgrllc.com
                  jeddy@sgrllc.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Klymkowsky, Esq.
          Eric Butler, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          100 Jefferson County Parkway, Suite 5500
          Golden, CO 80419
          E-mail: rklymkow@jeffco.us
                  ebutler@jeffco.us

               - and -

          Michael T. Lowe, Esq.
          David M. Goddard, Esq.
          Heidi J. Hugdahl, Esq.
          Heather Kuhlman, Esq.
          BRUNO COLIN & LOWE
          1999 Broadway, Suite 4300
          Denver, CO 80202
          E-mail: mlowe@brunolawyers.com
                  dgoddard@brunolawyers.com
                  hhugdahl@brunolawyers.com
                  hkuhlman@brunolawyers.com

               - and -

          Peter Doherty, Esq.
          LASATER AND MARTIN, P.C.
          8822 S. Ridgeline Blvd., Suite 405
          Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
          E-mail: peter@lasaterandmartin.com

               - and -

          Writer Mott, Esq.
          Rebecca Taylor, Esq.
          Dawn Johnson, Esq.
          ARAPAHOE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          5334 South Prince Street
          Littleton, CO 80120-1136
          E-mail: wmott@arapahoegov.com
                  rtaylor@arapahoegov.com
                  djohnson@arapahoegov.com

AYTU BIOPHARMA: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Paguia Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL JOHN M. PAGUIA, Derivatively on Behalf of AYTU BIOPHARMA, INC.
and Directly on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. GARY CANTRELL, JOSHUA DISBROW, CARL DOCKERY, JOHN DONOFRIO, JR.,
and MICHAEL MACALUSO, and AYTU BIOPHARMA, INC., Case  No. 2022-0200
(Del. Ch., March 3, 2022) is a verified derivative and class action
complaint against certain directors and officers of Aytu BioPharma
for breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and breach of
contract.

In 2015, Aytu's board of directors adopted, and the stockholders of
Aytu approved, the Company's 2015 Stock Option and Incentive Plan.
The Plan, as amended in 2020 and approved by Aytu stockholders,
authorized the Board to grant up to 5,000,000 shares of Aytu stock
(the "Authorized Shares") as equity awards to Aytu's directors,
consultants, officers, employees, and certain non-employee
directors.

After reaching a high of $2.32 in May 2019, Aytu's stock price
began to decline steadily, continuing into 2020. In fact, on
February 19, 2020, Aytu received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock
Market LLC ("NASDAQ") indicating that the Company was in
noncompliance with NASDAQ's minimum bid price requirement by
failing to maintain a closing bid price of at least $1.00 per
share. If Aytu was unable to raise its share price above $1.00, it
would be delisted from NASDAQ.

On March 10, 2020, Aytu made an announcement that would send its
share price rocketing -- it had secured an Exclusive Distributor
and License Agreement granting it the exclusive right to
commercialize a coronavirus rapid test in the United States for a
period of three years.

On March 9, 2020, the day before the announcement, Aytu's share
price opened at $0.45 and closed at $0.35. On March 10, Aytu stock
opened at $1.30 and closed at $2.05, reaching a high of $2.99.
Trading volume increased from 130.75 thousand shares on March 9 to
18.41 million shares on March 10, 2020.

On March 24, 2020, the Company received a letter from NASDAQ
stating that it had regained compliance with NASDAQ listing
policies, and had staved off delisting.

This bump was short-lived, however. Despite a meteoric rise after
the March 10, 2020 announcement, Aytu's share price again began a
steady decline.

Unable to count on more blockbuster news to bring Aytu's share
price back above $1.00, and with the threat of NASDAQ delisting
still fresh, on April 23, 2020, at an Annual Meeting of
Stockholders, the Board put before Aytu stockholders a proposal to
conduct a reverse stock split to bring Aytu's share price well
above a dollar per share, but drastically reducing the number of
outstanding shares.

In violation of the clear requirement of the stockholder-approved
Plan, the Board, however, did not proportionally reduce the number
of Authorized Shares under the Plan following the Reverse Split.

On December 10, 2020, Aytu entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with another biomedical company called Neos Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Neos"). On that same day, the Company conducted a secondary
offering and issued approximately 4.8 million shares. By February
1, 2021, the Company's number of outstanding shares had risen to
approximately 17.9 million.

On March 19, 2021, Aytu closed the merger with Neos. As part of the
merger agreement, Neos' then-Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Gerald
McLaughlin ("McLaughlin") and Director Beth Hecht ("Hecht") were
appointed as directors of Aytu. Pursuant to the terms of the
merger, any outstanding Neos stock would be converted to Aytu
shares, resulting in the issuance of approximately 5.5 million Aytu
shares and bringing the total number of outstanding Aytu shares to
approximately 23.4 million as of the date of the merger. However,
neither the secondary offering, nor the shares issued in connection
with the Neos merger permitted an upward adjustment of Authorized
Shares pursuant to the Plan, leaving the number of Authorized
shares issuable under the Plan capped at 500,000 shares following
the Reverse Split.

As such, on April 16, 2021, in blatant violation of the Plan,
Aytu's CEO and Chairman of the Board Joshua Disbrow ("Disbrow") and
four non-employee directors on the Board, Gary Cantrell
("Cantrell"), Carl Dockery ("Dockery"), John Donofrio, Jr.
("Donofrio"), and Michael Macaluso ("Macaluso"), granted themselves
an aggregate 1,551,216 shares of restricted Aytu stock, allegedly
taken from the pool of Authorized Shares under the terms of the
2020 amendment to the 2015 stockholder-approved Plan. Disbrow
received 800,000 shares of restricted stock (valued at $5.192
million at the time) and the four other directors each received
187,804 shares (each grant valued at $1.219 million at the time).

Hecht and McLaughlin were not informed of the other Board members'
decision to grant themselves restricted shares, and only learned of
the grants following the Company's issuance of a Form 8-K on April
16, 2021 that disclosed the grants. Hecht and McLaughlin then
attempted to call the rest of the Board's attention to the clear
Plan violation. Their pleas fell on deaf ears, and on May 17, 2021,
not even two full months after being appointed as directors, Hecht
and McLaughlin penned and submitted a joint resignation letter to
the Board, in which Hecht and McLaughlin stated that they "disagree
with the Board's approach to governance issues relating to approval
of equity grants of 9% of the Company's equity to the CEO and
certain other directors." Hecht and McLaughlin further stated that
despite calling the issue to the Board's attention at a May 12,
2021 Board meeting, the Board refused to discuss their concerns.

As a result of the above misconduct, the Company and its
stockholders have been harmed and are entitled to monetary damages
and equitable relief.

Aytu is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
commercializing novel therapeutics and consumer healthcare
products. Its business model historically has relied on acquiring,
developing, and commercializing products directed towards sexual
dysfunction disorders, urological cancer, urinary tract infections,
and male infertility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          Kevin E.T. Cunningham, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
          & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706

               - and -

          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
          P.O. Box 410
          Wilmington, Delaware 19899
          Telephone: (302) 652-8400
          E-mail: mcw@skjlaw.com


BATTERY SOLUTION: Smilasky Seeks Regular & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEANDRO N. SMILASKY, and other similarly situated individuals v.
BATTERY SOLUTION LLC, d/b/a VOLTAGE BATTERIES and LUCAS M. BASILI,
and MARIA P. HIRIART individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-20688-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid regular wages, overtime compensation, retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of Fair Labor Standards.

The asserted class for this collective action includes all current
and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, performing
non-exempted duties, at all premises of Voltage batteries, in
furtherance of the business of the Defendants, and who worked more
than 40 hours during one or more weeks within the material time,
without being paid minimum wages and overtime hours at the rate of
time and one-half their regular rate ("the overtime rate"),
pursuant the FLSA.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee from on or about December 09, 2021, to January 24,
2022, or 6 weeks plus four days.

The Plaintiff was hired as a store attendant and battery installer
technician. The Plaintiff had numerous duties, including opening
and closing the store, selling and installing batteries, and
performing general battery shop work. Plaintiff's wage rate was
$15.00 an hour. Therefore, Plaintiff's overtime rate should be
$22.50 an hour.

The Corporate Defendant is a seller and installer of all kinds of
automotive, commercial, industrial, power sports, marine batteries,
and accessories. The Defendant operates at least five stores in
Dade and Broward Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Cullors Balks at Heavy Metals in Baby Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
STACIA CULLORS, an individual; LAYLA CULLORS, NOELANI CULLORS and
VIVIENNE CULLORS, through their guardian ad litem STACIA CULLORS;
ANTHONY BACANI, an individual; DAHLIA BACANI and ELIAS BACANI,
through their guardian ad litem ANTHONY BACANI; JENNIFER CULLORS,
an individual; AVA CULLORS and JOSHUA CULLORS, through their
guardian ad litem JENNIFER CULLORS, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY;
NURTURE, INC.; PLUM, INC. d.b.a. PLUM ORGANICS; GERBER PRODUCTS
COMPANY; WALMART, INC.; SPROUT FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV07017 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2022) seeks damages and relief on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated for strict
products liability, negligence, negligent product design, negligent
manufacturing, negligent misrepresentation, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and related claims.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Defendants' baby foods
reasonably believing that such products are safe, nutritious, and
free from harmful toxins contaminants and chemicals. In reality,
and despite Defendants' promises and reassurances to parents that
their products are pure, natural, safe and healthy, these baby
foods allegedly contain heavy metals that are not pure, are
unnatural, are unsafe, and pose a major risk to babies and infants.
Had parents and/or guardians been fully informed about the contents
of the baby foods they purchased, they would not have bought these
products nor fed them to their children, says the suit.

The Defendants are manufacturers of baby food products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Azar Mouzari, Esq.
          Nilofar Nouri, Esq.
          BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C.
          468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 238
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 858-5567
          Facsimile: (424) 286-0963
          E-mail: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com
                  nilofar@bhtrialattorneys.com

BIG INDIE: Shearer Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL SHEARER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BIG INDIE THE HUNT, INC.; MONKEYPAW
STUDIOS, INC.; DECLAN BALDWIN; DOE 1 though and including DOE 10,
Case No. 22STCV00369, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on March 3, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01492-JAK-GJS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay continuing wages, failure to provide
compliant pay stubs, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to
provide rest breaks, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff
also asserts individual claims against Defendant Big Indie the Hunt
for failure to provide payroll records and failure to provide
personnel records.

Big Indie The Hunt, Inc. is a motion picture production company,
headquartered in New York.

MonkeyPaw Studios, Inc. is an American production company doing
business in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kelly Perigoe, Esq.
         Erica Row, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING LLP
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4355
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
         E-mail: kperigoe@kslaw.com
                 erow@kslaw.com

BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Bid for Class Certification Nixed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSCOE EVANS, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00100-TS-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying the plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

   "All persons who paid tuition and/or Mandatory Fees to attend
   in-person class(es) during the Winter 2020 term/semester
   affected by COVID-19 at BYU and had their class(es) moved to
   online learning."

On March 6, 2020, then-Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert declared a
State of Emergency due to the spread of COVID-19. In response, on
March 12, 2020, BYU canceled classes and announced that starting
March 13, 2020, all classes would be conducted online to prevent
the spread of COVID-19. Remote instruction continued for the rest
of the Winter 2020 semester, which ended on or about April 15,
2020.

The Plaintiff completed the remainder of the Winter 2020 semester
online and graduated from BYU with a bachelor's degree in computer
science at the end of the Winter 2021 semester.

On February 19, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint against BYU asserting claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

Brigham Young University is a private research university in Provo,
Utah, United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34oRCFG at no extra charge.[CC]

BRIGHT SOLAR: Scheduling Order Entered in Hagerman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HAGERMAN v.
BRIGHT SOLAR MARKETING LLC, et al., Case No.
8:21−cv−01830−CJC−DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J.
Carney entered a scheduling order as follows:

  1. All discovery, including discovery       March 9, 2023
     motions, shall be completed by:
     Discovery motions must be filed
     and heard prior to this date:

  2. The parties shall have until             May 8, 2023
     to file and have heard all
     other motions, including motions
     to join or amend the pleadings:

  3. A pretrial conference will be held       July 10, 2023
     on:

  4. The case is set for a jury trial:        July 18, 2023

  5. The parties shall have until             March 23, 2023
     to conduct settlement proceedings:

  6. The Plaintiff shall have until           Oct. 10, 2022
     to file and have heard any
     class certification motion:

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CqWLtv at no extra charge.[CC]

C3.AI INC: Faces Reckstin Family Suit Over Alleged Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE RECKSTIN FAMILY TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C3.AI, INC., THOMAS M. SIEBEL, DAVID BARTER,
PATRICIA A. HOUSE, RICHARD LEVIN, MICHAEL G. MCCAFFERY, NEHAL RAJ,
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, S. SHANKAR SASTRY, BRUCE SEWELL, LORENZO
SIMONELLI, and STEPHEN M. WARD JR., Case No. 3:22-cv-01413 (N.D.
Cal., March 4, 2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) C3.ai Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about December 9, 2020; and/or (b) C3.ai securities
between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, both dates
inclusive., pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933.

On November 13, 2020, C3.ai filed a registration statement on Form
S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on December 8, 2020.

On December 9, 2020, pursuant to the Registration Statement,
C3.ai's Class A common stock began publicly trading on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the trading symbol "AI". That same
day, C3.ai filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in
connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, collectively with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, C3.ai issued 15.5 million
shares of its Class A common stock to the public at the Offering
price of $42.00 per share for approximate proceeds to the Company
of $610 million after applicable underwriting discounts and
commissions.

The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that C3.ai's partnership with Baker Hughes was
deteriorating.

On February 16, 2022, during pre-market hours, Spruce Point Capital
Management issued a report and strong sell research opinion
regarding C3.ai. Specifically, Spruce Point alleged that it had
uncovered, "evidence of a severely Class Action Complaint for
Violations of the Federal Securities Laws challenged partnership
with Baker Hughes.

As a result, Spruce Point "conservatively estimated 40-50% downside
risk to C3.ai's share price."

Following publication of the Spruce Point Report, C3.ai's stock
price fell $1.01 per share, or 3.93%, to close at $24.70 per share
on February 16, 2022.

As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of C3.ai Class A
common stock continues to trade below the $42.00 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of C3.ai's securities,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

C3.ai operates as an enterprise AI software company. The Company
offers a variety of SaaS applications for enterprises, as well as
software solutions and integrated turnkey enterprise AI
applications for oil and gas, chemicals, utilities, manufacturing,
financial services, defense, intelligence, aerospace, healthcare,
and telecommunications market segments. The Company also has
purported strategic partnerships with Baker Hughes related to oil
and gas markets; FIS related to financial services markets;
Raytheon; and AWS, Intel, and Microsoft. The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818
          Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
          E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

CANADA: Suit by Families of Medical Experiments Gets Go-Ahead
-------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that lawsuit against the Canadian government, the
Royal Victoria Hospital and the McGill University Health Centre is
moving ahead.

About 55 families of victims who underwent medical experimentation
in the 1950s and 1960s are suing for millions of dollars.

Alison Steel says her mother was never the same after undergoing
brainwashing experiments at Montreal's Allan Memorial Institute.

Treatments included chemically induced sleep for weeks, rounds of
electroshocks and experimental drugs.

"She just wasn't there for me; she wasn't emotional," Steel said.
"I believe I suffered as a child, even though I love my mother."

Steel is one of the main plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the
Canadian government, the Royal Victoria Hospital and the McGill
University Health Centre (MUHC).

How the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind-control experiments laid the groundwork
for torture methods used today
The plaintiffs allege the Government of Canada funded psychiatric
treatments by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute
between 1950 to 1964. They claim the government played a role in
the supervision and control of these experiments, which were part
of the CIA's MK-ULTRA program of covert mind-control.

The defendants had moved to partially dismiss the case, but Quebec
Superior Court dismissed the defence's request on Feb. 23.

Lawyer Alan Stein says the lawsuit, seeking about $1 million per
family on top of legal costs "to compensate them for their
[physical and emotional] loss," can now move ahead.

In a statement to CBC News, the MUHC said Cameron acted
independently and was not considered by law to be an employee of
the Royal Victoria Hospital.

The Department of Justice says it is reviewing the court's latest
decision. [GN]

CARTER'S INC: Mayorga FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SINDY MAYORGA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CARTER'S INC.; CARTER'S RETAIL, INC.;
THE WILLIAM CARTER COMPANY; OSHKOSH B'GOSH, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV02309, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on March 3, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01467 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Carter's Inc. is an American designer and marketer of children's
apparel, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Carter's Retail, Inc. is a retailer of clothing and accessories,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The William Carter Company is an apparel products manufacturer,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Oshkosh B'Gosh, Inc. is a manufacturer of apparel for babies and
children, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jon D. Meer, Esq.
         Leo Q. Li, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 lli@seyfarth.com

                - and –

         John W. Drury, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: jdrury@seyfarth.com

CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION: Edens Files Suit Over Poor Service
--------------------------------------------------------
CHERI MICHELLE EDENS, and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, LLC, CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS
I, LLC, CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS II, LLC, each d/b/a Suddenlink
Communications, and ALTICE USA, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00101
(S.D. W.Va., Feb. 28, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, reckless and willful conduct,
declaratory judgment and unenforceable contract, unjust enrichment
and quasi contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, injunction, and violation of the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Public Service Commission of West
Virginia found on February 9, 2022 that Suddenlink "failed to
provide safe, adequate and reliable service to its West Virginia
subscribers by, inter alia, intentionally reducing its maintenance
work and maintenance budget, reducing full-time employees, changing
its methods of communicating with its subscribers and ignoring the
thousands of customer complaints that resulted." This finding
followed numerous complaints concerning Defendants' wholly
inadequate service that has severely damaged the ability of West
Virginians to engage in commercial competition, obtain information,
communicate, and enjoy entertainment in a digital age. The impact
of those failures was significantly magnified when many West
Virginians were required to engage in remote learning or work using
Defendants' inadequate services, says the suit.

Because as a practical matter any improvement in Defendants'
services to Plaintiff would necessarily benefit other Suddenlink
customers, the filing of this action is necessary to provide
Plaintiff complete relief against Defendants, the suit added.

Ms. Edens has been a customer of Suddenlink since April 2020.

Suddenlink Communications is an American telecommunications
subsidiary of Altice USA, trading in cable television, broadband,
IP telephony, home security, and advertising.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
          THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
          716 Lee St. E.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 344-9322
          Facsimile: (304) 344-1157
          E-mail: rusty@rustywebb.com

               - and -

          Dennis C. Taylor, Esq.
          FRANKLIN SCOTT CONWAY LLP
          831 Fourth Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 586-9847
          Facsimile: (800) 727-0659
          E-mail dennis@fsc.legal

               - and -

          Talcott J. Franklin, Esq.
          FRANKLIN SCOTT CONWAY LLP
          1629 K St NW #300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 688-3200
          Facsimile: (800) 727-0659
          E-mail: tal@fsc.legal

CERENCE INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Cerence Inc.
("Cerence" or the "Company") common stock (Nasdaq: CRNC) between
February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Cerence common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the action by no later than April 26, 2022.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any
recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of
whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff
Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Cerence investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, or
text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Cerence Securities Class Litigation

Cerence, headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts, builds
artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants primarily for
the automotive market. The Company was created on October 1, 2019,
as a tax-free spinoff from Nuance Communications, Inc. Throughout
the Class Period, Cerence emphasized its positive guidance for
fiscal 2024, when the restrictions in its use of Nuance's
intellectual property rights and data are slated to end.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) demand for Cerence's software licenses was negatively impacted
by the global shortage in semiconductor devices which caused a
decline in auto-manufacturing; (2) the Company was "pulling
forward" or "pre-banking" license sales to mask these issues; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Cerence's positive guidance for
fiscal years 2022 and 2024 lacked any reasonable basis in fact.

On November 22, 2021, the Company released its results for the
fiscal fourth quarter and full-year 2021, which included fiscal
year 2022 guidance well below analysts' expectations. At that time,
the Company maintained its position of a fiscal year 2024 guidance
of $700 million. On this news, the price of Cerence common stock
fell 20% from its closing price of $104.06 on November 19, 2021 to
$82.59 the next trading day, November 22, 2021, on unusually high
trading volume. Cerence's stock price continued to fall the
following day, closing at $78.27 on November 23, 2021, also on
elevated trading volume.

On December 15, 2021, the Company announced that its CEO Sanjay
Dhawan had resigned the day prior. On the news, the price of
Cerence common stock fell an additional 11%, from its closing price
of $78.08, to close at $69.20 on December 15, 2021, on very high
trading volume.

On February 7, 2022, the Company announced its financial results
for the first fiscal quarter of 2022 and the surprise retirement of
CFO Mark Gallenberger, effective March 11, 2022. During a
conference call with analysts that day, Cerence's new CEO, Stefan
Ortmanns, revealed that "the conversion from bookings to revenue
will take longer than expected" and that the Company was
withdrawing its 2024 target financial model. On this news, the
price of Cerence common stock fell by more than 30%, from its
closing price of $63.58 on February 4, 2022, to close at $43.61 on
February 7, 2022, on extremely elevated trading volume.

                    About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, and Munich, is an
internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide
for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting
that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of
the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world."
Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10
Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]

CHEROKEE CONTRACTORS: Louvierre Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA & NMMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LOUVIERRE, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. CHEROKEE CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-00173 (D.N.M., March 7, 2022) is a class and collective
action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from Cherokee under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Louvierre worked for Cherokee as an Inspector in and around New
Mexico and Iowa. Louvierre and the other Day Rate Inspectors' (as
defined below) job duties included inspecting the interstate
pipelines to ensure the safe transportation of goods.

Louvierre and the other Day Rate Inspectors regularly work in
excess of 40 hours each. Instead of paying proper overtime,
Cherokee paid Louvierre and other Day Rate week Inspectors a flat
amount for each day worked (a "day rate") that Cherokee disguises
as an hourly rate plus overtime compensation when they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA and the
NMMWA, the lawsuit says.

Cherokee never paid Louvierre and the Day Rate Inspectors a
guaranteed salary, the lawsuit adds.

Cherokee "specializes in managed staffing services supporting the
energy sector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Faces Tessanne Suit Over First Amendment Right
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Tessanne and Richard Brimer, on their own behalf and on
behalf of the class similarly situated v. Children's Hospital
Medical Center of Akron, Case No. 5:22-cv-00354-JRA (N.D. Ohio,
March 3, 2022) alleges that Defendant violates the Plaintiffs'
First Amendment Right to freely exercise their religion.

The Defendant allegedly failed to engage in a meaningful
interactive process to determine whether reasonable accommodations
could be made to ensure the Plaintiffs could freely exercise their
religious beliefs and thus decline the experimental SARS-CoV-2
injection(s) after the Defendant mandated the injections due to the
rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.


The Defendant placed Plaintiffs on leave without pay unless and
until Plaintiffs comply by receiving the experimental injection,
with the expectation that the Plaintiffs will be terminated
officially at the end of February 2022.

Courageous front-line workers at Akron Children's Hospital were
exposed to SARS-CoV-2 daily for the past two years. This exposure
led to robust natural immunity which allowed them to continue to
serve the community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) has recognized that those who have recovered from SARS-COV-2
have more protection against infection than those who have only
been vaccinated. Employees who sought religious exemptions for
sincerely held religious belief grounds have been flatly rejected
by Akron Children's Hospital, says the suit.

Children's Hospital has committed religious discrimination against
them. On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) published an interim final rule (IFR) requiring
healthcare workers at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement to be vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 by January 4,
2022. Twenty-four states sued CMS to enjoin enforcement of the IFR
in U.S. federal district courts in Louisiana and Missouri. Ohio
joined the Louisiana lawsuit. The district courts enjoined the IFR,
the Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals upheld the
injunctions. Then, CMS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which
ruled for CMS January 13, 2022.

Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron operates as a
non-profit healthcare system for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Warner Mendenhall, Esq.
          Brian Unger, Esq
          MENDENHALL LAW GROUP
          190 North Union St., Suite 201
          Akron, OH 44304
          Telephone: (330) 535-9160
          Facsimile: (330) 762-9743
          E-mail: warner@warnermendenhall.com
                  brian@warnermendenhall.com

CIOX HEALTH: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2nd Amended Deming Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RYAN DEMING; BRIANA FRAISER; MICHAEL McFARLAND; LUCAS
GRISWOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC; ST. JAMES
HEALTHCARE; SCL HEALTH-MONTANA, DBA St. Vincent Healthcare; BOZEMAN
HEALTH DEACONESS HOSPITAL; KALISPELL REGIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC.; RCHP BILLINGS-MISSOULA, LLC, DBA Community Medical Center,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-35744 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order dismissing the operative second amended complaint, without
leave to amend, for failure to state a claim.

I. Background

Invoking diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), the Plaintiffs brought the putative
class action challenging, under Montana law, the charges that
Defendant Ciox imposed for delivering electronic medical records
pursuant to its contracts with several Montana health-care
providers, who were also named as Defendants. The district court
dismissed the operative second amended complaint, without leave to
amend, for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed, and the Ninth Circuit has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

II. Discussion

1.

The Plaintiffs' first cause of action alleges that the charges
imposed by Ciox violated Montana Code Annotated Section 50-16-816.

The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that Section
50-16-816 does not apply to the challenged charges. The relevant
chapter of the Montana Code contains two separate parts that
address the provision of health care information, namely, "Part 5"
and "Part 8." Part 5 was enacted prior to Part 8 and, in its
current form, it applies to health care providers that are not
subject to the privacy provisions of the federal Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Part 8, by contrast,
applies "only to health care providers subject to" HIPAA's privacy
protections.

The Plaintiffs' first cause of action contends that the Defendants
violated the reasonable fee limitation in Section 50-16-816 when
they charged excessive fees for delivering the Plaintiffs' medical
records upon their written request or for delivery to third parties
(specifically, the Plaintiffs' attorneys or the attorneys' agents
or employees). Thus, even though Part 8 -- unlike Part 5 -- does
not contain provisions specifically authorizing a "reasonable fee,"
not to exceed the specified limits, when such records are (1)
requested by the patient or (2) authorized to be delivered to a
third party, the Plaintiffs contend that those specified limits on
fees should be deemed to apply anyway.

The Ninth Circuit holds that this argument ignores the text,
structure, and context of the relevant statutory provisions, and it
would improperly rewrite Part 8 by reading into it the directly
analogous provisions of Part 5 that the Montana Legislature
conspicuously omitted. The phrase is more naturally read as simply
a conforming amendment acknowledging that, in copying Part 5's fee
limitations from Section 50-16-540 into Part 8's Section 50-16-816,
the Montana Legislature did not purport to override any applicable
federal law. The phrase cannot reasonably be read as instead
undoing the careful distinctions that the Legislature made in
crafting the directly analogous provisions of Part 5 and Part 8.

Accordingly, the district court correctly held that the limitations
of Section 50-16-816 only apply in the context of a subpoena for
patient records as described in Section 50-16-812(5). Because,
under the facts as pleaded, the delivery of the Plaintiffs' records
did not involve compulsory process, the fee limitations in Section
50-16-816 do not apply. The first cause of action was therefore
properly dismissed.

2.

The district court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs'
related claims that Defendants violated the Montana Consumer
Protection Act ("MCPA"), MONT. CODE ANN. Section 30-14-101 et seq.,
and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

An "unfair act or practice" in violation of the MCPA "is one which
offends established public policy and which is either immoral,
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to
consumers." Given that the Montana Legislature specifically
declined to apply the statutory "reasonable fee" limitations to the
Plaintiffs' circumstances, they have failed to establish any
plausible basis for concluding that requiring HIPAA-regulated
health care providers to charge "reasonable fees" for medical
records is an "established public policy" in Montana or that the
Defendants acted unfairly. The Plaintiffs have failed to plead a
violation of the MCPA.

The Plaintiffs also allege that Ciox's charges violated Montana
Code Annotated Section 28-1-211, which provides that "the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires honesty in fact
and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair
dealing in the trade." Under Montana law, every contract contains
this implied covenant.

The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of this
claim because the Plaintiffs cannot "circumvent a statute" --
namely, the carefully drawn provisions of Part 8 -- "through a
theory of implied contract and implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing." Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient
facts to establish that there was a relevant contract between the
Plaintiffs and the providers or between the Plaintiffs and Ciox.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any plausible basis
for curing these various deficiencies, the district court properly
dismissed the operative complaint without leave to amend.

III. Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ahz4m9v from Leagle.com.


CITIZENS INSURANCE: Wins Judgment on the Pleadings in Tsakos Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TSAKOS, INC. t/a HANOVER MANOR, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-8889
(ES) (CLW) (D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

I. Background

The putative class action is yet another of the many analogous
cases filed in the District, and in courts throughout the country,
by an insured seeking coverage under its commercial insurance
policy for alleged losses caused by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
and government measures taken in response.

Plaintiff Tsakos, trading as Hanover Manor, is a family-owned
catering business which operates the Hanover Manor, a large event
venue in East Hanover, New Jersey. When the state of New Jersey and
other state governments issued stay-at-home and business-shutdown
orders throughout 2020 to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the
Plaintiff had to close its facility and cease operations.

The Plaintiff maintains "the result of these far-reaching
restrictions and prohibitions has been catastrophic for most
non-essential businesses, who have been forced to close, furlough
employees, and endure a sudden shutdown of cash flow that threatens
their survival." It likewise maintains it "suffered a direct
physical loss of and damage to its property" because it was unable
to use the property for its intended purpose.

To recoup losses in income and other expenses incurred, the
Plaintiff sought to recover under its all-risk commercial property
insurance policy, Policy No. ZBY D131d3, issued by the Defendant
for the policy period Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 1, 2021. The
Policy broadly provides that the Defendant "will pay for direct
physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises
described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any
Covered Cause of Loss." The applicable Causes of Loss-Special Form
defines Covered Causes of Loss to mean "direct physical loss unless
the loss is excluded or limited in this policy."

The Policy also provides for what is known as "business
interruption insurance," which encompasses certain additional
coverage for lost business income and extra expenses incurred.
Under these coverage provisions, the Defendant will pay for lost
"Business Income" and "Extra Expense" incurred "due to the
necessary 'suspension' of" business operations. In yet another
provision, the Policy extends the Business Income and Extra Expense
coverage to circumstances where action of a "Civil Authority"
"prohibits access to the Covered Property due to direct physical
loss of or damage to property, other than at the Covered Property,
caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss."

Notwithstanding the foregoing coverage, the Policy expressly
contains an "Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria."

By way of letter dated June 11, 2020, the Defendant denied the
Plaintiff's claim for coverage under the Business Income, Extra
Expense, and Civil Authority provisions for losses sustained from
the Closure Orders.

On July 14, 2020, the Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated entities with coverage under an all-risk
commercial property insurance policy issued by the Defendant, filed
this putative class action.

The Plaintiff brings three breach of contract claims, asserting
that the Defendant breached its obligations to provide coverage
under the Policy's business income, civil authority, and extra
expense provisions. The Plaintiff brings an additional three claims
seeking declarations that "losses incurred in connection with the
Closure Orders and the necessary interruption of their businesses
stemming from those Orders are covered losses" under these same
three provisions.

The Plaintiff brings all claims individually and on behalf of a
proposed national class and New Jersey sub-class of businesses with
the same insurance policy "who have suffered losses due to measures
put in place by civil authorities' stay-at-home or shelter-in-place
orders since March 15, 2020."

On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendant filed an answer to the Complaint. On
March 12, 2021, the Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings
on all six claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c). The motion is now fully briefed and ripe for determination.
The Court is also in receipt of the Defendant's supplemental
authorities and the Plaintiff's response thereto.

II. Discussion

The Defendant primarily argues that it is entitled to a judgment on
the pleadings because (i) the Plaintiff has failed to establish
that its claim falls within the scope of the Policy because it has
failed to allege any physical loss of or damage to its insured
property; and (ii) the Policy's Virus Exclusion precludes coverage
for losses caused by the COVID-19 virus, including losses resulting
from COVID-19-related Closure Orders.

In response, the Plaintiff argues (i) the inability to use its
insured property for its intended purpose, regardless of whether
the property suffered physical damage or alteration, constitutes a
"direct physical loss" covered under the Policy; and (ii) the
Policy's Virus Exclusion does not operate to bar the Plaintiff's
claims because the Closure Orders, not the COVID-19 virus itself,
were the "efficient proximate cause" of its losses.

Judge Salas opines that the Virus Exclusion does not contain an
anti-concurrent clause that would exclude coverage regardless of
the sequence of events leading up to the Plaintiff's losses.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that the Closure Orders were
necessarily the efficient proximate cause of those losses merely
because they were last in a series of events which lead to the
closure of the Plaintiff's business. It is indisputable that the
Closure Orders were issued solely to mitigate the spread of
COVID-19, "and would not have been issued but for the presence of
the virus in the State of New Jersey." The Plaintiff likewise
acknowledges this connection in its Complaint by alleging that the
Closure Orders were issued "to protect the health and safety of
their residents from the human to human and surface to human spread
of COVID-19."

To that end, and consistent with the ever-growing list of courts
within and outside this District that have analyzed similar or
identical virus exclusions, Judge Salas finds that the COVID-19
virus and Closure Orders were not two separate, independent events
contributing to a loss, but rather were inextricably intertwined,
such that the latter were entirely dependent and preconditioned on
the existence of the former. The predominant and proximate cause of
the Plaintiff's business-related losses is therefore the COVID-19
virus, not the Closure Orders that were issued in response thereto.
As such, the Virus Exclusion completely bars coverage for the
Plaintiff's losses.

III. Conclusion

Judge Salas understands and is sympathetic to the Plaintiff's
circumstances. The Plaintiff, like countless others, has suffered
enormous loss as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening not
just the Plaintiff's livelihood, but the continued vibrance and
success of our local communities. Notwithstanding this reality,
however, Judge Salas is not free to rewrite the terms of the Policy
and is obligated to enforce the terms thereof as written.

Accordingly, for the reasons she stated, Judge Salas granted the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed the
Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. An appropriate Order
accompanies her Opinion.

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


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Tapia Sues Over Mislabeled Product's Flavor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Tapia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-01362-LB (N.D.
Cal., March 3, 2022) alleges that Fanta brand's front label is
misleading because it states, "100% Natural Flavors" because the
malic acid used is a synthetic ingredient which contributes to the
Product's flavor.

According to the complaint, though the ingredients listed include
"Natural Flavor," they also include "Malic Acid," which renders the
statement of "100% Natural Flavors" false and misleading because
the malic acid used is a synthetic ingredient. The Defendant
designates the ingredient by its generic name, "Malic Acid,"
instead of by its specific name, "DL-Malic Acid."

The Defendant allegedly markets the Product with the prominent
statement, "100% Natural Flavors," above the word, "berry," and
picture of five blueberries and a raspberry containing its stem and
leaves, and two red drops purporting to be from the raspberry.

By identifying the Product as having "100% Natural Flavors," with
pictures of blueberries and a raspberry, consumers expect only
natural flavors, because that is what the label says. Defendant had
the option to add naturally extracted L-Malic Acid, naturally
manufactured acid such as Citric Acid, or natural blueberry or
raspberry flavor to the Product, but intentionally used artificial
DL-Malic Acid because it was likely cheaper or more accurately
resembled natural flavors than Citric Acid or other acids.

Since there are natural and artificial types of malic acid,
laboratory analysis is required to identify which type was used in
the Product. Laboratory analysis concluded the Product contains the
artificial, DL-malic acid, instead of natural, L-malic acid, the
suit added.

Coca-Cola manufactures, distributes, markets, labels, and sells
berry flavored carbonated beverages under the Fanta brand (the
"Product").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COMMUNICARE INC: Jeffreys Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, OMFWSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEJEL JEFFREYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNICARE, INC., COMMUNICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
and COMMUNICARE CARES II, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00371-SL (N.D.
Ohio, March 7, 2022) is a collective action due to the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for the hours they worked over 40
each workweek and for all hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that she and other similarly-situated
employees regularly worked over 40 hours per week. She worked on
average approximately 60-80 hours per workweek. She adds that they
were not paid overtime compensation for all the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants operate skilled nursing centers throughout the
United States. The Defendants have employed Plaintiff as a state
tested nursing assistant (STNA) at its Wyant Woods Care Center
facility since October 2020.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CONDUENT INC: ERSPREPA Wins Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY v. CONDUENT,
INC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-08237-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order as follows:

  -- granting the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification and certifying Lead Plaintiff's proposed
     Class;

     "All persons who purchased Conduent Inc. common stock on
     the open market on a United States stock exchange between
     February 21, 2018 and November 6, 2018, inclusive (the
     "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby. Excluded
     from the Class are (1) Conduent, Inc. and its officers,
     directors, employees, affiliates, legal representatives,
     predecessors, successors and assigns, and any entity in
     which any of them have a controlling interest or are a
     parent; and (2) Defendants, their immediate families,
     employees, affiliates, legal representatives, heirs,
     predecessors, successors and assigns, and any entity in
     which any of them has a controlling interest;"

  -- appointing Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
     System, Plymouth County Retirement Association, and
     Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. as
     Class Representatives; and

  -- appointing Bernstein Liebhard LLP and Thornton Law Firm LLP
     as Class Counsel.

Conduent is an American business services provider company
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35YeUCJ at no extra charge.[CC]

DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Machine Repair Services Market, Hapka Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPKA FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00503 (D. Minn., Feb. 28, 2022) is an
antitrust class action pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act brought by Plaintiff Hapka Farms, Inc., seeking to represent
those persons and entities who purchased repair services from
Defendant Deere and Co. and Deere-affiliated independent
Dealerships and technicians in the Deere Repair Services Market for
Deere agricultural equipment from January 10, 2018, to the
present.

The complaint alleges that Deere forced farmers to pay
supra-competitive prices for Deere Repair Services through its
monopolistic practices and its anticompetitive contractual
restrictions imposed on its dealerships. Although Deere has
publicly promised to "voluntarily [make] repair" tools, software
guides, and diagnostic equipment available for ordinary farmers to
purpose beginning January 1, 2021, it has failed to do so and its
unlawful conduct has continued to foreclose competition, to the
enormous detriment of farmers throughout the United States, says
the suit.

As a result of Deere's unlawful withholding of the necessary
software to perform repairs from farmers and independent repair
shops and its forced consolidation of the dealerships, Plaintiff
and the Class paid artificially inflated prices for Deere Repair
Services during the Class Period. Prices in the Repair Services
Market exceeded the amount they would have paid if the prices had
been determined by a competitive market. Plaintiff and Class
members were therefore injured by Defendant's conduct, adds the
suit.

Plaintiff Hapka Farms, Inc. owns one John Deere Tractor, leases
another John Deere Tractor, owns a self-propelled John Deere
Sprayer, and custom hires up to four John Deere Combines with
engine control units.

Deere & Co. manufactures and distributes a range of agricultural,
construction, forestry, and commercial and consumer equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

DENVER, CO: Bid for Summary Judgment in Epps Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELISABETH EPPS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY AND COUNTY
OF DENVER, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01878-RBJ,
Consolidated With No. 1:20-cv-01922-RBJ (D. Colo.), Judge R. Brooke
Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants City and County of Denver, Officer Jonathan
Christian, and Officer Keith Valentine.

I. Background

The case is a consolidation of claims arising from police-protestor
interactions during demonstrations following George Floyd's murder.
The instant motion seeks summary judgment on all claims against the
Denver defendants. The relevant claims fall into three categories.

First are class action claims against the City and County of
Denver. These claims arise from an Emergency Curfew (curfew)
imposed by the Mayor of Denver on May 30, 2020 after three days of
protests. The curfew, which was eventually extended through June 5,
prohibited all persons from "using, standing, sitting, traveling or
being present on any public street or in any public place," with a
few limited exceptions, from 8:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. The
Plaintiffs, who were arrested and detained pursuant to the curfew
but not charged with any other violations, brought a putative class
action alleging that the curfew and its enforcement violated their
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The Court certified a class consisting of "protesters who (1)
between May 30 and June 5, 2020; (2) were arrested for violation of
D.R.M.C. 1-13 (emergency curfew) or D.R.M.C. 38-31(c) (failure to
obey lawful order); (3) were not charged with any other violations;
and (4) whose charges were dismissed."

The second category of claims seeks damages from the City and
County of Denver for alleged policies that caused violations of
plaintiffs' First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. These
municipal liability claims -- also called Monell claims after
Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) -- allege
a slew of rights-violative policies and practices. Evidence for
these policies and practices includes observations of their use
during the protests and statements by Denver Police Department
(DPD) personnel that all police actions taken during the protests
were consistent with departmental policies.

The final category of claims alleges that two individual DPD
officers, Jonathan Christian and Keith Valentine, violated
Plaintiff Elizabeth Epps' First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights when they hit her with pepperballs. Ms. Epps alleges that
Officer Christian shot her with pepperballs "without any warning or
justification while she was documenting the protests and isolated
on a public street." She alleges that Officer Valentine struck her
with a pepperball when he improperly fired into a crowd. The
Defendants argue that qualified immunity bars these claims.

The matter is before the Court on the Denver Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

II. Discussion

A. Class Plaintiffs

The class plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by arresting and/or
detaining them pursuant to the curfew. They argue that the curfew
and its enforcement illegally infringed upon their right to freedom
of expression, that their arrests for violating the curfew were
unconstitutional seizures, and that the Defendants' allegedly
selective enforcement of the curfew constituted an improper
classification in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection Clause. The Defendants respond that undisputed evidence
shows that the curfew withstands constitutional scrutiny and, in
any case, plaintiffs are not entitled to relief because arrests
were made with probable cause.

1. Defining the Curfew

The parties' dispute the curfew's content and Denver's policies
surrounding curfew enforcement.

Judge Jackson concludes that both versions of the curfew are
supported by the record. A reasonable jury could accept defendants'
claim that the policy was a "neutral curfew," but it could also
accept plaintiffs' "protest-targeted curfew" description or
plaintiffs' claims of selective enforcement. Internal DPD
communications, which a jury might find persuasive, support the
Plaintiffs' story. Because he must construe all evidence in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiffs at this stage, Judge Jackson
analyzes whether the protest-targeted curfew passes constitutional
scrutiny.

2. First Amendment Claims

The parties agree that the Plaintiffs engaged in protected First
Amendment activity and that the curfew, by closing all public
places, impacted traditional public fora. Judge Jackson applies a
three-step inquiry to decide whether the government violated a
plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The plaintiff must first
establish that his activities were protected by the First
Amendment. If they were, the Court must "identify whether the
challenged restrictions impact a public or nonpublic forum, because
that determination dictates the extent to which the government can
restrict First Amendment activities within the forum." Finally, the
Court determines whether a policy is content-based or
content-neutral and then applies the requisite standard of review
to the government's proffered justification for prohibiting
plaintiff's speech.

Judge Jackson cannot conclude that the protest-targeted curfew was
the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest.
First, the government has not argued that its curfew was the least
restrictive means—it argued only that the curfew survived First
Amendment scrutiny if construed as a content-neutral restriction.
Moreover, it is plausible that the government could have achieved
its aims while imposing a less onerous burden on speech. The
protest-targeted curfew therefore does not survive First Amendment
scrutiny.

The neutral curfew, however, would survive First Amendment
scrutiny. Judge Jackson finds that it would have been
content-neutral and thus permissible even if it were not the least
restrictive or intrusive means of advancing the government's
interest. The neutral curfew would have been narrowly tailored in
the sense required for content-neutral restrictions and would have
left open ample alternative channels for communications by allowing
daytime protests. As a result, to succeed on their First Amendment
claim at trial, the Plaintiffs must prove that Denver's policy was
a curfew for protestors but not for anyone else, the order's text
notwithstanding. Judge Jackson finds that the Plaintiffs have
presented sufficient evidence to potentially carry this burden at
trial, and there therefore exists a genuine dispute of material
fact about the content of Denver's curfew policy.

3. Fourteenth Amendment

The Plaintiffs claim that Denver's curfew enforcement policies
violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection clause. For this claim, they argue that even if the
curfew was content-neutral, Denver adopted a policy of
discriminatory enforcement that targeted protestors because of
their speech. The Defendants dispute the existence of such a
selective enforcement policy. They argue that not all protestors
were arrested, and there was at least one instance in which a
non-protestor was arrested.

Judge Jackson found that a reasonable jury could conclude that
Denver had adopted a speech-based discriminatory enforcement
policy. The only remaining question is whether this factual dispute
is material. In other words, would the discriminatory enforcement
policy described by the Plaintiffs affect their right to relief
under the Fourteenth Amendment? He holds that the discriminatory
enforcement policy described by the Plaintiffs would suffice for
Fourteenth Amendment liability under the Defendants' standard. The
question of whether Denver adopted a protest-targeted enforcement
policy is thus a genuine dispute of material fact.

4. Fourth Amendment

The Defendants argue that, even if the curfew was unconstitutional,
arrests for violating the curfew could not have violated the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and
seizure because the arrests were supported by probable cause.

Judge Jackson agrees. He explains that many courts have found that
officers should be excused from liability under a statute they
reasonably believed to be valid at the time of arrest. Although
these sources deal with officer liability, he finds the underlying
principle persuasive. Because the Plaintiffs did not respond to
this argument or provide alternative authority, Judge Jackson finds
no genuine dispute of material fact and dismisses the Fourth
Amendment class action claims.

B. Monell Claims

The Plaintiffs' municipal liability claims against the City and
County of Denver require (1) a city policy or custom; and (2) a
causal link "between the policy or custom and the injury alleged."
"A municipal policy or custom may take the form of (1) 'a formal
regulation or policy statement'; (2) an informal custom 'amounting
to a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written
law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled
as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law'; (3) 'the
decisions of employees with final policymaking authority'; (4) 'the
ratification by such final policymakers of the decisions -- and the
basis for them -- of subordinates to whom authority was delegated';
or (5) the 'failure to adequately train or supervise employees, so
long as that failure results from deliberate indifference to the
injuries that may be caused.'"

1. Fourth Amendment Claims

The Plaintiffs claim that Denver's policies deprived them of their
Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable seizures.
Claims that police used excessive force during a seizure are
analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. The
Defendants do not dispute that the Plaintiffs have sufficient
evidence to sustain a Fourth Amendment claim; they argue only that
the two Monell factors -- policy and causation -- are not met.

Judge Jackson finds there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find
in the Plaintiffs' favor on the Fourth Amendment Monell claim. To
prove the existence of a policy, the Plaintiffs present expert
witness reports identifying numerous DPD policies and customs. The
Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to support this
causal claim. The Defendants are correct that Denver's alleged
failure to discipline officers cannot be said to have caused an
injury, but the Plaintiffs do not seek to introduce evidence of the
policy for this purpose. The Plaintiffs present evidence of failure
to discipline as proof that specific policies existed -- at least
one DPD officer testified that "if a DPD officer is not
disciplined, that shows that they were acting within policy."

2. First Amendment Claims

The Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim requires proof of
three elements: (1) constitutionally protected activity; (2)
government conduct that chills the protected activity; and (3)
motive. The Defendants contest only the third element -- they argue
that the Plaintiffs cannot raise a genuine dispute of material fact
on the question of whether the Defendants' activities were
"substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise
of constitutionally protected conduct."

Judge Jackson disagrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs argue that "a
factual dispute exists as to whether officers' actions were
motivated, at least in part, by their protected activity." They
present evidence that they did not engage in destructive activity,
and that many officers used force in situations that support an
inference of retaliatory motive, such as tear gassing kneeling
protestors chanting "Hands Up Don't Shoot" or shooting a plaintiff
through her "Black Lives Matter" sign. Denver's allegedly
permissive policies regarding officers' use of less-lethal
munitions could have caused retaliatory uses of force. The
Defendants' contention that officer actions were motivated by a
legitimate need to respond to violent protestors may be true, but
that is for a jury to decide. Hence, the Plaintiffs' First
Amendment Monell claim survives summary judgment.

3. Fourteenth Amendment Claims

Although the Plaintiffs are permitted to bring excessive force
claims under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause for uses
of force that do not fall under the Fourth Amendment's "searches
and seizures" requirement, the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment
claims are no longer at issue. Based on statements by the counsel
during the trial preparation conference held on Feb. 23, 2022,
Judge Jackson understands that the Plaintiffs pursued their
Fourteenth Amendment claims only in case the Defendants argued that
Denver's actions were not withing the Fourth Amendment's ambit
because, regardless of the actions' unreasonableness, the
Plaintiffs were not seized. The Defendants represented that they
would make no such argument -- if the evidence shows that Denver
and its employees' actions constituted unreasonable and/or
excessive force, the Defendants will not seek to evade liability
because the unreasonable and/or excessive force was not applied
during the course of a seizure. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment
claims are therefore moot.

C. Individual Defendants

Plaintiff Elizabeth Epps brings Fourth, Fourteenth, and First
Amendment claims against Officers Jonathan Christian and Keith
Valentine in their individual capacities. Ms. Epps claims that
Officer Christian shot her with a pepperball while she was
livestreaming video of the police. According to Ms. Epps, Officer
Christian shot her without warning or justification. She claims
that Officer Valentine shot her in the face with a pepperball the
next day while she peacefully protested. She alleges that Officer
Valentine fired in retaliation when a different protestor threw a
water bottle, but he did not give any warnings and took no
precautions to ensure that he would not injure innocent bystanders
-- Ms. Epps claims that Officer Valentine fired several rounds at
face-level.

The Defendants respond that Officers Christian and Valentine are
entitled to qualified immunity. "Qualified immunity balances two
important interests -- the need to hold public officials
accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to
shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when
they perform their duties reasonably."

First, Judge Jackson holds that Officer Christian is not entitled
to qualified immunity. He finds that the law was clearly
established that an officer cannot shoot a protestor with
pepperballs when that protestor is committing no crime more serious
than a misdemeanor, not threatening anyone, and not attempting to
flee. Ms. Epps's allegation is that she posed no threat and was not
attempting to flee, but she was shot by a pepperball nonetheless.
It was clearly established that such a use of force is illegal, and
qualified immunity is thus denied.

Regarding Ms. Epps' First Amendment retaliation claim, "it has long
been clearly established that the First Amendment bars retaliation
for protected speech and association." Because Ms. Epps alleges she
was doing nothing but filming the events and, through her presence,
protesting police violence, Judge Jackson finds a genuine dispute
of material fact over whether Officer Christian shot Ms. Epps in
retaliation for protected speech and association.

Next, Judge Jackson holds that he cannot find that Officer
Valentine's actions violated clearly established law. He finds that
the Plaintiffs have provided no authority clearly establishing that
it violates the constitution for an officer to fail to give warning
to those standing behind an aggressive individual before firing at
that individual, or that an officer violates the constitutional
rights of those standing behind a threatening individual by aiming
too high and being a poor shot. Officer Valentine is thus entitled
to qualified immunity.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Jackson granted Denver's motion
for summary judgment as to Officer Valentine, granted as to the
Fourth Amendment class action claims, and denied as to all other
claims and the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bde23bf2 from Leagle.com.


DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Gile SeekS to Continue Class Cert. Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; RANDOLPH
GALLEGOS, an Hon. Mark C. Scarsi individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC., a
Tennessee limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs apply ex parte for an extension of:

   (1) the deadline to file motion for class certification,

   (2) the related briefing schedule dates,

   (3) the hearing date on the motion, and

   (4) other cut-off dates by approximately 60 days.

On September 14, 2021, the Court entered its Order Setting Revised
Class Certification Dates. The class certification briefing and
hearing schedule currently requires the Parties to file class
certification motion, opposition, and reply on March 25, 2022,
April 15, 2022, and May 6, 2022, respectively, with a hearing date
on the motion on May 30, 2022.

On November 15, 2021, the Court entered its Order denying the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On December 6, 2021, the
Defendant filed its Notice of Appeal of that Order. On December 6,
2021, Defendant filed its Motion to Stay Trial Court Proceedings
Pending the Appeal. On January 14, 2022, the Court issued its Order
Denying Motion to Stay.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/378E6Hb at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          Craig S. Momita, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG
          & TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
          E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
                  alfredo@aswtlawyers.com
                  craig@aswtlawyers.com

The Defendant Dolgen is represented by:

          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Joel S. Allen, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  jallen@mcguirewoods.com

EPIQ SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Karter Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN KARTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., a Missouri corporation, and EPIQ CLASS ACTION &
CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC., a Rhode Island corporation, Case No.
8:20-cv-01385-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered an order granting joint request to extend deadlines for
discovery and certain other case deadlines as follows:

  1. The deadline to substantially complete     April 4, 2022
     document productions (including both
     for merits and class discovery),
     shall be:

  2. The deadline to complete all fact          May 16, 2022
     discovery, including depositions shall
     be:

  3. The deadline to serve any opening          June 4, 2022
     expert reports shall be:

  4. The deadline to serve any rebuttal         July 1, 2022
     reports shall be:

  5. The deadline to complete all expert        July 25, 2022
     discovery, including depositions
     shall be:

  6. The deadline to file and have              July 25, 2022
     heard all discovery motions shall
     be:

  7. The parties shall have until               August 7, 2022
     to conduct settlement
     proceedings.

  8. The deadline to file and have              Sept. 22, 2022
     heard all other motions,
     including dispositive motions,
     motions to join or amend the
     pleadings, or a motion for
     class certification shall be:

  9. A pretrial conference will be              Jan. 9, 2023
     held on:

10. The case is set for a jury trial:          Jan. 17, 2023

Epiq develops, markets, licenses, and supports proprietary software
products for bankruptcy trustees on a national basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34bjeOi at no extra charge.[CC]


EQUITABLE PRODUCTION: Can't Enforce Class Settlement in Kay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE KAY COMPANY, LLC; DIANE DILE GREEN, individually
and attorney-in-fact for the heirs of Luther E. Kile; THE H. A.
ROBSON TRUST; EDWIN N. VINSON, beneficiary and trustee of the H.A.
Robson Trust; DAVID H. DAUGHERTY, trustee of the H.A. Robson Trust;
MARY BLAIR V. CHAPUISAT, beneficiary of the H.A. Robson Trust; H.
DOTSON CATHER, trustee of Diana Goff Cather Trusts; CLYDE EMERSON
McCLUNG, individually; JAMES E. HAMRIC, III, individually,
Plaintiffs, and MARCUS HUEY; ESTATE OF JAMES ROBERT HUEY; KENNETH
HUEY; RICHARD HUEY; BARBARA HUEY; JOHN HUEY; LAURA MAYNARD,
executrix of the estate of Jean Gould, deceased; WEST-GRUBB, LLC;
STONEY MEADOWS, LLC; SARABETH LAMM; JAMES G. WEST, LLC; CAPTAIN
PERRY, LLC; JENNIE G. WEST, LLC; JENNIE'S LEGACY, INC.; J.B. WEST,
LLC; BRENT LAMBIOTTE; CHARLES LAMBIOTTE; JEAN LAMBIOTTE PIGGOTT,
Intervenors/Plaintiffs-Appellees v. EQUITABLE PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
qualified Pennsylvania Corporation; EQUITABLE RESOURCES, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants-Appellants, and STATOIL NORTH
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; STATOIL ENERGY, INC., a
Virginia corporation; STATOIL ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ASHLAND OIL, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 21-1614 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of EQT's motion
to enforce the final judgment order and final order.

I. Background

The appeal involves a motion to enforce the final judgment and
final order in a class action settlement made in the district court
by the Defendant in the class action, Appellants EQT Production Co.
and Equitable Resources, Inc., (collectively, EQT), and the class
members and Appellees, the "Huey Plaintiffs." Three years after
entry of the final judgment and final order, the Huey Plaintiffs
filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Wetzel County, West
Virginia (the Wetzel County litigation) against EQT, alleging that
EQT trespassed on their mineral estate in violation of West
Virginia statutory and common law.

In that case, the Huey Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
EQT trespassed on their mineral estate, which the Huey Plaintiffs,
at some point, leased to EQT by the Hoge Lease. The Hoge Lease,
entered into in 1900, included a habendum and cessation clause
which provided that the lease was to have an initial term of five
years and would continue to be held open "as long after the
commencement of operations as said premises are operated for the
production of oil or gas."  The Huey Plaintiffs were under the
belief that the Hoge Lease was held open for production from 1935
to 2014 only by one well, EQT Well #1785.

The Wetzel County complaint alleges that EQT approached the Huey
Plaintiffs in 2010 with proposed amendments to the Hoge Lease. The
Huey Plaintiffs allege that their investigation and discovery in
2017 revealed that Well #1785 "was not producing oil for
substantial periods of time in 1987 and 2004-2005." Therefore, the
Huey Plaintiffs allege that, because of the habendum clause, the
Hoge Lease terminated on its own when the well stopped producing.
Thus, they claim that when EQT entered the Hoge Lease property in
2013-2014 to drill and remove hydrocarbon products, they were
trespassing in violation of West Virginia Code Section 22-6-8 and
the common law of West Virginia.

On Sept. 2, 2020, three years after the Huey Plaintiffs filed the
Wetzel County litigation, EQT filed a motion with the district
court to enforce the 2008 final order and judgment, alleging that
the Huey Plaintiffs are in violation of the court's order adopting
the Agreement. EQT alleges that (1) the trespass claim in the
Wetzel County litigation is a royalty claim that was released by
the Agreement's terms and (2) the Agreement was predicated on the
validity of the subject leases and, by submitting a Flat Rate Claim
Form and accepting settlement funds, the Huey Plaintiffs
represented and warranted that they held a valid lease and had the
right to payment, so the argument in the Wetzel County litigation
seeking to terminate the Hoge Lease is in violation of the
Agreement. The district court denied the motion.

The district court denied the motion to enforce the final judgment
and final order and declined to enjoin the Wetzel County
litigation. EQT appealed.

II. Discussion

A.

EQT asks the Fourth Circuit to reverse the district court for three
reasons. First, EQT contends that the district court failed to find
that the Huey Plaintiffs are class members bound by the Settlement
Agreement. Second, EQT argues that the district court erred in
determining that the Wetzel County litigation was not a royalty
claim, which the Agreement would have precluded. Third, EQT asserts
that the district court erred in finding that two exceptions to the
Anti-Injunction Act did not apply and that the court abused its
discretion in not issuing an injunction. We consider these
arguments in turn.

1.

EQT first claims that the district court did not treat the Huey
Plaintiffs as class members bound by the Agreement, which was
erroneous as a matter of law.

The Fourth Circuit rejects this argument. It opines that the
district court did not find that the Huey Plaintiffs were not class
members. To the contrary, the district court analyzed whether the
Huey Plaintiffs contravened the Agreement, so it clearly assumed
the Huey Plaintiffs were class members by binding them to the
Agreement. The Huey Plaintiffs, in fact, present themselves as
class members. The Fourth Circuit finds no error in the district
court's approach.

2.

EQT next asserts that the trespass claim in the Wetzel County
litigation is a royalty claim and thus it is released by the
Agreement. As part of the federal class action, the Huey Plaintiffs
agreed to release EQT "from any and all claims for improper
payments of royalty claims for the time periods covered by this
Amended Settlement Agreement." EQT claims that the Huey Plaintiffs'
trespass claim in the Wetzel County litigation is a royalty claim
and thus should be enjoined.

After reviewing the district court's opinion, the Fourth Circuit
agrees that the trespass claim in the Wetzel County litigation is
not a royalty claim as defined by the Agreement. The Agreement
makes clear that royalty claims are claims "based upon the failure
to pay proper royalty." While there are other claims in the Wetzel
County litigation discussing royalties, the trespass claim is not
about royalties—it is about damage to the Huey Plaintiff's
property. Importantly, the appeal before the Court is only about
the trespass claim in the Wetzel County litigation, not any of the
other claims. That claim clearly does not mention royalties and
does not fall inside the Agreement's definition of royalty claims.
Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's holding that
the trespass claim is not a royalty claim and not released by the
Agreement.

B.

Next, EQT asserts that the district court erred in finding
exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act inapplicable to the Wetzel
County litigation. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651,
authorizes federal courts to enjoin state proceedings that
interfere with federal judgments. The Anti-Injunction Act, however,
clarifies that "a court of the United States may not grant an
injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly
authorized by an Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."  Thus, a
federal court may only do so when an exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act applies.

EQT asserts that two exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act—the
"in aid of jurisdiction" and the "relitigation" exceptions -- are
met and permit the district court to issue an injunction.

The Fourth Circuit disagrees.

1.

The "in aid of jurisdiction" exception applies when the state court
action may "seriously impair the federal court's flexibility and
authority to decide its case." The district court found that the
Wetzel County litigation did not in any way interfere with its
flexibility and authority to decide its case, as that case had been
decided almost 11 years ago. EQT argues that this exception is not
restricted temporally to state-court claims that occur only before
the federal decision.

While this is true, the Fourth Circuit finds the district court did
not err in finding that the Wetzel County litigation does not
impact its jurisdiction. The "in aid of jurisdiction" exception
requires more than just the state-court action being related to the
subject matter upon which the federal court has retained
jurisdiction. "It is not enough that the requested injunction is
related to that jurisdiction, but it must be 'necessary in aid of'
that jurisdiction." Because the Wetzel County litigation does not
"seriously impair the district court's flexibility and authority to
decide" the class action, the Fourth Circuit affirms the court's
holding regarding this exception.

2.

EQT argues that the Agreement and payment of settlement funds were
predicated on each class member representing and warranting that he
or she held a valid lease and was due the money owed, and that the
Agreement prevents class members from later terminating the subject
lease. The Huey Plaintiffs argue in the Wetzel County litigation
that they did not know at the time of the Agreement that they did
not hold a valid lease. They contend the lease at issue terminated
on its own before the class action was even filed. Thus, the court
found, the Huey Plaintiffs are not trying to relitigate the class
action issues. It concluded that the issues in the trespass claim
were not squarely presented for the court's determination, and,
therefore, the Wetzel County litigation is not a relitigation.

The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court that the trespass
claim is not a relitigation of the class action. As discussed, the
trespass claim is not a royalty claim and is not based on the same
kind of claim as the class action. The trespass claim concerns
whether the Hoge Lease terminated pursuant to the habendum clause
in the Huey Plaintiff's lease -- an issue that was not before the
court as part of the class action and is a state law issue.

EQT argues that the Huey Plaintiffs have represented and warranted
the validity of the subject lease. The Fourth Circuit disagrees. It
opines that all the Huey Plaintiffs warranted was that they were
the owners of the interest in the lease at issue during the
compensation period. A trespass claim based on the theory that the
Hoge Lease expired does not violate the warranty that the Huey
Plaintiffs owned the lease at issue. Thus, the Fourth Circuit
rejects EQT's argument.

In sum, the district court was correct in finding that the
relitigation exception does not apply.

3.

Even if an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act did exist in the
case, the Fourth Circuit finds that the district court was still
not required to issue an injunction. "When an exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act is present, a district court may issue an
injunction, but it is not required to do so." "Whether to enjoin
state-court proceedings is always discretionary." The Fourth
Circuit finds that the district court was within its discretion to
not issue an injunction. The district court made clear that it
would not use its discretion to issue an injunction even if an
exception to the Anti-Injunction Act existed.

In short, the Anti-Injunction Act gives courts discretion to
refrain from enforcing its exceptions because of the strength of
the Act's general prohibition. The district court weighed the
factors for and against issuing an injunction and was entitled to
exercise this discretion. EQT has not shown that the district court
abused its discretion, and the Fourth Circuit discerns no abuse of
that discretion. It affirms the district court's decision to not
issue an injunction.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
denial of EQT's motion to enforce the class action settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/373334w8 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: David Dehoney, McKOOL SMITH P.C., in New York City, for the
Appellants.

James Robert Russell -- rrussell@shumanlaw.com -- SHUMAN McCUSKEY &
SLICER PLLC, in Morgantown, West Virginia, for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Lauren W. Varnado , McKOOL SMITH P.C., in Houston, Texas;
Jennifer J. Hicks -- jhicks@babstcalland.com -- BABST CALLAND, in
Charleston, West Virginia, for the Appellants.

John F. McCuskey -- jmccuskey@shumanlaw.com -- SHUMAN McCUSKEY
SLICER PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, for the Appellees.


EXELA TECH: Directors Violate Delaware Bylaws, Ezzat Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
M. SAMIM EZZAT v. RONALD C. COGBURN, J. COLEY CLARK, SHARON CHADHA,
JAMES G. REYNOLDS, JOHN H. REXFORD, MARC A. BEILINSON, PAR S.
CHADHA, MARTIN P. AKINS, WILLIAM L. TRANSIER, and EXELA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2022-0201 (Del. Ch., March 3, 2022) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated seeking to remedy the Individual Defendants' violation of
the Second Amended and Restated By-Laws of Exela.

The Defendants purported to authorize and register over 15 million
shares of Company stock, including 8,500,000 shares covering
performance units awarded to Exela's Executive Chairman, P. Chadha,
under an amendment of the Company's 2018 Stock Incentive Plan. The
proposed amendment to the Plan, however, allegedly failed to
receive the requisite stockholder vote under the By-Laws.

On November 5, 2021, the Company filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission a Schedule 14A proxy statement, through which
the Company solicited stockholder support for a proposal to approve
the amendment and restatement of the Plan at the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be held on December 16, 2021.

On January 3, 2022, Exela filed with the SEC a Form 8-K announcing
the voting results for matters put before stockholders at the
Annual Meeting.

Thereafter, the Company proceeded to "register" additional shares
under the purported amendment to the Plan. Specifically, on
February 16, 2022, the Company filed a Form S-8 with the SEC,
through which it purported to register 15,073,487 shares of Exela
common stock, including shares covering the performance units
underlying the Executive Chairman Grant.

In truth, however, the Plan Proposal was not approved and the
amendment and restatement of the Plan was invalid. For the same
reason, the registration of additional shares pursuant to the
Registration Statement is invalid, added the suit.

In the January 8-K, the Company reported that more "Broker
Non-Votes" were recorded with respect to the Plan Proposal than
votes affirmatively cast "For" the matter.

In tabulating the vote, the Company failed to count Broker
Non-Votes, which were entitled to vote at the meeting, as votes
"Against" the Plan Proposal as required by the Company's By-Laws.
Properly tabulated, the Plan Proposal did not receive the required
vote. Thus, the Plan Proposal was rejected by stockholders.

Through this Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiff seeks to: (i) void the amendment and restatement of the
Plan rejected by stockholders at the Annual Meeting, (ii) void the
Registration Statement, and (iii) otherwise remedy the harm
resulting from the Company's wrongful tabulation of stockholders'
votes. The Plaintiff also seeks disgorgement and/or cancellation of
over 617,895 shares that the Company issued to the Board members
subsequent to stockholders' vote on the Plan Proposal. Finally,
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief preventing the Company from
issuing further shares wrongly registered under the Registration
Statement and unauthorized by the Plan, including but not limited
to any share issuance in connection with the Executive Chairman
Grant.

The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been at all relevant times,
a stockholder of the Company.

The Plan was originally adopted by the Board on December 19, 2017,
and became effective shortly thereafter. 2 The Plan provides for
the grant of incentive and nonqualified stock options, restricted
stock, restricted stock units, stock appreciation rights,
performance awards, and other stock-based compensation to eligible
participants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor, #6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500

               - and -

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

FAIR HARBOR: Langley Sues Over Unwanted Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LANGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FAIR HARBOR CLOTHING INC., Case No. 145119831 (Fla.
Cir., Pinellas Cty., March 4, 2022) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by unsolicited
telephonic sales calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Beginning on or about July 13, 2021, and continuing up until
approximately November 10, 2021, the Defendant began bombarding the
Plaintiff with telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number.

The Plaintiff says that he never provided the Defendant with
express written consent authorizing the Defendant to transmit
telephonic sales calls to his cellular telephone number utilizing
an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers.

The Defendant's telephonic sales calls caused Plaintiff and the
Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience,
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, the Plaintiff adds.

The Defendant is a clothing brand and retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Whitney Class Suit Over Rodent Infestation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME WHITNEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR, INC. and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02138 (W.D. Tenn., March 4, 2022) is a class action
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged negligent,
reckless, and/or intentional practice of selling products that may
be contaminated by virtue of a rodent infestation and other
unsanitary conditions in stores throughout Tennessee, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and Missouri.

The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Classes, including requiring full and accurate
disclosure of the rodent infestation and other unsanitary
conditions and restoring monies to the members of the proposed
Classes.

Family Dollar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Dollar
Tree, Inc.

The Defendants sell groceries and household goods at discounted
prices in stores throughout the United States including
over-the-counter medications, medical devices, dietary supplements,
cosmetics, human food, and pet food.

On or about February 18, 2022, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404
of its stores in Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Alabama, and Missouri after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) announced that it had inspected, and found unsanitary
conditions, including a rodent infestation, inside Family Dollar
Distribution Center 202 ("Distribution Facility") in West Memphis,
Arkansas (the "Rodent Infestation").

The Rodent Infestation that was never disclosed to Family Dollar
consumers prior to the FDA and Family Dollar’s announcements --
poses a health and safety hazard to consumers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          Blind X. Akrawi, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                  bakrawi@nealharwell.com

FERRERO USA: Kinder Joy Brand Contains Artificial Cream, Sneed Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Sneed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01183 (N.D.
Ill., March 4, 2022) alleges that despite labeling Defendant's
Kinder Joy brand Product "Sweet Cream," the Product does not
contain cream, as the ingredient list indicates no ingredients that
are a source of milkfat.

According to the complaint, the Product allegedly contains
artificial cream, derived from hardened vegetable oils, including
"Palm, Sheanut and Sunflower [Oils]." Though the Product contains
two dairy ingredients, neither are cream. "Skim Milk Powder,"
listed third, is not "cream" and contains no fat. "Whey Proteins"
refers to the watery portion of milk that separates from the curds
when making cheese, which contains little to no fat. The Product
lacks the nutritive, sensory, organoleptic, and other attributes
expected from a product described as "[Sweet] Cream," the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false or misleading. Reasonable
consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and
describe the components, attributes, and features of a product,
relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives.

The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially
less than its value as represented by the Defendant. The Defendant
sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in
the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at
the expense of consumers, the lawsuit adds.

Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no
less than $1.99, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions.

Ferrero manufactures, labels, markets, and sells a plastic
egg-shaped package with one section containing "Sweet Cream Topped
With Cocoa Wafer Bites," and the other consisting of a small toy,
under the Kinder Joy brand (the "Product").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Spencer Sheehan
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Steinmetz Suit Over Collection Letter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Steinmetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 506483/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 4, 2022) is a class action
complaint on behalf of a class of New York consumers under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act seeking damages and declaratory
relief.

On March 4, 2021, FRS allegedly sent Plaintiff an initial
collection letter regarding the debt, originally allegedly owed to
Synchrony Bank.

   The collection letter states:

      Balance Itemization

      Interest Balance:        $0.00
      Cost Balance:            $0.00
      Fee Balance:             $0.00
      Total Balance Due:     $669.45

According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively tried to make
it appear that the balance does not include interest or fees making
it appear that the owed consists exclusively of principal. By the
time such an account is sent for collection, invariably there are
interest or fees owed on the debt. The Plaintiff therefore knows
that the balance on this letter includes interest and/or fees. To
state that there is no interest or fees owed is therefore false,
deceptive and unfair. Previous attempts at collection and/or
statements demonstrated that there was interest and fees owed as
part of the total balance. Yet the Defendant's current letter did
not state this. The Plaintiff was unsure what to believe.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.

FRS is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201)282-6500
          E-mail: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com

FISHMAN GROUP: Wins Bid to Dismiss Kline FDCPA Class Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD KLINE, LINDA KLINE,
and IRREONA BYRD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, v. FISHMAN GROUP PC, et al.,Case No. 2:21-cv-11272-NGE-KGA
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered an order
granting defendants' motion to dismiss and denying as moot
plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification, defendants'
motion to stay, and plaintiffs' motion to limit communication.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not established that they have
Article III standing to bring their Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) claim, so this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this case. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted, and this case is dismissed without prejudice. Te
Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification, The Defendants'
motion to stay, and Plaintiffs' motion to limit communication with
members of the class are therefore denied as moot."

This is a class action lawsuit filed by the Plaintiffs Donald
Kline, Linda Kline, and Irreona Byrd under FDCPA. The Plaintiffs
also bring a number of state law claims.

Fishman Group is a law firm that acts as a debt collector for
various creditors. The Defendants Ryan Fishman, Marc Fishman, and
Alexandra Ichim are attorneys at the firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35BQ6k3 at no extra charge.[CC]

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Bid to Reopen Suit Over Cancelled Flights Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Frontier Airlines Litigation, Civil Action No.
20-cv-01153-PAB-KLM, Consolidated with Civil Action Nos.
20-cv-01340-PAB-KLM; 20-cv-01518-PAB-KLM; 20-cv-01689-PAB-KLM;
20-cv-01751-PAB-KLM; and 20-cv-01837-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.), Judge
Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Case to Alter
Judgment and Allow Plaintiffs Leave to File an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

I. Background

The case deals with passengers, who booked airline tickets with
Frontier and whose flights were cancelled. The Plaintiffs alleged
that Frontier did not fulfill its obligations to provide refunds,
but instead provided travel vouchers that expired after 90 days and
that were worthless during the COVID-19 pandemic due to travel
restrictions and limited routes. Frontier also allegedly encouraged
passengers to cancel their own flights preemptively in exchange for
travel credit and an additional voucher, but Frontier failed to
disclose that, if the passengers simply waited for Frontier to
cancel the flights, Frontier would have been obligated to provide a
full monetary refund. Moreover, when customers chose to
preemptively cancel their flights, Frontier did not refund them,
through a travel credit or otherwise.

The Court previously considered two groups of the Plaintiffs, those
who cancelled their own flights -- Nelcy Rivera-De Leon, Stephanie
Muters, Danielle Porreca, and Kelli Capra -- and those whose
flights Frontier cancelled -- Jeffrey Bone, ChaCha Powell, and
Daniel Dickstein. As to the first group of Plaintiffs, the Court
found that Frontier's Contract of Carriage did not require those
who cancel their own flights prior to departure to be issued a
monetary refund. Rather, the Court noted that the Contract states,
"if a passenger cancels a ticket before the scheduled flight
departure time, the value of the ticket less a service fee will be
retained for 90 days from the date of cancellation of the ticket in
the form of an electronic credit."

Therefore, the Court found no breach. It also found no "prevention
or hindrance" in Frontier's sending emails allegedly intending to
dissuade the Plaintiffs from securing a refund because they failed
to explain what term of the Contract they were supposedly impeded
from performing. The Court did not find that plaintiffs were
prevented from requesting a refund because some of the Plaintiffs
did request a refund and others did not allege that they were
unable to. The Plaintiffs also failed to establish what
expectations they believe Frontier interfered with.

As to the second group of the Plaintiffs, the Court noted two
relevant provisions of the Contract. First, Section 18(C), which
states, in part, "if a passenger's flight is canceled," Frontier
will, "to the extent possible," provide alternative transportation
or, if Frontier cannot do so, it will, if requested, provide a
refund for the unused portion of the passenger's ticket. Second,
Section 18(E), which states that, if a flight schedule change is
significant, Frontier may, at its discretion, refund the cost of
the unused portion of the ticket.

In response to Frontier's motion, the Plaintiffs argued that
Frontier breached the Contract when it cancelled Plaintiff Bone's
flight and refused to request a refund. The Court found, however,
that Bone did not allege that he refused the scheduled change and
did not take a new flight, that Frontier could not provide
alternative transportation such that it was obligated to refund
Bone's ticket, or that the new flight was a "significant" change,
permitting Frontier to exercise its discretion to refund the
ticket.

The Court also found that the allegations regarding Plaintiff
Powell failed to plausibly establish that Frontier beached the
Contract. The allegations were that Frontier sent emails
encouraging Powell to cancel her reservations, cancelled "at least
one" of her flights, and refused to provide a refund after claiming
that she had already accepted the travel credit. The Court found
these allegations insufficient because the Plaintiffs did not
allege which flight Frontier cancelled, whether Frontier was able
to provide alternative transportation, or, if so, whether the route
change was so significant that Frontier may have exercised its
discretion to refund her ticket.

Finally, as to Plaintiff Dickstein, the Court found that he had
plausibly alleged that a schedule modification was "significant";
however, it found Dickstein's allegations insufficient to plausibly
establish that Frontier had breached the contract because the
Plaintiffs provided no allegations regarding Frontier's discretion
in providing a refund, even assuming a significant schedule
change.

II. Analysis

The Plaintiffs invoke Rule 59(e) to ask the Court to reconsider the
portion of the Court's order dismissing their breach-of-contract
claim with prejudice so that they may file a new amended complaint.
They seek to include additional allegations regarding Plaintiffs
Bone, Dickstein, Johnson, and Porreca.

For instance, the Plaintiffs propose adding allegations that Bone
did not knowingly accept a schedule change and that Frontier was
unable to provide him with comparable alternative transportation to
his brother's wedding and therefore owed him a refund. As to
Dickstein, they seek to add additional allegations to make clear
that Frontier's schedule modification was "significant" and that
his cancellation of that reservation "constituted a rejection of
the alterative travel method and triggered the company's
obligation" to provide a refund. As to Plaintiffs Johnson and
Porreca, the Plaintiffs seek to add allegations that Frontier's
email communications were intended to entice Johnson and Porreca to
cancel their original flights in order to re-book their flights and
that these communications created a "new" contract that was
eventually breached. The Plaintiffs argue that, pursuant to Rule
59(e), the Court should reconsider its dismissal with prejudice and
that they should be granted leave to add these new allegations.

Frontier highlights that the Plaintiffs' consolidated class action
complaint superseded an earlier complaint, which itself superseded
the individual complaints filed in the six consolidated cases.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs chose to oppose Frontier's motion to
dismiss instead of seeking to amend their complaint. Frontier
argues that the Plaintiffs should not be given yet another attempt
to set forth plausible allegations because the allegations that
they seek to add were available to them when they filed their
consolidated class action complaint in January 2021.

Judge Brimmer holds that the Plaintiffs' arguments are without
merit. He says, the allegations that the Plaintiffs propose to add
in an amended complaint all concern events that occurred in 2020.
The facts that underlie these allegations were clearly available to
the Plaintiffs when they filed their most recent complaint in
January 2021, and the Plaintiffs provide no explanation for why
these allegations were not included in that complaint.

Moreover, Judge Brimmer finds no error in the Court's order
dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim with prejudice. First, the
Plaintiffs had the opportunity to amend their complaint, without
leave of Court, following to Frontier's motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs chose instead to stand on their allegations. Second, a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is
generally a dismissal with prejudice. Judge Brimmer therefore, does
not find reconsideration of the Sept. 13, 2021 order to be
warranted and will deny the Plaintiffs' motion.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brimmer denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3938d82f from Leagle.com.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Moe Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff BRANDON L. MOE filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled BRANDON L. MOE, individually and on
behalf of all individuals of the class similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GEICO INDEMNITY CO., GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, and JOHN DOES I-XX, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00023-BMM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, Butte.

Plaintiff Brandon Moe, acting individually and on behalf of all
individuals of the class similarly situated, suffered injuries in
an automobile accident on March 14, 2015. Another car, whose driver
was insured by Defendant GEICO, struck Moe's car from behind. Moe
incurred medical bills and lost wages.

Moe brought four claims against GEICO in Montana state court: (1)
request for declaratory and injunctive relief; (2) violations of
Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and common law bad
faith; (3) class action; and (4) common fund. Moe alleges that
GEICO failed to make prompt advance payment of his medical bills
and lost wages as required under Ridley v. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co.,
and Dubray v. Farmers Ins. Exch. GEICO removed the case to federal
court and filed a motion to dismiss.

The suit was removed from Montana Eighteenth Judicial District
Court, Gallatin County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana on May 17, 2019.

GEICO moved for summary judgment as to Moe's remaining claims of
UTPA violations and common law bad faith on the grounds that that:
(1) GEICO had no duty to advance pay Moe's medical bills or alleged
lost wages because Moe did not request that it do so; (2) GEICO had
a reasonable basis in law and fact for not making advance payments
absent a request from Moe that it do so; (3) Moe suffered no actual
damages and his UTPA claim therefore fails as a matter of law; and
(4) Moe's common law bad faith claim is barred by the statute of
limitations. Moe opposes GEICO's motion on all fronts, and takes
the threshold position that many of GEICO's arguments are barred by
the law of the case.

On September 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Kathleen L. DeSoto of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division,
recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants GEICO Indemnity and Government Employees be granted.

The Court adopted in full Magistrate Judge DeSoto's Findings and
Recommendations and granted the motion for summary judgment filed
by Defendants. The case is, therefore, dismissed. The Court further
ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Certification to Montana
Supreme Court is denied.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's ruling in an
appellate case captioned Brandon Moe v. GEICO Indemnity Company, et
al., Case No. 22-35161, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 25, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Brandon L. Moe Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 4, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 28, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on April 25, 2022;

   -- Appellant Brandon L. Moe opening brief is due on June 6,
2022;

   -- Appellees GEICO Indemnity Company and Government Employees
Insurance Company answering brief is due on July 5, 2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant BRANDON L. MOE, individually and on behalf of
all individuals of the class similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Daniel Patrick Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE PC
          125 West Mendenhall
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 587-3346
          E-mail: dbuckley@danbuckleylaw.com
          
               - and -

          Mark Luebeck, Esq.
          ANGEL, COIL & BARTLETT
          125 West Mendenhall
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 586-1926
          E-mail: mluebeck@angelcoilbartlett.com  

Defendants-Appellees GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY and GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Sheila Carmody, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER, LLP
          400 E Van Buren Street, Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382-6000
          E-mail: scarmody@swlaw.com  

               - and -

          Courtney Henson, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          One South Church Avenue
          Tucson, AZ 85701
          Telephone: (520) 882-1200
          E-mail: chenson@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          William McIntosh Morris, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK PLLP
          1915 S. 19th Avenue, P.O. Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59718-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556-1430
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com

GOLDEN CHILD: Pritchette Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Pritchette, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Golden Child Holdings, LLC, GC Pizza Hut, LLC, GC Pizza
Hut New York, LLC, GC Pizza Hut Reo New Hartford, LLC, GC Pizza Hut
Reo Owego, LLC, Jonathan Childs, Thomas Mulkey, Thomas Stager,
Myles Gillespie, John Doe Corporations 1-10, John Does 1-10, Case
No. 7:22-cv-01764 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Title 26 of Maine Revised Statutes.

The Defendants own and operate more than 100 Pizza Hut pizza
franchises ("GC Pizza Hut" stores) in eight states including Maine
and New York.

As part of their ownership and operation of the GC Pizza Hut
stores, the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for
their actual or reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendants have allegedly violated the FLSA and
Maine's wage and hour laws by using a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provide such an unreasonably low rate
beneath the actual or any reasonable approximation of the expenses
the delivery drivers incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the legally-mandated minimum wage
for all hours worked.

Golden Child Holdings is an opportunity-driven investment firm.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank V. Raimond, Esq.
          RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 884-9636
          E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com

               - and -

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          325 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com

GREAT LAKES: Kantrowitz Testimony Partly Struck in Dawson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEREDITH D. DAWSON, Plaintiff v. GREAT LAKES
EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC. and GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-475-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge
James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to strike the testimony of Mark Kantrowitz.

I. Background

Plaintiff Dawson is proceeding on behalf of a class alleging that
Defendants Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. and Great
Lakes Higher Education Corp. (collectively, the "Great Lakes")
improperly capitalized interest on the class' student loans that
were in forbearance. Specifically, Dawson contends that, at the end
of the forbearance period, the Defendants incorrectly capitalized
interest that had accrued both before and during the forbearance
period. Dawson is asserting state-law negligence claims.

The case is scheduled for trial in June 2022. Great Lakes now moves
to exclude the opinions of Mark Kantrowitz, Dawson's expert on
multiple issues.

II. Analysis

Mr. Kantrowitz submitted two expert reports, one in 2019 and one in
2021. There is no dispute that both reports are timely.

The 2019 report has two sections. The first section provides
background information on student loans and basic concepts relevant
to this case, such as interest, forbearances, and capitalization.
The second section provides an analysis and opinions on the effect
that the improperly capitalized interest had on the class's loan
balances.

The 2021 report is primarily a discussion of Kantrowitz's
understanding of federal law regarding the capitalization of
student loans. He also provides opinions that Great Lakes violated
federal law and that they "knew or should have known" that.

A. Capitalization impact

Great Lakes devotes the bulk of its motion to Kantrowitz's opinion
on the impact of the improper capitalizations on the class' loan
balances. It argues that Dawson hadn't proved damages because she
failed to show that its remediation efforts were unsuccessful in
correcting any errors. In response, Dawson contended that the class
had been harmed by the increase in their loan balances and that it
was Great Lakes' burden, not hers, to show that they had fully
remediated the harm by correctly adjusting the class's loan
balances

Judge Peterson opines that Great Lakes hasn't shown that
Kantrowitz's testimony about the impact of the capitalization
errors is irrelevant, unreliable, or otherwise inadmissible. He
still isn't persuaded that Dawson must prove out-of-pocket expenses
in order to recover damages in the case. If the Court accepted
Great Lakes' position, it would mean that a person in Dawson's
position couldn't bring a claim until after she had paid off her
loans, or at least until the payments she made exceeded the amount
that she should have paid. But that could require a borrower to
wait years or even decades before her claim accrued.

In addition, Judge Peterson holds that Dawson has presented
evidence in the form of expert testimony that Great Lakes' errors
increased the class' loan balances, which will lead to overpayments
in the future if left uncorrected. Great Lakes, not Dawson, has the
burden to show that it fully remediated the adverse effects of its
capitalization errors, so that argument fails. Great Lakes cites no
authority for the view that a party has a duty to present evidence
on an issue that she doesn't have the burden to prove. Finally, if
Great Lakes believes that there is confusion at trial, they are
free to propose a jury instruction on the issue.

Judge Peterson will, therefore, deny this aspect of Great Lakes'
motion to strike Kantrowitz's testimony.

B. Legal opinions

Much of Kantrowitz's 2021 report consists of his understanding of
various laws, regulations, and guidance from the Department of
Education, along with a conclusion that Great Lakes violated some
of the regulations. The general rule is that experts may not
testify about the meaning of statutes or regulations. "That's a
subject for the court, not for testimonial experts."

Judge Peterson explains that the court of appeals has recognized an
exception to the general rule for "regulatory experts to testify on
complex statutory or regulatory frameworks when that testimony
assists the jury in understanding a party's actions within that
broader framework." Dawson doesn't expressly invoke that exception,
but even if she had, it wouldn't be appropriate to apply it, for
two reasons.

First, the exception wouldn't apply to Kantrowitz's legal
conclusions about whether Great Lakes violated the law. That is not
part of the "broader framework" of Great Lakes' actions. Second,
Dawson hasn't shown that Kantrowitz is qualified to offer opinions
about the meaning of statutes and regulations. Kantrowitz's export
report identifies experience he has had with various issues related
to financial aid and student loans.

Judge Peterson concludes that Dawson hasn't met her burden under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to show how Kantrowitz is qualified
"by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" in
interpreting the laws and regulations he discusses. He will grant
this aspect of Great Lakes' motion.

C. What Great Lakes "knew or should have known"

After concluding that Great Lakes violated federal regulations,
Kantrowitz explains why he believes that Great Lakes "knew or
should have known" that it was violating the law. This section of
the report consists primarily of two types of analysis. First,
Kantrowitz discusses various legal authorities and communications
from the Department of Education that he says gave notice to Great
Lakes. Second, he discusses some of Great Lakes' internal
communications, which he says demonstrate that it knew it was
capitalizing interest incorrectly.

Dawson acknowledges that Kantrowitz can't testify about what Great
Lakes actually knew. That's what the internal communications are
about, so Judge Peterson won't allow Kantrowitz to testify about
those. That is factual evidence that Dawson can present through
fact witnesses. This leaves Kantrowitz's opinions about the legal
guidance that gave notice to Great Lakes that it was violating the
law. Those opinions are inadmissible for two reasons.

First, they are more legal opinions, and Dawson hasn't shown that
Kantrowitz is a legal or regulatory expert. Second, Kantrowitz
doesn't describe the method he used to determine that Great Lakes
should have known it was violating the law. When an expert offers
an opinion relevant to applying a legal standard, the expert's role
is limited to describing "sound professional standards and
identifying departures from them." Kantrowitz didn't identify a
professional standard he was applying or explain how Great Lakes
departed from it. He simply stated his conclusion that certain
legal authorities gave Great Lakes notice that it was incorrectly
capitalizing interest. Such conclusory testimony is not helpful to
the jury, so the court will grant this aspect of Great Lakes'
motion to strike.

D. Background issues

Mr. Kantrowitz's 2019 report includes background information about
the type of student loans at issue in the case, forbearances,
interest capitalization, and how those concepts relate to Dawson's
claims. Great Lakes didn't discuss that aspect of the report in its
motion to strike. But when Dawson brought the issue up in her
opposition brief, Great Lakes objected in its reply brief. Great
Lakes doesn't challenge Kantrowitz's qualifications to testify
about those basic issues, and his experience studying and writing
about student loans and the repayment process suggest that he is
qualified. It argues instead that "there is no need for expert
testimony" on those issues because the "parties can introduce them
by stipulation, or the Court can instruct the jury about them at
the appropriate time."

Judge Peterson holds that Great Lakes may be correct that expert
testimony isn't "needed," but that isn't the standard. The question
under Rule 702 is whether the testimony "will help the trier of
fact to understand the evidence." Kantrowitz's proposed testimony
meets that standard. And because many of the concepts in the case
are likely to be unfamiliar to the jury, a witness who can provide
them with a basic understanding of the primary concepts could be
helpful. If the parties agree to submit this information by
stipulation, the Court would likely agree to that approach.
Otherwise, the Court will allow Kantrowitz to offer testimony on
the background information summarized in his 2019 report, with the
exception of any testimony about his understanding of federal law.

III. Conclusion

Judge Peterson will allow Kantrowitz to testify as described, but
Great Lakes' motion raises an important question about Dawson's
trial strategy. Great Lakes has submitted reports from two experts
who will offer opinions that Great Lakes has fully remediated the
capitalization errors at issue in the case. Dawson isn't moving to
strike the testimony of either expert, and she hasn't offered her
own expert report to rebut their opinions. So it isn't clear what
evidence, if any, Dawson intends to submit about the adequacy of
the remediation.

As Judge Peterson has explained, it is Great Lakes' burden to prove
that the remediation successfully cured any harm. But that burden
will have little practical significance at trial if Great Lakes
offers unrefuted evidence to support its position. If Dawson
doesn't challenge Great Lakes' evidence of remediation, then the
jury will have little choice but to find that the class has no
compensable harm, and without compensable harm, there is no case.

As both sides know well, the case has been proceeding since 2015
and has now generated nearly 700 docket entries. But for all that
time and effort, it's far from clear what genuine issues remain to
be tried. So before the Court requires a jury to sit for what is
likely to be a dry and technical trial, it will direct Dawson to
clarify how she intends to try her case. She need not provide
intricate details of trial strategy, but she should provide a clear
explanation for how she intends to oppose Great Lakes' inevitable
motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of damages. If
her only strategy is to hope that Great Lakes blunders its
presentation or the jury is otherwise confused, the Court will
consider striking the trial date to allow the parties to move for
summary judgment on damages.

IV. Order

Judge Peterson granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to strike the testimony of Mark Kantrowitz. He excludes
Kantrowitz's legal opinions and his opinions on what the Defendants
knew or should have known. The motion is otherwise denied.
The Plaintiff may have until March 15, 2022, to provide the Court
with an explanation regarding how she plans to refute the
Defendants' evidence of remediation. If the Court needs input from
Great Lakes, it will ask for it.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9ehnvz from Leagle.com.


GRUBHUB INC: Postmates Can't Compel Arbitration in Micheli Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELI & SHEL, LLC, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-4995 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse
M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued an Opinion and Order:

   a. granting the motions of Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash
      Inc. to compel arbitration; and

   b. denying Postmates LLC's motions to compel arbitration and
      for stay.

I. Introduction

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Micheli & Shel, a bakery
located in New York City, sues Grubhub, Postmates LLC, Uber Eats,
and DoorDash Inc., four national food delivery services, alleging
violations of a New York City local law enacted during the COVID-19
pandemic that limits the fees that food delivery services can
charge restaurants for their services.

The question presented is not whether the Plaintiff's claims have
merit, but whether they can even be brought in this forum. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate its claims
on an individual basis and, thus, move to compel arbitration and to
stay the litigation.

II. Background

A. Plaintiff's Contract with Grubhub

On Oct. 30, 2019, the Plaintiff signed up to work with Grubhub.
Adir Michaeli, as "owner," completed the sign-up process, which
included signing the Grubhub Restaurants and Services Form. The
first paragraph of the Grubhub Terms, available at the hyperlink in
the Form, emphasizes in bold, all-caps text, the arbitration
provision that includes the class action waiver. The terms were
last updated Oct. 15, 2018.

B. Plaintiff's Contract with Uber Eats

Mr. Michaeli signed the Plaintiff up with Uber Eats on Nov. 13,
2019. Uber Eats is operated by Portier, LLC, a subsidiary of Uber
Technologies. When Michaeli registered the Plaintiff with Uber
Eats, he signed the Uber Eats Order Form. The first section,
"General Terms," stated that the agreement was "subject to the
terms and conditions, including an arbitration provision, currently
available at link, as may be updated from time to time." Clicking
on the link brought up the "Uber Eats U.S. Merchant Terms and
Conditions," which included the arbitration provision, which also
included the class action waiver.

C. Plaintiff's Contract with DoorDash

Mr. Michaeli signed up to create an account for the Plaintiff with
DoorDash on Jan. 21, 2020. To do so, he completed the DoorDash
Sign-Up Sheet, and signed the DoorDash Merchant Terms of Use. The
first section of the Merchant Terms of Use calls attention to
Section 17, governing arbitration of claims. The agreement also
includes a class action waiver and a provision that allows a
merchant to "opt out of this Arbitration Agreement."  Some of the
updates modified the arbitration agreement, but the core provisions
relevant to the case, including the delegation of the question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator and the class action waiver,
remained unchanged.

D. Plaintiff's Contract with Postmates

Finally, on May 12, 2020, Michaeli signed the Plaintiff up to work
with Postmates. Notably, the contract that the Plaintiff signed at
that time -- the Postmates Merchant Agreement -- did not include an
arbitration agreement. In addition, the Postmates Merchant
Agreement specified that "this Agreement may be amended only by a
written document executed by both Parties." The arbitration
provision included in the Agreement stated that "the parties
mutually agree to resolve any and all disputes between them
exclusively through final, binding, and individual arbitration
instead of filing a lawsuit in court" and that the arbitration will
be "governed exclusively by the FAA."

The agreement includes a delegation clause, instructing that "only
an arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or
agency, will have the exclusive authority to resolve any dispute
relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or
formation of this mutual arbitration provision, including without
limitation any dispute concerning arbitrability." It too includes
an opt-out provision, which allows a merchant to opt-out of the
arbitration provision within thirty days of acceptance of the
agreement, as well as a class action waiver.

III. Discussion

Applying the foregoing standards, Judge Furman concludes that the
Plaintiff is obligated to arbitrate its claims against Grubhub,
Uber Eats, and DoorDash. By contrast, the Plaintiff is not
obligated to arbitrate its claims against Postmates. Judge Furman
begins with the motions of Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash, which
can be addressed together.

A. Plaintiff Must Arbitrate Its Claims Against Grubhub, Uber Eats,
and DoorDash

The Plaintiff's principal argument is that the dispute does not
fall within the ambit of its arbitration agreements.

But whether its arguments on that score are valid is not for the
Court to say because, in the case of each delivery service, Judge
Furman opines that the contract at issue plainly delegates the
question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Accordingly, he is
compelled to conclude that the threshold questions of arbitrability
with respect to the Plaintiff's claims against Uber Eats, Grubhub,
and DoorDash are for the relevant arbitrator to decide and, thus,
that their motions to compel arbitration must be granted.

The Uber Eats, Grubhub, and DoorDash Terms each also include a
class action waiver. The Plaintiff asserts that the Uber Eats and
DoorDash contracts include similar provisions, but the citations
that the Plaintiff provides are incorrect and the contracts do not
appear to contain similar provisions. Once again, the Plaintiff
fails to raise a specific challenge to the validity of the class
action waivers, Judge Furman holds. Accordingly, he finds that the
class action waivers are valid and that the Plaintiff must proceed
with individual arbitration.

B. Plaintiff Did Not Agree to Arbitrate Its Claims Against
Postmates

By contrast, Judge Furman concludes that the Plaintiff did not
agree to arbitrate its claims against Postmates. Significantly,
there is no dispute that the Plaintiff's initial agreement with
Postmates did not contain any arbitration clause. Postmates' motion
to compel arbitration depends instead on the Postmates Modified
Terms, which do include an arbitration clause. Postmates argues
that the Postmates Modified Terms are enforceable "because the
Plaintiff was on notice of the revised terms, and consented to be
bound by the revised contract."

The Plaintiff disagrees, countering that Postmates cannot establish
"that the Plaintiff was aware of any update," let alone that the
"Plaintiff affirmatively assented to be bound by the revised
terms." Confronted with similar facts, courts have reached
different conclusions with respect to the enforceability of such
modified terms.

Judge Furman need not and does not resolve the parties'
disagreement because Postmates' motion to compel arbitration fails
for a more fundamental reason: The initial agreement that the
Plaintiff signed unambiguously prohibits unilateral modification.
Instead, it provides that "this Agreement may be amended only by a
written document executed by both Parties, which may include
electronic signatures." By conspicuous contrast, another provision
in the agreement specifies that "Postmates reserves the right to
update the Postmates' Privacy Policy at any time without notice to
Merchant." And even more to the point, the Postmates Modified
Terms, which the Plaintiff did not sign, provide that the
"Postmates may update or modify this agreement at any time without
prior notice, and such changes will be effective immediately."

The problem for Postmates is that the initial contract, by its
plain terms, allowed for modification only by a written document
signed by both parties. It follows that the Postmates Modified
Terms, which were not signed by the Plaintiff, are not effective as
to the Plaintiff and that the original agreement, which concededly
includes no arbitration agreement, governs their relationship.
Accordingly, Postmates's motion to compel arbitration must be and
is denied.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman granted the motions of
Grubhub, Uber Eats, and DoorDash to compel arbitration. In
addition, he granted their requests to stay the action pending
these arbitrations. By contrast, Postmates' motions to compel
arbitration and for a stay are denied. Postmates will answer the
Complaint within 21 days of the date of the Opinion and Order. By
separate Order, the Court will schedule an initial conference as to
Postmates.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 51, 58, and
63.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42umtt96 from Leagle.com.


GUABA DELI: $15.5K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Ramos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDWIN RAMOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GUABA DELI GROCERY
CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-4904 (PAE) (JLC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James L. Cott of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

On Nov. 29, 2021, the Court granted summary judgment to the
Plaintiffs against all the Defendants (except Jose Castillo) in the
wage-and-hour case. In its opinion granting summary judgment, the
Court directed the Plaintiffs to make further submissions regarding
their entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs have
now moved for attorneys' fees and costs, and made their submissions
in support of their motion. The Defendants have not filed any
opposition to the motion.

Under both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor
Law ("NYLL"), prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to an award of
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. It is well-settled that
courts determine the "presumptively reasonable fee" for an
attorney's services by considering "what a reasonable, paying
client would be willing to pay who wishes to pay the least amount
necessary to litigate the case effectively." The "presumptively
reasonable fee" equals "the product of a reasonable hourly rate and
a reasonable number of hours engaged in litigating the matter." All
requested fees must be supported "with contemporaneous time records
establishing for each attorney for whom fees are sought, the date
on which work was performed, the hours expended, and the nature of
the work done." "In determining the reasonable fee for a particular
case, courts rely on reasonable hourly rates prevailing in the
district for similar services provided by attorneys with comparable
skill and experience."

In the case, the Plaintiffs request $13,740 in attorneys' fees for
6.6 hours of attorney David Stein's time and 34.2 hours of attorney
David Nieporent's time. Stein's proposed rate is $425 per hour. As
set forth in his declaration in support of the motion, Stein is a
founding partner of Samuel & Stein, a New York-based law firm
specializing in wage-and-hour litigation. He has practiced
continuously for more than 30 years, practicing in New York since
2000. He has litigated wage-and-hour claims almost exclusively
since 2008, including several class action cases with high dollar
recoveries.

As Magistrate Judge Netburn recently found in Solano v. Andiamo
Cafe Corp., No. 19-CV-3264 (SN), 2021 WL 2201372, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
June 1, 2021), given his level of experience, Stein's hourly rate
of $425 is reasonable, Judge Cott holds.

So too is Nieporent's proposed hourly rate of $325. Nieporent is a
senior associate at Samuel & Stein, has practiced continuously for
more than 20 years, and practiced in New York since 2011.

It is well-settled that attorneys seeking their fees must document
their application with contemporaneous time records, setting forth,
for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of
the work done.  In assessing whether hours are reasonable, a court
must make a "conscientious and detailed inquiry" to make sure that
the "number of hours were usefully and reasonably expended."

In the case, Stein billed 6.6 hours at an hourly rate of $425, for
a total of $2,625. Nieporent billed 34.2 hours at $325 per hour,
for a total of $11,115. Upon review of all the submitted records,
Judge Cott concludes that all tasks identified were necessary to
prosecute the action (including depositions and a contested summary
judgment motion), performed within a reasonable amount of time, and
were of the type in which a reasonable attorney would engage.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full amount
of their fees, totaling $13,740.

In addition, the Plaintiffs also seek their costs of $1,724.65.
These costs are comprised of $400 for filing fees; $323.60 for
service of process; $641.05 for court reporting services for
depositions; and $360 for interpreter services. These costs are
documented, Stein Dec. Exhibit B, and "in line with past awards."
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full amount
of their costs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cott granted the Plaintiffs'
motion. The Plaintiffs are awarded $13,740 in fees and $1,724.65 in
costs. The Clerk is respectfully requested to close the motion at
Docket No. 45 and mark it as granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p99mfac from Leagle.com.


IBEX GLOBAL: Fails to Protect PII, Sanders Data Breach Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE SANDERS, DARLA SOICH, and CHRISTOPHER HARRISON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IBEX
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., and IBEX LIMITED, Case No. 1:22-cv-00591
(D.D.C., March 3, 2022) seeks to redress IBEX's unlawful, willful
and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information
(PII) of over 170,000 individuals that was exposed in a major data
breach that occurred between July 27, 2020 and August 17, 2020 (the
"Data Breach"), in violation of its legal obligations.

IBEX provides customer experience solutions, including customer
service, technical support, revenue generation, and other
outsourced back-office services in the United States and
internationally. IBEX serves banking and financial services,
delivery and logistics, health tech and wellness, retail and
e-commerce, streaming and entertainment, travel and hospitality,
and utility industries. IBEX Limited is a publicly traded company
with a recent market capitalization of over $300 million.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have had their PII exposed as
a result of IBEX's inadequately secured computer network. The
Defendant betrayed the Plaintiffs' trust and that of the other
Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their
PII and thereby enabling cyber criminals to steal their PII, says
the suit.

The Data Breach was discovered on August 17, 2020, when IBEX
learned that a malware attack had been successfully launched on its
systems, which impacted the availability of certain segments of its
systems. 1 IBEX investigated the attack with the assistance of
third-party computer specialists. On or about September 15, 2020,
the investigation confirmed that certain files on IBEX's systems
had likely been accessed without authorization between July 27,
2020 and August 17, 2020. The forensic investigation further
determined that one or more of the potentially impacted folders
contained the PII of 174,826 individuals.

According to IBEX, the exposed PII included names, addresses, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, and medical information.

Due to the Defendant's negligence, cyber criminals obtained
everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says
the suit.

The Plaintiffs have already suffered identity theft as a result of
the Data Breach. Following the Data Breach, Plaintiff Soich has had
unauthorized financial accounts and payment cards opened in her
name. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff Harrison has had someone
file a fraudulent unemployment claim in his name. These experiences
have and will cause these Plaintiffs significant actual damages and
a significant amount of lost time and opportunity.

The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the
Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and
costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 741-5600
          E-mail: Rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Telephone: (405) 389-4989
          E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com

IMEDIA BRANDS: Duffek Files Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laura Duffek, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, v. iMedia Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 0:21-cv-01413-ECT-BRT (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.

iMedia operates as a media company. The Company offers interactive
advertising, marketing, video, and live television production
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IQ7WOE
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bert Black, Esq.
          Lauren A. D'Cruz, Esq.
          SCHAEFER HALLEEN, LLC
          412 South Fourth Street, Suite 1050
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 294-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 294-2640
          E-mail: bblack@schaeferhalleen.com
                  ldcruz@schaeferhalleen.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James F. Hermon, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center
          Detroit, MI 48243

               - and -

          Kristina H. Kaluza, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          4000 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402


INFINITY Q: Founder of Collapsed Fund Sued After Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that investors in Infinity Q Capital
Management's (Infinity Q) funds filed a proposed class action
against the firm after the fund's founder was charged with
securities fraud and obstruction of justice for allegedly inflating
assets by over $1 billion and falsifying records.

The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, alleges that the hedge fund and
mutual fund "lost over 40% of their respective values after a
forced liquidation by the SEC" in "one of the most egregious
investment fund collapses in history."[1]

The proposed class of investors accuses Infinity Q, the investment
adviser that managed the funds, of manipulating the fund assets'
pricing methodology and overstating the funds' net asset value
(NAV) from 2017 to 2021.[2] The investors allege that at the same
time, Infinity Q intentionally misled investors by providing
marketing materials that boasted of the funds' robust valuation
procedures, methodologies, oversight, and controls designed to
ensure accurate NAV pricing.[3]

The investors further allege that Infinity Q halted investor
redemptions in February 2021, when at least two whistleblowers
reported concerns to the SEC about the funds, prompting a formal,
ongoing SEC investigation and Infinity Q's liquidation of the
funds' assets.[4] "As a result of these egregious acts, the funds'
investors have been unable to withdraw their money from the funds,
and investors are still waiting and wondering what amount they will
receive from the wreckage as defendants continue to deplete
available assets on legal defense costs," the investors allege.[5]

The investors filed the complaint the day after James Velissaris,
founder and former chief investment officer of Infinity Q, was
criminally indicted for securities fraud and obstruction of
justice. According to the indictment, Velissaris manipulated the
valuations for at least four years, creating results that were not
only false but "mathematically impossible."[6] The indictment also
states that Velissaris endeavored to mask the scheme by lying to
auditors and altering term sheets and other documents from
counterparties for over-the-counter (OTC) derivative positions so
that they would appear to support the inflated values.[7]

On the same day as the indictment, both the SEC and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) charged Velissaris with fraud in
parallel civil actions. The SEC asserts that Velissaris and
Infinity Q inflated the funds' stated valuations by, among other
things, manipulating computer code in the valuation models and
knowingly entering incorrect inputs in what Velissaris had told
investors was an independent third-party pricing service.[8]
Through this conduct, Velissaris materially inflated the mutual
fund's NAVs and the private fund's total assets while pocketing
over $26 million in management fees, according to the SEC.[9]

The SEC further alleges that in doing so, Velissaris deceived
investors who likely would have requested redemptions had they
known the funds' actual performance, particularly given the
volatility of the market during the COVID-19 pandemic.[10] Echoing
these claims, the CFTC additionally asserts that Velissaris' "false
record of success" allowed Infinity Q to charge inflated fees,
induce existing pool participants to further invest, and lure in
new investors.[11]

The foregoing court filings collectively seem to suggest that
Velissaris and Infinity Q were able to carry out this scheme
undetected for years due to the complexity of the "alternative
strategies" investments Infinity Q offered. For example, OTC
derivatives, which made up a substantial portion of Infinity Q's
mutual and hedge funds, are contracts between private parties
rather than trades effected on a public exchange. As a result, even
when market conditions were stable, investors had scarce
opportunity to perform their own valuations or risk analysis, and
were thus highly dependent on Infinity Q's purported expertise and
methodologies. Undoubtedly, the market turmoil driven by the
COVID-19 pandemic only increased the uncertainty surrounding these
investments. It thus comes as little surprise that Velissaris may
have exploited the "unprecedented market volatility" caused by the
pandemic, during which time "the scope and scale of the fraud
increased," according to the CFTC.[12]

The SEC and CFTC seek injunctions, civil monetary penalties,
restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
bans on trading, registration, and service as an officer or
director against Velissaris. In the proposed class action, the
investors seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and
rescission for all proposed class members who purchased securities
issued by the funds from December 2018 to February 2021. [GN]

INSTAGRAM LLC: Hunley Appeals Copyright Infrigement Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alexis Hunley, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALEXIS HUNLEY; and MATTHEW
SCOTT BRAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTAGRAM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-03778, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 31, 2021, the
lawsuit alleges that the Defendant committed widespread copyright
infringement.

Instagram is the world's largest photo sharing application with
more than 50 billion photos uploaded by over one billion Instagram
users since 2012. Instagram's scheme is to generate substantial
revenue for its parent, Facebook, Inc., by encouraging, inducing,
and facilitating third parties to commit widespread copyright
infringement, asserts the complaint. This scheme was accomplished
by using Instagram's "embedding" tool to display copyrighted works
of Instagram users on third-party publisher websites, thereby
vastly extending Instagram's reach across the Internet, but without
appropriately compensating the copyright holders.

Generally, "embedding" means the process of copying the unique
hypertext markup language ("HTML") code assigned to each photo or
video published to the Internet, and the insertion of that code
into a target webpage or social media post so that photo or video
appears within the target post. Within the Instagram environment,
this means that third parties can copy the HTML code of an
Instagram user's post and paste it into the third party's website,
causing the photo or video posted to that Instagram user's account
to be simultaneously displayed on that third party website.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the members of the
Class are victims of a scheme that denies the copyright owner the
right to protect their copyrighted works when uploaded to
Instagram. In other words, Instagram knowingly deprived the
copyright owner of any means, device or tool to protect their
copyrighted works.

The action sought redress for Instagram's culpable conduct in
effectuating its scheme to use third parties to expand and grow
Instagram's platform beyond the Instagram app and Instagram.com
website. Instagram's scheme caused third party website publishers
to believe they were "free" to embed valuable copyrighted works
into their websites without paying a licensing fee to copyright
owners, and in turn Instagram directly benefited from the
significant traffic, views and impressions generated from users
viewing and interacting with the display of the embedded
copyrighted works. Instagram is liable for damages for each
copyrighted work infringed by each third-party embedder, the
Plaintiffs assert.

On November 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint which the Court granted on February
1, 2022, through an order signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this case dismissal order.

The appellate case is captioned as Alexis Hunley, et al. v.
Instagram, LLC, Case No. 22-15293, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 1, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Matthew Scott Brauer and Alexis Hunley Mediation
Questionnaire was due on March 8, 2022;

   -- Appellants Matthew Scott Brauer and Alexis Hunley opening
brief is due on April 26, 2022;

   -- Appellee Instagram, LLC answering brief is due on May 26,
2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ALEXIS HUNLEY and MATTHEW SCOTT BRAUER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
                  tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          James H. Bartolomei, III, Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, PA
          809 W 3rd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: james@duncanfirm.com  

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  pmarkert@cerallp.com

Defendant-Appellee INSTAGRAM, LLC is represented by:

          Allyson R. Bennett, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          953 East 3rd Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 992-4499
          E-mail: abennett@durietangri.com

               - and -

          Joseph Gratz, Esq.
          Ragesh K. Tangri, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 430-8223
          E-mail: jgratz@durietangri.com
                  rtangri@durietangri.com

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Bans Opioid Addiction Treatment, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
northcountrypublicradio.org reports that a northern New York county
is being accused in federal court of needlessly forcing people at
its jail into harmful withdrawals by banning a medical treatment
for opioid addiction.

The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit
against Jefferson County. The advocacy group said operators of the
county jail largely ban methadone and buprenorphine, despite clear
evidence that the medicines can effectively treat what specialists
call opioid use disorder.

"Jefferson County's blanket ban on the treatment our clients need
to survive is cruel, discriminatory, and prioritizes stigma over
science," NYCLU attorney Antony Gemmell said in a prepared
statement. "The ban must be lifted now."

The NYCLU claims the ban is unconstitutional and discriminatory in
a lawsuit identifying two plaintiffs by the initials, M.C. and
T.G., representing a class of people incarcerated at the jail.

Judge David Hurd, who is hearing the case, issued a temporary
restraining order that requires the county to provide methadone
treatment to M.C., who was just remanded to jail and was facing a
possible withdrawal. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Dismisses Mason Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENISE MASON et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-10222 (MAS) (LHG)
(D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs Denise Mason and
Madelyn Levy's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Complaint Without
Prejudice.

I. Background

The matter arises from a nationwide class action suit against the
Defendant for alleged deceptive advertising and failing to disclose
the risks of its OGX hair products. Specifically, the Plaintiffs
claim that Defendant failed to disclose to consumers the risk of
hair loss or scalp irritation caused by a defective ingredient in
its products. The Plaintiffs now sue on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated for breach of the products' express and
implied warranties and violations of both state and federal
consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs initiated the suit in April 2021. The following
month, the Court stayed the action pending mediation between the
parties, which was unsuccessful. That mediation included two
similar, putative nationwide class action suits against the
Defendant that were pending in the U.S. District Courts for the
Central District of California and Northern District of Illinois --
Moreno v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., No. 21-2666 (C.D. Cal.
2021); Whipple v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., No. 21-50226
(N.D. Ill. 2021).

After mediation failed, the Defendant moved to transfer both of
those cases to the District. Shortly after, the Defendant filed its
answer to the Complaint in the matter, and the Plaintiffs filed the
instant Motion stating that they "do not wish to pursue their
current claims against the Defendant." In support, the Plaintiffs
argue that the nascent stage of the litigation and the similarity
of the parallel claims in other jurisdictions lessen any potential
prejudice to or burden on the Defendant resulting from the
dismissal.

The Defendant opposes, claiming it will "suffer legal prejudice and
excessive duplicative expense" if dismissal is granted without
prejudice. Further, Defendant accuses the Plaintiffs of forum
shopping and attempting to undermine its then-pending transfer
motions to this District, which will "burden both the Court and the
Defendant with duplicative lawsuits in multiple courts." After the
parties submitted briefing for the instant Motion, however, both
Moreno and Whipple were transferred to this District. Thus, the
Defendant's argument concerning the transfer motions is moot.

II. Discussion

Courts in the District consider multiple factors when deciding a
voluntary dismissal motion under Rule 41(a)(2), including "(1) the
expense of a potential second litigation; (2) the effort and
expense incurred by defendant in preparation for trial in the
present case; (3) the extent to which the case has progressed; and
(4) plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion to voluntarily
dismiss." Notably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has adopted a liberal standard for allowing voluntary withdrawal.
In contrast, the with-prejudice dismissal that Defendant seeks is a
"harsh remedy."

On balance, Judge Shipp finds the matter should be dismissed under
Rule 41(a)(2) without prejudice. First, regarding the case's
progression, he notes that the litigation is at an early stage.
Second, considering the Defendant's litigation expense and effort,
the infancy of the matter again weighs heavily in favor of allowing
voluntary dismissal. Finally, the Plaintiffs promptly moved for
voluntary dismissal shortly after mediation, with no lengthy
delay.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Shipp granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion and dismisses the case without prejudice under Rule
41(a)(2). An Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2sfynm47 from Leagle.com.


JUUL LABS: Airport Community Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01369-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Airport Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 11270 Grafton Road in Carleton, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Newfield Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01358 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Newfield Central School is a unified school district with its
offices located at 247 Main Street in Newfield, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Parishville-Hopkinton Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PARISHVILLE-HOPKINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01340 (N.D. Cal., March 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Parishville-Hopkinton Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 12 County Route 47 in
Parishville, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Cadillac Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CADILLAC AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01345 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cadillac Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 421 South Mitchell Street in Cadillac, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, School District Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELAWARE-CHENANGO-MADISON-OTSEGO BOCES, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01338 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Delaware-Chenango-Madison-Otsego BOCES is a unified school district
with its offices located at 6678 County Road 32 in Norwich, New
York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: McBain Rural Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
MCBAIN RURAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01359 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

McBain Rural Agricultural School is a unified school district with
its offices located at 107 East Maple Street in McBain, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Munising Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MUNISING PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01363 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Munising Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 810 State Highway M28 West in Munising,
Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Phelps-Clifton Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHELPS-CLIFTON SPRINGS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01355 (N.D. Cal., March 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Phelps-Clifton Springs Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 1490 Route 488 in Clifton
Springs, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: R.G. Drage Career Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R.G. DRAGE CAREER TECHNICAL CENTER, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01350 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

R.G. Drage Career Technical Center is a unified school district
with its offices located at 2800 Richville Drive Southeast in
Massillon, Ohio.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Scottsdale Suit Moved From D. Arizona to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SCOTTSDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
2:22-cv-00208, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 3, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01336-WHO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by launching e-cigarette
youth campaigns and creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.

Scottsdale Unified School District is a public school district
located in Maricopa County, Arizona.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joseph C. Tann, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. TANN, PLLC
         7735 N. Seventy-Eighth Street
         Scottsdale, AZ 85258
         Telephone: (602) 432-4241
         E-mail: josephtann@josephtann.com

                  - and –

         Ron Kilgard, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Telephone: (602) 248-0088
         E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

JUUL LABS: Shenendehowa Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------
SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01337 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

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

Shenendehowa Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 5 Chelsea Place in Clifton Park, New
York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Shiawassee Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHIAWASSEE REGIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI, Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01349 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Shiawassee Regional Education Service District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 1025 North Shiawassee Street
in Corunna, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Thousand Islands Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOUSAND ISLANDS CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01339 (N.D. Cal., March 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Thousand Islands Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 8483 County Route 9 in
Clayton, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Webster Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSTER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01344 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

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

Webster Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 119 South Ave in Webster, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KELLER WILLIAMS: Hayhurst Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HAYHURST,
individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-00657
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter certifying a
single class consisting of:

   "all persons who received calls to their cell numbers from KW
   realtors made using PhoneBurner's dialer and resulting in the
   delivery of prerecorded voicemails that were directed to
   expired or FSBO leads."

The class is limited only to persons who received calls made using
the exact same dialer and types of leads, and resulting in the
delivery of the exact same types of generic, prerecorded messages,
that Plaintiff did.

This case is straightforward. Keller Williams's realtors (1)
purchased or otherwise obtained leads for potential property
sellers or buyers linked to properties that (a) were listed on the
Multiple Listing Services and were removed from the MLS without a
sale ("expireds") or (b) were listed for sale by owner ("FSBOs"),
and (2) called them using a prerecorded-message-delivering-dialer
provided by a company called PhoneBurner, which is made available
to realtors primarily as part of an allin-one lead generation
platform that bundles the dialer with expired and FSBO leads sold
by another company called Vulcan7. Neither KW, KW's realtors, nor
the companies they may have acquired such leads from -- like
Vulcan7 -- had consent of any kind from any of the consumers who
were called.

To the contrary, without consumers' knowledge, the leads were
generated by pulling data from the MLS or internet and comparing it
against aggregated public and private data (including names,
addresses, and phone numbers) licensed from companies like
LexisNexis. The call records PhoneBurner produced in discovery
reflect that, during the class period, KW realtors made 194,787
prerecorded voice calls to cell phone.

Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Ted Lewis Johnson, Esq.
          TED LEWIS JOHNSON
          PO Box 5272
          Greensboro, NC 27435
          Telephone: (336) 252-8596
          E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com

KENTUCKY: Bid to File Amended Complaint in Hammond v. FMC Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD HAMMOND, Plaintiff v. WARDEN MR. PAUL, et al.,
Defendants, Civil No. 5:22-014-HRW (E.D. Ky.), Judge Henry R.
Wilhoit, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, denied the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file an amended complaint and motion to appoint
counsel.

Plaintiff Todd Hammond is a federal inmate currently confined at
the Federal Medical Center ("FMC")-Lexington located in Lexington,
Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney, Hammond previously filed
a civil complaint against prison officials pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388. However,
Hammond did not pay the $350 filing fee and the $52 administrative
fee, nor did he file a motion to pay the filing fee in installments
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Accordingly, on Jan. 28, 2022, the
Court entered an Order directing Hammond to either pay the $402
filing and administrative fees or file a properly-supported motion
using the Court-supplied forms within 30 days.

While that deadline has not yet expired, Hammond has since filed
multiple letters and motions related to payment of the filing fee,
none of which are a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On Feb. 8,
2022, Hammond filed a letter with the Clerk of the Court submitting
a copy of a BP-199 form requesting that $400 be withdrawn from his
inmate account and paid to the Clerk of the Court for filing fees.
However, the copy of the BP-199 form submitted by Hammond was not
complete, as it was not signed by either the Approving Official or
the Deposit Fund Tech, and no payment has been received by the
Clerk of the Court.

On Feb. 23, 2022, Hammond filed another letter with the Clerk of
the Court, stating, "Enclosed is the filing fee of $402 for the
above case." However, no payment was submitted with the letter.

That same day, Hammond filed a "motion to compel," requesting that
the Court "compel" FMC-Lexington to process his BP-199 form request
immediately. In his motion, he explained that he had been informed
that his prior BP-199 form was sent back to the Unit and would need
to voided, but that he completed a new BP-199 form requesting
payment from his account in the amount of $402 that had not been
processed as of Feb. 14, 2022. However, the copy of the "new"
BP-199 form submitted by Hammond with his motion is also not
complete, as it is not signed by him, the Approving Official, or
the Deposit Fund Tech.

Also on Feb. 23, 2022, Hammond filed a "motion for extension to pay
filing fee." In this motion, Hammond asks for an extension of time
to pay the filing and administrative fees "due to circumstances
beyond my control." However, the email correspondence submitted by
Hammond in support of his motion shows that Hammond has repeatedly
failed to follow directions from prison staff regarding how to
properly complete a BP-199 form.

Even though Hammond has neither submitted payment of the filing
fee, nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Judge Wilhoit
will proceed with conducting a preliminary review of Hammond's
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2), 1915A. In his
complaint, Hammond alleges that the Warden, Associate Warden, and
various medical providers at FMC-Lexington have acted with
deliberate indifference to Hammond's serious medical needs in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Hammond alleges that,
after an ultrasound in March 2021, he was told in a tele-med
appointment that he had significant scarring on his liver that
would need to be closely monitored. However, he claims that, since
that time, various medical staff have failed to explain the
treatment that he would receive and have repeatedly delayed or
denied his medical care.

However, Judge Wilhoit has reviewed Hammond's complaint and
concludes that it must be dismissed without prejudice, as it is
evident from the face of the complaint that he has not fully
exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claims.
He says, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), a
prisoner wishing to challenge the circumstances or conditions of
his confinement must first exhaust all available administrative
remedies.

The BOP's Inmate Grievance System requires a federal prisoner to
first seek informal resolution of any issue with staff. If a matter
cannot be resolved informally, the prisoner must file an
Administrative Remedy Request Form (BP-9 Form) with the Warden, who
has 20 days to respond. If the prisoner is not satisfied with the
Warden's response, he may use a BP-10 Form to appeal to the
applicable Regional Director, who has 30 days to respond. If the
prisoner is not satisfied with the Regional Director's response, he
may use a BP-11 Form to appeal to the General Counsel, who has 40
days to respond.

In the case, Hammond alleges that he filed a request or appeal to
the Warden regarding his claims on Dec. 23, 2021. However, the form
that Hammond submits with his complaint shows that he filed a
request for informal resolution (not an appeal to the Warden) on
Dec. 23, 2021. The copy of the form submitted by Hammond does not
indicate his counselor's response, if any. However, assuming
Hammond's grievance was denied, he was required to then appeal the
response to the Warden (who has 20 days to respond), the Regional
Director (who has 30 days to respond), and the General Counsel (who
has 40 days to respond). His form complaint leaves the lines where
he would indicate whether he filed these appeals blank, indicating
that he failed to take any of these steps. Moreover, Hammond signed
his complaint on Jan. 18, 2022. Thus, in light of the response
times allowed to respond to a grievance/appeal at each level of the
BOP's administrative grievance process, Hammond could not possibly
have completed all steps of the administrative grievance process
before his complaint was signed on

Where a plaintiff has filed a complaint prior to fully exhausting
his available administrative remedies, a district court may
properly dismiss the complaint without prejudice to afford the
plaintiff the opportunity to properly invoke and follow the jail's
grievance procedures with respect to his concerns. Because Hammond
has not fully exhausted his administrative remedies available via
the BOP's grievance process, his claims are premature, rendering
dismissal of his complaint without prejudice appropriate.
Mr. Hammond has also filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, seeking to change the name of Defendant "Mr. English" to
"Ms. English"; add Federal Medical Center as a Defendant; and add
Travis Mehaffey as a Plaintiff. However, Judge Wilhoit holds that
Hammond's failure to tender a proposed amended complaint warrants
denial of this motion. Hammond's proposed changes to the parties in
this case do not cure his failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing his complaint. For both of these reasons,
Hammond's motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be
denied.

Mr. Hammond has also filed a motion to appoint counsel, claiming
that appointment of counsel is warranted because of his limited
legal knowledge; the issues raised in the lawsuit are complex, as
he wishes to bring a class action; and he has attempted to obtain
counsel on his own without success. However, "the appointment of
counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right and is
justified only in exceptional circumstances." When considering
whether to grant such a request, the court considers the complexity
of the case, the movant's likelihood of success on the merits of
the claim, and the ability of the plaintiff to represent himself
competently.

Judge Wilhoit has considered the relevant factors and concluded
that this case does not present the kind of extraordinary
circumstances which would warrant the rights of others." Nor may
Hammond bring a class action pro se, as a plaintiff proceeding pro
se cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class," because a pro se party cannot represent the interests of
others. The claims asserted by Hammond are not unduly complex and
Hammond has adequately presented them in his complaint. Thus, his
motion to appoint counsel will be denied.

As the case will be dismissed, Hammond's motion to certify as a
class action, motion to compel, and motion for extension of time
will be denied as moot.

Accordingly, Judge Wilhoit denied Hammond's motion for leave to
file an amended complaint and Hammond's motion to appoint counsel.
He dismissed Hammond's complaint without prejudice to his ability
to re-file his claims in a new case after the administrative remedy
process is complete. All remaining requests for relief, including
Hammond's motion to certify as a class action, motion to compel,
and motion for extension of time are denied as moot.

Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with the Order.

The matter is stricken from the Court's docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6d3mzjp from
Leagle.com.


KKR & CO: Kentucky Court Allows Filing of Sur-Reply in Taylor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIA TAYLOR, et al., Plaintiffs v. KKR & CO., L.P., et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-29-KKC (E.D. Ky.), Judge
Karen K. Caldwell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort, granted the
Defendants' motion to file a sur-reply and denied as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to Franklin County Circuit
Court.

I. Background

In December 2017, a group of plaintiffs (the "Original Mayberry
Plaintiffs") -- enrollees in retirement plans managed by the
Kentucky Retirement Systems ("KRS"), a state agency -- brought suit
against KRS trustees and officers, investment advisors, and others,
alleging that mismanagement of KRS retirement assets had resulted
in a 25-billion-dollar deficit in the retirement asset pool. At
that time, both KRS and the Kentucky Attorney General declined to
participate, and, in November 2018, Judge Shepherd of Franklin
Circuit Court found that the Original Mayberry Plaintiffs had
standing to pursue their claims. Two interlocutory appeals from
denied motions to dismiss and a motion for a writ of prohibition
reached the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which determined in July
2020 that the Original Mayberry Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring
a derivative suit on KRS's behalf and lacked taxpayer standing,
citing Overstreet v. Mayberry, 603 S.W.3d 244 (Ky. 2020).

Following the Overstreet decision, the Kentucky Attorney General
filed a motion to intervene in the case, and the Original Mayberry
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to
rectify their lack of standing, in part by adding the Plaintiffs in
the instant case (the "Tier 3 Plaintiffs"), who are beneficiaries
of a "hybrid cash balance plan" rather than beneficiaries of a
"defined-benefit" plan like the Original Mayberry Plaintiffs. Judge
Shepherd granted the Kentucky Attorney General's motion finding
that the Attorney General was empowered by statute, the Civil
Rules, and the Overstreet decision to intervene and pursue claims
on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Judge Shepherd denied
the Original Mayberry Plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding their
proposed amendments insufficient to cure the standing deficiency,
and dismissed them from the case.

The Tier 3 Plaintiffs alone subsequently filed a motion to
intervene in the case. The Attorney General filed an amended
complaint in May 2021, in which he noted his intent "to assume
complete control of this action and to prosecute it to recover all
damages caused by Defendants and incurred by the Commonwealth or
KRS, including any and all damages for any claims that might
otherwise be brought derivatively by Commonwealth taxpayers,
citizens, pension fund beneficiaries (regardless of whether such
beneficiaries are classified as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3), on
account of the Defendants' actions as alleged." The Attorney
General further expressed his intent "to fully 'occupy the field,'
thus rendering the pursuit of any other action filed by any other
person in any purported derivative or representative capacity on
its behalf, on behalf of KRS, on behalf of the taxpayers or
citizens of the Commonwealth, or on behalf of the beneficiaries of
any Kentucky public employees' pension plan for the benefit of plan
beneficiaries or the Commonwealth unnecessary and unauthorized."

The Attorney General, KRS, and all Defendants opposed the Tier 3
Plaintiffs' proposed intervention. In June 2021, Judge Shepherd
denied the Tier 3 Plaintiffs' motion to intervene, finding that
"the Attorney General will adequately represent the interests of
the Tier 3 individuals, and that their involvement in the case is
not necessary" and that the Tier 3 Plaintiffs have "no statutory
right to pursue a derivative action on behalf of KRS." Judge
Shepherd declined to reach the issue of whether the Tier 3
Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their claims broadly, but noted
that "the Attorney General intends to exercise his broad statutory
and common law authority to the benefit of not only KRS or simply
the Commonwealth broadly, but for the benefit of all Tier 1, Tier
2, and Tier 3 beneficiaries and accordingly the presence of the
Tier 3 Group as plaintiffs would be redundant."

Judge Shepherd further explained that "any recovery secured by the
Tier 3 Group would still be subject to the same statutory oversight
as any recovery secured by the Attorney General"; "any recovery
sought on behalf of KRS -- as the Tier 3 Group seeks -- must still
be deposited in the State Treasury, with the funds administered by
the Office of the Controller"; "the Court has the ability under KRS
48.005 to specifically apportion any monetary recovery to KRS prior
to money being deposited into the general fund, and therefore it is
speculative to assert that KRS beneficiaries will experience
diminished recovery if the Attorney General pursues the instant
case without the Tier 3 Group"; and "the Court has the ability to
order that recovery be specifically tailored as justice requires,
and such payment would be made prior to remaining funds being
deposited in the general fund."

After Judge Shepherd denied the Tier 3 Plaintiffs' motion to
intervene, the Tier 3 Plaintiffs turned to what they referred to as
their "separate backstop action," a derivative action that they had
filed in January 2021. Several weeks after their denied
intervention, the Tier 3 Plaintiffs' filed the "First Amended Class
Action Complaint" that is operative. Following the Plaintiffs'
filing of this Amended Complaint, the Defendants removed the case
to this Court, asserting federal question due to the Plaintiffs'
civil RICO claim and diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, the Defendants responded,
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, via the Attorney General, moved
for leave to file an amicus brief, which was granted. The
Plaintiffs replied, and the Defendants moved for leave to file a
sur-reply. The matter is now ripe for the Court's review.

II. Discussion

Given the extensive state court litigation that has occurred and is
ongoing regarding the circumstances at the heart of this dispute,
Judge Caldwell finds it appropriate to consider whether abstention
is appropriate under the principles outlined by the Supreme Court
in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424
U.S. 800 (1976).

In Colorado River, "the Supreme Court held that federal courts may
abstain from hearing a case solely because there is similar
litigation pending in state court." The principles underlying
Colorado River abstention rest on considerations of wise judicial
administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources
and comprehensive disposition of litigation.

Determining whether abstention under Colorado River is warranted is
a two-step process. First, the Court must determine whether the
state court proceedings and the federal proceedings are "parallel."
Second, if the proceedings are found to be parallel, the Court must
evaluate various factors to determine whether Colorado River
abstention is appropriate, such as: (1) whether the state court has
assumed jurisdiction over any res or property; (2) whether the
federal forum is less convenient to the parties; (3) avoidance of
piecemeal litigation; and (4) the order in which jurisdiction was
obtained; (5) whether the source of governing law is state or
federal; (6) the adequacy of the state court action to protect the
federal plaintiff's rights; (7) the relative progress of the state
and federal proceedings; and, (8) the presence or absence of
concurrent jurisdiction.

These factors should not be viewed as a mechanical checklist, but
rather as important factors to be carefully balanced depending on
the particular facts at hand.

Judge Caldwell finds this to be the exceptional case where Colorado
River abstention is warranted and a stay is appropriate.

A. The State Court and Federal Court Proceedings are Parallel

Given the substantial similarity of the state and federal
proceedings, Judge Caldwell finds them "parallel" for purposes of
Colorado River. She says, the Attorney General's case includes all
but one of the Defendants in the action, as well as additional
Defendants. Further, it is the understanding of Judge Shepherd --
the judge presiding over the Attorney General's case -- that the
Attorney General is acting for the benefit of the Tier 3
beneficiaries and that the judge has the power to ensure that the
Tier 3 beneficiaries receive the recovery that justice requires.
Thus, the parties are not identical, but they are substantially
similar.

As to the claims, according to the Plaintiffs, the operative
Amended Complaint before the Court "asserts essentially the same
state law claims based on the same facts as the Attorney General's
case (but different damages for different plaintiffs)." A
comparison of the Tier 3 Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (DE 1-3) and
the Attorney General's complaint confirms that the Amended
Complaint essentially repackages the claims made by the Attorney
General as "direct injury" claims to the putative class of Tier 3
Plaintiffs. Again, the claims are not identical -- given the
inclusion of the RICO claim -- but they are substantially similar,
often with only a few changed words to reflect the different
plaintiffs.

B. The Colorado River Factors Weigh in Favor of Abstention

Because the state and federal proceedings are parallel, Judge
Caldwell evaluates each of the Colorado River factors in making its
abstention determination. The first two factors weigh against
abstention, she holds, as there is no res or property at issue and
the federal forum is not particularly less convenient than the
nearby state forum. However, the third through eighth factors weigh
heavily in support of abstention. Balancing the above factors and
comparing the circumstances of these proceedings to those evaluated
by the Sixth Circuit in cases such as Romine and Bates, Judge
Caldwell finds this to be the exceptional case where Colorado River
abstention is appropriate and necessary.

C. A Stay is Appropriate

Although the Plaintiffs and the Commonwealth of Kentucky seek
remand of the case, Sixth Circuit guidance counsels district courts
exercising Colorado River abstention to stay the proceedings.
Accordingly, Judge Caldwell will stay the matter in deference to
the parallel state court proceedings. If there are any remaining
issues after resolution of the state court case, the Plaintiffs may
move to lift the stay.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons she set forth, Judge Caldwell granted
the Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The matter is
stayed as of the date of entry of the Order.

Upon resolution of the state court proceedings in Commonwealth of
Kentucky v. KKR & Co., L.L.P., et al., No 17-CI-01348, or annually
from the entry of the Order, the parties will jointly submit a
report to the Court indicating the status of the state court case
and, if that case has concluded, whether either party believes
there are any remaining issues to discuss.

Judge Caldwell denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to remand,
subject to later re-filing if necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymnrau5u from Leagle.com.


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Deadlines Modified in Martinez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL MARTINEZ AND PHILIPPE
VIEUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., which will do business in
California as Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00572-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order that
the class certification motion deadlines be modified as follows:

  1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
     Certification is continued from March 4, 2022, to December
     5, 2022;

  2. The deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
     Motion for Class Certification is continued from May 6,
     2022, to February 7, 2023;

  3. The deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in support of motion for
     class certification is continued from June 3, 2022, to
     March 6, 2023; and

  4. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
     is continued from June 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. to March 23,
     2023, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 350
     West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Courtroom 8B, 8th
     Floor.

Knight Transportation is a truckload carrier offering dry van,
refrigerated, intermodal and brokerage services to customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sLqN7H at no extra charge.[CC]


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Stillman Suit Moved From W.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EARL STILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00124, was transferred from the
Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on March 3, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00387-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation by manufacturing
and selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel
Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices containing
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a holding company and sole member of
Philips North America LLC, with its principal place of business
located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James A. Rodman, Esq.
         5608 Parkcrest., Ste. 200
         Austin, TX 78731
         Telephone: (512) 481-0400
         Facsimile: (512) 481-0500
         E-mail: JimRodman@Rodmanlawoffice.com

KROGER CO: Rosales Has Until July 29 to File Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR ROSALES on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. THE KROGER CO.; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
8:21-cv-00796-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting the Parties joint motion to continue class certification
deadlines by 120 days.

  -- The Plaintiff shall have a 120-day continuance of his
     deadline to file a motion for class certification.

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due
     on July 29, 2022.

  -- The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiff's
     motion for class certification on September 2, 2022.

  -- The Plaintiff shall file his reply on September 23, 2022.

  -- The motion for class certification shall be noticed for
     hearing on the first available motions hearing date at the
     time of the filing of the motion, but no earlier than
     October 7, 2022.

Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35BQLlx at no extra charge.[CC]

LAD-MB LLC: Faces Raczkiewicz Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRYCIA RACZKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LAD-MB, LLC d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Los
Angeles, Case No. 2:22-cv-01431 (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2022) contends
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by sending unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, says the suit.

On April 15, 2021, May 17, 2021, June 14, 2021, August 11, 5 2021,
September 14, 2021 and October 12, 2021, Defendant allegedly caused
prerecorded voice messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number ending in 9198. The prerecorded voice
messages state they are being sent from Mercedes-Benz of Los
Angeles and ask Plaintiff to schedule service for her vehicle with
the Defendant.

The Defendant operates as a new and used car dealership which also
offers maintenance and service of automobiles to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A
          1925 Century Park E., #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com

LAND O'LAKES: Initial Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG PARMER and MARK A.
LAURANCE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. LAND O'LAKES, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LAND
O'LAKES, INC., LAND O'LAKES, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, and
JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 0:20-cv-01253-DSD-HB (D. Minn.), the
Plaintiffs submit an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement agreement entered into with Defendants,
preliminary approval of class notice, approval of plan of
allocation, and scheduling of a fairness hearing.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Land O'Lakes Employee
Savings & Supplemental Retirement Plan.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. is an American member-owned agricultural
cooperative based in the Minneapolis-St. Paul suburb of Arden
Hills, Minnesota, United States, focusing on the dairy industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/378DmBU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HANY TANIOUS, LOUSSINE S. MAZMANIAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAMES B. GATTON;
PATRICK J. O'MALLEY; LANDSTAR SYSTEM INC.; LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-08595, was
transferred from the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 3,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:22-cv-00217-TJC-MCR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Business and Professions
Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and California's Workers
Compensation Act including willful misclassification, waiting time
penalties, statutory penalties, retaliatory termination,
constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, negligence, negligence per se, loss of consortium,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful business
practices.

Landstar System Inc. is a transportation services company based in
Florida.

Landstar Ranger, Inc. is a trucking transportation services
provider based in Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
         2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 795-4700
         Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
         E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

                  - and –

         Adam C. Smedstad, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
         3214 West McGraw Street, Suite 301F
         Seattle, WA 98199
         Telephone: (206) 288-6192
         Facsimile: (206) 299-9375
         E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com

                  - and –

         James A. Eckhart, Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
         10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 637-1777
         Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
         E-mail: jeckhart@scopelitis.com

LENOVO INC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines in Axelrod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AXELROD, et al., v.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-06770-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order vacating
case management conference,order of referral for discovery, and
setting deadlines as follows:

                    Event                       Deadline

  -- Deadline for parties to file             July 8, 2022
     a joint status report
     regarding status of litigation:

  -- Deadline to file motion for              Jan. 13, 2023
     class certification and to
     serve Plaintiffs' expert
     disclosures and reports

  -- Deadline to produce Plaintiffs'          March 1, 2023
     experts for deposition:

  -- Deadline to file opposition              April 28, 2023
     to motion for class
     certification and to serve
     the Defendant's expert
     disclosures and reports:

  -- Deadline to produce Defendant's          June 9, 2023
     experts for deposition:

  -- Deadline to file reply re                July 7, 2023
     motion for class
     certification:

  -- Hearing on Motion for Class              Aug. 11, 2023
     Certification:

  -- The Court has received and considered the parties' joint
     case management conference statement, and it hereby vacates
     the case management conference scheduled for March 4, 2022.

  -- Any proposed protective orders shall be submitted to the
     Magistrate Judge for review and approval.

  -- In addition, all discovery disputes shall be presented to
     the assigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with their
     procedures, including any disputes about bifurcation or
     phasing discovery.

  -- It admonishes the parties to make every effort to resolve
     any disputes about the scope of discovery without court
     involvement.

  -- The parties shall submit a stipulation and proposed order
     regarding a deadline to complete private mediation by March
     25, 2022.

  -- The Court adopts the parties' proposals for Plaintiffs'
     anticipated motion for class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35FG7dk at no extra charge.[CC]

LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Bid to File Opposition Sur-Reply
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation;
LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and
DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-01404-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' request for
leave to file sur-reply in opposition to motion for class
certification, or alternatively, request for oral argument.

The Court generally views motions for leave to file sur-replies
with disfavor. However, District courts have the discretion to
either permit or preclude a sur-reply. This discretion should be
exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply "only where a valid
reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the
movant raises new arguments in its reply brief." Leprino claims it
is entitled to file a sur-reply because Howell's Reply brief
presents, for the first time, certain issues and evidence that ask
the Court to strike or view with skepticism certain 3 declarations
and testimony presented by Leprino. Howell claims Leprino's request
should be denied because Howell's Reply brief does not present any
new arguments or evidence, the Court says.

The Court has addressed a materially similar circumstance in Perez
v. Leprino Foods Co. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2021). As in Perez, the
Court will decline Howell's invitation to strike or otherwise
disregard any of the challenged declarations and testimony
presented by Leprino. Accordingly, Leprino's request to file a
sur-reply will be denied, the Court adds.

Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey. It is the world's largest maker of mozzarella cheese.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IGAY2V at no extra charge.[CC]


LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Hofmann Appeals Tuition Fee Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Hofmann filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ANTOINETTE MOORE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-03843-JS-AKT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Central Islip).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 16, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for charging students full
tuition and fees since March 2020 when it closed its campuses and
moved to on-line learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not provided the
services or facilities that the students bargained for and were
billed for as part of their tuition and fees. Since moving to
online classes, the Defendant has refused to return any portion of
the tuition and fees and continues to charge its students full
tuition and fees, the Plaintiff asserts.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is improperly requiring
its students to pay tuition and fees for services they are not
receiving and facilities that the university is not providing. In
so acting, the Defendant is unjustly enriching itself at the
expense of the Plaintiff and the Class members she seeks to
represent.

On December 3, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim which the Court granted on January 24,
2022 through a Memorandum Decision and Order entered by Judge Brian
M. Cogan. A Clerk's Judgment was also entered on January 25, 2022,
granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Mr. Hofmann now seeks a review of this order and judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Moore v. Long Island University,
Case No. 22-393, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on February 25, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant James Hofmann is represented by:

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
          32 Ann Street, 3rd Floor
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee Long Island University is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Fellows, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
          1 Lincoln Center
          110 West Fayette Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 218-8120
          E-mail: fellowj@bsk.com

               - and -

          Gregory Bertram Reilly, III, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          900 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600  
          E-mail: greilly@bsk.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Related Bids Continued to March 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS
ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class
representative, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal
entered an order regarding joint stipulation to continue class
certification related motions currently set for hearing on February
28, 2022.

The Court says that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify an OPG Class, and Defendants' motion to decertify classes,
currently set for February 28th be continued until March 21, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sED4ea at no extra charge.[CC]

MANDARICH LAW: Felberbaum Appeals Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Raizy Felberbaum is taking an appeal from a summary
judgment ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Raizy Felberbaum,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04249, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn).

Plaintiff Raizy Felberbaum filed this putative class action on July
23, 2019, on behalf of herself and persons similarly situated,
alleging violations of certain provisions of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by Defendant Mandarich Law Group, LLP.

On July 29, 2021, the Plaintiff and Defendant moved for summary
judgment.

On January 27, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety and denying
Plaintiff's motion. A judgment was then entered on January 31,
2022, in favor of Defendant.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Felberbaum v. Mandarich Law
Group, LLP, Case No. 22-431, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 2, 2022.[BN]

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

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW GROUP
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

Defendant-Appellee Mandarich Law Group, LLP is represented by:

          Luke Chamberlain, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 West Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3469

               - and -

          Stephanie Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD.
          142 West Station Street
          Barrington, IL 60010
          Telephone: (312) 334-3465
          E-mail: sstrickler@messerstrickler.com

MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Mort Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Mort, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marriot International, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00164
(M.D. Tenn., March 7, 2022) arises under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for Marriot's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former
hourly employees of Marriot. The Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of herself and all similarly-situated current and former
hourly employees of Marriot who have not been all minimum and
overtime wages due according law as a result of malfunctions with
Marriot's timekeeping and payroll software.

The Plaintiff was employed by Marriot at their Gaylord Opryland
Hotel and Convention Center located at 2800 Opryland Dr, Nashville,
Tennessee, from January 1, 2022 through January 30, 2022.

Marriot is a hotel and resort company which operates approximately
150 properties within the state of Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne Bennett Hunter, Esq.
          COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC
          7000 Executive Center Drive
          Building Two, Suite 320
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 724-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 691-7019
          E-mail: anne@collinshunter.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          E-mail: james@bswages.com

MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE: Krinsky Seeks OT Pay for Customer Service Reps
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA KRINSKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MARRIOTT WORLDWIDE RESERVATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00363 (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2022) challenges policies and
practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards
Act for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a remote customer
service representative, working from her home. In this role, the
Plaintiff provided telephone-based customer service to customers of
Marriott Hotels.

Other similarly situated employees were employed by the Defendant
as remote customer service representatives, and also provided
telephone-based customer service to customers of Marriott Hotels.

While Defendant's titles for these employees varied somewhat, they
all performed substantially similar primary job duties for
Defendant -- remote telephone-based customer service.

Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were classified by the Defendants as non-exempt employees under the
FLSA.

By common policy and practice, Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees were required to have their computers
booted up and have several applications running before the start of
their shifts so that they could take their first call promptly upon
commencing work at their scheduled start times, says the suit.

The Defendant arbitrarily failed to count this work performed by
Representative Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees as
"hours worked." The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees performed this unpaid work every workday, and it
constituted a part of their fixed and regular working time, the
suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 10
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ian Bulka, Smith Jeffrey
v. Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02082 (D. Or.), the Hon.
Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order on motion for extension of
time as follows:

  -- Motion for class certification is due June 10, 2022.

  -- Parties shall amend pleadings and join parties 45 days
     after order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

  -- Close of class discovery (allowed if class certified) is to
     be completed 120 days after order granting plaintiffs'
     motion for class certification.

  -- Dispositive motions, if any, are due 180 days after order
     on plaintiffs' motion for class certification, if granted,
     otherwise 90 days after order denying plaintiffs' motion
     for class certification.

  -- Joint ADR Report is due 120 days after order on plaintiffs'
     motion for class certification.

  -- Pretrial order is deferred until after ruling on
     dispositive motions.

The suit alleges violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, holding
and beverage and snack food company based in Chicago, Illinois.[CC]

NEMPR LLC: Motas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL R. MOTAS and other similarly situated individuals v. NEMPR,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20690-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) seeks
to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff and all other
current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff the
who worked over 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
October 2021, (the "material time") without being compensated
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

NEMPR is a foundry and metal processing and recycling Company. The
Defendant has facilities located at 9599 NW 87 Avenue, Medley,
Florida 33178, where Plaintiff worked.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee, from October 25, 2021, to January 18, 2022, or 12
weeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

NEVADA: Bid to Certify Detainees Class in Dillon v. NSDC Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melvin L. Dillon and Robert J. Dillon, Plaintiffs v.
CoreCivic, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01436-JAD-VCF (D.
Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada issued an order:

     a. granting in part Brian Koehn's motion to dismiss;
     b. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
     c. granting Brian Koehn's motion to strike; and
     d. substituting Luis Rosa for Defendant Brian Koehn.

I. Background

Pro se Plaintiffs Melvin and Robert Dillon, on behalf of themselves
and a class, sue officials at the Nevada Southern Detention Center
(NSDC) -- where the Plaintiffs are federal pretrial detainees --
for NSDC's insufficient safety protocols throughout the COVID-19
pandemic.

Judge Dorsey previously screened their complaint and narrowed their
claims to a single injunctive-relief claim under the Fifth
Amendment's due-process clause against Brian Koehn, then-warden of
NSDC; Michael Carvajal, director of the Bureau of Prisons; and U.S.
Marshal "Jefferson" to remedy alleged deliberate indifference to
unsafe conditions. The magistrate judge later recommended that
plaintiffs be permitted to file an amended complaint containing
only the same injunctive-relief claim and a new state-law
negligence claim. Judge Dorsey granted that recommendation and
cautioned the Plaintiffs that if they failed to file an amended
complaint that complied with her prior order, the case would
proceed "only on a single injunctive-relief claim against Koehn,
Carvajal, and Jefferson to remedy an alleged deliberate
indifference to unsafe conditions."

In July 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, along with
a motion for class certification seeking to represent "as many as
500 NSDC inmates" who have been affected by the pandemic. Defendant
Koehn moves to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that it
exceeds my previous orders and does not state a claim against him
in his individual capacity. Koehn also filed a motion to strike
attachments to the amended complaint and a notice of party
substitution since he is no longer the warden at NSDC.

Because pro se Plaintiffs cannot represent a class, Judge Dorsey
denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because
portions of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint do not strictly
comply with my prior orders, she grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of claims other than the
single, injunctive-relief claim for deliberate indifference to
unsafe conditions.

The case now proceeds on that claim alone. And Judge Dorsey grants
the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' exhibits because
they are evidentiary documents that do not form the basis of the
Plaintiffs' claims. She also substitutes NSDC Warden Luis Rosa for
Brian Koehn because injunctive-relief claims can only be brought
against officials with the authority to implement such relief, and
Koehn no longer can.

II. Discussion

A. Defendant Koehn's motion to dismiss is granted.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint purports to bring two claims
against defendants in their official and individual capacities: One
for "Equal Protections Under the Law/Due Process,
Failure-to-Protect" under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, and
one for "Deliberate Indifference/Failure-to-Protect/Cruel and
Unusual Punishment" under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments. They
seek injunctive relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages.

But as Judge Dorsey explained in her prior order, pretrial
detainees are not protected by the Eighth Amendment's proscription
on cruel and unusual punishment, and federal detainees are not
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection and
due-process clauses. She also dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim, explained that
they are not entitled to damages under the law, and determined that
the only requested injunctive relief they can pursue is the
appointment of a liaison to implement widespread COVID-19 testing.
The Plaintiffs' amended complaint repeats many of the claims and
requests Judge Dorsey previously dismissed with prejudice. When
granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend, Judge Dorsey warned that
failure to comply with my limitations would result in the case
proceeding only on the injunctive-relief claim that survived
screening. So, to the extent the Plaintiffs repeat already
dismissed claims or add new federal ones, those claims are
dismissed.

Judge Dorsey gave the Plaintiffs leave to add a state-law
negligence claim to their amended complaint. But aside from some
cursory uses of the word "negligence" in conjunction with their
deliberate-indifference claims, the Plaintiffs do not appear to
state an independent negligence claim. And to the extent they
reference NRS 212.010 and NRS 212.020, those are state criminal
statutes that cannot serve as the bases of claims brought by
private parties in the civil context. So Judge Dorsey finds that
the only claim that survives from this amended complaint is an
injunctive relief claim under the Fifth Amendment's due-process
clause for deliberate indifference to unsafe conditions against the
Defendants in their official capacities. So it is on that claim
only that the case proceeds.

B. Plaintiffs' class certification motion is denied.

The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of approximately 500 NSDC
inmates that they claim are impacted by NSDC's deliberate
indifference to the COVID-19 outbreak. But "it is well established
that the privilege to represent oneself pro se is personal to the
litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities." A pro
se litigant thus cannot represent a class. The magistrate judge has
also considered and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for appointment
of counsel. Because the Plaintiffs' request for counsel has been
denied and they are therefore proceeding pro se, Judge Dorsey
denies their motion for class certification.

C. Defendant Koehn's motion to strike is granted.

The Plaintiffs attached two exhibits to their amended complaint:
(1) an affidavit by fellow NSDC detainee "King Isaac Umoren"
detailing the prison's alleged failure to follow COVID-19
protocols, and (2) a declaration by Umoren containing further facts
concerning COVID-19 outbreaks at NSDC. Both documents were signed
by the Plaintiffs and several other NSDC detainees. The Defendant
Koehn moves to strike these documents "because they are irrelevant
to the Plaintiffs' claims, clutter the docket, and confuse the
issues."

The Plaintiffs contend that the Umoren affidavit and declaration
"serve the purpose of supporting the claims" in their amended
complaint. They do not contend that the exhibits form the basis of
their complaint; they instead are intended as evidence to support
their claims.

Judge Dorsey thus holds that the Plaintiffs' exhibits are not
properly filed as part of their amended complaint and should be
stricken. Allowing the exhibits to remain attached to the complaint
would prejudice the Defendants by requiring response to allegations
not relevant to the single injunctive-relief claim remaining in the
case. If the Plaintiffs believe these exhibits offer evidentiary
support for their claim, they should serve them on the opposing
parties in response to relevant discovery requests. Evidentiary
support should only be filed with the court when relevant to a
dispositive motion (like a motion for summary judgment), at trial,
or in response to a court order requesting such documents.

D. Warden Luis Rosa is substituted for Brian Koehn.

Defendant Koehn filed a notice of party substitution, stating that
Luis Rosa has replaced him as Warden of NSDC. Because Koehn is sued
in his official capacity for injunctive relief, he contends that
the new warden should replace him as the proper defendant in this
matter. The Plaintiffs oppose, arguing that Koehn should remain as
a defendant because he was the warden "at the time of the contested
constitutional violations."

But, Judge Dorsey finds that parties sued in their official
capacities for injunctive relief must have the authority to
implement the relief sought. Because Koehn is no longer NSDC's
warden, he cannot implement the injunctive relief the Plaintiffs
seek. It is proper to substitute the party who can: Current NSDC
Warden Luis Rosa. Judge Dorsey, therefore, terminates Brian Koehn
as a party and substitutes Luis Rosa in his place.

III. Conclusion

Judge Dorsey granted in part Brian Koehn's motion to dismiss. The
case proceeds only on the injunction claim for a Fifth Amendment
due-process violation against Defendants Brian Koehn, Michael
Carvajal, and M. Jefferson based on alleged deliberate indifferent
to unsafe conditions, which seeks the appointment of a liaison to
be assigned to immediately have all inmates and staff tested for
COVID-19 as a tool to protect against the COVID-19 virus. All other
claims are dismissed.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.

Brian Koehn's motion to strike is granted. The Clerk of Court is
directed to strike pages 12-34 from the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

The Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Luis Rosa for
Defendant Brian Koehn.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3tctxp from Leagle.com.


NEW ORIENTAL: Faces Mijares-Ortega Suit Over Alleged ADS Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES MIJARES-ORTEGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION & TECHNOLOGY GROUP
INC., CHENGGANG ZHOU, MICHAEL MINHONG YU, and ZHIHUI YANG, Case No.
1:22-cv-01876 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022) is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who purchased New Oriental American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") between April 24, 2018 and July 22,
2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against New Oriental and certain of
the Company's senior officers and directors.

In February 2018, the Chinese government released a set of
regulations aimed at reining in excessive tutoring fees and
limiting the perceived societal harm resulting from the ubiquity of
for-profit tutoring programs such as those offered by New Oriental.
Among other changes, the regulations prohibited after-school
tutoring institutions from providing courses more advanced than the
syllabus and curricula applicable to the respective primary and
secondary school students, providing courses designed to enhance
exam-taking skills, and linking school enrollment with tutoring
results. Overall, the regulations were aimed at reducing
disparities in school performance between relatively affluent
students able to afford after-school tutoring and those that could
not.

Because New Oriental operates in a highly regulated industry within
China, the impact of new laws and regulations impacting the Chinese
tutoring industry and the Company's compliance with the Chinese
regulatory framework and government prerogatives are of material
importance to investors, says the suit.

New Oriental acknowledged the material importance of maintaining
strict compliance with Chinese laws, regulations, and government
prerogatives. In New Oriental's Form 20-F filed with the SEC on
September 16, 2020, New Oriental stated that the Company was
"continuously making efforts to comply with the requirements under
these regulations and implementations" governing after-school
tutoring businesses imposed by the Chinese government, and any
failure to do so could "materially and adversely affect [New
Oriental's] business and results of operations."

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that New Oriental's revenue and operational growth was the
result of deceptive marketing tactics and abusive business
practices that flouted Chinese regulations and policies and exposed
the Company to an extreme risk that more draconian measures would
be imposed on the Company.

On April 25, 2021, media reports revealed that the City of Beijing
had fined four online education agencies, including the New
Oriental subsidiary Koolearn, the maximum fine of 500,000 yuan
(approximately $80,000) each for misleading customers with false
advertising regarding course pricing.

On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that an impending crackdown
by the Chinese government on the private tutoring sector would be
further reaching and more drastic than previously publicly known,
including that regulators had already taken adverse actions against
New Oriental and other for-profit tutoring companies.

On this news, New Oriental's American Depository Share ("ADS")
price fell $2.77 per ADS, or 19.4%, over the following two trading
sessions to close at $11.51 per ADS on May 13, 2021, the suit
added.

On June 1, 2021, Chinese regulators announced that they had fined
fifteen off-campus training institutions, including New Oriental,
for illegal activities such as false advertising and fraud.

On this news, New Oriental's ADS price fell $1.77 per ADS, or 16%,
over the following two trading sessions to close at $9.32 per ADS
on June 3, 2021.

Then, 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,
effectively ending any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring
sector in China.

On July 25, 2021, New Oriental published an "update" on the new
regulations, which stated that the Company will "comply with
relevant rules and regulations when providing educational services"
and "expects such measures to have material adverse impact on its
after-school tutoring services related to academic subjects in
China's compulsory education system."

On this news, New Oriental's ADS price fell $4.46 per ADS, or
nearly 70%, over the following two trading sessions to close at
$1.94 per ADS on July 26, 2021.

As a result of Defendants' alleged 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.

New Oriental provides educational programs, services, and products
to students across China and delivers online courses through its
online learning platforms.

Although headquartered in Beijing, China, the Company is organized
as an offshore holding company domiciled in the Cayman Islands.

New Oriental provides educational programs, services, and products
to students across the People's Republic of China and delivers
online courses through its online learning platforms. In the early
2000s, the Company entered the K-12 after-school tutoring sector.
Moreover, in 2005, New Oriental commenced its online education
services through its Koolearn platform. The Company now provides
comprehensive online education services through its subsidiary,
Koolearn Technology Holding Limited.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

NISSAN NORTH: Kemp Seeks to Certify Putative Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAKEITA KEMP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No. 3:19-cv-00843
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the putative classes listed below pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(4);

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Bailey Glasser LLP, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
      Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Branstetter, Stranch &
      Jennings PLLC, Bursor & Fisher, P.A, and Dicello Levitt &
      Gutzler LLC as joint class counsel.

      Class Vehicles:

      For each of the putative Classes described below, Class
      Vehicles are the 2017-2020 Rogue, 2017-2021 Rogue Sport,
      2019-2021 Altima, and 2020-2021 Kicks.

      Rule 23(b)(2) Classes:

      The Plaintiffs include Courtney Johnson (Florida), Morela
      Jova (Florida), Todd Burrows (Illinois), David Turner
      (Massachusetts), Scott and Jane Reeves (Missouri), Nancy
      Housell (New York), and Vaughn Kerkorian (Texas) each seek
      injunctive relief under their states’ respective consumer
      protection statutes.

      The Plaintiffs seek certification, pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(b)(2), of Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts,
      Missouri, New York, and Texas injunctive relief classes,
      and each Plaintiff seeks appointment as class
      representative for their respective state injunctive
      relief class.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the following state classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

  -- Connecticut:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Connecticut. The
     Plaintiffs move for appointment of Lakeita Kemp as the
     class representative of the Connecticut Class. The
     Connecticut Class seeks certification of the following
     causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
     breach of express warranty; and (3) unjust
     enrichment; (4) fraudulent omission."

  -- Florida:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Florida. Plaintiffs
     move for appointment of Courtney Johnson and Morela Jova as
     class representatives of the Florida Class. The Florida
     Class seeks certification of the following causes of
     action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of
     express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of
     the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (5)
     fraudulent omission."

  -- Illinois:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Illinois. Plaintiffs
     move for appointment of Todd Burrows as the class
     representative of the Illinois Class. The Illinois Class
     seeks certificati on of the following causes of action: (1)
     breach of implied warranty; (2) breach of express warranty;
     (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Illinois’ Consumer

     Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act; (5)
     fraudulent omission.

  -- Massachusetts:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Massachusetts. The
     Plaintiffs move for appointment of David Turner as the
     class representative of the Massachusetts Class. The
     Massachusetts Class seeks certification of the following
     causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
     breach of express warranty; (3) unjust enrichment; (4)
     violations of the Massachusetts Regulation of Business
     Practice for Consumer Protection Act; (5) fraudulent
     omission.

  -- Missouri:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Missouri. Plaintiffs
     move for appointment of Scott and Jane Reeves as the class
     representatives of the Missouri Class. The Missouri Class
     seeks certification of the following causes of action: (1)
     breach of express warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3)
     violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; (4)
     fraudulent omission.

  -- New York:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of New York. Plaintiffs
     move for appointment of Nancy Housell as the class
     representative of the New York Class. The New York Class
     seeks certification of the followingcauses of action: (1)
     breach of implied warranty; (2) unjust enrichment; (3)
     violations of New York’s General Business Law, sections 349

     and 350; (4) fraudulent omission.

  -- Pennsylvania:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Pennsylvania.
     Plaintiffs move for appointment of Jeff Olkowski as the
     class representative of the Pennsylvania Class. The
     Pennsylvania Class seeks certification of the following
     causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty; (2)
     breach of express warranty; (3)

     unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair
     Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; (5) fraudulent
     omission.

  -- Texas:

     "All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was
     purchased or leased in the State of Texas. Plaintiffs move
     for appointment of Vaughn Kerkorian as the class
     representative of the Texas Class. The Texas Class seeks
     certification of the following causes of action: (1) unjust
     enrichment; and; (2) fraudulent omission."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34icmyC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: fklorczyck@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
                  dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Adam Prom, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  aprom@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, West Virginia 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
                  jboggs@baileyglasser.com
                  mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
          SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
          9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 250-6114
          E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

OHIOHEALTH CORP: Court Denies Melgard's Bid to Amend FLSA Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANE MELGARD, Plaintiff, v. OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-5322 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate
Judge Chelsey M. Vascura of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied without
prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio Law.

I. Background

Plaintiff Melgard, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, sued OhioHealth for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio overtime compensation statute.
The Court has federal-question jurisdiction over the FLSA claims
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the
Ohio law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

The Plaintiff filed the action on Oct. 8, 2020. On Jan. 19, 2021,
the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Order ("PPO"), which
established case schedule deadlines, including the at-issue March
31, 2021 deadline for amendments to the pleadings. By agreement of
the parties, the deadlines to complete discovery and to file the
motion for class certification have been extended to Sept. 20,
2022, and Oct. 25, 2022, respectively.

On Jan. 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the subject Motion, in which
he seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint adding as new
named plaintiffs two current opt-in plaintiffs. The proposed new
named plaintiffs, Keith Breeckner and Colt Moore, have been opt-in
plaintiffs in the action since January 2021.

The Plaintiff represents that his "decision to add new named
plaintiffs was made once" the parties' Jan. 7, 2022 "mediation
proved unsuccessful." He further states that "discussion of adding
additional named plaintiffs predated" his Motion, but that he chose
to "focus on mediation rather than wasting" the Court's resources
by filing the Motion earlier, in case the parties settled. Once
mediation failed, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant's consent to
amend within several days. When the Defendant did not consent, the
Plaintiff filed the Motion.

The Defendant opposes amendment, arguing that the Plaintiff has
failed to show the diligence required to extend the amendments
deadline set forth in the PPO. It argues that the "Plaintiff does
not allege that he learned any new facts or any other reason that
would warrant" an extension of the deadline to amend the Complaint.
It contends that "absent new information in its discovery responses
that gave rise to the requested amendment, the Plaintiff cannot"
and has not met his burden to show that he was diligent in
attempting to meet the amendments deadline in the PPO.

In Reply, the Plaintiff offers that "as written discovery began and
the litigation continued," he "decided to amend his complaint," and
that this decision "is the result of information learned from
Defendant through discovery and as the case has proceeded forward."
He further provides that "the information learned during discovery
and the continued dialogue between the parties during the course of
the litigation -- including during mediation -- led" him to decide
that adding the proposed additional named plaintiffs "was the most
appropriate course of action." The Plaintiff adds that the "newly
discovered facts" that he "learned of at mediation were the
Defendant's focus on matters unrelated to the lawsuit,
necessitating an amendment."

II. Analysis

Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for extension of
the deadline for amendments turns on his diligence. Judge Vascura
does not have the information she needs to evaluate whether the
Plaintiff exercised diligence in seeking amendment. The Plaintiff
filed the subject Motion approximately 10 months after the
expiration of the amendments deadline set forth in the PPO. The two
individuals whom he now seeks to add as named plaintiffs have been
opt-in plaintiffs, known to both parties, for more than one year.

In his Motion, the Plaintiff makes multiple assertions that he
learned new information at some point during discovery, or at some
point as the case proceeded, that necessitates amendment. Then, in
his Reply, he asserts that he discovered new facts "at mediation,"
and that these "were the Defendant's focus on matters unrelated to
this lawsuit, necessitating an amendment." The Defendant maintains
that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment is not based upon the
discovery of any new information.

Judge Vascura opines that the Plaintiff has never identified
precisely what new information he learned that he contends
necessitates amendment, nor exactly when he learned it. In the
absence of this information, she is unable to evaluate, and the
Defendant is unable to challenge, the Plaintiff's reliance on the
discovery of new information to show good cause for extending the
deadline for amendment to the pleadings.

III. Disposition

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Vascura denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Amend without prejudice to re-filing a properly-supported
motion. Any re-filed motion must set forth in detail (1) what
specific new information the Plaintiff learned that he contends
necessitates amendment after the PPO deadline, and (2) when the
Plaintiff learned that information. If the Defendant wishes to file
a Memorandum in Opposition, it may do so within seven of the date
on which the Plaintiff files his re-filed Motion. The Court will
not accept a Reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ak8e9w3u from Leagle.com.


OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION: Case Schedule Modified in Melgard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANE MELGARD on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05322-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey
M. Vascura entered an order granting parties' joint motion to
modify the case schedule as follows:

  -- Discovery Cutoff -- September 20, 2022.

  -- Motion for Class Certification under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23
     Oct. 25, 2022.

  -- Expert Disclosures -- primary expert reports, if any, must
     be produced by 45 days after entry of the Court’s order on
     the Plaintiff's motion for class certification or 45 days
     after entry of an order on any dispositive motion,
     whichever is earlier. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must
     be produced by 30 days after production of primary expert
     reports.

  -- Dispositive Motions -- must be filed within 90 days of the
     Court’s decision on Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for
     class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
     Procedure 23.

OhioHealth is a not-for-profit system of hospitals and healthcare
providers located in Columbus, Ohio and surrounding areas. The
system consists of 12 hospitals, 200+ ambulatory sites, hospice,
home health, medical equipment and other health services spanning
47 Ohio counties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35UNrlp at no extra charge.[CC]

ONSITE FACILITY: Pickard Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT PICKARD, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES,
LLC and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC v. ONSITE FACILITY SERVICES, LLC and
any related entities, Case No. 5:22-cv-00207-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y.,
March 4, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

From March 2016 and continuing through the present, the Defendant
has allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of depriving its
employees of the applicable straight time wages and overtime wages
for work they performed as mandated by federal and state law.

Onsite Facility was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTRAK INC: Braun Files IPO-related Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
IRVING S. BRAUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONTRAK, INC., TERREN S. PEIZER, BRANDON H.
LAVERNE, CHRISTOPHER SHIRLEY, RICHARD A. BERMAN, SHARON GABRIELSON,
GUSTAVO GIRALDO, KATHERINE B. QUINN, ROBERT REBAK, DIANE SELOFF,
MICHAEL SHERMAN, EDWARD ZECCHINI, B. RILEY SECURITIES, INC.,
LADENBURG THALMANN & CO. INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,
AEGIS CAPITAL CORP., INSPEREX LLC (f/k/a INCAPITAL LLC), THE
BENCHMARK COMPANY, LLC, BOENNING & SCATTERGOOD, INC., COLLIERS
SECURITIES, LLC, KINGSWOOD CAPITAL MARKETS, THINKEQUITY and DOES
1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV07174 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf
of all purchasers of the 9.50% Series A Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock of Ontrak pursuant to the Registration Statements
and Prospectuses issued in connection with Ontrak's August 21, 2020
initial public stock, its September 2020 through December 2020 "at
market" offering and its December 16, 2020 follow-on stock
offering, seeking to pursue strict liability remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the
statements were each materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts
that existed at the time of the IPO: (a) that Ontrak's
relationships with two of its largest customers were materially
impaired due to a lack of confidence in Ontrak's value proposition
and billing practices, specifically its inability to ensure that
only insured patients were receiving care (b) that Ontrak's
relationships with two of its largest customers were also
materially impaired due to the expressions of dissatisfaction by
those customers Ontrak had received as to whether Ontrak was
providing a return on their investments; (c) that Ontrak's largest
customer, Aetna, had turned off the data feed of customer records
to Ontrak by May 2020, citing dissatisfaction with the Company's
value proposition and billing practices; (d) that Ontrak's largest
customer, Aetna, had submitted a critical Corrective Action Plan to
Ontrak in July 2020 which Ontrak's senior executives had been
unable to effectively respond to; (e) that the failures in Ontrak's
ability to ensure insurance coverage and resulting billing problems
permeated all of its relationships with large health insurance
provider clients; and (f) as result, the Company's business metrics
and financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the
Registration Statement.

As a result, the price of Ontrak Preferred Stock has declined and
now trades in a range of $8.00-$10.00 per share, significantly
below the offering price of $25 per share, says the suit.

Ontrak, Inc. is a Santa Monica, California-based telehealth-enabled
healthcare company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
   
               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
          39 Sintsink Drive West - 1st Floor
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

PATRIOT HOME: Reduces Caregiver's Regular Rates, Williams Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAMEDA MADIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PATRIOT HOME CARE, INC. and PATRIOT HOME CARE
HOLDING COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00404-JFC (W.D. Pa., March 7,
2022) seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the common law doctrine of
restitution/unjust enrichment.

The FLSA and PMWA mandate that employers pay employees who work
overtime -- that is, over 40 hours in a workweek -- at least "one
and one-half times" their "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff
brings this action to challenge Defendants' policy and practice of
reducing their employees' regular hourly pay rates if those
employees work overtime in order to avoid paying employees the full
compensation to which they are entitled by law.

Plaintiff Shameda Madia Williams is an adult individual who resides
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. She worked for Defendants as a
"caregiver" from February, 2021 through the end of January, 2022.
At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint.

Patriot Home Care Holding Company. The Defendant provides home care
services throughout Pennsylvania and Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE
          & KRAVEC, LLC
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: efeinstein@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

PIPELINE HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERRY THOMAS AND TINA PHILLIPS, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. PIPELINE
HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND
PIPELINE -- WEST SUBURBAN MEDICAL CENTER LLC D/B/A WEST SUBURBAN
MEDICAL CENTER, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-01122 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2022) is a class action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked at or more than
40 hours most work weeks such that the time the Defendants forced
them to work off the clock are owed at their overtime rates of pay
of one and one-half their regular rates of pay.

Additionally, the Defendants allegedly failed to incorporate shift
differentials into the calculation of the Plaintiffs' regular and
overtime rates of pay, resulting in further non-payment of overtime
pay. The Defendants compensated the Plaintiffs, and members of the
Plaintiff Class, on an hourly basis but failed to pay one-and
one-half times the employees' regular hourly rates of pay for all
hours worked.

PHS owns and operates seven hospitals across three states,
including Illinois. PHS provides a full-range of medical services
at each of their hospitals, including emergency services,
surgeries, out-patient procedures and services, imaging and
diagnostic testing, and other general medical services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

POLLY INC: Hernandez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Cooks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL VIDALS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. POLLY, INC. D/B/A MARTY GRAS BAR & GRILL AND
MARTIN NOWINSKI, Case No. 2:22-cv-01244 (D.N.J., March 7, 2022)
seeks equitable and legal relief for the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from on or
around December 11, 2005 until on or around December 31, 2020.

As a cook, Plaintiff's principal job duties included opening Polly
at the beginning of each work day, preparing food, cleaning
Polly’s kitchen, bar area, and bathroom, washing dishes, taking
out the garbage, and performing any other duties as requested by
Nowinski.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff regularly worked six days per week. Throughout his
employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was not afforded meal or
rest breaks. The Defendants neither tracked the hours Plaintiff
worked nor required the Plaintiff to record his time, the lawsuit
says.

Although the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week during their employment with
Defendants, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs with overtime wages at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit added.

Polly's, Inc. operates as a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

PRECISION CASTPARTS: Class Settlement Will Average $3,500/Household
-------------------------------------------------------------------
usnews.com reports that Precision Castparts Corp. has agreed to pay
$22.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused its
metal casting facility in Southeast Portland, Oregon, of polluting
nearby homes with toxic metals.

The settlement includes millions of dollars Precision Castparts
already spent to improve emission controls at its Large Parts
Campus, plus $12.5 million in payments to neighboring residents and
their lawyers, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.

Matthew Preusch, an attorney representing neighbors, said it's the
largest environmental class-action settlement in Oregon history. He
estimates payments will average around $3,500 per household for
people residing in the area in February 2016, the timeframe
specified in the litigation.

"This case has had a significant role in both correcting emissions
problems and then, hopefully, deterring other polluters in thinking
they can do this and get away with it," Preusch said.

Attorneys expect checks will begin going out sometime this summer.

"The settlement allows PCC Structurals (the business unit named in
the suit) to resolve costly, long-term litigation," Precision
Castparts said in a written statement. "As always, we will remain
in compliance with our air regulatory permits and will continue to
invest in strong emission control technology as part of our
commitment to the environment and our community."

People eligible for the settlement live in areas where scientists
found pollution in 2016m roughly concentrated around Portland's
Brentwood-Darlington neighborhood.

The original lawsuit, brought by residents Brian and Alina Resendez
in 2016, cited reporting in The Oregonian/OregonLive about elevated
levels of nickel in moss near Precision Castparts' facility. The
suit alleges that toxins found by U.S. Forest Service researchers
and state environmental regulators in tree moss nearby indicated
that residents had been exposed to potentially harmful
contaminants.

Precision Castparts makes large metal components for airplanes,
electrical generators and other industrial products.

The pollution settlement requires Precision Castparts to spend $7.7
million on emission controls and another $2 million on pollution
controls. The company has spent the $7.7 million and that work is
credited toward the settlement.

Attorneys will seek as much as one-third of a $12.5 million
settlement fund, up to $4.2 million.

Residents and former residents can check their eligibility online
and view details of the case at structuralssettlement.com. People
seeking a payment must file a claim form by April 9.

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed. [GN]

PRESIDENT & FELLOWS: Barkhordar Partly Granted Leave to Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM BARKHORDAR, SARAH ZELASKY, and ELLA
WECHSLER-MATTHAEI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD
COLLEGE, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-10968-AK (D. Mass.),
Judge Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend.

I. Background

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleged that the
Defendant's twelve degree-granting schools acted unlawfully when
they ceased to provide in-person instruction and access to
on-campus facilities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and
failed to refund a portion of students' tuition and fees. The Court
permitted the Plaintiffs to move to amend their complaint, limiting
the amendment "to causes of action for breach of contract for the
Spring 2020 term."

The Plaintiffs timely filed a Motion for Leave to File the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which the Defendant
President and Fellows of Harvard College opposed. They attached two
proposed amended complaints to their Motion. They state that the
first proposed amended complaint includes only allegations relating
to the Spring 2020 term, as previously allowed by the Court, and
the second proposed complaint ("Fall 2020 & Spring 2021 Complaint")
adds allegations pertaining to the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021
semesters.

II. Discussion

The Court previously identified deficiencies the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint that any proposed amendment would need to cure.
First, the Court advised the Plaintiffs that if they proceeded on a
University-wide contract claim, they would need to "detail the
provisions of the alleged University-wide contract." Alternatively,
the Plaintiffs would need to "detail the provisions of the
school-specific contract" to seek relief for students of a
particular school. Second, the Plaintiffs would need to address the
reservations of rights contained within two student handbooks.

A. Plaintiffs Have Not Adequately Alleged a University-Wide
Contract

In their Proposed Spring 2020 Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege, as
they did in the Amended Complaint, that they "entered into
identical, binding contracts with Defendant by accepting the
Defendant's offer to enroll in one of its degree-granting programs
and registered for on-campus classes in accordance with the terms
of the Defendant's publications and the Defendant's usual and
customary practice of providing on-campus courses." The Plaintiffs
contend it was their "reasonable expectation that the Defendant
would provide on-campus -- as opposed to online—classes and
instruction as provided in the Defendant's publications, including
but not limited to the policies, procedures, brochures,
advertisements, and other promotional materials."

In support of the Plaintiffs' allegations of a University-wide
contract, the Proposed Spring 2020 Complaint includes a website the
Plaintiffs claim "markets Harvard's on-campus experience" and
Harvard's mission statement and vision. These statements describe
Harvard's "unparalleled resources," including extracurricular
activities, athletics, research opportunities, and Harvard's
campus; Harvard's mission to "educate the citizens and
citizenleaders for our society beginning in the classroom" and
through "a diverse living environment, where students live with
people who are studying different topics"; and Harvard's vision
that it "sets the standard for residential liberal arts and
sciences education."

Judge Kelley finds that even if these statements apply
University-wide, not only to students at Harvard College, they are
too "vague and generalized" to be "contractually enforceable." That
is, these "generalized, aspirational statements" are
"insufficiently definite to form a contract." The Plaintiffs have
thus failed to allege identical University-wide contracts.

B. Plaintiffs Have Plausibly Alleged Harvard Law School, Harvard
Graduate School of Education, and Harvard School of Public Health
Promised In-Person Instruction

The Plaintiffs' Proposed Spring 2020 Complaint alleges a number of
contract terms that are school specific. Many of these alleged
terms refer to on-campus facilities and surrounding communities.
Other alleged terms relate to the on-campus locations and in-person
requirements listed on course syllabi. The Plaintiffs rely on these
school-specific terms and practices to allege that Harvard, by
moving instruction online, breached the terms of their contracts.

Taken together, Judge Kelley holds that the school-specific
language from websites, syllabi, course catalogs, and other sources
included in the Proposed Spring 2020 Complaint is sufficient to
allege a reasonable expectation of in-person instruction and
programming. Additionally, the reservations of rights in the
Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard School of Public
Health student handbooks are insufficient, at this stage in the
litigation, to undermine the Plaintiffs' reasonable expectations of
in-person instruction and on-campus experiences as established by
the "fulsome allegations of contractual terms" in the Proposed
Spring 2020 Complaint.

The Plaintiffs have, therefore, plausibly alleged that, at the time
they entered into contracts with Harvard Law School, Harvard
Graduate School of Education, and Harvard School of Public Health
for the Spring 2020 term, Harvard would have reasonably expected
students to understand it was promising to provide in-person
instruction and on-campus experiences.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kelley granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. She granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend as it pertains to the
Proposed Spring 2020 Complaint, and any prospective class is
limited to those students enrolled at Harvard Law School, Harvard
Graduate School of Education, and Harvard School of Public Health
during the Spring 2020 term. Judge Kelley denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to Amend as it pertains to the Fall 2020 & Spring
2021 Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/58yrr9uk from Leagle.com.


PRUDENT FIDUCIARY: Burnett Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Burnett, Michael Paradise, and David Nelson as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Western Global Airlines, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, Plaintiffs v. Prudent Fiduciary Services LLC,
Miguel Paredes, James K. Neff, Carmit P. Neff, James K. Neff
Revocable Trust dated 11/15/12, Carmit P. Neff Revocable Trust
dated 11/15/12, WGA Trust dated 8/16/13, and John and Jane Does
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00270-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 28,
2022) alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties with
respect to the Western Global Airlines, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the Plan to the detriment of the Plan and
its participants and beneficiaries, by causing both the Plan and
the company to be saddled with hundreds of millions of dollars of
high-interest debt to finance the Plan's purchase of a minority
stake in Western Global Airlines at a grossly inflated price.

Allegedly, the Employee Stock Ownership Plan drastically overpaid
for the stock it purchased from the Neffs Defendants, causing the
ESOP's participants to suffer monetary losses in their retirement
accounts and tying their retirement futures to a company whose
outlook is grim at best. The Neffs, meanwhile, walked away with
more than half a billion dollars, rewarding the Trustee Defendants
in the process with fees and valuable protections for helping them
fleece the ESOP, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to remedy this unlawful conduct,
recover losses to the Plan, disgorge ill-gotten gains, and obtain
other appropriate relief as provided by ERISA.

Western Global Airlines is a cargo airline that, until October
2020, was privately owned by Defendants James K. and Carmit P.
Neff.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          P.O. BOX 1680
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
          Telephone: (302) 984-3816
          E-mail: ckeener@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          Peter K. Stris, Esq.
          Rachana A. Pathak, Esq.
          Victor O'Connell, Esq.
          John Stokes, Esq.
          STRIS & MAHER LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 995-6800
          E-mail: pstris@stris.com
                  rpathak@stris.com
                  voconnell@stris.com
                  jstokes@stris.com

               - and -

          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsutter@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  jschutz@nka.com

QUANTUM HEALTH: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due June 27 in Snider
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT SNIDER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. QUANTUM HEALTH, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02296 (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura entered an order on motion for extension of time as
follows:

  -- Class Certification Motion due by June 27, 2022.

  -- Discovery closes 150 days after Court's decision on class
     certification.

  -- Dispositive motions due 30 days after close of discovery.

  -- Primary Expert Reports due 120 days prior to close of
     discovery.

  -- Rebuttal Expert Report due 60 days after primary expert
     reports are due.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Quantum Health offers a uniquely powerful solution to drive
healthcare benefits performance.[CC]

RAYMOND JAMES: Bid to Strike Caudullo Declaration Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Nguyen v. Raymond
James Financial, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195 (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike the
Declaration of Alfred Caudullo.

The motion is granted to the extent it relates to the motion for
class certification and denied as to the request for attorney's
fees, says Judge Honeywell.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.

Raymond Jamesis an American multinational independent investment
bank and financial services company providing financial services to
individuals, corporations, and municipalities.[CC]

REDDIT INC: Plaintiffs Appeals to Revive Child Pornography Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that a proposed Class of Jane and John
Doe's has implored the Ninth Circuit to revive a class action
lawsuit claiming Reddit profited off child pornography posted on
its platform.

Doe's, which filed a notice of appeal in November, are arguing that
a judge erred in previously tossing the complaint under the
determination that Reddit was exempt under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act (CDA).

The CDA was put in place to generally protect websites from being
brought to court over content posted by third parties.

Doe's argue, however, that the case fits into the "language of
Section 1595 of the CDA, a provision of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)."

"Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges in hundreds of detailed
allegations that Reddit refuses to prevent, detect and remove known
illegal content or ban repeat offenders who traffic in child
pornography - all to Reddit's profit," states the appeal.

Doe's claim Reddit benefited from its participation in a venture
which it either knew or should have known was involved in "illegal
trafficking," and that it is aware individuals looking for child
porn seek out its platform.

"Reddit users, news media, and advocacy groups have repeatedly
notified Reddit of specific examples of child pornography that are
continuously posted and reposted on its site," states the appeal.

Doe's Argue Reddit Slow To Remove Child Pornography Images
Doe's claim further that Reddit was slow to take down images
depicting child pornography and that the company did not enact a
policy barring child porn on the platform until 2011, despite being
founded in 2005.

While previously arguing against Reddits motion to dismiss, Doe's
claimed that, based on the text of the TVPRA, that they are allowed
to seek damages even if Reddit is not found to be criminally liable
for the content posted on its platform.

The judge overseeing the case disagreed, however, instead siding
with Reddit while deciding to dismiss the case without prejudice,
Law360 reports.

In related news, in January a school teacher in Florida was
arrested and charged with child pornography crimes after hundreds
of explicit images and videos were found on his cell phone.

Should Reddit be held accountable for the images posted on its
platform by third parties? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Krysta Kauble Pachman, Davida
Brook and Halley Josephs of Susman Godfrey LLP.

The Reddit Child Pornography Class Action Lawsuit is Doe v. Reddit
Inc., Case No. 21-56293, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. [GN]

RICE DRILLING: J&R Passmore Granted Leave to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. RICE DRILLING
D, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1587 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File Documents Under Seal. The Plaintiffs move to file certain
supporting documents for their reply in support of class
certification under seal. Because at the time of filing the
Plaintiffs had not conferred with all the Defendants regarding
requests to declassify the documents at issue, the Court ordered a
status report after the parties conferred. The parties agreed to
declassify several proposed exhibits, leaving only 11 documents
sought to be filed under seal.

The Plaintiffs move to seal eleven documents which make up a single
exhibit supporting their Motion to Certify Class. The documents are
spreadsheets containing revenue and expense information related to
well leases. The parties agree the information is confidential.

Upon in camera review of the documents, Judge Jolson finds they
contain sensitive financial information about the revenue and
expenses generated at various wells. She further finds that this
type of "explicit financial data including a company's costs" rises
to the level of trade secret. Significantly, these figures are
unlikely to be known to those outside the business and are
protected by the well owners and the companies with whom they chose
to enter contracts. Accordingly, Judge Jolson finds that there is a
compelling interest in sealing the records.

Further, no countervailing public interest counsels against sealing
the records. While the present case is a putative class action, it
does not invoke any of these "interests of public health and
safety" that would outweigh the parties' "compelling interest" in
maintaining a trade secret. There is little benefit to the public
-- if any -- in disclosing the revenue and expense data. Nor will
the sealing of these documents obscure the overall evidentiary
record on which the parties and the Court will base their
reasoning. Indeed, these documents make up only one of 51 exhibits
to these Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

As a third and final consideration, the Plaintiffs must also
demonstrate that it has narrowly tailored the request to address
only their compelling interest in sealing. To meet the exacting
standard for sealing, movants should generally redact only the
objectionable portions of documents rather than seal them in their
entirety. However, Judge Jolson is satisfied that the Plaintiffs
cannot effectively redact these documents. Line by line, each
spreadsheet contains the financial data that the Plaintiffs wish to
preserve as a trade secret. Therefore, she finds that the
Plaintiffs' request to fully seal the eleven documents is
sufficiently narrow.

Finally, Judge Jolson notes that the parties have agreed to
declassify a few documents previously at-issue in the Motion for
Leave to File Documents Under Seal if redactions of "personal
employee information such as telephone numbers and email addresses"
are made. Because redactions are themselves a form of sealing, she
briefly considers the proposed redactions. First, the parties have
a compelling interest in protecting the personal contact
information of their employees, particularly to the extent that
those employees are not themselves parties to this litigation.
Second, the right to privacy for these third parties outweighs any
interest the public may have in accessing the information. And
finally, because the parties seek to redact only this contact
information, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to serve
their compelling interest. In sum, the redactions agreed to by the
parties are approved by the Court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jolson granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. She ordered the
Plaintiffs to file the declassified, redacted, and sealed exhibits
consistent with her Opinion and Order within seven days.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ja79e5t from Leagle.com.


SAFEMOON LLC: Blacksher Sues Over Misleading Sale of Digital Tokens
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA BLACKSHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SAFEMOON LLC, SAFEMOON US, LLC, SAFEMOON CONNECT, LLC,
TANO LLC, SAFEMOON LTD, SAFEMOON PROTOCOL LTD, SAFEMOON MEDIA GROUP
LTD, BRADEN JOHN KARONY, JACK HAINES-DAVIES, RYAN ARRIAGA, SHAUN
WITRIOL, HENRY "HANK" WYATT, THOMAS SMITH, KYLE NAGY, JAKE PAUL,
NICK CARTER,  DeANDRE CORTEZ WAY, BEN PHILLIPS, MILES PARKS
McCOLLUM, and DANIEL M. KEEM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01527 (C.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2022) arises from a scheme among various unscrupulous
individuals in the cryptocurrency sector to misleadingly promote
and sell the digital asset associated with SafeMoon (the SAFEMOON
Tokens) to unsuspecting investors.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all investors who
purchased SafeMoon tokens between March 8, 2021 and the time of
filing this Complaint, and were damaged thereby.

The Company's executives, collaborating with several celebrity
promotors, (a) made false or misleading statements to investors
about SafeMoon through social media advertisements and other
promotional activities, and (b) disguised their control over
SafeMoon and a significant percent of the SAFEMOON Tokens that were
available for public trading during the Class Period (the "Float"),
says the suit.

In furtherance of this scheme, Defendants touted the technological
innovation of the Company's token and related cryptocurrency
wallet, as well as the ability for investors to make significant
returns due to the favorable "tokenomics" of the SAFEMOON Tokens.
In truth, Defendants marketed the SAFEMOON Tokens to investors so
that they could sell their portion of the Float for a profit, the
suit added.

Defendants' alleged strategy was a success. The misleading
promotions and celebrity endorsements were able to artificially
increase the interest in and price of the SAFEMOON Tokens during
the Class Period, causing investors to purchase these losing
investments at inflated prices. Meanwhile, the Company's
executives, Karony and Haines-Davies, conspired with the Promoter
Defendants to sell their SAFEMOON Tokens to investors for a
profit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and an
objectively identifiable class consisting of all investors who
purchased SafeMoon's SAFEMOON Tokens between March 8, 2021 and the
time of filing this Complaint.

Plaintiff Kayla Blacksher is a resident and citizen of Texas,
living in Vidor, Texas. She purchased SAFEMOON Tokens and suffered
investment losses as a result of Defendants' conduct.

The SAFEMOON Token is a speculative digital token created in March
2021 by a group of cryptocurrency developers and investors,
including, but not limited to, the Executive Defendants.

A "token" is a financial product that is contractually based (via a
"smart" contract) and is created and uploaded permanently to a
given blockchain.

The SAFEMOON Tokens in particular are blockchain-based digital
assets known as "BEP-20 tokens" that are created using the Binance
Smart Chain mainnet blockchain. After a BEP-20 token is created, it
can be traded, spent, or otherwise transacted with.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

SCALE MEDIA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Person, Paguada Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SCALE MEDIA INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01814-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to -- and independently usable by -- the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading
software in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

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, the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on the Defendant's website, Weliveconscious.com/. The main
reason Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia, purchase
products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers
different all natural wellness products. The accessibility issues
the Plaintiff experienced are still found on Defendant's website as
of the date of the filing of this complaint. The 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 seeks 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 a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
brings this civil rights class action against Scale Media.[BN]

Scale is a tech-driven direct-to-consumer company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SCHREIBER LAW: Faces Henderson Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flossie Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Schreiber Law, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00344-JBA (D. Conn., March 3, 2022) is a class action
on behalf of a class of Connecticut consumers under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act, seeking damages and declaratory relief.

The Defendants allegedly violated Section 1692g(b) by engaging in
collection activities and communication during the 30-day period
that overshadowed and/or was inconsistent with the disclosure of
the consumer's right to dispute the debt.

The Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for judgment that
Defendant's conduct violated Section 1692g et seq. of the FDCPA,
actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Connecticut, County of
Middlesex.

Schreiber is a "debt collector."

The Class consists of:

   a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Connecticut;

   b. to whom Defendant Schreiber sent a collection letter
      attempting to collect a debt;

   c. on behalf of Defendant LVNV;

   d. providing an amount owed;

   e. based on a particular date range between a date certain and
      "today";

   f. without dating the collection letter;

   g. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior
      to the filing of this action and on or before a date twenty-
      one (2l) days after the filing of this action.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

SL FARMS: Segura Seeks Regular & Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
YUNISEL SEGURA and other similarly situated individuals v. SL FARMS
LLC a/k/a SL FARMS and TONY H. SILVA, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-20687-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid regular wages, overtime compensation,
retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards.

Corporate Defendant SL Farms is a commercial Aviary raising exotic
birds for resale. SL FARMS is located at 23345 SW 217 Avenue,
Homestead 33031, where Plaintiff worked.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee from May 01, 2021, to December 31, 2021, or 35
weeks. The Plaintiff had duties as a caretaker for the birds,
feeding, grooming, cleaning cages, and the entire facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

STANFORD HEALTH: Fails to Provide Timely Meal Period, Veitch Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW VEITCH and RAMONA MCCAMISH, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. STANFORD HEALTH CARE, DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV395001 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
March 4, 2022), is class action suit brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and certain other former and current Nurses in the
Stanford Hospital Operating Rooms and Cardiovascular Operating
Rooms who were not provided an uninterrupted thirty-minute meal
work period between the fifth and sixth hour of their shift and
were not provided an additional hour of compensation.

SHC operates several medical facilities, including Stanford
Hospital in Palo Alto, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Ginger Grimes, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          Oakland, CA 94612
          155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com

STEMGENEX MEDICAL: Settlement in Moorer Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SELENA MOORER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
STEMGENEX MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; STEMGENEX,
INC., a California corporation; STEM CELL RESEARCH CENTRE, INC., a
California corporation; ANDRE P. LALLANDE, D.O., an Individual;
SCOTT SESSIONS, M.D., an Individual; RITA ALEXANDER, an Individual;
and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 3:16-cv-02816-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order granting
plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement.

   1. StemGenex Defendants, through their insurer, Admiral
      Insurance Company, to pay the Settlement Amount of
      $1,150,000.00 as a no reversion/no refund settlement
      payment to settle and resolve all claims in the action by
      or on behalf of the 1,063 Class Members against each of
      the Defendants and Scott Sessions, M.D. Payment by must be
      made by wire transfer in one lump sum payment to a
      qualified settlement fund established by AB Data, Ltd.
      within 10 business days of the "Final Effective Date," as
      defined in Section D.1. of the Settlement Agreement.

      In accordance with future orders of this Court, the
      Settlement Amount will only be used: to pay claim shares
      to the 1,063 Class Members; to pay a settlement claims
      administrator; to pay any amounts that may be awarded as
      service fees; and to pay Class Counsel for any award of
      attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in the
      action.

   2. As soon as practicable after receipt of the $1,150,000.00,
      and within thirty days, A.B. Data, Ltd. must distribute
      all of the $3,650,000.00, plus any accrued interest, by
      paying Class Counsel’s attorney's fees and costs as stated

      above; distributing checks for the service awards as
      stated above; withdrawing its administrative costs as
      stated above; and distributing the balance of the money
      equally among the 1,063 Class Members as indicated in the
      Declaration of Mark Cowen supporting Plaintiff's Motion
      for Final Approval, including as provided by Section C.7.
      of both settlement agreements:

      In the event that any Class Member does not cash issued
      settlement proceeds, such funds will be submitted for
      escheatment by the court approved settlement administrator
      to the State of California Unclaimed Property Fund (or
      similar appropriate state agency) in the names of each
      Class Member whose check is un-cashed. It is specifically
      understood and agreed that any such monies will not revert
      to [the Defendants] nor be paid to any cy pres recipients.

   3. In exchange for the Settlement Amount, StemGenex Medical
      Group, Inc., StemGenex, Inc., Stem Cell Research Centre,
      Inc., Rita Alexander, and Scott Sessions, M.D. are also
      dismissed with prejudice. The releases by the Class
      Members afforded StemGenex Defenants are strictly limited
      to the claims in the action (and California Civil Code
      Section 1542) in Sections D.2 and D.3 of the Settlement
      Agreement, which provide that upon the Final Effective
      Date, in and for the valuable consideration as provided in
      the Settlement Agreement, each of the 1,063 Class Members
      agree that they forever discharge, waive, and release the
      StemGenex Defendants, from any and all claims, demands,
      obligations, actions, causes of action, damages, whether
      based in tort, contract, statute, or otherwise, arising
      from the 4AC, to include the 4AC and all Counts and all
      forms of relief sought by the 1,063 Class Members through
      the 4AC against StemGenex Defendants, that arose within
      the Subclass periods certified by the Court.

      The Court dismisses with prejudice the Action and all
      Released Claims. These dismissals are without costs to any
      party, except as specifically provided in the Agreement.
      The Settlement shall be binding on, and have res judicata
      and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits
      or other proceedings maintained by or on behalf of the
      the Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, and Releasing
      Parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at  https://bit.ly/3KgS1sOat no extra charge.[CC]


STEVENSON BEER: Morgan Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stevenson Beer Distributing Company, Ltd., Case No.
9:22-cv-00032 (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2022) is a civil action brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act
seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 during each seven day workweek while working for Defendant paid
on a day rate basis.

The Plaintiff files this lawsuit individually and as an FLSA
collective action on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees of Defendant while paid on a day rate basis who,
like the Plaintiff, were not paid time and one-half their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in
each seven day workweek in the time period of three years preceding
the date this lawsuit was filed and forward.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages
available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about October 24,
2021. The Plaintiff is a former employee. The Plaintiff stopped
working for Defendant on or about January 24, 2022.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Charleston Lawyer Files Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lawrence at less than a month after the West Virginia Public
Service Commission fined Suddenlink and its parent company Altice
USA $2.2 million, now a Charleston lawyer has filed a class action
lawsuit against the company.

Attorney Rusty Webb lauded the work of the PSC and said although
the fine was the most substantial he could ever remember, it still
wasn't enough.

"That's not going to affect a company that big. It has to be
substantial money to get their attention to upgrade their services
and their customer service," said Webb.

Webb believed it will be easy to find members to join his class
with people who've had problems with the company's cable, internet,
or telephone service through the years. He said already they've
heard from close to 32,000 people just from announcing the lawsuit
on social media.

"Regardless of our differences in this state or our country, we all
have one thing in common and that is we hate Suddenlink," he said.

The investigation by the Public Service Commission included
testimony from dozens and dozens of individuals who noted
frustration they experienced trying to get their problems fixed.
The problems were wide ranging. Some complained it took long hours
on the phone to get somebody to handle the complaint and when they
did finally reach a live person, they had a hard time understanding
their dialect. Others complained technicians, while polite, were
often themselves frustrated with inadequate training or lacked
proper equipment to get problems repaired.

"The frustration is, as everybody knows, when you call them all
they do is apologize for their issue, but they never resolve your
issue," Webb said.

The lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston.
Webb said the next step will be the company's legal response. He
expected the wheels on the case would turn very slowly.

"When corporation takes over smaller companies it becomes profit
over people. They've apparently bragged about how much money they
make and how they've cut costs. That equates to poor service for
the customer," he said.

Altice officials responded to the PSC's investigation and fines
saying they intended to improve service and were already in the
process of making better efforts to attend to the needs of
customers. Webb said the response was mere lip service and he
didn't buy the claim.

"I didn't buy it and I don't think anybody else did either," he
said. [GN]

SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces Henderson Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOSSIE HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and CROWN
ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00345-JCH (D. Conn., March
3, 2022) is a class action complaint on behalf of a class of
Connecticut consumers under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
seeking damages and declaratory relief.

On or around December 9, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection
letter to Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the letter states: "Our client has
asked us to collect this debt. We have tried repeatedly to do so
but with no success. Our client has asked us to report this debt to
your personal credit report with a national credit bureau. We will
be reporting this debt to one or more of the national credit
bureaus on or about 10-18-21. This process can be stopped if you
act promptly."

The letter states an intent to complete such reporting on or about
October 18, 2021. However, the letter is dated nearly two months
after the alleged planned reporting to a credit bureau.
Furthermore, the letter says the process can be stopped if you act
promptly. It is nonsensical that a process can be stopped which it
allegedly has already occurred, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Connecticut, County of
Middlesex.

The Defendant SCS is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Pomerantz Law Discloses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ("Ericsson" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ERIC) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 22-cv-01167, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Ericsson securities
between April 27, 2017 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Ericsson securities during the Class Period, you have until May 2,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=ERIC for
information about joining the class action]

Ericsson, together with its subsidiaries, provides communication
infrastructure, services, and software solutions to the
telecommunications and other sectors. The Company operates in,
among other countries, the Republic of Iraq ("Iraq").

Ericsson has a well-documented history of using bribes to secure
business in countries throughout the Middle East and Asia. For
example, in December 2019, Ericsson was the subject of a U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") action alleging, among
other things, that the Company used third party consultants and
illicit payments from 2011 through early 2017 to access business in
Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, and China. The Company also entered into a
Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ") the same month for its illicit business dealings.

Following the foregoing regulatory enforcement actions-which
resulted in Ericsson being fined over $520 million and nearly $540
million by the DOJ and SEC, respectively-Ericsson repeatedly
assured investors that the Company had a "zero tolerance" stance
for bribery and was making significant investments in related
programs. For example, in a December 2019 press release, the
Company asserted that it was "[e]nhancing . . . internal
anti-corruption and compliance related awareness campaigns
(including the Company's zero tolerance for corruption)." Likewise,
in its 2019 annual report, the Company asserted that it has "zero
tolerance for corruption" and "work[s] hard every day to build a
culture of compliance, anchored securely within the organization,
to ensure that such an event will never happen again."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ericsson overstated the extent
to which it had reformed its business practices to eliminate the
use of bribes to secure business in foreign countries; (ii)
Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the Islamic State
in Iraq and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to gain access to
certain transport routes in Iraq; (iii) accordingly, the Company's
revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in at least
substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On February 15, 2022, during intraday trading hours, Ericsson
issued a press release disclosing media inquiries into its business
dealings in Iraq. That press release assured investors of the
Company's "transparency" regarding these inquiries, while vaguely
alluding to having undertaken its own investigative and compliance
efforts.

Then, on February 16, 2022, Ericsson's Chief Executive Officer told
a Swedish newspaper that the Company may have made payments to ISIS
to gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq, noting that the
Company had identified "unusual expenses dating back to 2018" but
had not yet determined the final recipient of the funds for those
expenses, although Defendants could "see that it disappeared[,]"
and that Ericsson has spent "considerable resources trying to
understand this as best we can."

Following these disclosures, Ericsson's American Depositary Share
("ADS") price fell $1.44 per ADS, or 11.57%, to close at $11.01 per
ADS on February 16, 2022.

Finally, on Sunday, February 27, 2022, the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") published a report on
Ericsson's alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq, citing a leaked
internal investigation that revealed that Ericsson had reportedly
made "tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments" over
nearly a decade to keep its business in the country. The ICIJ
report also alleged that "a spreadsheet lists company probes into
possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by employees in
Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia, Libya,
Morocco, the United States and South Africa[,]" which "have not
been previously disclosed."

On this news, Ericsson's ADS price fell $0.84 per ADS, or 8.3%,
from its closing price on February 25, 2022, to close at $9.28 per
ADS on February 28, 2022, the next trading day.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com [GN]

TELEMUNDO NETWORK: Portell Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO M. PORTELL and other similarly situated individuals v.
TELEMUNDO NETWORK GROUP, LLC d/b/a TELEMUNDO MEDIA and CHRIS MOORE,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-20683-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7,
2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff and all other
current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff the
who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or
after January 2019, (the "material time") without being
compensated.

Telemundo is a Spanish-language television network. Telemundo
employed Mr. Portell as a full-time, non-exempted, hourly employee
from January 2004 to November 10, 2021, or more than 17 years. For
FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period of employment is 148
weeks. (from January 7, 2019, to November 10, 2021.)[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TERRY LUMMA: Lawsuit Filed Over "Fake" Weapons Training Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against a Shipman woman who pleaded guilty
to providing inadequate concealed carry classes for several hundred
people, and the court is being asked to certify it as a
class-action claim.

The suit, filed by attorney Thomas Magg on behalf of Madison County
resident Lucinda Klotz, contends Terry Lumma, 61, of Shipman
offered classes to more than 200 people interested in obtaining an
Illinois concealed carry permit but the classes did not meet state
standards, and that the certificates issued were false.

Illinois requires 16 hours of training, with eight hours of
classroom training and eight hours of practical education.

Lumma was charged with felony forgery and the misdemeanor offense
of providing false concealed carry weapon certification.

According to officials, the Illinois State Police's Firearms
Services Bureau received a complaint in December 2020 alleging
Lumma was not teaching the concealed carry license classes
according to state law. After a five-month investigation, the
bureau's investigators said they found evidence to support the
allegation.

That information was presented to Macoupin County State's Attorney
Jordan Garrison who filed criminal charges against Lumma. On Jan.
5, Lumma pleaded guilty to "instructors providing false
certifications" on Jan. 5. She was sentenced to one year of
probation, fined, and ordered to pay $3,990 in restitution.

State police also said the concealed carry certification courses
hosted by Lumma did not satisfy the state's mandatory requirements
for concealed carry firearm training. Anyone receiving certificates
through Lumma were given a grace period to retake the course.

The civil suit filed against Lumma claims each person who took the
course paid about $120. The suit covers people who took Lumma's
course starting in Jan. 1, 2018, through the present.

A motion to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit was filed
Feb. 14. The class action suit is seeking in excess of $50,000.
[GN]


U.S. BANCORP: Adams Sues Over Illegal Early Retirement Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Ann Adams, Patricia J. Pettenger, and Marla K. Snead on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S.
Bancorp, the Benefits Administration Committee and John/Jane Does
1-5, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00509-NEB-BRT (D. Minn., Feb. 28,
2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendants for providing early retirement benefits under the U.S.
Bank Pension Plan and the U.S. Bank Legacy Pension Plan that are
not actuarially equivalent to the participant's single life annuity
(SLA) at the participant's normal retirement date (NRD) as required
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The U.S. Bank sponsors the Plans to provide retirement benefits for
its employees. Beginning in 2002 for most, and by 2003 for all,
participants began accruing benefits under a new, final average pay
formula, which U.S. Bank calls a participant's "Part B" benefits.
The Plaintiffs' claims stem from Defendants' alleged methods for
reducing the Part B benefits under the Plans when a participant
starts collecting an early pension.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants are causing Plaintiffs
and the Class to receive less than they are entitled to each month.
By excessively reducing Plaintiffs' benefits to account for their
retirements before age 65, the Defendants allegedly failed to
provide them, and other similarly situated Class members, with
early retirement benefits that are actuarially equivalent to their
SLAs at NRD in violation of ERISA. The Defendants also violated
ERISA's anti-forfeiture rule by causing Plaintiffs and Class
members to unknowingly forfeit and lose part of their vested
benefits, added the suit.

The Plaintiffs worked for U.S. Bank and accrued Part B benefits
under the Plan from January 1, 2003, until they started receiving
benefits.

U.S. Bank is a financial services company headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliams@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Douglas Needham, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                  ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          Laura E. Babiak, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  mboyko@baileyglasser.com
                  lbabiak@baileyglasser.com

U.S. SUGAR: Class Action Suit Over Sugarcane Burning Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
miaminewtimes.com reports that each year, between October and May,
farmers set fire to thousands of acres of sugarcane fields south of
Lake Okeechobee. The purpose of the blazes: to rid the sugarcane
stalks of their outer leaves, rendering them easier to harvest. The
practice fills the air with thick smoke that billows into the
nearby towns of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay in western Palm
Beach County.

Residents, who are predominately low-income and Black, filed a
class-action lawsuit against corporate sugar companies, including
U.S. Sugar, the nation's largest sugar producer, in Miami federal
court in 2019. They claimed that the dark ark ash and soot
blanketing their homes and cars was not only damaging property but
causing respiratory problems and other health issues. In 2020, a
joint investigation by Grist and Type Investigations cited a Sierra
Club analysis of data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) showing that 3,000 tons of hazardous pollutants, including a
host of carcinogens, are released into the air each year by
sugarcane burning in South Florida.

"The sugar producers do know that the burn is causing harm, but
when you are a big company, you don't like to be told what to do,"
Robert Mitchell, founder of Belle Glade's chapter of Black Lives
Matter, told New Times in February of 2021. "They burn over this
community of three African-American cities. But when the wind blows
east to the majority-white communities, they can't do that."

But following a three-year court battle, the parties agreed that
the case would be dropped with prejudice, with each side paying its
own costs and the plaintiffs barred from refiling.

It was a big win for U.S. Sugar, which released a triumphant
statement: "The case against air quality in the farming region was
without merit. We believed the science, data and regulations that
support our work every day would show that the air quality in the
Glades is 'good' - the highest quality under federal regulations."

The Berman Law Group, the firm representing the plaintiffs, did not
release a statement about the case or respond to New Times' emailed
requests for comment.

The dismissal came as a massive disappointment to the
environmentalists who have long advocated for an end to the
controversial practice. They say the battle against Big Sugar is
far from over.

"Sugarcane burning is one of the most egregious environmental
injustices in the state of Florida," Eve Samples, executive
director of Friends of the Everglades, tells New Times. "Nothing
about this news regarding the lawsuit changes that. In fact, it
only makes us more concerned."

For decades, Florida's sugarcane farmers have legally set their
fields ablaze before harvest as a money-saving practice to rid the
stalks of their leaves to more easily reach the canes and ship them
without the extra vegetation. Cane growers burned more than 1.5
million acres of sugarcane between 2008 and 2018 in the Glades
community alone, according to state data.

Florida's largest sugar companies have long maintained that the
burns are "safe" and heavily regulated. U.S. Sugar and the other
companies named in the suit had vigorously denied residents' claims
and argued for the case's dismissal.

U.S. Sugar began distributing an annual "State of Our Air" report
in the communities where the black soot falls. "The Glades
communities have some of the best air quality in the state," the
company stated in the report, adding that the air is "clean."

The sugar industry pointed to the government-run air monitor in
Belle Glade that showed the region complied with the Clean Air Act,
the federal law that regulates air quality. But a ProPublica
investigation discovered that the monitor hadn't been working
correctly since at least 2013 and "wasn't suited to determine
whether the air quality meets the requirements outlined in the
federal law."

Environmentalists argue that crop burning is outdated and
unnecessary. For instance, Brazil, the world's largest
sugar-producing country, has successfully eliminated the practice
and shifted to green harvesting. India, the world's second-largest
producer, has also banned crop burning.

Sierra Club Florida, which launched the "Stop the Burn!" campaign
in 2015, seeks to replace the practice with "modern, sustainable,
burn-free green harvesting." The group released a statement
following the lawsuit's dismissal that signaled the Sierra Club's
continued dedication to its fight against the practice.

"Local Stop the Burn-Go Green activists, none of whom were
plaintiffs in the Berman Law Group class action lawsuit, will
continue to battle against the outdated, toxic, and racist practice
that the sugar industry can and must stop," the Sierra Club's
statement reads, hinting at the potential for a new lawsuit with
different plaintiffs.

Activists have long tried to enlist Florida's agricultural
commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat running for governor, as a
strong environmental advocate. Despite possessing the authority to
ban the practice in Florida, Fried has only made a few minor tweaks
to the regulations since 2019, such as outlawing burning at night.

"There's a lot of blame to go around on this issue," says Eve
Samples of Friends of the Everglades. "The bottom line is that
people are being harmed in blue-collar communities and communities
of color in Florida, while our state leaders are protecting
billionaire-backed sugarcane companies." [GN]

U.S. TENNIS: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Weekes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WEEKES, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED, Case No.
1:22-cv-01812-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) alleges that the
defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to -- and independently usable by --
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people who use
screen-reading software in violation of the the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

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 the 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, usta.com. The main reason the
Plaintiff visited the website was to purchase products, goods,
and/or services. The website sells/offers different tennis
memberships and related opportunities.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UI GLOBAL: Abreu Suit Seeks Blind Customers' Access to Online Store
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UI GLOBAL BRANDS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01793-JGK (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
Urbanhydration.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
the screen reader reads the "sub-menu" tab even when the item is
not selected; (b) the screen reader skips over certain text on the
page; (c) the screen reader fails to describe the images; (d) the
screen reader fails to read the "Express Checkout" option link.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

UI Global Brands LLC is an online retail company that conducts
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
         Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
         William J. Downes, Esq.
         200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
         New York, NY 10281
         Telephone: (212) 595-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
         E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                 jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                 wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

UNITED CONCRETE: Raul Motas Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAUL R. MOTAS and other similarly situated individuals v. UNITED
CONCRETE PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20689-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 7, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff and all other
current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff the
who worked over 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
February 2019, (the "material time") without being compensated
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee, from June 12, 2001, to October 23, 2021, or more
than 20 years. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant
time of employment is 139 weeks.

United Concrete manufactures precast concrete products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

UNITED STATES: L.N.P. Appeals Ruling in Social Security Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff L.N.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his
dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kilolo Kijakazi, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; The
Social Security Administration, Case No. 1:21-cv-00820-MSN-TCB, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia at Alexandria.

The Plaintiff is an individual who collects monthly Retirement
Insurance Benefits (RIB) of $2,154. His two dependent children each
receive monthly auxiliary benefits of $1,107. The Plaintiff does
not challenge the RIB he receives but contends his dependent
children each should receive an additional $375 in monthly
auxiliary benefits under 42 U.S.C. Section 403 and 20 C.F.R.
Section 404.403. The reason for this underpayment, Plaintiff
alleges, is a system-wide misapplication of the requirement first
articulated in Parisi by Cooney v. Chater, 69 F.3d 614 (1st Cir.
1995) that the Social Security Administration (SSA) not use
"theoretical entitlements" when calculating payable auxiliary
benefits. The SSA currently determines Plaintiff's auxiliary
benefits award by reducing the maximum monthly amount that can be
paid on a worker's earnings record by his Primary Insurance Amount
(PIA) and then dividing that difference by his number of auxiliary
beneficiaries.

The Plaintiff challenges the use of PIA in this equation because,
by electing to receive RIB at an earlier age, plaintiff has
foreclosed any ability to receive the higher PIA. In other words,
plaintiff contends that his PIA is a "theoretical entitlement." As
such, it is Plaintiff's position that the SSA can comply with the
holding of Parisi only by deducting his lower RIB (the entitlement
he actually receives) when calculating the amount owed to his
auxiliary beneficiaries.

On November 24, 2021, the Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction; dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's complaint;
and denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

On December 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration and to alter or amend pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) regarding the November 24, 2021 order. On
February 11, 2022, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as L.N.P. v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Case
No. 22-1187, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, filed on February 25, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant L.N.P., on his own behalf and on behalf of his
dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P., and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Cameron Reynolds Argetsinger, II, Esq.
          Ira Thane Kasdan, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          3050 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007-5108
          Telephone: (202) 342-8649

Defendants-Appellees KILOLO KIJAKAZI, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION are represented by:

          Hugham Chan, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          2100 Jamieson Avenue
          Alexandria, VA 22314-5194
          Telephone: (703) 299-3700

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Sanchez-Angeles Labor Suit Seeks OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA SANCHEZ-ANGELES and JAMIL AROUNI on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00614 (D.D.C., March 7, 2022) is collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the District of
Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful deprivation of the Plaintiffs' rights to overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendant
Universal Protection Service.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by Defendant as a Special Police
Officer (SPO) and assigned to work at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office location at 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC.

The Defendant has been contracted to provide security services to
the building housing the U.S. Government Accountability Office
located at 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC, since  April 2021, when
it acquired the company that previously held the contract for
security services at this location, American Security Programs
(ASP).

ASP was Georgia-based private security services company. Prior to
January 2021, ASP was a wholly owned-subsidiary of SecurAmerica. In
January 2021, Defendant Allied Universal acquired SecurAmerica and,
with it, ASP.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Appeals Remand Ruling in Waltz Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DEAN WALTZ an individual, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01538-TJH-RAO,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.

On June 11, 2021, Waltz filed this putative class action in San
Bernardino County Superior Court on behalf of all non-exempt
Wal-Mart employees who worked at its California distribution
centers beginning three or four years - depending on the applicable
statute of limitations of each claim - prior to the filing of the
complaint.

According to the complaint, from 2020 to 2021, Waltz was a
non-exempt employee of Wal-Mart. During the class period, Wal-Mart
allegedly violated various provisions of the California's Labor
Code, including failure to provide required rest and meal breaks;
rounding recorded work time to deprive employees of pay; requiring
employees to undergo Covid-19 and security checks while off the
clock; providing legally-deficient wage statements; and failing to
reimburse employees for their use of their personal cell phones.

Waltz alleged seven claims: (1) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law; (2) failure to pay minimum wages, in violation of
Cal. Lab. Code; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to provide
meal breaks; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to
provide accurate wage statements; and (7) failure to reimburse
employees for expenses.

On September 9, 2021, the lawsuit was removed from the California
Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On October 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
which the Court granted on February 17, 2022 through an order
entered by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Dean Waltz v. Wal-Mart
Associates, Inc., Case No. 22-80014, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Katz, Esq.
          Paloma Peracchio, Esq.
          Jack Steven Sholkoff, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletreedeakins.com    

               - and -

          Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART
          695 Town Center Drive
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900  
          E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com

Plaintiff-Respondent DEAN WALTZ, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.  
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          E-mail: aj@bamlawca.com
                  norm@bamlawca.com
                  piya@bamlawca.com  
                  kyle@bamlawca.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Ct. Modifies Class Cert. Schedule in Carlos
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CARLOS, as
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00294-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order regarding the parties' joint
stipulation to modify class certification schedule as follows:

  -- Class Certification Motion Deadline:      April 8, 2022

  -- Class Certification Opposition            May 20, 2022
     Deadline:   

  -- Class Certification Reply Deadline:       June 3, 2022

  -- Class Certification Hearing               June 24, 2022

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35UwgjI at no extra charge.[CC]

WASH PLUS: John Witter Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN W. WITTER and other similarly situated individuals v. WASH
PLUS, LLC, and MICHAEL D. KELCH, individually, Case No.
0:22-cv-60501-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2022) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff and all other
current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff the
who worked over 40) hours during one or more weeks on or after
January 2019, (the "material time") without being compensated
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a non-exempted, full-time,
hourly employee from approximately April 2018 to July 31, 2021, or
171 weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, Plaintiff's relevant period
of employment is 132 weeks.

The Plaintiff had duties as a car wash machine technician. He
installed, gave maintenance, and repaired car wash systems. He was
a salaried employee, and he had a salary of $850.00 per week.

During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked
regularly and consistently more than 40 hours weekly. However,
Plaintiff was paid the same amount regardless of the number of days
and hours worked. Thus, Plaintiff was not compensated for overtime
hours, the lawsuit says.

Corporate Defendant is a seller of car wash systems. The Defendant
provides installation, maintenance, and repair services of these
machines. The Defendant also sells car wash chemicals and supplies
for these machines. Defendant has facilities located at 22100 NW 22
Street, Pompano Beach, Florida, where Plaintiff picked up his work
orders, the company truck, equipment, and supplies to perform his
work. The Defendants also operate from an office in Davenport and a
storage locker near Orlando International Airport.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


                            *********

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 ***