---

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

              Tuesday, March 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 57

                            Headlines

ADVANCED STERILIZATION: Faces Cagonot Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal.
AETNA LIFE: Curtis Wins Leave to Amend Class Complaint Under ERISA
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of May 13 Deadline

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 13 Deadline
ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of New York Securities Suit Upheld
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suits Over Generic Drug Ongoing
ANGLO AMERICAN: Evidence Filed in Lead Poisoning Class Action

ANTHEM CO: Baker Seeks to Certify Medical Management Nurse Class
APPLE INC: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought in Tabak Suit
APPLE INC: Judge Tosses MacBook Screen Defect Class Action Suit
APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Wet Airpods
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Pending in MD

ASARCO LLC: Contreras Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in ERISA Suit
BANKERS TRUST: Plutzer Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
BANNER LIFE: Approval of Class Settlement in Dickman Suit Affirmed
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Gordon Claims
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid

BT'S ON THE RIVER: Bennett Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
C3.AI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of May 3 Deadline
C3.AI INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Bell Suit Over Illegal Egg Price-Gouging
CALIFORNIA: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Oroville Dam Cases Upheld

CANADA: Union Supports Indigenous Bureaucrats' Class Action
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Bennett Jones Discusses Labor Suit Class Ruling
CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Junks Bare Class Action
CARROLL FLATS: Underpays Maintenance Personnel, Gomez Suit Claims
CERTIFIED AUTOMOTIVE: Maldonado Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

CHERISHED COMPANIONS: Brown Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
CHICAGO, IL: Judge Okays Class Action Over Crosswalks for Blind
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
COCA-COLA: Settlement in Jones Suit Gets Initial Approval
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: NJ Court Junks Consolidated Suit

COINBASE GLOBAL: Suit Says Tokens Are Unregistered Securities
COLDWATER, MI: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Utility Rates
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Padilla Shareholder Suit Pending in TN Court
CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Rain Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 6
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Brown Class Suit
CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CSX CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit in DC Court
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Johnson Suit Says
DELAWARE NORTH: Cyiark Loses Bid to Extend Class Status Deadline

DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Conduct
DOCMJ: Final Approval Hearing of TCPA Settlement Set on Aug. 12
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to May 9
DXD SOLUTIONS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EAT DRINK: Conditional Class Status Granted in Swan-Sullivan

ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRIC LAST: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 4 Deadline
EMBASSY SUITES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 30
ENSEA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENTERGY CORP: Stewart Class Suit Remanded to State Court

ENVIGO GLOBAL: Greenwell Labor Suit Ongoing
ERNST & YOUNG: German Court Opens Class-Action Style Proceedings
FALCON MINERALS: Allen Files Suit Over DPM Merger
FCA US: Kundrath Files Suit in N.D. California
FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Appeals Summary Judgment in CVT Defect Suit

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in MPM Suit
FERGUSON, MO: Fant to Seeks to Certify Classes
FIFTH THIRD: Settles Telemarketing Class Action for $50 Million
FLAVCITY CORP: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Paint

GEORGIA POWER: Plaintiffs File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
GHAZI ASSOCIATES: Javed Sues Over Counter Employees' Unpaid Wages
GIORGIO ARMANI: Brooks' Class Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: First Amended Case Management Sched Order Entered
GOOGLE LLC: Court Asks Help to Depose Martin Sramek in Calhoun Suit

GOOSELINGS LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREENBISCUIT LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GUARDLAB INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GXO LOGISTICS: Carlos Suit Removed to C.D. California
HAUTE BABY: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HELBIZ INC: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit
INGAMIA INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INT'L PAPER: Loses Bid to Revisit Ruling on Slocum's Bid to Compel
IOVATE HEALTH: Stipulation to Vacate Trial Related Deadlines OK'd
ISABEL GARRETON: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Coleman Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Party
KELLER WILLIAMS: Seeks Oral Argument on St. John Class Cert Bid
KELLOGG SALES: Court Tosses Strawberry Pop-Tarts Class Action
KRISPY KRUNCHY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

L'OREAL USA: Kukovec Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
LEDUC, AB: Two Women File Sexual Harassment Class Suit in Alberta
LEVI CAMPBELL: Court Tosses Saunder's Class Certification Bid
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 4th Amended Calendar Order Entered in Middleton
LINEQUEST LLC: Mondeck Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid

LIVELY ROOT: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOGAN CENTERS: Underpays Behavioral Health Staff, Depriest Claims
LOUISIANA: Judicial Cir. Judges Settle Suit Over Prisoners' Bail
MADISON COUNTY, IN: Jail Class Action Hearing Scheduled for May
MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Ruling Boosts Minor League Players' Wage Suit

MARTIN SPORTS: Douglas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
MASIMO CORP: Faces Suit Over Violation of Junk Fax Protection Act
MATERION CORP: Lucyk Labor Suit Ongoing in Ohio
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Phase IB Discovery Deadlines Extended in Bodor
MEDICAL REVIEW: Thornton Files Suit in D. Utah

MEDLEY INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICHIGAN: AOD Parishes, Schools Among Class Action Plaintiffs
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue in J&M Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Shor FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Class Cert Response Extended to April 29

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Joint Bid to Extend Case Deadlines Tossed
NEW BALANCE: Faces Class Actions Over "Made in the USA" Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Dickson Suit Claims
NISSAN NORTH: Deal on Briefing Schedule in Lux Global Suit Approved
NISSAN NORTH: Hays Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement

OBI SEAFOODS: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought in Paunovic
PANDA EXPRESS: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PDR NETWORK: Carlton & Harris Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
PEOPLES GAS: First Class Action Filed Over Alleged Methane Leak
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Colorado Court Tosses Securities Class Action

PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Parks Suit Stayed Pending Resolution in Housey
PROPEL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Guasto Suit Says
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Behfarin Insurance Suit Dismissed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Lifts Stay on Moreland Class Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Shareholder Suit Ongoing
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Flavor Labeling
R&L CARRIERS: Faces Class Action Over Ohio Creek Fuel Spill
RAZORS EDGE: Hoover Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
REALPAGE INCORPORATED: Graham FCRA Suit Removed to D. Arizona

RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Moved From Washington to Florida
SJW SUSH CORP: Encarnacion Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
SLEEPY'S LLC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hargrove Suit
SNIPER'S EDGE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOFT PRETZEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SOUTHERN ALUMINUM: Class Settlement in Webb Suit Has Court Approval
SPARKART GROUP: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ST SP LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates File Class Action Over Alleged Torture
STANZEL INC: Kelley Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages

STICKY BE APPARELS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUTTER HEALTH: Receives Jury Support in Antitrust Class Action
TASTY HUT: Chapman Files ADA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
TENNESSEE-AMERICAN WATER: Bruce Suit Over Pipe Mishap Pending
TONY'S STEAKS: Faces Wage and Tip Theft Class Action Lawsuit

TRADE DESK: Faces Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
TWITTER INC: Dismissed Securities Suit Currently on Appeal
TWITTER INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Claims Investigation
TWITTER INC: Settlement Deal in Shareholder Suit Awaits Final Nod
TWITTER INC: Suit vs CEO Stayed Pending Investigation of Claims

UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Voluntary Separation Leave Program
UNITED HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Dismisses CIGNA's Appeal in MCAG Suit
UNITED SERVICES: Collects Excessive Premiums, Bergeson Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Casa Libre Sues Over Refusal to Approve Applications
UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Keeps Drivers' Escrow Money, Pulido Suit Says

UPS SUPPLY: Faces Powell Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
UTILITY TRAILER: Suit Balks at Employees' Personal Info Disclosure
VANGUARD GROUP: Retirement Fund Account Holders File Class Action
VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: Lidocaine Products Falsely Labeled, Jones Says
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Reyes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California

VOLKSWAGEN AG: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mucha's Amended Suit
WARNERMEDIA STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over VPPA Violations
WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN : Jeffries Suit Over Pipe Mishap Pending
WET PRODUCTS: Faces Gruber Suit Over Mislabeled Water Balloons
XPO LOGISTICS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed

XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Shareholder Suit Under Appeal
ZEAL NATURALS: Hayes Files False Ad Suit Over Health Supplement

                            *********

ADVANCED STERILIZATION: Faces Cagonot Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORRIS CAGONOT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED STERILIZATION PRODUCTS, INC.,
ADVANCED STERILIZATION PRODUCTS SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV008549 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., March 17, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
all wages due, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a field service
engineer in March 2015.

Advanced Sterilization Products, Inc. is a medical equipment
manufacturer, headquartered in Irvine, California.

Advanced Sterilization Products Services, Inc. is a medical devices
company based in Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robin G. Workman, Esq.
         WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
         2325 3rd Street, Suite 329
         San Francisco, CA 94107
         Telephone: (415) 782-3660
         Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
         E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com

AETNA LIFE: Curtis Wins Leave to Amend Class Complaint Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS E. CURTIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01579 (D. Conn.), Judge
Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend
judgment and for leave to amend his complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiff Curtis, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, brings the action against Aetna alleging that
Aetna has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., by failing to
administer Curtis's and the putative class members' claims for
benefits under their ERISA group medical benefits plans in
accordance with the plans' provisions. Specifically, Curtis alleges
that Aetna has violated ERISA by denying benefits to plan members
based upon definitions of "medically necessary" contained in a
series of internal Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletins that are not a
part of, or incorporated in, any of the ERISA plans and that limit,
to plan members' detriment, the plans' definition of "medically
necessary."

Aetna filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, which Judge Shea granted. Curtis now seeks to
amend, alter, or vacate the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) or 60(b) and for leave to amend his complaint pursuant to
Rule 15(a).

Mr. Curtis proposes to add the following four paragraphs to his
Amended Complaint:

     Paragprah 36A. The Yale Plan provides that Eligible Health
Services include short-term rehabilitation services, including
physical therapy services, when such services:

          a. help the patient restore or develop skills and
function for daily living;

          b. are prescribed by a physician;

          c. are performed by a licensed or certified physical
therapist;

          d. follow a specific treatment plan; and

          e. are expected to significantly improve or restore
physical functions lost as a result of an acute illness, injury or
surgical procedure.

     Paragraph 36B. The physical therapy services for which Mr.
Curtis has been denied coverage were Eligible Health Services under
the Yale Plan's provision conferring benefits for short-term
rehabilitation services in that: (a) the services were prescribed
by plaintiff's physicians to help plaintiff restore or develop
skills and function for daily living; (b) the services were
performed by a certified physical therapist and followed a specific
treatment plan; (c) the services were prescribed by plaintiff's
physicians with the expectation that they would significantly
improve physical functions lost as a result of an acute illness,
injury or surgical procedure and would, had such services been
provided, result in significant improvement of such physical
functions; and (d) the services were prescribed by plaintiff's
physicians with the expectation that they would restore physical
functions lost as a result of an acute illness, injury or surgical
procedure, and would, had such services been provided, result in
restoration of such physical functions.

     Paragraph 36C. The Yale Plan provides that Eligible Health
Services include habilitation therapy services, including physical
therapy services, when such services:

          a. help the patient keep, learn, or improve skills and
functioning for daily living;

          b. are prescribed by a physician;

          c. are performed by a licensed or certified physical
therapist;

          d. follow a specific treatment plan; and

          e. are expected to develop any impaired function.

     Paragraph 36D. The physical therapy services for which Mr.
Curtis has been denied coverage were Eligible Health Services under
the Yale Plan's provision conferring benefits for habilitation
therapy services in that: (a) the services were prescribed by
plaintiff's physicians to help plaintiff keep, learn, or improve
skills and functioning for daily living; (b) the services were
performed by a certified physical therapist and followed a specific
treatment plan; and (c) the services were prescribed by plaintiff's
physicians with the expectation that they would develop one or more
impaired functions and would, had such services been provided,
result in such development.

II. Discussion

A. Appropriate Legal Standard

Curtis argues that his motion is governed by the standards for
leave to amend under Rule 15 and that "the judgment may properly be
reopened without a showing that the traditional requirements of
Rules 59(e) or 60(b) have been met."

Judge Shea disagrees. He says the Second Circuit has made clear
that "a party seeking to file an amended complaint post-judgment
must first have the judgment vacated or set aside pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). When courts consider motions to amend in
the post-judgment context, courts must evaluate those motions "with
due regard to both the value of finality and the policies embodied
in Rule 15." And further, as the Second Circuit stated in dicta,
"it might be appropriate" for courts to consider "the nature of the
proposed amendment in deciding whether to vacate the previously
entered judgment."

But still, the inquiry into whether to vacate a judgment and the
inquiry into whether to grant leave to amend a complaint "are
distinct," and "a court need only consider whether the proposed
amendment would pass muster under Rule 15 once it has been
satisfied that vacatur of the judgment is appropriate." Judge Shea
holds that it would be contradictory to entertain a motion to amend
the complaint without a valid basis to vacate the previously
entered judgment. To hold otherwise would enable the liberal
amendment policy of Rule 15(a) to be employed in a way that is
contrary to the philosophy favoring finality of judgments and the
expeditious termination of litigation.

B. Rule 59(e)

Under Rule 59(e), a court may alter or amend a judgment "only when
the [movant] identifies an intervening change of controlling law,
the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v.
YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013)). "A Rule
59(e) motion `may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.'" 4 Pillar Dynasty LLC v. New York
& Co., Inc., 933 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Exxon
Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008)). The decision
of whether to grant a Rule 59(e) motion is "committed to the sound
discretion of the district judge."

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Shea granted the motion to alter or amend
judgment and for leave to amend the complaint. Within 14 days of
the Order, Curtis will file a Second Amended Complaint with the
allegations listed in the proposed amendment -- and no others --
and the parties will file a revised Rule 26(f) Report.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9heyrf from Leagle.com.


AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 15 disclosed that
purchasers of Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFRM) securities on
February 10, 2022 after Affirm sent a tweet concerning its second
quarter 2022 financial results at approximately 1:15 p.m. EST (the
"Class Period") have until April 29, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in Toole v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., No. 22-cv-01243
(N.D. Cal.). Commenced on February 28, 2022, the Affirm class
action lawsuit charges Affirm and its top executive officer with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Affirm class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Affirm class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 29,
2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform
for digital and mobile-first commerce." At approximately 1:15 p.m.
EST on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a tweet from its official
account in which Affirm disclosed certain metrics from its second
quarter 2022 financial results. The tweet, which was published
prior to Affirm's planned release of its financial results,
portrayed a highly successful quarter, which included an increase
in revenue of 77%.

As the Affirm class action lawsuit alleges, the tweet caused
Affirm's share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading. The
Affirm class action lawsuit further alleges that the tweet was
materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose the full
details of Affirm's second quarter financial results.

Affirm deleted the tweet and released its full second quarter
financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results
were lackluster - with Affirm posting a loss of $0.57 per share,
compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share. On news of
the deleted tweet and subsequent release of the full earnings,
Affirm's share price fell $24.89 per share from an intra-day high
of $83.57 per share to close at $58.68 per share on February 10,
2022, or approximately 32%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Affirm
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Affirm class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone - more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 29 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 Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Affirm Holdings,
Inc. ("Affirm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFRM) on February 10,
2022 after the Company sent a Tweet concerning its Second Quarter
2022 financial results at approximately 1:15 PM Eastern Standard
Time (EST) (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the shares of Affirm Holdings, 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 Affirm Holdings, Inc. you may, no
later than April 29, 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 Affirm Holdings,
Inc.

The filed Complaint alleges that on February 10, 2022, at
approximately 1:15 PM EST, the Company tweeted from its official
Twitter account, disclosing certain metrics from its Second Quarter
2022 financial results. The tweet, which was published prior to the
Company's planned release of its financial results, portrayed a
highly successful quarter, which included an increase in revenue of
77%. This caused the Company's share price to spike nearly 10% in
intra-day trading.

The tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of the Company's second quarter financial results.
The Company deleted the tweet and released its full second quarter
financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results
were lackluster - with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per
share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share. On
this news, the Company's share price plummeted from an intra-day
high of $83.57 per share to close at $58.68 per share.

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 [GN]

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of May 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on March 15
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
investors of Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. ("Akebia" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AKBA) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the
Company's securities between June 28, 2018 and September 2, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). To serve as lead plaintiff in this
class action, you must move the Court no later than May 13, 2022.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a substantial
loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead
plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by
email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone
number. Additionally, you can:

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/AkebiaTherapeuticsInc

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Akebia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of renal therapeutics for
patients with kidney diseases. The Company's lead investigational
product candidate is vadadustat, an oral therapy, which is in Phase
3 development for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney
disease ("CKD") in dialysis-dependent and non-dialysis dependent
("NDD") adult patients.

Akebia's Phase 3 clinical programs for vadadustat include, among
others, the PRO2TECT program in NDD-CKD patients with anemia (the
"PRO2TECT Program"). The PRO2TECT Program's primary safety endpoint
was defined as non-inferiority of vadadustat versus darbepoetin
alfa in time to the first occurrence of major adverse
cardiovascular events ("MACE").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) vadadustat was not as safe in treating NDD-CKD
patients with anemia as Defendants had represented; (ii) as a
result, Defendants overstated the PRO2TECT Program's clinical
prospects; (iii) accordingly, Defendants also overstated
vadadustat's overall commercial and regulatory prospects; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AKBA) between June 28, 2018 and September 2, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 13, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Akebia class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4028 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 13, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) vadadustat was not as safe in
treating NDD-CKD patients with anemia as Defendants had
represented; (2) as a result, Defendants overstated the PRO2TECT
Program's clinical prospects; (3) accordingly, Defendants also
overstated vadadustat's overall commercial and regulatory
prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

To join the Akebia class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4028 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

CONTACT:

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

ALKERMES PLC: Dismissal of New York Securities Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes Public Limited 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 14, 2022, that on
December 7, 2021, the Second Circuit issued a Summary Order
affirming a N.Y. District Court's Final Judgment and Order of a
putative class action against the company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The case captioned "Karimian v. Alkermes PLC, et al.," Case No.
1:18-cv-07410 and "McDermott v. Alkermes PLC, et al.," Case No.
1:19-cv-00624 was filed in December 2018 and January 2019
respectively. In March 2019, the EDNY District Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on July 9, 2019 naming one additional officer
of the Company and one former officer of the Company as defendants.
The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of July 31,
2014 through November 1, 2018 and alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions regarding the company's
clinical methodologies and regulatory submission for the drug "ALKS
5461" and the FDA's review and consideration of that submission.

In February 2021, the E.D.N.Y. District Court entered a final
judgment and order dismissing the action in its entirety. In March
2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal captioned "In re
Alkermes Public Limited Co. Securities Litig.," Case No. 21-801,
appealing the Final Judgment and Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 7, 2021, the Second
Circuit issued a Summary Order affirming the district court's Final
Judgment and Order.

Alkermes is a fully-integrated, global biopharmaceutical company
with a portfolio of proprietary commercial products focused on
alcohol dependence, opioid dependence, schizophrenia and bipolar I
disorder, and a pipeline of product candidates in development for
neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. Headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland, Alkermes has a research and development center in Waltham,
Massachusetts; an R&D and manufacturing facility in Athlone,
Ireland; and a manufacturing facility in Wilmington, Ohio.


AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Behavioral
Research Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. American Behavioral Research Institute, LLC
doing business as: Relaxium, Case No. 1:22-cv-02231 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2022).

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

American Behavioral Research Institute, LLC doing business as:
Relaxium -- https://www.relaxium.com/ -- is an all-natural sleep
aid, developed by a clinical neurologist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suits Over Generic Drug Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 16, 2022, that it is facing an anti-trust
litigation in the District of Delaware made up of four class action
suits over the drug Humira.

From March to May 2019, twelve purported class actions against
Amgen, along with AbbVie Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the Illinois Northern District Court). The cases are
captioned "UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al."
(March 18, 2019), "Local 1500 Fraternal Order of Police, Miami
Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al." (March 20,
2019), "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie Inc., et al."
(March 22, 2019), "Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al." (March 29, 2019), "St. Paul Electrical Workers'
Health Plan v. AbbVie Inc., et al." (March 29, 2019), "Welfare Plan
of the International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 137, 137A,
137B, 137C and 137R v. AbbVie Inc., et al." (April 1, 2019), "Law
Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. AbbVie, Inc., et al." (April
9, 2019), "Kentucky Laborers District Council Health and Welfare
Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al." (April 16, 2019), "Sheet Metal
Workers' Local Union No. 28 Welfare Fund v. AbbVie, Inc., et al."
(April 19, 2019) "Sheet Metal Workers' Locals 302 & 612 of The
International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction
Industry Health And Security Trust Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al."
(April 25, 2019),  "Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., d/b/a
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. v.
AbbVie Inc., et al." (April 30, 2019), and "Cleveland Bakers and
Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al." (May 10,
2019).

Plaintiffs bring federal antitrust claims along with various state
law claims under common law and antitrust, consumer protection and
unfair competition statutes. In each case, the plaintiffs
specifically allege that AbbVie has unlawfully monopolized the
alleged market for Humira and biosimilars of Humira, including by
creating an allegedly unlawful so-called patent thicket around
Humira. In the Local 1500, Sheet Metal Workers' and Construction
Industry cases, the plaintiffs further allege that AbbVie entered
into allegedly unlawful market division agreements with Amgen and
other companies that had developed Humira biosimilars, including
Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius), Pfizer
Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in connection with the
settlement of patent litigation relating to Humira, whereby Amgen
and the other defendants that have developed Humira biosimilars
were permitted to market those products in Europe as early as
October 2018, while remaining off the market in the United States
until 2023. In each of the Humira Antitrust Class Actions other
than the Local 1500 and Construction Industry cases, the plaintiffs
allege that AbbVie and Amgen entered into an allegedly unlawful
settlement agreement under which Amgen allegedly agreed to delay
its entry into the U.S. market with AMGEVITA, its Humira
biosimilar, in exchange for an alleged promise of exclusivity as
the sole Humira biosimilar in that market for five months,
beginning in January 2023. In each of the Humira Antitrust Class
Actions, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of a putative class of third-party payers
and/or consumers that have indirectly purchased, paid for or
provided reimbursement for Humira in the United States. Defendants'
responses to the first six complaints were stayed by the court. On
June 4, 2019, the Illinois Northern District Court entered an order
consolidating the twelve purported class action cases for pre-trial
purposes.

On August 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint, naming as defendants Amgen, along with AbbVie, Bioepis,
Sandoz and Fresenius. On October 11, 2019, the defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint (as well as
brief individual motions), challenging the legal sufficiency of the
plaintiffs' allegations to state any claim for relief under the
law. On November 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, defendants filed their
reply in support of the motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2020, the
Illinois Northern District Court issued an order granting the
motion by the defendants to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint. On June 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a status report
asking the Illinois Northern District Court to convert the
dismissal to one with prejudice. On June 30, 2020, the Illinois
Northern District Court granted the motion. On July 28, 2020, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On October 5, 2020, the
plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiffs-appellants amicus
briefs were filed in October 2020, including one by the FTC and one
on behalf of 20 states, each filed on October 13, 2020. On December
21, 2020, the defendants-appellees filed their opposition brief.
Defendants-appellees amicus briefs, including one by the DoJ, were
filed on December 28, 2020.

On February 25, 2021, oral argument was held by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the appeal by
plaintiffs-appellants of the lower court's dismissal of the
consolidated complaint with prejudice.

Amgen Inc. is a biotechnology company into human therapeutics.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Evidence Filed in Lead Poisoning Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Steyn, writing for Fin24, reports that human rights lawyers
have filed further evidence with the South Gauteng High Court in
Johannesburg to bolster their case against Anglo American, which
stands accused of causing widespread lead poisoning to communities
around the Kabwe mine, with devastating consequence for human
health.

The latest evidence filed by human rights law firms Mbuyisa Moleele
and Leigh Day, which includes reports from renowned medical and
environmental experts, shows there are high levels of lead in the
blood of thousands of children living in the vicinity of the Kabwe
mine, which has been ongoing for generations and will have caused
the cognitive impairment of a large proportion of the population.
It further lays much of the blame at the feet of Anglo American.

Kabwe is Zambia's oldest mine. The resource, which primarily
contains zinc and lead, was discovered in 1902 and reached
full-scale production in 1906. In 1974, the Zambia Consolidated
Copper Mines (ZCCM) assumed majority ownership and control of the
mine. The operation closed in 1994 after 88 years of continuous
production.

The law firms have approached the Johannesburg High Court for
permission to proceed with a class action in South Africa. The case
is brought on behalf of 100 000 community members who are believed
to have been poisoned by lead.

Blood lead levels of 10ug/dl (micrograms of lead per deciliter of
whole blood) can cause cognitive impairment and behavioural
problems. Nine out of 12 representative plaintiffs have blood lead
levels exceeding 45ug/dl, the level at which chelation therapy
intervention for lead poisoning -- a process to flush metals and
minerals from the bloodstream -- is medically required. Two of the
plaintiffs have blood lead levels exceeding 100 ug/dl.

'No level of lead in blood is safe'

In response to Anglo's medical experts, who have downplayed the
impact of certain blood lead levels, the claimants say
international bodies recognise that no level of lead in the
bloodstream is considered safe.

Further, the "extraordinarily high and sustained blood lead
concentrations" -- experienced by the plaintiffs who reside in
Kabwe District -- has had a detrimental impact on their overall
health, but especially in poorer birth outcomes, diminished
cognitive abilities, and behavioural problems.

Anglo and its experts claim there were reasons, unrelated to the
company's activities, for the lead to be present in the
environment. It also accused ZCCM of recklessness and negligence in
operating the mine after 1974.

The expert testimony put forward in the replying papers however
conclude that the present lead contamination of the soil and dust
and in the blood of the communities in Kabwe District emanated
mainly from the Kabwe lead smelter and waste dumps prior to 1974.

An earlier affidavit filed with the court also contained testimony
from Ian Lawrence, a doctor at the Kabwe mine from 1969 until the
early 1970s, who said Anglo knew of widespread severe lead
poisoning in Kabwe as early as 1970.

Zanele Mbuyisa, partner at Mbuyisa Moleele, said the latest filing
submits further strong evidence to demonstrate the inextricable
link between Anglo's operations and the ongoing contamination in
Kabwe. "This is in stark contrast to Anglo's untenable lines of
argument, which attempt to pin the blame on anyone but themselves,"
she said.

Richard Meeran, partner and head of the international department at
Leigh Day, told Fin24 the evidence shows Anglo has been aware for
decades of the scale and severity of lead poisoning to the children
of Kabwe and yet it has done nothing to alleviate their suffering.

Before a class action may be instituted, the potential plaintiffs
must obtain permission from a court, resulting in the certification
of the class.

Anglo has opposed the class action. A hearing to decide the matter
is expected to take place later this year.

Compensation sought

The class action would seek compensation for children, as well as
for girls and women with lead poisoning who have or may become
pregnant in the future. Also sought is blood lead screening for
children and pregnant women in Kabwe and clean up and remediation
of the area to ensure the health of future generations of children
and pregnant women is not jeopardised.

Small children particularly are affected by ingestion of lead and
lead poisoning, as are girls and women who have had children or may
become pregnant in the future. The medical evidence shows that
women who have had significant exposure [to lead] as small
children, that lead will have been absorbed into their bones and
can be or will be released into the blood during pregnancy. Then it
can affect the pregnant woman herself in the form of, for example,
pre-eclampsia. And it also crosses the placenta to the unborn
child," said Meeran.

Asked what kind of price could be placed on the harm suffered,
Meeran was unable to say.

"If you have 100 000 people who have suffered lead poisoning, to
various degrees, then that's obviously a very substantial claim,"
he said, adding: "It's a scandal."

The human rights lawyers say the matter should be heard in
Johannesburg, not just because this is Anglo American's South
African domicile, but also because such a case could not be brought
in Zambia. Zambian law does not allow for class actions and lawyers
there are also not allowed to represent clients on a contingency
fee basis.

'We're not responsible'

Sibusiso Tshabalala, spokesperson for Anglo in South Africa, told
Fin24 that while the group sympathises with the people of Kabwe and
their plight, "we do intend to defend ourselves because we do not
believe that we are responsible for the current situation".

Anglo argued that the mine operator was Zambia Broken Hill
Development Company, and Anglo only provided certain services to
the mine. Further, Tshabalala said, there are several factual
errors in Dr Lawrence's recollections, "perhaps not surprisingly
given the passage of time and his own admission that he is not
certain of many details".

Also, Anglo said, the mine was nationalised in the early 1970s and
was operated by several Zambian entities for 20 years until
closure. "The claim fails to take into account this period, as well
as the role of a number of parties in the post-closure management
of the mine site during the 27 years since 1994".

Anglo said ZCCM's own records show there was a significant
deterioration of operating standards post-1974 and that the period
post-1989 "most likely represents the worst period of lead
pollution, in the history of the Kabwe Mine".

Particularly misleading, Tshabalala said, is the assertion that
there is a linear correlation between volumes of lead produced over
time and contamination.

"We believe that this assertion is fundamentally flawed, because of
the implementation over time of improving technologies to reduce
emissions, and the apparent subsequent failure to maintain the
efficacy of some of those technologies post nationalisation," he
said.

Meeran said Anglo American South Africa's liability arises from its
alleged management, control and oversight of technical and medical
aspects of the Kabwe operations, and the advice that it gave to the
mine in this regard.

Developments in English law have established the principles that
would impose a legal duty of care on a multinational parent company
in such circumstances and consequently, he said, ownership or
operation of the Kabwe mine is irrelevant to the claim. [GN]

ANTHEM CO: Baker Seeks to Certify Medical Management Nurse Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEON BAKER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04866-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective and
court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

In this action, the Plaintiff Deon Baker seeks to represent a
putative collective of similarly situated medical management nurses
in Georgia who were not paid proper overtime compensation during
the past three years. Defendant uses various job titles for its
medical management nurses, including utilization review nurse and
medical management nurse, but regardless of job title, these
workers shared the same non-exempt primary job duty of conducting
utilization reviews, also known as medical necessity reviews, for
insurance coverage purposes. Moreover, Defendant uniformly
classified these workers as exempt from the overtime protections of
the FLSA.

Through this motion, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification
of the putative collective and to issue court-authorized notice to
putative collective members who meet this definition so that they
may decide whether to opt-in to the action. As the caselaw
demonstrates, the Northern District of Georgia evaluates whether
Plaintiff can provide a "reasonable basis" that she is "similarly
situated" with the putative collective members that she seeks to
represent. This "fairly lenient" standard is important and
commensurate with the remedial purpose of the FLSA, particularly
because putative collective members' statutes of limitations
continue to run until they affirmatively opt-in to the litigation.
Federal district courts around the country, including two involving
parallel actions made up of medical management nurses in Tennessee
and in Minnesota bringing identical federal claims against
Defendant, have granted conditional certification.

On November 29, 2021, the Plaintiff Baker filed this collective
action complaint under the FLSA. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant misclassified her and other similarly situated medical
management nurses as exempt from overtime pay and failed to pay
proper overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

On February 14, 2022, the Defendant filed its answer, asserting
that Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective members were exempt
from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff Baker and similarly situated individuals all work or
worked as medical management nurses for Defendant during the last
three years. Medical management nurses work from their home or from
one of Defendant's office locations in Georgia.

The Plaintiff Baker and the similarly situated medical management
nurses share the same primary job duty: conducting utilization
reviews, also known as medical necessity reviews.

The Plaintiff Deon Baker worked for Defendant from December 2015 to
July 2020 performing medical necessity reviews as a Medical
Management Nurse II.

The Defendant is a multi-line health insurance company that
provides managed care programs and related services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 8,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qsgNyI
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  cbressman@nka.com

               - and -

          John Sparks, Esq.
          AUSTIN & SPARKS, P.C.
          2974 Lookout Pl. NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 869-0100
          Facsimile: (404) 869-0200
          E-mail: jsparks@austinsparks.com


APPLE INC: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought in Tabak Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA TABAK, DE'JHONTAI
BANKS, DAVID DANON, MATTHEW WHITE, KELLY CAMELO-CENICOLA, NESTOR
TRUJILLO, and CHRISTINE CLEMENCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. APPLE, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-02455-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their joint stipulation and order extending class
certification briefing and mediation deadlines as follows:

               Event             Current           Proposed
                                 Deadline          Deadline

-- Deadline to Complete       April 19, 2022     Dec. 19, 2022
   Private Mediation:

-- Plaintiffs' Class             N/A             Nov. 15, 2022
   Certification Expert:

-- Defendant's Class             N/A             Jan. 13, 2023
   Certification Expert
   Reports

-- Plaintiffs' Class             N/A             Feb. 24, 2023
   Certification Rebuttal
   Expert Reports:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion         May 20, 2022       March 17, 2023
   for Class Certification:

-- Defendant's Opposition     July 19, 2022      May 12, 2023
   to Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- The Plaintiffs' Reply      Sept. 2, 2022      June 9, 2023
   ISO Class Certification:

Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LoTluz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Allison Parr, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          First Horizon Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arturo J. González, Esq.
          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq.
          Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: agonzalez@mofo.com
                  ppreovolos@mofo.com
                  aamezcua@mofo.com
                  ctapernoux@mofo.com

APPLE INC: Judge Tosses MacBook Screen Defect Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that on March
14, Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed a consumer complaint relating
to screen defects in certain 13" and 15" Apple MacBook Pro laptops.
The court permitted the computer purchasers to replead some, but
not all of their claims after having already had two bites at the
apple.

As noted in previous coverage, the case was filed in August 2020
when aggrieved purchasers argued that Apple "committed fraud
through affirmative representations in its 2016 promotional
campaign for MacBook Pros, specifically Defendant's statements
regarding the 'brightness' of certain MacBook Pro displays."

According to the plaintiffs, the computers did not merely fail to
live up to these assertions, but actually experienced screen
malfunction due to allegedly defective flexible ribbon cables
connecting the display to the display controller board. The opinion
mentioned that Apple instituted a program to fix or replace flawed
13" models, but nevertheless, the plaintiffs asserted various fraud
and warranty-based claims under state and federal law.

Apple initially moved to dismiss in December 2020, to which the
plaintiffs responded with an amended complaint. In its second
motion, Apple contended that the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
failed for inability to meet the heightened pleading standard
requiring particularity. The court agreed, and based on a case,
also presided over by Judge Davila considering nearly identical
statements, dismissed the affirmative statement-related claims with
prejudice.

In order for the plaintiffs' fraud by omission claims to succeed,
they had to allege that the defects presented a safety hazard or
that they fell within the one-year warranty period in order to meet
the causes of action's "materiality requirement." Judge Davila
concluded they did neither, thus causing their omissions-based
claims, including their claim for fraudulent concealment to fail.

Relatedly, the plaintiffs' express warranty claims fell short
because there was no showing that the defects occurred within the
one-year warranty period. Additionally, the court upheld Apple's
disclaimer as "conspicuous," finding it sufficient to effectively
disclaim or limit all implied warranties. These two conclusions led
the court to dispose of the plaintiffs' state law warranty and
Song-Beverly Act claims.

With respect to the fraud claims based on omission, Judge Davila
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend to plead a safety hazard
arising out of the alleged defects. Similarly, and "[b]ecause
Plaintiffs may be able to allege a breach of warranty claim," he
also permitted them leave to amend their Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
claim.

The plaintiff is represented by Marlin & Saltzman LLP and Apple by
Weil, Gotshal & Manges. [GN]

APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Wet Airpods
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Apple is
taking another swing at defeating a proposed class action lawsuit
it faces that alleges its AirPods Max headphones produce moisture
in users' ears.

Plaintiff John Keeley sued Apple in San Francisco Superior Court in
February 2021, but Judge Andrew Cheng in November ruled for Apple
on several of his claims. That left him to file an amended
complaint in December that now faces apple's notice of demurrer,
which seeks to show his claims are not adequately supported.

"Given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies, Keeley (and new
plaintiff William Graham) mostly repeat the same allegations this
Court previously held to be insufficient -- and the few new
allegations they add do not save their claims," attorneys for Apple
wrote in February.

"Like Keeley before him, Graham never identifies a single
affirmative misrepresentation on the part of Apple (much less one
he personally relied on) and never alleges that he is unable to use
AirPods Max such that the device is 'unfit for ordinary purpose.'"

Adding customer complaints from Twitter and Reddit that were posted
after Keeley's purchase doesn't help his case either, the company
says.

According to his complaint, Keeley purchased Apple's AirPods Max
headphones along with AppleCare+ on Dec. 8, 2020. He alleges that
about a week after receiving his AirPods, he began to notice
"excessive condensation in the ear cups due to a defect."

He claims he contacted Apple on Jan. 5, 2021, to request repairs
but by mid-January, he was no longer able to use his AirPods
outside due to the condensation forming and that he experienced
"connectivity and performance" issues including not being able to
connect to a wireless network or maintain a battery charge.

Keeley claims the AirPods design has "latent and material" defects
and that Apple falsely represented the AirPods "had characteristics
and benefits that they do not have" and were "of a particular
standard, quality, or grade."

Keeley is represented by Todd Schneider of Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky in Emeryville and Shannon Carson and Amey Park of
Berger Montague in Philadelphia.

Judge Cheng's order threw out four causes of action completely and
part of a fifth, while letting only a single claim go forward in
whole -- breach of express warranty.

Tossed claims included fraud and violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act. [GN]

ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Pending in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential Reit, 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 16, 2022, that a Maryland court
ordered that an entry of an Order of Dismissal without prejudice is
pending for "lack of prosecution" with regards to a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Nine putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the company's tender offer and merger for Javelin Mortgage
Investment Corp. All nine suits name Armour, the previous members
of Javelin's board of directors prior to the merger and JMI
Acquisition Corporation as defendants, alleging that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the
putative class of Javelin stockholders, including claims that the
defendants failed to properly value Javelin, failed to take steps
to maximize the value of Javelin to its stockholders, ignored or
failed to protect against conflicts of interest, failed to disclose
material information about the transactions, took steps to avoid
competitive bidding and to give Armour an unfair advantage by
failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or
alternative transactions and erected unreasonable barriers to other
third-party bidders. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including,
among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the transactions, or
rescind or unwind the transactions if already consummated, and
award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses.

On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned "In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation" (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead
counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty,
and waste. On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held
on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved
ruling. On August 16, 2021, the court ordered that entry of an
Order of Dismissal is further deferred until February 1, 2022 and
if the case is not fully disposed of by that date, the clerk shall
enter on the docket "dismissed for lack of prosecution without
prejudice." To date, no further action has been taken by the
court.

Armour is an externally managed Maryland real estate investment
trust.


ASARCO LLC: Contreras Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arnold Contreras, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Arnold Contreras; Tony M.
Meza; Charles M. Estrada; and Celestino W. Flores, United Steel,
Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL- CIO/CLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ASARCO LLC; and ASARCO, LLC Union Employee Benefits
Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03495-SRB, in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The action was brought against the Defendants for allegedly
breaching their obligations to the Plaintiffs and to Class Members
by unilaterally reducing retiree health care benefits and taking
the position that the Defendants can terminate coverage for the
Plaintiff and the Class Members in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On October 18, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment which the Court granted on February 22, 2022 through an
order signed by Senior Judge Susan R. Bolton.

The Plaintiffs are now taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Contreras, et al. v.
ASARCO LLC, et al., Case No. 22-15388, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Arnold Contreras, Charles M. Estrada, Celestino W.
Flores, Local 104 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 428 International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 469 United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 518 International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 519 International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 627 Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders, Blacksmith, Forger and Helpers, Local 741 United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Local Unions 886-02,915 and 5252 United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO/CLC, Locals 518,570 and 602 International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Tony M. Meza, Homer B. Ortega, Joe D. Rios and
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 22, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 14, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on May 12, 2022;

   -- Appellants Arnold Contreras, Charles M. Estrada, Celestino W.
Flores, Local 104 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 428 International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 469 United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, Local 518 International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 519 International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 627 Boilermakers, Iron
Shipbuilders, Blacksmith, Forger and Helpers, Local 741 United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Local Unions 886-02,915 and 5252 United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO/CLC, Locals 518,570 and 602 International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Tony M. Meza, Homer B. Ortega, Joe D. Rios and
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
CLC opening brief is due on June 20, 2022;

   -- Appellees ASARCO LLC and ASARCO Retiree Medical Plan
answering brief is due on July 20, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ARNOLD CONTRERAS; TONY M. MEZA; CHARLES M.
ESTRADA; CELESTINO W. FLORES; UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC; and JOE D. RIOS, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
          3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1720
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 252-5606
          E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

               - and -

          Pamina Grace Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          William Thomas Payne, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15223
          Telephone: (412) 492-8797
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com     

Defendants-Appellees ASARCO LLC and ASARCO RETIREE MEDICAL PLAN are
represented by:

          David Lubben, Esq.
          DAVIS & CAMPBELL, LLC
          401 Main Street, Suite 1600
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 673-1681
          E-mail: dglubben@dcamplaw.com

Cross-Defendants-Appellants LOCAL 627 BOILERMAKERS, IRON
SHIPBUILDERS, BLACKSMITH, FORGER AND HELPERS; LOCALS 518,570 AND
602 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; LOCAL 518
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; LOCAL 428
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS; LOCAL 104 INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS CHAUFFEURS WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS; LOCAL
741 UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE
PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA;
LOCAL INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS; LOCAL 469 UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES
OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CANADA; LOCAL 519 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND
AEROSPACE WORKERS; and LOCAL UNIONS 886-02,915 AND 5252 UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO/CLC, are represented by:

          Gerald Barrett, Esq.
          WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
          3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1720
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 252-5606
          E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

               - and -

          Pamina Grace Ewing, Esq.
          Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com
                  jhurt@fdpklaw.com
                  rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          William Thomas Payne, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15223
          Telephone: (412) 492-8797
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com

BANKERS TRUST: Plutzer Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Edward Plutzer filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled EDWARD PLUTZER, on behalf of the
Tharanco Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf
of a class of all other persons similarly situated v. BANKERS TRUST
COMPANY OF SOUTH DAKOTA, a South Dakota Limited Liability
Corporation, HARESH T. THARANI, MICHAEL J. SETOLA, SCOTT KANE, and
MANU MIRCHANDANI, Case 1:21-cv-03632, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for
losses suffered by the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (Plan) and its
participants caused by Bankers Trust Company (BTC) when it caused
the Plan to buy shares of Tharanco for more than fair market value
in 2015, and other relief.

The complaint alleges that the Plan has been injured and its
participants have been deprived of hard-earned retirement benefits
resulting from Defendants' violations of ERISA.

Tharanco was a privately-held company and was the Plan's sponsor
and administrator. Tharanco adopted the Plan effective Oct. 21,
2014. On April 27, 2015, the Plan purchased from the Selling
Shareholders 100% of the outstanding stock of Tharanco for
$133,430,000, which was financed by Tharanco in a fully leveraged
transaction with a loan bearing interest at 2.47% that was to be
payable over forty equal annual installments of principal and
accrued interest on December 31 of each year, except for the first
installment of $200,000 of principal made in April 2015 and the
second installment of $2,811,571 of principal made in December 2015
(ESOP Transaction). At that time, Tharanco became an employee-owned
company. BTC represented the Plan and its participants as Trustee
in the ESOP Transaction. It had sole and exclusive authority to
negotiate the terms of the ESOP Transaction on the Plan's behalf,
the complaint relates.

The ESOP Transaction allowed the Selling Shareholders to unload
their interests in Tharanco above fair market value and saddle the
Plan with tens of millions of dollars of debt payable over a
40-year repayment period to finance the Transaction. BTC failed to
fulfill its ERISA duties, as Trustee and fiduciary, to the Plan and
its participants, including Plaintiff. The Selling Shareholders are
parties in interest who sold shares in the ESOP Transaction. The
Selling Shareholders are liable under ERISA for participating in
prohibited transactions and BTC's breaches of fiduciary duty under
ERISA, asserts the complaint.

On February 28, 2022, the Court entered an Order dismissing
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. Judgment was also entered
on March 1, 2022 confirming case dismissal.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this decision.

The appellate case is captioned as Plutzer v. Bankers Trust Company
of South, Case No. 22-561, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Edward Plutzer, on behalf of the Tharanco
Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

Defendants-Appellees Bankers Trust Company of South Dakota, a South
Dakota Limited Liability Corporation; Haresh T. Tharani; Michael J.
Setola; Scott Kane; and Manu Mirchandani are represented by:

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 861-6615
          E-mail: lcg@groom.com

               - and -

          Theodore M. Becker, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          444 West Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (212) 984-6934
          E-mail: tbecker@mwe.com

               - and -

          Mark Meredith, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
          1 Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 547-5602
          E-mail: mmeredith@mwe.com

BANNER LIFE: Approval of Class Settlement in Dickman Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 1988 TRUST FOR ALLEN CHILDREN DATED 8/8/88 - MARIANNE
E. & LAURIE L. ALLEN AND NORA V. GITZ, AS TRUSTEES, Third Party
Plaintiff-Appellant v. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; WILLIAM PENN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees, and
RICHARD DICKMAN; KENT ALDERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and LEGAL &
GENERAL AMERICA, INC.; LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP, PLC, Defendants, Case
No. 20-1630 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying the class or
approving the settlement.

I. Background

In 2016, a proposed class of life insurance policyholders (the
Dickman class) sued Banner and the William Penn (together,
"Banner") in the District of Maryland. The Dickman class
representatives are former policyholders who allege that they paid
"an excess premium to accrue a higher cash value" in their account.
The Dickman plaintiffs allege that "Banner is cash strapped"
because its parent company has been squeezing dividends out of the
insurer for years.  Faced with these liquidity problems, they
claim, "Banner has decided to take that cash from policyholders
through a fraudulent COI increase." Id. Specifically, they assert
that Banner "dramatically" increased their cost-of-insurance
("COI") charges to prompt policyholders to move more money into
their accounts, then "raid[ed the policyholders'] policies' cash
values and attempt[ed] to force them to surrender their policies."

After years of contentious litigation involving protracted
discovery, the Dickman parties agreed to a settlement in October
2019. The settlement agreement requires Banner to refund to class
members a portion of the money they had paid, with a minimum of
$100 per class member, and provides some nonmonetary benefits, with
a total value of roughly $40 million.

After a hearing, the district court preliminarily certified the
class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement on Oct. 17, 2019. The parties then sent
notices of the proposed settlement and the upcoming final fairness
hearing to class members. In response, 89 policyholders (less than
1% of the class) opted out. Only one policyholder, the 1988 Trust
for Allen Children Dated 8/8/88 ("the Allen Trust") filed an
objection to the proposed settlement.

The Allen Trust alleged that it bought the same kind of life
insurance policy as the Dickman plaintiffs. According to the Allen
Trust, Banner marketed these policies as "universal," that is,
policies that would "keep the death benefit in place for the
remainder of the Insured's life." Under these policies, the
policyholder could pay a constant minimum "guaranteed" premium for
20 years -- in the Allen Trust's case, $24,220 annually --
regardless of how much it cost Banner to provide that insurance.
And so, unlike the Dickman plaintiffs who had paid Banner's
allegedly unlawful COI charges on a rolling basis, the Allen Trust
paid only this minimum guaranteed premium.

In short, according to the Allen Trust, this supposedly "universal"
life insurance policy was a mirage: as the policyholder approaches
year 21, the lifetime benefit shimmers and disappears, leaving only
a 20-year term policy in its place. The gist of the Allen Trust's
objection is that the Dickman parties did not give sufficient
weight to its claim in negotiating the Dickman settlement
agreement.

The district court held a final fairness hearing in February 2020,
where it considered the Allen Trust's objection to the proposed
Dickman settlement agreement. It decided to continue the final
hearing, "granting discovery to determine whether the parties'
settlement contemplated a deficit account harm" as a "courtesy
extended to the Allen Trust." At the conclusion of the second part
of the final fairness hearing in May 2020, the district court
overruled the Allen Trust's objection, certified the Dickman class
for purposes of settlement, and approved the Dickman settlement
agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Allen Trust appeals. The Trust argues that the district court
abused its discretion in two ways: Dirst, by holding that the
Dickman class met the Rule 23(a) requirements for class
certification; and second, by approving the Dickman settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2).

II. Analysis

After careful review of the voluminous record, the Fourth Circuit
cannot agree.

First, the Fourth Circuit addresses the burden of proof, or lack
thereof, on a Rule 23(e)(5) objector. The Allen Trust strenuously
argues that the district court erred in requiring that it carry
that burden as the objector to the class action settlement.
According to the Allen Trust, because the Dickman parties bore the
burden of demonstrating that class certification was appropriate
and that the settlement agreement was fair, reasonable, and
adequate, the district court abused its discretion in shifting that
burden to the Trust.

Upon a review of the record, the Fourth Circuit does not understand
the district court to have done anything different than what it has
just outlined. The court required the Allen Trust to specify and
support its objection, while keeping the ultimate burden on the
proponents of the settlement to demonstrate its fairness. Thus, the
Allen Trust's argument that the court improperly placed upon it the
burden of overcoming the settlement provides no basis for
reversal.

Next, the Fourth Circuit addresses whether the district court erred
in certifying the Dickman class. It reviews for abuse of
discretion. The proponents of "class certification must
affirmatively demonstrate their compliance with" the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. These requirements are: (1)
numerosity (which no one disputes the Dickman class meets); (2)
commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy.

Based upon the record, the Fourth Circuit opines that (i) in light
of its deference to the district court in the trenches of
fact-intensive class action litigation, it cannot say that the
court abused its discretion in holding that this temporal
distinction was not substantial enough to defeat commonality, or
any other aspect of the Dickman settlement; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
fraud claims are typical of the settlement class because their
claims arise from the Defendants' same conduct; (iii) because the
notion that the Allen Trust does (or will ever) have a distinct
claim is "merely speculative or hypothetical," it cannot defeat
adequacy; and (iv) the district court did a commendably careful job
in evaluating the Allen Trust's arguments and determining that they
did not justify refusing to certify the class.

In addition to its challenge to the district court's decision to
certify the Dickman class under Rule 23(a), the Allen Trust also
argues that the court erred in approving the settlement under Rule
23(e)(2). On this second issue, the Fourth Circuit's review is once
again for abuse of discretion. When the court reviews a proposed
class-action settlement, it acts as a fiduciary for the class. In
fulfilling this role, the district court must conclude that a
proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

The Fourth Circuit holds that (i) it cannot say that the evaluation
of the Allen Trust's theory of the case constituted an abuse of
discretion; (ii) the district court also properly noted that the
Allen Trust's concerns, however strongly held, were apparently not
widespread; and (iii) the record makes clear that the district
court carefully weighed the size of the proposed settlement against
the claims at issue and found that the settlement compares
favorably to other similar settlements.

III. Conclusion

In sum, the Fourth Circuit concludes that the district court did
not abuse its discretion either in certifying the Dickman class or
in approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4z6vceh8 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Jeven Robinson Sloan, LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP, in
Dallas, Texas, for the Appellant.

George Walton Walker, III, BOLES HOLMES WHITE LLC, Auburn, Alabama;
Timothy J. O'Driscoll, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: W. Ralph Canada, Jr. -- ralphc@ldsrlaw.com -- David R.
Deary, LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP, Dallas, Texas; Michael J.
Baxter, BAXTER, BAKER, SIDLE, CONN & JONES, P.A., in Baltimore,
Maryland, for the Appellant.

W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Rachel N. Boyd, Paul W. Evans, BEASLEY,
ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C., in Montgomery, Alabama;
Geoffrey R. McDonald, Frank H. Hupfl, III, GEOFF McDONALD &
ASSOCIATES, P.C., in Richmond, Virginia; Christopher T. Nace,
PAULSON AND NACE, PLLC, in Washington, D.C., for Appellees Richard
Dickman and Kent Alderson.

Christopher F. Petillo -- christopher.petillo@faegredrinker.com --
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Justin O. Kay, in Chicago, Illinois;
Brian A. Coleman, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, in Washington,
D.C., for Appellees Banner Life Insurance Company and William Penn
Life Insurance Company of New York.


BLUETRITON BRANDS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Gordon Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
PHIL GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., (f/k/a NESTLE
WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.), Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02138
(S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022) seeks to recover untimely wage
compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
who work or have worked as manual workers for the Defendant
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Mr. Gordon was employed by the Defendant as a ReadyRefresh Service
Representative from approximately September 2018 until
approximately June 2020.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Bluetriton Brands, Inc. is
a beverage wholesaler that sells various water beverages to various
retail customers in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548

BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans Appeals Denial of Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ROSCOE EVANS filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ROSCOE EVANS, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG
UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00100-TS-CMR, in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah - Salt
Lake City.

The Plaintiff's action arises out of BYU's decision at the end of
the semester to retain the full amount of tuition and full amount
of fees, despite being unable to provide students, like Plaintiff,
with the in-person and on-campus educational services that they
agreed to, contracted for, and paid for.

Prior to the beginning of each term or semester, Plaintiff paid the
full price of tuition to attend BYU, as well as the full price in
related fees. As alleged, he made these payments in advance of and
in exchange for in-person and on-campus educational services,
experiences, and opportunities as detailed in Defendant's
marketing, advertisements, and other public representations. In
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, BYU canceled all in-person and
on-campus educational services then transitioned to online-only
education.

Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the benefit and
services that they bargained for when they paid BYU tuition and
various fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment. The Court's decision and order on
January 7, 2021, denying Defendant's motion to dismiss confirms the
same, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2022, the
Court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for class
certification, which sought certification of a class defined as:

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

The Plaintiff is now taking an appeal from this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Evans v. Brigham Young
University, Case No. 22-600, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response
was due on March 25, 2022 for Brigham Young University.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ROSCOE EVANS, an individual on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edward Ciolko, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

               - and -

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514-1864
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100

               - and -

          Michael J. Watton, Esq.
          WATTON LAW GROUP
          311 South State Street, Suite 280
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 363-0130  
          E-mail: wlgslc@wattongroup.com  

Defendant-Respondent BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation,
is represented by:

          David M. Andersen, Esq.
          Christopher A. Bauer, Esq.
          BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY
          A-360 ASB
          Provo, UT 84602
          Telephone: (801) 422-6102
          E-mail: david_andersen@byu.edu

               - and -

          James S. Jardine, Esq.
          Samuel C. Straight, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          E-mail: jjardine@rqn.com
                  sstraight@rqn.com

BT'S ON THE RIVER: Bennett Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YAMILEE BENNETT, MARIA BUSH, AMINATA MBAYE, ALON ROBERTS, AND
AFRICA WILLIAMS, On behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BT'S ON THE RIVER, LLC dba BOOBY TRAP ON
THE RIVER, a Florida Limited Liability Company and MIKE BRUSO, an
individual and MIKE ARZA, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-20772 (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2022) is an action brought by
the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendants' violation of the law's minimum wage and record keeping
requirements.

The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class Members are all current and
former exotic dancers who worked at Booby Trap on the River in
Miami, Florida.

BT's On The River, LLC dba Booby Trap On The River, is an adult
entertainment club based in Miami, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Edward W. Wimp, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  ewimp@theleachfirm.com

               - and -

          Mutepe Akemon, Esq.
          THE RICHARDS LAW GROUP, LLC
          P.O. Box 360295
          Decatur, GA 30036
          Telephone: (404) 289-6816
          Facsimile: (404) 795-0727   
          E-mail: mutepe.akemon@richardslegal.com

C3.AI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until May 3, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against C3.ai, Inc. ("C3" or the
"Company") (NYSE:AI), if they purchased the Company's securities
between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period") and/or purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's shares pursuant to the Company's December 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities or shares of C3 as above and would like
to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ai/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by May 3, 2022.

About the Lawsuit

C3 and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in conjunction with
the initial public offering, violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) the Company's partnership with
Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (ii) the Company was employing a
flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its
Baker Hughes partnership; (iii) the Company faced challenges in
product adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (iv) the
Company overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in
technology, description of its customers, its total addressable
market, the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances
with its major business partners; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The case is The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.Ai, Inc., et al., No.
22-cv-01413.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

C3.AI INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI): (i)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about December 9, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii)
between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important May 3, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased C3.ai securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the C3.ai class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3839 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Offering
Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not
prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding C3.ai's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
C3.ai's partnership with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (2)
C3.ai's was employing a flawed accounting methodology to conceal
the deterioration of its Baker Hughes partnership; (3) C3.ai faced
challenges in product adoption and significant salesforce turnover;
(4) C3.ai overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in
technology, description of its customers, its total addressable
market, the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances
with its major business partners; and (5) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the C3.ai class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3839 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Bell Suit Over Illegal Egg Price-Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BELL, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00246-RP (W.D. Tex., March 15, 2022)
is a statewide class action brought by the Plaintiffs concerning
the despicable and illegal practice of price-gouging of essential
groceries, specifically eggs, during the unprecedented COVID-19
pandemic in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs Kenneth Bell, Sherry Dabbs-Laury, Charlene Dirks, Wendy
Brown, and Tonnie Walker-Beck are also the Plaintiffs in the action
20-cv-461. In that action, the Court dismissed their claims without
prejudice on September 20, 2021. They filed a motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59 requesting leave to amend to file a
complaint substantively identical to this one. This motion has been
briefed but has not yet been ruled on by the court. In order to
preserve the statute of limitations, Plaintiffs file this new
complaint.

According to this complaint, between the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic and March 30, 2020, the price of eggs nearly tripled in
Texas. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who
purchased eggs during this spike. Since the filing of this suit,
the Plaintiffs have determined that the spike in egg prices came
almost entirely from the producers and distributors, not the
retailers, who are no longer named as Defendants in this suit.

Each Defendant is a distributor or producer of eggs, and is in the
business of supplying eggs to customers in this federal district.
Each Defendant is part of the supply chain for eggs in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Ste. 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Telephone: (512) 671-7277
          Facsimile: (512) 238-0275

               - and -

          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
          R. Scott Connally, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9900
          Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
          E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com

CALIFORNIA: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Oroville Dam Cases Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: OROVILLE DAM CASES, Case No. C090941 (Cal.
App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Third
District, Sacramento, affirmed the trial court's order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

I. Introduction

Oroville Dam was completed in 1968 as part of the State Water
Project and is maintained by respondent Department of Water
Resources (DWR). The dam is located on the Feather River, east of
the City of Oroville. In the winter of 2016-2017, the area
experienced record rainfall. Dam operators released water through a
main spillway, but the main spillway became damaged, and the
emergency spillway was engaged.

The action arises out of evacuations based on concerns that the
emergency spillway would fail. Plaintiffs Francis Bechtel, Jacob
Klein, Chantel Ramirez, and Denise Johnson (collectively Plaintiffs
or Bechtel Plaintiffs) appeal from an order denying their motion to
certify a class of individuals "who evacuated their residence on
Feb. 12, 2017, pursuant to a mandatory evacuation order resulting
from the hazardous situation at the Oroville Dam." The trial court
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
establishing that the proposed class was ascertainable because the
evacuation orders did not mandate evacuation of a specific
geographic area.

II. Background

The Plaintiffs filed their operative complaint "on behalf of the
approximately 188,000 residents of Oroville, Marysville, Yuba City,
and other areas near the Feather River who were ordered to evacuate
their homes on Feb. 12, 2017, in response to the failing 'emergency
spillway' at the Oroville Dam." Specifically, the complaint
indicated the Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of "all
persons evacuated on or about Feb. 12, 2017, as a result of the
failure of the Oroville Dam spillway." The complaint alleges three
causes of action against DWR: (1) private nuisance, (2) public
nuisance, and (3) dangerous condition of public property.

The action and others were coordinated under Judicial Council order
(Code Civ. Proc., Section 404.3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.540)
in the Sacramento County Superior Court as the Oroville Dam Cases
and assigned to the Honorable James E. McFetridge as coordination
trial judge.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification that sought
to certify a class of: "all persons who evacuated their residence
on Feb. 12, 2017, pursuant to a mandatory evacuation order
resulting from the hazardous situation at the Oroville Dam."
Meanwhile, a different set of plaintiffs (the Giordano Plaintiffs)
who alleged similar causes of action sought to certify three
different classes.

The trial court denied both motions in a 90-page ruling. The
Giordano Plaintiffs did not appeal. Thus, the Court of Appeals
summarizes the court's ruling only as it pertains to the Bechtel
Plaintiffs.

As to them, the trial court found the proposed class was not
sufficiently ascertainable. Additionally, the court found the
Bechtel Plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proving that common
questions of law or fact predominated. The court found many of the
issues that precluded a finding of ascertainability impacted its
analysis of whether common questions predominated over individual
ones and led to the conclusion they did not: "There is simply no
means by which to readily determine whether a residence or person
falls within a 'mandatory' evacuation zone, whether the resident
actually evacuated, and which order (if any) caused that person to
evacuate."

Further, evaluation of each class member's purported damages would
demand an individualized inquiry. As to whether the proposed class
representatives had claims typical of the class, the court
explained, "because there simply is no typical claim among this
group, the Court cannot say that the proposed Plaintiffs have
claims that are typical of the class members." The court also found
that even if it could somehow conclude the class was ascertainable
and common issues predominated, the case was not manageable as a
class action.

The Bechtel Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.

III. Discussion

The Court of Appeals opines that the Plaintiffs have not shown the
trial court's ascertainability ruling is unsupported by substantial
evidence, or rests on improper criteria or erroneous legal
assumptions. It thus must uphold that ruling as well within the
trial court's discretion.

The Court of Appeals explains that the Plaintiffs have proposed a
class of people who evacuated on Feb. 12, 2017, pursuant to a
mandatory evacuation order, but that class definition lacks
ascertainability because the evacuation order did not mandate
evacuation of a specific geographic area. This lack of
ascertainability would also prevent individual class members from
self-identifying as meeting the class definition.

The Plaintiffs also proposed a class definition that would make it
impossible for individuals and DWR to know whose claims were being
adjudicated. As such, they failed to meet their burden of
establishing an ascertainable class.

Further, lack of an ascertainable class appears to be inherent in
the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs emphasize that they only
seek "to recover out of pocket expenses incurred by the class
members during the two-day mandatory evacuation period and the
value of the loss of use of their properties for the two-day
mandatory evacuation period." Additionally, to support their
assertion that common issues predominate, the Plaintiffs' arguments
rely on the common fact of an evacuation order. For instance, they
assert that causation is the same for every class member because
the mandatory evacuation order applies equally to each of them.
Thus, the potential viability of the proposed class action appears
to depend heavily on the common fact of an evacuation order, but
the orders are themselves vague. This appears fatal to the
Plaintiffs' attempts at class certification.

IV. Disposition

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Respondent DWR will
recover its costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4aztcp4d from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Union Supports Indigenous Bureaucrats' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Forester, writing for APTN National News, reports that the
head of one of the country's largest labour unions promises support
for Indigenous bureaucrats advancing a class-action lawsuit against
the federal government.

The claim, filed in 2021 by two First Nations women, alleges
widespread systemic discrimination and harassment at the two
departments responsible for Indigenous affairs.

"We're certainly supporting the class action," said Chris Aylward,
national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC),
in a phone interview. "We applaud the Indigenous voices calling on
the government to do what is necessary to right some of these
wrongs and to ensure that these injustices don't continue."

The multi-million-dollar suit still must be certified before its
allegations can be tested. It was launched about six months after
Indigenous employees began going public with stories of racism,
harassment and fear.

Aylward said the union followed the reports "fairly extensively"
and wants the government to acknowledge the harm caused by systemic
discrimination, compensate the victims and make meaningful systemic
change.

"We will continue to support the Indigenous public sector employees
who have (allegedly) been subject to systemic injustice, racial
profiling and the practice of Indigenous employee exclusion," he
said. "They've had plenty of time to deal with these issues, and
they're simply not taking the action that's required."

The federal government employs roughly 300,000 people countrywide
and more than half of them are represented by Aylward's
organization. PSAC is already backing a different class-action suit
filed by Black public sector workers that also accuses the
government of systemic racial discrimination.

The Federal Court recently refused to delay a certification hearing
in that case after the Justice Department alleged it overlapped too
much with the Indigenous class action, PSAC said in a March 11
press release.

Occasionally, when law firms file competing or "overlapping" class
actions, they have to fight amongst themselves to determine which
firm is best situated to litigate the claim. The legal process is a
called a "carriage motion."

However, "you need substantial overlapping" to get to that point,
"which is absent here in these cases," said Associate Chief Justice
Jocelyne Gagné during a Feb. 16 conference for the Black class
action, according to the The Hill Times.

Aylward told APTN it would be "a huge mistake" and "completely
unacceptable" for Ottawa to try and lump the claims together simply
because they make allegations of systemic racism.

"That's hugely problematic and demonstrates a fundamental failure
to understand the nature and impact of discrimination on each of
those groups," he said.

Courtney Betty, a former Crown attorney working with the Black
public servants' legal team, called Ottawa's argument a
"ridiculous" and "very strange" procedural obstruction tactic.

"It was more of an attempt at delay than any substantive argument,"
Betty said over the phone. "It's just a really ludicrous argument
-- not bought by the judges -- but we're still going to have to
argue it."

Betty's team is due to file more arguments on the alleged
overlapping later this month. The issue will be decided at the
September 2022 hearing.

APTN asked the Treasury Board of Canada, the central agency that
manages the bureaucracy, to explain why it's taking this stance. We
received a statement after this story was posted.

"The Government of Canada is committed to creating a diverse and
inclusive public service free of discrimination, harassment and
violence," the statement said. "The parties continue to discuss the
best means of addressing the issue of overlapping claims with the
Court."

Betty said the Black class action is strictly about the systemic
and statistical denial of hiring and promotional opportunities for
Black employees across the government over the last 50 years.

In comparison, the Indigenous claim addresses systemic
discrimination and harassment only at CIRNAC, ISC or Indian Oil and
Gas Canada (IOGC). IOGC is a special operating agency within ISC
that regulates fossil fuel extraction and development on First
Nations reserves.

The two proposed lead plaintiffs, Yvette Zentner and Letitia Wells,
are both Blackfoot and a current and former IOGC staffer,
respectively.

A third-party review of the organization unearthed stories of
racism consultants called "staggering" in a December 2021 report
obtained by APTN under access to information law.

In one case, a manager was reported to have said at a meeting,
"What if I go to the community, will I get scalped?"

In another, when a consultant asked an employee if he knew any
Indigenous people, he replied, "Only the ones I step over in the
street."

The report's 78 recommendations were withheld by government
censors. However, on March 4, ISC shared a draft strategic planning
document with APTN that included the previously redacted
recommendations.

The document describes the department's plan to overhaul the
troubled agency in response to the probe. The plan focuses
primarily on strengthening policies, processes and training around
human resources, grievances and harassment complaints.

The same executive and leadership teams -- who, the report found,
were either unable or unwilling to deal with misconduct, thus
tacitly encouraging it -- will remain in place.

Aylward said this sort of approach is "not going to work" and "all
symbolism." There needs to be bedrock operational changes across
the government, he added.

PSAC, as part of ongoing contract negotiations, is urging the
Treasury Board to implement mandatory systemic racism, harassment,
and discrimination training for all employees.

The government, so far, has rejected the proposal, saying it
already has some required training in these areas. [GN]

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Bennett Jones Discusses Labor Suit Class Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cassin, Esq., and Ranjan Agarwal, Esq., of Bennett Jones,
disclosed that after nearly 15-years of protracted litigation, the
Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed the Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce's appeal of Justice Belobaba's trio of decisions,
released in 2020, finding that CIBC's overtime policies and
record-keeping practices for tracking and compensating overtime
hours were unlawful, "systemic impediments" and in breach of the
Canada Labour Code.

The Court of Appeal's decision has wide-ranging implications for
the employment and class actions bars across the country, and
serves as yet another warning to employers to regularly review and
update their policies, procedures and practices to ensure
compliance with minimum employment standards. The Court's decision
also confirms employers' duty under the Code to actively prevent
employees from working overtime hours. From a class actions
perspective, the Court's discussion of the test for certifying the
aggregate damages question, despite a previous refusal to certify
the question at first instance, and the application of the
'reasonable likelihood' test given the Supreme Court's decision in
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v Microsoft Corporation, is also of
significance for national class action litigation across Canada.

Background
In 2007, Dara Fresco, as representative plaintiff, commenced a
class action against CIBC on behalf of 31,000 customer service
employees who had worked for the Bank between 1993 and 2009.

The core allegation underlying the action is that for 16 years,
CIBC's overtime policies and record-keeping systems contravened the
Canada Labour Code and, as a result, thousands of front-line
employees were not properly paid for overtime work. Besides
breaches of the Code, Fresco alleged that CIBC's policies, actions
and inactions, breached the Class Members' employment agreements
permitted CIBC to be unjustly enriched by allowing it to keep money
for itself that should have been paid to Class Members as wages.
Fresco maintained that the overtime policies evidenced "systemic
non-compliance" as a result of "institutional impediments" to Class
Members' overtime claims.

Certification of the class action was denied at first instance, and
again on appeal by a majority of the Divisional Court. It was not
until the matter was ultimately appealed to the Court of Appeal
that the systemic basis of the proposed class action was accepted
for certification when, in 2012, the Court of Appeal certified
eight common issues.

After certification, Fresco and CIBC each brought summary judgment
motions. Justice Belobaba released three decision arising from the
motions for summary judgment. In the first decision, Justice
Belobaba granted summary judgment for the Class Members on
liability, finding that CIBC's overtime policies and record-keeping
practices for tracking and compensating hours were unlawful and
"systemic impediments" to overtime pay for the Class Members. In
the second decision, Justice Belobaba certified aggregate damages
as a common issue (adding to the eight previously certified common
issues). In the third and final decision, Justice Belobaba
dismissed CIBC's request for a class-wide limitations order.

CIBC appealed each of the decisions, leading to the Court of
Appeal's latest decision and another development in this
long-winding saga.

The Court of Appeal Dismisses the Appeals
CIBC brought three appeals, arising from Justice Belobaba's three
motion decisions, on liability, damages and limitations. The Court
dismissed each of CIBC's appeals.

Liability: Interpretation of the Code and Institutional
Impediments
The central issue on CIBC's appeal of liability was the
interpretation and application of section 174 of the Code, which
sets out the entitlements of workers to enhanced pay when "required
or permitted to work overtime." Justice Belobaba found that
'permitted' in the expression "required or permitted" under the
Code should be interpreted to mean "allow" or "fail to prevent",
which he found aligned with the Supreme Court of Canada's prior
guidance of interpreting such questions in favour of the employees
given the power dynamics in the modern workplace and the importance
of employment standards legislation (Machtinger v HOJ Industries).
Justice Belobaba's interpretation was also well-grounded in labour
arbitration decisions interpreting section 174 of the Code."

As a result, Justice Belobaba restated the standard under section
174 of the Code as "when an employee is required or allowed to work
or is not prevented from working in excess of the standard hours of
work . . ."

The Court accepted Justice Belobaba's interpretation of the Code
and relied on his findings of fact that CIBC's policies failed to
prevent overtime from being worked without compensation. The Court
found that, as a result of CIBC's policies, overtime hours that
were permitted but not authorized under the policies would not be
paid, contrary to the Code.

Likewise, the Court upheld Justice Belobaba's finding that the
overtime policies and record-keeping practices for tracking and
compensating overtime were "institutional impediments." The Court
clarified the test to determine whether an employer's policy or
practice serves as an institutional impediment: the operative
question is how employees were harmed by the policy -- if the
policy creates a systemic hurdle to appropriate compensation, then
it operates as an institutional impediment. That is the case even
if there are some employee who were not denied compensation under
the policy.

As the Court noted, to succeed on this aspect of the claim, Fresco
did not have to show that every Class Member was owed overtime
compensation, only that some Class Members were owed compensation
because they were not paid as a result of the operation of CIBC's
overtime policies and record-keeping practices. It is not a
question of how many employees were denied compensation. Instead,
the question is how employees were denied compensation, which
Justice Belobaba found, and the Court of Appeal agreed, was as a
result of the overtime policies and record-keeping system,
supporting the decision that the overtime policies and
record-keeping system were institutional impediments.

Aggregate Damages: The Test is Met
Access to damages determined in the aggregate in a class action is
governed by section 24 of the Class Proceedings Act, which sets out
the requirements to determining the aggregate (or part of a
defendant's) liability.

On the earlier appeal of the certification motion, the Court had
refused to certify the aggregate assessment of damages as a common
issue. The basis on which it did so was mainly because the
"sampling" methodology first proposed by Fresco's expert could not
be reliably used to determine aggregate damages. Yet Fresco sought
an order on the summary judgment motion directing an assessment of
aggregate damages, or certifying aggregate damages as a new common
issue. Justice Belobaba determined that the new methodology
proposed by Fresco on the motion was not based on sampling and
differed from the methodology rejected by the Court on the
certification motion. As a result, Justice Belobaba was satisfied
that the "reasonable possibility" hurdle under section 24 of the
Act was cleared and certified another common issue: Can the
defendant's monetary liability be determined on an aggregate basis?
If so, in what amount?

On the present appeal, the Court found that Justice Belobaba
properly expressed the standard for certifying aggregate damages --
determining whether there is a "reasonable likelihood" that the
methodology suggested by Fresco's expert can determine damages in
the aggregate, without proof by individual class members. The newly
proposed methodology is, as Justice Belobaba found, credible or
plausible enough to establish some basis in fact for the
commonality requirement. The Court confirmed that any conflicts
between the parties' experts on damages will ultimately be resolved
by the trial judge, but that is not the role of the certification
motion judge.

Limitations Defence: The Requirement for Individual Discoverability
and Extra-Provincial Application of the Class Proceedings Act
Applying the statutory discoverability requirements under Ontario's
Limitations Act (and its analogues in Saskatchewan and Alberta),
the limitation periods begin to run as soon as the claimant
reasonably discovers that they have sustained a loss, that the loss
was caused by the defendant, and, that taking legal action was the
"appropriate means." The Court agreed with Justice Belobaba's
findings that the first two branches of the test were met. The
discoverability issue hinged on the third branch -- whether Class
Members knew taking legal action was appropriate.

Justice Belobaba found that the "appropriate means" requirement was
not met and gave two main reasons for so finding: (i) some (or
perhaps, many) of the Class Members feared reprisal if they sued
CIBC for unpaid overtime; and (ii) some (or perhaps, many) of the
Class Members reasonably relied on CIBC's repeated
misrepresentations that its overtime policies complied with federal
labour law. As a result, Justice Belobaba concluded that these
issues required individual assessments of when discoverability was
met for an individual claimant. This reflected the general rule
that the viability of a limitations defence is best determined on
an individual basis with individual assessments.

The Court of Appeal rejected the first reason, that Class Members
may fear reprisal as a valid basis on which the limitations period
could be suspended, but found merit in Justice Belobaba's second
reason—the Class Members' purported reliance on CIBC's
misrepresentations. As a result, the Court found that the influence
of this factor on individual class members is a matter best left to
individual assessment and relegated to the individual hearings
phase.

The Court did not give effect to CIBC's other argument on the
limitations appeal that whether a class member knew that a
proceeding was an "appropriate means" only applied to claims where
applicable limitations statutes included discoverability language
(i.e., Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta). The Court found that
whether the "appropriate means" criterion is an element of the
common law discoverability rules was a question to be decided on
the individual assessments and not on a class-wide basis.

As for the issue of the extra-provincial application of section 28
of the Act, CIBC argued that as this class action has a national
reach, with class members across the provinces, and because
limitation periods affect the substantive rights of the Class
Members and CIBC, they fall within the provincial power over
"property and civil rights" under section 92 of the Constitution
Act, 1867. As a result, CIBC maintained that section 28 of the Act
-- which suspends the running of limitation periods in favour of
Class Members -- should not apply to suspend the limitation periods
of Class Members who reside outside of Ontario.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Belobaba's conclusion that
ruling on the extra-territorial applicability of section 28 would
be premature (because, even though the issue may arise again at the
individual hearings stage, the litigation may never reach such a
stage). The Court also declined to remit the question back to
Justice Belobaba for resolution and reiterated the principle that
courts should not unnecessarily decide constitutional questions.

If you have any questions about the impact of this decision and how
it may affect your business, please contact the Bennett Jones
Employment Services or Class Action Litigation Groups. [GN]

CARDINAL HEALTH: Court Junks Bare Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MILES BARE, et al.,
v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 3:21-CV-00389-DCLC-DCP (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Clifton L. Corker entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's motion to amend; and

   3. dismissing with prejudice Bare's First Amended Complaint.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant instituted a policy
requiring all salaried employees, unless exempted for religious or
medical reasons, to be vaccinated to remain employed. The Plaintiff
received a religious accommodation. Nevertheless, he sued claiming
the policy is discriminatory.

The Defendant argues the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring his
claim, as he cannot show an injury in fact. Article III of the
United States Constitution gives jurisdiction to federal courts to
hear "Cases" and "Controversies."

The Plaintiff Aaron Miles Bare is a pharmacist employed by Cardinal
Health, a health care services company. Bare objects to Cardinal
Health's vaccination policy and seeks damages and injunctive relief
to prevent Cardinal Health from applying its COVID-19 policy to him
and other similarly situated employees.

Cardinal Health argues that Bare lacks standing and has not
suffered an injury in fact because Bare applied for and received --
a religious accommodation exempting him from the otherwise
mandatory vaccination policy. Bare has not received the vaccine,
and Cardinal Health has not taken any adverse employment action
against him as a result. Bare responds that he still has suffered
an injury for Article III standing because Cardinal Health intends
to review his religious accommodation in six months.

The Court finds that Bare does not have standing because he has not
suffered a cognizable injury. The purported expiration of his
religious accommodation is not a sufficient injury for standing
because it is unclear whether Cardinal Health will revoke his
accommodation at that time. Moreover, Bare has not suffered any
adverse employment action since requesting his religious
accommodation.

On August 21, 2021, Cardinal Health instituted a COVID-19 policy
that required all salaried employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine by
October 4, 2021. In that policy announcement, Cardinal Health
provided a process for employees to request a medical or religious
accommodation that would exempt qualified employees from the
otherwise mandatory vaccination policy. Bare, a senior pharmacist
for Cardinal Health, applied for a religious accommodation, which
Cardinal Health initially denied.

Following that denial, Bare filed the instant suit on November 17,
2021, and requested a temporary restraining order against Cardinal
Health to prevent it from firing him after the vaccination.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JsNyDv at no extra charge.[CC]

CARROLL FLATS: Underpays Maintenance Personnel, Gomez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVERADO GOMEZ and GLORIA LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARROLL FLATS LLC,
MORDECHAI SPIRA A/K/A MIKE SPIRA, ALBERT BENARROCH A/K/A ALBERT
BENAROSH and A/K/A ALBERT ABRAHAM and A/K/A ABRAHAM ALBERT and
STEVE SPERA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01493 (E.D.N.Y., March
17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, illegal wage deductions, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to provide wage notices.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as maintenance
personnel of apartment buildings in New York, New York.

Carroll Flats LLC is an owner and operator of apartment buildings
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
         RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
         80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 382-1600
         E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com

                - and –

         Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
         MILLER LAW, PLLC
         167 Madison Avenue, Suite 503
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (347) 878-2587
         E-mail: meredith@millerlaw.nyc

CERTIFIED AUTOMOTIVE: Maldonado Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Felix Maldonado, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Certified Automotive Lease Corp. d/b/a Cal
Automotive, Case No. CAM L 308 22, was removed from the Superior
Court of Camden County, New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01527 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Certified Automotive Lease Corp. doing business as CAL Automotive
-- https://www.calautomotive.com/ -- provides innovative solutions
for auto financing needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Courtney Kellyn Mazzio, Esq.
          FREEMAN, MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 1210
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 758-6025
          Email: cmazzio@fmglaw.com


CHERISHED COMPANIONS: Brown Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHERISHED COMPANIONS HOME CARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00431 (N.D. Ohio, March 17, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated home health aides (HHAs)
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt HHA
from approximately August 2018 to August 30, 2021.

Cherished Companions Home Care, LLC is an operator of an enterprise
providing in-home senior care in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7034 Braucher St. N.W., Suite B
         North Canton, OH 44720
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 hans@ohlaborlaw.com

CHICAGO, IL: Judge Okays Class Action Over Crosswalks for Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Blumberg, writing for wttw, reports that a federal judge this
month allowed a lawsuit over the safety of Chicago's crosswalks for
blind pedestrians to proceed as a class action.

Almost none of the thousands of signalized intersections in the
city have devices giving audio cues to people who are blind or have
low vision. Plaintiffs behind the case, which was first filed in
September 2019, say they want systemic change.

For decades, plaintiff Ann Brash commuted into the city each day
for work. Blind since birth, she's experienced at getting around
using a cane. But Chicago's noisy downtown poses a challenge, and
in 2017 she had a near miss.

"I started to cross the street at an incorrect time and I almost
got hit by a bus," Brash said. "Two people grabbed me back, (and)
I'd love to thank those people. It was a close call, and it was so
close of a call that it actually split my cane pretty much in
half."

Brash says crossing the street used to be simpler for blind people,
who learn to listen for parallel traffic to start. But over the
years, things like ultra-quiet electric cars, new intersection
layouts, and changes to how walk signals are timed have made
crossing the street more fraught.

"We need to have the same number of seconds to cross the street as
a sighted person has," Brash said. "The technology exists, and we
need to have the same rights and the same access to safety as our
sighted counterparts have."

The technology Brash is referring to is an accessible pedestrian
signal, which gives audio cues to blind and low-vision pedestrians
that it's safe to cross. But according to the city, just 26 of
Chicago's 2,842 signalized intersections have an accessible
device.

"This being a service that the city provides to the general public,
it has a duty to make it accessible to people who are blind as
well," said attorney Jelena Kolic of Disability Rights Advocates,
one of the plaintiffs' representatives.

Attorneys filed suit against the city, saying its inaccessible
intersections violate the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

"Unfortunately, constituents with disabilities do not tend to be
powerful political constituencies in general," Kolic said. "It
wasn't a priority, and it needed to be a priority."

Plaintiffs gained a powerful ally when the Department of Justice
intervened in support of their claims last year. This month, the
judge overseeing the case allowed the suit to go forward as a class
action.

It's a big class -- Census Bureau data shows more than 68,000
adults in Chicago with a vision-related disability, in addition to
blind and low-vision people who live elsewhere but spend time in
the city.

"We think it will help . . . convey the importance of the issue,
and simply the volume of people it affects every day," Kolic said.

Attorneys for Chicago denied all the plaintiffs' claims and had
asked the judge not to grant class certification. A representative
said the city does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Since 2019, officials have outlined plans to add more accessible
pedestrian signals. The Chicago Department of Transportation told
WTTW News it's planning to install 150 signals this year and next.

But at the current rate, it'll take decades for the city to upgrade
all its intersections. Brash says she and other people who are
blind or have low vision shouldn't have to wait.

"It would be really great if we could travel without fear," Brash
said. "A lot of times, I will wait to cross the street until
someone comes by to help or I'll go out of my way to go across a
street that's safer. Or, a lot of times I will just decide I'm not
going where I want to go because I'm afraid."

The two sides are currently in the discovery phase of the case. No
trial date has been set. [GN]

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems 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 16, 2022, that a putative
securities class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a
putative class of persons and entities that purchased shares of
Citrix common stock between January 22, 2020, and October 6, 2021.


The complaint names the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants and alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false or
misleading statements that failed to disclose that Citrix's cloud
product was substantially similar to the on-premise product and
that the company was experiencing significant challenges
transitioning customers to the cloud.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory
damages and plaintiff's reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fess.

Citrix is an enterprise software company.


COCA-COLA: Settlement in Jones Suit Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE JONES, et al., v.
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00654-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank D. Whiteney
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval
      of class action settlement;

   2. denying as mooting the Plaintiff's motion to certify
      class; and

   3. conditionally certifying the following Settlement Class:

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any
      time during the Class Period, including any beneficiary of
      a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any
      time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in
      the case of a person subject to a QDRO who was a
      participant in the Plan at any time during the Class
      Period. The Class shall exclude all Defendants."

The Parties shall take notice that the Fairness Hearing in this
matter will take place before the undersigned on Tuesday, August 2,
2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 5B of the Charles
R. Jonas Federal Building, 401 W. Trade Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina, the Court says.

This class action involves claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. section 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"), with respect to the
Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The terms of
the Settlement are set out in that certain Settlement Agreement and
Release, fully executed as of February 22, 2022, by counsel on
behalf of the Class Representatives, all Class Members, and
Defendants.

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina, is the largest independent Coca-Cola bottler in the
United States. The company makes, sells and distributes Coca-Cola
products along with other beverages, distributing to a market of 65
million people in 14 states.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nba5XN at no extra charge.[CC]

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: NJ Court Junks Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation disclosed in its Form
10-K Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2022,
that the New Jersey Superior Court deferred further proceedings by
dismissing a consolidated putative shareholder derivative
litigation made up of three putative shareholder derivative
complaints were filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County.
Dismissal was without prejudice but the court permitted the parties
to file a motion to vacate the dismissal in the future.

On October 31, 2016, November 15, 2016 and November 18, 2016, three
putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court, Bergen County, naming the company, all of our then
current directors and certain of its current and former officers at
that time as defendants. These actions were consolidated in an
order dated January 24, 2017. The complaints assert claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, abuse
of control, mismanagement, and/or insider selling by defendants. On
March 16, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation deferring all
further proceedings pending a final, non-appealable ruling on the
then-anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
securities class action. On April 26, 2017, in lieu of ordering the
stipulation filed by the parties, the New Jersey Superior Court
deferred further proceedings by dismissing said case without
prejudice.

Cognizant is a professional services companies, engineering modern
business for the digital era with services including digital
services and solutions, consulting, application development,
systems integration, application testing, application maintenance,
infrastructure services and business process services.


COINBASE GLOBAL: Suit Says Tokens Are Unregistered Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Coinbase has failed to disclose that 79 crypto
tokens bought and sold on its platform are in fact unregistered
securities.

The 255-page lawsuit claims that Coinbase's sale of the following
tokens, listed by their trade symbols, violates federal and state
law given the company's "centralized" cryptocurrency platforms are
not registered as a securities exchange or broker-dealer:

"1INCH, AAVE, ACH, ADA, AGLD, ALGO, AMP, ANKR, ARPA, ATOM, AUCTION,
AXS, BAL, BAND, BAT, BNT, BOND, BTRST, CGLD, CLV, COMP, CRO, CRV,
CTSI, CVC, DNT, DOGE, DOT, ENJ, EOS, FARM, FET, FIL, FORTH, GNT,
GRT, GTC, ICP, IOTX, KEEP, KNC, LINK, LOOM, LRC, MANA, MATIC, MKR,
MLN, NKN, NMR, NU, OGN, OMG, ORN, OXT, PLA, POLY, QNT, QUICK, RARI,
REN, REP, RLC, SHIB, SKL, SNX, SOL, STORJ, SUSHI, TRB, TRIBE, UMA,
UNI, XLM, XRP, XTZ, XYO, YFI, ZRX."

The suit says that although some digital assets closely resemble
Bitcoin or other commodities in that they're decentralized, others
align more closely with traditional securities in that they
represent an individual's investment in a project that is to be
undertaken with funds raised through the sale of tokens. Like
traditional securities, the case states, investors buy these tokens
in the hope that their value will increase as the issuer does
something that will in turn give the token value.

Moreover, the similarity of certain digital assets to traditional
securities is enhanced by the fact that the tokens are offered to
the public by way of an initial coin offering (ICO), which is
modeled after the initial public offering (IPO) of a traditional
security, the lawsuit adds.

Despite this, none of the 79 tokens at issue are registered with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or state
regulators, the complaint says. As a result, purchasers have no
access to the disclosures that come with the issuance of
traditional securities, and receive at most a so-called
"whitepaper" that, while describing a token, does not satisfy
federal and state prospectus requirements, according to the case.
Further, whitepapers are often supplemented by ads and social media
posts that promote a particular token, the suit notes.

The lawsuit argues that the Coinbase platforms -- Coinbase and
Coinbase Pro -- are considered "exchanges" under federal law given
they perform the functions of a traditional exchange by bringing
together buy and sell orders and use established and
nondiscretionary methods to set the prices at which the orders are
executed.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons and entities who transacted
in any of the 79 tokens listed on this page on the Coinbase
platform and/or the Coinbase Pro platform between October 8, 2019
and the present. [GN]

COLDWATER, MI: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Utility Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Measel, writing for WTVB, reports that Coldwater City Attorney
Megan Angell warned the Coldwater City Council on March 14 that a
Detroit area law firm may file a class action lawsuit against the
city over utility rates charged by the Coldwater B.P.U.

She said the Royal Oak law firm of Kickham Hanley made a Freedom of
Information Act request a couple of weeks ago.

Angell said the law firm is looking at rates that are somehow
really taxes and that all of the lawsuits filed were against
municipal utilities.

She said bottom line, customers will get very little money from a
legal victory.

Angell expected the law firm will send out post cards to utility
customers which tells them they are being overcharged and that they
will represent them in a lawsuit.

Council Member Jim Knaack told Angell the law firm takes advantage
of utility customers who may not be media savvy.

Angell said they don't know for sure what they are going to do with
the information that has been provided to the law firm through the
Freedom of Information Act.

No formal action was taken by the Council on March 14. [GN]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Padilla Shareholder Suit Pending in TN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, 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 17, 2022, that it is
facing a consolidated class complaint pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, Larry
Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron. This purported federal securities class
action was filed on May 30, 2019.

It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulting in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock.

On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.

Community Health Systems, Inc. is a healthcare service provider
based in Tennessee.


CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Rain Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 6
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rain v. Connecticut
General Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30115 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order on motion for
extension of time as follows:

  --  The Plaintiff shall identify             April 1, 2022
      experts to be used in connection
      with class certification by:

  --  The  Plaintiff's motion for              May 6, 2022
      class certification (if any)
      shall be filed by:

      Oppositions shall be filed by:           May 27, 2022

  --  Fact discovery other than requests       Oct. 14, 2022
      for admission shall be completed
      by:

  --  The Plaintiff shall designate            Nov. 11, 2022
      and disclose expert witnesses by:

  --  The Defendants shall designate           Dec. 9, 2022
      and disclose expert witnesses by:

  --  Expert depositions shall be              Jan. 6, 2023
      completed by:

  --  Dispositive motions (if any)             Feb. 3, 2023
      shall be filed by:

  --  Oppositions shall be filed               March 6, 2023
      by:

  --  Hearing on dispositive motions           April 21, 2023
      will be held on:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.

Connecticut General, doing business as, Cigna, provides insurance
services.[CC]

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. The case is styled as Riverdale Jewish
Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 651032/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. March 7, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Comm-Other-Commercial Division."

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. --
https://www.coned.com/ -- is providing electric, gas, and steam to
NYC and Westchester.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J. Rabin, Esq.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas Fl 32
          New York, NY 10019-7736


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Brown Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Damian B. Brown, an individual, and James Mueksch, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Continental Casualty Company, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-2349 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action complaint.

I. Introduction

The case arises from alleged misrepresentations contained in
Defendant Continental's long-term care insurance policy issued to
Wells Fargo & Company. Two Wells Fargo employees, Plaintiffs Damian
Brown and James Mueksch, obtained coverage under the policy. They
claim that the policy stated that the Defendant would not raise
premiums unless it could do so on a nationwide basis for insureds
in a particular age group. In spite of this language, they claim
the Defendant raised premiums on a State-by-State basis, at
different times, by different amounts. The Plaintiffs assert that
the Defendant's conduct amounts to a breach of contract, fraud, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). They
bring a complaint on behalf of a putative class.

II. Background

The Plaintiffs were insured under a group long-term care policy
issued and delivered to Wells Fargo. At the times they purchased
their policies, Brown resided in California and Mueksch resided in
Arizona. Long-term care insurance pays for a variety of services
like adult daycare, an assisted living facility, or skilled nursing
home. According to the Plaintiffs, purchasers of long-term care
coverage secure a more favorable premium by obtaining coverage at
an early age.

The Defendant issued and delivered group long-term care policy
number 9725TQ (the Policy) to Wells Fargo in California; the
Policy's effective date is Jan. 1, 2002. As an employee of Wells
Fargo, Brown purchased a certificate of coverage under the Policy
with a coverage effective date of Jan. 1, 2010. Muesksch, another
Wells Fargo employee, purchased a certificate of coverage under the
Policy with a coverage effective date of Sept. 1, 2013. The
Defendant underwrote and established the Policy form, premium
rates, and actuarial risk pool for Wells Fargo employees
nationwide.

Originally, Brown's certificate carried a bi-weekly premium of
$3.42, or a quarterly premium of $29.29, and Mueksch's certificate
carried a bi-weekly premium of $24.56, or a quarterly premium of
$183.56.

In 2017, the Defendant wrote each Plaintiff a letter, stating that
his premium would increase by 45.475% in a phased manner, with a
15% increase occurring on May 1, 2017, a 15% increase occurring on
May 1, 2018, and a 10% increase occurring on May 1, 2019. The
letter then gave the Plaintiff three options to respond to the
anticipated premium increase: (1) continue current coverage by
paying the new premium; (2) reduce coverage to help "minimize the
effect" of the premium increase; or (3) execute a non-forfeiture
benefit, discontinuing premium payments and accepting a reduced
maximum benefit. Brown decided to pay the increased premium,
keeping his current coverage in place, while Mueksch discontinued
his coverage.

The Plaintiffs claim that in the 2017 letter, the Defendant
disclosed for the first time that the premium increase is not
uniform for everyone in the same age group or premium class. As a
result, they and the putative class members have been subjected to
disparate increases in the cost of their premiums depending upon
the State that they live in. They claim that these disparate
increases violate the Policy because Defendant has not met its
duties to increase premiums "based on the insured's premium class"
and "for all other insureds in the same premium class." As a
result, insureds living in different states "bear a
disproportionate cost" of coverage, therein subsidizing the
premiums of other insureds in contravention of the Policy.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant knew at the time it
issued the Policy that premium increases would and could only be
made State-by-State and not for the entire premium class or age
group.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs bring state-law claims for: (1)
breach of contract (first cause of action); (2) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (second cause of
action); (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
(third cause of action); (4) fraudulent concealment (fourth cause
of action); and (5) declaratory and injunctive relief (fifth cause
of action).

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

III. Analysis

Because the Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint in its entirety, Judge Rowland addresses each count. In
addition, the Defendant has raised a threshold choice of law issue
which Jdge Rowland addresses first before turning to the merits of
the claims.

A. Choice of Law for Common Law Claims (Counts I, II, IV)

Regarding Counts I and II, Judge Rowland holds that neither side
has raised an outcome-determinative conflict among the laws of
Illinois, Minnesota, and California as to the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim. Because there exists no outcome-determinative
conflict, she applies Illinois law to the breach of contract claim.
On Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, however, an outcome-determinative conflict exists
because Illinois does not recognize such a cause of action while
the laws of Minnesota and California do. The parties agree that
Illinois does not apply but disagree whether the present record
counsels in favor of applying California or Minnesota law. Judge
Rowland need not conclusively resolve whether California or
Minnesota law applies to this claim, however, because the claim
fails no matter which State's law applies.

As to the Plaintiffs' claim for common law fraud in Count IV, the
parties again disagree which law applies -- the Plaintiff says
Illinois, while the Defendant says California and Arizona—but
neither party has identified an outcome-determinative conflict.
Judge Rowland therefore applies Illinois law to the fraud claim.

B. Count I: Breach of Contract

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant breached the Policy by
increasing their premiums without also increasing the premiums for
other insureds in the "same premium class" because the Defendant
increased premiums in different States at different times, and in
different amounts. In their view, the Policy entitled the Defendant
only to increase premiums to the extent it could do so on a
nationwide basis for a particular age group.

In moving to dismiss this claim, the Defendant argues that the
Policy does not require nationwide premium increases, that the
Defendant possessed the right to raise premiums, and that the
Policy requires merely that it not single out an insured for
premium increases based upon age or health. The parties' dispute
thus hinges on an interpretation of the Policy language, and
specifically, what the phrase "same premium class" means.

Judge Rowland opines that the Plaintiffs have advanced a plausible
interpretation of the Policy that renders the Defendant in breach
based upon its actions in subjecting insureds in different States
to disparate premium increases. The Defendant was not powerless to
promise consistent nationwide premiums; rather, it could have
raised premiums "only to the extent allowed by the most restrictive
state." Thus, the fact that premiums are regulated on a
State-by-State basis does not foreclose the reasonableness of the
Plaintiff's interpretation that the Policy guaranteed only
nationwide rate increases by age group. For these reasons, Judge
Rowland denies the Defendant's motion as to Count I.

C. Count II: Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing

The Defendant next moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based
upon the Defendant's alleged disparate premium increases.

Judge Rowland opines that the Plaintiffs' allegations concerning
the alleged breach of implied covenant are no different than those
accusing the Defendant of breaching the Policy. In both counts, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached by increasing
premiums under the Policy in different States at different times,
and in different amounts. Thus, Juduge Rowland dismisses Count II
as duplicative of Count I.

D. Count IV: Fraudulent Concealment

In Count IV, the Plaintiffs attempt to hold Defendant responsible
for fraudulent concealment based upon the Defendant's failure to
disclose that future premium increases would not be uniform
nationwide. To properly plead this claim, the Plaintiffs must
assert that Defendant intentionally omitted or concealed a material
fact that it maintained the duty to disclose to them.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' fraud claim, arguing
that the Plaintiffs (1) fail to meet the pleading requirements
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (2) do not plausibly
allege intentional concealment, (3) fail to identify why Defendant
had a duty to relay the details of existing law to insureds, and
(4) fail to allege intentionality of concealment.

Judge Rowland opines that the Plaintiffs have done so. They claim
that the Defendant delivered to their employer, Wells Fargo, a
Policy that provided long-term care coverage to Plaintiffs during
certain effective dates; the Policy was delivered in California;
and the Defendant engaged in fraud by concealing that the premium
increases would not be uniform in timing and amount across a given
age group on a nationwide basis. It also remains plausible that,
under the Plaintiffs' reading of the Policy, the Defendant
concealed that they intended to raise rates on a State-by-State
basis while promising to do so on a nationwide basis

Moreover, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendant
acted with the intent to induce individuals to purchase coverage.
Under a reasonable interpretation of the Policy, the Defendant
promised to raise premiums only if it could do so on a nationwide
basis for a particular age group. Because, under that reading of
the Policy, the Defendant could have raised premiums only to the
extent allowed by the most restrictive State, it remains plausible
that the Defendant intentionally concealed the true nature of its
intentions -- to disparately raise premiums on a State-by-State
basis.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim
survives the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

E. Count III: UCL Claim

In Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's alleged
concealment of State-by-State variation in premium increases
violates California's UCL.

Among other things, the Defendant moves to dismiss Meuksch's UCL
claim, arguing that the UCL does not apply to injuries suffered by
non-California residents from conduct occurring outside of
California and by a Defendant who maintains its headquarters and
principal place of business outside of California. Next, it
contends that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that its conduct was
"unlawful" because they have not also alleged a violation of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL).

Judge Rowland opines that the Plaintiffs have plausibly raised that
a significant portion of reasonable consumers could have been
misled based upon the Defendant's alleged promise to not raise
premiums unless it could do so on a nationwide basis. And while the
meaning of "unfair" remains "in flux," the California court of
appeals has recognized that a systematic breach of certain types of
contracts can constitute an unfair practice under the UC. The
Plaintiffs have alleged precisely that -- the systematic breach of
insurance contracts by the Defendant. They have sufficiently raised
a UCL theory of "unfairness" at this stage.

F. Count V: Requests for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Finally, the Defendant moves to dismiss Count V only on the basis
that declaratory and injunctive relief is unavailable if the
Plaintiffs have failed to state any violation of their rights.
Because the Plaintiffs have stated viable claims, Judge Rowland
declines to dismiss their requests for injunctive and declaratory
relief.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she explained, Judge Rowland granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs'
claim in Count II for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing is dismissed, while the other Counts remain. The
Defendant will answer the complaint by April 8, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/38vaafjy from
Leagle.com.


CORTEXYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Cortexyme, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRTX) resulting from
allegations that Cortexyme may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Cortexyme securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3168 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 26, 2021, after market hours,
Cortexyme issued a press release "report[ing] top-line results from
its Phase 2/3 GAIN Trial, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study
evaluating the efficacy of atuzaginstat (COR388), an
investigational orally administered small-molecule that targets
gingipain proteases from the bacterium Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.
gingivalis)." The press release reported, in relevant part, that
the study had failed to meet statistical significance in its
co-primary endpoints of improving cognitive and functional
abilities in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. On
this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $44.17 per share, or 76%,
to close at $13.51 per share on October 27, 2021, damaging
investors.

Then, on January 26, 2022, before market hours, Cortexyme disclosed
receipt of a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") advising that the FDA had "plac[ed] a full clinical hold on
atuzaginstat's (COR388) Investigational New Drug application (IND
134303)." On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $2.85 per
share, or over 31%, to close at $6.21 per share on January 26,
2022, further damaging investors.

On February 1, 2022, Cortexyme issued a press release announcing
plans to reduce its workforce by 53% in response to the clinical
hold. That same day, Cortexyme announced the resignations of Casey
Lynch, the Company's CEO and Chair of the Board, and Steve Dominy,
the Company's Chief Scientific Officer and a director. On this
news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or over 9.8%,
to close at $6.16 per share on February 2, 2022, further damaging
investors.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CSX CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suit in DC Court
-------------------------------------------------
CSX 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 16, 2022, that a consolidated case is now
moving forward without class certification in the District of
Columbia.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX and three
other US-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel
surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic
resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws.
The class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case in
federal court in the District of Columbia. In 2017, the District
Court issued its decision denying class certification. On August
16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed
the District Court's ruling. The consolidated case is now moving
forward without class certification.

CSX Corporation provides rail-based freight transportation services
including traditional rail service, the transport of intermodal
containers and trailers, as well as other transportation services
such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk commodity operations.


DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Johnson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE),
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00047-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., March 15,
2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons
and entities similarly situated, against the Defendant for alleged
violation of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the repair service
market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard
central computers known as engine control units.

According to the complaint, Deere's monopolization of the Deere
Repair Services Market allows Deere and the Dealerships to charge
and collect supra-competitive prices for its services every time a
piece of equipment requires the Software to diagnose or complete a
repair. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class members have collectively
paid millions of dollars more for the repair services than they
would have paid in a competitive market. Allegedly, Deere's scheme
to prevent independent repairs creates additional revenue for Deere
over the entire useful life of every piece of equipment it sells.

Mr. Johnson purchased a brand-new John Deere 6105E 105hp tractor
from the Tri-Green, in Florence, Alabama. Since he has owned the
tractor, it has occasionally broken down. Due to John Deere's
alleged anti-competitive practices, Johnson has not been able to
use aftermarket parts or have any independent mechanics repair the
equipment.

Deere & Co. is a publicly-traded company headquartered in Moline,
Rock Island County, Illinois which manufactures and distributes a
range of agricultural, construction, forestry, and commercial and
consumer equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter Alan Davis, Esq.
          DUNBAR DAVIS, PLLC
          324 Jackson Avenue East, Suite A
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-0001
          Facsimile: (662) 281-1201
          E-mail: waltdavis@dunbardavis.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                  tony@mastandoartrip.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          2-20th Street North, Suite 930
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
          Tucker Brown, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
          2001 Park Place Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (205) 800-922-4851
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  tbrown@whatleykallas.com

DELAWARE NORTH: Cyiark Loses Bid to Extend Class Status Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dejone Cyiark v. Delaware
North Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08761-ODW-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, entered an order denying
Plaintiff's stipulated bid to extend the class certification motion
deadline by almost three months, to June 3, 2022.

The Court said, "However, Plaintiff did not cite to any concrete
reason as to why this deadline should be extended. Instead, the
Plaintiff merely stated that a class certification motion will be
filed in a related matter that has a later deadline than the one
herein. It is unclear how this fact warrants extending the deadline
in this action. Additionally, the Plaintiff notes that the
requested extension is necessary because "Plaintiff may be
prejudiced in her ability to complete necessary discovery prior to
moving for class certification." However, in its Scheduling Order,
the Court explicitly advised that it "will rarely grant
stipulations or applications to extend [the class certification
motion] deadline.  Specifically, the failure to complete class
discovery before the deadline does not constitute good cause to
extend the deadline." Thus, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the
good cause necessary to extend the deadline to file a motion for
class certification."

On March 1, 2022, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management
Order.

Delaware North is a global food service and hospitality company
headquartered in Buffalo, New York. The company also operates in
the lodging, sporting, airport, gambling, and entertainment
industries.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ukZQr9 at no extra charge.[CC]

DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maddens Lawyers have commenced a class action against Dermatology
and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (DCSS) and the following
doctors (defendants):

Dr Daniel Lanzer
Dr Daniel Aronov
Dr Daniel Darbyshire
Dr Ryan Wells
Dr Alieza Fallahi (Dr Ali)

The class action has been commenced in the Victorian Supreme Court
on behalf of all patients who have suffered loss or damage because
of cosmetic surgery being performed at DCSS or by one or more of
the defendants. The class action alleges that each of the
defendants engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. It is also
alleged that cosmetic surgeries were not undertaken with an
appropriate level of care and skill.

Hundreds of patients of DCSS have reported devastating experiences
and outcomes in connection with cosmetic surgery procedures such
as:

   -- inadequate pre surgery consultations
   -- botched results
   -- a lack or complete absence of after care
   -- psychological trauma
   -- lasting physical deformities
   -- nerve pain
   -- numbness.

There is a range of procedures patients have undertaken such as:

   -- liposuction (including '360 lipo' and 'mega lipo')
   -- otoplasty
   -- face lifts
   -- tummy tucks
   -- BBLs
   -- treatments for lipodemia
   -- breast augmentation
   -- liposculpture.

Any patient who has had an adverse outcome as a result of their
cosmetic surgery at DCSS or by one of the defendants may be
eligible to participate in the class action. Patients are
encouraged to contact Maddens Lawyers to discuss their
circumstances, confidentially and with no obligation.

Maddens Lawyers is advancing the class action on a 'no win, no fee'
basis.

Register online by completing the form below or phone 1800 815 228.
[GN]

DOCMJ: Final Approval Hearing of TCPA Settlement Set on Aug. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that DocMJ will pay over $736,000 to
resolve allegations it bombarded consumers with spam text
messages.

The settlement benefits individuals who received text messages from
Physician Compassionate Care, doing business as DocMJ, since June
14, 2015.

DocMJ is a medical marijuana company based in Florida. The
company's physicians help provide recommendations and advice to
patients considering medical cannabis.

However, the company allegedly violated federal law with spam text
messages.

According to a 2020 amended class action lawsuit, DocMJ regularly
sent text messages advertising its services to prospective
customers. A text message received by the class action's plaintiff
allegedly offered assistance "finding the best location" or
"scheduling with the monthly payment plan."

According to the plaintiff, the texts he received were clearly
generated by an automatic dialing system and thousands of other
consumers could have received similar text messages.

"[DocMJ] used equipment having the capacity to store telephone
numbers, using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such
numbers and/or to dial numbers from a list automatically, without
human intervention, to make non-emergency telephone calls to the
cellular telephones of plaintiff and the other members of the
Class," the spam text class action lawsuit alleges.

Although the plaintiff was able to successfully unsubscribe by
texting "STOP" to the phone number, he says he never gave DocMJ
permission to text him. As a result, the texts he received violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), he contends.

The TCPA is a federal law which prohibits spam texts or
telemarketing phone calls placed by companies without customer
consent. Violations of the TCPA could garner penalties of up to
$1,500. If DocMJ was found guilty of sending numerous telemarketing
texts without consent, the company could have faced a large
verdict.

Physician Compassionate Care hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to avoid the costs of trial and resolve these allegations
with a $736,542 settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive a cash
payment of up to $18. Exact payment amounts may be lower depending
on the number of valid claims filed by the claim deadline.

In addition to providing cash benefits, Physician Compassionate
Care has agreed to change its policies and procedures to avoid
future TCPA violations.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 13, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the TCPA settlement is scheduled for
Aug. 12, 2022.

In order to benefit from the settlement, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by Aug. 27, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who received text messages from
Physician Compassionate Care, doing business as DocMJ, since June
14, 2015.

Potential Award
Up to $18

Proof of Purchase
Phone number that received the spam texts

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/27/2022

Case Name
Teblum v. Physician Compassionate Care LLC d/b/a DocMJ, Case No.
2:19-cv-00403-SPC-MRM, in the U.S. District Court Middle District
of Florida

Final Hearing
08/12/2022

Settlement Website
PhysicianCompassionateCareTCPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Teblum v. Physician Compassionate Care LLC d/b/a DocMJ Settlement
Administrator
P.O. Box 43502
Providence, RI 02940-3502
info@PhysicianCompassionateCareTCPAsettlement.com
844-917-2017

Class Counsel
Manuel S. Hiraldo Esq
HIRALDO PA

Ignacio J. Hiraldo Esq
IJH LAW

Michael Eisenband Esq
EISENBAND LAW PA

Defense Counsel
Jeffrey N Rosenthal Esq
Maria Vigilante Esq
BLANK ROME LLP [GN]

DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to May 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Gile, et al., v.
Dolgen California, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs Brian Gile
an Randolph Gallego's ex parte application to continue class
certification deadline and class discovery.

               Event                           New Date

-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:             Nov. 14, 2022

-- Expert Disclosure (Initial):              Nov. 14, 2022

-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):             Dec. 1, 2022

-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                 Dec. 15, 2022

-- Deadline to File a Motion for             May 9, 2022
   Class Certification:

-- Deadline to File an Opposition            May 31, 2022
   to the Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Deadline to File a Reply:                 June 21, 2022

-- Hearing Date on Motion for                July 11, 2022
   Class Certification:

The Court said, "The good cause standard is met. The Plaintiffs
need to find new counsel to help prosecute this class action due to
their lead counsel's illness. This means the current class
certification and discovery schedule cannot be reasonably met with
diligence by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs were also diligent in
filing this application as soon as it became apparent that their
lead counsel could no longer practice law. The Court finds an
extension of 45 days is appropriate on these facts."


A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ui1OIJ at no extra charge.[CC]

DXD SOLUTIONS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DXD Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. DXD
Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Plantvine, Case No.
1:22-cv-01502 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

DXD Solutions, Inc. doing business as Plantvine --
https://www.plantvine.com/ -- delivers live, healthy, happy, lush
house plants and outdoor plants door to door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


EAT DRINK: Conditional Class Status Granted in Swan-Sullivan
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIYA SWAN-SULLIVAN , on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EAT DRINK
HERE L.L.C., CHARLES A. HODGE, doing business as Sovereign
Remedies, Case No. 1:21-cv-00314-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Carleton Metcalf entered an order granting the "Joint Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Notice to Putative Collective
Action Members and Certification and Report of F.R.C.P. 26(f)
Conference and Discovery Plan" as follows:

   1. The following class of individuals is conditionally
      certified in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      "All current and former servers employed at Sovereign
      Remedies at any time since October 22, 2018 who were paid
      an hourly rate of less than $7.25 before earned tips.

   2. The Notice and Consent Form (Doc. 18-1) is approved for
      issuance to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

   3. On or before March 15, 2022, Defendants shall provide to
      the Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing
      the name, last known mailing address(es), last known e-
      mail address(es), last known telephone number(s), and
      dates of employment for each current or former employee in
      the conditionally certified class.

   4. On or before March 22, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel shall
      cause the approved Notice and Consent Form to issue to
      potential Opt-In Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
      Short Message Service (SMS) / text message, at Plaintiff's
      initial expense and without prejudice to seeking
      reimbursement and shall include a self-addressed, postage-
      prepaid envelope with the initial mailing.

   5. Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs shall have until May 20, 2022
      to opt into this action, and any Consent Form postmarked
      on or before May 20, 2022, or transmitted to Plaintiff's
      counsel via e-mail or facsimile on or before such  date,
      shall be deemed timely.

   6. On or before June 3, 2022, Defendants shall produce the
      payroll, timekeeping, and tip data for all individuals who
      have opted into this action.

   7. The parties shall engage in settlement negotiations in a
      good faith attempt to resolve this matter prior to July 8,
      2022.

   8. On or before July 8, 2022, the parties shall file either a
      Joint Notice of Settlement, or, if no resolution has been
      reached, a Certificate of Initial Attorneys' Conference
      and proposed discovery plan.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36m5RvQ at no extra charge.[CC]

ECHO DESIGN GROUP: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Echo Design
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Echo Design Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02233 (S.D.N.Y., March
18, 2022).

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

Echo -- https://echonewyork.com/ -- is an industry leader in the
design, marketing and distribution of home and fashion
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ELECTRIC LAST: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 15 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you

ELMS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1
SPWR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sunpower-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1
FB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meta-platforms-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp.
(NASDAQ:ELMS)

ELMS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 31, 2021 -
February 1, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 4, 2022

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Electric
Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) ELMS's previously issued financial statements
were false and unreliable; (2) ELMS's earlier reported financial
statements would need restatement; (3) certain ELMS executives
and/or directors purchased equity in the Company at substantial
discounts to market value without obtaining an independent
valuation; (4) on November 25, 2021 (Thanksgiving), the Company's
Board formed an independent Special Committee to conduct an inquiry
into certain sales of equity securities made by and to individuals
associated with the Company; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ:SPWR)

SPWR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 3, 2021 -
January 20, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sunpower-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SunPower
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain connectors used by
SunPower suffered from cracking issues; (2) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the
faulty connectors; (3) as a result of the foregoing, SunPower's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ:FB)

FB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 2, 2021 -
February 2, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 9, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/meta-platforms-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24727&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Meta
Platforms, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Apple's iOS privacy changes
were having a material impact on Meta's ability to provide the kind
of targeted advertising that its customers wanted and, as a result,
customer ad spending was dropping precipitously; (2) Meta's
mitigation efforts were either not properly implemented or
ineffective; (3) measurement of ads was not accurate as mitigation
efforts were failing; and (4) Meta did not have a plan in place to
properly address the impact of the iOS privacy changes.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

EMBASSY SUITES: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Dec. 30
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McArdle-Bracelin v.
Embassy Suites Employer LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00861
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order
setting class certification deadlines.

  -- Class Certification Motion due by:       Dec. 30, 2022

  -- The Plaintiff to file a further          May 20, 2022
     status report regarding discovery
     issues by:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury.[CC]


ENSEA INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EnSea, Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. EnSea, Inc., Case No 1:22-cv-02262 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2022).

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

EnSea, Inc., is composed by managers and engineers with
comprehensive international experience and deep knowledge of
renewable energies and expertise in finance.[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


ENTERGY CORP: Stewart Class Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY J. STEWART, ET
AL., v. ENTERGY CORP., ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-01834-EEF-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Court entered an order that:

  -- the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to State Court is
     granted; and

  -- the Plaintiffs' request for fees is denied.

The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Petition for Damages in Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans on September 18, 2021. The
Plaintiffs name Entergy Corporation, Entergy New Orleans, LLC, and
Entergy Louisiana, LLC as Defendants and claim damages due to power
outages after Hurricane Ida, which Plaintiffs allege were caused by
Entergy's negligence.

The Plaintiffs seek damages for emotional distress and mental
anguish; loss of habitation and relocation costs; property damage;
physical injuries; and the wrongful death of at least ten
individuals. The Plaintiffs assert that they are all citizens of
Louisiana, as are all three Defendants.

The Defendants removed the case to this Court on October 6, 2021.
The Defendants' Notice of Removal asserts that this Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction, even though Plaintiffs only bring
state law negligence claims, because the infrastructure and alleged
actions in question are subject to federal regulation.

Thus, the Defendants argue, Plaintiffs' negligence claims depend on
questions of federal law because federal regulations establish the
standard of care for the relevant activities.

Entergy is a Fortune 500 integrated energy company engaged
primarily in electric power production and retail distribution
operations in the Deep South of the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JtNROr at no extra charge.[CC]

ENVIGO GLOBAL: Greenwell Labor Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Inotiv 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 16, 2022, that Envigo Global Services, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Inotiv, is a defendant in a purported class action
and a related action under California's Private Attorney General
Act of 2004 brought by Jacob Greenwell, a former employee of
Envigo, on June 25, 2021 in the Superior Court of California,
Alameda County.

The complaints allege that Envigo violated certain wage and hour
requirements under the California Labor Code. PAGA authorizes
private attorneys to bring claims on behalf of the State of
California and aggrieved employees for violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The class action complaint seeks certification
of a class of similarly situated employees and the award of actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages for the alleged
violations. The PAGA complaint seeks civil penalties pursuant to
the California Labor Code and attorney's fees.

Inotiv, Inc. is commercial physical and biological research company
based in Tennessee.

ERNST & YOUNG: German Court Opens Class-Action Style Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that a German court has opened class-action style
legal proceedings against accounting firm Ernest & Young LLP (EY)
to hear cases from investors in defunct payment company Wirecard
AG.

As Bloomberg News reported Tuesday (March 15), those investors say
EY failed in its duties when auditing the now bankrupt Wirecard,
which collapsed in 2020 amid a scandal involving $2.1 billion in
funds that likely never existed, leading to a series of
investigations into what was one of the largest corporate scandals
in German's history.

German law firm TILP told Bloomberg the ruling had come down on
March 14. The firm had filed individual lawsuits soon after the
start of the scandal and had hoped to combine all of them in a mass
case. The plaintiffs are shareholders and bondholders who had
invested in Wirecard.

This news comes one day after former Wirecard CEO Markus Braun was
charged with fraud, breach of trust and accounting manipulation
following a criminal investigation of the company.

Prosecutors in Germany say that between 2015 and 2018, Braun signed
off on financial statements knowing they were incorrect.

Also charged were Oliver Bellenhaus, a former managing director of
a Wirecard subsidiary based in Dubai, and Stephan von Erffa, chief
accountant and deputy chief financial officer. According to media
reports, Bellenhaus admitted his participation in the company's
wrongdoing and is cooperating with prosecutors, while Braun and von
Erffa have denied all charges.

"By the end of 2015 at the latest, it was clear to everyone accused
that Wirecard AG was only making losses with the actual, real
business, which would ultimately lead to insolvency," prosecutors
said. "With the publication of the significantly embellished
numbers, those involved wanted to give investors the impression
that Wirecard AG was a commercially successful and solvent
company."

EY said it is weighing an appeal, as judges from the same tribunal
had rejected past attempts at class actions because the class
action procedure doesn't cover audit reports.

The accounting firm adds that the same court already ruled that
investor cases aren't likely to succeed as the plaintiffs must
prove intent, while EY says its auditors conducted their work "to
the best of their knowledge and conviction." [GN]

FALCON MINERALS: Allen Files Suit Over DPM Merger
-------------------------------------------------
DIANA ALLEN and D. ALLEN ENTERPRISES, LLC, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. CLAIRE R.
HARVEY, WILLIAM D. ANDERSON, ERIK C. BELZ, BRYAN C. GUNDERSON, MARK
C. HENLE, ALAN J. HIRSHBERG, ADAM M. JENKINS, STEVEN R. JONES,
FALCON MINERALS CORPORATION, DPM HOLDCO, LLC, and FALCON MINERALS
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP LP, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0248 (Del. Ch.,
March 15, 2022) is a verified class action complaint brought by the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated public Class A stockholders of Falcon Minerals
Corporation, against the members of the board of directors of
Falcon for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with
soliciting stockholder approval for a conflicted transaction
involving Falcon's controlling stockholder Blackstone.

On January 12, 2022, Falcon and privately held DPM Holdco, LLC
announced that the parties had executed an Agreement and Plan of
Merger. The merger agreement provides that Falcon will merge with
Desert Peak to form a combined company. As a result of this
proposed transaction, Desert Peak's current stockholders -- plus
affiliates of Blackstone that own interests in both Falcon and
Desert Peak -- will own up to 86% of the combined company while the
public stockholders' ownership of Falcon will drop from
approximately 60% to 14%.

In connection with soliciting stockholder approval for the proposed
transaction, the Company filed a preliminary proxy statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022.
The Proxy Statement allegedly contains material misrepresentations
and omissions, including information regarding: a) potential
conflicts of interest between Claire R. Harvey -- the chair of the
purportedly disinterested Transaction Committee that negotiated and
approved the proposed transaction -- and Blackstone; b) the fees
Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc. -- one of two financial advisors to
the Transaction Committee -- received from Blackstone from previous
engagements; and c) potential conflicts of interests affecting
Barclays Capital Inc., which served as a financial advisor to the
Transaction Committee, in connection with the proposed transaction.


Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the stockholder vote
on the proposed transaction unless and until the Board provides its
stockholders with all material information necessary to cast an
informed vote, added the suit.

Falcon Minerals is a holding company that has a dual-class "Up-C"
corporate structure. The publicly traded Falcon is a shell
corporation that sits atop Falcon OpCo, a Delaware limited
partnership.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Telephone: (845) 290-6818

FCA US: Kundrath Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as John Kundrath, William Sowell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-01714 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

FCA US LLC -- https://www.fcausllc.com/ -- designs, engineers,
manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger
cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as
well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Philip Reichmann, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMAN
          16 Yale Circle
          Kensington, CA 94708
          Phone: (415) 373-8849
          Email: cpreichmann@yahoo.com


FCA US: Zuehlsdorf Appeals Summary Judgment in CVT Defect Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steve Zuehlsdorf filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled STEVE ZUEHLSDORF, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01877-JGB-KK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Riverside.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that
Defendant failed to disclose material facts and safety concern to
consumers regarding vehicle equipped with a Jatco JF011E
Continuously Variable Transmission (Class Vehicles) designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or
serviced by FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC.

According to the complaint, the CVT is defective in that it causes
sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking when drivers attempt
to accelerate the class vehicle. In addition, when the driver tries
to accelerate, the CVT will cause the vehicle to lag and fail to
accelerate as intended by the driver. Further, the CVT is
inordinately prone to overheating, which causes the vehicle to
abruptly decelerate and lose power at highway speeds. Finally, the
CVT fails and requires replacement.

The CVT Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at
the time of sale. Chrysler began selling the CVT-equipped Jeep
Patriot, Jeep Compass, and Dodge Caliber with the 2007 model year,
and issued the first Technical Service Bulletin addressing the CVT
Defect on April 28, 2007. Accordingly, Plaintiff is informed and
believes that since 2007, if not earlier, Chrysler knew of the CVT
Defect. Following bankruptcy proceedings in June 2009, Chrysler was
reorganized as Chrysler Group LLC.

On February 7, 2022, Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an Order (1)
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to strike
the expert testimony of Michael Stapleford; (2) granting
Defendant's motion to strike the expert testimony of Stephen B.
Boyles; (3) granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment; (4)
denying Plaintiff's ex parte application to supplement opposition
to Defendants motion for summary judgment; (5) granting Plaintiff's
motion to file opposition under seal; and (6) vacating the February
14, 2022 hearing.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Steve Zuehlsdorf v. FCA US LLC,
Case No. 22-55270, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Steve Zuehlsdorf Mediation Questionnaire was due on
March 22, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 14, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on May 12, 2022;

   -- Appellant Steve Zuehlsdorf opening brief is due on June 20,
2022;

   -- Appellee FCA US LLC answering brief is due on July 20, 2022;
and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE ZUEHLSDORF, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
          Telephone: (844) 774-2020
          E-mail: mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com  

               - and -

          Cody Robert Padgett, Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW, APC
          1875 Century Park, E, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-8029
          E-mail: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
          Kathy Wisniewski, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 N 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6354
          E-mail: sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
                  kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in MPM Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MPM HOLDINGS INC., Plaintiff v. FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKLEY INSURANCE
COMPANY, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, C.A. No.
N20C-07-014 MMJ CCLD (Del.), Judge Mary M. Johnston of the Superior
Court of Delaware issued an Opinion:

     1. granting in part and denying in part MPM's Motion for
        Summary Judgment;

     2. denying Federal's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; and

     3. denying Federal's Cross-Motion to Dismiss MPM's bad faith
        claims.

I. Background

MPM seeks insurance coverage for defense costs and indemnification.
MPM further alleges that Federal, its primary D&O insurer, has
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. MPM brought the
underlying litigation, contending that MPM and certain officers and
directors acted improperly in connection with a merger that closed
on May 15, 2019.

The Defendants in the merger action are alleged to have breached
their fiduciary duties by negotiating the merger to further their
own interests and those of private equity investors in a manner
that failed to maximize the value of MPM shares. MPM shareholders
filed a pre-closing Section 220 books and records action; three
consolidated post-merger appraisal actions; and a putative
stockholders' class action ("SCA"), all in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Following consolidation of the appraisal and SCA, the appraisal
complaints were amended to add breach of fiduciary duty claims. The
resulting consolidated action remains pending and is captioned In
re Appraisal of MPM Holdings Inc. Appraisal and Stockholder
Ligitation ("Consolidated Action").

The Federal Primary Directors & Officers and Entity Securities
Liability Insurance Policy provides $10 million in coverage for
"Claims" first made during the policy period of July 1, 2018 to
July 1, 2019, subject to a $1 million retention ("Policy"). The
Policy Endorsement/Rider No. 38 expanded coverage for "Securities
Claims" to include any "Merger Objection Claim."

MPM provided Federal with notice of the various cases involved in
the underlying litigation. Federal acknowledged coverage for the
Section 220 case and the proposed class action (pursuant to a
reservation of rights). Federal denied coverage for the appraisal
actions on the grounds that seeking "to assert a shareholder's
statutory right to appraisal does not allege a Wrongful Act."

Federal subsequently denied coverage for the filed SCA, stating
that "none of the individual defendants are Insured persons under
the Policy."

MPM filed the Superior Court case on July 2, 2020. It requests
declaratory judgment and relief for breach of contract and bad
faith. On Aug. 6, 2020, Federal changed its position and agreed to
advance defense costs for the SCA. Federal filed a Counterclaim
seeking declaratory relief that MPM is not entitled to defense or
indemnity coverage under the Policy for the appraisal actions.

II. Analysis

MPM seeks an order declaring that Federal is obligated to reimburse
or advance MPM's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of
the Appraisal Action. It argues that the Appraisal Action: Is a
Merger Objection Claim arising from alleged Wrongful Acts; and
triggers coverage under the Run-Off Endorsement. MPM requests an
amount to be determined by the Court through further proceedings,
as appropriate, and subject only to any applicable retention or
limit in the Policy. It further requests that the Court deny
Federal's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and grant declaratory
judgment.

Federal seeks an Oder denying MPM's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, and granting its own Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
It argues that the Appraisal Action does not constitute a
"Securities Claim" or a "Wrongful Act." Therefore, the Appraisal
Action is not a Merger Objection Claim. Federal also asserts that
the Run-Off endorsement bars coverage because the Appraisal Action
does not address pre-closing wrongdoing.

Federal argues that MPM's claim for bad faith should be dismissed.
Federal states that MPM is not a named defendant in the SCA. There
is not yet any settlement agreement regarding the SCA. Federal
currently is providing coverage for defense costs for MPM's former
directors subject to a reservation of rights. It asserts that based
on the foregoing, Federal's actions do not constitute bad faith.

A. Coverage for Appraisal Action

In November 2018, certain stockholders sent appraisal demands to
MPM under Title 8, Section 262 of Delaware's General Corporation
Law. On Feb. 8, 2019, prior to the effective date of the Merger
Agreement, a beneficial holder of MPM common stock filed a verified
complaint against MPM for inspection of books and records under
Title 8, Section 220, of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Merger became effective on May 15, 2019. In July 2019, MPM
began filing actions in the underlying litigation, including the
Appraisal Action.

Subsequently, Federal denied coverage for the Appraisal Action on
the basis that because "appraisal actions merely seek to assert the
shareholder's statutory right to appraisal and do not allege a
Wrongful Act against the Insured, the appraisal actions do not
trigger coverage under the Policy."

The dispositive question in the Superior Court case is whether the
Appraisal Action is a claim for a Wrongful Act.

Judge Johnston opines that the Appraisal Action is not a claim for
a Wrongful Act. The Appraisal Action does not seek redress or
reprisal for any wrongful conduct by MPM.

MPM is seeking coverage for alleged wrongdoing by its directors in
connection with MPM's merger negotiations. It relies on a broad
interpretation of the term Wrongful Act to encompass the underlying
"complained-of process." "Although evidence of a flawed negotiation
process generally is admissible in an appraisal proceeding, that
evidence is relevant to what weight, if any, the Court accords the
negotiated merger price." It is not required that an appraisal
petitioner plead or establish a flawed process in order to seek an
appraisal.

Therefore, Judge Johnston finds that Federal is not obligated to
reimburse or advance MPM's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
defense of the Appraisal Action. MPM's Motion for Summary Judgment
is granted on this issue. Federal's Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied. The Court need not address coverage issues
relating to the Policy's Run-Off Endorsement.

B. Entity Liability Coverage

MPM has not made a claim for entity liability coverage under the
insuring agreement. The Court finds that the Appraisal Action is
not a covered claim. Therefore, the issue of Entity Liability
Coverage is moot.

C. Coverage for Frank Funds SCA Litigation

The Appraisal Action was filed on July 3, 2019 and consolidated on
Aug. 14, 2019. The Frank Funds SCA was filed on Feb. 25, 2020 -- 17
months after the Appraisal Action.

Federal currently is providing coverage for MPM's former directors
regarding the Frank Funds SCA, subject to reservation of rights. It
has advanced defense costs incurred by the Insured Persons
backdated to the date on which the SCA was tendered. MPM is not a
named defendant in the SCA action.

Judge Johnston finds that questions of fact remain. She opines that
questions of fact prevent finding as a matter of law that MPM's
coverage claims regarding former director are not justiciable at
this time. MPM's Motion for Summary Judgment as to coverage for
MPM's former directors is denied. For purposes of clarity, Judge
Johnston reiterates that MPM is not a named defendant in the Frank
Funds SCA litigation. Therefore, Federal has no duty to advance,
defend, or indemnify costs for MPM. This ruling only addresses
coverage for MPM's former directors.

D. Bad Faith Claims

Bad-faith claims involve issues of fact. MPM asserts that "in order
to establish 'bad-faith' the Plaintiff must show that the insurer's
refusal to honor its contractual obligation was clearly without any
reasonable justification." Thus, "the ultimate question is whether
at the time the insurer denied liability, there existed a set of
facts or circumstances known to the insurer which created a bona
fide dispute and therefore a meritorious defense to the insurer's
liability."

MPM argues that Federal denied coverage for the Frank Funds SCA
without reasonable justification, and failed to timely and
adequately investigate the claim. Although Federal subsequently
retracted its denial -- and then provided coverage, MPM asserts
that it is entitled to further develop facts pertaining to the
alleged "wrongful denial." It further argues that it is entitled to
develop facts surrounding the investigation and consideration of
coverage for the Appraisal Action. MPM states that discovery is
necessary to determine whether Federal complied with its duty of
good faith and fair dealing.

Judge Johnston finds that questions of fact prevent summary
judgment. Federal's cross-motion to dismiss MPM's bad faith claim
is denied.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Johnston concludes that the Appraisal Action in not a claim
for a Wrongful Act. Federal is not obligated to reimburse or
advance MPM's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the
Appraisal Action. Therefore, MPM's Motion for Summary Judgment on
this issue is granted. Federal's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
is denied.

Judge Johnston finds that the entity liability coverage issue is
moot. She has found that the Appraisal Action is not a covered
claim.

She further finds that questions of fact prevent finding as a
matter of law that MPM's coverage claims regarding former directors
are not justiciable at this time. Therefore, MPM's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to coverage for MPM's former directors is
denied.

The Court finds that questions of fact prevent a summary judgment
on the issue of bad faith. Therefore, Federal's Cross-Motion to
Dismiss MPM's bad faith claims is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3756tbk3 from Leagle.com.

David J. Baldwin, Esq. -- dbaldwin@bergerharris.com -- Peter C.
McGivney, Esq. -- pmcgivney@bergerharris.com -- Berger Harris LLP,
Wilmington, DE, Bernard P. Bell, Esq. (Argued), Tab R. Turano,
Esq., Miller Friel PLLC, in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.

Gregory F. Fischer, Esq. -- gfischer@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor,
Wilmington, DE, Angelo G. Savino, Esq. (Argued), Rafael Rivera,
Jr., Esq., Cozen O'Connor, in New York City, Attorneys for the
Defendants.


FERGUSON, MO: Fant to Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keilee Fant, et al., v.
THE CITY OF FERGUSON, Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion and certify the proposed Classes.

The City's Opposition does not undermine Plaintiffs' demonstration
that each of their proposed classes satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23. Indeed, the bulk of the Opposition is dedicated to issues
other than class certification. The City spends an inordinate
amount of space discussing the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and
rehashing an interpretation of those claims that this Court has
repeatedly rejected. When the City does address Rule 23, it posits
hypotheticals of marginal relevance and fails to offer evidence or
support for its key contentions. Class certification is warranted
here, and Plaintiffs' Motion should be granted, the Lawsuit says.

The City argues that none of Plaintiffs' proposed classes can be
certified because they each contain individuals who had not yet
been injured when this lawsuit began. Citing the Eighth Circuit's
recognition that "a class cannot be certified if it contains
members who lack standing," the City argues that, for any putative
class to be certified, each known and unknown member of the class
must have suffered a claimed injury as of the date the Complaint
was filed.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L2rFLx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-2700
          E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com

               - and -

          J. Frank Hogue, Esq.
          Claire Leonard, Esq.
          Shannon Lane, Esq.
          701 13th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-3623
          E-mail: fhogue@whitecase.com
                  claire.leonard@whitecase.com
                  shannon.lane@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Hafsa S. Mansoor, Esq.
          Cvetiva Popa, Esq.
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-7670
          E-mail: hafsa.mansoor@whitecase.com
                  iva.popa@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (855) 724-2489
          E-mail: jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          Marco Lopez, Esq.
          Ryan Downer, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 844-4975
          E-mail: marco@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Brendan Roediger, Esq.
          John Ammann, Esq.
          SLU LAW CLINIC
          100 N. Tucker Blvd.
          Saint Louis, MO 63101-1930
          Telephone: (314) 977-2778
          E-mail:Brendan.roediger@slu.edu

FIFTH THIRD: Settles Telemarketing Class Action for $50 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Fifth
Third Bank is moving toward a $50 million settlement to end a class
action lawsuit involving its telemarketing activities.

Attorneys with Myron M. Cherry & Associates, of Chicago, filed a
motion for preliminary approval of settlement March 12 with U.S.
District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer. The motion, on behalf of Express
Hauling, Mangia Nosh, Chief's Market and potential class members,
would end a longstanding dispute with Fifth Third and its
affiliates and subsidiaries, Vantiv and National Processing
Company, now known as Worldpay.

According to the motion, the $50 million would be "unprecedented"
and is nearly double a $28 million deal reached with Wells Fargo
Bank in similar litigation. Both lawsuits, which have some common
plaintiffs, involve allegations of the banks' contractors recording
telemarketing conversations with small business owners and others
using "caller ID spoofing" and other tactics to allegedly mislead
the business owners into believing they were speaking with either a
local customer or an existing service provider, when the marketers
were actually soliciting them to transfer their debit and credit
card transaction processing business to a new bank and vendors.

Cherry & Associates attorneys working on the case -- Myron Cherry,
Jacie Zolna, Benjamin Swetland, Jeremiah Nixon and Jessica Chavin
-- said the firm will seek a third of the settlement fund, about
$16.67 million. The firm also will seek reimbursement for about
$350,000 in costs associated with the litigation.

The Fifth Third lawsuit dates to Dec. 9, 2016, and was filed on
behalf of small business owners who said they got calls to
establish sales appointments from International Payment Services or
Ironwood Financial. In the scope of the principal-agent between
Fifth Third and IPS and Ironwood, according to the motion, the
vendors allegedly violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act
by not giving notice they were recording calls.

According to the settlement motion, the agreement with the Wells
Fargo defendants for more than 192,000 class members led to more
serious settlement discussions between Fifth Third and a class
estimated at 313,215 members, who received more than 1.15 million
calls from May 8, 2014, through July 29, 2016.

Class members would need to submit a claim form online or through
the mail. They could collect up to $5,000 for each documented call.
If the initial response doesn't exhaust the settlement pool, class
members will be invited to submit additional claims. Named
plaintiffs are pursing $5,000 incentive awards.

In asking Pallmeyer to approve the settlement, the plaintiffs said
they expected Fifth Third would seek summary judgment at the
conclusion of discovery on grounds of its consistent position they
had no direct responsibility for the calls, and their agents "acted
outside the scope of its authority by illegally recording calls."

The plaintiffs also noted Ironwood filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection last year, potentially further complicating resolution
of the case. And they expressed concerns Fifth Third might pursue a
similar strategy, sweeping up the class claims in that proceeding.
Fifth Third also has contested the plaintiffs' position that every
recorded call constitutes a distinct CIPA violation with a $5,000
statutory penalty, instead insisting the damage provision applies
only once to any aggrieved party regardless of how many calls are
involved.

Defendants have been represented in the matter by attorneys Anthony
C. Porcelli, Claire E. Brennan, John W. Peterson, Matthew S. Knoop,
Joseph C. Sharp, Mark A. Olthoff, of Polsinelli P.C.; John H.
Mathias and Megan B. Poetzel, of Jenner & Block; John Touhy, Kiley
Keefe, Carrie Dettmer Slye and Melissa M. Hewitt, of Baker &
Hostetler; James R. Figliulo, Peter A. Silverman, Rebecca Rejeanne
Kaiser and Thomas Daniel Warman, of Figliulo & Silverman; and
Charles M. Merkel Jr. and Charles M. Merkel III, of Merkel & Cocke.
[GN]

FLAVCITY CORP: Ligon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flavcity Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Denette J. Ligon, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Flavcity
Corp., DTBE LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02230 (S.D.N.Y., March 18,
2022).

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

FlavCity -- https://www.flavcity.com/ -- offers healthy meal prep
recipes with filters to search by dietary type, protein, and
meals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Paint
-------------------------------------------------------
Sebastien Bell, writing for Carscoops, reports that General Motors
is facing a class-action lawsuit because of the paint on Chevrolet
and GMC's line of full-size trucks and SUVs from the model years
2015 through 2019. The complainants claim that the clear coat and
paint were defective from the factory.

The suit involves the 2015-2019 Chevrolet Tahoe, Suburban, and
Silverado as well as the GMC Yukon, Yukon XL, and Sierra from the
same model years, reports carcomplaints.com. The clear coat on
those vehicles allegedly delaminates, bubbles, flakes, erodes, and
blisters leading to demands for a recall.

"GM should properly repair all of the Class Vehicles, immediately,
offer rescission to the Class by repurchasing their Class Vehicles
for their full cost, reimburse the lessees of the Class Vehicles
the monies they have paid toward their leases, recall all defective
vehicles that are equipped with the defective paint, and cease and
desist from marketing, advertising, selling, and leasing the Class
Vehicles," the complainants write in the lawsuit.

The class action involves customers from Florida and Tennessee who
report paint issues. Owners claim that the clearcoat was chemically
unable to bond to the paint and that GM should have known that and
stopped selling the vehicles.

"The coups de grace, which was the final straw is when the top coat
on the hood and top of Tahoe started to fade/grey and crack on the
black undercoat," the owner of a 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe who was
referenced in the lawsuit wrote on carcomplaints.com. "To fix the
top coat, the dealership wanted $2300.00; of which they were going
to pick up 10% of after my pushing for warranty. The Tahoe is 3
years old. The paint should last well into a decade, and I kept the
car washed weekly and detailed every 6 months."

The complainants allege that even if their vehicles are repainted
for free, as would likely happen in a recall, the value of their
vehicles will still be affected by the peeling paint. That's
because, they allege, it will have been applied by a human, rather
than a factory robot, and therefore could not be perfectly even.

The suit is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. [GN]

GEORGIA POWER: Plaintiffs File Petition for Writ of Certiorari
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Co. Gas disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2022, that plaintiffs filed
a petition for writ of certiorari for the class action lawsuit for
a 2011 putative class action against its subsidiary Georgia Power
in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims. This case has been ruled upon and appealed
numerous times over the last several years.

In October 2019, the Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia
Power had appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee
schedule. On March 16, 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton County
granted class certification and Georgia Power's motion for summary
judgment. On March 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, and, on April 2, 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of
cross appeal on the issue of class certification.

On December 1, 2021, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the
Superior Court's ruling that granted summary judgment to Georgia
Power and dismissed Georgia Power's cross appeal on the issue of
class certification as moot. On December 21, 2021, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Georgia Supreme
Court.

Southern Company is a holding company that owns all of the
outstanding common stock of three traditional electric operating
companies, Southern Power Company, and Southern Company Gas based
in Georgia.


GHAZI ASSOCIATES: Javed Sues Over Counter Employees' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZESHAN JAVED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GHAZI ASSOCIATES INC., CHAUDHRY JALIL AHMAD,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01433
(E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2022) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from the failure
of the Defendants to provide overtime premium pay and to furnish
proper wage notices and wage statements.

Plaintiff Javed was employed by the Defendants as a counter
employee from July 2013 through December 11, 2021.

Ghazi Associates Inc. is an active New York Corporation doing
business as "Dunkin' Donuts," with its principal place of business
in Kings County, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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

GIORGIO ARMANI: Brooks' Class Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION,
d.b.a. ARMANI EXCHANGE, a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01483-JAM-JDP (E.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Parties' joint request that the
Court enters a dismissal with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's
individual claims in their entirety and without prejudice as to the
claims of absent putative class members.

Each party will bear her or its own costs, experts' fees, and
attorneys' expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8rf4xk from Leagle.com.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: First Amended Case Management Sched Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and PFIZER INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White
entered a first amended case management scheduling order as
follows:

              Event            Prior Date       Continued Date

  Deadline for Plaintiff       May 27, 2022     June 27, 2022
  to File Motion for Class
  Certification:

  Deadline to Complete         July 29, 2022    Aug. 29, 2022
  Depositions & Document
  Production of Plaintiff’s
  Experts re: Class
  Certification:

  Deadline for Opposition      Aug. 26, 2022    Sept. 26, 2022
  to Motion for Class
  Certification:

  Deadline to Complete         Oct. 28, 2022    Nov. 28, 2022
  Depositions & Document
  Production of Defendant's
  Experts re: Class
  Certification:

  Deadline for Plaintiff to    Dec. 2, 2022    Jan. 10, 2023
  File Reply in Support of
  Class Certification:

  Class Certification          Jan. 20, 2023    Feb. 17, 2023
  Hearing:

GlaxoSmithKline is a British multinational pharmaceutical company.

Pfizer is an American multinational pharmaceutical and
biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in
Manhattan, New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Iny4iQ at no extra charge.[CC]

GOOGLE LLC: Court Asks Help to Depose Martin Sramek in Calhoun Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR-SVK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan
van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, requested the assistance of the High
Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial Assistance,
pursuant to the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral deposition
testimony of Martin Sramek under the terms set forth in the Letter
of Request.

I. Introduction

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
located at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th Floor, 280
South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, presents its compliments to
the Federal Office of Justice and has the honor of requesting its
assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in a civil proceeding
now pending before the Court in the matter, specifically by
permitting commissioners appointed by the Court to take evidence
under Article 17 of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the
Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ("Hague
Convention").

It appears to the Court that Mr. Martin Sramek, whose professional
address is: Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munchen, Germany, is a
witness in the action and therefore has evidence relevant to the
action. It is necessary for the purposes of justice and for the due
determination of the matters in question between the parties that
Mr. Sramek be examined (remotely) at the Swiss offices of Quinn
Emanuel at Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, under oath
or affirmation. Given that the deposition would take place
(remotely) in the canton of Zurich, Switzerland, the competent
authority for the granting of the request is the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich, International Judicial Assistance, Hirschengraben
13/15, 8021 Zurich 1, Switzerland. As is customary, a copy of the
present Letter of Request is sent to the Federal Office of Justice,
Central Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil
and Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland.

The Court, therefore, respectfully requests assistance pursuant to
the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral deposition testimony of
Mr. Sramek under the terms set forth in this Letter of Request.

II. Background

It is a data privacy class action brought by and on behalf of
Google Chrome users who chose not to "Sync" their browsers with
their Google accounts while browsing the web ("Un-Synched Chrome
Users") from July 27, 2016 to the present (the "Relevant Period").
The Plaintiffs have sued Google for various causes of action
including Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
("CIPA") Cal. Penal Code Section 631, Intrusion Upon Seclusion,
Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing, Statutory Larceny Cal. Penal Code Sections 484
and 496, and Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

The Plaintiffs originally brought 16 claims: (1) unauthorized
interception of electronic communications under the Wiretap Act;
(2) unauthorized electronic communication service ("ECS")
disclosure under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510; (3)
unauthorized access to stored ECS communications under the Stored
Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. Section 2701; (4)
unauthorized disclosures of stored communications under the SCA,
U.S.C. Section 2701; (5) violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code Section 631; (6) invasion of
privacy; (7) intrusion upon seclusion; (8) breach of contract; (9)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (10)
quasi-contract (restitution and unjust enrichment); (11) violation
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. Section
1030(g); (12) violation of the California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (13) statutory larceny,
Cal. Penal Code Sections 484 and 496; (14) violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq.; (15) punitive damages under Cal. Civil Code
Section 3294; and (16) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. Section
2201(a).

On Sept. 18, 2020, the Court directed the parties to select 10
claims to litigate. On Sept. 25, 2020, the parties selected the
following 10 claims: (1) unauthorized disclosure under the Wiretap
Act; (2) unauthorized access under the SCA; (3) unauthorized
disclosures of stored communications under the SCA; (4) violation
of the CIPA; (5) intrusion upon seclusion; (6) breach of contract;
(7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(8) violation of the CFAA; (9) statutory larceny; and (10)
violation of the UCL.

The Plaintiffs contend Google promises Chrome users that they
"don't need to provide any personal information to use Chrome" and
that "the personal information that Chrome stores won't be sent to
Google unless you choose to store that data in your Google Account
by turning on sync." They allege that despite these express and
binding promises, Google causes Chrome to record and send users'
personal information to Google regardless of whether a user elects
to Sync or has a Google account.

The Plaintiffs maintain Google's contract with Chrome users
designates California law, and consistent with California law,
defines "Personal Information" as "information that you provide to
us which personally identifies you or other data that can be
reasonably linked to such information by Google, such as
information we associate with your Google Account." They allege
examples of personal data improperly created and sent to Google by
Chrome include: IP addresses linked to user agents; Unique,
persistent cookie identifiers including the Client ID; Unique
browser identifiers called X-Client Data Headers; and Browsing
history.

Google believes all claims should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs and the websites consented to Google's receipt of the
data; the Plaintiffs fail to state their claims; and the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statutes of limitations.

Google successfully moved to dismiss the following claims:
Unauthorized disclosure under the Wiretap Act, Unauthorized access
under the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), Unauthorized
disclosure under the SCA, and Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act ("CFAA") 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(g) on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for each of the aforementioned
claims.

Notices for the deposition of witnesses, including Mr. Martin
Sramek, were served on or about March 2022. The parties have agreed
to conduct a remote deposition of Mr. Sramek, who will be located
for such deposition in Switzerland, in accordance with Chapter II
of the Hague Convention.

Judge van Keulen holds that the parties have satisfied the Court
that Mr. Martin Sramek has material information related to the
pending action for use at trial, and that justice cannot be
completely done between the parties without his testimony.

The parties requested that the Federal Office of Justice issues the
present Letter of Request seeking its assistance in obtaining
testimony from Mr. Martin Sramek. The evidence to be obtained is
oral testimony to be taken in Switzerland, and is intended to be
used as evidence in the trial for the matter. Mr. Sramek who is a
resident of Munich, Germany has consented to voluntarily travel to
Zurich, Switzerland for purposes of this deposition. He has been
made aware that by being deposed in Switzerland he forgoes rights
under German law related to the deposition but that he will have
rights under Swiss law. He has been apprised of his rights under
Swiss law and has consented to being deposed in Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen requests assistance in permitting the
commissioners appointed by the Court to take testimony from Mr.
Sramek, which will be given voluntarily. The topics of examination
may include, but are not limited to: Mr. Sramek's role and duties
as an employee of Google; knowledge of the sync function on the
Chrome browser; and knowledge of documents related to and produced
in the matter.

Judge van Keulen is satisfied that the testamentary evidence is
relevant to the pending proceeding and is likely to be used at
trial to assist the Court in resolving the dispute presented in the
civil action before it. With the approval of the Court, the parties
and the Court therefore seek permission to have commissioners take
this testamentary evidence for the purpose of using such evidence
at trial.

It is requested that the testamentary evidence be given in the
English language, and on oath or affirmation. However, it is also
requested that a German/English translator be allowed to be present
and offer translation assistance, if necessary. It is also hereby
requested that the testimony be in the form of a recorded remote
deposition testimony via a secure session using videoconferencing
technology upon questions communicated to the witness by U.S.
counsel of the parties, acting as commissioners. It is requested
that the testamentary evidence be given at some time agreeable to
all involved in March 2022, on or around March 24, 2022.

The parties have agreed on and Judge van Keulen appoints Mr.
Olivier Buff to serve as commissioner ("the Swiss Commissioner").
Mr. Buff is a lawyer with the law firm Quinn Emanuel at
Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, and admitted to
practice as an attorney in Switzerland.

In his capacity as commissioner, Mr. Olivier Buff will complete and
oversee the following tasks: Liaise with the Swiss authorities,
including dispatch/submission of the present Letter of Request to
the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial
Assistance, Hirschengraben 13/15, 8021 Zurich 1, Switzerland, and
of a copy of the same to the Federal Office of Justice, Central
Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil and
Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland; act as
an agent of service for any communication of the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich and/or the Federal Office of Justice to this
Court, the parties and Mr. Sramek; invite Mr. Sramek to the
deposition once authorization is granted; verify and confirm the
identity of Mr. Sramek before testamentary evidence is taken;
supervise the testimony of Mr. Sramek by remote videoconferencing
software from the Swiss offices of Quinn Emanuel at Dufourstrasse
29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland; instruct the witness on his rights
and obligations as per Article 21 of the Hague Convention; and
ensure that the testimony is conducted in accordance with those
rights and obligations.

The U.S. counsel of the parties, which the Court upon request of
the parties also appoints as commissioners are the following:

      a. For Plaintiffs: Lesley E. Weaver, from BLEICHMAR FONTI &
AULD LLP, 555 12th Street, Suite 1600, Oakland, CA 94607.

      b. For Google: Jomaire A. Crawford, from QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP at 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10010, USA.

In addition to the U.S. counsel and commissioners listed and of the
Swiss Commissioner, it is also requested that client
representatives for each party be allowed to be present, and that a
videographer and a stenographer be present to take and record a
verbatim transcript of all testimony and proceedings in the English
language and that the transcript of the testimony be authenticated.
When necessary, persons belonging to the information technology
departments of the law firms of U.S. counsel may enter the rooms
where U.S. counsel are remotely attending the deposition. U.S.
counsel, the party representatives, the videographer, and the
stenographer may attend the deposition remotely. The Swiss
Commissioner, Mr. Sramek and potentially any of the appointed other
commissioners will attend the deposition by videoconference from
the same location in Zurich. When necessary, a German/English
translator will attend, from the same location as Mr. Sramek or
remotely. When necessary, persons belonging to the IT department of
the Quinn Emanuel law firm where the deposition is held may enter
the room where Mr. Sramek is remotely attending the deposition.

It is also requested that after giving testimony, Mr. Sramek be
allowed after completion of the transcript to review, submit any
errata, and sign the transcript of his testimony, and that the
signed, transcribed, and videotaped testimony together with any
documents marked as exhibits be transmitted to the parties' U.S.
counsel as soon as possible thereafter.

III. Request

Accordingly, Judge van Keulen requested that the High Court grants
assistance and authorizes the Swiss and U.S. commissioners
appointed to question Mr. Sramek under oath or affirmation at the
remote deposition in March 2022, or at another time determined by
it, and that a verbatim transcript and videotape be prepared and be
transmitted to the parties' U.S. counsel for submission and use
before the Court.

It is also requested that the High Court informs the Swiss
Commissioner, this Court, and the parties through their mentioned
U.S. counsel of its approval of the Court's request and of all
relevant dates and times determined by it for the production of the
aforementioned requested testamentary evidence of Mr. Sramek. The
Court and U.S. counsel appoint Mr. Olivier Buff to file the
necessary application for authorization with the High Court and act
as the agent of service in Switzerland for any and all
communication from the High Court in this respect. As mentioned,
Mr. Olivier Buff's professional address in Switzerland for purpose
of communications is: Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen expresses her appreciation to the High Court and
the Federal Office of Justice for its courtesy and assistance in
the matter and states that the Court will be ready and willing to
assist the courts of Switzerland in a similar manner when required.
She is also willing to reimburse (through the Parties) the
competent judicial authorities of Switzerland for any costs
incurred in executing this request for judicial assistance. The
Court extends to the competent judicial authorities of Switzerland
the assurances of its highest consideration.

The Letter of Request is signed and sealed by Order of the Court
made on the date set forth.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8s27dp from Leagle.com.

BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP, Lesley Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com --
Angelica M. Ornelas -- aornelas@bfalaw.com -- Joshua D. Samra --
jsamra@bfalaw.com -- in Oakland, California.

DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC, David A. Straite --
dstraite@dicellolevitt.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), in New York
City.

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, Jason 'Jay' Barnes --
jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), in New York
City, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Andrew H. Schapiro --
andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), in
Chicago, Illinois.

Stephen A. Broome -- stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com -- Viola
Trebicka -- violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com -- in Los Angeles,
California, Counsel for the Defendant.


GOOSELINGS LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed  against Gooselings LLC. The
case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gooselings LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02219
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Gooselings -- https://www.gooselings.com/ -- offers
Scandinavian-inspired, ultra-soft bedding to your child's nursery,
including crib sheets, duvets, pillows.[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


GREENBISCUIT LLC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Greenbiscuit, LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Greenbiscuit, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02237 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

GreenBiscuit -- https://greenbiscuit.com/ -- offers an off-ice
training hockey puck.[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


GUARDLAB INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guardlab, Inc. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Guardlab, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02238
(S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

GuardLab -- https://guardlab.com/ -- is a revolutionary custom
mouthguard company that utilizes 3D scanning and 3D printing
technologies.[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


GXO LOGISTICS: Carlos Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Carlos, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc.,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2200025, was removed
from the Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on March 7, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00418-JWH-KK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

GXO Logistics -- https://www.gxo.com/ -- is an American global
contract logistics company that manages outsourced supply chains
and warehousing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Victor Feghali, Esq.
          Enzo Dalgat Nabiev, Esq.
          MOON AND YANG APC
          1055 West 7th Street Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 232-3128
          Fax: (213) 232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
                 enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
          Cameron O'Brien Flynn, Esq.
          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (858) 652-3100
          Fax: (858) 652-3101
          Email: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 cameron.flynn@ogletreedeakins.com
                 jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com


HAUTE BABY: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haute Baby, Inc. The
case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Haute Baby, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02225 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Haute Baby -- https://hautebaby.com/ -- offers the finest quality
clothing and unique looks for babies and children.[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


HELBIZ INC: Faces Cryptocurrency Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Loevy & Loevy disclosed that the complaint in the case Ryan Barron,
et al., v. Helbiz, Inc., Salvatore Palella, Anthony Diiorio,
Decentral Inc., Paysafe Ltd., Lorenzo Pellegrino, Skrill USA Inc.,
Alphabit Digital Currency Fund, Binary Financial, Giulio Profumo,
Jonathan Hannestad, Justin Giuliano, Saeed Aldarmaki , and unknown
Defendants was filed.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

https://loevy-content-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2022/03/2022.03.11-Barron-Complaint.pdf
[GN]

INGAMIA INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingamia, Inc. The
case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ingamia, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02224
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Ingamia, Inc. is located in Dallas, Texas and is part of the Cut
and Sew Apparel Manufacturing Industry.[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


INT'L PAPER: Loses Bid to Revisit Ruling on Slocum's Bid to Compel
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SHIRLEY SLOCUM, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL. DERRICK SANDERS, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL. BRENT JARRELL, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER
COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION "L" (1), Civil Action Nos. 16-12563,
16-12567, 16-13793 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued an
order:

   1. granting IP's Motion in limine to exclude evidence of
      substances and releases not at issue;

   2. granting IP's Motion for expedited consideration of the
      motion in limine to exclude evidence of substance and
      releases not at issue;

   3. denying IP's Motion for reconsideration of the Court's
      granting of Plaintiffs' motion to compel; and

  4.  granting IP's Motion for expedited consideration of the
      motion for reconsideration of the Court's granting of
      Plaintiffs' motion to compel.

Judge Fallon holds that IP's "Motion in limine to exclude evidence
of substance and releases not at issue," is well-taken. From its
inception, this now-six-year-old litigation has concerned solely
the Defendant's liability, if any, for the release of black liquor
from its paper mill in Bogalusa, Louisiana on June 10, 2015.
Accordingly, the theories of liability, such as negligence and
nuisance, have hinged entirely on the release of black liquor.

Furthermore, the Court certified the matter as a class action and,
ultimately, redefined the class based upon the presence and
concentrations of black liquor in the area surrounding the paper
mill. And following a bench trial, the Court found IP liable for
the release of black liquor into the Bogalusa community. In short,
the case has always centered on the rupture of black liquor from
IP's Bogalusa paper mill.

Now, at the damages phase of the class action, Judge Fallon will
not permit the Plaintiffs to inject wholly new issues pertaining to
substances other than black liquor when such issues were never
pleaded or otherwise properly raised until this moment. It is also
far too late for the Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to include
issues pertaining to substances allegedly released by IP besides
black liquor.

On the other hand, Judge Fallon finds that IP has not shown that
the exacting requisites for granting a motion for reconsideration
are satisfied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p99shj7 from Leagle.com.


IOVATE HEALTH: Stipulation to Vacate Trial Related Deadlines OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILEY SCHOONOVER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES U.S.A. INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01487-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L.
Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting stipulation to vacate trial
related deadlines pending resolution of class certification.

   1. The current trial and trial related filing deadlines are
      vacated pending this Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion
      for Class Certification.

   2. Within seven (7) days of this court's ruling on
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, the Parties
      are ordered to file a joint status report addressing: (1)
      the status of the action and the likelihood of settlement;
      (2) whether any Party intends to appeal the court's ruling
      on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and (3) a
      proposed schedule for trial filings and trial to the
      extent the case will be proceeding to trial.

Iovate Health was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes the warehousing and storage of a general line of goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uekdX3 at no extra charge.[CC]


ISABEL GARRETON: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Isabel Garreton, Inc.
The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Isabel Garreton, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02222 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Isabel Garreton -- https://isabelgarreton.com/ -- is an established
social enterprise that designs and creates a unique line of
children clothing crafted by exceptional 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


J.J. MARSHALL: Gartrell Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert. Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACARA MONIQUE GARTRELL,
on behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. J.J.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00442-TJC-JBT (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration on denial
of Plaintiff's Third Motion for Class Certification.

By Order dated February 8, 2022, the Florida Middle District Court
denied Plaintiff's Third Motion for Class Certification, because
the Court determined that Plaintiff is not a member of the class
she seeks to represent.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider this position
because it is clear error because she is indeed a member of the
class she seeks to represent.

A Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b),
provides that: any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action
as to any of the claims of parties and may be revised at any time
before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the parties'
rights and liabilities.

The Plaintiff contends that it is a clear error of law and fact to
deny class certification based on the erroneous finding that
Plaintiff Gartrell is not a member of the class she seeks to
represent. This is incorrect.

This is a debt collection lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collections
Practices Act (FCCPA) for collection efforts taken by JJ Marshall
who is not registered to collect debts in Florida. Both statutes
focus on the collection letters that were sent.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff began fashioning a class definition that
includes all persons who, like her, were sent a collection letter
by JJ Marshall. The start of her proposed class begins: "All
persons in the state of Florida who received at least one
collection letter from JJ Marshall."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iv36e6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, No. 105
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Glenn Banner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GLENN S. BANNER, P.A.
          5245 Commissioners Drive
          Jacksonville, FL 32224
          Telephone: (904) 240-4401
          E-mail: gbanner@gbannerlaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Coleman Sues Over Disclosed Info to Third Party
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEIGH COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-001277-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th Jud. Cir.,
Pinellas Cty., March 17, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for its violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sharing,
transferring, or communicating consumers' personal information,
including the Plaintiff's information, with a third-party letter
vendor to convey information regarding an alleged debt as part of
its collection efforts. The Plaintiff did not provide prior consent
to the sharing of her information with any third-party. As a result
of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers suffered harm, including invasion of privacy.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collection firm, with its
principal place of business in Saint Cloud, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
         TENENBAUM LAW GROUP, PLLC
         1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., 10th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 402-9529
         Facsimile: (786) 292-1948

KELLER WILLIAMS: Seeks Oral Argument on St. John Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNA ST JOHN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. a Texas corporation, Case No.
6:19-cv-01347-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its request for oral argument on motion for
class certification and motion to exclude plaintiff's expert
defendant.

Though Defendants believe the record clearly supports denial of
class certification and exclusion of plaintiff's expert, in light
of the Parties' extensive briefing and the many anomalies and
inconsistencies contained in plaintiff's papers, KWRI believes oral
argument may assist the Court in ruling on the foregoing motions.
KWRI estimates the time it requires for oral argument will be at
least 30 minutes per side.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L6ls15 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Todd P. Stelter, Esq.
          John P. Ryan, Esq.
          Ruel W. Smith, Esq.
          Andrew J. J. Collinson, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3000
          Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
          E-mail: jryan@hinshawlaw.com
                  tstelter@hinshawlaw.com
                  rsmith@hinshawlaw.com
                  acollinson@hinshawlaw.com


KELLOGG SALES: Court Tosses Strawberry Pop-Tarts Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
disclosed that an Illinois District Court dismissed a class-action
lawsuit that alleged that the labeling on Kellogg Sales Company's
Unfrosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts mislead consumers into thinking that
the product's filling contained only strawberries, or at least a
majority of strawberry ingredients, by including the word
"Strawberry" and depicting half of a fresh strawberry and red fruit
filling on the front panel of the packaging. In reality, the
product's filling also contained dried pears, dried apples, and the
color additive Red 40.

The Court held that the claims were not actionable (i.e, a
reasonable consumer would not be deceived) largely because the
product did not make any representation that the product contained
only strawberries or that it contained any particular quantity of
strawberries. Interestingly, the Court did not address whether some
minimum quantity of strawberry is required in a "strawberry"
product and the opinion could be read as holding that a
"strawberry" product is not misleading if it contains any
measurable amount of real strawberries.

The case is very similar to another pair of class-action lawsuits
that we have previously blogged about, one which also relates to
the strawberry content of Pop-Tarts, and the other which relates to
the strawberry content of breakfast bars. All three cases were
filed by Sheehan & Associates. [GN]

KRISPY KRUNCHY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krispy Krunchy Foods,
LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Krispy Krunchy Foods, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01526 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2022).

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

Krispy Krunchy Foods -- https://krispykrunchy.com/ -- is a food
production company that provides chicken 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


L'OREAL USA: Kukovec Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Morgan Kukovec, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. L'Oreal USA Products, Inc., Case
No. 2022LA000016, was removed from the Circuit Court of Dekalb
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01453 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

L'Oreal USA -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- offers all women
and men worldwide the best of cosmetics, haircare and perfume in
terms of quality, efficacy and safety.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LEDUC, AB: Two Women File Sexual Harassment Class Suit in Alberta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that two women
have filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they were subjected
to systemic sexual harassment and abuse during their employment as
firefighters with the Leduc Fire Department.

In their proposed sex abuse class action lawsuit against the City
of Leduc, which they filed on Feb. 24, the firefighters allege they
were subjected to discrimination, bullying, physical assault and
sexual assault while they worked for the Leduc Fire Department.

Because of the sex abuse and harassment to which they were
subjected, the women say they were unable to advance in their
careers. Further, they allege they experienced post-traumatic
stress disorder.

"The fire department created a system and culture where the abuse
of female firefighters was systemic, common and tolerated and any
attempts to report such abuse were suppressed through retaliation,
harassment, and bullying," the Leduc Fire Department sex abuse
class action lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of women who worked at the Leduc Fire Department
since 2000.

Leduc Fire Department Class Action Describes Sex Assault, Fear of
Retaliation
Plaintiff Christa Steele says she started working for Leduc Fire
Services in 2002, and the sexual harassment and assault began
almost immediately, according to the firefighter sex abuse class
action lawsuit.

Steele claims her male colleagues touched her inappropriately,
exposed their genitals and forced themselves on her. They also
spread false rumours about her sex life, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Mindy Smith also alleges she experienced sexual assault
and harassment while employed with the Leduc Fire Department. In
her case, she says she was sexually assaulted by a male
firefighter.

In Smith's case, an investigation into the the male firefighter's
actions led to his termination, but according to the class action
lawsuit, he continued to attend fire service events even though he
was banned from doing so.

The Leduc Fire Department lawsuit says a third-party investigation
substantiated the plaintiffs' allegations, prompting them to take
legal action against the fire department. They claim the City of
Leduc and the Leduc Fire Department failed to provide a safe
workplace, and that they breached class members rights under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Other female employees of the fire department remain unwilling to
come forward due to fear of retaliation, but have experienced
similar incidents of discrimination, harassment and assaults,"
Steele and Smith allege in the lawsuit.

The Leduc Fire Department is not the first Canadian organization to
face allegations of systemic sex discrimination in the workplace.
In October 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police pension plan was discriminatory against
women who took a temporary reduction in working hours to support
their families.

A pair of female corrections officers have also filed a class
action lawsuit against the Correctional Service of Canada over
allegations it has enabled a "toxic, misogynistic culture" within
the workplace. [GN]

LEVI CAMPBELL: Court Tosses Saunder's Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  GABRIEL SAUNDERS v. LEVI
CAMPBELL, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00029-BQ (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Jamesley Herix entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's bid for class certification; and

   2. denying the Plaintiff's appointment of counsel.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, which alleges that the Defendants denied him medical
treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,  Fourteenth
Amendment, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Court said, "The Plaintiff has not met the prerequisites for
class certification under Rule 23. The Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that a class action is the superior method for
resolving his complaints about his medical treatment, or the TDCJ
formulary policy and its enforcement. As a result, the Court finds
that Plaintiff's request for class certification must be denied."

The Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is denied
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to request appointment of
counsel after the Court has completed screening of his case or
should there be a material change of circumstances.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tvmPQY at no extra charge.[CC]


LIBERTY MUTUAL: 4th Amended Calendar Order Entered in Middleton
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MIDDLETON, et al.,
v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00668-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Douglas R. Cole
entered a fourth amended calendar order as follows:

  -- The Defendants' class                    April 28, 2022
     certification expert
     report(s) and designation(s):

  -- Disclosure of lay witnesses:             May 5, 2022

  -- The Defendants' Opposition               May 20, 2022
     to Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply to                 June 7, 2022
     Defendants' Opposition to
     Motion for Class
     Certification:

Liberty Mutual operates as an insurance company. The Company offers
auto, home, renters, general liabilities, boat, and condos.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at  https://bit.ly/36F5I6D at no extra
charge.[CC]


LINEQUEST LLC: Mondeck Appeals Denial of Reconsideration Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shawn Mondeck, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SHAWN MONDECK, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LINEQUEST, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00221, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a
collective action brought to recover the unpaid overtime and other
damages owed to workers who worked for LineQuest as Line Locators
and Right of Way Technicians.

The complaint asserts that LineQuest does not pay its Line Locators
nor its Right of Way Technicians overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Instead, they are paid a maximum amount per
workweek (which it calls a "salary"). LineQuest's pay plan violates
the FLSA because it does not pay Line Locators nor its Right of Way
Technicians overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, says the complaint.

On Sept. 18, 2020, Line Quest filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
as to the claims of Mondeck and Opt-In Plaintiff Nichols.

On Feb. 25, 2021, Line Quest filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment -- Hourly Employees as to the claims of Opt-In Plaintiffs
Heath Bechtold, Frank Bird, Christopher Cryer, Ramon Ruvalcaba, and
Duque Waddill.

On Aug. 3, 2021, the Court denied Defendant's objections to summary
judgment evidence.

On Sept. 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration which the Court denied through an Order dated Feb.
12, 2022 and Final Judgment dated Feb. 15, 2022 signed by  Judge
David Counts.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this decision by Judge Counts.

The appellate case is captioned as Mondeck v. LineQuest, Case No.
22-50185, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Shawn Mondeck and Garrett Nichols,
individually, and for others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046-0000
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com  

Defendant-Appellee LineQuest, L.L.C. is represented by:

          Timothy B. Soefje, Esq.
          SOEFJE LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          2591 Dallas Parkway
          Frisco, TX 75034-0000
          Telephone: (972) 377-0061
          E-mail: tsoefje@realclearcounsel.com

LIVELY ROOT: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lively Root
Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Lively Root Technologies, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01500 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

Lively Root -- https://www.livelyroot.com/ -- offers farm fresh
indoor and outdoor plants delivered to customers' doorstep.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LOGAN CENTERS: Underpays Behavioral Health Staff, Depriest Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIE DEPRIEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LOGAN CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00065-BSM (E.D. Ark., March 15, 2022) is a class action
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay
the Plaintiff an overtime rate of one and a half her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 each week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid qualified
behavioral health professional from 2018 until September of 2021.

The Logan Centers, Inc. offers a mental health counseling service,
and provides counseling and therapy services to in-patients and
out-patients at multiple locations in Eastern Arkansas, including
The Logan Center at Forrest City, The Logan Center at West Memphis,
and The Logan Center at Wynne.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040

LOUISIANA: Judicial Cir. Judges Settle Suit Over Prisoners' Bail
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Beasley, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
class-action lawsuit that claimed judges in Louisiana's 19th
judicial circuit left "innocent people confided in the East Baton
Rouge Parish Prison simply because they are too poor to pay for
their freedom," has been settled, WAFB reported.

The suit alleged that judges set bail too high for indigent
defendants to afford, leaving them locked up for months or even
years before trial, the station reported.

"We're proud of the class representatives in this case, who had the
courage to stand up and challenge the status quo," Eric Foley, a
lawyer with the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, told
the Louisiana Record. "Because of their hard work and sacrifice,
many others will benefit from the changes to bond-setting practices
and procedures in the 19th judicial circuit."

The attorney also thanked the judges in the circuit for "committing
to this settlement process and implementing the agreement it
produced."

"We look forward to working together with the judges and other
stakeholders in the system to implement this agreement," he said.

Under the settlement, court representatives will meet with
defendants to obtain information about income, expenses and other
issues that affect the ability to pay bail.

If a defendant is not released on bail, a hearing will be held
within 48 hours after arrest to make sure the defendant has a
lawyer and to consider lowering the bail amount.

"This is an important step toward downsizing the Baton Rouge jail,"
David Utter, a lawyer with the Fair Fight Initiative told the
Louisiana Record. "Too many people have died as a result of
spending time there, and making sure bonds are affordable and
proving non-financial terms of release for people will save lives."
[GN]

MADISON COUNTY, IN: Jail Class Action Hearing Scheduled for May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for The Herald Bulletin, reports that an
Indianapolis judge has set a hearing for May in a class action
lawsuit filed against the Madison County Sheriff's Department.

The class action lawsuit was filed in April 2020 on behalf of Mark
Long in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The lawsuit alleged that people were arrested without a warrant and
detained in the Madison County Jail for 48 hours or longer without
a court appearance or notification of the charges.

Inmates detained at the Madison County Jail on a warrantless arrest
at any time from Jan. 13, 2015, through July 1, 2018, have until
April 16 to file a complaint for special damages.

Judge Sarah Barker has already given preliminary approval to a
$622,011 settlement for people included in the class, according to
Long's attorney, Ilene Smith, with the Fort Wayne law firm of
Christopher Myers & Associates.

She said the court hasn't determined the amount to be paid to each
person, but that Long will receive an additional $5,000.

Smith said 470 people have been identified as members of the class;
they would have been notified by mail.

Madison County Attorney Jeff Graham said the county's case is being
handled by an attorney named by the county's insurance company.

Smith said Long contacted the Fort Wayne law office about suing the
county, and it was determined that other people were detained on a
warrantless arrest for more than 48 hours without a judicial
determination that probable cause existed.

Judge Barker has set a Fairness Hearing for May 16 in which the
settlement agreement with the county could be affirmed.

Smith said people in the class can file for a special damage award
if they lost a job while incarcerated or suffered physical or
psychological damages.

She said a special claim form has to be submitted to the court.

Smith said the court has appointed Rust Consulting to consider
requests for special damages as part of the lawsuit.

She said people in the class can elect to opt out of the settlement
agreement but could still a file a separate lawsuit against the
county.

Smith said that the cost of the litigation will not be deducted
from the $622,011 settlement agreement.

The law firm is requesting legal costs of $316,038 for services
provided through Dec. 28, 2021, and $1,956 in expenses.

Judge Barker could order Madison County and its insurance company
to pay what she deems to be reasonable legal expenses.

Follow Ken de la Bastide on Twitter @KendelaBastide, or call
765-640-4863. [GN]

MAJOR LEAGUE: Court Ruling Boosts Minor League Players' Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Silverman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that minor
league baseball players' quest to earn livable wages received a
considerable boost on March 16 when a federal court ruling set up
favorable conditions for a June 1 trial of the class-action suit
against the defendant, Major League Baseball.

In a summary judgment ruling from Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph
Spero of the US District Court in the Northern District of
California, the justice supported the minor league players that
they are in fact "employees" of MLB and eligible to be paid under
standard state and federal labor laws and practices, such as
overtime and minimum wages in California, Arizona and Florida. [GN]

MARTIN SPORTS: Douglas Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLLEEN A. GLYNN AND
CHRISTOPHER P. WELLING, et al., In their capacity as Trustees and
Fiduciaries of ERISA Plans, and DOUGLAS C. ANDERSON, On his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MARTIN SPORTS
& ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, DAVID MARTIN and THERESA MARTIN, Case No.
1:19-cv-12189-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff Douglas Anderson asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class comprised of:

      "the IATSE, Local 11-referred employees who provided
      services for the Defendant Martin Sports & Entertainment,
      LLC in May 2019 and who were not compensated by Martin
      Sports for their services;" and

   2. granting him leave to add additional plaintiffs if the
      Court determines that the requested Class should not be
      certified.

Martin Sports is a thematic sports environment design and
production company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3imsm6l
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel O. Dumont, Jr., Esq.
          FEINBERG, DUMONT & BRENNAN
          177 Milk Street, Suite 300
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 338-1976
          Facsimile: (617) 733-4804
          E-mail: gd@fdb-law.com

MASIMO CORP: Faces Suit Over Violation of Junk Fax Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 16, 2022, that it is facing a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over its
sending of unsolicited faxed ads.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company in said court by Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
The complaint alleges that it sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha
Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17,
2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On
September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment.
On September 30, 2019, the company filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their
reply on October 7, 2019.

On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion for summary judgment, and
deferring ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission
to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied
on January 24, 2020. Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was
scheduled for June 2, 2020, but on April 1, 2020, the District
Court vacated the trial date and directed the parties to conduct an
in-person mediation. The mediation has not occurred and no new
trial date has been set.

On July 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.

Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops,
manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring
technologies and hospital automation solutions.


MATERION CORP: Lucyk Labor Suit Ongoing in Ohio
------------------------------------------------
Materion 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 17, 2022, that the company and its
subsidiary were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit
alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Ohio law.

On October 14, 2020, "Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc.,
et. al.," case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported
collective and class action lawsuit, was filed in the Northern
District of Ohio against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion
Brush Inc.

Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges that he and other similarly situated
employees are not paid for all time they spend donning and doffing
personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio law.

Materion Corporation, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is an
integrated producer of engineered materials based in Ohio.


MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Phase IB Discovery Deadlines Extended in Bodor
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIMARIA BODOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-05787-JMG (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order extending
the deadlines for Phase IB discovery as follows:

   1. Phase IB discovery shall be concluded no later than March
      28, 2022.

   2. Motions for Class Certification shall be filed no later
      than April 25, 2022.

The opposition to such motions shall be filed no later than 30 days
later. Any reply brief may be filed within 14 days of the
opposition brief, the Court says.

Maximus Federal provides health and human care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ixf1mm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0782
          E-mail: jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marisa Rachel De Feo, Esq.
          Ryan L. DiClemente, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
          Telephone: (215) 972-1976
          E-mail: Marisa.DeFeo@saul.com
                  Ryan.DiClemente@saul.com

MEDICAL REVIEW: Thornton Files Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Review
Institute of America. The case is styled as Joel Thornton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated  v.
Medical Review Institute of America, Case No. 2:22-cv-00181-BSJ (D.
Utah, March 18, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Medical Review Institute of America, LLC (MRIoA) --
https://www.mrioa.com/ -- is the top medical review company in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800
          PO Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234
          Email: ecf@parsonsbehle.com


MEDLEY INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medley, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medley, Inc., Case No.
7:22-cv-02260-NSR (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

Medley, Inc. -- https://medley-inc.com/ -- is a woman-owned, award
winning pr & digital marketing firm specializing in amplifying
multicultural voices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


MICHIGAN: AOD Parishes, Schools Among Class Action Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archdiocese of Detroit disclosed that several AOD parishes and
schools have recently received a notice that they are included as
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against the Great Lakes
Water Authority and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department. In
response to questions from some of those parishes, the Department
of Finance and Administration sought guidance from legal counsel.

That guidance recommends that the Archdiocese of Detroit and its
parishes and schools remain in the class at this time. In order to
stay in the class, no action needs to be taken at this time. Should
you have questions, please contact Michael Felcyn, Associate
Director of Parish Support Services, at felcyn.michael@aod.org or
(313) 237-5833. [GN]



MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue in J&M Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J&M PLASTICS INC., Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00206-JRG-RSP (E.D.
Tex.), Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, denied the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue.

I. Background

On June 8, 2021, J&M filed the lawsuit against MidAmerican "based
on MidAmerican's improper and excessive charges associated with
Winter Storm Uri that took place in February of 2021." J&M is
"incorporated in Texas with its principal place of business located
at 1121 Industrial Drive, Royse City, Collin County, Texas 75189."
MidAmerican "is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 666 Grand Avenue, Des
Moines, Iowa 50309."

J&M alleges that it entered into a contract with MidAmerican for
electricity at a "Fixed Price" and that MidAmerican breached that
contract when MidAmerican charged J&M additional "Supplemental
Ancillary Services" charges related to its electricity use during
Winter Storm Uri. Based on this conduct, J&M asserts claims against
MidAmerican for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation,
negligence, violation of the DTPA, fraud, and fraudulent
inducement.

Before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue filed by
MidAmerican. In its motion, MidAmerican seeks to transfer the case
from the Marshall Division to the Sherman Division of the Eastern
District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. The Court held a
hearing on the motion on Feb. 24, 2022.

II. Analysis

The Section 1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers between
divisions of the same district as to transfers from one district to
another." A motion to transfer venue pursuant to Section 1404(a)
should be granted if "the movant demonstrates that the transferee
venue is clearly more convenient," based on: (1) "the relative ease
of access to sources of proof"; (2) "the availability of compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses"; (3) "the cost of
attendance for willing witnesses"; (4) "all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive"; (5) "the administrative difficulties flowing from
court congestion"; (6) "the local interest in having localized
interests decided at home"; (7) "the familiarity of the forum with
the law that will govern the case"; and (8) "the avoidance of
unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of
foreign law"

To prevail on a motion to transfer under Section 1404(a), the
movant must show that transfer is 'clearly more convenient' than
the venue chosen by the plaintiff." "Absent such a showing, the
plaintiff's choice of venue is to be respected."

As a threshold matter, the parties agree that the suit could have
been brought in the Sherman Division. Turning to weighing the
factors, the parties agree that factors 5, 7, and 8 are neutral.
Therefore, Judge Payne addresses the remaining factors. Having
considered the briefing and arguments made at the hearing, he
denies the motion.

a. Relative ease of access to sources of proof

MidAmerican argues that all "relevant documents and witnesses will
come from J&M Plastics's office in Royse City, Texas, which is
located in the Sherman Division." Additionally, it argues that no
MidAmerican employees are based in Marshall (which also appears
true of Sherman) and MidAmerican has no customers with a service or
billing address of Marshall. Finally, MidAmerican argues that the
Plaintiff's "office is 50 miles from the Plano Courthouse for the
Sherman Division, while it is 142 miles from the Marshall
Courthouse for the Marshall Division."

Judge Payne finds that this factor is neutral because MidAmerican
has failed to identify any MidAmerican documents or witnesses that
show the Sherman Division is more convenient. At bottom,
MidAmerican is arguing that the Sherman Division is more convenient
for MidAmerican based solely on the ease of access to its
opponent's potential documents or witnesses, as opposed to its own
or those of identified third parties. Because MidAmerican cites no
authority to support this argument, Judge Payne declines to find
the Sherman Division is more convenient for MidAmerican based the
location of J&M's documents and witnesses.

b. The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance
of witnesses

MidAmerican argues that "many of the witnesses necessary to a
complete resolution of the claim reside outside the Marshall
Division's] subpoena power. DIt further argues that any employees
of J&M that would not qualify as "parties" would be within 100
miles of the Sherman Division, not the Marshall Division.

In response, J&M highlights that MidAmerican does not identify a
single non-party witness who will be required to appear in person
at trial that resides more than 100 miles from the Marshall
Courthouse, but within 100 miles of the Sherman or Plano
Courthouses." Furthermore, MidAmerican does not identify any
individuals it seeks to subpoena who would not be officers,
directors, or managing agents of J&M Plastics, and thus, treated as
available for the purposes.

Again, Judge Payne finds that this factor is neutral. MidAmerican
has not identified any individuals who would not be within the
subpoena power of either court. Because the Court cannot weigh the
factor for or against transfer, it is neutral.

c. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses

Instead of identifying specific witnesses so that the Court can
weigh the cost of attending trial, MidAmerican relies on case law
and generalities to argue that this factor weighs in favor of
transfer.  For case law, MidAmerican relies primarily on the
Court's decision in Potter v. Cardinal Health 200, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-00007-JRG, 2019 WL 2150923, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2019).
In response, J&M again points to MidAmerican's failure to identify
any witnesses who would have to travel for trial.

Like the last two factors, Judge Payne finds this factor neutral.
First, Potter is distinguishable from this case because the parties
in Potter both identified specific witnesses for the Court to
determine whether transfer would increase the cost of attendance.
Second, and as stated, Judge McFarland cannot weigh this factor for
or against transfer without any analysis of relevant witnesses.
Therefore, this factor is neutral.

d. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious and inexpensive

Beyond MidAmerican's irrelevant arguments concerning convenience
for its counsel, MidAmerican argues that "none of the potential
consumers resides within the Marshall Division, since MidAmerican
does not do business there" and that "no prejudice to either party
will result due to transfer since the case is in its earliest
stages."

Judge Payne finds this factor is neutral as well. As this is a
potential class action, there could be customers of MidAmerican who
own businesses or homes in MidAmerican's coverage area but reside
in the Marshall Division. At the hearing, MidAmerican conceded that
this could be the case, thus undercutting its argument that "none
of the potential consumers reside" in the Marshall Division.
Additionally, Judge Payne is aware that the Sherman Division is
currently facing longer delays to trial due to its heavy criminal
and civil dockets. Therefore, he finds this factor weighs against
transfer.

e. The local interest in having localized interests decided at
home

MidAmerican argues that the dispute between the parties has a
greater connection to residents of the Sherman Division. Judge
Payne finds that this factor does weigh in favor of transfer.
Although it is a putative class action and potential class members
could reside in the Marshall Division, he finds that this factor
weighs in favor of transfer.

III. Conclusion

Overall, Judge Payne finds that most of the factors are neutral,
with one factor weighing in favor of transfer and one weighing
against. Thus, the majority of factors are neutral and he finds
that the Sherman Division is not "clearly more convenient" than the
Marshall Division. The motion to transfer is therefore denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Memorandum Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86etjv from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Shor FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Laura Shor, Hasina Akter, Stephany Santiago
Burgos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. MID-L-000833-22, was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 18,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01520 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. also referred to as Midland Credit
-- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is one of the largest debt
collection companies in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 471-6200
          Email: esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
                 dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com


NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Class Cert Response Extended to April 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darwin Harris, et al., v.
National Waterproofing & Roofing LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01537-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan
entered an order:

   1. granting the Motion to withdraw  David C. Kresin and Yen
      Pilch Robaina & Kresin PLC as counsel without consent;

   2. directing the Defendant National Waterproofing & Roofing
      LLC to retain legal counsel who shall file a notice of
      appearance by April 6, 2022; and

   3. extending the deadline for Defendants to respond to
      Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class to April 29, 2022.

National Waterproofing & Roofing is located in Phoenix, Arizona.
This organization primarily operates in the Roofing Contractor
business.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36DR7Ig at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Joint Bid to Extend Case Deadlines Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIA MCADAMS, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
AND DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-02202-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order denying joint motion and
stipulation to extend case deadlines as follows:

The Court said, "The parties do not argue that they cannot complete
the desired discovery in time for Plaintiff's May 23, 2022 motion
for class certification deadline, only that they would prefer to
wait for a ruling on Defendant's pending motion before doing so.
Furthermore, the parties fail to provide good cause for their
requested six month extension of case deadlines. Here "the parties'
reasons for seeking modification" are to await ruling on the
pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. This does not
constitute good cause. Finally, the parties state that they have
diligently engaged in discovery as Plaintiff has served
interrogatories and requests for production and Defendant has made
two document productions. While the Court appreciates the parties'
efforts thus far, this level of diligence by the parties is
insufficient to advance the case schedule by an additional six
months."

On March 4, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation
to Extend Case Deadlines. The parties seek to continue the
remaining pretrial deadlines by six months. In support, the parties
state that they have diligently conducted discovery and continue to
"work collaboratively on discovery requests pertaining to the
production of class data," but Defendant filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings that is currently pending and case
dispositive if granted.

The parties would like "additional time to determine what data
relating to the putative class number is available and should be
produced in advance of class certification" and to "avoid incurring
unnecessary costs associated with expert discovery, that may be
ultimately unnecessary if the Court grants Nationstar's MJOP."

The parties fail to provide any law to support this request.
Additionally, the parties fail to provide an explanation for why
they need additional time "to determine what data relating to the
putative class number is available and should be produced in
advance of class certification." Discovery has been open for nearly
100 days and the motion for class certification is not due for
another 77 days, the Court adds.

Nationstar offers mortgage services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36mmAiD at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW BALANCE: Faces Class Actions Over "Made in the USA" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Hatahet, Esq., and Christie Grymes Thompson, Esq., of
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
the FTC regularly investigates Made in USA claims, but private
actions have been less frequent. New Balance, however, has faced at
least two class action lawsuits alleging it falsely advertises its
footwear products as "Made in the USA." The most recent complaint,
proposing a nationwide class, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts and alleges violations of
California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as fraud and breach of
warranty. New Balance has filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that
plaintiffs are trying to re-litigate the same legal theories and
the same conduct involved in a case that New Balance previously
settled. In the previous case, without admitting liability, New
Balance agreed to take additional steps (operative by the 2019
settlement date) to disclose that its shoes have "domestic value of
70% or greater" and to pay $750,000.

Plaintiffs assert that New Balance continued to make false and
misleading "Made in the USA" claims. According to the complaint,
New Balance features "Made in USA" claims along with an American
flag on several models of its footwear products, including on the
tongues of the shoes and on its shoe boxes.

Although plaintiffs acknowledge that New Balance discloses on its
website and packaging that the products "contain a domestic value
of 70% or greater," they assert that the term "domestic value" is
not clear and that consumers are not likely to see the disclosures.
Plaintiffs cite the Federal Trade Commission's standard for
unqualified claims that all or virtually all ingredients or
components of the product must be made and sourced in the U.S., and
that any qualifying language must be clearly and conspicuously
disclosed. In addition, plaintiffs cite a 2020 survey to argue that
had consumers known that the sneakers were not "Made in USA," they
would have paid less or would not have purchased the sneakers at
all.

In its motion to dismiss, New Balance asserts compliance with the
previous injunction and argues that plaintiffs fail to address that
injunction and its legal effects. For example, plaintiffs do not
allege that New Balance failed to comply with the previous
injunction, implicitly conceding that New Balance makes all
required disclosures to qualify the claim. In addition, plaintiffs
do not allege that the qualified claims are actionable. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Dickson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER DICKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and the NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02207
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Dickson has been employed by the Defendant since approximately
2007.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the Constitution and laws of the State and City of
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
         James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
         Michele Moreno, Esq.
         VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
         40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 943-9080

NISSAN NORTH: Deal on Briefing Schedule in Lux Global Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUX GLOBAL AUTO SALES, a California Corporation, and
MARIA VELARDE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 to
10, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02157-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge
John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California approved the parties' stipulation regarding briefing
schedule for Nissan's motion to dismiss.

The Parties, by and through their respective counsel, have met and
conferred regarding the issues in the case and Nissan's anticipated
motion to dismiss and, based on those conferrals, making progress
toward narrowing the issues, including tentatively agreeing upon
dismissal of one of the two plaintiffs in the case.

Based on these conferrals, the Parties stipulated as follows:

     1. Nissan's deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' First Amend
Class Action Complaint is extended from March 25, 2022, to April
29, 2022.

     2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition to Nissan's
motion to dismiss is extended from April 26, 2022, to May 31,
2022.

     3. Nissan's deadline to file a reply in support of its motion
to dismiss is extended from May 17, 2022, to June 21, 2022.

Judge Mendez granted the parties' referenced stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Stipulation & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3be6zznh from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Starr, THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, in Calabasas,
California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Amir Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P., in
San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.


NISSAN NORTH: Hays Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA FRANCES HAYS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC., ase No. 4:17-CV-0353-BCW (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for preliminary approval
of the settlement.

The settlement addresses the central allegations of this litigation
and achieves the primary relief sought by the Plaintiff, i.e.,
repair and reimbursement for floor pan corrosion in Class Vehicles
registered in Missouri. While NNA denies the allegations in the
litigation, it has agreed to the settlement reflected herein, and
does not oppose this Motion.

The Plaintiff filed this action in May 2017. NNA filed an initial
Motion to Dismiss, which was denied by the Court. Thereafter the
parties engaged in significant discovery and motion practice,
including exchanging documents, and the depositions of Plaintiff,
NNA's corporate representative, and the parties' experts. After
discovery, NNA moved for summary judgment; the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motion, leaving only Plaintiff's claim
under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act intact.

In early March 2022, the parties finalized the settlement terms
after circulating the supporting documents through several rounds
of edits, calls, and further negotiations. The final settlement
agreement was fully executed on March 4, 2022.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wy6aOC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945-7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  hilton@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          J.J. Burns, Esq.
          DOLLAR BURNS BECKER & HERSHEWE
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
          E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
                  jjb@dollar-law.com


OBI SEAFOODS: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought in Paunovic
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN
PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC, an Alaska corporation, and OCEAN
BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, an Alaska corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the parties stipulate to the
Court's approval, to an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to file
their motion for class certification as follows:

            Event                Current           New
                                 Deadline          Deadline

  Deadline for Plaintiffs     March 25, 2022     60 days after
  to File their Motion for                       the Court's
  Class Certification                            decision on
                                                 Dkt. No. 28

  Deadline for Defendants'    April 22, 2022     60 days after
  Response to the Motion                         the Plaintiffs'
  for Class Certification                        Motion for
                                                 Class Cert is
                                                 filed

  Deadline for Plaintiffs'    May 6, 2022        14 days after
  Reply to the Motion                            the Defendants'
  for Class Certification                        Response

OBI Seafoods is an Alaskan seafood processor with ten shoreside
plants producing fresh & frozen seafood and canned salmon.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated March 7, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NcCkVO at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Tamara Kenworthey, Esq.
          137 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, New York 10010
          Telephone: (718) 344-5746
          E-mail: tkenworthey@kenwortheylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Renea I. Saade, Esq.
          Douglas E. Smith, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          500 L Street, Suite 201
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 561-1214
          Facsimile: (907) 561-1215
          E-mail: rsaade@littler.com
                  desmith@littler.com

PANDA EXPRESS: Lee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panda Express, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Jeffrey Lee, an individual, on behalf
of himself v.  Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express (P.R.), Inc.,
Panda Express, LLC, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No.
CGC22598730 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 17, 2022).

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

Panda Express -- https://www.pandaexpress.com/ -- prepares American
Chinese food fresh from the wok, from our signature Orange Chicken
to bold limited time offerings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


PDR NETWORK: Carlton & Harris Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. filed an appeal from
a court ruling dismissing the lawsuit entitled CARLTON & HARRIS
CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a West Virginia corporation, individually and
as a representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff v. PDR NETWORK, LLC, PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, PDR EQUITY,
LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-14887,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia at Huntington.

The action arises from the Plaintiff's challenge to the Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Plaintiff
Carlton is a West Virginia chiropractic office. The Defendants are
entities who profit from the sale of healthcare products and
services, such as prescription management programs and healthcare
messaging.

On Dec. 17, 2013, the Defendants transmitted an unsolicited fax to
the Plaintiff, which it received on a stand-alone fax machine. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act ("JFPA"), when they sent the fax because it was an
unsolicited advertisement.

Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are
for-profit entities providing health knowledge products and
services; are the leading providers of behavior-based prescription
management program and healthcare messaging; and, are creators of
the PDR eBook, the most recognized drug information reference
available in the nation. The Defendants "benefit or profit from the
sale of the 'healthcare products and services' referred to in the
fax." The fax is both an advertisement on its face and a pretext to
future advertising because the fax states that recipients will
continue to receive faxes about the Defendants' products and
services unless they opt out. The "Defendants receive money from
the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are listed in the PDR,
and, on information and belief, the amount of money that the
Defendants receive from the drug companies turns on how many copies
of the 2014 PDR e-Book the Defendants distribute." They distribute
the eBook for free, in hope of future financial gain and to lead to
future sales of other goods and services.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2022, Judge
Robert C. Chambers of the Southern District of West Virginia,
Huntington Division, granted Defendants PDR Network, LLC, PDR
Distribution, LLC, and PDR Equity, LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. Judge Chambers
ruled, among other things, that the Plaintiff's allegations fail to
state a claim. Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. As the Motion has been resolved, any request for oral
argument was denied as moot.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Carlton & Harris Chiropractic,
Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, Case No. 22-1279, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 15,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a West
Virginia Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          William Stuart Calwell, Jr., Esq.
          David Harley Carriger, Esq.
          D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
          CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO, PLLC
          500 Randolph Street
          Charleston, WV 25302-0000
          Telephone: (304) 343-4323
          E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com
                  dcarriger@calwelllaw.com
                  chedges@calwelllaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn Lorne Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

Defendants-Appellees PDR NETWORK, LLC, PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, PDR
EQUITY, LLC, and JOHN DOES are represented by:

          Kwaku A. Akowuah, Esq.
          Carter Glasgow Phillips, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1501 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-1401
          Telephone: (202) 736-8739

               - and -

          Robert Lawrence Massie, Esq.
          Marc Ellis Williams, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          949 3rd Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701
          Telephone: (304) 526-3502
          E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1 Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553

               - and -

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLC
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3400

PEOPLES GAS: First Class Action Filed Over Alleged Methane Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hays, writing for Illinois Public Media, reports that two
Champaign County residents affected by the Peoples Gas methane leak
have filed the first class action lawsuit related to the incident.
Meanwhile, Peoples Gas continues to maintain that methane levels at
affected wells do not pose a danger.

The lawsuit covers potentially thousands of people who live in
rural Mahomet and Fisher.

Some homeowners saw methane, or "natural gas," bubbling in their
well water immediately after the 2015 leak at the Manlove Storage
Field. People Gas uses the site in rural Champaign County to store
natural gas in sedimentary rocks underground.

But a lawyer says methane didn't show up in the well of the two
homeowners named in the new lawsuit until last year. [GN]


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Colorado Court Tosses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on March 8, 2022, the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a chicken producer and
certain of its executives. United Food & Com. Workers Int'l Union
Local 464A v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., No. 20-CV-01966-RM-MEH, 2022
WL 684169 (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2022). The crux of plaintiff's
allegations was that the company made various statements touting
its performance and attributing those positive results to factors
such as its market position, product portfolio, customer base, and
management team; when in fact those results were supposedly
inflated by an alleged bid-rigging scheme that was revealed through
an indictment by the Department of Justice, in connection with
which the company later entered a plea agreement and agreed to pay
a criminal fine. The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege an
actionable misrepresentation with respect to any of the challenged
statements.

The Court first observed that the alleged bid-rigging scheme
largely occurred prior to the claimed class period, and that
plaintiff failed to allege with particularity facts showing that
the alleged scheme rendered any of the challenged class period
statements misleading. Id. at *3. While plaintiff pointed to the
company's plea agreement purportedly acknowledging that its
participation in the alleged scheme continued until a later date,
the Court explained that the plea agreement identified only one
customer contract affected in the later period and plaintiff failed
to allege that any other contracts were involved at that time. Id.

In addition, the Court emphasized that plaintiff failed to
adequately allege that the alleged bid-rigging scheme had a
significant impact on the company's financial results at any point
in time. Id. at *4. The Court observed that plaintiff made "almost
no attempt to quantify the financial impact of the scheme" and in
fact pleaded facts suggesting the lack of any such impact. Id. In
particular, the Court noted that the company had net sales of
approximately $54.5 billion over a five-year period, and that the
commerce impacted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct --
according to the company's plea agreement -- amounted to only $361
million. Id.

Further, the Court concluded that the challenged statements were
non-actionable. Id. First, the Court noted that the statements were
generally not capable of objective verification, as with the
company's statements that it had strong customer relationships. Id.
at *5. Second, the Court concluded that reasonable investors would
not rely on generic expressions of optimism associated with a
corporation's "efficient operations," "strong relationships with
its key customers," "results-oriented corporate culture," or
collective "vision," which the Court found "are the kinds of rosy
affirmations commonly heard from corporate managers and numbingly
familiar to the marketplace." Id.

Finally, the Court rejected the suggestion that the company had a
duty to disclose the alleged scheme. Id. The Court explained that
corporate disclosures are "not a rite of confession, and companies
do not have a duty to disclose uncharged, unadjudicated
wrongdoing." Id. The Court further determined that, although the
company later entered a plea agreement with respect to certain of
the alleged misconduct, plaintiff's allegations failed to tie the
facts that formed the basis of that plea agreement to the
challenged statements regarding the company's performance. Id. [GN]

PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Prestamos CDFI LLC, Defendant; Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated,
Movant; Case No. 2:21-cv-04337, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District Of Arizona on March 17, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-00007-DJH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory
Actions.

Prestamos CDFI -- https://www.prestamosloans.org/ -- is a capital
lending organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Ste. 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Fax: (202) 463-2103

               - and -

          Justin A. Heller, Esq.
          Matthew M. Zapala, Esq.
          NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
          80 State St., 11th Fl.
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: (518) 449-3300
          Fax: (518) 432-3123

The Movant is represented by:

          Alexa L. Levy, Esq.
          Marcel S. Pratt, Esq.
          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP - PHILADELPHIA, PA
          1735 Market St., 51st Fl.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 665-8500
          Fax: (215) 864-8999

               - and -

          Daniel Abraham Arellano, Esq.
          Roy Herrera, Jr., Esq.
          HERRERA ARELLANO LLP
          530 E McDowell Rd., Ste. 107-150
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-1500
          Phone: (602) 567-4820
          Email: daniel@ha-firm.com
                 roy@ha-firm.com

               - and -

          Jillian Laura Andrews, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
          1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
          Phone: (602) 798-5400
          Email: jillian@ha-firm.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Parks Suit Stayed Pending Resolution in Housey
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICA PARKS and DANIEL T. DURGIN, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER
& GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-258 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Matthew W. McFarland of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Cincinnati, granted in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Favor of First-Filed
Class Action.

I. Background

On March 16, 2021, Belinda Housey filed a class action against
Procter & Gamble ("P&G") in the Southern District of New York
(Housey v. Procter & Gamble Company, 1:21cv-2286-NRB (S.D.N.Y.)).
Her lawsuit makes several allegations against P&G related to its
line of Crest toothpastes containing charcoal. It seeks to certify
three classes: a National Class, a Consumer Fraud Multi-State
Class, and a New York Sub-Class.

The next month, on April 13, 2021, Plaintiffs Erica Parks and
Daniel Durgin filed the present class action against P&G in the
Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuit also advances several claims
against P&G in relation to Crest's dental products containing
charcoal. The Plaintiffs also seek to certify three classes: a
Nationwide Class, a Florida Subclass, and a Massachusetts
Subclass.

P&G filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in favor of the
first-filed case in New York.

II. Discussion

A.

The first-to-file rule is a well-established prudential doctrine
rooted in the need to manage overlapping litigation across multiple
districts. District courts have the discretion to apply the
first-to-file rule. Courts consider three factors: (1) the
chronology of events, (2) the similarity of the parties involved,
and (3) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake. The Court
also evaluates whether there are any equitable concerns that
counsel against applying the rule.

Judge McFarland holds that the case satisfies all three factors of
the first-to-file rule. First, the circumstance shows that the
Housey complaint is a "copycat" of the Plaintiff's counsel's
pleadings in earlier cases. Second, although the Housey case
contains a Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class and the present case
does not, the present case's two subclasses are virtually identical
in makeup to Housey's Consumer Fraud class. Moreover, the fact that
Housey includes an additional New York Sub-Class does not disrupt
the substantial overlap among the parties. Third, the presence of
additional issues does not preclude a finding of substantial
similarity when the core claim is the same.

B.

Having found all three first-to-file factors satisfied, Judge
McFarland next considers whether any equitable concerns counsel
against applying it. Factors that weigh against it include
extraordinary circumstances, inequitable conduct, bad faith,
anticipatory suits, and forum shopping. Declining to apply the
first-to-file rule based on the equities is something that "should
be done rarely."

Judge McFarland holds that it is not one of those rare cases that
necessitate a deviation from the rule. Allowing the case to proceed
parallel with Housey would create exactly the duplicative
litigation that the first-to-file rule exists to prevent. Two
federal courts would have to rule on two separate motions to
dismiss, and risk arriving at inconsistent rulings on those motions
and beyond. Accordingly, Judge Mcfarland finds that the
first-to-file rule applies in the present case in favor of the New
York Housey action.

C.

One question remains: Whether to dismiss or stay the case. When the
first-to-file rule applies, a district court has a few options.
Among them are dismissal and a stay.

P&G advocates for dismissal. It argues that a stay is warranted
when dismissal could adversely affect a party's interests and, the
present case, the Plaintiffs face no statute-of-limitations
concerns because the commencement of the Housey class action tolled
the limitation period for their claims.

Opposed to dismissal, the Plaintiffs argue that Housey is a "weak
case facing an uphill battle." They claim that they will seek
service awards for their participation as class representatives.
They also express concern at what will happen to their interests if
Housey is dismissed.

Judge McFarland holds that a stay pending resolution of the Housey
action is appropriate. It avoids the problem of two district courts
ruling on the same legal questions. At the same time, to use an
archaic analogy, a stay presses pause instead of the eject button,
and thus makes it simpler and more efficient for the parties and
the Court to resume the matter in the event the Housey class action
is not certified or is dismissed altogether.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge McFarland holds that the first-to-file
rule applies. Accordingly, he granted in part P&G's motion and
stayed the case pending the resolution of the first-filed Housey in
the Southern District of New York. He directed the parties to file
a joint status report 180 days from the entry of the Order, or upon
resolution of the pending motion to dismiss in the Housey case,
whichever is sooner.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/t9djvnyc from Leagle.com.


PROPEL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Guasto Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS GUASTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROPEL HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a CREDITFRESH,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-004034 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., March 17, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to undertake
appropriate and adequate measures to secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable and financial information (PII) of its
customers following a data breach to its system in or around
February or March 2022. As a result of the data breach, the
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable injury and
damages in the form of the substantial and present risk of fraud
and identity theft, anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy,
and other economic and non-economic losses.

Propel Holdings, Inc., doing business as CreditFresh, is an online
financial technology company headquartered in Newark, Delaware.
[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

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Behfarin Insurance Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that a class action
filed against the company was dismissed with prejudice.

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled "Richard
Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company" was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal
life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses that are
inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.

The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2017, the Company
filed its answer to the complaint.

In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. In October 2019, plaintiff filed: (1) the First
Amended Complaint adding Prudential Insurance Company of America
and Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey as defendants; and
(2) a motion seeking preliminary certification of a settlement
class, appointment of a class representative and class counsel, and
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.

In November 2019, the court issued an order granting the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. In June 2020, the court
issued an order: (i) granting plaintiffs' motion for certification
of the settlement class; (ii) approving the proposed nationwide
class settlement agreement; (iii) approving the class notice; (iv)
awarding attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs and a reduced
incentive award to Behfarin; and (v) dismissing the action with
prejudice, but maintaining jurisdiction over the settlement. This
matter is now closed.

Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Lifts Stay on Moreland Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that the class action
stay order in the case captioned "Socorro Moreland v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life Insurance
Company," was lifted by the court.

In June 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled "Socorro
Moreland v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life
Insurance Company," was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Company
failed to comply with California laws requiring that life insurance
policies issued and delivered in California: (i) provide for a
60-day grace period pre-lapse during which a policy must stay in
force; (ii) provide a 30-day written notice of pending lapse; and
(iii) notify policy owners of their right to designate additional
recipients for lapse notices.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of California law,
breach of contract, unfair competition, and bad faith violation of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks
unspecified damages, declaratory and injunctive relief.

In August 2020, defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a
motion to stay the action pending the California Supreme Court's
decision, in "McHugh v. Protective Life Insurance," on the question
of whether the California lapse statutes apply to policies that
were in force when the statutes went into effect on January 1,
2013, or solely to policies issued after that date.

The court granted defendants' motion to stay in October 2020.
Subsequently, in August 2021, the California Supreme Court in
McHugh determined that the California lapse statutes apply to
policies that were in force as of January 1, 2013. In October 2021,
the court lifted the stay order.

Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: WPFRS Shareholder Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, 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 17, 2022, that it is facing a
2019 putative class action complaint entitled "City of Warren
Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc.,
Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji" filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations
against PFI, and Charles Lowrey, PFI's chief executive officer, and
Kenneth Tanji, PFI's chief financial officer, individually, and
alleges that: (i) the company's reserve assumptions failed to
account for adversely developing mortality experience in the
Individual Life business segment; (ii) the company's reserves were
insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and
(iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and
overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating
mortality experience.

The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock
between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019. In March 2020, the
court issued an order consolidating this action with Donald P.
Crawford v. PFI, et al. under the caption In re Prudential
Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. In June 2020, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint and added Robert M. Falzon, PFI's vice
chairman, as an individual defendant. In August 2020, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In December 2020, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice and
plaintiff subsequently filed, in January 2021, a Notice of Appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services provider and an
investment manager based in New Jersey.


PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Class Action Over Flavor Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on March 14, 2022, a class-action lawsuit was filed
against Publix Super Markets, Inc. for allegedly improperly and
deceptively labeling their "strawberry watermelon water enhancers"
(the "product") as flavored with "natural flavor with other natural
flavors." In addition to the direct representation of the flavor in
the flavor statement, the front panel of the product also included
pictures of strawberries and watermelon slices, as well as red
coloring in the surrounding packaging and text.

Malic acid was listed in the product as the second-most predominant
ingredient (after water). Malic acid comes in two stereoisomeric
forms (i.e., the atoms differ in their spatial arrangement, but
have the same chemical formula and are connected in the same
order): L-malic acid, which naturally occurs in fruits, and D-malic
acid, which is manufactured from petroleum products and is commonly
found in an equal mixture with L-malic acid (i.e., DL-malic acid).
Plaintiff alleged that testing of the product revealed that it
contained DL-malic acid, which is an artificial ingredient, and
that it impacted the flavor profile of the product. Therefore,
Plaintiff alleged that the product should have been labeled as
"artificially flavored" or "artificial" to avoid misleading
consumers and to be in accord with 21 CFR 101.22(i)(2).

There have been many similar lawsuits challenging the use of
natural flavoring claims in products containing malic acid. See
Examples. Defendants will often argue that DL-malic acid does not
contribute to the flavor profile of the food and so it need not be
considered in the flavoring statement. They often make a
distinction between malic acid used as a "flavor enhancer" as
opposed to a "flavoring agent" as defined in 21 CFR 170.3. However,
while such arguments may have merit, the determination of whether a
particular substance contributes to the flavor profile of a food is
a fact-intensive one which cannot be resolved as the pleadings
stage of litigation. Thus, these lawsuits are rarely dismissed.

Plaintiff also alleged that DL-malic acid was improperly declared
as "malic acid" instead of "DL-malic acid" in the ingredient list.
However, at least one court has held that the requirement to list
an ingredient by its common or usual name does not require that
malic acid be listed by its specific isomer and that simply "malic
acid" is appropriate. [GN]

R&L CARRIERS: Faces Class Action Over Ohio Creek Fuel Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Edwards Baker, writing for WXIX, reports that a negligence
lawsuit seeking class-action status was just filed over a large
diesel fuel spill in a southern Ohio creek that killed thousands of
wildlife.

Wilmington Resident Zachory Adams is listed as the lead plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all property owners and residents
impacted by the environmental contamination in the Dutch Creek.

The suit estimates that to be more than 100 Clinton County
residents.

Dutch Creek connects to the Todd Fork stream, which flows into the
Little Miami River, which flows into the Ohio River.

The lawsuit names defendants R&L Carriers Inc. and two John Does
connected with CT Corporation System.

Adams' wife called the Wilmington Fire Department earlier this
month when his family and their dog were playing in the creek and
she noticed the fuel in the water and smell.

The diesel spill originated Thursday, March 3 in a tank at R+L
Carriers when bolts were not properly secured on it when the tank
was cleaned, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
determined.

The million-gallon tank held 188,000 gallons of fuel and 23,000
leaked out, killing up to 2,000 aquatic animals including fish,
crayfish and frogs, according to the EPA and the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources.

The creek containment zone is 3.5 miles long, says Clinton County
Emergency Management Agency spokesman Duane Wade.

An official with the Clinton County Health Department has advised
against fishing or swimming in the creek, saying: At this time, you
don't want to be in it."

FOX19 NOW is reaching out to all parties and will update this story
throughout the day.

R+L reported the leak through a mandatory reporting system on the
evening of Saturday, March 5, which triggered a multi-agency
response.

A "small army" descended upon the site, including Clinton County
EMA, ODNR, the Ohio EPA, the US EPA, the Coast Guard, local fire
departments and R+L.

A "large percentage" of the leaked fuel was "caught up" in the area
around the tank, but some released into Dutch Creek a quarter-mile
away, according to Steven Renninger, on-scene coordinator for the
US Environmental Protection Agency.

Renninger could not say how much fuel got into the creek.

Eight containment sites in that zone contain a range of dams and
booms to interrupt the water flow and absorb the fuel, he has
said.

Water pumps powered by generators ensure the water at the sites
keeps moving to prevent flooding. Vacuum trucks are also on-site to
collect diesel floating on the surface.

Creekside residents are urged to "utilize common sense" and "stay
away" from the creek, according to EMA Director Tom Breckel.

A sheen of diesel oil was seen as far away as Morrow, which is
around 18 miles downstream from the spill location. The sheet is
nonrecoverable.

He has said there is "no danger at this point" to public drinking
water.

Still, intakes as far downstream as the Northern Kentucky Water
District have been notified through the Ohio River Valley Water
Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) and are monitoring contaminant
levels.

The suit says "ORSANCO is concerned that if the diesel fuel makes
it into the Ohio River, the diesel fuel could be sucked into water
treatment facilities that are used to supply drinking water."

Some creekside residents use private water wells. If they suspect
contamination, they can contact the Clinton County Health District
to come out and take water samples.

Crews will be working at the creek for days to come, though the
cleanup timeline is unclear.

R+L is paying for the cleanup, Reninger has said.

Any determination of legal culpability or fines against R+L will
take place at a later date, he added.

The total cost is yet to be determined.

In addition to seeking class-action status, the lawsuit seeks:

   -- Equitable relief compelling the companies to use "appropriate
methods with respect to additional air and soil testing,
restoration and abatement actions."
   -- Actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and
statutory penalties, in an amount to be determined under the law.
   -- Punitive damages.
   -- Attorneys' fees and costs, and any other expenses, including
expert witness fees.
   -- Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.
   -- "Such other and further relief as this court may deem just
and proper." [GN]

RAZORS EDGE: Hoover Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HOOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAZORS EDGE PIZZA, INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00252-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 17, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers appropriate
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately July of 2021 until October of
2021.

Razors Edge Pizza, Incorporated is an owner and operator of
multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         Patrick Wilson, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com

REALPAGE INCORPORATED: Graham FCRA Suit Removed to D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Graham, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RealPage Incorporated doing business
as: On-Site, RP On-Site LLC, Case No. CV2022-001575, was removed
from the Maricopa County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona on March 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00428-DWL to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

RealPage -- https://www.realpage.com/ -- provides data analytics,
property management software, and services to efficiently manage
rental properties and real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Luther Heaney, Esq.
          HEANEY LAW FIRM LLC
          601 Carlson Pkwy., Ste. 1050
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Phone: (952) 933-9655
          Fax: (952) 487-0189
          Email: mark@heaneylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justin Donald Balser, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP - IRVINE, CA
          5 Park Plaza, Ste. 1400
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 622-2443
          Fax: (949) 622-2739
          Email: Justin.Balser@troutman.com


RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Moved From Washington to Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANN JOHNSON, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, Plaintiffs, v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST
COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY), ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES
LTD., and ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00743-DGE (W.D. Wash.), Judge David G.
Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, transferred the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Court granted the Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a) filed by the Royal Caribbean Defendants.

I. Background

The Plaintiff filed the case on June 7, 2021, on behalf of herself
and all participants in and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean
Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan. The Plan holds the
retirement savings of more than 7,000 non-union employees. At
year-end in 2015, the Plan held around $300 million. It is an
"employee pension benefit plan" and a "defined contribution" or
"individual account" plan under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

As a defined contribution plan, the Plan provides participants
retirement benefits "that are 'limited to the value of their own
individual investment accounts, which is determined by the market
performance of employee and employer contributions, less
expenses.'" The Plan is an "ERISA section 404(c) plan," which gives
participants investment options from an "investment menu" made
available by the Plan's fiduciaries. Until late 2015, the Plan
investment menu included 20 funds which were managed by a variety
of investment managers.

The Amended Complaint alleges around Sept. 30, 2015, the Royal
Caribbean Defendants -- Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Investment Committee -- hired Russell as its
"fiduciary outsourcing partner under the procedures established by
ERISA Section 3(38)" despite Russell underperforming the investment
managers that were managing the Plan. At that point, all investment
managers were replaced by Russell. They are asserted to have
authorized Russell to only use Russell funds in the Plan. Russell
assumed control of the Plan's investment menu and 99% of the Plan's
assets were transferred into Russell's own "proprietary funds."
While under Russell control, the Plan did poorly compared to other
funds, and the Royal Caribbean Defendants replaced Russell in 2019.
Whether compared to the time before Russell took control or after
it was relieved, the Amended Complaint alleges that "a prudent and
loyal fiduciary would not have selected the Russell target fund
dates for the Plan."

According to the Amended Complaint, Russell's selection and
retention of its own funds were not for the good of the Plan, but
to "maintain an otherwise declining asset base." A fund's size
determines the expense ratio that the manager can offer in the
marketplace. Russell needed to maintain or increase their asset
base in order to charge competitive fees. In 2016 and subsequent
years, large investors left Russell's funds, furthering the
pressure for Russell to keep the Plan's assets in the
underperforming Russell funds. "Russell's self-serving fund
retention cost participants millions of dollars in retirement
savings." Russell breached its fiduciary duties and was not acting
"solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries" of
the Plan as required under ERISA.

The Amended Complaint asserts that "based on Russell's poor
reputation as an investment manager and the poor performance of the
Russell funds, a prudent plan fiduciary would not have selected
Russell as the Plan's delegated investment manager." The Royal
Caribbean Defendants were not "prudently monitoring" Russell and
did not "swiftly intervene" contrary to their fiduciary duties
under ERISA. The Plaintiff did not know the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties until just before this case was filed.

The Defendants now move to transfer venue to the Southern District
of Florida. The Plaintiff responded and opposes the motion. The
Royal Caribbean Defendants filed a reply and the motion is ripe for
consideration.

II. Discussion

A. Transfer in the Interest of Convenience and Justice

When deciding whether transfer is appropriate "for the convenience
of parties and witnesses," and "in the interest of justice," courts
may consider: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were
negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with
the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the
respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum,
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums,
(7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of
unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.

Judge Estudillo concludes that the Royal Caribbean Defendants have
sufficiently shown that transfer of the case is appropriate "for
the convenience of parties and witnesses," and "in the interest of
justice" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The case should be
transferred to the Southern District of Florida.

III. Disposition

Accordingly, the Royal Caribbean Defendants' Motion to Transfer is
granted. The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of the Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2h8bckfx from Leagle.com.


SJW SUSH CORP: Encarnacion Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SJW Sushi Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Erik Encarnacion, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. SJW Sushi Corp., Ju Hee Lee, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02200 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SJW Sushi Corp. is a retail food store license by the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, Ste. 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


SLEEPY'S LLC: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hargrove Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SLEEPY'S LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy's LLC, Case No.
3-10-cv-01138, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In 2010, Plaintiffs Hargrove, Hall, and Eusebio, who were all
delivery drivers for Sleepy's", filed a complaint in the Court, on
behalf of a putative class, alleging that Sleepy's misclassified
them as independent contractors rather than employees, and thus
denied them protections and benefits under the Employee Retirement
and Income Security Act ("ERISA"), the Family Medical Leave Act,
and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Specifically, they allege that
Sleepy's withheld and diverted money from their wages in violation
of New Jersey's Wage Payment Law. They also allege that they were
not paid overtime for their work, a claim that would also arise
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

According to Sleepy's, deliveries are performed by contractors.
Sleepy's requires its contractors to sign Independent Driver
Agreements ("IDA"). Pursuant to the IDA, drivers are classified as
independent contractors. The IDA provides for a non-exclusive
relationship, meaning that the drivers are considered independent
contractors, and may make deliveries for other companies while not
performing deliveries for Sleepy's. Contractors and any helpers are
required to wear Sleepy's uniforms and Sleepy's ID badges and
display Sleepy's advertising on their trucks. Pursuant to the IDA,
contractors pay for their own workers compensation insurance, and
list Sleepy's as "certificate holder" on their policies. They also
purchase motor vehicle insurance and list Sleepy's as an additional
insured on their policy.

The drivers are also required to agree that while performing
deliveries for Sleepy's they will not carry merchandise for any
other business until [they] finished the delivery manifest given by
Sleepy's. The Plaintiffs contend that between January 2007 and
December 2016 (class period), Sleepy's has contracted with at least
193 individuals to perform deliveries out of its facility in
Robbinsville.

After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, on
March 29, 2012, the Court entered an order granting Sleepy's motion
for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' cross- motion. The
decision was appealed and remanded by the Third Circuit who asked
for the advice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey regarding which
test to apply to determine the nature of an employment relationship
under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour law. The Supreme Court deemed the "ABC test" to be most
appropriate. On remand, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment and denied Sleepy's motion for summary
judgment.

Following the remand, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Count 8,
9, 10, and 11, which arose under the laws of Massachusetts, New
York, Connecticut, and Maryland. However, the following claims
remain: Breach of Contract (Count I and II); Mistake (Count III);
Rescission (Count IV); Claim for Plan Enforcement under the
Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) (Count V);
Violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Count VI);
Violations of New Jersey Wage Payment Law (NJWPL) (Count VII); and
violations of New Jersey Wage and Hour law (Count VIII). The
Plaintiffs now seek certification of the class pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.

On March 7, 2022, the Court entered an Order denying Sleepy's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and to Dismiss All Claims;
denying Sleepy's Motion for Default Judgment; denying as moot
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remove Default; and granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepys
LLC, Case No. 22-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on March 15, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner SLEEPY'S LLC is represented by:

          Theo E.M. Gould, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 497-8489

               - and -

          Matthew J. Hank, Esq.
          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Shaw, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          1601 Cherry Street
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3054

Plaintiffs-Respondents SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL, and MARCO EUSEBIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          317 Delsea Drive
          Sewell, NJ 08080
          Telephone: (856) 414-1800

SNIPER'S EDGE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sniper's Edge Hockey,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sniper's Edge Hockey, Inc, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02236 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2022).

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

Snipers Edge Hockey -- https://www.snipersedgehockey.com/ -- is a
market-leading provider of at-home hockey training products.[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


SOFT PRETZEL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soft Pretzel
Franchise Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Soft
Pretzel Franchise Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01527 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 20, 2022).

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

Soft Pretzel Franchise Systems, Inc. doing business as Philly
Pretzel Factory -- https://phillypretzelfactory.com/ -- prides
itself on being the go-to snack that everyone loves.[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


SOUTHERN ALUMINUM: Class Settlement in Webb Suit Has Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRYL WEBB, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN ALUMINUM MANUFACTURING
ACQUISITION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1059 (W.D. Ark.),
Judge Susan O. Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, granted the parties'
Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and for Approval of
Settlement Agreement.

I. Background

On Dec. 6, 2019, Plaintiff Webb filed the action individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that the
Defendant willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
("AMWA"), Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-201, et seq. Specifically,
the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to include bonuses in
its overtime calculations for employees who worked more than 40
hours in a given workweek and received a bonus during that
workweek. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant rounded
down its hourly employees' number of hours worked, causing the
payroll records to inaccurately reflect the time worked by those
employees.

On Sept. 10, 2020, the parties moved the Court to certify the case
as a collective action under the FLSA, approve the parties'
proposed settlement agreement, and dismiss the case. On April 5,
2021, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective
action for settlement purposes but denied as premature the request
for settlement approval and dismissal. The Court authorized the
notice plan to be sent to the prospective collective members, which
totaled 320 of the Defendant's current and former employees. Notice
was issued along with individual checks that each potential member
could negotiate during a designated opt-in period and thereby opt
into the collective. By the end of the opt-in period, 223 people
cashed their checks and joined the collective.

On Aug. 27, 2021, the parties filed the instant motion, indicating
that they have resolved all claims in the case, as captured in a
proposed Settlement Agreement filed with the Court. They ask the
Court to approve their settlement, appoint the Plaintiff's counsel
as the Group Counsel for settlement purposes only, and dismiss the
case with prejudice.

II. Discussion

The parties' proposed settlement agreement provides for the
creation of a common fund totaling $57,097, representing the amount
of unpaid overtime premium allegedly withheld by the Defendant and
an equal amount in liquidated damages. The agreement provides for
60% of the common fund to be earmarked as a maximum damages
settlement for the Plaintiff and the collective.

Based on the individual damage calculations performed by the
Plaintiff's counsel, each potential collective member who
negotiated their opt-in check would receive 100% of their unpaid
overtime premium and 60% of their combined unpaid overtime premium
and alleged liquidated damages, a figure that represents a
negotiated compromise based on the Plaintiff's chances of success
on the claims in the case.

If every potential member of the collective negotiated their checks
during the opt-in period and joined the collective, the damages
paid to the Plaintiff and the collective would have totaled
$34,258.20, the entire 60% of the fund that was allocated for
damages. However, because only 223 of the 320 potential collective
members cashed their checks and opted in, the damages actually paid
equaled $30,934.32, with the difference reverting to Defendant. The
agreement also provides for 40% of the total settlement fund,
$22,838.80, to be awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel as attorney's
fees and costs, regardless of the participation in the collective.

Judge Hickey finds that the Plaintiff's counsel took the case on a
contingency basis, with no guarantee of success and significant
risk of no recovery, and thus, no attorney's fees. The counsel for
both sides have demonstrated their experience in class action
litigation. The settlement was achieved after the parties
informally exchanged significant amounts of documents, allowing for
the determination of who the potential collective members are, the
hours they worked, the wages they were paid, and the strengths and
weaknesses of the parties' respective claims and defenses. The
settlement amount is substantial, with the Plaintiff and the
collective receiving 100% of their unpaid overtime premium and
roughly 60% of their combined unpaid overtime premium and alleged
liquidated damages.

According to Judge Hickey, the 40% attorney's fee amount is
slightly higher than the range ordinarily awarded in
percentage-of-the-fund cases. However, any skepticism the Court
might have about approving that award is overcome by the benefit
provided to the Plaintiff and the collective, as well as the Eighth
Circuit's admonition that courts should give a certain amount of
deference when reviewing agreed attorney's fees in FLSA
settlements. Accordingly, 40% of the settlement fund, or
$22,838.80, is a fair and reasonable attorney's fee based on the
specific circumstances of the case.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Hickey granted the parties' joint
motion. Christopher Burks and Brandon Haubert are appointed as the
Group Counsel for settlement purposes only. The parties' proposed
settlement agreement is approved as fair and reasonable in all
respects.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to vacate the Order and reopen
the action upon cause shown that the settlement has not been
completed and further litigation is necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5erufmvw from Leagle.com.


SPARKART GROUP: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sparkart Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sparkart Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02221 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Sparkart -- https://www.sparkart.com/ -- is a full-stack ecommerce
agency who design, develop, and scale unique shopping experiences
for iconic brands.[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



ST SP LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ST SP LLC. The case
is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ST SP LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02223
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

ST SP LLC is a foreign limited liability company operating in
Massachusetts.[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


ST. LOUIS, MO: Inmates File Class Action Over Alleged Torture
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Rivas, writing for Missouri Independent, reports that
inmates at St. Louis' primary jail filed a federal class-action
lawsuit on March 15 accusing guards of torture with mace and
depriving them of water for days.

The inmates are represented by a team of attorneys from the
MacArthur Justice Center, ArchCity Defenders, the SLU Law Legal
Clinics, and Rights Behind Bars.

"They spray chemical agents on detainees who are handcuffed," the
inmates allege in the lawsuit. "They use excessive amounts of
chemical agents -- enough to fill the room with a fog of the
substance -- and leave detainees to 'marinate' in the burning air
without access to the medical unit or even water to properly wash
the chemical agents from their eyes."

A spokesman said the city cannot comment on pending litigation, but
he pointed to a bill that Mayor Tishaura Jones signed into law in
December to establish the Detention Facilities Oversight Board,
which will oversee and investigate allegations affecting the health
and safety of detainees. It will operate similarly as the Civilian
Oversight Board, which was established in 2015 to review complaints
against city police officers.

"We look forward to finalizing board appointments and formalizing a
system to investigate complaints," according to the city's
statement.

In a February 2021 letter, a city lawyer wrote to the St. Louis
public defender and the inmates' attorneys that the jail turns the
water off when detainees clog toilets with clothing, and inmates
are told when the water will be turned back on.

The March 15 filing builds upon a June lawsuit by three inmates who
are held in the St. Louis City Justice Center and allege they
experienced excessive punishment. If the federal judge grants the
motion to expand the original complaint into a class-action lawsuit
it would include the more than 500 people currently held in city
jails.

The filing includes 38 declarations from inmates whose stories have
a lot of "overlapping" commonalities on the ways guards behaved,
said attorney Amy Breihan, co-director of the Missouri office of
the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center.

"It's pervasive," Breihan said. "It's not just one floor of the
jail or one unit. It's not just one guard. It's part of the custom
culture there."

Plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to order the city to prohibit
using water shut-offs and chemical agents as a form of punishment,
as well as for "nominal damages" and attorneys' fees.

Derrick Jones was among the first plaintiffs in the June complaint.
He alleges that was needlessly maced in the face on Dec. 14, 2020.
He was then beaten, maced again and left in a cell to "marinate,"
the lawsuit states.

Jerome Jones said he was placed in a small, secure visiting room on
Feb. 9, 2021, and jail staff sprayed the room with mace without
warning.

"They left Jerome in the mace-filled room, asking for help and
shouting that he could not breathe, for nearly half an hour," the
lawsuit states.

Also in February 2021, Darnell Rusan alleges he was locked for
hours, fully nude, in a tiny room filled with mace, though he says
he was not physically resisting or threatening staff prior to being
attacked.

In the new complaint, Marrell Withers alleges he was maced two
times in a row in January 2022, while restrained in handcuffs for
expressing concern about COVID exposure.

"Before he was maced, he told jail staff he had asthma and begged
them not to mace him," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit contends that the city violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act when officers refused to protect Withers and
others who have medical issues.

St. Louis has long faced allegations of inhumane treatment in its
jails. In 2009, the ACLU of Missouri published a searing
investigation alleging excessive use of force and abuse by the
city's correctional staff. Over the last two years, there have been
several uprisings among inmates, decrying conditions.

"These kinds of practices, they don't just appear overnight,"
Breihan said. "Guards do these kinds of things because they've been
getting away with it for a very long time and supervisors have been
allowing it to happen." [GN]

STANZEL INC: Kelley Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Malachi Kelley, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Stanzel, Inc.; P & Z Carolina Pizza, LLC; Charles H.
Zoellers; Robert Stansbury; Daniel B. Patterson; Doe Corporations
1–10; John Doe 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00054-CHB-HAI
(E.D. Ky., March 15, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory,
and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to
compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Kentucky common law, and for unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the federal and state laws by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated
minimum wages for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's Papa John's store located
on Cumberland Falls Highway in Barberville, Kentucky from October
2021 through March 2022.

The Defendants own and/or operate multiple Papa John's Pizza store
locations in Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
          Riley E. Kane, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8714
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  ehubbard@billerkimble.com
                  rkane@billerkimble.com

STICKY BE APPARELS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sticky Be Apparels,
LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sticky Be Apparels, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02227 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022).

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

Sticky Be Apparels -- https://stickybesocks.com/ -- offers the
ultimate sticky bottom grip socks perfect for yoga, barre, pilates,
and cozy weekends at home.[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


SUTTER HEALTH: Receives Jury Support in Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Bailey, writing for Revcycle Intelligence, reports that a
federal jury has sided with Sutter Health in an antitrust class
action lawsuit in which plaintiffs claimed that the health system
drove up insurance premiums through anticompetitive tactics,
Reuters reported.

Plaintiffs first filed the lawsuit, Sidibe v. Sutter Health, in
2012. The case stated that Sutter Health violated antitrust and
unfair competition laws, leading certain individuals and employers
in Northern California to pay unfairly high premiums for health
insurance from Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California,
Health Net, and United Healthcare between 2011 and 2020.

The plaintiffs -- four patients and two companies representing
three million individuals and small businesses -- alleged that
Sutter Health's actions resulted in $411 million of damages.

The lawsuit claimed that the health system used its market power to
force health plans into contracts that prevented them from
directing patients to non-Sutter hospitals with lower costs,
resulting in higher premiums for members.

According to plaintiffs, the contracts said that if the health
plans wanted to include any of Sutter's hospitals in their
networks, they must include them all.

After less than 10 hours of deliberation across two days, a
nine-member jury in the US District Court for the Northern District
of California rejected the claims and sided with Sutter Health.

"After hearing many hours of testimony from witnesses, insurance
plan representatives, provider organizations and experts, the jury
found that Sutter Health did not engage in anticompetitive conduct
and did not cause consumers to pay higher prices or premiums as
plaintiffs alleged," James Conforti, interim president and chief
executive officer of Sutter Health, said in a statement.

"The jury's decision reached the substance of the claims, finding
squarely that Sutter Health did not tie together its hospital
services, did not force insurance companies to agree to contracts
that prevented insurance companies from introducing networks, and
did not restrain competition."

"This decision is important not only for Sutter Health, but for all
healthcare providers in California," Conforit continued. "It
validates that healthcare providers, including doctors and
hospitals, have a right to evaluate whether to participate in
health plan networks and ensure that they don't interfere with the
ability to provide coordinated patient care and will not lead to
surprise bills."

This is not the first time Sutter Health has faced antitrust
allegations.

In March 2018, California's then-Attorney General and current HHS
Secretary Xavier Becerra filed a similar lawsuit against the health
system that claimed it was engaging in anticompetitive behavior
that led to high healthcare costs.

In December 2019, Sutter Health and the state of California reached
a $575 million settlement for the case. In addition to the fee, the
health system agreed to increase price transparency, limit
out-of-network charges, and end "all-or-nothing" contract deals.

The settlement also prohibited anticompetitive bundling of services
and products and subjected Sutter Health to at least ten years of
court-approved compliance monitoring.

Hartford HealthCare (HCC) recently faced an antitrust lawsuit as
well. Six Connecticut residents alleged that the health system
restrained trade and created a monopoly on acute inpatient hospital
services across the state, leading to higher costs for payers and
patients. Similar to Sutter Health, plaintiffs accused HCC of using
the "all-or-nothing" approach when contracting with health plans.
[GN]

TASTY HUT: Chapman Files ADA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tasty Hut, LLC. The
case is styled as Rachelle Chapman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tasty Hut, LLC, Tasty Hut of NC,
LLC, TH Propco, LLC, Does 1 to 25, Case No. 1:22-cv-00208
(M.D.N.C., March 17, 2022).

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

Tasty Hut, LLC is located in Los Angeles, California and is part of
the Restaurants and Other Eating Places Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy S. Litwak, Esq.
          ROSENWOOD, ROSE & LITWAK, PLLC
          1712 Euclid Ave., Charlotte, NC 28203
          Phone: (704) 228-8576
          Fax: (704) 371-6400
          Email: nlitwak@rosenwoodrose.com


TENNESSEE-AMERICAN WATER: Bruce Suit Over Pipe Mishap Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, 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 16, 2022, that it is
facing a complaint captioned "Bruce, et al. v. American Water Works
Company, Inc., et al." filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton
County, Tennessee in September 17, 2019, against Tennessee-American
Water Company (TWAC), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals
or entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a
result of the Chattanooga incident.

The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally
filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of
unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic
losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of
property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest.

On September 12, 2019, Tennessee-American Water Company (TWAC), the
company's Tennessee subsidiary, experienced a leak in a 36-inch
water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or
interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water
notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14,
2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September
15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on
September 16, 2019.

In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' claims in their complaint, except for the breach of
contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October
2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been
engaging in discovery. The court has entered an agreed scheduling
order, which sets a hearing in October 2022 to address the question
of class certification.

American Water is a publicly-traded water and wastewater utility
company.


TONY'S STEAKS: Faces Wage and Tip Theft Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Patton, writing for Lexington Herald Leader, reports that
known as one of Lexington's most upscale and expensive restaurants,
Tony's Steaks and Seafood is facing two potential class-action
lawsuit over alleged wage and tip theft.

Former bartender John Harley filed a lawsuit on March 3 in Fayette
Circuit Court alleging that the restaurant forced him and other
tipped employees to participating in a tip pool that gave portions
of their tips to salaried members of management, including the
maitre d', who is not named in the suit. This story is a subscriber
exclusive.

The claim alleges that the tip pool violated the Kentucky Wages and
Hours Act, which allows restaurants to pay hourly employees less
than minimum wage because the tips make up the difference.

According to the suit, Harley, who now lives in Nashville, was a
bartender at Tony's Steaks & Seafood from January 2016 through
March 2017. During that time he was paid about $5 an hour, the suit
claims. The extra $2.25 an hour for minimum wage and the extra
$5.88 and hour for overtime wages was supposed to come from his
tips, but Harley's lawsuit claims by forcing employees to share
tips the restaurant forfeited the legal right to claim the tip
credit.

Harley is asking to have his lawsuit certified as a class action so
that other Tony's employees and former employees can join the suit.
He's also asking for all unpaid and underpaid wages plus damages.

Attorneys for Harley could not be reached immediately for comment.


A second lawsuit with similar allegations was filed on March 15 in
U.S. District Court in Lexington, alleging on behalf of a Lexington
plaintiff named Christopher Sullivan that Tony's required workers
to pool tips and share them with management.

According to the lawsuit, Sullivan worked at Tony's from February
2015 through May 2021 and was paid less than minimum wage. The
restaurant claimed the tip credit on his wages in violation of
federal and state labor laws, according to the lawsuit.

That suit also is seeking to be certified as a collective and class
action to represent other former and current Tony's employees. $2
for 2 months Subscribe for unlimited access to our website, app,
eEdition and more CLAIM OFFER Tony's, which is named for chef Tony
Ricci, has not filed a response to the Fayette Circuit Court claim
yet. There was no immediate response for comment from attorneys for
Tony's or the restaurant. Ricci, who also has a restaurant in
Cincinnati, opened Tony's in Lexington in 2015, scoring high marks
with diners ever since for the steaks, seafood, sides and service.
[GN]

TRADE DESK: Faces Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------
The Trade Desk, 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 14, 2022, that on June 28, 2021, a
class action lawsuit was filed against the company, the members of
the board of directors and one of the executive officers, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The complaint alleges generally that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection with the
negotiation and approval of the amendments to our certificate of
incorporation and related matters voted on at the Special Meeting
of Stockholders held on December 22, 2020.

The plaintiff seeks a court order rescinding the amendments
approved at the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on December
22, 2020, as well as monetary damages. On November 29, 2021, the
plaintiff filed a supplement to the complaint, adding factual
allegations related to the CEO Performance Option.  On February 1,
2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on
the defendants' motions is scheduled for April 11, 2022.

The Trade Desk, Inc. is a global technology company that empowers
buyers of advertising through its self-service, cloud-based
platform.


TWITTER INC: Dismissed Securities Suit Currently on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, 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 16, 2022, that a shareholder action is
currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the
Ninth Circuit.

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the company and certain of its officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with its announcements that it had
discovered and taken steps to remediate issues related to certain
user settings designed to target advertising that were not working
as expected and seeking unspecified damages.

In December 2020, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims. The case is currently on appeal.

Twitter, is a global platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time.


TWITTER INC: Securities Suit Stayed Pending Claims Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, 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 16, 2022, that on January 15, 2021, a
derivative action was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against
certain directors of the company alleging that the directors
violated their fiduciary duties in deciding to enter into the
Cooperation Agreement with certain affiliates of Elliott Management
Corporation, to enter into the Investment Agreement with an
affiliate of Silver Lake Partners, and to authorize a program to
repurchase up to $2.0 billion of the Company's common stock.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on March 19, 2021 and
on September 10, 2021, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. On November 9, 2021, the court granted a motion to stay
the case for six months while a Special Litigation Committee of the
company's board of directors investigates the claims.

Twitter, is a global platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time.


TWITTER INC: Settlement Deal in Shareholder Suit Awaits Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, 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 16, 2022, that a settlement agreement of a
consolidated shareholder class action is subject to final approval
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the company and the company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty. The putative class actions were
consolidated in the said court.

In January 2021, the company entered into a binding agreement to
settle the shareholder derivative lawsuits. The derivative
settlement resolves all claims asserted against the company and the
other named defendants in the derivative lawsuits without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally or the
company. Under the terms of the settlement, the company's board of
directors will adopt and implement certain corporate governance
modifications. On July 27, 2021, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware approved the settlement agreement.

The shareholder class action lawsuit was scheduled for trial on
September 20, 2021. Prior to the start of the trial, the company
negotiated and entered into a binding agreement to settle the
shareholder class action lawsuit. The proposed class action
settlement resolves all claims asserted against the company and the
other named defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuit
without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them personally
or to the company. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
company paid the settlement amount of $809.5 million from cash on
hand in the fourth quarter of 2021. The settlement amount is
included in litigation settlement, net in the consolidated
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021. The
settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Twitter, is a global platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time.


TWITTER INC: Suit vs CEO Stayed Pending Investigation of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, 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 16, 2022, that on February 22, 2021, a
derivative action was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against
its CEO Jack Dorsey alleging that Mr. Dorsey violated his fiduciary
duties relating to various alleged privacy and cybersecurity
issues. The parties have agreed to a stay of this action pending
the outcome of the company's board of directors' investigation of
the claims.

Twitter, is a global platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time.


UNITED AIRLINES: Sued Over Voluntary Separation Leave Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that United
Airlines wrongfully denied certain former employees access to its
Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave program, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs Donna Loucks, Roxann Merlini and Jo Gawler claim that in
August 2017, United's then-CEO Oscar Munoz sent out a letter
promising that if the company offered "an early out within 36
months after you retire, you would be eligible for the financial
benefits of the program even after retiring."

Despite this, Loucks, Merlini and Gawler argue they were denied
access to the program despite retiring within three years of it
being offered.

United first offered its Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave
program on Jan. 21, 2021, as an incentive for employees to retire
so the airline could reduce its workforce.

United's Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave Program Benefits
Should Have Been Offered to Plaintiffs, Class Action Says
Loucks, Merlini, and Gawler claim the benefits offered in United's
Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave program were superior to the
ones they were given in their retirement packages, meaning they
should have been able to participate in the program.

United "falsely asserted," however, that the Frontline Voluntary
Separation Leave program was not an "early out" program and thus
did not need to be offered to employees who had already retired,
per Munoz's 2017 letter, the class action lawsuit alleges.

Loucks, Merlini and Gawler argue the Frontline Voluntary Separation
Leave program is in fact an "early out" program as it is
"identical" to two previous voluntary separation programs offered
by United that were considered early out programs.

Loucks, Merlini and Gawler claim United is guilty of breach of
contract and in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial and requesting the enhanced
benefits offered by the Frontline Voluntary Separation Leave
program be given, with interest, to themselves and all class
members.

Loucks, Merlini and Gawler want to represent a class of former
United employees who retired within 36 months of Jan. 21, 2021, and
who were at least 45 years of age with 15 years of United service.


A separate class action lawsuit was filed against United in 2016 by
two Hawaii residents claiming the airline's checked bag policy put
the safety of passengers at risk.

Have you been denied access to United's Frontline Voluntary
Separation Leave program? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Lewis and David S.
Preminger of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Mark D. DeBofsky of
DeBofsky Sherman Casciari Reynolds, P.C.

The United Voluntary Separation Leave Program Class Action Lawsuit
is Loucks, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01604, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. [GN]

UNITED HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Dismisses CIGNA's Appeal in MCAG Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MANAGED CARE ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
MD LEONARD J. KLAY, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED HEALTHCARE OF
NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants, CIGNA HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 21-10247, Non-Argument Calendar (11th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted
MCAG's motion to dismiss appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed CIGNA's appeal from the district
court's denial of its expedited motion to enforce a settlement
agreement and to enjoin the Appellee, Managed Care Advisory Group,
LLC ("MCAG"), from pursuing allegedly improper remedies at a final
arbitration hearing before Special Master Joseph Matthews.

I. Background

On appeal, CIGNA argues that the district court erroneously allowed
the final arbitration hearing to proceed because (i) MCAG lacks
standing to pursue claims on behalf of a class of medical providers
and (ii) MCAG was pursuing relief that was barred by a settlement
agreement between CIGNA and the class of medical providers.

After receiving CIGNA's notice of appeal, the Eleventh Circuit
requested that the parties address whether the district court's
order denying CIGNA's expedited motion was immediately appealable.
MCAG then filed a motion to dismiss CIGNA's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

In response to MCAG's motion to dismiss and to the Eleventh
Circuit's jurisdictional question, CIGNA argues that the Eleventh
Circuit has appellate jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1291, 1292(a)(1). The jurisdictional
question and motion to dismiss were carried with the case for this
panel to make a final determination.

II. Discussion

A.

The order at issue is a postjudgment order, which renders "the
meaning of a 'final decision' less clear because the proceedings
necessarily follow a final judgment." CIGNA argues that the
district court's order denying its requested stay of the final
arbitration hearing was final because it "disassociated" the court
from the case.

The Eleventh Circuit stated that "a postjudgment order is final for
purposes of section 1291 only if the order disposes of all issues
raised in the motion." The order at issue clearly does not do so.
In its expedited motion, CIGNA requested that the district court
"enjoin the arbitration hearing from proceeding" because (i) MCAG
was seeking relief that was "barred by the Settlement Agreement"
between CIGNA and the class of medical providers and (ii) MCAG
lacked "standing to pursue" that relief. In its paperless order
denying that motion, the district court said the motion was denied
"with leave to argue, if appropriate, before Joseph Matthews," the
Special Master serving as the arbitrator. The district court did
not "dispose of" CIGNA's arguments concerning MCAG's standing or
its sought after relief. Instead, it referred those matters to the
Special Master to decide initially.

The Eleventh Circuit holds that the district court's summary denial
of CIGNA's expedited motion to stay the arbitration hearing did not
expressly address either the scope of the settlement agreement or
MCAG's standing. Instead, it gave CIGNA "leave to argue" these
issues before the arbitrator. The most the Eleventh Circuit can say
about the district court's summary denial of CIGNA's motion is that
it left the status quo intact and did not finally settle or
otherwise dispose of CIGNA's arguments. Therefore, the Eleventh
Circuit lacks jurisdiction under Section 1291 to hear CIGNA's
appeal of this interlocutory order.

B.

In the alternative, CIGNA argues that we have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1), which gives the Eleventh
Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from "interlocutory orders of the
district courts granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or
dissolving injunctions." CIGNA's expedited motion requested an
"injunction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to prevent an
arbitral final hearing from moving forward."

While CIGNA's expedited motion used the word "injunction," MCAG
argues that the court's denial of this motion was merely a "case
management order." The Supreme Court has instructed the Eleventh
Circuit to adopt a functional approach when deciding whether an
interlocutory order falls within Section 1292(a)(1)'s ambit.

The district court denied CIGNA's request to stay the arbitration
hearing, but that denial did not have serious, irreparable
consequences such that it could only be challenged by immediate
appeal. Being forced to participate in the arbitration hearing is
not, in the Eleventh Circuit's view, a serious or irreparable
consequence. Nor is immediate appeal needed to effectually
challenge the arbitration hearing as the district court will still
be required to enter a final order adopting or modifying the
Special Master's report after giving the parties an opportunity to
be heard.

In its response to MCAG's motion to dismiss the appeal, CIGNA
argued that the district court denied an injunction to enforce the
settlement agreement and to stop MCAG's pursuit of claims barred by
the settlement agreement. However, the language CIGNA used in its
motion is not dispositive; rather, we look to the substance of what
it requested. In its expedited motion, CIGNA requested a stay of an
arbitration hearing before the Special Master. In the Eleventh
Circuit's view, this is not an appealable interlocutory order. As
the Supreme Court has explained, "orders that in no way touch on
the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are
not in our view 'interlocutory' within the meaning of Section
1292(a)(1).

III. Conclusion

Because the Eleventh Circuit disagrees with CIGNA that it has
jurisdiction over CIGNA's interlocutory appeal under either Section
1291 or Section 1292(a)(1), it granted MCAG's motion to dismiss the
appeal. CIGNA's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Because it writes only for the parties who are familiar with the
facts and proceedings in the case, the Eleventh Circuit relates
only those facts necessary to understand its decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9awxzu from Leagle.com.


UNITED SERVICES: Collects Excessive Premiums, Bergeson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLINT D. BERGESON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE GROUP, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01776 (C.D.
Cal., March 17, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment/restitution, and violation of
the California's Business and Professions Code.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unfair business
practice of unjustly profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic by
collecting and/or retaining excessive, unfair premiums. The
Defendants' premiums are based on certain measures of risk such as
miles driven and likelihood of accidents, which have dropped
significantly during the government's safer at home and
shelter-in-place orders in an effort to slow the spread of
COVID-19. Therefore, the premiums charged by Defendants while the
safer at home and shelter-in-place orders were in effect were well
in excess of a fair rate of return. Despite these circumstances,
the Defendants have continued to collect excessive premiums from
policyholders and have failed to issue appropriate and
proportionate refunds.

United Services Automobile Association is a financial services
company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.

USAA Casualty Insurance Group is a casualty insurance company based
in San Antonio, Texas.

USAA General Indemnity Company is an insurance firm headquartered
in San Antonio, Texas.

Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance is an insurance company
headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
         ASAF LAW APC
         2330 Westwood Blvd., Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (424) 254-8870
         Facsimile: (888) 254-0651
         E-mail: Asaf@Lawasaf.com

                 - and –

         George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
         Nicholas J Bontrager, Esq.
         MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
         4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 535
         Toluca Lake, CA 91602
         Telephone: (323) 940-1700
         Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
         E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com

UNITED STATES: Casa Libre Sues Over Refusal to Approve Applications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Libre/Freedom House; El Rescate; Clergy Laity And United
Economic Justice For (Clue); Salvadoran American Leadership &
Educational Fund (Salef); Central American Resource Center
(Carecen-Dc); La Raza Centro Legal, Inc.; Rene Gabriel Flores
Merino; Hildner Eduardo Coronado Ajtun; Carlos Abel Hernandez
Arevalo; Axel Yafeth Mayorga Aguilera; Rene Isai Serrano Montes;
Pamela Alejandra Rivera Cambara, on behalf of themselves and the
following similarly situated v. Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary, U.S.
Department Of Homeland Security; UR M. Jaddou, director, U.S.
Citizenship And Immigration Service; U.S. Citizenship And
Immigration Service, Case No. 2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2022), is brought to challenge the Defendants' refusal to
adjudicate and approve applications for Employment Authorization
Documents ("EADs") to minors and youth who State courts have
determined have been abused, neglected, or abandoned and have
pending or approved petitions for Special Immigrant Juvenile status
("SIJ status").

Many of the individual Plaintiffs and members of the class they
seek to represent were unaccompanied minors who fled their home
countries after being abused, neglected, or abandoned, or are
juveniles who experienced abuse, neglect or abandonment in this
country. Congress has granted these minors and youth a clear path
to SIJ status and later to file applications for Adjustment of
Status to obtain lawful permanent resident status. Defendants
adhere to a policy that a SIJ petitioner cannot file applications
for or be granted EADs unless and until they are able to file
applications for Adjustment of Status to obtain lawful permanent
resident status.

However, because of visa quota backlogs, many SIJ petitioners
cannot file applications for Adjustment of Status for five or six
years after filing their SIJ petitions. The Defendants' policy,
which is an administrative decision not required by any federal
law, often forces the Plaintiffs and the tens of thousands of class
members they seek to represent to go cold, hungry, or homeless for
many years, and to work in underground exploitative jobs in order
to survive during the years it takes before the Defendants allow
them to apply for EADs.

The Defendants' policy and practice violates the Equal Protection
guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. While the Defendants' policy
forces SIJ petitioners to wait for several years to request and
obtain employment authorization, for no rational reason, the
Defendants allow other vulnerable immigrants filing visa petitions
to apply for and be granted employment authorization while their
visa petitions are pending or when they are approved, long before
they can apply for Adjustment of Status. There is no rational,
substantial, or compelling reason for the disparate and
discriminatory way in which the Defendants treat young abused,
neglected, and abandoned immigrants filing SIJ petitions. The
Defendants' policy irrationally causes the Plaintiffs and tens of
thousands of class members to often suffer severe and irreparable
harms, including hunger, homelessness, and unstable housing, and
the need to work in conditions that are exploitative and violate
state and federal workplace wage and safety laws. The Defendants
irrationally discriminate against Plaintiffs and class members
despite their playing by the rules and presenting approvable
petitions for SIJ status as Congress has authorized, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff Casa Libre/Freedom House is a state licensed group
home in Los Angeles that provides transitional living services and
related social and legal services for detained and homeless
unaccompanied immigrant minors and youth.

Alejandro Mayorkas is the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security ("DHS") and is sued in his official capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Schey, Esq.
          Daniel Bral, Esq.
          CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
          256 South Occidental Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Phone: (213) 388-8693, ext. 309
          Facsimile: (213) 386-9484
          Email: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org
                 daniel@centerforhumanrights.org

               - and -

          Camila Alvarez, Esq.
          Ruth N. Calvillo, Esq.
          Lilit Melkonyan, Esq.
          CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN-LA)
          468 W 5th Street, Suite 204
          San Bernardino, CA 92401
          Phone: (213) 385-7800, extension 161
          Email: CAlvarez@carecen-la.org
                 RCalvillo@carecen-la.org
                 LMelkonyan@carecen-la.org

               - and -

          Stephany Arzaga, Esq.
          Cynthia Henning, Esq.
          Claudia Quintana, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
          1254 Market St–3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 863-3762
          Email: stephany@lsc-sf.org
                 cynthia@lsc-sf.org
                 claudiaq@lsc-sf.org

               - and -

          Maritza Agundez, Esq.
          COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS (CHIRLA)
          2533 West Third St., Suite 101
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Phone: (213) 201-3781
          Email: magundez@chirla.org

               - and -

          Stephen Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Marcos Pacheco, Esq.
          LA RAZA CENTRO LEGAL, INC.
          474 Valencia Street, #295
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: (415) 575-3500
          Email: srosenbaum@law.berkeley.edu
                 marcos@lrcl.org

               - and -

          Alex Holguin, Esq.
          DREAM ACT LAWYERS
          714 W Olympic Blvd, #450
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Phone: (213) 765-6084
          Email: aholguin@dalimmigration.com

               - and -

          Silvia Aguirre, Esq.
          THE AGUIRRE LAW FIRM, APC
          3521 Whittier Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90023-1709
          Phone: (213) 386-4649
          Email: silvia@getjustice.us

               - and -

          Cristel Martinez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARTINEZ, NGUYEN & MAGANA
          13200 Crossroads Pkwy. N., Suite 115
          Industry, CA 91746
          Phone: (213) 246-2197
          Email: abogada@cristelmartinez.com

               - and -

          Jim Tom Haynes, Esq.
          HAYNES NOVICK IMMIGRATION
          2001 S Street NW, Suite 550
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: 202-350-3933 direct
          Email jimtom@dcimmigrationattorney.com

               - and -

          Genevieve Augustin, Esq.
          CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN-DC)
          1460 Columbia Road NW, Suite C-1
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 328-9799
          Email: Genevieve.Augustin@carecendc.org

               - and -

          Fausto Falzone, Esq.
          EL RESCATE
          1605 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 516
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Phone: (213) 387-3284
          Email: ffalzone@elrescate.org

               - and -

          Carl Bergquist, Esq.
          COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS (CHIRLA)
          2533 West Third St., Suite 101
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Phone: (310) 279-6025
          Email: cbergquist@chirla.org


UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Keeps Drivers' Escrow Money, Pulido Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL PULIDO and JORGE ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01438 (N.D. Ill., March 18, 2022) is a class
action suit brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for
its violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, federal "Truth-in-Leasing" regulations, and the
Illinois Common Law.

The Defendant required the Plaintiffs to establish escrow accounts
with Defendant -- these accounts would be used to pay for agreed
upon expenses and costs. Such escrow accounts are common in the
trucking industry and are regulated by federal regulations.

Those regulations require motor carriers to return the escrow money
to the drivers no later than 45 days after termination.
Unfortunately, the Defendant kept Plaintiffs escrow money for no
reason. Further, the Defendant regularly and intentionally keeps
other drivers' escrow money. The drivers are left with no recourse
except for hiring counsel and pursuing their claims in court, says
the suit.

The Plaintiffs are truckers that were formerly employed by
Defendant, a "motor carrier."

In March of 2020, Pulido was hired by Universal as an
owner-operator truck driver, performing trucking services based out
of Universal's Harvey, Illinois location.

In March of 2020, Zepeda was hired by Universal as an
owner-operator truck driver, performing trucking services based out
of Universal's Harvey, Illinois location.

Universal required the Plaintiffs to agree that Universal would
withhold a certain amount of money per week directly from
Plaintiffs' paycheck to fund an "escrow" account. Universal held
the funds and had full control and access over them.

The Universal represented to Plaintiffs that the escrow account
would be used to pay any tolls or tickets or similar costs incurred
by Plaintiffs (and for which Plaintiffs might be responsible) but
that Universal might be required to pay on their behalf.

Such escrow accounts are common in the industry and are regulated
by the Department of Transportation pursuant to federal law.

Universal represented to Plaintiffs that once Plaintiffs left
Universal's employment, Universal would return all of Plaintiffs'
funds from the escrow account in a timely manner, minus any
legitimate costs incurred, the lawsuit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
          20 N. Clark Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

UPS SUPPLY: Faces Powell Suit Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE POWELL & WALTER GRAFER, both individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2022LA000264
(Ill. Dupage Cty., March 17, 2022) is a class action complaint
against UPS Supply Chain for its violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), and to obtain redress for
persons injured by its conduct.

The Defendant allegedly implemented biometric scanning and
time-tracking devices and technology to monitor and manage its
workers', including Plaintiffs', time on the job. Such devices
collect their users' biometric identifiers, i.e. facial geometry,
and convert them to an electronic format derived from those
identifiers, i.e. biometric information. Such conversion is
necessary for storing biometrics on the device itself, and to allow
Defendant to transmit biometric data to third parties, such as data
storage or payroll vendors, says the suit.

Despite collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' biometrics for
timekeeping purposes, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with
any written disclosures before such collection and use informing
them that it was collecting or using their biometrics or explaining
the purpose or length of term for which their biometrics were being
collected an used. Nor did Defendant seek, and the Plaintiffs did
not provide, any written consent prior to Defendant's collection,
use, and storage of their biometrics.

Though the Defendant came into possession of Plaintiffs'
biometrics, the Defendant failed to make publicly available any
written biometric retention and destruction policy.

In addition, the Defendant disseminated electronic information
derived from the scanning of Plaintiffs' biometric identifiers to
third parties, including vendors for timekeeping, data storage, and
payroll purposes, without obtaining Plaintiffs' consent to do.

To this day, the Plaintiffs are unaware of the status of the
biometrics obtained by the Defendant. By failing to comply with
BIPA, the Defendant has violated Plaintiffs' substantive state
rights to biometric privacy.

From December 2020 to July 2021, Plaintiff Powell worked at
Defendant's facility in Bensenville, Illinois.

From October 2017 to April 2020, Plaintiff Grafter worked at
Defendant's facility in Bensenville, Illinois.

The Defendant is a global logistics and shipping company with
locations around the world including in DuPage County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
          Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
                  aheldut@mcgpc.com
                  cbuscarini@mcgpc.com

UTILITY TRAILER: Suit Balks at Employees' Personal Info Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN EASLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UTILITY TRAILER MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01784-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal., March 17,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, and breach of implied contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to protect the
highly sensitive personal information of its current and former
employees and their family members following a third-party access
to its computer systems and data. As a result of the cyber-attack,
the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable injury and
damages in the form of the substantial and present risk of fraud
and identity theft from their unlawfully accessed and compromised
private and confidential information, lost value of their private
and confidential information, out-of-pocket expenses and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack.

Utility Trailer Manufacturing Company is a semi-truck dry van,
flatbed, and refrigerated van trailer manufacturing company, with
its principal place of business located at 17295 Railroad Street,
Suite A, City of Industry, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (917) 471-1894
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

VANGUARD GROUP: Retirement Fund Account Holders File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Angeloni, writing for International Adviser, reports that
US-based investment giant Vanguard is facing a lawsuit in the state
of Pennsylvania brought by a group of retirement fund account
holders.

They allege they received large capital gains tax (CGT) bills
following Vanguard's opening its institutional retirement funds to
retail investors.

This triggered an "elephant stampede sell-off from its retail
funds", the lawsuit alleges.

The firm's retirement retail funds were for individuals with less
than $100m (GBP73m, EUR87m), while the institutional products were
only accessible to those with more than that to invest, but the
lawsuit alleges that the holdings and strategies "are the same".

International Adviser contacted Vanguard but the firm declined to
comment on the lawsuit.

Mass sale
In December 2020, Vanguard reportedly lowered the minimum
requirement for its institutional funds to $5m, so retail clients
could move over to the cheaper institutional funds.

But the complaint alleges that the move set off a mass sale of
assets from the retail funds - with many selling 15% or more.

When the assets were sold, they realised capital gains. These were
distributed among investors, but while those holding the target
date retirement funds in tax-advantaged accounts -- such as 401(k)s
-- were able to reinvest the gains without incurring in tax
liabilities, this was not the same for those who held the funds in
taxable accounts.

The complainants -- all of whom held the retirement fund in taxable
accounts -- claim that the large capital distribution meant large
CGT bills as well -- with some being hit with liabilities "at least
40 times larger than ever before", the lawsuit says.

This resulted in "enormous tax bills for tens of thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of dollars", the investors' lawyers at Dovel
& Luner said.

Avoidable harm?
The account holders claim that Vanguard had two options it could
have deployed to not hurt clients in taxable accounts:

   -- Lower the retail fund fees for plans that had at least $5m
invested; or
   -- Merge the retail and institutional funds given they had the
same strategy, asset mix and management.

In September 2021, the investment firm reportedly merged the two
funds, which the account holders claim would have saved them tens
of thousands of dollars in tax had it been done in December 2020.

The investors also claim that they have now lost the ability to
earn compounding returns on the distributions.

As a result, the clients have accused Vanguard of breach of
fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

They are seeking damages, an injunction prohibiting Vanguard from
triggering any additional sell-offs, restitution, disgorgement,
pre- and post-judgement interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and
any additional relief as decided by the court. [GN]

VERIDIAN HEALTHCARE: Lidocaine Products Falsely Labeled, Jones Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Veridian Healthcare, LLC., Case No. 7:22-cv-02204
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2022) is a putative class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the Defendant's lidocaine patches and
creams (the "Lidocaine Products").

Although lidocaine patches and creams are often prescribed by
doctors, the Defendant allegedly offers its Lidocaine Products
over-the-counter to unsuspecting consumers under false pretenses.

The Defendant takes advantage of these consumers by prominently
displaying on the packaging of the Lidocaine Products that they
deliver a "Maximum Strength" dose of lidocaine and that the
Lidocaine Patches provide pain relief for 12 hours, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class members relied on those
representations when making their purchases. To their dismay,
however, the Defendant's Lidocaine Patches regularly peel off their
bodies within a few hours, and oftentimes minutes, after being
properly applied. Furthermore, none of Defendant's Lidocaine
Products contain or deliver the maximum amount of lidocaine
available with, or without, a prescription, the suit added.

As a result of its deceptive conduct, Defendant is, and continues
to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of its customers.

Lidocaine is a topical anesthetic that is used to treat pain by
blocking the transmission of pain signals from nerve endings in the
skin to the spinal cord and brain.

Specifically, lidocaine functions by blocking sodium channels
located on nerve endings which prevents action potential from
propagating in the nerve cell and thereby interrupts the
transmission of pain signals.

Plaintiff Jones purchased Defendant's TheraCare Pain Relief
Lidocaine Patch for her personal use for approximately $9.99 on
various occasions within the applicable statute of limitations,
with her most recent purchase taking place on or about September of
2020. The Plaintiff made these purchases from local pharmacies
located in Westchester County, New York.

The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes the Lidocaine
Products through numerous brick-and-mortar retail locations and
online websites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
          GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
          630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 884-4230
          E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Reyes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERLINDA REYES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF
CALIFORNIA and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV383092, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 17, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01724 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide
accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor
Code.

VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California is a hospice care
services provider, with its principal place of business in Miami,
Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Reed E. Schaper, Esq.
         Ferry Lopez, Esq.
         HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
         233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (310) 255-0705
         Facsimile: (310) 255-0986
         E-mail: rschaper@hkemploymentlaw.com
                 flopez@hkemploymentlaw.com

                 - and –

         Monte Grix, Esq.
         Adam Maldonado, Esq.
         HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP
         456 Montgomery Street, Suite 2200
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 835-9000
         Facsimile: (415) 834-0443
         E-mail: mgrix@hkemploymentlaw.com
                 amaldonado@hkemploymentlaw.com

VOLKSWAGEN AG: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Mucha's Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WAYNE MUCHA, LINDA MUCHA, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
MARTIN WINTERKORN, Defendant, VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,
MATTHIAS MÜLLER, FRANK WITTER, HANS DIETER POTSCH,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1511-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the May 20, 2021 opinion
and order of the district court.

The ruling dismissed the Plaintiffs-Appellants' Amended Complaint
against the Defendants-Appellees for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  
I. Background

The Amended Complaint alleges damages caused by the
Defendants-Appellees' violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), as well as
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. Each of the
statements identified in the Amended Complaint is alleged to be
false or misleading because of the Defendants-Appellees'
purportedly unlawful or anticompetitive coordination with
automobile manufacturers Daimler, BMW, Audi, and Porsche
(collectively, with Volkswagen, the "Group of Five") to limit
innovation and align on commodities pricing.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed their claims as a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities that
acquired Volkswagen securities on U.S. Exchanges or via U.S.
transactions between Aug. 30, 2012 and July 21, 2017. There was,
however, no certification of a class.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs-Appellants first argue that the district
court abused its discretion by ignoring their request to amend
their complaint for a second time, to account for additional
reporting on Volkswagen's alleged violation of European competition
laws. They further contend that the district court erred in
dismissing their Amended Complaint for failure to: (1) adequately
allege that the underlying conduct was illegal; (2) plead with
particularity that the challenged statements were false or
materially misleading; and (3) plead allegations that raise a
strong inference of scienter.

The Second Circuit assumes the parties' familiarity with the
underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the
issues on appeal.

II. Discussion

A. Misstatements or Omissions of Material Fact

The district court's determination that the Plaintiffs-Appellants
failed to state a claim for securities fraud rests principally on
its conclusion that the Amended Complaint does not adequately
allege that Volkswagen engaged in the unlawful conduct that
supposedly rendered its statements misleading. Specifically, the
district court concluded that the Amended Complaint fell short of
Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA's heightened pleading standards because it
did not identify "any specific laws Defendants violated or explain
how Volkswagen's conduct ran afoul of those laws."

On appeal, the Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that the district court
erred in holding that they were required to plead that Volkswagen's
conduct was unlawful, rather than anticompetitive, and that they
pled with particularity Volkswagen's underlying anticompetitive
conduct.

The Second Circuit disagrees. It finds that the Amended Complaint
repeatedly alleges that Volkswagen's "illegal collusive activities"
rendered the challenged statements false or misleading. But the
Amended Complaint does not set forth how the Defendants-Appellees'
collusive conduct was unlawful, nor the manner in which this
supposedly unlawful conduct occurred.

Assuming arguendo that the Amended Complaint alleges that the
challenged statements were false or misleading because Volkswagen
was engaged in anticompetitive, as opposed to unlawful, conduct,
the Amended Complaint still fails to meet Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA's
heightened standards. When plaintiffs bring securities fraud claims
based on allegedly anticompetitive conduct, they must plead
"sufficient -- though not exhaustive -- facts describing the
essential elements of that underlying conduct."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants point to investigations by European
authorities, the use of working groups, and agreements regarding
certain technical standards. But, the Second Circuit holds that
they fail to allege with sufficient particularity how the working
groups facilitated the larger cartel that they assert to have
existed, nor do they allege what was agreed to in the working
groups, and "whether and how Volkswagen's allegedly collusive
conduct affected trade." Accordingly, the district court did not
err in holding that the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim
because it did not plead with particularity how Volkswagen's
alleged coordinated conduct was unlawful or anticompetitive.

B. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiffs-Appellants also challenge the district court's
dismissal of their Amended Complaint without granting leave to
amend for a second time. They contend that the district court erred
in not explaining the reasons for its denial.

If allowed to amend their complaint for a second time, the
Plaintiffs-Appellants propose to add allegations that: (1) the
European Commission informed Volkswagen and other members of the
Group of Five of its preliminary view that the Group had breached
the European Union's antitrust laws from 2006 to 2014; and (2)
German authorities fined Volkswagen and other members of the Group
of Five €100 million for anticompetitive steel purchasing
practices. Both of these developments occurred after the close of
briefing, in April 2019 and January 2020, respectively. And the
Plaintiffs-Appellants did not suggest a desire to supplement their
complaint with them until December 2020.

According to the Second Circuit, these proposed amendments "fail to
cure prior deficiencies" identified by the district court for at
least two reasons. First, a plaintiff cannot cure a failure to
plead a strong inference of scienter by adding allegations of
"fraud by hindsight." Allegations from 2019 and 2020 thus do
nothing to cure the district court's determination that the
Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to raise a strong inference of
scienter as to any of the challenged statements from Volkswagen's
2012-2015 annual reports. Second, the proposed amendments do not
further explain how Volkswagen's conduct was anticompetitive and
unlawful, so as to cure the Amended Complaint's failure to plead
the manner in which this conduct rendered Volkswagen's statements
materially misleading. In such circumstances, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

III. Conclusion

The Second Circuit has considered the Plaintiffs-Appellants'
remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly,
it affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 15, 2022 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8ehkd8 from Leagle.com.

LEAH HEIFETZ-LI (Jacob A. Goldberg, on the brief), The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

SUHANA S. HAN -- hans@sullcrom.com -- (Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Justin J. DeCamp -- decampj@sullcrom.com
-- Jason E. Kornmehl -- kornmehlj@sullcrom.com -- on the brief),
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, in New York City, for the
Defendants-Appellees.


WARNERMEDIA STUDIOS: Faces Class Action Over VPPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Data Platform Institute reports that the Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA), passed in 1988 to protect personal data of
Blockbuster and VHS rental customers, has recently been used in
suits against streaming services including Hulu, AMC and ESPN. Now,
a federal class action suit out of New York accuses HBO of
violating the VPPA because it shares customer lists with Facebook,
which can subsequently use the HBO data and Facebook's profile data
to ascertain customer viewing habits. [GN]



WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN : Jeffries Suit Over Pipe Mishap Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, 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 16, 2022, that its
subsidiary West Virginia-American Water Company is facing a
complaint captioned "Jeffries, et al. v. West Virginia-American
Water Company (WVAWC)" was filed in West Virginia Circuit Court in
Kanawha County in June 2, 2017, on behalf of an alleged class of
residents and business owners who lost water service or pressure as
a result of a water main break.

The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The Jeffries
plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class
for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as
well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior
in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed. In July 2020, the
Circuit Court entered an order granting the Jeffries plaintiffs’
motion for certification of a class regarding certain liability
issues but denying certification of a class to determine a punitive
damages multiplier. In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ
of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
seeking to vacate or remand the Circuit Court's order certifying
the issues class.

On January 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case
back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a
decision issued in another case relating to the class certification
issues raised on appeal. On July 16, 2021, oral argument was heard
by the Circuit Court on the issue of addressing the Supreme Court
of Appeals’ remand. This matter remains pending.

American Water is a publicly-traded water and wastewater utility
company.


WET PRODUCTS: Faces Gruber Suit Over Mislabeled Water Balloons
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE GRUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WET PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2022LA000255 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 15, 2022) is an action
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, and
unjust enrichment, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in intentionally mislabeling its water balloons as biodegradable.

During the Class Period, Defendant allegedly sold Wet Product's
Biodegradable Water Balloons labeled, marketed, and advertised as
biodegradable when they are not. By making false and misleading
claims about the biodegradability of its products, the Defendant
impaired Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of
products he chose to buy. As a result of Defendant's fraudulent
labeling, Plaintiff and the Class have been misled into purchasing
products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain
they paid money for,  says the suit.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes balloons throughout the United States under the brand
name Wet Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (224) 218-0875
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com

XPO LOGISTICS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, 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 16, 2022, that it is facing a class
action asserting claims under the Exchange Act which is currently
stayed.

On May 13, 2019, Adriana Jez filed a purported shareholder
derivative action captioned Jez v. Jacobs, et al., in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and
violations of the Exchange Act against some of XPO's current and
former directors and officers, with the company as a nominal
defendant. The Jez complaint was later consolidated with similar
derivative complaints filed by purported shareholders Erin Candler
and Kevin Rose under the caption "In re XPO Logistics, Inc.
Derivative Litigation."

On December 12, 2019, the court ordered plaintiffs to designate an
operative complaint or file an amended complaint within 45 days. On
January 27, 2020, plaintiffs designated the Jez complaint as the
operative complaint in the consolidated cases. Defendants moved to
dismiss the operative complaint on February 26, 2020. Rather than
file a brief in opposition, on March 27, 2020, plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a further amended complaint and to stay briefing on
defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court granted plaintiffs’
motion on July 6, 2020.

On April 14, 2021, the court issued an order staying proceedings.
Plaintiffs stipulated that they will dismiss the shareholder
derivative action with prejudice if the Labul dismissal is affirmed
on appeal.


XPO LOGISTICS: Dismissal of Labul Shareholder Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, 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 16, 2022, that a putative class
action captioned "Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al.," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the
company and some of its current and former executives was dismissed
in March 19, 2021.

Said case, filed in December 14, 2018, alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on alleged material
misstatements and omissions in its public filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 3, 2019, lead plaintiffs Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local
272 Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund
and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund filed a consolidated class action
complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on August 2, 2019. On November 4, 2019, the court
dismissed the consolidated class action complaint without prejudice
to the filing of an amended complaint. The Pension Funds, on
January 3, 2020, filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint against us and a current executive. Defendants moved to
dismiss the first amended consolidated class action complaint on
March 3, 2020. On March 19, 2021, the Court dismissed the first
amended consolidated class action complaint with prejudice and
closed the case. On April 29, 2021, the Pension Funds filed a
notice of appeal, and the appellate process is ongoing.

XPO Logistics, Inc. is a provider of freight transportation
services.


ZEAL NATURALS: Hayes Files False Ad Suit Over Health Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZEAL NATURALS, Defendant, Case No.
2022LA000252 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 15, 2022) is an action
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, common law fraud, and
unjust enrichment, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in intentionally labeling its supplements as containing natural
ingredients and advertising those same supplements as all natural
when they are not.

During the Class Period, the Defendant sold Sambucus Elderberry
Gummies labeled as containing natural ingredients, and marketed and
advertised as all natural when they contained synthetic ingredients
like sodium citrate and zinc citrate. Citric acid, one of the
primary components in sodium citrate and zinc citrate, is a natural
product produced through microbial fermentation. However, citrate
salts are all produced by a chemical reaction between citric acid
and the hydroxide or carbonate of the respective salt, such as
sodium, says the suit.

As a result of Defendant's alleged fraudulent labeling, Plaintiff
and the Class have been misled into purchasing products that did
not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money
for, namely that the products would be natural.

Zeal Naturals manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes supplements throughout the United States under the
brand name Zeal Naturals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve G. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (224) 218-0875
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***