/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220317.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 17, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 49

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Fugate Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Boysen Suit Seeks Refund for Recalled Products
ACE HARDWARE: Dhaliwal Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
AGA SERVICE: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss 8th Cir. Ruling
ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement Negotiations Ongoing in Securities Suit

AMERITAS LIFE: Wightman's Question Certified to Louisiana Sup. Ct.
BAKER HUGHES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch.
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Treatment of Unemployed Nevadans
BUY BUY BABY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angeles Suit Alleges
CABALETTA BIO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 29 Deadline

CADETS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Sexual Abuse
CALIFORNIA: Gonzalez Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
CALIFORNIA: Grant Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
CALIFORNIA: Reed Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Averts COVID-19 Refund Class Action Suit

CARPRO DETAILING: Underpays Car Wash Attendants, Zamudio Says
CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION: Charleston Law Firm Files Class Action
CENTENE CORP: Faces Guo Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Restriction Issue in Harper Suit Resolved
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Suit Filed by Teacher's Fund

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued by Business Owners Over Losses
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued Over Water Source Contamination
CHRIS BARBER: Bennett Jones Attorney Discusses Mareva Injunction
CLOROX COMPANY: Sued Over Forever Chemicals in Burt's Bees Products

CONNECTICUT: Gottlieb Appeals Summary Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
DEERE & COMPANY: Seeks Consolidation of Right-to-Repair Lawsuits
DISCOVER BANK: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling in Perez Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Argueta Claims
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Court Refuses to Remand Kincaid Wage Suit

ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Shareholder Suit Dismissed
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Clark Suit Claims
EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Tax Liability Charge in Arkansas Court
EYM GROUP: Scheduling Order Entered in Walden Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Osler Hoskin Attorneys Discuss Privacy Suit Ruling

FCA US: Faces Garcia Suit Over Prerecorded Telephone Calls
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Toss Part of Oglesby's 1st Amended Suit Nixed
FEDEX GROUND: Castro BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Chapman Securities Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Haines Suit

FILTERS FAST: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Powers Suit
FULFILLMENT LAB: Sihler Wins Leave to Amend Class Complaint
GASBUDDY LLC: Eubanks Files Suit Over Deceptive Services
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Thaxton Insurance Class Suit
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Foods

GREYSTAR REAL ETATE: Court Narrows Claims in Wallace Class Suit
HOTEL.COM: Faces Consumer Protection Suit in Tel Aviv Court
ILUKA RESOURCES: Federal Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
INFINITY Q: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
INSPERITY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. N.Y.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: JCCF Enjoined to Give M.C. Daily Medication
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Jail Opioid Addiction Treatment
JUST ENERGY: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
JUUL LABS: Faces Smith-Green Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: School District 201 Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Greater Jasper Says
KELLOGG CO: Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts Dismissed
KING COUNTY, WA: Thompson Suit Given to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Baird Sues Over Sale of Defective CPAP Devices
KROGER CO: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Rosales Suit

LCMC HEALTHCARE: Bid for Partial Judgment in Rey Suit Denied
LENDINGCLUB CORP: 9th Cir. Upholds Veal Securities Suit Dismissal
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bradford Sues Over Violations of FCRA
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Erceg Suit
MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Issuance of Class Notice in Glynn Suit OK'd

MARYLAND: Court Denies Review of Detention Order in Jones Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Antitrust Suits Consolidated in E.D.N.Y.
MASTERCARD INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over ATM Fees
MASTERCARD INC: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bank Card Issue
MASTERCARD INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Antitrust Issue

MASTERCARD INC: Sued Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
NEOSTRATA COMPANY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Concern
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit Raises Issues Over Merger Deal

NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Bid to Assign Counsel in Young Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Denied Fare Discounts for Disabled
OBRESTA CORP: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
OHIO LIVING: 2 FLSA Classes Conditionally Certified in Kordie Suit
OHIO: Court Dismisses as Moot Writ Petition in Hart v. Williams

ONE LOVE ORGANICS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OREGON: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Traffic Stops
P.C. RICHARD & SON: Douglass Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PECULIAR ROOTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEOPLES GAS: Gas Leak Contaminates Water, Pabst Suit Says

PETSMART LLC: Stegmann Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PEVONIA INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHARMAGEL INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHILIP MORRIS: Sued Over Smoking-Related Diseases
PINNACLE NURSING: Court Won't Revisit Order of Service in Zietek

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pollak Suit Removed to New York Supreme Court
PRATT & WHITNEY: Faces Antitrust Charges in D. Conn.
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Court Okays $22.5MM Air Pollution Settlement
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Wins ERISA Suit, Rozo Appeals in 8th Circuit
PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Files Suit in D. Arizona

PROPEL BIKES: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RANGE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Strike Affidavit in Frederick Suit
RAU LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in D. Ariz.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Alleges Breach of Contract

REVEAL CHAT: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling in Antitrust Class Action
ROWAN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SALVATION ARMY: Faces Alvear FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Moeller Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
SORME COMPANY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STARTUP CANDY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STARWOOD CAPITAL: Israel Regulator to Pay Part of Legal Expenses
STEWARD HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Texas Over RICO Violations
SUN & SWELL: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUPERLOGICS INCORPORATED: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUPERNOVA USA INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch.
TA OPERATING: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Chandler Suit
TANCEUTICALS LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TASKUS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 25 Deadline

TASKUS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 25 Deadline
TATTE HOLDINGS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Faces Nytt Suit Over Share Price Drop
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Jack Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Blodgett Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

TOUR RESOURCE: Delcavo Bid to Compel Junked
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 18 in Martin
UNILEVER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Grant Sues Over Toxic Lead Contaminants in Tap Water
UNWASH LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

US STEEL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Share Price Drop
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Bondholders Encouraged to Join Class Action
WALGREEN CO: Court Reconsiders Summary Judgment in Washtenaw Suit
WELLS FARGO: Judge Set to Rule on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Beck Suit Over Unfair Charging of Impact Fees

WHITEY BOARD: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WHOLESALE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Benoit Claims
WINSTON WEAVER: Faces Class Action Over Fertilizer Plant Fire
ZACHXBT: NFT Scam Promoters May Face Class Action After Ruling
ZARO BAKE SHOP: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

[*] 4th Circuit Reverses in Part Lower Court Ruling in Class Action
[*] Buy Now Pay Later Companies Face Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
[*] Florida's Revised TCPA to Pave Way for Class Action Lawsuits
[*] Judge Jackson's Decisions in Business, Labor Cases Discussed

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Fugate Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FUGATE and CYNTHIA FUGATE, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00769-RMG (D.S.C., March 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

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

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Boysen Suit Seeks Refund for Recalled Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN BOYSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of the implied
warranty of usability, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, negligent failure to warn, negligent recall, and
unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's recall of its powdered infant
formula products, including the brands Similac, Alimentum, and
EleCare, because they may contain Cronobacter sakazakii and
Salmonella Newport bacteria, which when consumed, can result in
serious adverse health effects. The Defendant failed to replace the
affected recalled products, which many parents and caretakers rely
on daily to feed and care for their children. The Defendant leaves
many consumers, including the Plaintiff, with no safe option but to
pay full price for a newer version.

Abbott Laboratories, doing business as Abbott Nutrition, is a
manufacturer of medical devices and products, with its headquarters
located at 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
         Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
         Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
         JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
         444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
         Saint Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (612) 436-1800
         Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
         E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                 jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

                 - and –

         Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
         Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
         MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
         3 North Second Street, Suite 300
         St. Charles, IL 60174
         Telephone: (630) 232-6333
         E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
                 mwl@meyers-flowers.com

ACE HARDWARE: Dhaliwal Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMOLAK DHALIWAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, DOUG
WOODMANSEE, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
S-CV-0047279, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Placer, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on March 9, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00262 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Ace Hardware Corporation is an American hardware retailers'
cooperative based in Oak Brook, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brooke Sikora Purcell, Esq.
         Luis Arias, Esq.
         Shayla M. Griffin, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com
                 larias@sheppardmullin.com
                 smgriffin@sheppardmullin.com

AGA SERVICE: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss 8th Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gayle I. Jenkins, Esq., and Janelle a. Li-a-Ping, Esq., of Winston
& Strawn LLP, disclosed that On February 9, 2022, the Eighth
Circuit affirmed a Missouri district court's dismissal of Plaintiff
Logan Bauer's class action suit against AGA Service Company d/b/a
Allianz Global Assistance and Jefferson Insurance Company,
challenging denials of coverage for losses relating to flights
canceled as a result of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Bauer v. AGA
Serv. Co. et al., No. 20-3711, at *1-2 (8th Cir. Feb. 9, 2022).
According to the complaint, Bauer had purchased a round-trip ticket
to Miami with two corresponding travel insurance policies in
January 2020, with plans to travel that April. Id. at *2. As a
result of federal, state, and local governments issuing
stay-at-home orders in March 2020, he alleged that he cancelled his
flight and filed a claim for coverage under his travel insurance
policies. Id. Bauer's claim was denied. Id. AGA and Jefferson moved
to dismiss the complaint on the basis that policies clearly
excluded coverage for the losses sought by Bauer, and therefore,
his claim was properly denied. Id. at *3.

The three-judge panel, with Circuit Judges Steven Colloton and
Jonathan Kobes joining L. Steven Grasz's judgment, held that a
travel-insurance policy that excludes losses incurred by epidemics,
if they "affect" you, is applicable to flight cancellations as a
result of government stay-at-home orders intended to slow the
spread of COVID-19. Id. at *4. The epidemic exclusion in the
policies Bauer obtained from AGA and Jefferson barred coverage for
losses that affected him, a traveling companion, or a family
member. Id. The panel concluded that Bauer's flight cancellation
resulted from the COVID-19 epidemic and that the epidemic
"affected" Bauer. Id.

The panel reasoned that COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, while a
reaction to the epidemic rather than the epidemic itself, were "not
so unrelated or independent" that the panel could "conclude the
COVID-19 epidemic did not affect Bauer." Id. at *7. In rejecting
Bauer's argument that the policies required him to have been
infected with COVID-19 to be affected by it, the panel concluded
that "while infection is certainly a kind of effect, the term
'affect' is not bound to that narrow scope." Id.

Similarly, the panel rejected Bauer's assertion that the exclusion
was inapplicable based on the fact that the World Health
Organization ("WHO") recognized COVID-19 as a pandemic rather than
an epidemic. Id. at *6-7. The panel concluded "that an ordinary
person of average understanding reading the policy terms [at issue]
would deduce that WHO 'recognized' COVID-19 as either a pandemic or
an epidemic by including COVID-19 on its list of pandemic or
epidemic diseases" and therefore, "[t]his requirement in the policy
[was] satisfied." Id.

This decision comes in the wake of the surge of consumer class
actions filed last year seeking reimbursement from entertainment
venues, ticketing agencies, and other companies for cancellations
arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. [GN]

ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement Negotiations Ongoing in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alj Regional Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento against Faneuil and ALJ was
filed by Donna Marshall, a previously terminated Faneuil employee.
She alleges various California state law employment-related claims
against Faneuil. Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the
matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California

On July 31, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back
to state court, which has been granted. In connection with the
above, an amended complaint was filed by certain plaintiffs to add
a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act. Faneuil demurred to the Claim and it was eventually
dismissed by the trial court. A mediation was held on March 11,
2021 and the parties are negotiating a settlement.


AMERITAS LIFE: Wightman's Question Certified to Louisiana Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Wightman, Doctor of Dental Surgery; Courtney
Wightman, Doctor of Dental Surgery; Wightman Family Dental, L.L.C.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corporation;
DenteMax, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-30148 (5th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified
the following question to the Supreme Court of Louisiana:

     Are claims arising under the Louisiana's Preferred Provider
     Organization Act, La. R.S. 40:2203.1, delictual or
     contractual for prescriptive purposes?

I. Introduction

The matter is an appeal from a partial final judgment dismissing as
untimely the Plaintiffs' claims arising under Louisiana's Preferred
Provider Organizations Act ("PPO Act"), LA R.S. 40:2203.1-2210. The
district court deemed such claims delictual and thus subject to a
one-year prescriptive period.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana has not addressed this issue. Last
year, it determined that claims arising under the Balance Billing
Act, La. R.S. 22:1871, are delictual. That act is arguably similar
to the PPO Act, citing See DePhillips v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 1 of
Tangipahoa Par., 2019-01496 (La. 7/9/20); 2020 WL 3867212, reh'g
denied, 2019-01496 (La. 9/9/20); 2020 WL 5405925. However,
Louisiana's Third Circuit Court of Appeal more recently
distinguished DePhillips and affirmed its previous caselaw holding
PPO Act claims contractual. For the reasons that follow, we
conclude that the Supreme Court of Louisiana should have the chance
to resolve this issue in the first instance.

II. Background

Plaintiff-appellant Wightman Family Dental, L.L.C., is a Louisiana
limited liability corporation. Its members, Plaintiffs-Appellants
Mark Wightman D.D.S. and Courtney Wightman D.D.S., are also
Louisiana citizens. Defendant-Appellee Ameritas Life Insurance
Corp. is a Nebraska corporation. The Plaintiffs are dentists who
own and operate Wightman Family Dental in St. Bernard Parish,
Louisiana. DenteMax -- the other Defendant but not a party to the
appeal -- and Ameritas are "group purchasers and brokers." The
Plaintiffs characterize Ameritas as a "silent PPO," which Ameritas
disputes. The lawsuit arises out of a Preferred Provider
Organization Agreement ("PPO Agreement") dated Feb. 16, 2009, that
DenteMax executed with Mark Wightman.

The Plaintiffs entered the PPO Agreement to expand their client
base via access to DenteMax's network. Under the PPO Agreement, the
Plaintiffs agreed to join the DenteMax PPO Network ("DenteMax
Network"), discount fees for services provided to Participants in
the DenteMax PPO Network, and allow DenteMax to grant Payors and
Participants access to those discounted rates. In May 2012 Ameritas
leased the DenteMax PPO network ("Network Agreement"), which
granted Ameritas access to the reduced PPO reimbursement rate that
the Plaintiffs had provided to DenteMax. The Network Agreement
allowed Ameritas to use the DenteMax Network rates to reimburse any
participating Provider of services rendered to Ameritas' insureds.
The district court found that the Plaintiffs received no notice of
the Network Agreement from DenteMax or Ameritas.

Later that year, the Plaintiffs' patients presented Ameritas'
benefit cards, but after the Plaintiffs performed services and
sought reimbursement, they were paid a lower rate that they say was
neither disclosed nor published on patients' cards. Thus, when
Ameritas' insureds presented their benefit cards to the Plaintiffs,
the Plaintiffs believed they would be reimbursed at their standard
rate.

When the Plaintiffs learned that they would be reimbursed at a
reduced rate, they contacted DenteMax and learned of the Network
Agreement. The Plaintiffs then asked to be terminated from the
DenteMax Network. They later stipulated to Ameritas' counsel that
all relevant transactions in which Ameritas paid the Plaintiffs for
dental services using the DenteMax Network rates happened before
Jan. 1, 2017, and that Ameritas last used the DenteMax Network
rates to reimburse them on June 1, 2016.

On July 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint
asserting claims against Ameritas and DenteMax for breach of
contract and for violations of Louisiana's PPO Act, which requires
insurers to notify health care providers when reimbursing those
providers at a reduced PPO rate. Specifically, they allege that
Ameritas is liable for the exemplary damages under La. R.S.
40:2203.1(G) because: (i) the Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the
Network Agreement; (ii) the Plaintiffs expected Ameritas to
reimburse them at their full standard rate, as Ameritas' benefit
cards did not specifically identify Ameritas as being part of the
DenteMax Network; and (iii) Ameritas improperly underpaid the
Plaintiffs based on the DenteMax Network rate.

Ameritas and DenteMax filed separate motions to dismiss under rule
12(b)(6), which the district court granted in part and denied in
part. Noting lack of caselaw on the PPO Act's applicability to
dental services, the district court reasoned that La. R.S.
40:2203.1 covers dentists, and thus denied Ameritas' motion to
dismiss on that ground.

The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint converting this case
into a putative class action. DenteMax and Ameritas again moved to
dismiss, asserting for the first time that the Plaintiffs' claims
were prescribed under Louisiana law. The district court converted
these motions to motions for summary judgment after DenteMax
submitted the Plaintiffs' stipulation about their termination from
the PPO Agreement.

On Oct. 27, 2020, the district court granted Ameritas' motions and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for violations of La. R.S.
40:2203.1, for unjust enrichment and for injunctive relief.
Specifically, the district court concluded that the Plaintiffs'
chapter 40 claims are prescribed delictual claims, and that the
Plaintiffs could not bring an unjust-enrichment claim against
Ameritas because, but for prescription, they would have had a
chapter 40 claim against Ameritas. The district court dismissed
Ameritas from the case on March 11, 2021, and the Plaintiffs timely
appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

III. Analysis

The threshold question in the case concerns the proper prescriptive
period for PPO Act claims, because Louisiana applies quite
different prescriptive periods to delictual claims and contractual
claims. Assuming that the PPO Act applies to dental services, the
Plaintiffs' PPO Act claims are time-barred if those claims are
delictual, but not if those claims are contractual. The Fifth
Circuit may certify to Supreme Court of Louisiana dispositive
questions of Louisiana law for which "there are no clear
controlling precedents in the decisions of the supreme court."
Finding contradictory authority for this question, it certifies
this question to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

IV. Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the Supreme Court of Louisiana
should have the chance to resolve the issue in the first instance.
It therefore certified the following question to the Supreme Court
of Louisiana: Are claims arising under the Louisiana's Preferred
Provider Organization Act, La. R.S. 40:2203.1, delictual or
contractual for prescriptive purposes?

Should the Supreme Court of Louisiana accept its request for an
answer to the question, the Fifth Circuit disclaims any intention
or desire that it confines its reply to the precise form or scope
of the question certified. Along with its certification, the Fifth
Circuit transfers the case's record and the briefs submitted by the
parties. It will resolve the case in accordance with any opinion
provided on the question by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit the
certification and request to the Supreme Court of Louisiana in
conformity with the usual practice of the Fifth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/27j9nau8 from Leagle.com.


BAKER HUGHES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch.
------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and other claims in connection
with the combination of Baker Hughes Incorporated (BHI) and the oil
and gas business.

On August 13, 2019, Tri-State Joint Fund filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on
the behalf of itself and all similarly situated public stockholders
of BHI against the General Electric Company (GE), the former
members of the Board of Directors of BHI, and certain former BHI
Officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting,
and other claims in connection with the combination of BHI and the
oil and gas business of GE.

On October 28, 2019, City of Providence filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery a shareholder class action lawsuit for and on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated public shareholders of BHI
against GE, the former members of the Board of Directors of BHI,
and certain former BHI Officers alleging substantially the same
claims in connection with the transactions. The relief sought in
these complaints include a request for a declaration that
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, an award of damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The lawsuits have been consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint on December 17, 2019 against
certain former BHI officers alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
against GE for aiding and abetting those breaches. The December
2019 complaint omitted the former members of the Board of Directors
of BHI, except for Mr. Craighead who also served as President and
CEO of BHI. Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, who served as Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of BHI, remains named in the
December 2019 complaint along with GE.

The relief sought in the consolidated complaint includes a
declaration that the former BHI officers breached their fiduciary
duties and that GE aided and abetted those breaches, an award of
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs. On or around February 12, 2020, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the
complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.


On or around October 27, 2020, the Chancery Court granted GE's
motion to dismiss, and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed
by Mr. Craighead and Ms. Ross, thereby dismissing all of the claims
against GE and Ms. Ross, and all but one of the claims against Mr.
Craighead.

Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company based in
Texas.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Treatment of Unemployed Nevadans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class
action lawsuit against banking giant Bank of America based on its
treatment of unemployed Nevadans. The suit has been filed in
federal district court in Las Vegas. The complaint alleges that, in
order to win a multi-million dollar contract with the State of
Nevada to deliver unemployment benefits via debit card accounts,
Bank of America promised that all recipients would have "zero
liability" for any losses that occurred on their accounts. The
promised "zero liability" protection was in addition to various
other contractual and statutory protections for account balances,
including pursuant to the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act
("EFTA"). The suit alleges that -- when times got tough due to the
COVID 19 Pandemic, and the number of unemployed Nevadans jumped
exponentially -- the Bank was not able to maintain customer account
security. Rather than honor its contractual promises, however, Bank
of America intentionally defied its "Zero Liability Promise,"
leaving customers without their desperately needed funds. The suit
contends that, rather than fix its own data security problems, the
Bank simply terminated its contract with the State of Nevada.

The Class Action Complaint asserts that Bank of America had no
problem operating the unemployment payment program and pocketing
millions from the State of Nevada in good times but - as soon as
the pandemic hit - the Bank was unable to properly manage the
program. Rather than honoring its commitments, the Bank broke its
promises and tried to cut and run without meeting its obligations.
The suit alleges, however, that the Bank cannot leave behind its
contractual and legal obligations; rather, customers are entitled
to be made whole. In the most recent quarter, Bank of America
reported $7 billion in profits so the Bank can easily meet its
obligations to Nevadans.

The Plaintiff also claims Bank of America is holding funds that
belong to unemployed Nevadans. For example, the Bank has taken at
least $3,000 of the Plaintiff's funds. The Bank took such funds
from the state and federal governments and never contacted the
Plaintiff, despite having numerous methods by which it could easily
have reached him. Plaintiff only discovered that the Bank had the
funds when he received a 1099 form from the State of Nevada showing
that he had been paid the funds. Despite numerous attempts, he has
not been able to obtain the funds from Bank of America.

The Class Action Complaint describes hundreds of similar complaints
from other unemployed Nevadans. The Bank's improper actions have
been widespread and have harmed thousands of the most vulnerable
Nevadans.

The legal claims referenced in the Class Action Complaint are for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of EFTA. The
suit seeks the return of all funds owed to victims as well as
statutory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case, styled Hamilton v. Bank of America, N.A., is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and has
been assigned case number 2:22-cv-00374-RFB-EJY.

If you wish to discuss this class action or have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Webb, Klase & Lemond,
LLC at (770) 444-9325 or contact@WebbLLC.com. You may also visit
the firm website at www.WebbLLC.com.

Intake Attorney
Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC
+1 770-444-9325
contact@WebbLLC.com [GN]

BUY BUY BABY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angeles Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
FANNY ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUY BUY BABY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01002 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendant the amount of untimely paid wages as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

Plaintiff Angeles was employed by the Defendant as a cashier.

BUY BUY BABY, INC. owns and operates a chain of baby products
stores. The Company offers strollers, car seats, gear, furniture,
bedding, decors, toys, clothing and accessories, gifts, and nursing
and feeding products. Buy Buy Baby operates in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com

              - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          Email: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
                 kfay@golomblegal.com


CABALETTA BIO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 2 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Cabaletta Bio, Inc. ("Cabaletta Bio"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CABA) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
investors who purchased (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the offering documents issued in connection with Cabaletta Bio's
initial public offering conducted on or about October 24, 2019 (the
"IPO"); and/or (b) securities between October 24, 2019 and December
13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) top-line data of the
Phase 1 Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other
things, worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and
necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (2) accordingly, DSG3-CAART was
not as effective as the Company had represented to investors; (3)
therefore, the Company had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical and/or
commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On December 14, 2021, the Company issued a press release
"report[ing] top-line data on biologic activity from the two lowest
dose cohorts in the DesCAARTes(TM) Phase 1 clinical trial of
DSG3-CAART for the treatment of patients with mucosal Pemphigus
Vulgaris (mPV)." Among other results, the Company reported that two
cohort participants had "disease activity scores . . that worsened
. . . after DSG3-CAART infusion" and thus "reduced or discontinued
selected systemic therapies prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, as
required by the protocol", while another participant "subsequently
received systemic medication to improve disease activity after
DSG3-CAART infusion." On this news, the Company's stock price fell
by more than 73%, damaging investors.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Cabaletta
Bio should contact the Firm prior to the April 29, 2022 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

CADETS CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Woodward, writing for CTV News, reports that a Toronto woman
has filed a class-action lawsuit against Cadets Canada, alleging
poor policies and a tolerant culture contributed to her sexual
abuse.

Hilary Lockhart was just 14 years old when she joined the Army
Cadets in Dryden, Ont. She says in the lawsuit that she was groomed
by a male instructor and lured online, and that her attempts to
report the abuse to a female instructor were allegedly ignored.

Lockhart said she would have gone to a hotel room with the male
instructor, but her mother found and read the online conversations
and put a stop to it right away.

"I didn't know what to do," Lockhart, now 28, told CTV News Toronto
in an interview. "My mom ended up finding out and reporting it to
the police herself."

The lawsuit, filed in a Newmarket, Ont. court, cites 245 cases of
sexual assault and sexual harassment in the organization from 2006
to 2015. It says 27 per cent of all sexual misconduct cases across
the Canadian Forces [44 out of 162 cases] in 2015 involved cadets.

Lockhart's lawyer, Darryl Singer, said he has been in touch with
about a dozen other victims who could join the class, and believes
there are many more.

While previous class actions have focused on a single incident or
time period, Singer said this is the first to look at the
organization as a whole over an extended period of time.

"This is widespread," he said. "This is a national class-action,
looking at anyone that was assaulted from 2000 to today -- over the
past 20 years."

There are about 55,000 young people in Cadets Canada organization,
which is sponsored by the Canadian Armed Forces and funded through
the Department of National Defense.

That department said in a statement they have not been served with
the lawsuit, and no defense has been filed.

"The Canadian Cadet Organization is committed to providing our
cadets with a safe and secure environment," the statement said.
"All adults working with cadets are appropriately screened and
cadets are educated about harassment and abuse issues through the
Positive Social Relations for Youth Program."

The lawsuit states Lockhart was approached by an instructor in
2008, and "lured and brainwashed into a 'relationship'" with a
cadet instructor, who convinced her to take her clothes off in a
video call.

He had invited her to a hotel room, she said, and she would have
gone had her mother not discovered the explicit messages.

"I thought he cared about me. That turned out not to be the case at
all. He was just using me," she said.

The lawsuit says she reported the incident to a female supervisor,
but nothing was allegedly done. Her mother, Melissa Lockhart, went
to the Dryden Police, and the man was charged and convicted, the
lawsuit says.

"I expected that when I put my daughter in Cadets she would be safe
and that they would keep her safe. I had no I idea what would
happen in their program," said Melissa Lockhart.

Hilary Lockhart says she has been in and out of hospital due to
depression, attempted suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and
anxiety disorders.

The lawsuit says the organization is allegedly "poisoned by a
discriminatory and sexualized culture that condones and encourages
sexual assault and sexual harassment towards young female cadets."

"The discriminatory and sexualized culture in Cadets Canada is
caused by the leadership's failure to implement appropriate
policies to properly train its members and to identify, report,
investigate and properly resolve incidents of sexual assault and
sexual harassment," the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit was filed on March 1. There has been no finding on the
lawsuit's merits and nothing has been proven in court.

Lockhart says speaking out about her trauma has been positive and
hopes she encourages other people to speak up as well.

"It's empowering," she said. "I want some accountability. I hope
this triggers the government to say, 'You know what? We have young
people suffering and we need to do something.'" [GN]

CALIFORNIA: Gonzalez Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiff v. GAVIN
C. NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California directed Mario Gonzalez to contact class
counsel about an alleged retaliation.

The case is a class action, with attorneys representing the class.
Mario Gonzalez, an inmate at California State Prison, Los Angeles
County, has submitted under the caption of this case a letter in
which he alleges that prison staff retaliated against him for
speaking with attorneys representing the class in violation of the
Court's orders.

To the extent that Mr. Gonzalez believes that prison staff are
violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act or
the Armstrong Remedial Plan, he may contact class counsel with
respect to that issue. The Court does not entertain requests by
class members filed in propria persona.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3c8b5xj6 from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Grant Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiff v. GAVIN C.
NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California directed Vernon Grant to contact class
counsel with respect to questions about his rights.

The case is a class action, with attorneys representing the class.
Vernon Grant, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, has submitted
under the caption of this case a letter in which he requests that
the Court provide him with information as to how video footage
taken pursuant to the Five Prisons Remedial Plan can be used and
obtained by inmates, who have received rules violation reports.

To the extent that Mr. Grant is a member of the class and he has
questions about his rights under the Five Prisons Remedial Plan, he
may contact class counsel with respect to that issue, Judge Wilken
holds.

The Court does not entertain requests by class members filed in
propria persona.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/27bmu4c9 from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Reed Must Contact Class Counsel in Armstrong Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiff v. GAVIN
C. NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 94-cv-02307 CW (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California directed Mychal Reed to contact class
counsel about an alleged retaliation.

The case is a class action, with attorneys representing the class.
Mychal Reed, an inmate at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility,
has submitted under the caption of this case a letter in which
alleges that prison staff retaliated against him for providing
assistance to attorneys representing the class.

To the extent that Mr. Reed believes that prison staff are
violating his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act or
the Armstrong Remedial Plan, he may contact class counsel with
respect to that issue. The Court does not entertain requests by
class members filed in propria persona.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4z45yse from Leagle.com.


CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Averts COVID-19 Refund Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that student
housing company Campus Advantage Inc. won dismissal of a proposed
class action by college students and their parents seeking partial
refunds of room, board, and other costs paid out after schools went
to online classes due to the coronavirus.

The private student housing company's leases weren't conditioned
"on the nearby college's administrative decisions," the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida said on March 1.

The students are therefore bound by the terms of the leases, the
court said.

The court, however, gave the plaintiffs until March 15 to file an
amended complaint if they choose to do so. [GN]



CARPRO DETAILING: Underpays Car Wash Attendants, Zamudio Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL HERNANDEZ ZAMUDIO, BRIAN ALFARO, JULIO ELIAS IBATE PAR,
WILSON VALDERRAMA GUIT VASQUEZ, and JOSE ANGEL MIRANDA LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CARPRO DETAILING INC., PARK PLACE FINE DETAILING
INC., PARK PLACE FINE HAND CAR WASH INC., THE DETAIL SHOP NYC INC.,
and BEATRIZ L. VARGAS, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01150 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread-of-hours premiums, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to provide a wage notice upon hire in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as car wash attendants in
Queens, New York.

The Defendants provide car washing services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION: Charleston Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Kirk, writing for 12WBOY, reports that a Charleston law firm
has filed a putative class action against Suddenlink and three
other smaller companies within Suddenlink.

The lawsuit, Edens v. Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, et al., seeks to
improve phone, video, and internet services in West Virginia,
according to a release from Webb Law Center, PLLC, and puts
Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, Cequel III Communications I, LLC, and
Cequel III Communications II, LLC and Altice USA as well as
Suddenlink under fire.

The Public Service Communication of West Virginia fined Suddenlink
$2.2 million on Feb. 9, because it "failed to provide safe,
adequate and reliable service to its West Virginia subscriber."

The lawsuit expands on the Commission's investigation, alleging
that in addition to the issues identified in the Commission's
Order, Suddenlink uses out-of-date equipment, fails to perform
customary maintenance, and lacks basic backup equipment designed to
minimize outages.

The lawsuit reveals that Altice purposefully changed "Suddenlink's
focus on service, innovation and investments" to a focus on
aggressive cost-cutting and profits. The lawsuit alleges that, even
as Altice's CEO bragged that Suddenlink's 47.3% profit margins were
the highest in the U.S. cable industry, he vowed that "We're
turning the screws a little more" on cost-cutting.

Drug overdoses in West Virginia: Is it getting better?
Among other things, the lawsuit wants to prohibit Suddenlink's
delivery of services under unsafe conditions, which would force
Suddenlink to make needed improvements.

The lawsuit further alleges that Suddenlink imposed an
unconscionable adhesion contract on Suddenlink customers that is
unenforceable under West Virginia law. In addition, the lawsuit
seeks damages for Negligence, Gross Negligence, Reckless and
Willful Conduct, Unjust Enrichment/Quasi Contract, the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, Fraud, Negligent
Misrepresentation, and Breach of Contract (in the alternative).

The lawsuit was filed by agent Charles R. "Rusty" Webb of the Webb
Law Centre, PLLC in Charleston. [GN]

CENTENE CORP: Faces Guo Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAI GUO and WEI CHEN on behalf of themselves, Nationwide FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. CENTENE
CORPORATION, CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, WELLCARE HEALTH PLANS,
INC., and COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01743 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover
from Defendants unpaid wages due to time-shaving, unpaid overtime
compensation, statutory penalties, and damages due to breach of
contract, negligent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs and potential class members were all victims of
Defendants' alleged scheme to underpay employees and avoid paying
overtime. The Defendants impermissibly induced extensive
off-the-clock work with a policy of instituting excessive quotas on
employees, which required overtime hours to complete. At the same
time, the Defendants maintained a procedure for requesting overtime
requiring an employee to subject themselves to a productivity
review and possible reprimand/termination. Moreover, employees of
Defendants paid on commission were also victims of what is referred
to as the "Open Enrollment Scandal" occurring in 2020. The
Defendants induced higher sales by distributing emails and
paperwork promising higher commission rates than were actually
delivered to employees, says the suit.

Plaintiff Cai Guo and Wei Chen were hired by the Defendant to work
as marketing sales associates for its office in Brooklyn, New York
from June 18, 2018 until March 12, 2021 and from September of 2012
until June 28, 2021, respectively.

The Defendants operate a healthcare enterprise selling healthcare
insurance products to individuals and families across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Restriction Issue in Harper Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, HASSAN
TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees,
Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California resolves
the Defendant's motion to restrict communications and issue
curative notice.

The case is again before the Court on a motion by Defendant Charter
Communications challenging a letter and two-page survey sent to a
selection of putative class members requesting information related
to recipients' work for Charter, sent by a research consulting
group hired by the Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Court says it would have preferred to confer with counsel to
reach a resolution of Charter's concerns with the letter and
survey. However, the traditional modes of communication are
unfortunately no longer available to the Court. On Feb. 22, 2022,
the court attempted to hear the arguments of counsel by Zoom, but a
few minutes into the proceeding the electronic communication system
malfunctioned to the point where the hearing had to be aborted. The
Court's IT department thinks it has the problem pinpointed, but it
is uncertain when if at all it can be resolved.

The Court has considered inviting counsel to appear in person for
oral argument on the motion, but aside from requiring the
Plaintiffs' counsel to travel from Southern California and the
Defendants' counsel to travel from Georgia, the parties would have
to sit in a socially distanced room with plexiglass partitions
between them and converse with masks covering their faces. That
option does not appear to the Court to be much more conducive to a
meaningful dialogue. Accordingly, the Court will take the motion
under submission on the papers and address it in this Order.

Charter's motion seeks several forms of Court intervention
including: (1) a restriction on further communications between the
Plaintiffs' counsel and members of the putative class; (2) a
requirement that a curative notice be issued to putative class
members, at the Plaintiffs' counsel's expense; (3) compelled
production of the Plaintiffs' counsel's records relating to the
survey, including a list of recipients, all materials sent, and all
responses received; and (4) imposition of monetary sanctions
against the Plaintiffs' counsel.

First, the Court recognizes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(d) affords district courts broad authority to exercise control
over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing the
conduct of counsel and parties. Nevertheless, the Court does not
deem it appropriate to prohibit the Plaintiffs' counsel from
further communicating with members of the putative class in this
case. The ability to communicate with potential class members,
moreover, is a freedom that litigants and their counsel enjoy under
the First Amendment.

In nearly every decision Charter cites in which a court-limited
communications or took other remedial measures pursuant to Rule
23(d), the court did so in response to concerns that the
defendants' communications would prevent class members'
participation in the action, whether through intimidation,
solicitation of waivers, or other coercive means, Judge Shubb
notes.

In the few cases Charter cites in which courts addressed concerns
about communications by plaintiffs or their counsel, the extent the
courts' intervention was simply to order parties to meet and confer
regarding the creation of a revised questionnaire, Judge Shubb
finds, citing Sutton v. Hopkins Cnty., Ky., 4:03-cv-3 JHM, 2007 WL
9798245, at *1-2 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2007) -- a measure Charter has
not requested -- or to order them to confer and prepare a proposed
order imposing "some level of court supervision of communications,"
Doyon v. Rite Aid Corp., 279 F.R.D. 43, 50-51 (D. Maine 2001).
Judge Shubb points out that none restricted the plaintiffs' counsel
from communication with putative class members altogether.

Second, the Court does not deem it appropriate to send out a
curative notice to the recipients of Charter's letter. Dignifying
the original communication with another one from the Court could
create the false impression that the Court somehow has an interest
in the questionnaire. However, the Court shares several of
Charter's concerns with the contents of letter and survey and sees
nothing wrong with Charter sending its own communication to those
who received it, although the Court does not deem it appropriate to
dictate the contents of any such communication at this time.

Third, in order for Charter to send such a communication it would
need a list of all the recipients, copies of all the materials that
were sent to them, and the addresses to which they were sent. The
Court sees nothing wrong with requiring the Plaintiffs' counsel to
provide the defense with such information.

Fourth, the Court does not perceive the conduct of the Plaintiffs'
counsel to be sufficiently egregious to merit the imposition of
sanctions.

Judge Shubb, therefore, ordered that, if defense counsel wishes to
send a follow-up communication to the recipients of the attached
letter and survey, counsel meet and confer, either remotely or in
person, to the extent that such is possible, to discuss the details
of such communication.

Judge Shubb also ordered that within fourteen days from the date of
this Order, or at such other time as may be agreed upon by
stipulation between the parties, the Plaintiffs' counsel will
provide the Defendants' attorneys with a list of the names and
addresses of all recipients of any communications sent or caused to
be sent by the Plaintiffs' attorneys or any of their consultants,
along with copies of all materials sent to them.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/d6sxfvev from Leagle.com.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Shareholder Suit Filed by Teacher's Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a putative class
action was filed against the company alleging that they have
violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware
federal court against Chemours and certain of its officers.

Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System, and counsel, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint alleging that the defendants violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions in public disclosures regarding
environmental liabilities and litigation matters assigned to
Chemours in connection with its spin-off from E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company (EID), a former parent company.

The amended complaint seeks a class of purchasers of Chemours stock
between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019 and demands
compensatory damages and fees.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Water Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company and plaintiffs sought medical
monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and
injunctive relief.

In 2019, civil actions were filed against E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (EID), a former parent company, and Chemours in North
Carolina federal court relating to discharges from Fayetteville.

These actions include a consolidated purported class action seeking
medical monitoring, and property damage and/or other monetary and
injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property
owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from
the Cape Fear River, and two actions encompassing approximately
1,300 private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. Ruling on the company's motions in April 2019, the court
dismissed the medical monitoring, injunctive demand, and many other
alleged causes of actions in these lawsuits.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued by Business Owners Over Losses
-----------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that two lawsuits have
been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by
nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action.
The lawsuit filed by the business was dismissed, but the claims by
the individual business owner were allowed to proceed

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Sued Over Water Source Contamination
------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a putative class
action was filed on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water
division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department alleging
negligence and nuisance and related to the release of
perfluorinated compounds into a river leading to their water
sources.

The Chemours Company is a provider of performance chemicals based
in Delaware.


CHRIS BARBER: Bennett Jones Attorney Discusses Mareva Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jewett, Esq., Simon Grant, Esq., and Joseph Blinick, Esq., of
Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that a series
of protests and blockades in Canada against COVID-19 mandates and
restrictions, called the "Freedom Convoy" by organizers, began
earlier this year. It occupied downtown Ottawa in January and
February, capturing international attention. In response to the
protests and blockades in Ottawa's downtown core, the Government of
Canada invoked the Emergencies Act and declared a Public Order
Emergency. A number of executive orders were then passed pursuant
to the legislation and the declaration, which not only prohibited
certain public assembly and restricted the use of property to
support the protests and blockades, but also made it illegal for
any person to provide any property, including currency or digital
currency, to or for the benefit of participants in the protests and
blockades. Meanwhile, a number of persons affected by the Convoy
launched a putative class action against certain protest
organizers, supporters, and participants on behalf of a proposed
class of affected residents, businesses and employees, seeking up
to $20 million in damages and other relief for alleged private and
public nuisance.

In the context of that putative class action, the plaintiffs
brought a motion on an ex parte basis (without notice) before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 17, 2022 seeking a
civil freeze order, known as a Mareva injunction, to restrain the
defendants from dissipating their assets in a way that may deprive
the plaintiffs of an effective remedy, leaving them with an
unenforceable civil judgment.

A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary remedy. The test for
obtaining a Mareva injunction is stringent and well-established. A
plaintiff must establish not only the typical factors required for
injunctive relief,[1] but also that: (i) they have an apparently
strong case against the defendant, (ii) the defendant has assets in
the jurisdiction, and (iii) there is a serious risk the defendant
will dissipate those assets or remove them from the jurisdiction if
the order is not granted.

The Court granted the Mareva injunction on an interim basis (for a
period not to exceed 10 days) and released detailed reasons for its
decision, reported here as Li et al. v. Barber et. al., 2022 ONSC
1176. Notably, the Order granted by the Court applies expressly to
cryptocurrencies and includes a schedule setting out a detailed
list of specific crypto wallets to be frozen, comprising over 100
wallet addresses. The Order restrains any person with notice of the
Order (including any crypto exchanges served with the Order) from
selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring,
assigning, encumbering, or similarly dealing with any of the assets
subject to the Order. Any person who knows of the Order and does
anything which helps or permits the defendants to breach the terms
of the Order may be held to be in contempt of the Order and could
potentially be fined or imprisoned.

In its reasons, the Court held that there was an apparently strong
case for establishing tort liability. The Court also found that the
plaintiffs presented clear evidence (including in the form of a
report from an expert investigator that had been monitoring
activity in the relevant digital wallets) that the defendants are
the owners of the digital wallets that have amassed bitcoin or
other digital assets, and these digital assets, hosted by digital
institutions, are within the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts.
The Court was also satisfied that there was a risk of the
defendants dissipating the assets as soon as possible. Given these
findings and others, the Ontario court granted the Mareva
injunction freezing the defendants' crypto assets on an interim
basis.

The Court's decision appears to have been guided, in part, by the
finding that the defendants moved to crypto-based funding
specifically to: (i) avoid Government seizure and (ii) shield the
funds from platforms such as GoFundMe, which had recently frozen
and returned to donors certain funds after it found the
protest-related activities the fundraising campaign was supporting
to be in violation of its terms of service. Here, the Court found
that the funds were purposely placed outside of the control of any
conventional fundraising platform such as GoFundMe and that the
defendants were promoting the use of cryptocurrencies as an
alternative measure under the mistaken belief that crypto is
untraceable and could not be seized by legal authorities. The Court
also found that there was considerable evidence, including text
messages and social media posts, about the plans to distribute the
cryptocurrencies as soon as possible, in part to benefit the
individual protestors but also to avoid any enforcement activity.

The granting of the Mareva injunction in this case is significant
for a number of reasons, including because it appears to be one of
the first reported decisions (if not the first reported decision)
in Canada of a Mareva injunction that explicitly freezes
cryptocurrencies.[2] While a Mareva injunction is by no means a
novel remedy in Canada, and Mareva orders will generally apply to
all of a defendant's assets, which naturally would include the
defendant's crypto assets, this appears to be one of the first
times (if not the first time) that a Canadian reported decision in
respect of Mareva injunction has expressly dealt with the freezing
of digital cryptocurrency wallets specifically. In its decision,
the Court noted that digital funds are not immune from execution
and seizure to satisfy a debt any more than funds in a bank
account. This is consistent with the practice currently taking
shape in other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., where Courts have
recently granted similar civil freeze orders over
cryptocurrencies.[3]

Another noteworthy aspect of the Court's decision is that the Court
exercised its discretion to dispense with the need for the
plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages, which is a
typical condition for obtaining injunctive relief. Under Rule 40.03
of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the Court orders
otherwise, a party seeking an injunction is required to give an
undertaking to pay damages to the defendant if the injunction is
ultimately shown to be unjustified and proven to have caused the
defendant to suffer harm. It is rare for courts to dispense with
this requirement, although courts may do so in certain
circumstances, including where the case has broad public interest
significance or the case involves human rights. Here, the Court was
satisfied that it was appropriate to dispense with this requirement
given the nature of the action and the evidence presented to it on
the motion.

As cryptocurrencies and other digital assets are stored on
blockchain-based public ledgers that can be viewed by anyone, and
the sophistication of litigants and the investigative and tracking
techniques they can employ have improved, cryptocurrencies and
other digital assets are no longer evading detection to the same
extent they used to, and, indeed, are becoming increasingly subject
to not just regulatory enforcement and seizure, but also civil
enforcement and seizure by private litigants.

The Court's decision granting the Mareva injunction presents
several key takeaways for industry participants:

Private litigants should expect increasingly more enforcement
options to be available, which innovative counsel can seek to
leverage to get access to assets thought to be largely beyond
reach.

Digital asset service providers, such as exchanges and digital
wallet providers, need to be cognizant of their legal obligations
when served with court orders such as Mareva injunctions, and have
robust compliance regimes in place that will allow them to respond
quickly to legal demands. Even if service providers are not
directly holding assets or performing a custodial function, they
are not immune from regulatory and civil legal process. For
instance, even if a digital asset service provider cannot freeze
digital assets pursuant to a Mareva order due to technical
impossibility given that the exclusive control of and access to the
assets is held by private key holders, they may still be subject to
Norwich Pharmacal orders or other third-party disclosure orders
compelling them to turn over user information. It is critical for
service providers to recognize that as cryptocurrencies and other
digital assets such as non-fungible tokens gain more mainstream
prominence, service providers will be increasingly faced with
complex legal challenges and demands that require swift and
diligent action.

Although relatively nascent, the cryptocurrency space has already
provided fertile ground for civil litigation, including class
action litigation directly against crypto lending and exchange
platforms and other operators in the crypto space for, among other
things, breach of securities laws, breach of consumer protection
legislation, civil fraud, breach of contract, misrepresentation and
unjust enrichment. While it remains to be seen whether the Mareva
injunction that was granted in this case will expire or be lifted,
or otherwise be varied if it is extended, the initial granting of
the Mareva injunction may represent a watershed moment in the
Canadian cryptocurrency industry as it reflects the beginning of an
increasing trend in digital asset enforcement activity by private
civil litigants and the courts. We expect this to only become more
prevalent as more mainstream acceptance and adoption of blockchain
technology, cryptocurrencies and other digital assets takes hold.
[GN]

CLOROX COMPANY: Sued Over Forever Chemicals in Burt's Bees Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
Clorox is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that its Burt's
Bees brand has advertised products as "natural" without disclosing
that they contain PFAS or "forever chemicals," according to a
report published by Classaction.org.

THE DETAILS The products in question, Burt's Bees All Aflutter
Mascara, Burt's Bees Nourishing Mascara and Burt's Bees Lip
Shimmer, are falsely advertised as being "consciously crafted with
ingredients from nature", the proposed suit alleges, because
"reasonable customers expect that cosmetic products marketed and
sold to be applied to a person's face and skin, and especially near
the eyes and on lips, will not contain dangerous, human-made
chemicals like PFAS". Further, the brand's website claims that the
company's products are formulated without "chemicals of concern".

THE WHY? The complaint claims that independent testing found
markers for PFAS in the products in question and exposure to
polyfluoroalkyl substances is thought to cause a variety of health
concerns. [GN]

CONNECTICUT: Gottlieb Appeals Summary Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andy Gottlieb, et al., filed an appeal from a summary
judgment ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ANDY GOTTLIEB, ET
AL., Plaintiffs v. NED LAMONT, ET AL., Defendant, Civil Case No.
3:20-CV-00623 (JCH), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The lawsuit is a civil rights action which challenged Connecticut
state law requirements to (1) collect in-person signatures to
access the ballot for the August 11, 2020 primary election; and (2)
use in-person ballots for the August 11 primary and the November 3
general elections, with few exceptions that exclude Plaintiffs and
thousands of other voters.

The Plaintiffs, for themselves and a class of all Connecticut
voters whose rights are at risk, sought a declaratory judgment that
those requirements violate the Constitution of the United States,
especially given COVID-19, and sought injunctive relief should
Defendants fail to remedy the alleged constitutional violations
promptly.

According to the complaint, unless remedied, Plaintiffs and
thousands of Connecticut voters will have their choice of primary
candidate unduly and unjustifiably restricted by Connecticut's
Ballot Access Laws, infra pp. 4-6, which can require thousands of
signatures on paper petitions for candidates to access the ballot.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2022, District
of Connecticut issued a Ruling:

   (1) granting the State Defendants' Motion to Exclude the
       Expert Testimony of Plaintiff Gottlieb;

   (2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Bromley and
       McDonough;

   (3) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to add a party plaintiff;

   (4) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment;

   (5) granting the State Defendants' Motion for Summary
       Judgment; and

   (6) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Excess
       Pages.

The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Gottlieb v. Ned, Case No.
22-449, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 3, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Andy Gottlieb, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; Lorna Chand, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Richard Lacourciere; Jason W.
Bartlett; and Robert Halstead, are represented by:

          Alexander Tiva Taubes, Esq.
          470 James Street, Suite 007
          New Haven, CT 06513
          Telephone: (203) 909-0048
          E-mail: alextt@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees Ned Lamont, Governor of the State of
Connecticut; Denise Merrill, Secretary of the State of Connecticut;
and Democratic State Central Committee, are represented by:

          Michael Skold, Esq.
          CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          165 Capitol Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 808-5020
          E-mail: michael.skold@ct.gov

DEERE & COMPANY: Seeks Consolidation of Right-to-Repair Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Neeley, writing for DTN.com, reports that what started as a
single lawsuit in Illinois against John Deere over the right to
repair farm equipment has now spread like wildfire to three
additional states, prompting Deere to ask a federal court in
Illinois to transfer all the cases to that state.

In January, Forest River Farms in North Dakota filed the first
class-action suit against Deere, alleging the company has
monopolized the repair service market for John Deere brand
agricultural equipment with onboard central computers known as
engine control units, or ECUs.

Now, farmers and other business owners have filed similar lawsuits
in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Alabama, as well as two additional cases
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Illinois,
in the same court as the Forest River Farms case.

All the cases alleged the company violated the Sherman Act and seek
damages for farmers who paid for repairs from John Deere dealers
beginning on Jan. 12, 2018, to the present.

In a motion filed by John Deere in the Illinois court, the company
asked all cases to be transferred. In addition, Greenwood,
Minnesota-based Hapka Farms, Inc. filed a class-action suit against
Deere in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on
Feb. 28. That case is not one Deere has asked to be transferred.

"Their central claim is that Deere deliberately monopolized an
alleged market for repair and maintenance services of Deere-branded
tractors and other equipment in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act," Deere said in its motion filed on Feb. 25.

"Although Deere vigorously disputes the allegations in the
complaints, the related actions raise common questions of fact and
law that warrant transfer and consolidation. Centralization would
also be more convenient for the parties and more efficient for the
courts."

Forest River Farms in Forest River, North Dakota, asked for a trial
by jury and wants the court to order John Deere to make the
necessary software available to individual farmers and repair
shops. The lawsuit seeks damages for farmers who have paid for
repairs from John Deere dealers beginning on Jan. 12, 2018, to the
present.

The right to repair increasingly has become an issue in agriculture
and other industries with state legislatures introducing bills in
at least 32 states, including bills in 21 states in 2021. The state
of Nebraska may become the first state legislature to vote on
legislation this year.

Equipment manufacturers currently will not allow farmers the
hardware or software needed to diagnose a problem, much less repair
it. So, dealers must send their teams out to the field to diagnose
a problem and likely order parts, then come back out to make the
repairs. There may be other complications with repairs.

Two additional cases filed in the Illinois court include one by
Daniel Brown, the owner of Otsego Forestry Services in New York,
and the second by Elizabeth, Illinois-based Plum Ridge Farms.

Franklin County, Alabama, farmer Trinity Dale Wells filed a similar
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern Alabama.

In the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee,
farmer David Underwood filed a class-action suit claiming damages.

Alfalfa County, Oklahoma, farmer Monty Ferrell filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Western Oklahoma.

In all the lawsuits, the plaintiffs paid for repair services that
they have used for many years.

All the lawsuits allege John Deere has undertaken a consolidation
of the number of dealership locations.

In 1996, John Deere had about 3,400 dealerships. By 2007, the
number decreased to 2,984, according to the lawsuits. By 2021, just
1,544 dealership locations remained.

In September 2018, the Equipment Dealers Association, a trade and
lobbying group that represents John Deere and other manufacturers,
committed to make repair tools, software and diagnostics available
to the public by Jan. 1, 2021.

In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., introduced the
"Agricultural Right to Repair Act" on Feb. 1. Tester spoke about
the bill during a keynote address at the National Farmers Union
annual meeting in Denver on Feb. 27. Tester said the bill would
require equipment manufacturers to provide software to farmers that
would allow them to fix their own machinery. So far, Tester's bill
only has one cosponsor.

"All we're asking the manufacturers to do is give farmers and
ranchers the ability to do what they've always been able to do,"
Tester told DTN.

He added, "We're not asking the software to jump up the horsepower.
We just want to know the software so when a sensor goes out, we
know which sensor it is. And we can go out with a
three-quarter-inch wrench and pop that sensor out, and go buy a new
one and pop it back in and our combine doesn't sit out there in the
field waiting for a mechanic during harvest." [GN]

DISCOVER BANK: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling in Perez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISCOVER BANK filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled Iliana Perez, Flavio Guzman Magana, individuals,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Discover Bank, Case No. 3:20-cv-06896-SI, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The complaint asserts that Defendant Discover Bank follows a policy
of denying full access to student loans and loans consolidating and
refinancing pre-existing student loans to applicants who are not
United States citizens or Legal Permanent Residents ("LPRs" or
"green card holders"). The Plaintiffs and members of the Class they
seek to represent were and are unable to access Defendant's
financial services without unequal conditions imposed upon them
because of their immigration status, says the suit.

The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2020.

On December 7, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff Iliana Perez leave
to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's prior
order requiring Perez to submit her claims to arbitration.

On February 4, 2022, Perez's motion for partial reconsideration was
granted by the Court and the Court rescinded the portion of its
prior order compelling Perez to submit her claims to arbitration.

The Defendant are seeking a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Iliana Perez, et al. v. Discover
Bank, Case No. 22-15322, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 3, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Discover Bank Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 10, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 4, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on May 2, 2022;

   -- Appellant Discover Bank opening brief is due on June 13,
2022;

   -- Appellee Iliana Perez answering brief is due on July 11,
2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee ILIANA PEREZ, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Andrew Saenz, Esq.
          MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
           AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
          634 S. Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 629-2512
          E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Defendant-Appellant DISCOVER BANK is represented by:

          David Wesley Moon, Esq.
          Arjun P. Rao, Esq.
          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          E-mail: dmoon@stroock.com
                  arao@stroock.com
                  jstrickland@stroock.com

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Argueta Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN O. ARGUETA, KAREN N. ARIKPO, GREGORY S. ARRINGTON, OTHNEIL
J. BLAGROVE, TANYA E. BUTLER, MICHALL J. CASHMAN III, JONATHAN S.
CHEN, EMMANUEL E. COPELAND, NELSON R. DURHAM V, JUSTING A. JUG,
NICHOLAS A. KING, MICHAEL S. MULDROW, HIRAM ROSARIO, FREDIE L.
SCOTT II, SHAWN J. SPARKS, MARK C. TATE, ONASIS ULLOA, CANDICE D.
WILKES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00657 (D.D.C., March 9,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to
include hazard pay premium payments in the calculation of the
Plaintiffs' regular rate of pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed as police officers, detectives and/or
sergeants by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department.

The District of Columbia is a public agency with its principal
office and place of business at 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC.

The Metropolitan Police Department is an administrative division of
the District of Columbia, with its principal office and place of
business at 300 Indiana Avenue NW, Washington, DC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Gregory K. McGillivary, 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: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                 smb@mselaborlaw.com

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Court Refuses to Remand Kincaid Wage Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SHEILA KINCAID, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an unknown
business entity; ECMC GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00863-TLN-JDP
(E.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other individuals as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.
On Feb. 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging various state law wage
and hour claims. On May 12, 2021, the Defendants removed the case
to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
The Plaintiff moved to remand on June 11, 2021, arguing the
Defendants fail to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
requisite $5 million amount in controversy has been met.

Analysis

In her motion to remand, the Plaintiff argues the Defendants'
amount in controversy estimates are unreasonable because the
Defendants did not provide evidence to support those estimates in
the notice of removal. In opposition, the Defendants argue the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million based on the Plaintiff's
own allegations and the newly submitted declaration of Paula
Jahraus ("Jahraus Declaration"), the Defendants' Employee Relations
and Human Resources Operations Manager.

More specifically, the Defendants estimate the total amount in
controversy exceeds $7,836,619.79 based on the class claims for
unpaid overtime, meal periods, rest periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, waiting time penalties, inaccurate wage statements, and
attorneys' fees. In reply, the Plaintiff argues the Jahraus
Declaration is insufficient because it fails to specify with
particularity the documents she relies on, other than referring to
her review of records and other information and data. Notably, the
Plaintiff did not submit evidence disputing the Defendants'
calculations with her reply nor does she offer any alternative
calculations.

District Judge Troy L. Nunley notes that as a preliminary matter,
the Defendants were not required to submit evidence with the notice
of removal. To the extent the Plaintiff challenges the Jahraus
Declaration in her reply, courts have found this type of evidence
to be sufficient for establishing the amount in controversy in
similar cases, the Judge opines, citing Avila v. Rue21, Inc., 432
F.Supp.3d 1175, 1186 (E.D. Cal. 2020).

In the instant case, Judge Nunley finds, the Jahraus Declaration
establishes the following for the putative class: the average
hourly pay rate, the number of employees in the class, the
full-time status of employees, the number of workweeks, the average
hours worked, and the schedule for the issuance of pay statements.
Jahraus further declares that, in preparation for the declaration,
she reviewed all relevant records. Based on the content of the
Jahraus Declaration -- and in the absence of any evidence from the
Plaintiff to the contrary -- the Court concludes that it lays a
sufficient evidentiary foundation to determine the amount in
controversy.

Having found the declaration is sufficient, the Court will consider
the amount in controversy for the Plaintiff's claims.

i. Failure to Pay Minimum Wage

The Plaintiff claims that she and other class members were not
consistently paid minimum wage. In the notice of removal, the
Defendants argue that since the "Plaintiff provides no pertinent
information as to how much time she or the members of the putative
class worked without proper compensation," it is fair to assume an
hour of unpaid time for each class member during each pay period.
In moving to remand, the Plaintiff contends that nowhere in the
Complaint does she allege that she and the class members were
missing compensation for hours worked every single pay period.

The Plaintiff seeks restitution for herself and all others
similarly situated for unpaid minimum wages in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1. The
Defendants' calculation is as follows: unpaid minimum wage
(aggregate 24,947 workweeks x average state minimum wage from 2017
to present which is $12.10 = $301,858.70) + liquidated damages
($301,858.70) + penalties ((213 initial pay periods x $100) + ($250
x aggregate 12,963 subsequent pay periods) = $3,262,050) =
$3,865,767.40.

The Defendants argue that assuming one hour of unpaid minimum wage
per week is reasonable because "assumptions made part of the
defendant's chain of reasoning need not be proven; they instead
must only have 'some reasonable ground underlying them,'" citing
Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 927 (9th Cir.
2019). Here, the Defendants used data, as cited in the Jahraus
Declaration, and the allegations from the Plaintiff's complaint
that "they were not receiving at least minimum wage for all hours
worked."

Therefore, the Court agrees with the Defendants that such
assumptions for rate of violation are reasonable and will include
$3,865,767.40 in the amount in controversy.

ii. Meal and Rest Periods

The Defendants use a 20% violation rate (one of five meal periods
and rest periods per workweek being improper) to calculate the
amount in controversy for the missed meal and rest period claims.
The Defendants base their violation rate assumption on the
Plaintiff's allegations of a "pattern and practice" of violations
and the Jahraus Declaration. The Defendants calculate these
violations by multiplying 24,947 aggregate workweeks x $18.35
(hourly wage) x 2 hours penalty per week = $915,554.90. In moving
to remand, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants fail to
demonstrate why the 20% violation rate should apply to 100% of the
putative class.

Judge Nunley explains that the Court has held previously that a 20%
to 60% violation rate for meal period and rest period violations to
be reasonable. See Sanchez v. Abbott Laboratories, No.
2:20-cv-01436-TLN-AC, 2021 WL 2679057, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. June 30,
2021), et al. Here, as in these cases, the Plaintiff alleges a
"pattern and practice" of meal and rest violations.

Thus, the Defendants' use of a 20% violation rate is reasonable,
Judge Nunley holds. Therefore, the Court will include $915,554.90
in the amount in controversy.

iii. Unpaid Overtime

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated California Labor Code
Section 510's overtime compensation rules by engaging in a "pattern
or practice" of failing to pay overtime wages. The Defendants
applied a 20% violation rate based on the Plaintiff's "pattern or
practice" allegations.

The Defendants calculated a total amount in controversy of
$686,666.17 for unpaid overtime, which they reached as follows:
(24,947 aggregate workweeks) x (1 representing the day per
workweek, or a 20% violation rate) x (an average hourly wage rate
of $18.35) x (an overtime rate of 1.5). In response, the Plaintiff
argues the Defendants' calculation is incorrectly applied to 100%
of the putative class and is unsupported by the Plaintiff's
Complaint.

The Court finds the Defendants' use of the 20% violation rate is
reasonable. The Defendants' reliance on the 20% violation rate,
based on the Plaintiff's complaint alleging their "pattern and
practice" of failing to pay overtime wages, is a reasonable
assumption. Accordingly, the Court considers the Defendants'
estimate of $686,666.17 in unpaid overtime compensation as part of
the amount in controversy.

In sum, the Defendants' calculations reasonably and appropriately
yield an amount in controversy of $5,467,988.47 for the Plaintiff's
unpaid overtime, meal period, rest period, and failure to pay
minimum wage claims. This calculated amount in controversy does not
account for wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, or
attorney's fees -- amounts that, if included, would bring the
amount in controversy in greater excess of $5 million. Therefore,
the Court finds the Defendants have shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5
million as required by CAFA.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8be74s from Leagle.com.


ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Shareholder Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit against the company was dismissed and entered in favor of
the company.

In June 2020, Gregory A. Hurst filed a securities class action
lawsuit against the company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

Plaintiff did not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he sought to recover
damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the putative class
period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted with leave
to amend. Following the plaintiff's "Notice of Intent not to File
Amended Complaint," the court entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants on October 18, 2021.

Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Clark Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURIE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00128 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 24, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendant as a nurse.

ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION provides health care services. The
Hospital offers surgery, pharmacy, medical imaging, emergency care,
and other related health care services. Envision Healthcare serves
patients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          Melody Fowler-Green, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

         George A. Hanson, Esq.
         Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
         Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
         Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
         Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                wagner@stuevesiegel.com
                kane@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Frankie J. Forbes, Esq.
          Quentin M. Templeton, Esq.
          FORBES LAW GROUP, LLC
          6900 College Boulevard, Suite 840
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 341-8600
          Facsimile: (913) 341-8606
          Email: fforbes@forbeslawgroup.com
                 qtempleton@forbeslawgroup.com

EXPEDIA GROUP: Faces Tax Liability Charge in Arkansas Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action together with a number of online travel
companies, alleging that they failed to collect and/or pay taxes
under hotel tax occupancy ordinances of the Pine Bluff, Arkansas
under the Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission and
Jefferson County.

In February 2018, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment
on the issue of tax liability. The matter is currently pending in
the trial court on damages issues.

Expedia Group, Inc. is an online travel company based in
Washington.


EYM GROUP: Scheduling Order Entered in Walden Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERN WALDEN v. EYM GROUP,
INC., et al., Case No. 21-cv-1116-pp (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Pamela Pepper entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- The parties shall exchange their          April 11, 2022
     Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by the
     end of the day on:

  -- The parties shall complete nonexpert      Sept. 30, 2022
     witness discovery and discovery
     relating to liability issues and
     class certification by the end of
     the day on:

  -- The plaintiff shall disclose the          Oct. 31, 2022.
     identities of expert witnesses along
     with reports and supporting
     documentation, no later than the end
     of the day on:

  -- The defendants shall disclose the         Jan. 31, 2023
     identities of expert witnesses,
     along with reports and supporting
     documentation, no later than the end
     of the day on:

  -- The parties shall complete all            Feb. 28, 2023
     expert discovery no later than the
     end of the day on:

  -- A party wishing to file dispositive       March 30, 2023
     motions must do so by the end of the
     day on:

  -- The parties shall file a joint status     March 30, 2023
     report by:

EYM Group is a multi-brand franchising company that operates
various restaurants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MFfqXd at no extra charge.[CC]


FACEBOOK INC: Osler Hoskin Attorneys Discuss Privacy Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Gelowitz, Tristram Mallett, Lauren Harper and Robert
Carson, Esq., of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that on January 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of
British Columbia dismissed an application for class certification
in Chow v. Facebook, Inc., a putative privacy class action. Justice
Skolrood held that there was no evidence that Facebook had misused
the plaintiffs' information for its own benefit. In addition to
this "fatal flaw," Justice Skolrood also found that the plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the common issues criterion and that a class
proceeding would not be the preferable procedure. This decision
underscores the importance of the court's "robust gatekeeping
function to weed out claims of dubious merit early at the
certification stage."

Background

This plaintiffs alleged that, without adequate consent, Facebook
extracted call and text data from users of its applications on
Android smartphones. The plaintiffs' claim involved two different
theories of liability: (i) a "front end" allegation that Facebook
accessed call and text data based on prompts which were allegedly
inadequate to constitute consent; and (ii) a "back end" allegation
that Facebook surreptitiously "scraped" call and text data without
seeking consent.

Justice Skolrood's reasons

As a preliminary matter, Justice Skolrood reviewed the evidence and
found that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs' central
allegation that Facebook used, or misused, the plaintiffs'
information for its own benefit. Instead, he noted that the
documents relied on by the plaintiffs lend weight to Facebook's
submission that, "rather than being a genuine expression of
grievance or loss that warrants invoking the complex, time
consuming and expensive mechanisms of a class proceeding", the
plaintiffs' claim was largely "downloaded from the internet".

Justice Skolrood compared this case to Simpson v. Facebook, in
which Justice Belobaba denied certification on the basis that there
was no evidence of the plaintiff's core allegation that Canadian
users' data was shared with Cambridge Analytica. Justice Skolrood
reiterated Justice Belobaba's statement that the onus is on the
plaintiffs to adduce some basis in fact for their core allegation.
Citing Simpson and Kish v. Facebook (in which the Court of Queen's
Bench for Saskatchewan denied certification of another proposed
privacy class action), Justice Skolrood emphasized the need for
"robust gatekeeping" to weed out dubious claims early at the
certification stage.

In addition to the absence of evidence -- which Justice Skolrood
described as a "fatal flaw" -- Justice Skolrood considered three of
the statutory certification criteria and held:

cause of action: Taking the allegations as true, the plaintiffs
adequately pleaded a breach of section 1 of the B.C. Privacy Act.
However, several of the claims, including the unjust enrichment,
unlawful means tort and other statutory claims, were not
sufficiently pleaded.

common issues: The plaintiffs had not satisfied the common issues
criterion because, among other reasons, the alleged breaches of the
B.C. Privacy Act could not be determined on a class-wide basis.
Rather, those claims would require consideration of the individual
circumstances of the person claiming a breach.

preferable procedure: A class proceeding was not the preferable
procedure because there is no evidence to indicate any actual loss
or harm to the plaintiffs or to proposed class members.
Accordingly, certifying this proposed class action and deploying
"considerable judicial resources" would be the "antitheses of
judicial economy and would not provide meaningful access to
justice."

Key takeaway

This case is yet another helpful reminder that certification
remains a meaningful screening device and that claims with no
chance of success should not be permitted to pass through the
certification stage. [GN]

FCA US: Faces Garcia Suit Over Prerecorded Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
RICK-VINCENT GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US, LLC, a Michigan Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 144948945 (Fla. Cir., 11th
Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., March 2, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of transmitting prerecorded advertisements to
Plaintiff and thousands of Class members in violation of their
rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contracted with a third
party to transmit prerecorded calls to Plaintiff to advertise
Defendant's vehicles. The Defendant never secured express consent
or express written consent, or any type of permission, from
Plaintiff or the Class members authorizing Defendant to transmit
prerecorded advertisements to their telephone numbers.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and the Class members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of
Defendant.

FCA US, LLC manufactures motor vehicles and generates profit by
wholesaling those vehicles to dealerships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
          Post Office Box 1400036
          Orlando, FL 32814-0036
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com


FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Toss Part of Oglesby's 1st Amended Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Walter H. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, overruled FedEx's
Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
in the lawsuit entitled TAWANNA OGLESBY, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-346 (S.D.
Ohio).

The Plaintiff, Tawanna Oglesby, has filed an amended collective and
class action Complaint against Defendants FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc., Giacherio, Inc., Fast Ball Trucking, Inc., and John
Doe Corporations I-X.

I. Background

According to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, from
approximately October 2016 through June 2020, the Plaintiff worked
in and around Dayton, Ohio, as a package delivery driver making
deliveries for FedEx. Although she made the deliveries for FedEx,
she was "classified" as an employee of "intermediary employers."
FedEx refers to these intermediary employers as "independent
service providers" ("FedEx ISPs").

The Plaintiff has filed suit against FedEx, Giacherio, Fast Ball
Trucking, and John Doe Corporations 1-X alleging, among other
things, that she and thousands of package delivery drivers in Ohio
have worked for FedEx under the ISPs but have not received overtime
pay for their work beyond 40 hours per week in violation of federal
and state law.

As employees of a FedEx ISP, the package delivery drivers are
required to wear a uniform with the FedEx logo and color scheme.
They also drive delivery trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less,
with the FedEx name and logo on them. The ISP delivery drivers work
out of FedEx-owned and managed terminals where they receive their
authorized routes and assignments from managers, package handlers
and other FedEx employees, who oversee and manage the delivery
operations. FedEx controls the ISPs and has the authority to
require them to terminate the package delivery drivers.

II. Legal Analysis

A. Introduction

FedEx has filed a motion seeking dismissal of Count IV of the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Count IV alleges that FedEx has "willfully violated" the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and that those violations entitle
the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 class to file a civil suit for
compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Ohio Revised Code
Section 2307.60.

Because Count IV of the Amended Complaint is identical to Count IV
of the original Complaint, FedEx asserts in this Motion that it
"renews" its original argument, made in its Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. The Court previously overruled FedEx's prior Motion
regarding Count IV.

B. The Rule 12(b)(6) Motion Must Be Overruled.

When a plaintiff files an amended complaint that is identical to
its original complaint, courts have construed a defendant's second
motion to dismiss as a motion for reconsideration, Judge Rice
notes, citing Universal Surveillance Corp. v. Checkpoint Sys., Case
no. 5:11-CV-1755, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187038, *12 (N.D. Ohio
Sept. 28, 2013). Motions for reconsideration are treated as motions
to amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e).

In Universal Surveillance Corp., the district court analyzed
whether a second amended complaint should survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. The plaintiff filed its initial complaint, to which the
defendant responded by filing its first motion to dismiss. The
defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied. The plaintiff then
amended its complaint on two separate occasions, but all three
versions were "virtually identical" to one another. The defendant
subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss.

In denying the second motion to dismiss, the district court
construed the motion as a motion for reconsideration. The court
reasoned that given that the now-operative second amended complaint
and the original complaint are virtually identical and given that
the applicable legal standard is unchanged, it simply has to be the
case that the court's original conclusion denying the motion to
dismiss remains entirely germane.

The Court believes Universal Surveillance Corp. is instructive
here. Count IV of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is identical to
Count IV of the Plaintiff's initial Complaint. The Defendant
"renews" the same arguments in this Motion as it previously raised
in its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Additionally, the Defendant has not argued any change in applicable
law. As such, the Court believes its original conclusion denying
the motion to dismiss remains entirely germane in this case.
Therefore, the Defendant's Motion must be denied.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, FedEx's Motion to Dismiss Count IV of the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ys4fnjyb from Leagle.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Castro BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Case No. 2022LA000059, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 9,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01265 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act due to unlawful
collection, use, storage and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class's sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric
information.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a package delivery services
provider, with its principal place of business in Moon Township,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jessica D. Causgrove, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 260-4758
         E-mail: jcausgrove@fisherphillips.com

FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Chapman Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIM CHAPMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20CV812 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Loretta C.
Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiff
Daniel Malakoti's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Order and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
was filed with the Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b) and, on Dec. 16, 2021, was served on the parties in the
action. Lead Plaintiff Malakoti filed an objection to the
Recommendation.

Judge Biggs has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made
a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge's report. She therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation.

Therefore, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Lead
Plaintiff Malakoti's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
asserting claims of securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The action is dismissed with
prejudice.

A judgment dismissing the action will be entered contemporaneously
with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3yct6dbk from Leagle.com.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Haines Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN P. HAINES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF
FLORIDA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-2995-KKM-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Haines moves to certify a class in the action on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, against Defendant
Fidelity for gross negligence, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment. Fidelity opposes the motion. The
motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who held a hearing and
issued a Report and Recommendation that the motion be denied.

II. Background

In June 2019, Haines and his partner entered into a real estate
purchase and sale contract to buy property with the assistance of a
real estate broker. He was the "Buyer" and the owners were the
"Seller." o memorialize the agreement, Haines and the Seller used a
standard form known as the 'AS IS' Residential Contract for Sale
and Purchase" approved by the Florida Bar and the Florida
Association of Realtors. According to Haines, he and the Seller
agreed that the Seller would pay the designated closing costs if
Haines paid for the property with cash, which he did.

To facilitate the closing of the real estate transaction, the
Seller designated Fidelity as the closing agent. During the closing
process, Fidelity performed its closing services and charged Haines
a closing services fee of $350. At the time of closing, Haines
neither objected to the $350 fee nor discussed with Fidelity any
dispute over whether the settlement statement was prepared in
accordance with the Contract.

Mr. Haines asserts that nothing obligates him, or other similarly
situated cash buyers, to pay Fidelity a closing services fee in
connection with their real estate transactions, and, by allocating
and collecting a closing services fee, Fidelity breached its
fiduciary duty to him and other cash buyers; Fidelity was either
grossly negligent or negligent in performing its duties in
conjunction with its provision of closing services to cash buyers;
and Fidelity was unjustly enriched as a result of the actions.

In the Second Amended Complaint, Haines sets forth claims on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated against Fidelity for
gross negligence, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment. He now moves on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, for class certification on the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

After reviewing the Motion, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the Court denies Haines' class certification
motion. The parties subsequently filed a joint notice of
non-objection to the Report and Recommendation. Nevertheless, Judge
Mizelle reviews the Magistrate Judge's conclusions de novo.

III. Discussion

After a careful and complete review, Judge Mizelle concludes that
Haines' class certification motion should be denied for the reasons
stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report. Under Rule 23(a), one or
more members of a class may sue as representative parties on behalf
of all members only if the movant establishes the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation
requirements. In addition, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that the putative
class satisfy the requirements of predominance of common issues and
superiority of the class action to other means of litigation.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Haines' proposed class
satisfies the Rule 23(a) requirements, but that it fails to satisfy
either of the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. To satisfy the
predominance requirement, the moving party must demonstrate that
the issues in the class action are subject to generalized proof,
and therefore applicable to the class, predominate over the issues
subject only to individualized proof. Neither Haines' claim for
breach of fiduciary duty nor his claim for unjust enrichment
predominate because individualized inquiries regarding the elements
of the claim, the defenses, and the damages predominate over any
issues common to the class.

The superiority analysis under Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on the
relative advantages of proceeding as a class action over other
forms of litigation that might be realistically available to a
moving party. In the case, a class action would create more
manageability problems than its alternatives, because it would take
a significant amount of time to identify the possible class
members; each transaction would require individualized review; and
the presence of issues, such as modifications, written or oral, and
knowledge-based defenses, would need to be addressed individually.
Under these circumstances, proceeding as a class action would not
prove superior. As Haines failed to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is unwarranted.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, Judge Mizelle adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation and made a part of the Order for all purposes,
including appellate review. She denied Haines' Motion for Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4d683kac from Leagle.com.


FILTERS FAST: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Powers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin denied without prejudice the motion for final
approval of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled SANGER
POWERS, ROBERT LEGG, JENNIFER McCREARY, BETTY OWEN, and LYDIA
POSTOLOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FILTERS FAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-982-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

The Plaintiffs have provided additional information to address
several concerns raised by the Court after reviewing the parties'
motion for final approval of their class settlement in this case
involving a website data breach. Unfortunately, the information the
Plaintiffs provided show that notice to the class was deficient in
two respects.

As a result, the Court will deny the motion for final approval
without prejudice, cancel the settlement approval hearing, and
direct the parties to cure the notice defects before renewing their
motion for final approval.

Judge Peterson notes that the general framework of the class notice
process appears to have been adequate. First, the class
administrator sent an email to each of the approximately 323,000
class members. Second, the administrator sent notice through the
U.S. mail to class members that the administrator determined had
not received the email notice. Third, approximately one month after
sending the first email, the administrator sent a "reminder" email
to class members, who hadn't yet filed a claim.

Despite the three types of notice, the response rate of class
members was a little over one percent, or 3,740 claims. The low
response rate was surprising, especially because the settlement
allowed each class member to submit a claim for $25 without showing
any individualized injury, raising the question whether something
had gone awry during the notice process. The Plaintiffs offered no
explanation for the low response rate, so the Court directed them
to provide more specific information about the process.

The Plaintiffs still don't explain why the response rate was so
low, and they acknowledge that it is "perplexing," Judge Peterson
notes. All counsel says is that "you can lead a horse to water, but
you cannot make him drink."

But the new information the Plaintiffs provided reveal two problems
with the notice process that may have contributed to the low
response rate, Judge Peterson points out. First, the administrator
now states that it did not even attempt to send mail notice to
6,728 class members, who did not receive email notice. The
administrator provides few details, but it says that there was "an
administrative error" that caused it to overlook those class
members. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires reasonable
notice to all class members, so the Court will have to defer
settlement approval until the parties make reasonable efforts to
send mail notice to the 6,728 class members at issue.

Second, as requested by the Court, the Plaintiffs filed a copy of
the actual emails that the administrator sent to the class. At the
preliminary approval stage, the Plaintiffs provided the Court with
the language that would be included in the body of the email, but
they didn't provide the subject line or the sender. As it turns
out, those were significant omissions. The subject line of the
emails stated only "Legal Notice," and the sender was
"noreply@hcgsettlements.com." That information does nothing to
alert the reader what the subject of the email actually is, who the
email is from, or why the email is important.

Without opening the email and reading carefully, recipients would
not know that they are being notified about a class action
settlement or that the email relates to their status as customers
of Filters Fast, Judge Peterson holds. Rather, the vague wording
suggests that the email is spam and can be safely deleted without
reviewing its contents. Repeating the "legal notice" heading in the
body of the email compounds the problem.

Neither the Plaintiffs nor the administrator explain the reasoning
for such an uninformative email header, and the Court cannot
discern a plausible basis for it. Common sense suggests that the
email would deter rather than facilitate a high response rate from
class members.

The Court says it can't approve the settlement before these
problems with notice are resolved. A settlement that is otherwise
fair provides little benefit for the class if few of them are aware
that they are entitled to participate in the settlement. So the
motions for final approval of the settlement and for attorney fees
and costs are denied without prejudice. The March 4, 2022
settlement hearing was cancelled.

The Court will give the Plaintiffs an opportunity to submit a plan
and a proposed schedule for remedying the notice defects. The
Plaintiffs should also include a more fulsome explanation of how
they intend to avoid email spam filters. The administrator included
a vague sentence that it "reviewed the proposed email subject line
and body content for potential spam filter triggering words and
phrases." But it didn't explain what that meant or describe the
process used to minimize the risk of being classified as spam.

Order

Judge Peterson ruled that the motion for final approval of the
settlement agreement, and the motion for attorney fees and costs
are denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs must submit a plan for curing the notice defects and
a proposed schedule for bringing the case to resolution.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 24,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/sbtpyhf3 from
Leagle.com.


FULFILLMENT LAB: Sihler Wins Leave to Amend Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANET SIHLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE FULFILLMENT
LAB, INC.; RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND GLOBAL, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 20cv1528-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs in the putative class action seek leave to amend
their First Amended Complaint to add additional Defendants whose
identifies were uncovered in the discovery process and to add
claims against these Defendants. The Plaintiffs attached to their
Motion a proposed Second Amended Complaint and a red-lined amended
complaint.

A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it. When the time has passed for amendment as a
matter of course, a party may amend its pleading with the opposing
party's written consent or with the court's permission. "The court
should freely give leave when justice so requires." The Ninth
Circuit has stated that "this policy is to be applied with extreme
liberality." "Five factors are taken into account to assess the
propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue delay,
prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether
the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint."

Judge Lopez does not find the presence of bad faith or undue delay.
She explains that the Plaintiffs request to amend their complaint
to add Defendants Brightree Holdings Corp., BMOR Global LLC, David
Flynn, and Rickie Joe James. They  state that the identities of
these Defendants were unknown when they filed their complaint and
the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), and were revealed only after
the Plaintiffs used non-public corporate records produced by
Defendants in discovery. Judge Lopez notes that the motion to amend
was timely filed.

Additionally, Judge Lopez does not find that granting leave to
amend would prejudice the opposing parties or be futile. In the
parties' joint discovery plan, the Defendants agreed that it was
appropriate for the Plaintiffs to add the new Defendants identified
in their proposed Second Amended Complaint. Adding new Defendants
and claims against them would not be futile because the Plaintiffs
describe the new Defendants as individuals and corporations who
were behind the activities previously alleged in the FAC but who
could not be identified from public information.

As to the last factor, although the Plaintiffs amended their
complaint once before, the new information was unknown at that
time.

Accordingly, Judge Lopez grants the Plaintiffs' Motion. She notes
that the Plaintiffs eliminated the sixth cause of action for
"violation of various consumer protection laws" in their proposed
and redlined Second Amended Complaint, but it remains in the
caption. The Plaintiffs will correct the proposed Second Amended
Complaint by deleting the sixth cause of action from the caption.
They will file and serve the corrected Second Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8njww5 from Leagle.com.


GASBUDDY LLC: Eubanks Files Suit Over Deceptive Services
--------------------------------------------------------
CALEB EUBANKS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GASBUDDY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10334-ADB (D. Mass., March 2, 2022) is brought as a class
action on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated
GasBuddy users who have been deceived into using GasBuddy's mobile
app and payment card by the company's misrepresentations and
omissions, in marketing materials, regarding the true operation and
risks of the service.

According to the complaint, these risks include the real and
repeated risk of multiple insufficient funds fees or overdraft fees
imposed by users' banks as a result of automated (and often
delayed) GasBuddy transfers from consumers' checking accounts.
GasBuddy's services cause unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to
incur significant overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank
accounts. Had Plaintiff and the Class members known of the true
operation and risks of the GasBuddy service, they would not have
used the GasBuddy service, says the suit.

GasBuddy, LLC provides software solutions. The Company designs and
develops travel and navigation application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C. Davis, Esq.
          John N. Yokow, Esq.
          MELICK & PORTER, LLP
          One Liberty Square, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 523-6200
          Facsimile: (617) 523-8130
          E-mail: bdavis@melicklaw.com
                  jyokow@melicklaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street, NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

GEICO ADVANTAGE: Wins Bid to Dismiss Thaxton Insurance Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL
THAXTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE
COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL, and GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00306-KWR-KK (D.N.M.).

Introduction

The matter comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) filed by Government Employees Insurance
Company, Geico General Insurance Company, Geico Indemnity Company,
Geico Casualty Company, Geico Choice Insurance Company, Geico
County Mutual, and Geico Secure Insurance Company. Having reviewed
the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the Court finds that
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is well-taken and, therefore, is
granted.

As explained in her Memorandum Opinion and Order, District Judge
Kea W. Riggs holds that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing as
to the claims asserted against seven out of eight Defendants --
i.e., all aside from GEICO Advantage Insurance Company. The claims
against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action involving underinsured
motorist coverage. On Aug. 16, 2017, the Plaintiff was injured in
an automobile collision with another driver. The tortfeasor carried
minimum limits of liability coverage, that is, $25,000 per person
and $50,000 per occurrence. The Plaintiff received the full extent
of liability coverage carried by the tortfeasor, but that coverage
was insufficient to fully compensate the Plaintiff for his damages.
Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges that the tortfeasor was an
underinsured motorist at the time of the collision.

At the time of the collision the Plaintiff was insured by one of
the Defendants. He had purchased uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverage in the amount of $25,000 per person and $50,000
per occurrence. He alleges he paid a premium for that coverage. He
alleges that the Defendants failed to inform him that a purchase of
25/50 UIM coverage, when triggered by a crash with a tortfeasor,
who has 25/50 bodily injury liability limits, would result in
payment of a premium for which no payment of benefits would occur.
The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants failed to inform him
that New Mexico's offset law drastically diminishes payment of
benefits arising from a covered occurrence under his policy.
Finally, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented to the Plaintiff
that he would benefit form 25/50 UIM coverage when it knew or
should have known, pursuant to New Mexico law, that coverage was
meaningless.

When the Plaintiff requested that Defendant GEICO Advantage provide
him with the UIM benefits for which he paid a premium, Defendant
GEICO Advantage denied his claim.

The Plaintiff subsequently filed this putative class action,
asserting the following claims: Count I: Negligence; Count II:
Violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (N.M.S.A.1978, Section
57-12-2) (UPA); Count III: Violations of the Unfair Insurance
Practices Act (N.M.S.A.1978, Sections 59A-16-1, et seq.) (UIPA);
Count IV: Breach of Contract and claim for Motorist Coverage; Count
V: Breach of Contract and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
Count VI: Injunctive Relief; Count VII: Declaratory Judgment; and
Count VIII: Punitive Damages.

The putative class consisting of:

     All persons (and their heirs, executors, administrators,
     successors, and assigns) who, in the prior six years from
     the date of filing of this complaint, were a policyholder
     and/or insured, of a Motor Vehicle Policy issued by
     Defendants where that policy did not and does not provide
     underinsured coverage paid for by the policyholder, and sold
     and solicited by Defendants, due to the application of an
     offset as set forth in NMSA 66-5-301, otherwise known as the
     New Mexico offset law or being a difference state.

Discussion

Seven out of eight Defendants in the case move to dismiss the
claims against them, asserting that the Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing. They assert that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing
because they did not insure him and did not deny his claim for
underinsured motorist coverage. The Plaintiff asserts that he has
standing to assert claims against these non-insuring Defendants,
because they were part of a joint venture with his insurer,
Defendant GEICO Advantage.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to show that the
seven non-insuring Defendants were part of a joint venture with
Defendant GEICO Advantage and, therefore, the Plaintiff has failed
to establish Article III standing. Because Article III standing is
a jurisdictional issue, the Court dismisses the claims against the
non-insuring Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Riggs also holds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
not shown he is entitled to jurisdictional discovery or leave to
amend.

In the conclusion to his response, the Plaintiff summarily requests
that the Court (1) grant leave to obtain jurisdictional discovery
or (2) grant leave to amend, if the Court considers dismissing the
non-insuring Defendants for lack of standing. The Plaintiff did not
specify what he would seek in discovery or attach a proposed
amended complaint to his response. The Court concludes that the
Plaintiff has not met his burden for obtaining jurisdictional
discovery or obtaining leave to amend.

The Plaintiff does not request any specific discovery. His request
for discovery consists of a one conclusory sentence, Judge Riggs
notes. The Plaintiff has not established a basis for jurisdictional
discovery, and the Court finds that his request for discovery is
speculative and a mere fishing expedition. The Plaintiff has not
specifically identified what facts or documents he seeks to
uncover.

While Plaintiff has proffered information about the purported
corporate relationships of the GEICO entities, affiliation between
companies is not sufficient by itself to establish a joint venture.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's request for
discovery.

Moreover, the Court will also deny the Plaintiff's request for
leave to amend his complaint. He summarily requests that the Court
grant leave to amend in lieu of dismissal. However, he does not
indicate what amendments he would make or attach a proposed amended
complaint. Therefore, the Court cannot tell whether amendment would
be appropriate.

Conclusion

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish Article
III standing as to the seven non-insuring Defendants, that is, all
the Defendants except for GEICO Advantage. The Court, therefore,
dismisses these seven non-insuring Defendants without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. GEICO Advantage remains as a
defendant in this case.

The Court, therefore, ordered that the Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is granted for the reasons described in
this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The following non-insuring Defendants are dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction:

   * Government Employees Insurance Company;
   * GEICO General Insurance Company;
   * GEICO Indemnity Company;
   * GEICO Casualty Company;
   * GEICO Choice Insurance Company;
   * GEICO County Mutual; and
   * GEICO Secure Insurance Company.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 24, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/8e56krda from
Leagle.com.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that several
major baby food manufacturers face a class action lawsuit filed by
parents, who say they were deceived into feeding their children
baby food laced with high levels of toxic heavy metals.

In a complaint (PDF) filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on
February 25, a group of 13 plaintiffs joined together to pursue
damages from Beech-Nut, Nurture, Inc., Plum, Inc. Gerber Products
Company, Walmart, Inc. and Sprout Foods, Inc., alleging that they
sold toxic baby food to parents nationwide.

In April 2021, a U.S. Congressional report highlighted internal
documents and testing results for products sold by a number of
companies, indicating that many baby foods contain high levels
metals that may pose serious health risks for children, with more
than 91 times the maximum level of arsenic allowed in bottled
water; 177 times the allowable levels of lead, 69 times the limits
on cadmium, and five times the levels of allowable mercury.

The baby food lawsuit seeks class action status to pursue damages
for the plaintiffs, as well as other parents who purchased the
tainted products, describing the high levels of heavy metals in the
baby food as "outrageous."

"Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Defendants' Baby Foods
reasonably believing that such baby foods are safe, nutritious, and
free from harmful toxins, contaminants and chemicals," the lawsuit
states. "In reality, and despite Defendants' promises and
reassurances to parents that their products are pure, natural, safe
and healthy, these Baby Foods contain heavy metals that are not
pure, are unnatural, are unsafe, and pose a major risk to babies
and infants."

The plaintiffs say the manufacturers played on the parents' trust
that such an important product as baby food would be safe,
concealing the levels of toxic heavy metals present for years. The
lawsuit indicates the defendants knew that if consumers were aware
of the high levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium in their
baby food, parents would be unwilling to purchase such products.

Although the manufacturers continue to maintain that their baby
food is safe and appropriately labeled, the FDA and U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have long maintained that
exposing infants and children to toxic heavy metals can cause a
permanent decrease in IQ, an increased risk of future criminal and
antisocial behavior, and untreatable and frequently permanent brain
damage.

Heavy metal exposure to infants is a serious concern. Lead exposure
at any level is extremely unsafe for children. Prior studies have
linked heavy metal exposure to behavioral impairments, brain
damage, damage to the nervous system, seizures, growth impairments,
and even death.

The lawsuit joins a growing number of parents who have filed
similar baby food lawsuits in the wake of the congressional report.
It presents claims of strict product liability, failure to warn,
negligence, negligent manufacturing, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of California consumer protection
laws. [GN]

GREYSTAR REAL ETATE: Court Narrows Claims in Wallace Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Loretta C. Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the
lawsuit captioned KATRINA WALLACE, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR REAL ETATE PARTNERS, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18CV501 (M.D.N.C.).

In the purported class action, the Plaintiff alleges that her
landlords charged her "Eviction Fees" in violation of North
Carolina' Residential Rental Agreements Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 42-46, and other laws. She sued the property owner and
several entities that she alleges managed her apartment under the
brand "Greystar." She now argues that she is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law as to the liability of one of those entities,
Defendant Greystar Management Services, L.P. to her and to her
proposed classes.

Factual Record

The following factual allegations are undisputed. The Plaintiff
leased an apartment from the Defendants with her three-year-old
daughter in Durham, North Carolina. The lease was for a period from
April 23, 2017, to June 21, 2018. The lease provided that "in the
event we file a summary ejectment lawsuit against you, we may also
recover from you the highest one of the following fees (which shall
be in addition to late fees, attorney's fees, and any applicable
court costs)," and identified and described a Complaint Filing Fee,
Court Appearance Fee, and Second Trial Fee. Pursuant to the lease,
the Plaintiff's monthly rent was $871.

On Feb. 6, 2018, the Plaintiff was late making a rental payment and
was charged a $43.55 fee. On Feb. 13, 2018, the Plaintiff received
an email that stated: "Please note that all unpaid accounts have
now been filed on for possession. To dismiss the eviction filing,
please include the filing fee ($201 for one lease holder; $231 for
two lease holders; $261 for three lease holders.)" The email was
sent by the email address "southpintglenacm@greystar.com" and ended
by stating "Proudly managed by Greystar(R)."

On Feb. 16, 2018, the Plaintiff received a second email claiming
that "the cost of eviction is the responsibility of the tenant per
NC tenant law 42-33." Again, the email was sent from
"southpintglenacm@greystar.com" and stated, "Proudly managed by
Greystar(R)." That same day, a fee of $201 identified as "Legal
Fees" ("Eviction Fees") was placed on the Plaintiff's ledger. These
Eviction Fees are same as the "filing fee" described in the Feb.
13, 2018, collection letter.

At the time the Eviction Fees were placed on the Plaintiff's
ledger, no hearing had been held, no attorney had appeared in Court
to evict the Plaintiff or seek the award of Eviction Fees, and the
Defendants had not served the Plaintiff with the complaint in
summary ejectment. The Plaintiff paid the Eviction Fees on Feb. 21,
2018. She was served with process the next day on Feb. 22, 2018.
The Defendants subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
without prejudice. At no point did a North Carolina judge assess
any portion of the Eviction Fees against Wallace or award any
portion to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff has submitted evidence that a network of entities
managed 159 properties in North Carolina throughout the relevant
time period under the "Greystar" brand. The Plaintiff testified
that "Greystar" managed her property. Greystar Management testified
that two other entities--Greystar RS SE, LLC, and GREP Southeast,
LLC--managed the properties while Greystar Management provided all
employees for all 159 properties.

If a tenant failed to pay rent, Greystar Management's employees
would issue and send a collection letter generated from a template.
They would then upload the tenant's information into an online
portal called Nationwide Eviction, a service used to hire attorneys
to file summary ejectment actions, and add Eviction Fees to tenant
ledgers. The Plaintiff testifies that she paid the charged Eviction
Fees to Greystar.

Procedural History

The Plaintiff filed this action in state court on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated alleging violations of the North
Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act ("RRAA"), N.C. Gen.
Stat. Section 42-46, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act
("DCA"), Section 75-50, et seq., and the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"), Section 75-1, et seq. It
additionally seeks a declaratory judgment that N.C. Gen. Stat.
Section 42-33 is not applicable to this case.

On Sept. 11, 2019, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to
dismiss (Wallace v. Greystar Real Est. Partners, LLC, No.
1:18CV501, 2019 WL 4305849, at *9, *10 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2019)).
The Defendants argued that a June 14, 2018 amendment to the RRAA
expressly permitted landlords to charge the Eviction Fees at issue.
The Court held that the amendment applied prospectively only, and
the Defendants failed to show that N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 42-46,
as it existed in February 2018, would have allowed them to charge
the Eviction Fees on Feb. 16, 2018.

On June 23, 2021, the General Assembly again amended the RRAA to
permit charging Eviction Fees. This amendment expressly applied
retroactively "to all pending controversies." Thus, the Court found
that the amendment precluded recovery on Count II, brought pursuant
to the DCA, and Count III, brought pursuant to the UDTPA, of the
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in an Order issued simultaneously
with this Order. However, the Court held that the Plaintiff had a
vested interest in pursuing her first cause of action and,
therefore, retroactive application of the 2021 Amendment was
unconstitutional.

The Plaintiff's motion now before the Court seeks summary judgment
against Greystar Management only. The Plaintiff argues that
Greystar Management employs those individuals, who charged and
collected the Eviction Fees in this case. Greystar Management
failed to timely respond to the Plaintiff's motion.

In response to the Clerk's Notice of no response, Greystar
Management submitted a letter arguing that (1) the dispositive
legal issue has been fully briefed in the Greystar Defendants'
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) filed
on July 15, 2021; and (2) the Plaintiff did not comply with the
requirements of the Local Rules before filing her Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

Discussion

Judge Biggs notes that the version of the RRAA that governs the
Plaintiff's first cause of action prohibited a landlord from
collecting "any fee" other than those expressly allowed by statute,
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 42-46(h)(3) (2009).

Based on the evidence in the record, there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Greystar Management violated the RRAA,
Judge Biggs finds. The undisputed evidence shows that Greystar
Management employed all management personnel at "Greystar" brand
properties. These employees had the actual or apparent authority to
issue collection letters, submit a tenant's information to an
attorney to file for eviction, and collect eviction fees, among
other landlord duties.

Thus, Greystar Management is a "landlord" under the RRAA. The
undisputed evidence further shows that Greystar Management's
employees were responsible for charging and collecting the Eviction
Fees at issue. Judge Biggs holds that these Eviction Fees violated
the RRAA. Thus, Greystar Management is liable for the unlawful
charge of Eviction Fees as a matter of law.

As mentioned, Greystar Management did not respond to the
Plaintiff's motion but did file a letter in response to the Clerk's
Notice of no response. The letter first argues that the 2021
amendment to the RRAA retroactively rendered their charge of
Eviction Fees lawful. The Court has disposed of that argument in an
Order filed simultaneously with this Order. The letter next argues
that the Plaintiff's motion did not comply with the Local Rules.
However, such an objection needed to come in a properly filed
response to the motion. By failing to timely respond to the
Plaintiff's motion, Greystar Management waived this argument, Judge
Biggs holds.

Thus, Greystar Management is liable for violating the RRAA as a
matter of law. The Plaintiff's motion will be granted as to her
first cause of action. The Plaintiff's second and third causes of
action have been dismissed. Thus, the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment will be denied as to those claims.

For the reasons stated, the Court rules that the Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, is granted in part and denied in
part. It is granted as to Count I of the Amended Complaint. It is
denied as to all remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 24, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcp7m6u from
Leagle.com.


HOTEL.COM: Faces Consumer Protection Suit in Tel Aviv Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that in or around
September 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel against Hotels.com (which became
a part of Expedia, Inc. in 2001). The plaintiff generally alleges
that Hotels.com violated Israeli consumer protection laws in
various ways by failing to calculate and display VAT charges in
pricing displays shown to Israeli consumers. The plaintiff has
filed a motion for class certification which Hotels.com has
opposed.

Expedia Group, Inc. is an online travel company based in
Washington.


ILUKA RESOURCES: Federal Court Tosses Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Neaverson, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that
the Federal Court has dismissed a class action claim against mining
magnate and global mineral sands supplier Iluka Resources Limited.

Clyde & Co partner Patrick Boardman, who represented Iluka's lead
primary D&O insurer in the matter, said in a blog post that this
result "provides companies, their directors, and insurers with
confidence that shareholder class actions are not merely a cheque
book writing exercise and that a court will take account of well
prepared and relevant defences, with well-prepared witnesses."

In 2018, an applicant brought a case against Iluka on behalf of
persons who purchased ordinary shares in the company between 12
April and 9 July 2012. The applicant alleged that Iluka breached
its continuous disclosure obligations and the misleading and
deceptive conduct provisions in the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act
and the Australian Consumer Law.

The court was tasked with determining whether Iluka had "reasonable
grounds" for the sales guidance it provided and whether the company
was aware that its forecast sales would be "materially less" than
the figures forecasted between April and July 2012.

In Bonham as Trustee for the Aucham Super Fund v Iluka Resources
Ltd [2022] FCA 71, the crux of the applicant's arguments relied on
the following ASX announcements regarding the company's 2012
production and sales:

23 February 2012 - Iluka detailed its forecast for the year
12 April and 8 May 2012 - Iluka maintained the original forecast,
but then made minor amendments
9 July 2012 - Iluka cut down its forecasted sales figures
significantly, which resulted in the share price falling by 25%
Justice Margaret Jagot found that Iluka's statements had included
strict disclaimers The company had pointed out that there were
"material risks that its sales guidance would not be achieved," and
that its guidance "could not be relied on as a predictor of future
performance." Iluka had also indicated that the forecast figures
represented "the best guidance it could provide at the time."

In the 23 February 2012 announcement, the company also flagged the
"difficulty of forecasting with uncertain global economic
conditions."

"[The evidence] has not exposed any material from which it should
be inferred that Iluka was unreasonably ignoring information that
did not suit it. Rather, the evidence has exposed that the relevant
Iluka personnel were highly experienced in the markets in which
Iluka operated, and were careful, diligent, and continuously
exerted themselves to ensure that the information Iluka gave to the
market was accurate and timely," Jagot said in the decision handed
down on 7 February.

She concluded that Iluka had in fact had reasonable grounds to make
its sales guidance and that the company did not fail to disclose
material information to the market.

Boardman explained that the transparency of Iluka's forecasting
process and its recording of "detailed and considered assessment of
all relevant information by appropriately qualified and experienced
directors/officers" was vital to the company's legal victory.

"These qualifications are an area in which companies and their D&O
insurers could work together in seeking to limit the risks of class
actions arising and also potentially limit the nature and extent of
forecasts which insurers may be prepared to cover," he said.

Herbert Smith Freehills class actions practice co-head Jason Betts,
who acted for Iluka alongside partner Ante Golem, said he hoped
that the company's successful defence "makes an important
contribution to Australian continuous disclosure law."

The applicant was represented by Shine Lawyers. [GN]

INFINITY Q: Investors File Securities Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hedgeweek reports that hedge fund Infinity Q is facing a potential
class action law suit filed by investors after the fund's founder
was charged with fraud by the US Securities and exchange Commission
(SEC), according to a report by JD Supra.

According to a complaint filed in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, the investors allege that Infinity
Q's hedge and mutual funds "lost over 40 per cent of their
respective values after a forced liquidation by the SEC" in "one of
the most egregious investment fund collapses in history".

Infinity Q has been accused by the investors of manipulating the
fund assets' pricing methodology and overstating the funds' net
asset value (NAV) from 2017 to 2021, as well as providing investors
with misleading marketing materials. [GN]



INSPERITY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that in a federal
securities class action filed against the company and certain of
its officers in July 2020, its lead plaintiff filed its opposition
to the defendants' motion to dismiss for the class action lawsuit.

The case captioned "Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On October 23, 2020, the court issued an order appointing Oakland
County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust as lead plaintiff. On
December 22, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
complaint alleging that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and operations in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief, and
such other relief that may be deemed proper.

On April 26, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed its opposition
to the motion to dismiss on June 10, 2021, and the defendants filed
their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on July 12, 2021.

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources and business solutions
based in Texas.


JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: JCCF Enjoined to Give M.C. Daily Medication
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.C. and T.G., on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW
YORK; COLLEEN M. O'NEILL, as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, New
York; BRIAN R. McDERMOTT, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson County;
and MARK WILSON, as the Facility Administrator of Jefferson County
Correctional Facility, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-CV-00190
(N.D.N.Y.), Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York issued an Order temporarily
restraining and enjoining the Defendants to provide Plaintiff M.C.
with his daily prescribed methadone treatment during his period of
incarceration in the Defendants' custody in a way deemed
appropriate in light of security needs.

Judge Hurd finds that sufficient reason has been shown therefor,
and consistent with the requirements of 18.U.S.C. Section
3626(a)(1)(a), pending the hearing of Plaintiff M.C.'s motion for a
preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, she temporarily restrained and enjoined the
Defendants to provide Plaintiff M.C. with his daily prescribed
methadone treatment during his period of incarceration in the
Defendants' custody in a way deemed appropriate in light of
security needs, such as: (i) providing medication to Plaintiff M.C.
in the Correctional Facility; (ii) taking Plaintiff M.C. into the
community on a daily basis to receive his medication; or (iii)
releasing Plaintiff M.C. on medical furlough if Jefferson County
Correctional Facility (JCCF) is unable to accommodate his daily
medical needs.

Judge Hurd orders the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendants with her
Order, together with the papers upon which it is granted. The
Defendants are to advise the Court if they oppose the Plaintiffs'
request for a preliminary injunction. If yes, she says, the
Defendants will file and serve all submissions in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. No reply is
permitted.

If the Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary
injunction, they will show cause at an in-person oral argument
before the Court, why an order should not be issued pursuant to
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining the
Defendants, during the pendency of the action, to provide Plaintiff
M.C. with his daily prescribed methadone during his period of
incarceration at JCCF.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/htw2asjj from Leagle.com.


JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Sued Over Jail Opioid Addiction Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, writing for NNY360, reports that pending legal action
to force Jefferson County to treat inmates at its county jail for
opioid use disorder will likely become a class-action lawsuit.

The New York Civil Liberties Union filed action on March 2 in U.S.
District Court, Utica, against the county, Sheriff Colleen M.
O'Neill, Undersheriff Brian R. McDermott and Mark Wilson,
administrator of the Metro-Jefferson Public Safety Building.

The action was filed on behalf of T.G., a 31-year-old Watertown
resident who has been jailed at the PSB since Jan. 20, and M.C., a
29-year-old Croghan man who was sentenced to a jail term on March 2
in County Court.

Both claim to be addicted to opioids and, according to the
complaint, will suffer unnecessary, severe and possibly
life-threatening withdrawal symptoms if deprived of treatment,
known as medication for opioid use disorder, MOUD. It is contended
that the county, as a matter of practice, denies MOUD to inmates.

The issue is the subject of a separate legal action. In April,
NYCLU filed federal action on behalf of Watertown resident P.G.,
who similarly claimed the needed medication was being withheld. A
federal judge ruled in September that the jail must administer MOUD
to P.G., but the March 2 action alleges that jail officials have
continued to ban the medications for all others entering custody.

NYCLU's latest complaint indicates that, in addition to T.G. and
M.C., at least four additional inmates who are similarly situated
to T.G. and M.C. have been identified, and that an untold number of
people entering the jail in the future will be subject to the same
withholding of treatment.

"No jail can deny life-sustaining medical care to people in its
custody," NYCLU senior staff attorney Antony Gemmell said in a
statement on March 2. "That's as true for people with opioid use
disorder as for those living with any other disability. Jefferson
County's blanket ban on the treatment our clients need to survive
is cruel, discriminatory and prioritizes stigma over science. The
ban must be lifted now."

The latest lawsuit seeks to, among other things, prevent the county
from enforcing its MOUD ban and stop it from interrupting inmates'
treatment while they are in jail.

A judge will determine if the matter is to be certified as a class
action. [GN]

JUST ENERGY: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Fasken represents Just Energy Group Inc. ("JE"), a publicly traded
natural gas and electricity retailer whose shares and other
securities trade on both the TSX and NYSE.

Plaintiffs in Ontario brought a proposed securities class action
against JE, its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, and certain officers of
JE individually, alleging claims under section 138.3(1) of the
Ontario Securities Act, common law negligent misrepresentation, and
an oppression claim. Plaintiffs in Texas brought a proposed
securities class action against JE and an officer of JE
individually, alleging securities fraud under section 10(b) and
control person liability under section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Fasken has been retained to defend JE and the individual defendant
in the Ontario proceeding and advises JE with a team comprised of
Paul Martin, Sarah Armstrong and Christopher Casher.[GN]



JUUL LABS: Faces Smith-Green Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SMITH-GREEN 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-01496 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Indiana 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.

Smith-Green Community Schools is a public school district with its
offices located in Churubusco, Indiana.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: School District 201 Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF EDUCATION J. STERLING MORTON HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 201, 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-01493 (N.D.
Cal., March 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Illinois 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.

Board of Education J. Sterling Morton High School District 201 is a
public school district with its offices located on West Cermak Road
in Cicero, Illinois.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Greater Jasper Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED 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-01488 (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Indiana 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.

Greater Jasper Consolidated Schools is a public school district
with its offices located on Saint Charles Street in Jasper,
Indiana.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

KELLOGG CO: Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports Kellogg Co (K.N) has won the dismissal of a
proposed class-action lawsuit claiming its Strawberry Pop-Tarts do
not contain enough strawberries.

U.S. District Judge Marvin Aspen in Chicago said no reasonable
consumer could believe from Kellogg's packaging that the breakfast
staple contained only strawberries, or more strawberries than other
ingredients such as pears and apples.

"The word 'Strawberry,' combined with a picture of half of a
strawberry and a Pop-Tart oozing red filling, does not guarantee
that there will be a certain amount of strawberries in the
product's filling," Aspen wrote in his decision on March 1.

Stacy Chiappetta, the plaintiff, said Kellogg defrauded shoppers
with deceptive packaging for its Unfrosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts,
which contain red food dye that she said makes the filling
"brighter and more appealing" on grocery store shelves.

She accused the Battle Creek, Michigan-based company of violating
federal and state consumer protection laws.

"I expect that many of these types of cases may be dismissed," her
lawyer Spencer Sheehan said in an email on March 2. "That does not
mean the labeling is not misleading."

Sheehan, who works in Great Neck, New York, has filed at least
three similar lawsuits against Kellogg in Illinois and New York
over its Frosted Strawberry, Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry and
Frosted Chocolate Fudge Pop-Tarts.

He said different courts could reach opposite conclusions based on
"almost identical" facts.

Kellogg and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on March 2.

Lawsuits over false labeling are common.

The law firm Perkins Coie, which defends companies against such
claims, said 325 proposed class actions were filed in 2021 against
the food and beverage industry, up from 221 a year earlier, marking
the fourth straight annual increase.

The case is Chiappetta v Kellogg Sales Co, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 21-03545. [GN]

KING COUNTY, WA: Thompson Suit Given to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. BARBARA MINER,
Office of King County Superior Court Clerk; and KING COUNTY
REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00167-TL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an order:

   a. referring the action to Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida
      for the specific purposes and types of motions described in
      the Order; and

   b. directing and empowering Magistrate Judge Tsuchida to
      conduct hearings and make further necessary orders
      consistent with 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the local rules, and
      this Order.

The action is assigned to Judge Lin. All future documents filed in
the case must bear the cause number 2:22-cv-00167-TL-BAT. Judge Lin
has reviewed the files and records therein and determined that
certain pretrial matters are appropriate to refer to a Magistrate
Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Magistrate
Judge Rule ("MJR") 3(a), Judge Lin refers to Magistrate Judge
Tsuchida all non-dispositive pretrial matters, other than those
matters excluded by 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A). Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a) governs any objections to Magistrate Judge
Tsuchida's rulings concerning any non-dispositive motions.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local
Magistrate Judge Rule 4, Judge Lin also refers to Magistrate Judge
Tsuchida for preparation of a report and recommendation all motions
for (1) injunctive relief, (2) judgment on the pleadings, (3)
summary judgment, (4) dismissal or to permit maintenance of a class
action, (5) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and (6) involuntarily dismissal of an
action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs any further
proceedings in this Court after Magistrate Judge Tsuchida files a
report and recommendation.

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


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Baird Sues Over Sale of Defective CPAP Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BAIRD RESPIRATORY THERAPY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00886 (E.D. Pa., March 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff's CPAP device is now worthless. The Plaintiff seeks a
refund relating to the acquisition of the Defendants' recalled
devices, says the suit.

Baird Respiratory Therapy, Inc. is a medical devices company, with
its principal place of business in Glenside, Pennsylvania.

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 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:                                   
                                  
         
         Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
         Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
         Shoshana Savett, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                 ssavett@edelson-law.com

                  - and –

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Hwy E, Fl-2
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com

KROGER CO: Court Enters Stipulated Protective Order in Rosales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division, entered a
Stipulated Protective Order in the case, OMAR ROSALES, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO.; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00796-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action. The Plaintiff has
requested the names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, job
titles, and dates of employment for all putative class members.
Defendant The Kroger Co. has objected to the disclosure of this
information on the basis of privacy. The Parties have agreed to the
production of this information subject to this protective order.
Other courts have found that a standard protective order is
sufficient to protect the privacy rights of putative class members.


To expedite the flow of this information, to facilitate the prompt
resolution of the parties' dispute over confidentiality of the
class contact information, to adequately protect information the
parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the
parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in
preparation for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the
end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective
order for such information is justified in the matter. It is the
intent of the parties that information will not be designated as
confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated
without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a
confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it
should not be part of the public record of the case.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later
of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or
without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the
completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands,
trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for
filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant
to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected
Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries,
and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed,
the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the
Producing Party by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies all the
Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms
that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts,
compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or
capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this
provision, the Counsel is entitled to retain an archival copy of
all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing
transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial
exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and
expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected
Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute
Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order as set
forth.

Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all
appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt
proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcn777r from
Leagle.com.

David Mara, Esq. -- dmara@maralawfirm.com -- Jill Vecchi, Esq. --
jvecchi@maralawfirm.com -- MARA LAW FIRM, PC, in San Diego,
California, Mohamed Eldessouky, Esq. -- mohamed@eldessoukylaw.com
-- ELDESSOUKY LAW, in Bellflower, California, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Omar Rosales.

Nate J. Kowalski, Esq. -- NKowalski@aalrr.com -- Amber S. Healy,
Esq. -- AHealy@aalrr.com -- Lauren S. Gafa -- LGafa@aalrr.com --
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO, in Cerritos, California,
Attorneys for Defendant The Kroger Co.


LCMC HEALTHCARE: Bid for Partial Judgment in Rey Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMAS REY, et al. v. LCMC HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, LLC, et
al., SECTION M (1), Civil Action No. 21-1188 (E.D. La.), Judge
Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana issued his Order and Reasons:

   a. denying the Plaintiffs' motion requesting that the Court
      declines continuing supplemental subject-matter
      jurisdiction over their state-law claims; and

   b. denying without prejudice the Hospital Defendants' motion
      for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
      Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I. Background

The matter concerns complaints of noise caused by the operation of
a patient-transport helicopter to and from a helistop at Children's
Hospital. The Plaintiffs in the action are residents,
domiciliaries, and tenants who live in an area of uptown New
Orleans bounded by the Mississippi River to the south, both sides
of Camp Street to the north, Valmont Street to the east, and
Exposition Boulevard to the west (the "area of concern").

Children's Hospital, a non-profit pediatric medical center that
offers a complete range of medical services for children from birth
until age 21, is situated in this neighborhood. In 2019, Children's
Hospital cared for children from all 64 parishes, 43 states, and
nine countries. The hospital maintains a helicopter that transports
patients from across the state and region to the facility to
receive critical care services. Before Jan. 1, 2020, Children's
Hospital's helicopter operated from a heliport on land adjacent to
the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad tracks and the extension of
Leake Avenue. On May 18, 2020, the helicopter's operations were
moved to a heliport atop a four-story central tower expansion of
the hospital.

The Plaintiffs filed the action in state court as a putative class
action alleging that the helicopter's new flight path affects the
area of concern with unacceptable levels of noise and vibration.
Specifically, they allege that the helicopter's flights directly
over their homes and its takeoffs and landings from the heliport at
all hours of the day and night emit deafening noise and vibrations
that cause physical and mental discomfort, property damage, and
annoyance, and thus constitute a nuisance.

The Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the Hospital Defendants
to relocate the heliport to an area that will not continue to
damage and interfere with the enjoyment of their property.
Alternatively, they seek an injunction requiring the Hospital
Defendants to abate the helicopter noise. The Plaintiffs also seek
damages for personal injury and property damage under theories of
strict liability (La. Civ. Code arts. 667 to 669) and negligence
(La. Civ. Code arts. 2315 and 2317).

The Hospital Defendants removed the action to the Court asserting
federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction on the premise that
the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, which seeks to compel
the relocation of the heliport, is preempted by federal law,
specifically, the Federal Aviation Act ("FAA"), 49 U.S.C. Sections
40101, et seq. In their notice of removal, the Hospital Defendants
also invoked diversity subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA.

The Plaintiffs moved to remand. The Court denied the motion,
holding that CAFA provided diversity jurisdiction over the action
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, and thus, it was unnecessary for the
Court to analyze whether it also had federal-question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Plaintiffs then asked the Fifth
Circuit for leave to appeal, which the appellate court denied.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove the
class-action allegations.

II. Law & Analysis

A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs, assuming that the Court's subject-matter
jurisdiction is predicated solely on the CAFA allegations contained
in their original petition, ask the Court to decline supplemental
jurisdiction over their pendent state-law claims under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367 now that they have dropped the class-action
allegations from their suit. They argue that the case should be
remanded because their claims, which they characterizes as a
land-use dispute between neighbors, arise under Louisiana law,
there are other similar cases pending in state court (or soon to be
filed there), and the Court has not expended extensive resources on
the case.

In opposition, the Hospital Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
motion ignores that this case was removed relying on subject-matter
jurisdiction under CAFA and Section 1331, which, in the Hospital
Defendants' view, arises from the federal question alleged in the
petition -- specifically, the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive
relief that the Hospital Defendants say is preempted by the FAA.
The Hospital Defendants also argue that, even absent
federal-question jurisdiction under Section 1331, the facts of the
case warrant this Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction
under Section 1367 because the case does not involve novel or
difficult issues of state law, the Court has expended significant
resources in adjudicating the case, and the Plaintiffs have engaged
in forum manipulation by deleting the class allegations from their
complaint in an attempt to obtain remand.

Judge Ashe holds that the Plaintiffs' elimination of their
class-action allegations, which the Court previously held supported
federal subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA, does not mandate
that the Court cede jurisdiction over the case. Nor is it necessary
at this juncture to determine whether the Plaintiffs' claim for
injunctive relief is preempted by the FAA as would give rise to
federal-question jurisdiction over the case. Thus, under the
applicable statutory and common-law factors, the Court's exercise
of supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 is appropriate.

B. The Hospital Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the
Pleadings

The Hospital Defendants seek partial judgment on the pleadings
holding that the Plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction
requiring them to move the heliport is preempted by the FAA.
Essentially, they argue that the Court cannot require them to move
the heliport because doing so would necessarily affect the
helicopter's flight path, which is regulated by the exclusive
authority of the FAA.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that the case involves a
land-use dispute, which is jointly governed by federal, state, and
local authorities. They also argue that by seeking an injunction to
have the heliport relocated, they are essentially seeking to
prevent the Hospital Defendants from using the current heliport,
and that such a stop-use order does not implicate the air space
that is the FAA's domain.

Judge Ashe holds that the issue of FAA preemption is not ripe for
resolution on the face of the pleadings. It is unclear at this
juncture whether, and, if so, how, the FAA and its regulations
apply to the heliport and the helicopter's flight path and thus
bear upon the Plaintiffs' requested injunction. While the Court
understands the legal arguments made in support of and against
preemption and has weighed them against the factual allegations
made in the complaint, it needs more information to properly
analyze the legal issues. Thus, the Hospital Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice to
reasserting the legal arguments in an appropriate motion made after
relevant discovery.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denied the
Plaintiffs' motion that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiffs' state-law claims. He also denied the Hospital
Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings without
prejudice to reasserting the substantive arguments in an
appropriate motion after the relevant discovery is conducted.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4u23y32c from Leagle.com.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: 9th Cir. Upholds Veal Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of all claims against the company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors alleging violations of
federal securities laws in connection its description of fees and
compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings.

In May 2018, following the announcement of litigation by the
Federal Trade Commission against the company, putative shareholder
class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California and captioned under "Veal v.
LendingClub Corporation et. al.," Case No. 5:18-cv-02599.

On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which asserted the same causes of
action as the original complaint and added additional allegations.
That complaint was subsequently dismissed by the District Court
with leave to amend. The lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modified and added certain
allegations and dropped one of the former officer defendants as a
defendant in the case, but otherwise advanced the same causes of
action.

On June 12, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss by the defendants without leave to amend, in
part, and with leave to amend, in part. On July 27, 2020, the lead
plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court indicating their
intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint and requesting that
the District Court enter judgment. The District Court entered
judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the same day.

The lead plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Veal et al. v. LendingClub
Corporation, et al., No. 20-16603). The Court of Appeals held oral
arguments for the appeal on September 2, 2021.

On September 21, 2021, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of all claims against the defendants and the
period for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari expired in
December 2021.

LendingClub is a digital marketplace bank based in California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Bradford Sues Over Violations of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that in February 2021, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Bradford v.
Lending Club Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00588) alleging that the
company obtained Bradford's credit report without his consent or
authorization and without a permissible purpose under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint and an answer was filed by the company and has begun
discovery.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly
situated persons in the case and seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, among other relief. Plaintiff has amended the
complaint to assert additional allegations regarding the company's
purported requests for plaintiff's credit report from another
credit reporting agency. The company has since filed its answer to
plaintiff's complaint and discovery has begun. The Court has
scheduled this matter for trial in September 2022.

LendingClub is a digital marketplace bank based in California.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Erceg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that case captioned
"Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation," Case No. 4:20-cv-01153, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
the parties have since reached a tentative settlement.

In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
LendingClub alleging violations of California and Massachusetts
laws based on allegations that it recorded a call with the
plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly
situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by the Company
without their knowledge and consent. The company filed a motion to
dismiss certain of plaintiff's claims, strike nationwide class
allegations, and, alternatively, to stay the litigation.

Rather than oppose that motion, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The Company again filed a motion to stay, or
alternatively to dismiss certain of the claims in the amended
complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations.

That motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2020. On July 28,
2020, the Court entered an order granting the company's motion to
stay plaintiff's California claims pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in a case involving the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (Smith v. LoanMe, Inc.), dismissing with
prejudice plaintiff's claim under Massachusetts law, and denying
the company's motion to strike plaintiff's nationwide class
allegations.

In April 2021, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in
the LoanMe case in a manner that permits plaintiff's claims in the
company's case to continue. The company then filed its answer to
the plaintiff's complaint and discovery began. The parties have
since reached a tentative settlement, the terms of which are not
material to the Company.

LendingClub is a digital marketplace bank based in California.


MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Issuance of Class Notice in Glynn Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERNEST J. GLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAINE
OXY-ACETYLENE SUPPLY CO., et al., Defendants, Docket No.
2:19-cv-00176-NT (D. Me.), Judge Nancy Torresen of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine authorized the issuance of
the notice to the class in the form of the attached notice.

On Jan. 28, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the
Court, with copies to the counsel, his Recommended Decision on the
Defendants' Motion to Approve Class Notice. The Defendants filed
objections to the Recommended Decision on Feb. 10, 2022.

Judge Torresen has reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision
and the Defendants' timely objections thereto. The Defendants lodge
two objections to the Recommended Decision. First, they object to
the Magistrate Judge's denial of the Defendants' request to include
information in the class notice about both the U.S. Department of
Labor's separate lawsuit and the Defendants' settlement offer.
Second, they contend that the description of the action used in the
Magistrate Judge's recommended Class Notice is not neutral. The
Defendants further identify portions of the Proposed Notice that
they contend are "problematic."

With respect to the first objection, the Magistrate Judge's Order
is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, and Judge
Torresen overruled this objection.

With respect to the second objection, the Defendants contend that
the Plaintiffs' proposed description of the class action, which the
Magistrate Judge largely adopted from the Plaintiffs' proposed
notice, is not neutral. When considering non-dispositive decisions
by a Magistrate Judge, Judge Torresen "must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." She agrees with the
Defendants that the Proposed Notice is too one-sided because it
discusses the Plaintiffs' claims in detail in three locations (the
opening page and paragraphs two and five), and it limits the
mention of the Defendants' position to a terse denial (paragraph
six). Accordingly, she has removed the detail in the opening
description and in paragraph two, and has added to paragraph six
detail regarding the Defendants' answer.

Finally, as to the "problematic" portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Proposed Notice, Judge Torresen sees nothing that is contrary to
law or clearly erroneous with the exception of the reference in
Paragraph 18 to a jury. Since there is no longer a jury demand in
this case, she has removed that reference.

For these reasons, Judge Torresen sustained in part and overruled
in part the Defendants' objections, and affirmed in part and
reversed in part the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge.
She further authorized the issuance of the notice to the class in
the form of the attached notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s36vx4r from Leagle.com.


MARYLAND: Court Denies Review of Detention Order in Jones Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS JONES, Criminal No.
CCB-21-0286 (D. Md.), Chief Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the
Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention Order and Request for
Detention Hearing.

A detention hearing was held in the case on Aug. 23, 2021, before
the Honorable Thomas M. DiGirolamo and the Court entered an Order
of Detention. At the time of the detention hearing, the Defendant
was charged by indictment with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess
with the Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances, 18 U.S.C.
Section 846 (Count One) and Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition
by a Convicted Felon, 18 U.S.C Section 922(g) (Count Three). The
Court detailed the reasons for detention in an Order of Detention,
noting that there was a rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C.
Section 3142(e)(3), which had not been rebutted and that no
condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the
safety of the community.

In the Order of Detention, the Court noted the following reasons
for detention: 1) weight of evidence; 2) prior criminal history;
and 3) prior violations of probation, parole or supervised release.
The Motion was referred to the undersigned subsequent to the
retirement of Judge DiGirolamo.

Judge Gesner has reviewed the entire record in the case.

The Defendant seeks reconsideration of his detention arguing that,
at the time he filed his motion, there was an outbreak of COVID-19
at the Chesapeake Detention Facility ("CDF") where he is detained
and that his medical conditions put him at further risk of becoming
seriously ill from COVID-19 and its variants.

Judge Gesner explains that the conditions at CDF are significantly
better now than they were when the Defendant filed his Motion and
that there are few, if any, positive COVID cases at CDF currently.
Indeed, these conditions are likely better than they were at the
time of the Defendant's original detention hearing. The Court also
notes, as does the Defendant, that a class action was filed on
February 20, 2021 alleging that CDF's actions contributed to the
outbreak and that CDF has failed to take appropriate actions in
response. As a result, conditions at CDF are being actively
monitored by the assigned judge and CDF has taken significant
measures to control the COVID situation there. In sum, the current
conditions at CDF do not offer new information warranting a
reopening of the detention hearing.

Similarly, the Defendant's medical conditions were detailed in the
Defendant's Pretrial Report and were known by the Court at the time
of the detention hearing. No new medical information has been
offered by the Defendant. Judge Gesner concludes now, as did Judge
DiGirolamo at the original detention hearing, that even the
strictest of conditions of release to include a third party
custodian, electronic monitoring and related conditions are
inadequate to ensure the safety of the community.

Based upon a consideration of the record, Judge Gesner concludes
that the Defendant has not offered any new information that has a
material bearing on the Court's previous findings regarding his
danger to the community. When the Court ordered detention in this
case, it was based upon the overwhelming evidence proffered at the
detention hearing, the Defendant's prior criminal history,
non-compliance with previous periods of supervision, and the weight
of the evidence.

As noted, Judge Gesner has reviewed the record in the case and
concludes, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no
condition or combination of conditions which will reasonably assure
the community's safety. Accordingly, she denied the Defendant's
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p93h5t3 from Leagle.com.


MASTERCARD INC: Antitrust Suits Consolidated in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a consolidated class
action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under MDL No. 1720.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa USA, Inc., Visa International Service Association and a number
of financial institutions.

Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services,
resulting in merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of
Mastercard and Visa credit and debit cards.

The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.

Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments
industry based in New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over ATM Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the plaintiffs'
request for class certification was granted by the trial court and
also that MasterCard and other defendants' appeal for the
certification was granted as well.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine (ATM) operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the ATM Operators Complaint). Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals that
operate in the United States with the discretion to determine the
price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they operate.

Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed
over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not
greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks
accepted at the same ATM. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and
monetary relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have
sustained as a result of the alleged violations and their costs of
suit, including attorneys' fees.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the ATM
Consumer Complaints).  

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary
relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as
a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order
in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In
September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants. In August 2021,
the trial court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' request
for class certification.

Visa and Mastercard's request for permission to appeal the
certification decision to the appellate court was granted. Briefing
on the appeal is expected to take place over the course of 2022.

Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments
industry based in New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Bank Card Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Inc disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is facing an
alleged conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the EMV
Liability Shift), in violation of the Sherman Act and California
law. Summary judgment briefing for the case is set for 2022.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (Network Defendants), EMVCo and
a number of issuing banks (the Bank Defendants).

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future
violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion
to dismiss.

In September 2016, the district court denied the Network
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a
motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the district
court transferred the case to New York so that discovery could be
coordinated with the U.S. merchant class interchange litigation
described above. In August 2020, the district court issued an order
granting the plaintiffs' request for class certification.

In January 2021, the Network Defendants' request for permission to
appeal the district court's certification decision to the appellate
court was denied. The plaintiffs have submitted expert reports that
allege aggregate damages in excess of $1 billion against the four
Network Defendants.

The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports rebutting both
liability and damages. Briefing on summary judgment is expected to
occur within the year.

Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments
industry based in New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Antitrust Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a class complaint
was filed alleging that Mastercard's initial public offering (IPO)
of its Class A Common Stock and certain agreements violate U.S.
antitrust laws and constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the IPO)
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities.

The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the
IPO.

Mastercard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments
industry based in New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Sued Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
-----------------------------------------------
MasterCard Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is a defendant in
a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action pending in
Florida. The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege
that approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a MasterCard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank (FAB). The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of
$500 per fax. Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the
claims, and has notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has
(which FAB has disputed). The court granted class certification for
a narrower class of online fax recipients only to which the company
filed a motion for reconsideration of the certification.

In June 2018, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services. In December 2019, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling
clarifying that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax
services that are received via e-mail. As a result of the ruling,
the stay of the litigation was lifted in January 2020.

In January 2021, the magistrate judge serving on the district court
issued an opinion recommending that the district court judge deny
plaintiffs' class certification motion. In light of an appellate
court decision, issued subsequent to the magistrate's
recommendation, the district court judge instructed the parties to
re-brief the motion for class certification, and the motion has
been fully briefed.

In December 2021, the trial court narrowed the scope of the
potential class as it denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of a class of all fax recipients (both stand-alone
faxes and online faxes sent via email). However, the court granted
class certification for a narrower class of online fax recipients
only. MasterCard has filed a motion for reconsideration of the part
of the trial court's order granting partial certification.

MasterCard Inc. is a technology company in the global payments
industry based in New York.


MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Regional School Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Regional School Unit 34 Board of Education,
Regional School Unit 68 Board of Education, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company,
Inc., McKinsey Holdings, Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United
States, McKinsey & Company Inc. Washington D.C., Case No.
1:21-cv-00366, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01335-CRB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is a management
consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor
James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to
corporations, governments, and other organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Wayne Hogan, Esq.
          Leslie A. Goller, Esq.
          TERRELL HOGAN
          233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: (904) 632-2424
          Email: hogan@terrellhogan.com
                 Lgoller@terrellhogan.com

               - and -

          Melissa A. Hewey, Esq.
          DRUMMOND WOODSUM & MACMAHON
          84 Marginal Way, Suite 600
          Portland, ME 04101
          Phone: (207) 772-1941
          Email: mhewey@dwmlaw.com


NEOSTRATA COMPANY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neostrata Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Neostrata Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01801 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Neostrata Company, Inc. -- https://www.neostrata.com/ -- offers
dermatologist-grade skin care products designed to renew skin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Concern
-------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is
facing federal securities law violations charges between June 24,
2014 and January 4, 2018.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr (which was the
name of the company prior to the completion of the merger with
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. in January 2, 2019) alleging that they
violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January
4, 2018. On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman
and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint,
stating the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4,
2018.

The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.

On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the district court entered an order granting
the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the
action and other related orders by the district court. After full
briefing and oral argument, on October 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the
district court's order granting the motion to dismiss and remanding
the action to the district court to make a determination on the
record related to plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended
complaint.

On remand, the district court denied plaintiffs' subsequent request
to amend and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims. On
December 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
order denying plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 16, 2021, the
Second Circuit affirmed the decision and order of the district
court denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, thereby
dismissing the appeal and action in its entirety. Plaintiffs have
not sought reconsideration of the Second Circuit's decision, and
the current deadline for plaintiffs to file a writ of certiorari
for review by the Supreme Court of the United States is March 15,
2022.

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc.is a biotechnology company based in
Pennsylvania.


NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Suit Raises Issues Over Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the
company was named as defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging
that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr
(which was the name of the company prior to the completion of the
merger with NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. in January 2, 2019) with the
SEC on March 8, 2019 contained false and misleading statements and
omitted material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr and its board of directors, Legacy NeuBase and Ohr
Acquisition Corp., captioned "Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc., et
al," Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.

Wheby alleges that the preliminary joint proxy/prospectus statement
filed by Ohr with the SEC on March 8, 2019 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and further that the individual defendants are liable
for those alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.

The Wheby complaint has not been served on, nor was service waived
by, any of the named defendants in that action. The action seeks,
among other things, to rescind the Merger or an award of damages,
and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Pennsylvania.


NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Bid to Assign Counsel in Young Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies without prejudice the
Plaintiff's Application for the Court to Request Counsel in the
lawsuit styled JASON YOUNG, Plaintiff v. N.Y.C./D.O.C./V.C.B.C.
WARDEN CARTER; N.Y.C./D.O.C./V.C.B.C. CAPTAIN GUERRA; 3-AA HOUSING
UNIT CAPTAIN; N.Y.C./D.O.C./V.C.B.C. CAPTAIN JOHN DOE INTAKE
SUPERVISING CAPTAIN; N.Y.C./D.O.C./V.C.B.C. CAPTAIN HORTON,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-08973 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Jason Young has filed an Application for the Court to
Request Counsel. He makes the request on behalf of "all twenty
seven detainees" to represent a class action.

Background

On Oct. 19, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Michael Lee filed a putative
class action on behalf of himself and twenty-seven detainees
(Michael Lee v. Warden Carter, Captain Guerra, Captain John Doe,
and Captain Horton, 21-cv-8629 (PLE)). The complaint alleged that
the detainees were hungry and thirsty for an extremely long time,
causing every plaintiff to feel fatigued and robbed of proper
nutrition. The action, alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. Section
1983, styled itself as a class action complaint.

By order of the Chief Judge, the action was severed into separate
civil actions because "each Plaintiff has his own unique
circumstances" and because "each Plaintiff may appear only on his
own behalf." Plaintiff Jason Young was then assigned a new civil
case number, and the matter was assigned to this Court.

Discussion

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the other "detainees"
referenced in the Plaintiff's application are not plaintiffs in
this case and are not before the Court. Mr. Young can only
represent himself pro se; he cannot advocate on behalf of others.
The Court considers the Plaintiff's application only as it applies
to him.

The Court denies the Plaintiff's application to obtain pro bono
counsel. Plaintiff Jason Young previously requested to proceed in
forma pauperis ("IFP"), which was granted by the Court. The
Plaintiff, therefore, is demonstrably indigent. The application
form directed the Plaintiff to "[e]xplain what steps you have taken
to find an attorney." The only information the Plaintiff provides
is that he is "currently incarcerated."

Given the absence of any information regarding the Plaintiff's
efforts to obtain counsel, the Court, in its discretion, denies the
Plaintiff's application without prejudice for this reason.

Further, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot
determine whether the Plaintiff's position seems likely to be of
substance or whether there are particularly complex issues
requiring the Court to request counsel.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice the
Plaintiff's Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The Clerk
of the Court respectfully is requested to terminate the application
at ECF No. 15, and mail a copy of this order to the pro se
Plaintiff at the address of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ujy5btk from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Denied Fare Discounts for Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a new class
action lawsuit alleges New York City's public transportation system
is denying fare discounts to more than 160,000 people with
disabilities.

Plaintiffs represented by the Mobilization for Justice, New York
Lawyers for the Public Interest and Jenner & Block filed suit Feb.
15 in New York County Supreme Court against the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and the New York City Transit Authority.

The complaint says the defendants' existing discounts for seniors
and people with disabilities ignore those who must use the
access-A-Ride system instead of subways or buses.

The AAR is part of the same system, the suit says, but half-fares
and unlimited weekly and monthly passes are not available.

"Defendants' refusal to provide the Fare Discount Program to
eligible individuals with disabilities who use AAR violates New
York City's Human Rights Law," the lawsuit says.

The AAR provides transportation for individuals who must stray from
the fixed routes of buses and trains in order to reach work,
medical appointments and other activities, the suit says. [GN]

OBRESTA CORP: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIE GARCIA, on behalf of herself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OBRESTA CORP. d/b/a
ANTOJITOS ECUATORIANOS, and RAMON OBREGON, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01131 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages, failure to
furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to provide a wage
notice upon hire in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants in January
2021 as a server and prep cook, positions that she held until
December 16, 2021.

Obresta Corp., d/b/a Antojitos Ecuatorianos, is a restaurant
company serving Latin American cuisine with principal place of
business in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

OHIO LIVING: 2 FLSA Classes Conditionally Certified in Kordie Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE KORDIE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OHIO LIVING, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-3791 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D.
Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Pre-Discovery
Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized
Notice.

I. Background

Named Plaintiff Kordie brings the unpaid overtime suit primarily as
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), and as a Rule 23 class
action under Ohio's wage and hour laws.

The Defendants employed Ms. Kordie as an hourly, non-exempt
resident aide from December 2020 to May 2021 in Sidney, Ohio. She
alleges that although she regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants underpaid her due to their willful failure to
include non-discretionary bonuses in, and their unlawful deductions
for training from, her regular rate of pay. Ms. Kordie is aware
that other employees of the Defendants were subject to the same
company-wide pay policies and practices. Ms. Kordie supports her
allegations with her declaration, as well as the declarations of
Michelle Trammell and Clematis White.

Ms. Trammell worked for the Defendants in 2019 as a hourly,
non-exempt certified nursing assistant in Columbus, Ohio. She
worked more than forty hours per week at least once during her
employment and she received bonuses from Defendants which were not
included in her base rate of pay. During her tenure, she interacted
with other hourly employees on a regular basis who received
non-discretionary bonuses that were not included in their
respective base rates of pay and who saw their pay deducted for
training. Those interactions gave her personal knowledge of
Defendants' company-wide pay policies and procedures for bonuses
and training. She stated those policies and procedures resulted in
hourly employees being underpaid for work performed.

Ms. White worked for Defendants from 1998 until July 2019 as a
state tested nursing assistant in Cortland, Ohio. She, too, worked
more than forty hours a week at least once during her employment
and received bonuses from Defendants that were not included in her
base rate of pay. She worked with other hourly employees who
likewise saw bonuses excluded from their hourly rates. She avers
this was Defendants' company-wide policy.

Ms. Kordie's June 2021 Complaint seeks collective and class
certification under federal and state wage laws. The Defendants
deny all claims.

The matter is before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff's
Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice. Defendants Ohio Living and Ohio Living
Communities oppose the Motion, and Ms. Kordie has replied.

II. Analysis

A. Similarly Situated

Ms. Kordie alleges Defendants' pay policies and procedures
involving bonuses and training violate the FLSA and parallel Ohio
statutes. She also alleges that those policies and procedures
harmed two collective classes of the Defendants' employees.

Ms. Kordie seeks Section 216(b) certification of the following
classes:

     a. Overtime Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who worked at least forty (40) hours in any
workweek and (1) received additional renumeration; or (2) had
deductions applied in workweeks during the three (3) years
preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the
final disposition of this case.

     b. Minimum Wage Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who had deductions applied to their pay during
the three (3) years preceding the filing of the Complaint and
continuing through the final disposition of the case.

The Defendants raise three arguments in opposition to that
determination. Each is unsuccessful. First, the Defendants offer
the declarations of Jennifer Howell and Melissa Kromer to show that
Ms. Kordie, the declarants, and opt-in plaintiffs are subject to
different payroll policies such that there is no "single widespread
plan or policy" at issue. Second, the Defendants argue the
declarations of Ms. Trammell and Ms. White cannot be considered
because their claims would be time-barred. Third, the Defendants
argue that after Ms. Kordie's Complaint was filed, they corrected
the error causing bonuses for picking up shifts to be excluded from
hourly pay calculations.

In sum, Judge Morrison determines that Ms. Kordie sustains her
modest burden of establishing that she is similarly situated to the
proposed members of the collectives.

The following classes are conditionally certified as FLSA
collectives under Section 216(b):

     a. Overtime Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who worked at least forty (40) hours in any
workweek and (1) received additional renumeration; or (2) had
deductions applied in workweeks during the three (3) years
preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the
final disposition of this case.

     b. Minimum Wage Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who had deductions applied to their pay during
the three (3) years preceding the filing of the Complaint and
continuing through the final disposition of this case.

B. Lookback Period

Ms. Kordie alleges the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA.
Willful violations permit a three-year limitations period instead
of the normal two. Thw Defendants urge the Court to apply a
two-year limitation here "given the dearth of evidence supporting a
claim of willfulness."

Judge Morrison declines because whether the Defendants' alleged
FLSA violations are "willful" is a question better suited for a
later stage of the litigation when discovery has occurred. As such,
he will apply a three-year limitations period for purposes of
notice.

C. Notice

1. Form

Ms. Kordie seeks approval of her proposed Notice and Consent to
Join Form which are attached as an exhibit to her Motion. The
Notice contains basic information about the lawsuit, who may opt-in
to the lawsuit, and the timing and manner in which to do so. The
Consent Form states that the signatory consents to be a party
plaintiff in the collective action and agrees to be represented by
the law firm of Coffman Legal, LLC. The Consent Form also specifies
that the signatory understands that he or she will be bound by any
settlement reached or judgment entered in the matter. The
Defendants object only to the proposed ninety day deadline to
return the Consent Form, suggesting a 45-day deadline instead

Judge Morrison finds the proposed Notice to be timely, accurate,
and informative and determines a 45-day deadline is reasonable. The
Notice and Consent to Join Form are approved with the 45-day
limitation modification.

2. Recipients

Repeating their dissimilarity and timeliness arguments, the
Defendants seek to limit distribution of the Notice to skilled
nursing employees who worked at the same location as Ms. Kordie,
who received bonuses after 2019, and/or who had the cost of
training courses deducted from their paychecks. The Defendants'
request is denied because it relies upon allegations of factual
disputes that are not now properly before the Court.

3. Methods of Delivery

Ms. Kordie seeks to send the Notice and Consent Form to putative
collective members via U.S. mail and e-mail. The Defendants do not
object to those forms of delivery. Judge Morrison therefore directs
Ms. Kordie to utilize both methods of distribution for the Notice
and Consent to Join Form.

D. Roster

Ms. Kordie requests an order requiring Defendants to produce an
electronic and importable roster of current and former employees
fitting the definitions of the collectives within fourteen days of
this Order to include names, dates of employment, positions of
employment, locations of employment, last known mailing addresses,
and last known e-mail addresses. The Defendants neither object to
this request nor indicate that they are unable to provide the
requested information within 14 days.

Accordingly, Judge Morrison orders the Defendants to produce the
names, dates of employment, positions of employment, last known
mailing addresses, and last known e-mail addresses of the putative
class members to the Plaintiffs' counsel in an electronic and
importable format within 14 days of the Order.

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Morrison granted the Plaintiff's
Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification and
Court-Authorized Notice. He conditionally certified the following
classes:

     a. Overtime Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who worked at least forty (40) hours in any
workweek and (1) received additional renumeration; or (2) had
deductions applied in workweeks during the three (3) years
preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the
final disposition of this case.

     b. Minimum Wage Collective: All current and former hourly
healthcare employees who had deductions applied to their pay during
the three (3) years preceding the filing of the Complaint and
continuing through the final disposition of this case.

The Defendants are ordered to provide the Plaintiff's counsel,
within 14 days of the Opinion & Order, a roster of all potential
opt-in plaintiffs that includes their names, dates of employment,
positions of employment, last known mailing addresses, and last
known e-mail addresses.

The Notice and Consent to Join Form will be sent to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of receipt of the roster using
their home and e-mail addresses. The Consent to Join form will
specify a 45-day response deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9axvnj from Leagle.com.


OHIO: Court Dismisses as Moot Writ Petition in Hart v. Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MICHAEL HART, Petitioner v. MARK WILLIAMS,
WARDEN, Respondent, Case No. 4:20-CV-1043 (N.D. Ohio), District
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order adopting the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and dismissing as
moot the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of Judge Thomas M. Parker. Petitioner Michael Hart
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section
2241(c) on May 13, 2020. Mr. Hart claimed that the conditions at
FCI-Elkton put him at great risk of death or serious illness should
he get COVID-19 and that this amounted to cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment. He sought immediate release
and a declaration that Mark Williams' policies and procedures
regarding COVID-19 were ineffective and inadequate.

On July 7, 2020, Mr. Williams filed his answer to the writ of
habeas corpus. Mr. Hart never filed a response. It was discovered
that Mr. Hart had been transferred to the U.S. penitentiary in
Yazoo City ("USP-Yazoo City") and never filed a notice of change of
address. On July 29, 2021, Magistrate Judge Parker ordered Mr. Hart
to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as moot
because of his transfer from FCI-Elkton and why Wilson v. Williams
did not bar his case on either res judicata or collateral estoppel
grounds. Mr. Hart filed his response on Sept. 1, 2021.

On Jan. 1, 2022, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a Report and
Recommendation. He recommended that Mr. Hart's petition be
dismissed as moot. Magistrate Judge Parker found that: (1) Mr. Hart
failed to show that his claims fall within the
capable-of-repetition doctrine because he did not provide specific
support for his contention that he still faces a risk of death or
serious illness at USP-Yazoo City, which was necessary because
habeas corpus actions "under Section 2241 become moot if a change
in the petitioner's conditions of imprisonment precludes the
district court from providing 'effectual relief.'" Geddes v.
Lindsay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50251, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2008)
(citing Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 77 (2d. Cir. 2006)); (2) Mr.
Hart's requested relief that he be released from FCI-Elkton cannot
be granted because he is no longer being held there; (3) Mr. Hart's
arguments relate to the conditions of his confinement, which cannot
be raised under Section 2241; (4) it is doubtful that Mr. Hart's
claim would succeed because the Sixth Circuit found that medically
vulnerable inmates at FCI-Elkton were not likely to succeed on
their Eighth Amendment Claims; and (5) transfer of this petition to
the Southern District of Mississippi, where Mr. Hart is now being
held, would not serve the interests of justice.

Mr. Hart timely filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Parker's
Report and Recommendation on Feb. 2, 2022. He objects on the
grounds that: (1) he still faces a risk of serious illness and
death from COVID-19 at USP-Yazoo City and the Warden at USP-Yazoo
City is aware of Mr. Hart's medical conditions; (2) the Covid-19
pandemic is an exceptional situation and therefore the
capable-of-repetition doctrine applies; (3) Mr. Hart's petition
should be transferred to the Southern District of Mississippi if
this court cannot or will not render a judgment; and (4) Mr. Hart
has isolated himself from the class action suit under Wilson v.
Williams by seeking his own relief.

As to Mr. Hart's first two objections, Magistrate Judge Parker
addressed the fact that Mr. Hart could still face a risk of serious
illness and death from COVID-19, but found that Mr. Hart failed to
give examples of USP-Yazoo City's specific COVID-19 policies or
procedures that are inadequate or ineffective in preventing the
spread of COVID-19 and, therefore, he failed to show that his cause
falls within the capable-of-repetition doctrine. As a result,
Magistrate Judge Parker adequately addressed these objections,
Judge Nugent holds.

As to Mr. Hart's third objection, Magistrate Judge Parker correctly
asserts that the Northern District of Ohio retains jurisdiction
over the petition despite Mr. Hart's transfer, Judge Nugent holds,
citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004). Transferring
the petition to the Southern District of Mississippi would not
overcome the fact that Mr. Hart's petition is not justiciable and
lacks merit.

As to Mr. Hart's fourth objection, Magistrate Judge Parker pointed
out in his Report and Recommendation that Mr. Hart was part of the
subclass of prisoners that sought release in Wilson and that
another FCI-Elkton inmate individually filed a complaint alleging
similar claims and that complaint was dismissed. Judge Nugent finds
that Mr. Hart has not shown that his petition has merit after the
Wilson decision. For the reasons set forth, Mr. Hart's objections
cannot stand.

Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2253, the Court must determine
whether to grant a certificate of appealability as to any of the
claims presented in the Petition.

Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on
the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate only that reasonable
jurists would find the district court's assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong (Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000).

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Mr. Hart has
failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right and there is no reasonable basis upon which to
debate this Court's procedural rulings. Accordingly, the Court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

Ruling

The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and
Mr. Hart's objections. Magistrate Judge Parker has correctly
addressed the objections raised by Mr. Hart. Mr. Hart's objections
are overruled. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Parker is adopted. Mr. Hart's petition is dismissed as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtan6b25 from Leagle.com.


ONE LOVE ORGANICS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Love Organics,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. One Love Organics, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01802-VSB (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

One Love Organics -- https://shop.oneloveorganics.com/ -- is a
natural, ethical and environmentally driven cosmetics company
created by skilled cosmetic artisans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OREGON: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Traffic Stops
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Howard, writing for KDRV.com, reports that a Medford lawyer
says tonight he has a class action claim against an Oregon state
trooper for racial discrimination in traffic stops.

He also has a document from Jackson County's District Attorney to
support his case.

Justin Rosas says Trooper Travis Peterson "has been underreporting
his traffic stops and his K-9 searches to appear fair and has had
drugs in his possession mysteriously disappear."

Rosas makes his claims in a four-page letter outlining instances he
asserts mistreated his law firm's eight clients who comprise the
class action litigants, "including six people of color." The
information lists 29-year-old Cesar Alfaro, 47-year-old Bo Tan and
46-year-old Enriquillo Batista as examples of racial profiling for
traffic stops, with Rosas stating, "Travis Peterson was tasked with
doing the lion's share of the drug interdiction stops on Interstate
5."

Jackson County District Attorney Beth Heckert's office shared
information in a September 7, 2021 memo (below) to Rosas that
outlines findings to an investigation of five allegations at the
time against Trooper Peterson, related to his administrative
leave.

The memo said two allegations were not substantiated. It says three
"allegations that were sustained are:

(1) Between 6/1/20 and 3/31/21 Peterson failed to appropriately
document his traffic contacts and searches in Report Beam and/or
K-9 Deployment Log/notebooks/Niche.

(2) Between June 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021 Peterson failed to
appropriately document several K-9 deployments in his K-9
deployment log.

(3) On December 31, 2020 and January 25, 2021 Peterson seized
contraband believed to be controlled substances and failed to
properly impound them into evidence."

The memo says, "The facts that supported the sustained allegation
in (1) is during that time frame, he performed approximately 750
traffic stops of which he documented 447 as required. 269 of the
750 stops were not documented in Report Beam as required by policy.
Allegation (2) Peterson conducted approximately 139 searches (with
or without K9) between those dates. Of those 139, 40 involved the
deployment of his K9. Seven were not documented in the log. Four of
those deployments included an 'alert' that would be calculated in
the accuracy rating. the facts that support the third allegation is
on 12/31/20 he seized 1 item believed to be a MDMA pill and on
1/25/21 Trooper Peterson seized what was believed to be 0.5 grams
methamphetamine and11 ounce of marijuana. Peterson stated both were
put in a plastic glove to store and be destroyed. Neither item was
ever placed into evidence. Peterson believes there were accidently
thrown away."

NewsWatch 12 has a request for related information from Oregon
State Police.

Rosas wrote, "My clients trust that the discovery process will also
reveal the names of those still in prison, those still facing
charges and those other victims of racial discrimination, unlawful
arrest, unlawful seizure of property, destruction of evidence and
malicious prosecution as a result of Trooper Peterson's illegal
conduct." [GN]

P.C. RICHARD & SON: Douglass Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P.C. Richard & Son,
LLC. The case is styled as Blair Douglass, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00399-MPK (W.D. Pa., March 4, 2022).

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

P.C. Richard & Son, commonly known as simply P.C. Richard --
https://www.pcrichard.com/ -- is the largest chain of private,
family-owned appliance, television, electronics, and mattress
stores in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (412) 877-5220
          Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com


PECULIAR ROOTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peculiar Roots L.L.C.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Peculiar Roots L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-01832 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Peculiar Roots -- https://peculiarroots.com/ -- is a clean beauty
brand with formulated products for locs and natural hair.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEOPLES GAS: Gas Leak Contaminates Water, Pabst Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY PABST and KATHERINE PABST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PEOPLES GAS LIGHT AND
COKE COMPANY, WEC ENERGY GROUP INC., and THE BROYDRICK GROUP, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01124 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2022) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of residents in
rural Mahomet and Fisher in Illinois, for compensatory, exemplar,
and consequential damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
to the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and,
under common law, for strict liability for ultrahazardous
activities, negligence, nuisance, trespass, and breach of
contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendants caused discharges of
natural gas and other combustible gases and hazardous chemicals
into the Mahomet Aquifer, the sole source of water for east-central
Illinois, from an underground natural gas storage facility it
operates in Champaign County, Illinois. The Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' well and tap water is allegedly contaminated by the gas
leak that the water is, or is at risk of, becoming flammable -
potentially for decades to come.

The Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiffs, Class members, and
their property to be exposed to hazardous gases and chemicals,
caused damage to the natural resources of the environment in and
around Plaintiffs' and Class Members' properties, caused Plaintiffs
and Class Members to incur health exposures, loss of use and
enjoyment of their property, property damage, loss of quality of
life, emotional distress, financial losses, and other damages, says
the suit.

The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company is a natural gas provider
with headquarters and principal place of business in Chicago, Cook
County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019
          E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                  megan@feganscott.com

               - and -
           
          James D. Spiros, Esq.
          Miranda Soucie, Esq.
          SPIROS LAW, P.C.
          2807 N. Vermilion St., Suite 3
          Danville, IL 61832
          Telephone: (217) 443-4343
          E-mail: jspiros@spiroslaw.com
                  msoucie@spiroslaw.com

PETSMART LLC: Stegmann Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Stegmann, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PetSmart LLC, Case No.
2022LA000009, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit, LaSalle
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01179 to the
proceeding.

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

PetSmart -- https://www.petsmart.com/ -- is a privately held
American chain of pet superstores, which sell pet products,
services, and small pets.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PEVONIA INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pevonia
International, LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pevonia
International, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01837 (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2022).

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

Pevonia -- https://www.pevonia.com/ -- offer a wide variety of
natural skin care solutions to help with issues such as aging,
acne, sensitive skin, oily skin, or combination skin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHARMAGEL INTERNATIONAL: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pharmagel
International, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pharmagel
International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01833 (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2022).

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

Pharmagel -- https://pharmagel.net/ -- is a premier manufacturer of
pharmaceutical grade treatments for the skin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHILIP MORRIS: Sued Over Smoking-Related Diseases
-------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
class action was filed against the company seeking compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly suffers
from certain smoking-related diseases.

A class action pending in Canada, "Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac
Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.," Quebec Superior
Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
Inc.(RBH) and other Canadian cigarette manufacturers (Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.

The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual
smoker, sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of
the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related
diseases. The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued
its judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two
other Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class
members' compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5
billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately $12.1
billion).

The trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to a Phillip Morris subsidiary
(approximately CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest of
approximately $2.4 billion). In addition, the trial court awarded
CAD 90,000 (approximately US$70,500) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,500) to RBH. The trial
court estimated the disease class at 99,957 members.

RBH appealed to the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In October 2015, the
Court of Appeal ordered RBH to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $177 million) to cover both the Létourneau
and Blais cases, which RBH has paid in installments through March
2017. The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to
furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $594
million) in installments through June 2017. JTI Macdonald Corp. was
not required to furnish security in accordance with plaintiffs'
motion.

The Court of Appeals ordered that the security is payable upon a
final judgment of the Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's
judgment or upon further order of the Court of Appeal.

Philip Morris International Inc. is a Virginia holding company.


PINNACLE NURSING: Court Won't Revisit Order of Service in Zietek
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GENEVIEVE ZIETEK, Plaintiff v. PINNACLE NURSING &
REHAB CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 21 Civ. 5488 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order of Service,
dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Justice Robert T. Johnson, and severing and dismissing
without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Nurse
Vanessa, Nurse Ana, Co-Resident Hector Ortiz Diaz, Co-Resident
Damien A. Santos, and John Bryant of Social Services at Pinnacle.

I. Background

On June 17, 2021, Plaintiff pro se, Genevieve Zietek, brought the
action against Defendant Pinnacle, raising what the Court construed
to be claims under the Nursing Home Reform Act (the "NHRA"), 42
U.S.C. Section 1396r, and alleging that she was physically and
financially abused by Pinnacle staff members and harassed by two
co-residents.

On July 28, 2021, the Court issued the Orderr of Service. On Aug.
18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion and accompanying declaration
seeking reconsideration of the Order of Service.

II. Discussion

At the outset, Judge Johnson holds that the Plaintiff's motion is
untimely. Rule 6.3 requires that a notice of motion for
reconsideration be served within 14 days after the entry of the
Court's order. The Court's order of service was issued on July 28,
2021, and mailed to the Plaintiff on July 29, 2021. Even if the
Court extends the Plaintiff's deadline by three days in light of
her pro se status, any motions for reconsideration should have been
filed and served by Aug. 14, 2021. The Plaintiff's motion is dated
Aug. 18, 2021, and was docketed on Aug. 23, 2021. The untimeliness
of the motion alone is a sufficient basis for denying it. But, in
deference to the Plaintiff's pro se status and the short delay
between the required deadline and the Plaintiff's filing date,
Judge Johnson assesses the Plaintiff's motion on the merits.

The Order of Service dismissed claims against Justice Johnson on
the ground of judicial immunity. It further severed and dismissed
claims against Pinnacle staff members and the Plaintiff's
co-residents at Pinnacle on the grounds that these claims did not
involve common questions of law and facts with the Plaintiff's
claims against Pinnacle, and that, because these two groups of
claims concern events at different times that involve different
participants, the overlap of the witnesses and evidence between
them is likely to be minimal. The Plaintiff's motion seeks the
reinstatement of all defendants initially named in the complaint
and requests that the matter proceed as a class action, rather than
pursuing separate actions against the Pinnacle employees and
co-residents, as directed by the Order of Service.

Judge Johnson has carefully evaluated the Plaintiff's claims
against Pinnacle, its employees, and other residents, and
determined that joinder of the individual defendants in an action
against Pinnacle was inappropriate under Rule 20 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. As discussed by the Court in its Order of
Service, first, the Plaintiff's claims against Pinnacle staff and
co-residents have no factual or legal overlap with her claims
against Pinnacle. Second, the Plaintiff has not alleged that
individual Pinnacle staff members were personally involved in her
claims against Pinnacle. She has not pointed to any facts the Court
overlooked in coming to these determinations.

For the same reasons, the Court concluded that the discretionary
considerations at issue weighed in favor of severance.
Consolidating all of the Plaintiff's claims into one action is
unlikely to promote judicial economy or efficiency given the
significant differences in the relevant time period, involved
parties, and factual and legal bases for the two sets of claims.
And, contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion, consolidation and a
joint trial of Pinnacle, its staff members, and co-residents could
"lead to the confusion of the jury" and prejudice all defendants,
given the dissimilarity of the claims against them. Because the
Plaintiff remains free to pursue her claims against Pinnacle staff
and co-residents in a separate action, Judge Johnson cannot
conclude that she will be prejudiced by severance. Again, the
Plaintiff does not point to facts overlooked by the Court,
intervening changes of law, or evidence of manifest injustice that
warrant revisiting of the Court's order.

Finally, the Plaintiff seeks to move forward as a "class action,"
but again provides no factual or legal basis for this ssertion. Her
complaint did not raise any claims on behalf of a putative class,
nor did she allege that anyone besides her was subjected to similar
financial and physical abuse, or harassment at Pinnacle. As the
Plaintiff "may not raise a new claim, for the first time, in a
motion for reconsideration" under Local Rule 6.3, Judge Johnson
holds that this argument is not properly before the Court.
Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that the matter should
proceed as a class action.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Johnson denied the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion pending at ECF No. 19, and mail a copy of the Order to the
Plaintiff pro se.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckw2kcr from Leagle.com.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pollak Suit Removed to New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
remands to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings
County, the lawsuit captioned ZALMEN POLLAK, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-6738 (PKC)
(RML) (E.D.N.Y.).

On Dec. 6, 2021, Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
filed a Notice of Removal of Plaintiff Zalmen Pollak's putative
class-action lawsuit brought under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). On Dec.
20, 2021, the Court issued an order directing the parties to show
cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction in light of TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021).

On Jan. 6, 2022, the Defendant filed a letter in response to the
Court's show-cause order, arguing that the Plaintiff has alleged
sufficient injury-in-fact to demonstrate Article III standing. The
Plaintiff filed a letter in response to the Defendant's letter on
Jan. 21, 2022, arguing that the Plaintiff does not have Article III
standing.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to proceed in
federal court and remands this case to the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Kings County.

The Plaintiff alleges the following facts in his complaint. The
Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff on June 25, 2021, in an
effort to collect a debt. The Defendant's letter allegedly (1)
"misrepresented the enforceability" of the debt, (2) "was
materially misleading as to the ownership" of the debt, and (3)
"was materially deceptive as to the validity" of the debt.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant's letter violated
the FDCPA because the "Claimed Amount" of the debt was
"overstated," and because the Plaintiff did not owe any money at
all to the entity on whose behalf Defendant was seeking to collect.
The Plaintiff contends that he was "misled," "forced to hire
counsel," and incur damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees
in reviewing the Plaintiff's rights under the law and prosecuting
this claim.

District Judge Pamela K. Chen notes that the Plaintiff does not
allege that he suffered any concrete harm resulting directly from
the Defendant's alleged statutory violations. The Plaintiff alleges
only that he incurred costs by hiring an attorney to review his
rights under the law and prosecute this claim. However, the burdens
of bringing a lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for standing, Judge
Chen points out.

Furthermore, although efforts to mitigate a sufficient risk of harm
stemming from a statutory violation may potentially qualify as
concrete injuries, see Cavazzini v. MRS Assocs., No. 21-CV-5087
(ARR) (ST), 2021 WL 5770273, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021), the
Plaintiff has not alleged any underlying harm or risk of harm that
supports treating the cost of his mitigation efforts as a concrete
injury, Judge Chen holds.

Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiff does not allege a cognizable
injury, i.e., a sufficient risk of harm that he allegedly spent
time and money to mitigate. Judge Chen holds that this is
insufficient to establish Article III standing. Similarly, although
the Defendant argues that "monetary harms" can traditionally confer
standing, a mere request for damages, without factual allegations
that confer standing, is not enough.

Lastly, the Court denies the Defendant's request for jurisdictional
discovery. Judge Chen holds that despite being given the
opportunity to demonstrate the Court's subject matter jurisdiction,
the Plaintiff has not proffered any allegations beyond those set
forth in the Complaint. Thus, because the record does not show that
the requested discovery is likely to produce the facts needed to
establish jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its
discretion to permit jurisdictional discovery.

Accordingly, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged
any concrete injury and does not have Article III standing, and the
Court, therefore, lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand the entire action to
the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, and to terminate the
matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Feb. 24,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2k862up8 from
Leagle.com.


PRATT & WHITNEY: Faces Antitrust Charges in D. Conn.
----------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit was filed alleging that Pratt & Whitney,
agreed to restrict the hiring and recruiting of certain engineers
and skilled laborers in a manner that violated federal antitrust
laws.

Numerous civil class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed
against Pratt & Whitney, a principal business segment of Raytheon,
and other corporate and individual defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. The allegations in
each of the civil lawsuits track the factual assertions in the
criminal indictment and generally allege that Pratt & Whitney and
the other defendants agreed to restrict the hiring and recruiting
of certain engineers and skilled laborers in a manner that violated
federal antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs in each of the civil lawsuits seek to represent
different purported classes of engineers and skilled laborers
employed by Pratt & Whitney and other supplier-defendants since
2011. Collins Aerospace, also a principal business segment of the
company, was also named as a defendant in some of the lawsuits.
Plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits seek treble damages in an
undetermined amount, plus attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company based in Massachusetts.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Court Okays $22.5MM Air Pollution Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Profita, writing for OPB, reports that Precision
Castparts Corp. has agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle a class
action lawsuit over air pollution coming from its metal parts
manufacturing facility in Southeast Portland.

A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge gave preliminary approval to
the settlement, which stems from allegations that the metal casting
facility emitted toxic metals and polluted nearby homes.

The settlement includes $7.7 million the company already spent on
air pollution controls to reduce the amount of nickel and other
pollutants being released from Precision Castparts' operations.

The company has also spent more than $300,000 on air monitoring
equipment to test for pollution in the surrounding neighborhood and
will be required to install nearly $2 million in additional
pollution controls at its facilities pending an additional court
approval.

Matthew Preusch, an attorney representing some of the company's
neighbors in the class action lawsuit, said it's the largest
environmental class action settlement in Oregon history.

"It's going to result in meaningful air quality improvements for
all the people in Southeast Portland," Preusch said. "We are proud
that after years of hard-fought litigation we have been able to
reach a very excellent outcome."

Preusch also represented plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
against Bullseye Glass, a glass manufacturer that was connected to
toxic metal air pollution. Bullseye Glass settled that case for
$6.5 million. Both cases emerged out of a 2016 U.S. Forest Service
study of moss that revealed previously unknown levels of toxic
metals in Southeast Portland's air.

Based on the outcome of that case, Preusch estimates residents
affected by Precision Castparts pollution will receive about $3,500
apiece. A $12.5 million settlement fund will pay for attorneys, and
the remainder of the money will be divided among residents who
lived in the area affected by pollution from the facility. The
amount that each person receives will depend on how many people
file claims. Claims or challenges to the settlement must be filed
by April 9.

Information is being distributed to about 6,000 Southeast Portland
households that are eligible to file a claim for damages in the
case. Residents can find information about eligibility on the
website www.structuralssettlement.com, which also includes court
documents and maps of the residential area affected by the case.

In a statement, Precision Castparts said the settlement will allow
the company "to resolve costly, long-term litigation." The company
manufactures metal parts for airplanes and other industrial
products.

"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," the company said. [GN]

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Wins ERISA Suit, Rozo Appeals in 8th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that
plaintiff Frederick Rozo has appealed the ruling by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in favor of
Principal Life on all claims, to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

On November 12, 2014, Rozo filed a class action lawsuit in said
court against Principal Life and the company (which was later
dismissed as a defendant) alleging that defendants breached
fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions under
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in
connection with a general account guaranteed product known as the
Principal Fixed Income Option (PFIO).

On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts. On September 25, 2018, the district court granted
Principal Life's motion for summary judgment. On February 3, 2020,
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and
remanded the case back to the district court.

A bench trial was held before the district court November 3-10,
2020. The court issued its ruling on April 8, 2021, and found in
favor of Principal Life on all claims. The plaintiff has appealed
this ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. is into investment management based
in Iowa.


PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: Ambrosio Files Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Elliott Ambrosio, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Progressive
Preferred Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-00342-DMF (D. Ariz.,
March 4, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Progressive Preferred Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- provides insurances services. The
Company offers homeowners insurance, workmen's compensation
coverage, automotive insurance, and property and casualty
re-insurance services to individuals and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA - LOS ANGELES, CA
          1925 Cnetury Park E, Ste. 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


PROPEL BIKES: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Propel Bikes LLC. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Propel Bikes LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01848 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Propel Bikes -- https://propelbikes.com/ -- is an e-bike retailer
based in Brooklyn, serving NYC, the rest of the US, and several
other countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RANGE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Strike Affidavit in Frederick Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denies the Defendant's motion to strike the affidavit of Ryan J.
Rupert in the lawsuit styled DONALD C. FREDERICK and LOUISE M.
FREDERICK, h/w, MICHAEL A. MAHLE and PAULA M. MAHLE, h/w, DONALD
PORTA, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RANGE RESOURCES-APPALACHIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:08-cv-288-SPB (W.D. Pa.).

Pending before the Court in this civil class action are several
motions, including a motion by Defendant Range Resources to strike
the affidavit of Ryan J. Rupert, dated Sept. 13, 2019, and filed at
ECF No. 180-1. The affidavit was submitted by certain objectors
(whom the Court will refer as the "Bigley Objectors") as an exhibit
to their post-hearing brief. The Bigley Objectors offer Mr.
Rupert's affidavit in support of their argument that the proposed
supplemental class settlement is inadequate, unfair, and
unreasonable as compared to Range Resource's potential liability
for underpaid royalties during the time period 2011 to 2018.

In his affidavit, Mr. Rupert concludes, based on his
"representative review" of statements from eleven class members,
that Range underpaid royalties by not applying the agreed upon
post-production cost ("PPC") cap at all during pay period July 2017
through July 2018, by misapplying the cap on an MMBTU (a
measurement signifying one million British Thermal Units) basis
rather than an MCF (a measurement signifying one thousand cubic
feet of volume) basis, and by over-deducting gathering and
transportation charges on a systematic, class-wide basis. Using the
Shaw Family, LP statements from July 2017 through July 2018 as an
example of an average royalty owner, Mr. Rupert estimates that
Range owes the class approximately $63,481,245 in underpaid
back-royalties, broken down into the following three categories of
damages:

   a. approximately $36,285,494, attributable to a 13-month
      period (i.e. July 2017 through July 2018) during which
      Range failed altogether to apply the Frederick PPC cap;

   b. approximately $21,699,223, attributable to a 99-month
      period (i.e., March 18, 2011, through June 30, 2019) during
      which Range miscalculated the relevant PPC caps by using
      MMBTUs as the relevant unit of measurement rather than
      MCFs; and

   c. approximately $5,496,528, attributable to Range's
      over-deductions, since March 2018, of GAI-Gathering and
      TAI-Transport charges from natural gas liquids (NGLs).

Range Resources moves to strike Mr. Rupert's affidavit on numerous
bases. First, it argues that his conclusions conflict with his
sworn testimony at the fairness hearing, wherein Mr. Rupert
represented that he had not performed any damages calculations on
behalf of the class. Second, Range contends that the affidavit is
untimely. Third, Range asserts that the affidavit improperly
purports to offer expert testimony from a designated fact witness.
Fourth, Range argues that Mr. Rupert's underlying assumptions are
false and his methodology is fatally flawed.

As support for the latter argument, Range Resources proffers a
declaration from Ruth Whitten, Range's Director of Land
Administration, dated Sept. 26, 2019. Ms. Whitten disputes Mr.
Rupert's central assumption that the Shaw Family, LP, is a fair
proxy for the "average royalty owner." She points out that the Shaw
Family LP has more than 135 producing acres leased with Range
Resources, whereas most class members have less than 25 acres.

In addition, Ms. Whitten notes that there are many variables that
would necessarily factor into calculating the purported damages to
each class member, including (among other things) the relevant
acreage of the lease, relevant owner percentages, the length of the
period of ownership, the length of the period of production, and
the number of wells in which a class member participates.

Ms. Whitten also disputes Mr. Rupert's assertion that Range failed
to apply any PPC cap for the 13-month spanning July 2017 through
July 2018; rather, Ms. Whitten states, Range did apply the cap to
certain PPC, just not firm transportation costs (or "FCI"). She
concludes that Mr. Rupert's calculations based on a 13-month
failure to apply the cap are, therefore, incorrect, even as to the
Shaw Family, LP, the one class member for which Rupert reviewed
royalty statements.

In their response, the Bigley Objectors forswear any intent to
proffer Mr. Rupert's affidavit as proof of the ultimate figure on
class damages. Thus, they appear to concede that Mr. Rupert's
extrapolated damages figures are too speculative to be accepted as
fact. Instead, they argue that the affidavit is meant to illustrate
the other categories of Range's underpayments (and non-payments),
aside from the MMBTU/MCF differential, and demonstrate how quickly
those categories would add up when subjected to a multiplier on a
class-wide basis.

Further, the Bigley Objectors wish to highlight that neither they,
nor the Court, are privy to the discovery that Range produced
relative to royalty payments; therefore, they insist that the Court
cannot meaningfully assess the fairness of the settlement because
the information of record is too underdeveloped relative to
potential damages. They ask that they and Mr. Rupert have access to
all discovery provided to Class Counsel, so that Mr. Rupert can
undertake a more complete analysis of the potential class damages.

District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter notes that Rule 12(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a district court to strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Strictly speaking,
the rule applies to "pleadings," rather than other types of
filings, such as affidavits.

Nevertheless, while the Court finds no legal basis for striking the
challenged affidavit from the record, the Court does agree that Mr.
Rupert's extrapolated damages figures are too speculative to be
accepted by the Court as relevant fact or opinion evidence;
therefore, his conclusions as to the range of potential class
damages will be disregarded. Moreover, the Bigley Objectors
expressly offered Mr. Rupert as a fact witness at the hearing,
whereas his affidavit borders on expert opinion testimony.

Because the affidavit was submitted belatedly, after the fairness
hearing was concluded, the parties lacked any opportunity to
cross-examine Mr. Rupert on the matters on which he opines in his
supplemental affidavit, Judge Baxter says. Therefore, Judge Baxter
holds, consideration of his analysis at this point would unfairly
prejudice the parties.

As for the objectors' other observations, the Court can
independently take notice of the amount of discovery that was
undertaken by the attorneys in this case and the fact that said
discovery has not been produced of record (and typically is not).
The Court further understands and acknowledges the Bigley
Objectors' position that class members may have been subjected to
multiple forms of underpayment of their royalties, as set forth in
the Class's motion to enforce the Original Settlement Agreement.
All of these matters will be given due consideration as part of the
Court's fairness analysis, but because Mr. Rupert's estimations of
potential class damages do not meaningfully advance that analysis,
the Court will disregard them in determining whether to accept the
proposed supplemental settlement.

In sum, Judge Baxter holds, Range Resource's motion to strike will
be technically denied, but its arguments will be construed as
objections to the Court's consideration of Mr. Rupert's September
13, 2019 affidavit and, to that extent, the objections are
sustained. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 24,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4bddbb from
Leagle.com.


RAU LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rau LLC. The case is
styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rau LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01797-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Rau -- https://drinkrau.com/ -- delivers organic, healthy, and
powdered cacao with superfood blends including coconut MCT,
espresso, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit in D. Ariz.
--------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona against the
Company and certain of its executives alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making material misstatements
in regulatory filings regarding internal controls over financial
reporting in its Raytheon Missiles and Defense.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company based in Massachusetts.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the
plaintiffs of the class action lawsuits filed an amended complaint
which supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert
claims for breach of the equity compensation plans against the
company, Otis and Carrier.

On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its
subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
Raytheon Technologies, Otis, Carrier, the former members of the UTC
Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards
of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies
Corporation, et al.)

The complaint challenged the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to Raytheon Technologies, Otis, and Carrier equity awards
following the separation of UTC into three independent,
publicly-traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint also
claimed that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity
compensation plans and also asserted claims under certain
provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

On September 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for
breach of the equity compensation plans against the Company, Otis
and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims. Further, no claim
is made in the amended complaint against any current or former
director of any of the three companies. Plaintiffs seek money
damages, attorneys' fees and other relief.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company based in Massachusetts.


REVEAL CHAT: 9th Circuit Issues Ruling in Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that on Feb. 28,
an appellate panel partly dismissed and partly affirmed an April
2021 ruling in the suit brought by mobile application developers
Reveal Chat HoldCo LLC, Beehive Biometric Inc., and USA Technology
and Management Services Inc. The non-precedential opinion concluded
that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their injunctive
relief claims under the federal antitrust laws and that their
claims for damages were time-barred.

The January 2020 suit against Facebook stems from allegations that
it acted as a gatekeeper in the social data and social advertising
markets. According to the plaintiffs' complaint and in 2015,
Facebook cut off third-party developers from its application
programming interfaces (APIs) that the plaintiffs, including Reveal
Chat, an anonymous chatting app that was formerly linked to the
dating site LikeBright, relied on for their mobile applications.

The complaint also took aim at Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram
and WhatsApp, arguing that they further entrenched its monopoly.
The plaintiffs contended that their claims were safe from
time-sensitivity rules because Facebook engaged in fraudulent
concealment to cover its tracks, only permitting the plaintiffs to
discover the accused conduct after the statute of limitations had
run. "Facebook's March 2019 announcement about the ongoing back-end
integration of Instagram and WhatsApp constitutes a new act that is
not a reaffirmation of a previous act and inflicts a new and
accumulating injury," one pleading explained.

The class action sought relief from violations of the Sherman and
Clayton Acts and various state laws.

In the six-page opinion, the Ninth Circuit raised the issue of
antitrust standing on its own and reviewed the district court's
decision regarding timeliness.

The court said that the plaintiffs' injunctive relief claims fail
because they alleged injuries that occurred in 2015 and were
therefore "not fairly traceable to Meta's challenged conduct in
2019." The court further reasoned that the plaintiffs neither
offered evidence suggesting that Meta's 2019 actions threatened
future harm nor alleged facts demonstrating that any of the harms
they claimed were redressible by the injunctive relief sought.

The court then affirmed dismissal of the developers' antitrust
damage claims as time-barred, finding that the four-year clock had
run by the time the plaintiffs filed suit in 2020. Their fraudulent
concealment allegations were insufficient to toll the Sherman Act's
statute of limitations, the opinion said.

The developers are represented by Bathaee Dunne LLP and Meta
Platforms by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. [GN]


ROWAN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowan, Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Rowan, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01846
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Rowan -- https://heyrowan.com/ -- provides hypoallergenic earrings
and nickel free earrings for sensitive ears for children,
teenagers, and adults.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SALVATION ARMY: Faces Alvear FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
RAYMON ALVEAR, JR., ROBERT MASSEY, and DAVID STOUGH, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
SALVATION ARMY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00979-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
March 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked at the Defendant's rehabilitation centers.

The Salvation Army is a non-profit organization based in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
         Kalpana Kotagal, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                 kkotagal@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and –

         Michael Hancock, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 838-7797
         Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
         E-mail: mhancock@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and –

         Gay Grunfeld, Esq.
         Michael Freedman, Esq.
         Priyah Kaul, Esq.
         ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
         101 Mission Street, 6th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 433-6830
         Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
         E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                 mfreedman@rbgg.com
                 pkaul@rbgg.com

                 - and –

         Jessica Riggin, Esq.
         Valerie Brender, Esq.
         RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
         1939 Harrison St., Suite 290
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (415) 421-1800
         Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
         E-mail: jriggin@rukinhyland.com
                 vbrender@rukinhyland.com

                 - and –

         James Radford, Esq.
         Daniel Werner, Esq.
         RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
         315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 1080
         Decatur, GA 30030
         Telephone: (678) 271-0302
         E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Moeller Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katie Moeller, on behalf of herself and all
persons similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Case No. LACV083176, was removed from the Iowa District Court for
Johnson County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa on March 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00013-SMR-HCA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cara Lauren Roberts, Esq.
          Matthew L. Preston, Esq.
          BRADY, PRESTON, GRONLUND, PC
          2735 1st Ave. SE
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
          Phone: (319) 866-9277
          Fax: (319) 866-9280
          Email: CRoberts@BPGlegal.com
                 MPreston@BPGlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul David Burns, Esq.
          BRADLEY & RILEY PC
          One South Gilbert Street
          Iowa City, IA 52240
          Phone: (319) 358-5561
          Fax: (319) 358-5560
          Email: pburns@bradleyriley.com

               - and -

          David Michael Caves, Esq.
          Jeremiah Dwayne Junker, Esq.
          BRADLEY & RILEY
          2007 First Ave Se
          PO BOX 2804
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
          Phone: (319) 363-0101
          Fax: (319) 363-9824
          Email: dcaves@bradleyriley.com
                 jjunker@bradleyriley.com


SORME COMPANY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sorme Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sorme Company, Inc., Case No
1:22-cv-01789 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Sorme treatment cosmetics -- https://www.sorme.com/ -- is a brand
inspired by the need for a clean, cruelty free, environmentally and
globally conscious cosmetics with high definition pigments and
quality that a makeup artist would be proud to use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STARTUP CANDY: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Startup Candy Co. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Startup Candy Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-01796-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

The Startup Candy Company -- https://startupcandy.com/ -- is the
oldest candy company in Utah and one of the oldest candy companies
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



STARWOOD CAPITAL: Israel Regulator to Pay Part of Legal Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Barragan, writing for Bisnow Southern California, reports
that a lawsuit in Israel concerning a Starwood Capital Group bond
deal gone bad will receive money from the country's securities
regulator.

The Israel Securities Authority said it will pay for part of the
class-action lawsuit's legal expenses because it involves the
public, and is likely to be certified by an Israeli court, The Wall
Street Journal reported. [GN]



STEWARD HEALTH: Faces Class Action in Texas Over RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Dallas-based Steward Health Care will face a class-action lawsuit
alleging that the system overbilled patients or demanded payments
from third parties not responsible for the bills, a federal court
ruled Feb. 25.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas confirmed
a prior magistrate judge recommendation, ruling that the two
proposed patient classes adequately supported their claims against
Steward and Medical Reimbursements of America under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The two plaintiffs who brought the claims are Beverly Williams and
Amy Johnson, who were treated at Steward's Wadley Regional Medical
Center in Texarkana, Texas, for injuries they suffered in motor
vehicle accidents. The plaintiffs allege that Steward deceptively
collected "unauthorized and illegal payments" for hospital
treatment related to their injuries.

The plaintiffs, lodging similar allegations based on separate
incidents, claim that Steward listed them as "self-pay" patients
and circumvented the primary insurers that they both listed. Ms.
Williams alleges this resulted in a charge to her of $9,750.79. Ms.
Johnson alleges she was charged $19,394.54 and the defendants
unlawfully obtained $2,795.48 from her personal injury protection
policy.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. A
magistrate judge in December 2021 recommended denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the case, which then moved to the
district court.

"The court has carefully reviewed the relevant briefing, the report
and recommendation, the objections and the response to the
objections, and is of the opinion the findings and conclusions of
the magistrate judge are correct," the district court ruled. "The
court adopts the magistrate judge's report as the findings and
conclusions of the court."

"Steward strongly disagrees with plaintiffs' contentions and
believes it appropriately pursued the amounts owed through its
relationship with MRA," Steward told Becker's Hospital Review. [GN]

SUN & SWELL: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun & Swell, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sun & Swell, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01851 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Sun & Swell Foods -- https://sunandswellfoods.com/ -- is an online
grocery and organic food store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERLOGICS INCORPORATED: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Superlogics
Incorporated. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Superlogics
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-01831 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Superlogics Incorporated -- https://www.superlogics.com/ --
manufactures computer products. The Company offers rackmount and
touch panel computers, peripheral equipment, and software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERNOVA USA INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Supernova USA Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Supernova USA Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01785 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Supernova -- https://supernovabrands.com/ -- are a rapidly growing
Social E-Commerce company, creating innovative Health, Beauty and
Fitness products from the ground up.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch.
---------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile US, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that the company was
named as a nominal defendant in a class action lawsuit asserting
breach of fiduciary duty claims.

On June 1, 2021, a putative shareholder class action and derivative
lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, "Dinkevich v.
Deutsche Telekom AG, et al.," Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0479, against
DT, SoftBank and certain of the company's current and former
officers and directors, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
relating to the repricing amendment to the Business Combination
Agreement, and to SoftBank's monetization of its T-Mobile shares.
The company is also named as a nominal defendant in the case.

T-Mobile US, Inc. provides wireless communications services and is
based in Washington.


TA OPERATING: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Chandler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action
in the lawsuit entitled KIMBERLY CHANDLER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TA OPERATING
LLC, doing business as Travelcenters of America, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02091-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.).

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated the action in the Shasta County Superior
Court on July 21, 2020, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated to assert claims against Defendant. The Defendant operates
truck and travel centers along California and U.S. highways. The
Plaintiff was employed from October 2016 through August 2019 as a
Customer Service Representative at the Redding, California truck
stop.

The Defendant states that on Dec. 5, 2017, the Plaintiff received,
acknowledged, and physically signed a "Mutual Agreement to Resolve
Disputed and Arbitrate Claims" (the "Agreement"), which included a
class action waiver.

The Plaintiff alleges that during her employment the Defendant
engaged in numerous wage and hour violations. She asserts causes of
action for: (1) failure to pay lawful wages owed; (2) failure to
provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, (3)
failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (4) failure to timely pay wages; (5) knowing and
intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage
statements provisions; (6) failure to indemnify employee for
expenditures; and (7) violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The Defendant removed the action to the Court on Oct. 19, 2020, and
on June 10, 2021, filed the instant motion to compel arbitration
and stay the action. In its motion, the Defendant argues the
Agreement bars the Plaintiff's ability to bring this action and she
must be compelled to arbitrate. The Defendant further argues that
pursuant to the Agreement, the class claims must be dismissed. On
June 24, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an opposition, and on July 1,
2021, the Defendant filed a reply.

Analysis

The parties do not dispute that the scope of the arbitration
provision encompasses the Plaintiff's claims. Rather, the only
dispute is whether an enforceable agreement exists in the first
place. The Plaintiff argues the arbitration agreement is both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable and, thus, cannot be
severed.

District Judge Troy L. Nunley notes that as the party opposing
arbitration, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving
unconscionability by a preponderance of the evidence, citing
Engalla v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 (1997).

A. Delegation Clause

As a threshold matter, the Agreement contains a Delegation Clause
which states that "[a]ll challenges to the interpretation or
enforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall be brought
before the arbitrator, and the arbitrator shall rule on all
questions regarding the interpretation and enforceability of this
Agreement."

The parties do not dispute the Delegation Clause exists, but
rather, the Plaintiff contends the clause is unconscionable because
the Agreement and Delegation Clause require the application of
Delaware law to determine the enforceability of the Delegation
Clause. However, the Plaintiff's argument is not persuasive, Judge
Nunley holds. Judge Nunley explains that courts within the Ninth
Circuit have enforced delegation clauses with similar choice of law
provisions.

Moreover, there is "clear and unmistakable" evidence the parties
agreed to the Delegation Clause, Judge Nunley finds. Accordingly,
whether the Agreement is enforceable is a question for the
arbitrator. Even if the Delegation Clause were found to be
unconscionable, the Court would still find the Agreement as a whole
is not unconscionable.

B. Procedural Unconscionability

The Plaintiff argues the Agreement is procedurally unconscionable
because it is a contract of adhesion. The Defendant concedes this
contract is a contract of adhesion but argues that this alone does
not render the Agreement unenforceable.

Because the Agreement is a contract of adhesion, it is necessary to
proceed to the next step of the procedural unconscionability
analysis, which asks whether there is evidence of oppression or
surprise, Judge Nunley notes. Here, the Agreement was clearly
visible in a separate and distinct section. The Plaintiff was also
expressly informed of her "right to seek legal counsel regarding
the meaning and effect of the agreement," which is indicative of a
lack of surprise and coercion.

The Plaintiff further argues the Agreement is procedurally
unconscionable because Defendant failed to provide a copy of the
applicable arbitration rules. Judge Nunley finds that this argument
is unpersuasive. California courts have repeatedly rejected similar
arguments.

The Plaintiff provides no other evidence of oppression. Nor is
there anything to indicate that the Arbitration Provision was
unduly surprising, Judge Nunley holds.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the
Agreement is procedurally unconscionable, the Court finds the
Agreement is not procedurally unconscionable.

C. Substantive Unconscionability

The Plaintiff argues the Agreement is substantively unconscionable
for six reasons: (1) only the Plaintiff is required to bring claims
to arbitration while the Defendant is not; (2) the Agreement
required the Plaintiff to participate in a grievance process; (3)
the Agreement contains an "arbitrator selection provision" that
renders the Agreement substantively unconscionable; (4) the
Agreement limits the Plaintiff's right to discovery; (5) the
Agreement limits arbitration to a single day; and (6) the Agreement
waives the Plaintiff's right to a jury trial.

The Plaintiff argues the Agreement requires only her to bring
claims through arbitration and not the Defendant. However, the
Agreement on its face states it is a "Mutual Agreement to Resolve
Disputes and Arbitrate Claims," that provides claims by either
party are subject to arbitration.

Judge Nunley finds that the Agreement on its face does not support
the Plaintiff's claim, and she fails to provide additional evidence
supporting her argument.

The Plaintiff also argues the Agreement requires employees to
submit their claims through a grievance process prior to
arbitration, which she states is substantively unconscionable
because it impairs the employee's ability to effectively vindicate
their statutory rights in arbitration.

Judge Nunley holds that the Plaintiff failed to cite to any legal
authority in support of this argument, and the Court has found at
least one instance in this Circuit where similar provisions were
not found to be unconscionable.

The Plaintiff further argues, among other things, that the
Agreement contains an "arbitrator selection provision" that renders
the Agreement substantively unconscionable.

In the case, the Agreement provides that a list of three
arbitrators will be provided to each party with the requirement
that the party, who files for arbitration must eliminate one out of
the three arbitrators within 20 days. If the party filing for
arbitration fails to do so, the claim is waived. If the non-filing
party fails to eliminate an arbitrator within the specified time
period, the arbitration firm will do so.

The Plaintiff claims there is a presumption that employees will be
filing claims, and thus the provision is one-sided and overly harsh
as only the party filing a claim faces the consequence of having
its claim waived. Regardless of the Plaintiff's perceived
presumption, the claims subject to arbitration are claims by either
an employee or by the Defendant, Judge Nunley notes. Moreover, the
arbitrator choices are not provided by the Defendant but rather the
arbitration firm, National Arbitration and Mediation, Inc.
("NAM").

Even if, as the Plaintiff suggests, the Defendant is provided with
an additional right, this is not so harsh or one sided as to render
the Agreement substantively unconscionable, Judge Nunley holds.
Judge Nunley also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
failed to provide sufficient argument or evidence that the
Agreement is unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court grants the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, and stays the case pending completion of arbitration
of the Plaintiff's individual claims. The parties will notify the
Court within 30 days of completing arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4pmfs4jh from Leagle.com.


TANCEUTICALS LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanceuticals, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tanceuticals, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01786 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Tanceuticals -- https://tanceuticals.com/ -- offers self-tanners
that are safe, natural-looking that guarantees no streaks, smell or
orange color.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TASKUS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 25, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired TaskUs, Inc. ("TaskUs" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TASK) securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your TaskUs investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/taskus-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

On January 20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC published
a report alleging, among other things, that TaskUs "has a pattern
of exaggerated and inflated business claims, including revenue, and
is covering-up financial strain with reduced disclosures,
cherry-picked market data, and non-standard key performance
metrics." Regarding the financial strain, the report alleged that
"28% of sales [are related] to Facebook and related to the
controversial area of 'Content Moderation,'" which has "requir[ed]
more labor to fill tasks, but that it is not translating into
additional revenue."

On this news, TaskUs's stock fell $5.46, or 15.3%, to close at
$30.13 per share on January 20, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TaskUs was experiencing severe financial strain and
business challenges, particularly with its most important customer
Facebook; (2) the Content Security market was smaller than
Defendants represented and Defendants' representations were based
on outdated market data; (3) TaskUs improperly recognized revenue
from certain key contracts; (4) Defendants overstated the size of
TaskUs' workforce as well as employee retention rates, and
understated attrition rates; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired TaskUs securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 25, 2022
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

TASKUS INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors of TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ:TASK) ("TaskUs" or
the "Company") who purchased shares between June 11, 2021 and
January 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the shares of TaskUs, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in TaskUs, Inc. you may, no later than
April 25, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff
of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn
more about your rights as an investor in TaskUs, Inc.

TaskUs is a business process outsourcing company that provides
services to technology companies, including the moderation of user
and advertiser generated content.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants claimed that TaskUs had "industry-leading growth and
profitability" and a "simply massive" market opportunity. The
complaint further alleges that Defendants touted the size of the
Company's workforce and "low employee attrition levels" which
"leads to lower hiring and training costs."

These statements were materially false and misleading. On January
20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC ("Spruce Point")
issued a report titled "Moderating the Bull Case Content" based on
its "forensic financial and accounting review" of TaskUs. Spruce
Point found that TaskUs, "has a pattern of exaggerated and inflated
business claims, including revenue, and is covering-up financial
strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and
non-standard key performance metrics." Additionally, Spruce Point
stated, "we find evidence of increasing strain in the relationship"
between TaskUs and its largest customer Facebook "and believe
margins and cash flow are set to contract more than expected."
Spruce Point also stated, "we find a pattern of [TaskUs]
embellishing the size of its workforce and making overly optimistic
revenue growth claims."

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

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

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

TATTE HOLDINGS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tatte Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Tatte Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01841-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Tatte Bakery & Cafe's -- https://tattebakery.com/ -- offers coffee,
food, & desserts with exceptional flavor to carefully sourced
ingredients and a passionate team of people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM: Faces Nytt Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID NYY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, BORJE
EKHOLM, and CARL MELLANDER, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01167-WFK-LB (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022) is a federal
securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, 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, 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 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

According to the complaint, the 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 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, says the suit.

On this news, Ericsson's American Depositary Share price allegedly
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.

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

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, commonly known as Ericsson, is a
Swedish multinational networking and telecommunications company
headquartered in Stockholm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          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

               - 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

TENAGLIA & HUNT: Jack Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A.
The case is styled as Arthur Jack, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A., Case No.
2:22-cv-00922-ES-CLW (D.N.J., March 4, 2022).

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

Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. -- https://www.tenagliahunt.com/ -- is a full
service regional law firm handling matters in the Courts of New
York, New Jersey and across the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


TFORCE LOGISTICS: Blodgett Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BLODGETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TFORCE LOGISTICS EAST, LLC f/k/a TFORCE
FINAL MILE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10308 (D. Mass., Feb.
24, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Daniel was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver.

TFORCE LOGISTICS EAST, LLC provides courier delivery services.
TForce Logistics East, LLC was formerly known as TForce Final Mile,
LLC prior to a name change in 2020. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
         Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
         Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                mthomson@llrlaw.com
                zrubin@llrlaw.com

               - and -

         W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq.
         GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
         300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 346-7000
         E-mail: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com

TOUR RESOURCE: Delcavo Bid to Compel Junked
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DELCAVO,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOUR
RESOURCE CONSULTANTS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02137-JWL-ADM (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order denying Delcavo's
motion to compel, which seeks a court order requiring Tour Resource
to provide information on all trips cancelled from January 2020 to
the present.

The Court said, "The record does not establish that the parties'
conversation regarding the Schulte deposition satisfied any
meet-and-confer obligation regarding Tour Resource's written
discovery responses. There is nothing incongruent about Tour
Resource objecting to producing extensive written discovery, yet
allowing Schulte to answer questions on that same scope during a
single-day deposition that he was required to attend anyway. The
discovery obligations are not commensurate.

Delcavo also asserts that he believed Schulte's testimony about
other Tour Resource trips, travelers that paid deposits for those
trips, Tour Resource's cancellation policies, and how those
policies were distributed could "obviate the need for a discovery
dispute regarding the deficient discovery responses." But Schulte
testified as to each of these topics, identifying about 45 other
trips that were cancelled due to COVID, discussing who paid
deposits, and discussing cancellation policies and how they were
distributed. Delcavo does not explain anything about this testimony
that caused him to suddenly believe that he needed to pursue the
written discovery at the last minute. And although there were some
instances where Schulte could not testify with specificity, such as
the amounts travelers were paying as deposits for all trips and the
amounts received as refunds, the record does not show any immediate
efforts by Delcavo to pursue the written discovery to fill in any
testimony gaps. Instead, after Schulte's deposition on November 24,
Delcavo's counsel waited until December 17 -- over three weeks
after the deposition -- to initiate golden rule correspondence on
the written discovery. This does not demonstrate diligence."

The Court denies Delcavo's motion for failure to comply with the
30-day rule set forth in D. KAN. RULE 37.1(b). The belated nature
of this discovery dispute in the context of the overall case
schedule undermines the orderly and efficient management of this
case. Even Delcavo recognized this.He certainly has adequate time
left in discovery to do so, and the court's decision on class
certification might inform the relevance of any such discovery.
But, as to the existing set of written discovery, Delcavo did not
comply with Rule 37.1(b) in bringing the current motion.

Mr. Delcavo filed this putative class action against defendant Tour
Resource after the company retained a $400 registration fee/deposit
that Delcavo paid for a trip to Italy that never occurred because
of travel restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Delcavo's complaint alleges that members of the Bach Festival
Society of Winter Park, Inc. (the "Bach Society") planned to travel
to Italy in June 2020 to perform music (the "Italy Trip").
Delcavo's son was a Bach Society member, and Delcavo made plans to
go on the Italy Trip with his son and the Bach Society. Tour
Resource is a travel agency that specializes in unique, custom-
tailored group travel experiences, including tour conception and
planning, tour events promotion, and travel logistics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HOiCvJ at no extra charge.[CC]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 18 in Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARTIN and LORI
MITCHELL, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10518-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge James V. Selna entered an order granting joint stipulation
and request for 45-day extension of all deadlines in light of
upcoming March 15, 2022 mediation as follows:

                Event            Current          Proposed
                                 Deadline         Deadline

-- Last day for Plaintiffs     March 8, 2022    April 18, 2022
   to file Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Toyota's Opposition to      April 4, 2022    May 16, 2022
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Plaintiffs' Reply in        April 25, 2022   June 6, 2022
   Support of Class
   Certification:

-- Hearing on Motion for       May 9, 2022      June 20, 2022
   Class Certification

-- Initial Expert              May 27, 2022     July 8, 2022
   Disclosures:

-- Fact Discovery Cutoff:      May 27, 2022     July 8, 2022

-- Rebuttal Expert             July 1, 2022     Aug.15, 2022
   Disclosures:

-- Last Day to File for        June 10, 2022    July 15, 2022
   Summary Judgment:

-- Opposition to Motion        July 11, 2022    Aug. 12, 2022
   for Summary Judgments:

-- Reply in Support of         July 18, 2022    Aug. 22, 2022
   Motion for Summary
   Judgment:

-- Last day to hear            Aug. 1, 2022     Sept. 6, 2022
   Summary Judgment or
   other Law and
   Motion matters

-- Expert Discovery            July 29, 2022    Sept. 16, 2022
   Cutoff

-- Final Pretrial              Aug. 29, 2022    Oct. 11, 2022
   Conference

   Trial                       Sept. 13, 2022   Oct. 11, 2022

TMCC provides automotive finance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kd6qGD at no extra charge.[CC]

UNILEVER: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United
States, Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unilever United
States, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01806 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unilever.com/ --
manufactures personal care products. The Company offers laundry
detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Grant Sues Over Toxic Lead Contaminants in Tap Water
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE GRANT, Individually and as Next Friend for D.G., D.G., D.G.,
and D.G.; ANTHONY MOORER SR., Individually and as Next Friend for
A.M., A.M., and A.M.; LANETTE WILLIAMS., Individually and as Next
Friend for S.W., and J.W.; TIA SHAW., Individually and as Next
Friend for B.S.; SHANIA MARTIN, Individually and as Next Friend for
K.H., D.H., D.H., and D.H.; MARLENE SNEAD, Individually and as Next
Friend for J.C., D.F., J.C., and B.B.; DONEALA HINES; Individually
and as Next Friend for T.W.; YONINIHA PARKER, Individually and as
Next Friend for W.P., M.P., and L.P.; JAMALL D. MCELRATH,
Individually and as Next Friend for J.M., J.M., and C.M.; SANDRA
WALKER, Individually and as Next Friend for Z.A. and S.W.; CARLESHA
WILLIAMS, Individually and as Next Friend for D.W. and J.S.;
Individually: CHERITA BYNUM Individually: TINA HUGHES Individually:
SANDRAANDERSON Individually: DIANE COLE Individually: JASARIA
CHATWOOD Individually: DYONDREA GRANT Individually: DONNESHA
HARRELL Individually: BETTY J. WILLIAMS Individually: GLORIA OSBY
Individually: DIANE WILLIAMS Individually: ISIS SANDERS
Individually: SYLVIA S. TIBBS Individually: ANNIECE WASHINGTON
Individually: MARY HOWARD Individually: MELVIN HOWARD Individually:
DENNIS GUIDRY Individually: MICHAEL GUIDRY Individually: BRENDA K.
MOORE Individually: DENISE HOPKINS Individually: JOHN MCCOY
Individually: BRIAN MCGHEE Individually and on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated Plaintiffs of the Benton Harbor
Lead Water Crisis, Plaintiffs v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, and its Administrators MICHAEL S. REAGAN and DEBRA SHORE,
Individually and in their official capacities; GOVERNOR GRETCHEN
WHITMER, Individually and in her official capacities; STATE OF
MICHIGAN-ENVIRONMENTAL, GREAT LAKES, & ENERGY; and its Director
LIESL CLARK, Individually and in her official capacities; DRINKING
WATER UNIT DIRECTOR ERIC OSWALD, Individually and in his official
capacities; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; and its
DIRECTORS ROBERT GORDON and ELIZABETH HERTEL, Individually and in
their official capacities; THE CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, a municipal
corporation and its subsidiary BENTON HARBOR WATER DEPARTMENT;
MAYOR MARCUS MUHAMMAD, Individually and in his official capacities;
WATER PLANT OPERATOR MICHAEL O’MALLEY, Individually and in his
official capacities; CITY OF BENTON HARBOR CITY MANAGERS DARWIN
WATSON & ELLIS MITCHELL, Individually and in their official
capacities; ELHORN ENGINEERING COMPANY; F&V RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
INC.; and any unknown, yet to be discovered liable persons or
entities, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00186 (W.D. Mich., March 2,
2022) is a civil action asserting claims under federal and state
law alleging violations of equal protection, due process, disparate
treatment, willful neglect of duty, gross negligence, assault,
battery, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The class action complaint is brought on behalf of approximately
ten thousand Michigan citizens, residents of the City of Benton
Harbor, whom from at least 2018 to the present, have experienced
and will continue to experience, human rights violations,
irreparable bodily injury, deteriorative property damage,
consistent assaults, mental anguish, and emotional distress due to
the presence and ingestion of toxic lead contaminants in their tap
water. The Class asserts that these violations of their unalienable
human and constitutional rights were caused by the Defendants'
unconstitutional, deliberate misconduct and nonfeasance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is an independent executive
agency of the United States federal government tasked with
environmental protection matters.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Beason III, Esq.
          THE J.R. BEASON FIRM PLLC
          853 McAlister St.
          Benton Harbor, MI 49022
          Telephone: (269) 213-1426
          E-mail: JRBeason3@TheJRBeasonFirm.com

UNWASH LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unwash, LLC. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Unwash, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01790
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Unwash -- https://unwash.com/ -- is the best alternative to shampoo
and the first Professional Co-Washing System.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


US STEEL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over IPO Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2022, that it is
accused of violating federal securities laws in making false
statements and/or failing to discover and disclose material
information regarding the financial condition of the company. The
company, certain current and former officers, an upper-level
manager of US Steel and the financial underwriters who participated
in the August 2016 secondary public offering of the company's
common stock were named in the complaint.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania consolidating previously filed actions.
Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were
allegedly sustained.

The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims.
On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the
plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to
the 2016 secondary offering. As a result, the underwriters are no
longer parties to the case.

On December 31, 2019, said court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the proceeding as a class action. The company's appeal of
that decision has been denied by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
and the class has been notified. Discovery has concluded and the
company and individual defendants continue vigorously defending the
remaining claims.

United States Steel Corporation is into raw steel production based
in Pennsylvania.


VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Bondholders Encouraged to Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ch-aviation reports that former Virgin Australia Holdings
bondholders have been encouraged to join a class action lawsuit
against the Virgin Australia parent's senior executives at the
Federal Court of Australia in Sydney over the losses they suffered
when the company was sold to Bain Capital in 2020.

Unsecured creditors, including bondholders, voted in September 2020
to accept a return of just 9% to 13% on their claims - claims which
totalled about AUD7 billion Australian dollars (USD5 billion). A
minority of shareholders lodged a plea to halt the deal, but the
federal court in Sydney denied this and the sale went ahead in
November of that year.

Now, however, London-based Balance Legal Capital, which describes
its business as "promoting access to justice by supporting
litigants who do not have the means or the capability to fund
worthy litigation," has pledged to fund the lawsuit. It will be led
by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, an Australian law firm that previously
provided advice to bondholders when Virgin headed into voluntary
administration in April 2020.

Balance Legal Capital said in a notice on its website that anyone
who had acquired unsecured notes in a Virgin Australia bond issue
whose prospectus was released in November 2019 is eligible to take
part in the class action suit.

"The claims of the class action include that Virgin Australia
Holdings Limited failed to properly and adequately disclose its
true financial position (in particular, its cash reserves and
available finance) in the prospectus, relating to an offer by it in
the prospectus to issue unsecured notes to raise approximately
AUD325 million" (USD236 million), the notice said.

Virgin Australia Holdings had described the 2019 capital raising as
being designed to fund its AUD700 million (USD508 million)
acquisition of the Velocity frequent flyer program. Investors were
invited to purchase unsecured notes with a minimum outlay of
AUD5,000 (USD3,600).

The prospectus showed that the company had suffered losses over the
previous three financial years but outlined how it planned to
return to profitability through cost-cutting and restructuring.
Within six months, the carrier filed for administration to deal
with its AUD7 billion debt pile.

Virgin Australia did not immediately respond to ch-aviation's
request for comment. [GN]

WALGREEN CO: Court Reconsiders Summary Judgment in Washtenaw Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO., GREGORY D. WASSON, and WADE MIQUELON,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Walgreens' partial motion for
reconsideration.

I. Introduction

Lead Plaintiff Industriens Pensionforsikring, A/S brought the
shareholder class action lawsuit against Defendants Walgreen Co.
("Walgreens"), former Walgreens CEO Gregory D. Wasson, and former
Walgreens CFO Wade Miquelon for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On Nov. 2, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
parties' summary judgment motions brought pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(a). The Court presumes familiarity with that
ruling. Before the Court is Walgreens' partial motion for
reconsideration.

II. Background

At issue in the lawsuit are Walgreens' statements concerning the
influence of generic drug price inflation and reimbursement
expenses on Walgreens' long-range financial goals for fiscal year
2016 ("FY16") in the context of Walgreens merger with Boots
Alliance GmbH ("Alliance"). The Plaintiff specifically asserts that
during the time period from March 25, 2014 until Aug. 5, 2014,
Walgreens made certain public statements in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b).

The focus of the present motion for reconsideration is Walgreens'
former CFO Wade Miquelon's May 2014 forward-looking statements.
Specifically, on May 14-15, 2014, Miquelon made statements during
investor meetings hosted by Goldman Sachs.

On May 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs issued an analyst report regarding
the May 2014 meetings: "During our meetings, Wade Miquelon, CFO,
highlighted that WAG Walgreens is tracking on or ahead of plan for
each of its five FY16 financial targets with the lone exception of
adj. EBIT. That said, management believes this target remains
achievable and sees further upside beyond FY16 by leveraging a
global footprint, expanding in growth markets, and bringing
Alliance's best practices to the U.S."

III. Discussion

At summary judgment, Walgreens argued that its forward-looking
statements were not actionable due to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") safe harbor provision. As the
Court discussed in its November 2021 ruling, "securities laws
encourage companies to make public predictions of future
performance to assist investors in estimating a firm's future
value."  "For that reason, the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act exempts certain forward-looking statements from liability.

In the November 2021 ruling, the Court conflated the two safe
harbor prongs concluding that there was a triable issue of fact
whether Walgreens or Miquelon knew it could not attain the FY16
target for adjusted earnings before interest and taxes ("EBIT")
goal at the time the statements were made in mid-May 2014. It its
motion for reconsideration, Walgreens maintains that the Court
erred by conflating the two safe harbor prongs and should have
applied the first prong where Miquelon's actual knowledge is
irrelevant.

Judge Coleman agrees. She explains that the challenged
forward-looking statement is that Miquelon believed the FY16 EBIT
goal remained achievable in May 2014. Examining the statement under
the safe harbor cautionary language prong, she can consider
statements made in SEC filings to determine whether the statements
were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Judge Coleman
thus turns to the cautionary language in Walgreens' 10-K annual
statement from 2013 and its 2014 10-Qs, including the March 27,
2014 second quarter 10-Q, in regard to the FY16 EBIT goal.

The identified risk factors in these SEC filings include: (1)
reductions in third-party reimbursement levels; (2) the continued
efforts by-third party payers to reduce prescription drug costs and
pharmacy reimbursement rates; (3) that the anticipated strategic
and financial benefits of the Alliance merger may not be realized;
and (4) changes in pharmaceutical manufacturers' pricing.

In short, the public statements in the relevant SEC filings explain
that the principal risks concerning drug pricing changes and
reimbursement pressures. These cautionary statements place
Miquelon's May 14-15 forward-looking remarks within the PSLRA's
safe harbor provision. Judge Coleman will therefore grant
Walgreens' motion for reconsideration. Miquelon's May 2014
forward-looking statements are not actionable.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coleman, in her discretion,
granted Walgreens' motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 2, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8f3xrs from
Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Set to Rule on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Webber Sadovi, writing for CFODive, reports that a federal
judge is poised to rule on Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss a suit
that alleges the bank routinely made risky commercial real estate
loans using improperly inflated underwriting metrics in the years
leading up to and into the pandemic that left the company and its
shareholders vulnerable to losses in 2020.

The suit spotlights the minefield that CFOs and financial
executives have navigated as they grappled with soaring real estate
losses early in the pandemic amid broader scrutiny of mortgage
underwriting practices. It also comes as an unrelated civil
investigation is proceeding into allegations that the Trump
Organization inflated property values to secure favorable terms on
loans it was applying for or trying to modify.

The pleading alleges Wells Fargo had loose underwriting practices
that were part of a strategy designed to win borrowers and grow its
commercial real estate business, according to an amended complaint
filed Aug. 31. At the same time, the class action alleges the
practices contradicted assurances from bank executives that it used
conservative and disciplined underwriting standards.

Instead, the suit alleges, "Wells Fargo was . . . sitting on a time
bomb. Its commercial loan portfolio might have passed under the
radar when times were good. But when the coronavirus pandemic hit,
that market stress brought out the pre-existing risks in Wells
Fargo's commercial loans."

Wells Fargo's stock fell as that "previously unknown level of risk
led to enormous losses in its commercial lending business over the
course of 2020," the suit says. The bank took a $2.4 billion loss
in the second quarter of 2020, its first quarterly loss since the
end of 2008. During 2020 Wells Fargo shares declined from the $40
area in January to the low teens in September before rising back up
to the $30 area by year-end.

The litigation is proceeding as the bank has regained its financial
footing. In Q4, profit soared 86% as the company reported an $875
million decrease in the allowance for credit losses, marking the
fifth consecutive quarter Wells Fargo has reduced the financial
safety net it established in the COVID-19 pandemic's more uncertain
days.

Whistleblower
The amended and consolidated complaint draws heavily from the
analysis of John Flynn, a veteran of Moody's, Fitch and GMAC
Commercial Mortgage, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the
SEC in 2019 that also alleged a pervasive problem of lenders and
commercial mortgage backed securities issuers, including Wells
Fargo, regularly altering financial data for commercial properties
to make them appear more valuable. An SEC spokesperson declined to
confirm or comment on the whistleblower complaint.

The suit states Flynn found that Wells "was able to make loans to
borrowers that would not have otherwise qualified based on their
financial performance" by inflating properties' historical net
operating income and net cash flow above the levels shown for the
same years by loan servicers. NCF and NOI are key metrics that
reflect the funds available to a borrower to repay loans,

The suit also detailed a study by John Griffin, a professor at the
University of Texas, who analyzed Flynn's findings based on loan
level data for 39,522 loans in pools of commercial mortgage-backed
securities that were underwritten between Jan. 1, 2013, through
2019. When looking at Wells Fargo loans he found that more than 30%
of commercial loans the bank originated had net operating income
that was inflated.

Opportunistic litigation
In an emailed statement, Wells Fargo said, "We believe the claims
are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves."

The consolidated class action lawsuit, filed against Wells Fargo on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Wells stock between Oct. 13,
2017, and Oct. 13, 2020, also names six present or former Wells
officers as defendants, including former CEO Timothy Sloan and
former CFO John Shrewsberry.

In the bank's motion to dismiss the suit with prejudice, Wells
Fargo calling it an "opportunistic" lawsuit that seeks to turn the
unfortunate events of the global COVID-19 pandemic into a
"litigation windfall." Lawyers for Wells Fargo disputed the suit's
allegations, attacking its reliance on "hearsay" in articles,
including a May 2020 ProPublica piece on the nonpublic
whistleblower complaint.

The motion, filed on Oct. 12, also stated it is standard industry
practice for underwriters to adjust a property's cash flow and
other figures and for them not to be the same as those reported by
the borrower to loan servicers. "Underwriters are allowed to,
indeed are supposed to, adjust historical NOI to filter out
non-recurring items and other anomalies, and provide an estimate of
a property's sustainable cash flow over the life of the loan."

It also argued against the allegation that some of the executives
violated federal securities laws when they stated the company had
exercised credit discipline. "Credit discipline is an
unquantifiable, vague term upon which no reasonable investor would
rely when assessing an investment in Wells Fargo stock," the filing
states. It asserts that statements about credit discipline and
quality are not actionable.

Attorneys for Wells Fargo and the lead class and plaintiff, the
Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii did not respond
to requests for comment. [GN]

WHITEFISH, MT: Faces Beck Suit Over Unfair Charging of Impact Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF BECK; ROBERT ODENWELLER; TERRI ODENWELLER; AMY WEINBERG; ZAC
WEINBERG; ALTA VIEWS, LLC; and RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY
OF WHITEFISH, Case 9:22-cv-00044-DLC-KLD (D. Mont., Feb. 24, 2022)
is an action against the Defendant for charging unreasonable,
unlawful, and unconstitutional impact fees on new development,
remodels, and renovations for water and wastewater services in the
City of Whitefish.

According to the complaint, in the City of Whitefish, a building
permit is required before certain development can take place on
private property within city limits. The Plaintiffs are all private
property owners and building permit applicants in the City of
Whitefish who, at some point after January 1, 2019, were charged
unreasonable, unlawful, and unconstitutional impact fees for water
and wastewater services by the Defendant as a condition for the
issuance of their respective building permits, says the suit.

The Defendant has unlawfully inflated impact fee rates and
overcharged for new development, remodels, and renovations in the
City of Whitefish in a number of ways.

CITY OF WHITEFISH is a resort town in the Rocky Mountains of
northwest Montana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory R. Laird, Esq.
          Lindsay A. Mullineaux, Esq.
          LAIRD COWLEY, PLLC
          2315 McDonald Avenue, Suite 220
          Missoula, MT 59801
          Missoula, MT 59806-4066
          Telephone: (406) 541-7400
          Facsimile: (406) 541-7414
          Email: claird@lairdcowley.com
                 lmullineaux@lairdcowley.com

               -and-

          Mark M. Kovacich, Esq.
          Ben A. Snipes, Esq.
          ODEGAARD KOVACICH SNIPES, PC
          P.O. Box 2325
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone:  (406) 761-5595
          Facsimile:  (406) 406-259-3232
          Email: mark@mtlawyers.com
                 ben@mtlawyers.com

WHITEY BOARD: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitey Board Company.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whitey Board Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-01794 Writey makes dry erase products from whiteboards to
paint, desks and accessories (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Writey -- https://writeyboards.com/ -- makes dry erase products
from whiteboards to paint, desks and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLESALE ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Benoit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNELL BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLESALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY OF
HOUSTON, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00596 (S.D.Tex., Feb. 24, 2022) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Benoit was employed by the Defendant as sales
representative.

WHOLESALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY OF HOUSTON, INC. distributes
electrical products. The Company serves automation, electrical
contractor, commercial, and heavy industrial markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Philip Bohrer, Esq.
         Scott E. Brady, Esq.
         BOHRER BRADY, LLC
         8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Telephone No: (225) 925-5297
         Facsimile No: (225) 231-7000
         E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com

WINSTON WEAVER: Faces Class Action Over Fertilizer Plant Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Johnson, writing for Triad Business Journal, reports that
the Winston Weaver Co. is facing a class-action lawsuit over the
fire that broke out at its fertilizer plant on Jan. 31, disrupting
a section of Winston-Salem for almost a week. This is the third
lawsuit filed against the company since the fire. [GN]

ZACHXBT: NFT Scam Promoters May Face Class Action After Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arman Shirinyan, writing for U Today, reports that cryptocurrency
and blockchain sleuth zachxbt, who previously found out the real
identity of the co-founder of WonderlandDAO, has shared
instructions on how not to get into scammy NFT projects that are
filling the industry and added that crypto influencers promoting
scams could face a class action lawsuit following the Bitconnect
case.

The main basis of a class-action lawsuit would be the fact that
most crypto and NFT influencers are not adding any disclaimers to
their posts, hence promoting various projects as investment
opportunities or their own businesses.

According to U.S. laws, individuals can promote or offer investment
opportunities, especially since the majority of promoted projects
tend to rugpull on their users, steal their funds and drop further
development after collecting funds.

In the perfect scenario, influencers must disclose that they have a
financial or personal connection to the project. The absence of
such a disclosure is considered illegal in a lot of countries,
according to zachxbt.

Unfortunately, there were no large cases in the practice of the
U.S. or European courts regarding the illegal promotion of NFT
projects that later rugpulled on their users or completely dropped
the development of the ecosystem.

In the end, zachxbt added that giveaways in exchange for a
whitelist or the right to buy tokens are also among the many ways
NFT influencers attract users to shady projects that will most
likely rugpull later on and cause massive losses for early
investors. For taking all of the above mentioned actions, both
influencers and project owners could be held liable. [GN]

ZARO BAKE SHOP: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zaro Bake Shop, Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Zaro Bake Shop, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01224 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2022).

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

Zaro Bake Shop, Inc. -- https://www.zaro.com/ -- operates as a
bakery. The Company offers bread and rolls, cakes, pies, and other
perishable bakery products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


[*] 4th Circuit Reverses in Part Lower Court Ruling in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that a Maryland district court erred by granting
a motion to dismiss a claim filed by a borrower who argued his
servicer should have ceased providing adverse information about his
mortgage loan after receiving a qualified written request alleging
a servicing mistake. That's according to a Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals panel, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the
lower court's decision in a class action suit. [GN]

[*] Buy Now Pay Later Companies Face Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that did you incur excessive fees such as
overdraft fees or insufficient funds after using Buy Now Pay Later
services, such as Affirm, Afterpay, or Klarna? If so, you may have
a legal claim.

Buy now pay later companies market their services as a way for
consumers to purchase items they need now with the ability to pay
later without incurring interest or fees. However, some consumers
say they were deceived by the buy now pay later terms and faced
undisclosed fees and interest.

Afterpay, Klarna, and Affirm are three buy now pay later companies
that have already faced class action lawsuits in recent years for
allegedly charging consumers undisclosed fees for using their
services. The plaintiffs alleged that these buy now pay later apps
offer deceptive payment plans that leave consumers unaware that
they will be charged fees and interest.

As a result, consumers who used the apps have incurred NSF,
overdraft, and other fees after using buy now pay later apps.

Do You Qualify?
If you incurred NSF, overdraft, or other fees after using one of
the following buy now pay later services, you may qualify to join a
free class action lawsuit investigation:

Klarna
Afterpay
Affirm
PayPal in 4
Sezzle
Splitit
Zip
Other services

A buy now pay later app class action lawsuit is one way to hold
companies accountable for deceiving consumers and potentially
obtain compensation for the unexpected fees you paid.

What is a Buy Now Pay Later App?
Some companies such as Klarna, Afterpay, Affirm, Sezzle, and Zip
offer consumers the opportunity to pay for purchases at a later
date without interest or fees.

However, these buy now pay later apps allegedly fail to disclose
that many cash-strapped users may end up paying significant fees
and interest, including NSF and overdraft fees.

Buy now pay later apps allow consumers to pay for purchases in
installments. Many consumers are drawn to these apps because they
are marketed as an alternative to risky credit cards and payday
loans.

Unfortunately, many consumers are unaware of the high interest
rates allegedly charged by many buy now pay later companies.

Buy Now Pay Later Class Action Lawsuits
Consumers who were allegedly duped by buy now pay later app
promises have decided to take legal action against the companies.

An Afterpay class action lawsuit alleges the buy now pay later
company targets young and poor consumers, duping them into
believing they will not be charged interest or fees. This
population is particularly vulnerable to overdrawing their bank
accounts, the plaintiff alleges.

However, Afterpay allegedly fails to notify consumers that they may
face NSF or overdraft fees when it automatically deducts money from
their bank accounts, the Afterpay class action lawsuit alleges.

Klarna faces similar allegations that it targets poor consumers who
live paycheck to paycheck. The Klarna class action lawsuit alleges
that the company makes repeated deductions from consumers' bank
accounts which can cause them to face multiple overdraft fees.

The plaintiff asserts that Klarna should have known that the
consumers it targets were at risk of overdraft fees when using the
service.

Not only do consumers who use buy now pay later apps face the
potential of NSF and overdraft fees, but they may also be left out
to dry if they fail to return items they purchased with the apps.

An Affirm class action lawsuit claims the company fails to provide
refunds to consumers who return items, and consumers do not have
the ability to dispute the transaction as they would if they paid
with a credit card.

Join a Free Buy Now Pay Later Apps Class Action Lawsuit
Investigation
If you used one of the following buy now pay later apps and
incurred fees such as NSF or overdraft fees, you may have a legal
claim:

Klarna
Afterpay
Affirm
PayPal in 4
Sezzle
Splitit
Zip
Other Services

You may qualify to join a class action lawsuit investigation to
seek compensation for the fees and interest you paid. [GN]

[*] Florida's Revised TCPA to Pave Way for Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Moon of The Jacksonville Bar Association, in an article for
Jax Daily Record, reports that we've all sent text messages we
regret.

If you market goods and services to consumers in Florida, a newly
revised law may land your company in a lot more than hot water for
unwanted marketing texts and it could cost you big time.

More than 30 putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
consumer-facing entities in Florida courts since the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act gained teeth in July 2021.

The revised law has been dubbed Florida's "Mini TCPA," loosely
modeled after the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Despite its nickname, the FTSA is anything but mini and applies
more broadly (and, some say, more onerously) than its federal
counterpart.

Florida businesses should take steps now to ensure their terms,
conditions and messaging procedures fall in line with the new act
and reduce their class action exposure.

The revised FTSA places tighter boundaries on companies'
telemarketing to Florida consumers, creating new and burdensome
restrictions for all "telephonic sales calls" including text
messages placed using an automated system or recording.

The law now requires businesses to obtain prior express written
consent before making these calls to Florida residents and Florida
area codes.

A four-part definition of "prior express written consent" includes
the signature and phone number of the called party, clear
authorization and conspicuous disclaimers.

The law also dictates who companies can send messages to - only
those who have satisfied the strict consent requirements - and when
(8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) as well as how many messages a recipient can
receive in a certain time frame - not more than three messages in a
24-hour period to the same person on the same subject matter.

The requirements for companies to show consumers consented to these
messages have also have become more onerous, including strict
"opt-in" requirements and appropriate terms and conditions.

The penalty for failing to adhere to the FTSA includes uncapped
statutory damages at $500 per violation, potential treble damages
and attorneys' fees.

These damages are steep and particularly harsh given that marketers
typically send out hundreds or thousands of promotional messages in
today's digital marketing age.

This also makes these cases ripe for class action litigation, as
the first cases testing the FTSA have borne out.

Damages like this, including class action fee awards, can turn a
run-of-the-mill text campaign into bet-the-company litigation
overnight.

If you have clients who utilize text messages for marketing
consumer goods or services, they may be at risk under Florida's new
FTSA. The cases filed to date have run the gamut from large
consumer corporations with massive marketing campaigns to local
suppliers, medical offices and even restaurants.

Companies should take proactive steps to mitigate the risks posed
by the FTSA, such as:

   -- Review terms and conditions to ensure clear and conspicuous
disclosures and opt-in requirements.

   -- Obtain prior express written consent for all promotional
texts, calls and emails and keep a record of proper consent.

   -- Put in place systems to recognize and honor opt-out
requests.

   -- Require FTSA compliance by marketing vendors and employees,
including consideration of FTSA-related indemnification when using
third-party advertising and marketing services.

   -- Consider including a class action waiver in messaging terms
and conditions. [GN]


[*] Judge Jackson's Decisions in Business, Labor Cases Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for Insurance Journal,
report that The Associated Press reports that labor unions and
worker advocates have applauded President Joe Biden's nomination of
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court. Yet a look back
at Jackson's decisions in cases involving business and labor
suggest that she won't always rule as they want or expect her to.

Though Jackson is widely seen as a liberal on social and economic
issues and as a defender of workers' rights, her decisions, as a
federal district court judge and then as a federal appellate judge
since last year, defy easy categorization.

"She's as likely to rule for a corporation in a race discrimination
claim as she is for the plaintiff," said Ted Ruger, dean of the
University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, who served with
Jackson on the Harvard Law Review during law school. "Like any
judge who follows the law and listens to the evidence in the case,
she may disappoint some who always want a predictably liberal
outcome."

Out of 40 employment and business-related rulings reviewed by The
Associated Press, Jackson ruled for the defendants 30 times since
2013 while serving as a judge on the U.S. District Court in
Washington. Many of the cases involved discrimination claims that
employees had filed against government agencies. And they hinged
largely on interpretations of arcane provisions of employment
laws.

In one of her private-sector cases, Jackson ruled that a Lyft
ride-sharing driver had agreed to the company's terms of service
when she signed up with the company, and therefore had to pursue
arbitration to settle a dispute, rather than a class-action
lawsuit. The driver had claimed that she and others were Lyft
employees who were protected by a law in the District of Columbia
that entitled them to paid sick leave.

In the view of Ruger, Jackson tends to closely follow procedural
law, even when doing so might erect barriers for employees who want
to make claims against companies or governments.

In one representative case from 2017, two Black employees of
Lockheed Martin had alleged racial discrimination in the company's
performance appraisal system. The employees asked Jackson to
certify a class-action lawsuit against the defense contractor on
behalf of themselves and roughly 5,500 salaried Black employees.

Jackson declined. In her ruling, which relied heavily on a 2011
Supreme Court decision that rejected a class action against
Walmart, Jackson found that the employees had failed to explain how
the company's performance appraisal system discriminated against
Black workers. She concluded that they also failed to prove that
the performance appraisal system discriminated against Black
workers in the same way -- a standard that would be required for a
class action.

"Two anecdotes in a class of over 5,500 almost certainly do not
constitute `substantial proof' that any commonalities between them
are pervasive throughout the class," Jackson wrote.

Yet the ruling wasn't exactly a victory for Lockheed Martin.
Jackson questioned the adequacy of the company's proposed $22.8
million settlement fund, saying it was unclear exactly what claims
other employees might bring against the company. The judge also
noted that class members who didn't respond to the settlement
notice -- not just those who opted out -- would be ineligible to
receive compensation from the fund.

"This settlement agreement," Jackson wrote, "effectively allows
Lockheed to inoculate itself against any and all race
discrimination and race-related benefits claims by a huge swath of
its African-American employees for a price that hardly seems
adequate."

The two employees eventually reached a settlement agreement with
Lockheed Martin.

Lia Epperson, a constitutional law professor at American
University's Washington College of Law, noted that much of the work
done by a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Columbia
involves cases against the government, and she said Jackson showed
fairness to administrations of both parties. In different criminal
cases, Epperson suggested, Jackson has ruled for both prosecutors
and defendants.

"She has a reputation of fairness and impartiality, and she seems
to be guided by fidelity to fact and law," said Epperson, who knows
Jackson from the years when they crossed paths as Harvard
undergraduates.

In her first opinion as a federal appeals court judge, a position
to which Jackson was confirmed last year, she ruled against
President Donald Trump in a case praised by labor unions.

In 2019, the U.S. education and agriculture departments had asked
the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees federal labor
agreements, to adopt a new threshold for when collective bargaining
would be required. In September 2020, the authority required
bargaining only if a workplace change had a "substantial impact on
a condition of employment."

Employee unions sued, saying the new standard diminished their
bargaining rights. Since the mid-1980s, the labor authority had
required bargaining in cases where there had been more than a
minimal change in working conditions.

In a victory for the unions, Jackson ruled that the decision to
override 35 years of precedent was "arbitrary and capricious." She
also questioned whether the change would solve the problems the
agency had claimed it was trying to fix.

"As a former public defender, she has deep experience representing
people who are too often denied access to equal justice, a
perspective that has been missing from the Supreme Court since
Justice Thurgood Marshall retired 30 years ago," Mary Kay Henry,
president of the Service Employees International Union, the
nation's second-largest labor union.

But Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a
Washington group that promotes conservative judicial nominees and
limited government, argued that the case was an example of Jackson
having reflexively ruled against the Trump administration. When
Levey studied her record before she was confirmed for the appellate
court, he said, "she seemed hostile to the Trump administration."

Her ruling in the case, Levey said, applied the Administrative
Procedures Act in a way that was "less deferential to the
administration" than what the Supreme Court has specified in
previous cases.

Refusing to certify the class of plaintiffs in the Lockheed Martin
case, though, Levey said, could be a "good sign that perhaps she is
not an ideologue in general." [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***