/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220408.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 65

                            Headlines

99 FAVOR TASTE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
A LA MODE SHOPPE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Similac Products Contain GMOs, Lopez Alleges
ABSOLUTELY MARIO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Urrutia Alleges
AKRON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Lawsuit Challenges Firing of 66 Workers

AMERICA OOTOYA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Constitutional Rights' Violations
BEST CHOICE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BINANCE: Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Unregistered Crypto Tokens
BIOELEMENTS INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BLANK SHIRTS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BNPC LLC: Gilder Class Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Meal Periods
BOOKING HOLDINGS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Filed Against State Bar After Data Breach
CELTIC INSURANCE: Court Tosses TCPA & IATDA Claims in Bennett Suit

CHOCZERO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Sells Data Without Consent, Bozung Alleges
CIRKUL INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLARIFAI INC: Goodman Sues Over Misuse of Biometric Information
CLEAN CITY: Faces Livingston Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Kick-Backs

COMPLETELY BARE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONCIMED LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DAVE INC: Settlement of Data Breach Suit Ongoing
EASTLAND SHOE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ESSEX CLASSICS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

EUGENIA KIM INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVANSTON, IL: Mayor Biss, Landlord Sued for Living Conditions
FACETS OF TOUCH: McCary Seeks MInimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, IWPCA
FAMILY DOLLAR: Distribution Center Infested With Rodents, Suit Says
FARMVET.COM INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Bhasker Suit
FIRST WESTERN: Bid to Dismiss Tort Claims in Fleck Suit Denied
FRED ASTAIRE DANCE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRESHLY PICKED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GANNETT CO: Sells Private Data Without Consent, Batts Alleges
GEICO ADVANTAGE: Murphy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Alexander Suit
GRAYL INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREY DOG: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Jerez Class Suit Alleges

H&R ACCOUNTS INC: Powell Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
HEALTH PLUS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 24 Deadline
HORNELL BREWING: Iglesias Sues for False and Misleading Advertising
IRVING FARM COFFEE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

J.MCLAUGHLIN LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JIMMY'S HEALTHY FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KAO USA: Jergens Ultra Recalled Due to Bacterial Contamination
KIRAKU GLEN: Ng Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Faces Guarino Class Action Suit Over Data Breach

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Rivera Suit Says
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Suit Says
LEMONADE INC: Faces Clarke Class Suit Over Biometrics' Collection
MCDONALD'S CORP: Big Mac's Packaging Contains PFAS, McDowell Says
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS Use in Packaging

MORGAN GRAHAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
NEOGENOMICS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Sues Over Unlawful Collection of DNA
NEW YORK: Srabyan's Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
OGAWA USA: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ONE MEDICAL GROUP: Etri Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
OPTAVIA LLC: Zeller Files Suit in S.D. California
OTG EXPERIENCE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
P&M SOLUTIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PENN CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Schmelczer FDCPA Suit Granted

PENTEGRA SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Khan ERISA Suit Granted in Part
PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Workers' OT After Onset of Kronos Hack
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
POWER BALANCE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PREMIER LACROSSE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PRILLA INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Suit Over Undervalued "Total Loss" Vehicles
PUBLIC BENEFIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PURE FISHING: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Chung Class Suit
PURPOSE POINT: Faces Labor Class Suit Over Human Trafficking

REALOGY BROKERAGE: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Bumpus TCPA Suit
RECOVERY AGENTS: Faces Zahriyeh Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAF-HOLLAND INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCOTT SHAW: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.

SHORE FUNDING: Floyd Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
THIARA LIQUORS: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Esquivel Class Suit Says
TWITTER INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Weston Class Suit
USPACK LOGISTICS: Denial of Arbitration in Easterday Suit Affirmed
VOLTA INC: Faces Kampe Securities Class Suit Over Share Price Drop

VOLTA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 31 Deadline
WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter's Bid for Certification Partly Granted
XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Marshall Fire
[*] Canadian Beef Consumers Get Relief From High Prices After Suit
[*] London Court Blocks Planned Forex Class Suit Against Big Banks

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Defends Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Granted Expedited Appeal of Ch. 11 Strategy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases


                            *********

99 FAVOR TASTE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 99 Favor Taste
Restaurant, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. 99 Favor Taste
Restaurant, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01848-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 1,
2022).

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

99 Favor Taste -- https://www.99favortaste.com/ -- is an
all-you-can-eat hotpot and bbq restaurant in NYC.[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


A LA MODE SHOPPE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A La Mode Shoppe,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. A La Mode Shoppe, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01846 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

A La Mode Shoppe -- https://alamodeshoppe.com/ -- is an Allergy
Friendly Ice Cream brand sold online and in grocery stores across
the United States.[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


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Similac Products Contain GMOs, Lopez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCIO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-00421-L-RBB (S.D.
Cal., March 30, 2022) is a putative class action lawsuit against
the Defendant for allegedly cheating consumers by uniformly
advertising, marketing, and selling nutritional food products under
the brand name "Similac", each of which prominently features the
representations "Non-GMO," or similar claims related to the absence
of ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms ("GMO"),
wherein contrary to Defendant's claims, each of the purportedly
"Non-GMO" Products do, in fact, contain ingredients that are
derived from genetically modified food sources and therefore
constitute GMOs.

According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently labels every
Product sold in the United States as "Non-GMO." The Defendant does
this because consumers perceive all-natural foods as better,
healthier, and more wholesome. Indeed, in recent years, consumers
have become significantly more aware and sensitive to genetically
modified organisms ("GMOs") in their food. Many consumers want to
avoid GMOs for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
the following: (1) health risks associated with ingesting foods
derived from genetically modified ("GM") crops; (2) concerns of the
ingestion of pesticides and other toxins; (3) interest in promoting
sustainable living and local farming; and (4) negative
environmental effects associated with growing GM crops. As a
result, many consumers, including Plaintiff, try to buy products
that are not derived from GMOs, and a movement has developed
demanding consumer products that are non-GMO products. Thus, the
market for all natural foods has grown rapidly in recent years, and
Defendant seeks to take advantage of this trend through false
advertising, says the suit.

But Defendant's Non-GMO Claims concerning the Products are false,
misleading, and deceptive to consumers, who reasonably understand
such claims to mean that a product was produced without genetic
engineering and its ingredients are not derived from GMOs.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Non-GMO Claims are misleading and
highly deceptive to reasonable consumers, the suit addedd.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: (i) violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code sections 17200, et 22 seq.; (ii) violation of California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. 23 Code sections
17500, et seq.; (iii) violation of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code sections 1750, et seq.; (iv)
breach of express warranty; (v) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; (vi) unjust enrichment restitution; (vii)
negligent misrepresentation; (viii) fraud; and (ix) fraudulent
misrepresentation.

In October 2021, Ms. Lopez purchased Defendant's Similac
Pro-Advance Infant Formula With Iron Milk-Based Powder from a
Costco brick-and-mortar retail store located in Imperial. Prior to
her purchase, Ms. Lopez reviewed the labeling, packaging, and
marketing materials of her Products and saw the false and
misleading claims that, among other things, the Products are
purportedly "Non-GMO" infant formulas.

The Defendant Abbott Laboratories sells its baby food and infant
formulas under the "Similac" brand name. Similac's baby food
products and infant formulas are sold nationwide, including
throughout the State of California.

The World Health Organization defines GMOs as "organisms in which
the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not
occur naturally."

Genetic modification ("GM"), also called genetic engineering,
biotechnology, or bioengineering, is the process scientists use to
make GMOs. It is an artificial laboratory-based technique that is
specifically designed to enable the transfer of genes between
unrelated or distantly related organisms.

GM crops, such as canola, corn, and soy, are crops whose genetic 15
material has been altered by humans using genetic engineering
techniques. GM crops are not natural, but man-made. There are
wide-ranging controversies related to GM crops, including health
risks from ingesting GM foods and negative environmental effects
associated with growing GM crops.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABSOLUTELY MARIO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Urrutia Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARMANDO URRUTIA, individually and on behalf of  other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABSOLUTELY MARIO, INC.; and CARLOS
MARIO GARCIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01819 (E.D.N.Y., March
31, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Urrutia was employed by the Defendants as chef.

ABSOLUTELY MARIO, INC. operates an Italian-style restaurant in the
County of Nassau and State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AKRON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Lawsuit Challenges Firing of 66 Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Livingston at Akron Beacon Journal reports that Akron
Children's Hospital is "confident" that its firing of dozens of
unvaccinated employees will withstand a federal class action
lawsuit.

And the attorney making a First Amendment issue of the matter is
already preparing for an appeal.

Akron attorney Warner Mendenhall filed the lawsuit March 3 in the
Ohio Northern District Court. Judge Charles Esque Fleming, who was
appointed by President Joe Biden in February, is assigned to the
case at the federal courthouse in Cleveland. His courtroom deputy
confirmed that no dates have been set for initial briefs or
hearings.

The lawsuit names two lead plaintiffs: certified surgical
technologist Brian Tessane and help desk worker Richard Brimer.
Tessane worked five years at Akron Children's Hospital and Tessane
for two years before each was let go in late January, about two
weeks after missing the hospital's deadline for all staff members
to get their initial COVID-19 vaccine shot.

The plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit, were denied "reasonable
accommodations" due to their Christian faith. Mendenhall said his
clients were ultimately forced "to choose between violating their
sincerely held religious beliefs or losing their jobs."

Hospitals took lead on enforcing vaccine mandates
Sharona Hoffam, a Case Western Reserve University professor of law
and bioethics, said 'there have been challenges to every mandate"
imposed during the pandemic.

Few have succeeded. And challenging requirements imposed by a
private employer, in accordance with federal rules, can be
particularly difficult to argue.

The U.S. Supreme Court in January struck down an attempt by the
Biden administration to mandate COVID-19 vaccines in the private
sector. The 7-6 ruling, however, upheld the federal government's
ability to withhold funding from health care organizations with
unvaccinated employees.

After the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued the
order and before the Supreme Court ruled, health care organizations
across the country set their own deadlines amid a surge of
hospitalizations linked to the omicron variant.

Summa Health System was among the first in the region to enforce a
self-imposed vaccine deadline for its workers, firing seven
employees by the end of 2021. By the end of January, the Cleveland
Clinic placed 450 of its 65,000 employees systemwide on unpaid
leave.

Akron Children's originally proposed a policy that would have
allowed unvaccinated employees to test regularly. The pediatric
hospital then required all employees to get a first shot by Jan.
11.

In early February, Children's announced that 66 employees,
including Tessane and Brimer, would be placed on unpaid leave and
fired by the end of the month if still out of compliance.

"Akron Children's Hospital is confident that our procedures for
reviewing exemption requests from our COVID vaccination requirement
are appropriate and legal," Children's spokeswoman Laurie Schueler
said. "A vaccinated work force is the best protection we can offer
our patients, many of whom are vulnerable and not eligible for
vaccination, and is the best way to move beyond the pandemic."

Hoffman said the courts have long upheld the right of private
employers to make special demands of their employees, such as dress
codes or no-smoking policies. That Akron Children's was
implementing a vaccine mandate "in accordance with a CMS order"
makes the action "doubly fine," she said.

                       More Than Their Jobs

Mendenhall said his lawsuit will cover "all persons who requested
reasonable accommodations from the SARS-CoV-2 injection policy due
to their sincerely held religious beliefs and who were summarily
denied . . . absent a meaningful interactive process to determine
whether reasonable accommodations could be made."

He speculates that there could be hundreds of employees either
fired or forced to get what he characterizes as an "experimental"
shot after their religious exemptions were rejected.

"Based on a violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment right to
freely exercise their religion," the attorney is asking a federal
judge to issue a temporary injunction. In addition to attorney
fees, Mendenhall is seeking "damages including back pay,
reinstatement or front pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, punitive damages, and compensatory damages as
applicable."

But beyond serving his clients, Mendenhall said he wants "to
establish government actor doctrine in the Sixth Circuit" federal
courts covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The
doctrine considers private businesses like Akron Children's
Hospital as extensions of state or federal governments that impose
what he sees as unconstitutional restrictions.

He's applying the same strategy to another case, which the Ohio
Supreme Court on March 23 agreed to hear on appeal. That case,
which Mendenhall lost in common pleas and state appellate courts in
Franklin County, involves Akron's Highland Tavern suing Ohio Gov.
Mike DeWine and the Ohio Liquor Control Commission for enforcing a
10 p.m. bar curfew in the early months of the pandemic.

Highland Tavern was a repeat offender of the new rule, receiving
three citations in August 2020. The Akron establishment was
stripped of its liquor permit that September.

Along with reinstatement of the liquor permit, Mendenhall said he
hopes to set a similar precedent to the one he's after in the class
action lawsuit against Children's Hospital.

"There's a theory in this case, kind of like the one in the
Highland Tavern case, that I'm trying to pursue," he said. "And
it's essentially that . . . Children's Hospital was coerced by the
federal government to impose the vaccine mandate. Because of that
coercion, [the private hospital] is actually standing in the shoes
of the federal government.

"So, we can sue directly under the First Amendment."

"They weren't standing in for the federal government," Hoffman said
of the "government actor approach" to challenging mandates. "They
were complying with rules."

The law professor said Mendenhall would have a better case had the
state stripped the bar of its liquor license after new state laws
limiting public health powers passed in 2021.

"Certainly in August of 2020, [state government] had the power
under the public health laws of the state to respond to the
pandemic, to issue orders that were designed to safeguard the
public and to enforce them through punishment," said Hoffman. "And
that's what the government did."

Reach reporter Doug Livingston at dlivingston@thebeaconjournal.com
or 330-996-3792. [GN]

AMERICA OOTOYA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against America Ootoya, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. America Ootoya, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01849 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

OOTOYA -- https://ootoya.us/ -- is one of the top Japanese
restaurants in NY serving home style Japanese comfort food, Soba,
Teishoku, Sushi and other authentic Japanese food in NY.[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


BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Sued Over Constitutional Rights' Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT and SHANNON ALLEN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00135 (E.D. Tex.,  March 31, 2022) alleges that
the Defendants violated the constitutional rights of Murphy and the
proposed class members.

The Plaintiffs file this Original Complaint seeking just
compensation under both the Texas and United States Constitutions
for Premium Pay wages earned for time worked during school closures
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiffs are/were nonexempt, auxiliary workers employed by
BISD during the school closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As
nonexempt, essential workers, (i.e. custodians, plumbers, food
service workers, electricians and support and maintenance
personnel) at the time of the COVID-19 emergency school closure,
which began on or about March 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs were
entitled to be paid Premium Pay, pursuant to BISD policy. The
closure continued for months without pay being made consistent with
the BISD policy.

The Plaintiffs were asked to work during the school closures and
took on essential roles of sanitizing the buildings, upkeeping the
campus grounds, and providing meals and logistical support to allow
for teachers and students to continue to teach and learn from their
homes.

BISD support staff also took on the role of sanitizing the
buildings after a COVID-19 infection or exposure was reported.
Initially, this work had been completed by independent contractors
who were provided proper PPE.

BISD did not provide the same PPE to the BISD employees who were
asked to perform the same service related to COVID-19. The
Plaintiffs were not informed that they would not be paid Premium
Pay During Disasters until after they had worked during the
closures.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
          THE MONK LAW FIRM
          4875 Parker Drive
          Beaumont, TX 77705
          Telephone: (409) 724-6665
          Facsimile: (409) 729-6665
          E-mail: brandon@themonklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Larry Watts, Esq.
          WATTS & COMPANY, LTD
          P.O. Box 2214
          Missouri City, TX 77459
          Telephone: (281) 431-1500
          Facsimile: (877) 797-4055
          E-mail: Wattstrial@gmail.com

BEST CHOICE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Choice Products,
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Best Choice Products, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02673 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Best Choice Products -- https://bestchoiceproducts.com/ -- offers a
catalog that's developed in-house with home furniture, toys,
outdoor and seasonal products, all at value prices.[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



BINANCE: Wins Dismissal of Suit Over Unregistered Crypto Tokens
---------------------------------------------------------------
cointelegraph.com reports that a federal judge has dismissed a
class action complaint asserting Binance violated United States
securities laws by not registering as a broker-dealer or exchange
and sold crypto tokens that were not registered with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The original complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York was brought by a group of investors
who say they invested in the tokens EOS, BNT, SNT, QSP, KNC, TRX,
FUN, ICX, OMG, LEND, ELF and CVC around 2017 and 2018. An amended
complaint was filed, only listing nine tokens, with BNT, SMT and
CVC removed.

The investors said the tokens had lost much of their value since
purchasing and were seeking compensation for the price paid for the
tokens and the fees paid to Binance in connection with their
purchases.

"Binance and the Issuers wrongfully engaged in millions of
transactions, including the solicitation, offer, and sale of
securities, without registering the Tokens as securities, and
without Binance registering with the SEC as an exchange or
broker-dealer. As a result, investors were not informed of the
significant risks inherent in these investments, as federal and
state securities laws require."

The investors further claimed that Binance capitalized on the
enthusiasm brought on by cryptocurrencies, marketing tokens and
initial coin offerings (ICOs) on behalf of projects and profited
off the associated trading fees, adding that investors "purchased
the tokens with a reasonable expectation of profit from owning
them."

In his decision, judge Andrew Carter said that as the investors
waited more than a year after purchasing the tokens to file the
complaint, they had sued too late. Most of the tokens were
purchased in 2018 and the original filing wasn't until April 2020.

The investors argued that as the SEC published a framework
asserting digital tokens were securities in April 2020, the
timeline for complaint submission should have started then. Carter
found that the relevant laws apply when the supposed violation
occurs, not when it is detected.

Judge Carter also said that domestic securities laws are not
applicable to Binance, as it is not a domestic exchange in the
U.S., being headquartered in the Cayman Islands. Binance does use
Amazon Web Services to host its infrastructure and that is based in
the U.S., but that isn't enough to consider Binance as a domestic
exchange.

"Plaintiffs must allege more than stating that plaintiffs bought
tokens while located in the U.S. and that title passed in whole or
in part over servers located in California that host Binance's
website," Carter wrote in the motion.

This isn't the only class-action lawsuit filed against a crypto
exchange on such grounds. On March 11, a suit was filed against
Coinbase in the same court, alleging that it's operating as an
unregistered securities exchange. Similar arguments are being
directed at Coinbase, with plaintiffs saying they were not warned
of the risks of cryptocurrency investments.

Binance did not immediately respond to Cointelegraph's request for
comment. [GN]

BIOELEMENTS INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bioelements, Inc. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bioelements, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02692
(S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

Bioelements -- https://www.bioelements.com/ -- professional skin
care has been committed to estheticians, awarded by experts and
loved by clients for over 25 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com



BLANK SHIRTS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blank Shirts, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Blank Shirts, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02637 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Blank Shirts, Inc. -- https://www.blankshirts.com/ -- is an
e-commerce apparel site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


BNPC LLC: Gilder Class Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Meal Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE GILDER, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. BNPC, LLC and SERVPRO OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00224 (M.D. Tenn., March 31, 2022) is a
collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
brought against the Defendants on behalf of all hourly-paid
production techs who worked for the Defendants during the past
three years.

The Plaintiff and the putative class seek damages for unpaid meal
periods during which they performed work duties, an/or were not
fully relieved from work duties during such unpaid meal periods.
The unpaid wage claims of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
are unified through a common theory of Defendants' FLSA
violations.

Plaintiff Gilder was employed by Defendants as a production tech
during all times relevant and material to this action.

The Defendants provide commercial and residential restoration and
clean-up services for customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BOOKING HOLDINGS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Booking Holdings Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Booking Holdings Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02567-JPO (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Booking Holdings Inc. -- https://www.bookingholdings.com/ -- is an
American travel technology company organized in Delaware and based
in Norwalk, Connecticut.[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


CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Filed Against State Bar After Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Miller at davisvanguard.org reports that a law firm here
said it's filed a class action lawsuit against an individual,
Judyrecords.com, and the State Bar of California—despite a chance
of harassment by the attorney licensing agency—because of an
alleged data breach of 260,000 records.

Lenore Albert from Law Offices of Lenore Albert said the class
action lawsuit was filed March 18 on behalf of four people,
including two California residents who had filed complaints against
an attorney with the State Bar, and two members of the State Bar.

This class action lawsuit claims that the State Bar of California,
through the release of 260,000 confidential records, violated
privacy rights.

The release of these confidential records happened after the State
Bar intentionally transferred some of its confidential records into
a new Case Management System, and then intentionally published all
of their public records online.

This lawsuit also claims that there was a violation of
constitutional rights, state law, and federal antitrust laws.

Albert stated that the agency failed to secure this confidential
information that they were trusted with and failed to notify any of
the affected California residents.

The Plaintiffs' attorney also notes that in 2022 this is not what
protecting the public is supposed to look like. Especially with so
much information shifted onto the internet in terms of work,
school, and shopping.

Albert states that the State Bar suggests it has no liability
because the law does not apply to them, but Albert argues this "is
the type of thinking and reaction that is wrong in California and
destroys public trust in the government and integrity of the
judicial system."

Albert added that the Bar, with $300 million in revenue coming from
attorneys and having some of the highest paid public servants in
the state, has "is no legitimate excuse for this breach or lack of
proper response."

Albert proceeded to highlight the California Information Practices
Act of 1977, which may put the potential defendant Tyler Technology
under a liability for actual damages and statutory damages of
$2,500 plus, per person.

Albert noted the severity and danger of such data breaches,
including potential theft, extortion, job loss, harassment or even
bodily harm.

Albert said, unlike the previous OPM (Office of Personnel
Management) breach when a hacker unlawfully accessed employee
records, this case was caused by the State Bar's own conduct, which
she deemed "highly offensive and embarrassing."

Albert emphasized the possible retaliation to his credibility
because she's filing the class action against the State Bar,
including unjustified investigation, suspension, and even
disbarment of his license.

"The State Bar has the ability to erase all credibility of an
attorney and take away their livelihood in one fell swoop," said
Albert, adding she is pursuing the action because "it is
meritorious and the victims want justice but are too.[GN]

CELTIC INSURANCE: Court Tosses TCPA & IATDA Claims in Bennett Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAWNI BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, CR
INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, and JOEL ORTIZ, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06172 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Robert Blakey of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted Celtic's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Tawni Bennett brings putative class-action claims against
Defendants Celtic Insurance Company, CR Insurance Group, LLC, and
Joel Ortiz for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) and the Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act (IATDA).
She alleges that the Defendants "placed thousands of nonconsensual
automated or prerecorded calls to consumers' cellphones," including
hers, using an "automatic telephone dialing system."

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendants CR and Ortiz for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Defendant Celtic now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's TCPA and
IADTA claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Bennett brings putative class-action claims against
Defendants Celtic Insurance Co., CR Insurance Group, LLC, and Joel
Ortiz for violating the TCPA and the IATDA. She alleges that the
Defendants "placed thousands of nonconsensual automated or
prerecorded calls to consumers' cellphones," including hers, using
an "automatic telephone dialing system."

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against
Defendants CR and Ortiz for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Defendant Celtic now moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's TCPA and
IADTA claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. Background

In December 2019, the Plaintiff began receiving telemarketing calls
on her cellular phone trying to sell her health insurance. These
unsolicited calls continued through October 2020, even though
Plaintiff registered her cellphone number on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry in 2014. The Plaintiff incurred charges for
the calls.

The Plaintiff claims that the calls were made using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS). She knew this because the calls
were prerecorded, "sounded the same," and "had the same or
substantially similar" generic message that "the caller had a 'very
important call to help you' with 'renewal of your insurance.'" The
Plaintiff additionally alleges, based on "information and belief,"
that the ATDS at issue can "store or produce telephone numbers
using a random or sequential number generator" and "dial numbers
without human intervention." She states that the caller used
"spoofed" phone numbers because most calls she received "displayed
a different number."

While investigating the source of the calls, the Plaintiff
connected with the caller's live operators on two occasions. The
live operators "identified themselves as sales agents who worked
with Ambetter to sell an Ambetter plan." One of them referred to
the insurance product as "our plans" and stated that she was
calling "with Ambetter" from "the call center." Ambetter, the only
policy offered in the calls, is a product of Defendant Celtic. Upon
agreeing to purchase "the health insurance product offered in the
calls," the Plaintiff received a copy of the insurance policy,
which "confirmed" that the "calls and product sold were from, or on
behalf of Celtic."

The Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendants promote and market
Celtic services and products" through unlawful telemarketing. In
her second amended complaint, she names as Defendants CR and Ortiz,
"licensed and authorized Celtic insurance broker and/or sales
agents," and Celtic, a company that "hires, authorizes, and pays
third-party brokers and sales agents, including but not limited to
CR and Ortiz," to sell its products via telemarketing.

The Plaintiff also alleges that "Celtic and/or CR" provided
"interim instructions" to "CR and/or Ortiz regarding the calls" and
specified "the geographic location and/or volume of the calls."
Additionally, the "Defendants specified the criteria of potential
customers," allowed their marketers to access "records and data
concerning the persons called," and "had access to the sales and
customers generated by the illegal robocalling." Finally, the
Plaintiff claims that she reasonably believed "the telemarketers
who called her had received permission, authority, and instruction
to conduct activity on behalf of Defendant Celtic."

III. Analysis

In its motion, Celtic seeks to dismiss both of the Plaintiff's
claims for failure to state a claim.

A. The Sufficiency of Plaintiff's TCPA Allegations

The Plaintiff claims that Celtic is directly or vicariously liable
for the unlawful calls at issue in the case. She alleges that she
received calls from the "Defendants," CR, Ortiz, or an unknown
telemarketer. She further claims that Celtic is liable as part of a
joint enterprise with CR and Ortiz for the alleged TCPA
violations.

Celtic argues that the Plaintiff's claims fail for various reasons,
including that she did not allege facts showing that Celtic itself
physically placed the calls and did not allege facts to demonstrate
any agency relationship between Celtic and the individuals or
entities that called her.

Judge Blakey opines that (i) although the Plaintiff claims that CR
and Ortiz have engaged in unlawful telemarketing, her complaint
does not plausibly link their conduct to the calls she received;
(ii) the Plaintiff failed to allege facts that would provide a
substantive basis to hold Celtic either directly or vicariously
liable for the calls that connected her to Ambetter's call center;
(iii) the Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim against
Celtic for direct liability under the TCPA; and (iv) because the
Plaintiff's allegations do not support the existence of active
interactions between the telemarketer and the defendant, the Court
dismisses her vicarious liability claims against Celtic based upon
the Ambetter caller.

B. The Sufficiency of Plaintiff's IADTA Allegations

The IADTA makes it unlawful for a person to "operate an autodialer
in this State except in accordance with this Act." To state a claim
under the IADTA, a plaintiff must allege that: "(1) she is a
telephone customer; (2) the defendant placed a call using an
autodialer; (3) the defendant played a prerecorded message; (4) the
call was not made with her consent; and (5) she was injured by the
defendant's alleged violation."

The Plaintiff alleges that Celtic violated the IADTA because Celtic
"caused calls to be made to the phones of the Plaintiff" using an
autodialer that played a prerecorded message. As Judge Blakey
discussed, however, the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that
either Celtic or its third-party agent placed the calls she
received. He, therefore, finds that the Plaintiff's allegations
fail to state a claim under the IADTA and dismisses her IADTA
claims against Celtic.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons he explained, Judge Blakey granted Defendant
Celtic's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissed Counts I
through VI of the Plaintiff's second amended complaint.

Judge Blakey notes that the Plaintiff has already amended her
complaint twice, including once in response to Celtic's Rule
12(b)(6) arguments. Yet, given Rule 15(a)(2)'s mandate to freely
give leave to amend, she will give the Plaintiff one last chance to
cure the deficiencies noted. If, consistent with Rule 11, the
Plaintiff can allege facts to support her claims against Celtic,
she may amend her complaint by April 15, 2022. If the Plaintiff
fails to file an amended complaint by this date, the Court will
dismiss the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9e26ye from
Leagle.com.


CHOCZERO INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Choczero, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Choczero, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02615
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

ChocZero -- https://www.choczero.com/ -- offers sugar free
chocolate, jams, and syrup and make keto chocolate and treats
sweetened with monk fruit.[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


CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Sells Data Without Consent, Bozung Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BOZUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTIANBOOK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00304-PLM-SJB (W.D., Mich., March 31, 2022) alleges
violation of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, to supplement its revenues,
the Defendant rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its
customers' information -- including their full names, titles of
publications subscribed to, and home addresses ("Private Reading
Information"), as well as myriad other categories of individualized
data and demographic information such as gender and interests -- to
data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and other
third parties without the written consent of its customers.

By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing - rather than
selling - its customers' Private Reading Information, the Defendant
is able to disclose the information time and time again to
countless third parties, says the suit.

The Defendant's alleged disclosure of Private Reading Information
and other individualized information is not only unlawful, but also
dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly
vulnerable members of society. While the Defendant profits
handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and disclosure
of its customers' Private Reading Information and other
individualized information, it does so at the expense of its
customers' statutory privacy rights (afforded by the PPPA) because
the Defendant does not obtain its customers' written consent prior
to disclosing their Private Reading Information.

GANNETT CO., INC. operates as a local newspaper company. The
Company publishes news through storytelling and events that connect
readers and communities, as well as focuses on business practices
for sourcing, consumption, and waste. Gannett serves customers in
the United Stated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 aravindran@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212)989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com

CIRKUL INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cirkul, Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Cirkul, Inc. doing business as:
Cirkul, Case No. 1:22-cv-01786 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Cirkul -- https://drinkcirkul.com/ -- makes drinking water easy,
fun, and delicious from unflavored to fully flavored water or
anywhere in between.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CLARIFAI INC: Goodman Sues Over Misuse of Biometric Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Goodman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CLARIFAI, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-02280-JPC (S.D.N.Y. March 21, 2022), is brought as a result
of the surreptitious misappropriation and misuse of potentially
hundreds of thousands of Illinois residents' biometric information
by a tech startup named Clarifai.

Like other businesses that harness the power of AI/ML to create
facial recognition models, Clarifai needed an enormous amount of
training data--in particular, pictures of people's faces--to build
its tools. Luckily for Clarifai--and unluckily for users of a
popular dating service, OkCupid--one of Clarifai's funders, Corazon
Capital, was in a position to help. Clarifai used those images to
train or refine its facial recognition software, a process that
necessarily extracts biometric data in the form of maps of facial
geometry.

Given the immutability of biometric information and the difficulty
of completely hiding one's face in public, facial recognition poses
severe risks to security and privacy. The capture and storage of
faceprints leaves people vulnerable to data breaches and identity
theft. It can also lead to unwanted tracking and invasive
surveillance by making it possible to passively identify
individuals in public places or, worse, in sensitive locations like
health care facilities, addiction treatment centers, religious
institutions, and more.

In recognition of these threats, more than a decade ago the
Illinois General Assembly enacted the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), which protects people against the
surreptitious and nonconsensual capture of their biometric
identifiers, including faceprints. In enacting BIPA, the
Legislature explained: "Biometrics are unlike other unique
identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive
information. For example, social security numbers, when
compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically
unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the
individual has no recourse and is at heightened risk for identity
theft." Clarifai's brazen disregard for individual privacy rights
violates Illinoisans' rights under BIPA, which was specifically
designed to protect Illinois residents from this kind of
underhanded behavior.

As part of her use of OkCupid over the years, the Plaintiff has
uploaded several photographs to the service. The Plaintiff's
photographs existed in OkCupid's database at the time when
Defendant Clarifai misappropriated OkCupid's database of
photographs in order to train its facial recognition algorithms.
The Plaintiff  had her biometric identifiers extracted from her
OkCupid profile photographs by Clarifai, which used them to build
or enhance the facial recognition tools from which it derives
revenue. Clarifai did not notify the Plaintiff that it was
collecting, using, or storing her biometric identifiers. At no time
did Clarifai notify the Plaintiff about the purpose or length of
time for which it was collecting, using, or storing her biometric
identifiers. At no time did the Plaintiff provide her consent,
whether in writing or any other means, for Clarifai to extract her
biometric information from her photographs in order to train its
facial recognition algorithms. Had the Plaintiff been asked to
provide consent to Clarifai for use of her biometric information,
she would have declined, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois
who began using OkCupid on or about September 2011 and continues to
maintain an active account.

Clarifai is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN R. OSBORN
          102 Bergen Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: 347.645.0464
          Email: ben@benosbornlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 312.589.6370
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          Email: ewadescott@edelson.com
                 sufkes@edelson.com


CLEAN CITY: Faces Livingston Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Kick-Backs
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN LIVINGSTON Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly
Situated v. CLEAN CITY LTD. D/B/A PEACHES OF ATLANTA and CORNELIUS
L. STEPHENS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-LMM (N.D. Ga. March 30, 2022)
alleges that the Defendants violated the minimum wage and record
keeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to
recover unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made the decision to
misclassify the Plaintiff and other similarly situated dancers as
independent contractors rather than employees, and not pay them the
minimum wage.

The Plaintiff Livingston was a former employee of the the
Defendants, having been employed at Peaches from Winter 2018 to May
2021.

The FLSA Class Members are all current and former exotic dancers
who worked at Peaches located at 779 Ralph David Abernathy,
Atlanta, Georgia, at any time starting three years before this
Complaint was filed, up to the present. The Defendant Stephens owns
and operates Peaches.

The Defendants jointly owned, operated and managed Peaches and were
all involved in the day-to-day operation of the Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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

COMPLETELY BARE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Completely Bare
Distributors, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Completely Bare
Distributors, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02619 (S.D.N.Y., March 30,
2022).

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

Completely Bare -- https://completelybare.com/ -- offers
spa-quality hair removal 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


CONCIMED LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concimed, LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Concimed, LLC doing business
as: Concimed, Case No. 1:22-cv-02598 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

ConciMed -- https://www.concimed.com/ -- offers fast & reliable
Covid-19 test results in Florida & New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


DAVE INC: Settlement of Data Breach Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Dave Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that in Dave is in the process of
settling a class action lawsuit captioned Stoffers v. Dave Inc.
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in September 16, 2020 in
connection with the data breach it experienced in June 2020.

Dave is in the process of settling this matter and estimates the
settlement to be approximately $3.2 million, which is included with
legal settlement expenses, net of insurance reimbursements, within
the statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020.

Dave Inc. is integrated financial services online platform that
provides intuitive financial products.


EASTLAND SHOE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastland Shoe Corp.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Eastland Shoe Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-02577 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Eastland Shoe Corporation -- https://www.eastlandshoe.com/ -- is a
leather casual shoe company based in Maine..[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


ESSEX CLASSICS: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essex Classics, Inc.
The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Essex Classics, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02586 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Essex Classics Inc. -- https://essexclassics.com/ -- is an apparel
& fashion company based out in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


EUGENIA KIM INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eugenia Kim Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eugenia Kim Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02574 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Eugenia Kim -- https://eugeniakim.com/ -- is an online store that
sells a wide range of hair stalls, straw bags, gloves and
scarves.[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


EVANSTON, IL: Mayor Biss, Landlord Sued for Living Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorja Siemons at dailynorthwestern.com reports that three former
tenants have filed a $10 million class-action lawsuit against an
Evanston landlord and his son, as well as Mayor Daniel Biss, for
restitution after living in "crumbling properties."

Carlene Clarke filed the suit last December -- citing infestations,
water damage, mold problems and sewage leaks -- against Sargon
Isaac, the owner of the unit she rented in the 2100 block of
Emerson. The lawsuit accuses Isaac of racial discrimination and
alleges his actions violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

The suit states that when Clarke and her family moved in last
April, they faced "uninhabitable conditions" including a leaking
roof, inoperable heating and cracked walls and window frames.

Additionally, the suit alleges the unit had a rodent infestation so
severe that the family could hear "mice and rats scratching and
clawing in the walls every day."

According to her legal complaint, Clarke alerted Isaac to the
property's conditions, but he allegedly told her that "every
country has people who must struggle, and in the United States
those people are Black."

Clarke also named the landlord's son, Peter Isaac, as a defendant
in the Dec. 23, 2021 filing, alleging he gave his father
preferential treatment due to his position on the Evanston Plan
Commission.

According to previous versions of the Commission's webpage, Peter
Isaac served as chair but his term expired in April 2021. The
current webpage does not list him as a member.

Danielle Malaty of Kopka Pinkus Dolin, Sargon and Peter Isaac's
attorney, could not be reached for comment.

Biss has also been named as a defendant in his capacity as the city
leader. The suit calls for the Circuit Court of Cook County to "put
a stop to Sargon Isaac's racism and Evanston's protection of that
racism."

City Communications Manager Patrick Deignan said the city does not
comment on pending litigation.

According to court documents, Sargon Isaac tried to evict Clarke
following the lawsuit's filing. In response, a Cook County judge
issued a temporary restraining order on Jan. 18 blocking that
action and ordering the landlord to complete apartment repairs.

Sheryl Ring, the attorney who filed the suit, also said she does
not comment on ongoing litigation.

Residents Radiance Collins and Victoria Fahnbulleh, who have also
been Sargon Isaac's tenants, joined the suit and corroborated
Clarke's concerns about the defendants.  

Collins entered a one-year lease agreement for an Evanston property
operated by Sargon Isaac last December. The lawsuit alleges that
Collins' heating and plumbing were inoperable, and at the time
Isaac neglected to disclose the more than $25,000 already owed on
the electric bill.

According to court documents, after Sargon Isaac threatened to
evict Collins unless she paid the rent in full, local nonprofit
Connections for the Homeless provided money to help her pay rent.

Collins, through an attorney, terminated her lease on Feb. 8,
according to the suit.

Fahnbulleh also alleges Sargon Isaac refused to fix a broken heater
in her apartment, where she was his tenant from from 2016 to 2021.
This led to frozen pipes and a leaking kitchen ceiling last winter.


According to court documents, Sargon Isaac owns and manages over 50
residential housing units throughout Evanston and has been
conducting business "under the fictitious name 'SI Properties.'"
While the lawsuit said two "SI Properties" exist in the state of
Illinois, neither indicate Isaac as affiliated and connected. [GN]

FACETS OF TOUCH: McCary Seeks MInimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, IWPCA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN MCCARY on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. FACETS OF TOUCH, LLC., AN
ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THEODORE LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND JEANNETTE LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01681 (N.D.
Ill. March 31, 2022) seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

FOT owns and operates a nail salon by the same name. FOT provides
manicure, pedicure and other salon, spa and beauty services to
appointment and walk-in customers. FOT is located at 19265 Burnham
Ave. in Lansing, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is a former worker of the Defendants who worked as a
receptionist and nail technician from January 2021 to January 2022.
She worked at Defendants' Lansing, Illinois salon. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendants as a receptionist from January 2021 to
February 2022, and as a nail technician from February 2021 until
January 2022.

During the Plaintiff's entire employment, FOT improperly classified
Plaintiff as a 1099 independent contractor and compensated
Plaintiff on a commission basis and as such, illegally failed to
compensate her proper minimum wages and overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 per work week. FOT also improperly deducted their
own expenses and costs from Plaintiff's pay without receiving
proper, contemporaneous authorizations from Plaintiff, including
through failure to use compliant deduction authorization forms, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          Monadnock Building
          53 W Jackson Blvd Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (888) 408-0401

FAMILY DOLLAR: Distribution Center Infested With Rodents, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN SHARP, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. FAMILY DOLLAR and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00090-BSM (E.D. Ark., March 30, 2022) arises out of the
recently disclosed rodent infestation of a distribution center
operated by Defendant Family Dollar in West Memphis, Arkansas.

According to the complaint, the warehouse stored and shipped
products, including products that were intended for human and
animal consumption. As a result of the rodent infestation,
Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members who purchased these
products were subjected to actual harm.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on February 18,
2022, that Family Dollar stores in six states may have received
products from a distribution center in West Memphis, Arkansas that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation. The agency warning
includes items purchased since January of 2021, such as food for
herself and her family, cosmetics,  vitamins and dietary
supplements, over-the-counter medications, surgical masks, feminine
hygiene products, and contact lens cleaning solutions, and toiletry
items among others. The FDA is asking Family Dollar customers to
contact the company if they purchased any of these products. The
agency also recommends discarding any medical items immediately and
is working with the store chain to begin a product recall.

Family Dollar has issued a voluntary recall which covered numerous
FDA regulated products, including medicine, pet food and cosmetics,
that were sold between January 2021 and February 2022 in Family
Dollar stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri and Tennessee (the "Recalled Products"), says the suit.

Allegedly, the use or consumption of affected products presents a
risk of illness due to the potential presence of Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
infants, young children, frail or elderly people, pregnant persons,
persons with pre-pathology (e.g., patients with cancer undergoing
chemotherapy treatments, organ transplant recipient, etc.) and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a Class
of all persons similarly situated, brings claims for breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen F. Libby, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN F. LIBBY
          5384 Poplar Avenue, Suite 410
          Memphis, TN, 38119

FARMVET.COM INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmvet.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Farmvet.com, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02675
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

FarmVet -- https://www.farmvet.com/ -- is the premier source for
horse and pet supplements, supplies and prescriptions.[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


FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Bhasker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00260-KWR-JHR (D.N.M.), Judge Kea W.
Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

I. Background

The putative class action arises out of a dispute over
"underinsured motorist coverage." In New Mexico, underinsured
motorist coverage generally consists of the difference between an
insured's uninsured motorist coverage limit and a tortfeasor's
liability coverage. In New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) Section
66-5-301, 'underinsured motorist' means an operator of a motor
vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which
the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury
liability insurance applicable at the time of the accident is less
than the limits of liability under the insured's uninsured motorist
coverage.

On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was injured in an automobile
collision with another driver. The tortfeasor carried minimum
limits of liability coverage, that is, $25,000 per person and
$50,000 per accident. The Plaintiff received the full extent of
liability coverage carried by the tortfeasor, but that coverage was
insufficient to fully compensate Plaintiff for her damages. When
the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant provide her with the UIM
benefits for which she paid a premium, the Defendant denied her
claim.

The Plaintiff argues that pursuant to the statutory offset under
NMSA Section 66-5-301, underinsured motorist coverage at minimum
limits generally does not exist. If a tortfeasor's liability limit
is $25,000 and an insured's uninsured motorist coverage limit is
$25,000, the insured will rarely access the underinsured motorist
coverage portion of his or her motorist insurance. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant sold her underinsured motorist coverage
but did not disclose that it had limited value. Defendant asserts
there are instances where underinsured motorist coverage at minimum
limits has value.

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

The Plaintiff moves to certify the class action. The Defendant
argues that certification is inappropriate. It also argues that
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is inappropriate
because individual issues predominate over common ones.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class that consists of the
following: "All persons (and their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors, and assigns), from whom Defendant
collected a premium for underinsured motorist coverage after Aug.
14, 1985 to present, on a policy that was issued or renewed in New
Mexico by Defendants and that purported to provide underinsured
motorist coverage, but which effectively provides no underinsured
motorist coverage (UIM) and/or misleading UIM coverage, because of
the statutory offset recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, 704 P.2d 1092 (1985)."

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following subclass: "All
Class Members (and their heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, and assigns) where an underinsured motorist coverage on
a policy that was issued or renewed in New Mexico by Defendant and
that purported to provide an amount of UM/UIM limits per
occurrence, but which in fact provides none or a misleading amount
of underinsured motorists coverage, because of the statutory offset
recognized in Schmick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, 704 P.2d 1092 (1985), and who sustained damages in excess
of an insured tortfeasor's policy limits, received the extent of
all bodily injury liability limits available, made a claim with
Defendants for underinsured motorist, and who received no UIMBI, or
reduced UIMBI, benefits because of application of the Schmick
offset."

Judge Riggs opines that the Plaintiff has satisfied the majority of
the requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for class
certification. However, because of a potential conflict of
interest, she cannot find at this time that representation is
adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The Plaintiff also did not
move to certify class counsel, which would also prevent the Court
from entering an order certifying the class.

Judge Riggs finds that a potential conflict may exist because of
the familial relationship between the class representative and one
of her attorneys. The class representative is a fiduciary to the
class, but the Plaintiff may place the interests of her brother
ahead of the class, such as by consenting to a high award of
attorney fees or entering into a settlement which benefits her
brother over the class. At least upon viewing the record created by
the Defendant, Judge Riggs is concerned whether the Plaintiff is
capable of ensuring the class counsel acts in the best interest of
the class. The Plaintiff should make a better record on this issue
and make a record showing whether and how potential conflicts could
be alleviated by disclosure.

III. Conclusion

Judge Riggs concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied most of the
requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for class
certification. However, the Plaintiff has failed to show that
representation is adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
Moreover, the Court may not certify the class action until an
appropriate motion appointing class counsel is filed and granted.
For these reasons, Judge Riggs denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p885n35 from
Leagle.com.


FIRST WESTERN: Bid to Dismiss Tort Claims in Fleck Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE AARON H. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its
Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, THE BARBARA G. FLECK
REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara
G. Fleck, AARON FLECK, and BARBARA G. FLECK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST
WESTERN TRUST BANK, CHARLES BANTIS, and ANDREW GODFREY Defendants,
Civil Action No. 21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M.
Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint's Tort Claims.

I. Introduction

The matter is before the Court on the Feb. 17, 2022 Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge, wherein Judge Gordon P.
Gallagher recommends that the Court denies the Defendants' Partial
Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants timely filed an Objection to the
Recommendation.

II. Background

The case arises from the Defendants' management of two investment
accounts for Plaintiffs Aaron and Barbara Fleck. In May 2018, the
Flecks hired Defendant First Western Trust Bank ("FWTB") to manage
two trusts with a total amount of $8 million. Defendant Charles
Bantis was President of the FWTB branch in Aspen, Colorado, and
Defendant Andrew Godfrey was a trust officer at the FWTB Aspen
branch.

The Flecks and the Defendants agreed that the level of income to be
generated from the accounts was between $400,000 to $500,000, with
an anticipated overall return in the 6% range. The trust management
agreement was formalized in May 2018 when FWTB and the Flecks
signed an Investment Policy Statement and Investment Services and
Custody Agreement. The Investment Agreement also has a section
titled "Waiver of Liability for Negligence."

The Plaintiffs allege that prior to entrusting their accounts with
FWTB, the Defendants told the Flecks that FWTB "employed
professional money managers." Further, FWTB "marketed itself as a
registered investment advisor, trust company and private wealth
institution" with "strong attention to detail, strong commitment to
fiduciary management and well-defined portfolio construction and
team coverage for personal service." However, the Plaintiffs
contend that these and similar representations were "false and
misleading." They allege that had they been aware that their
fiduciary amounts would be managed by persons who were not
registered investment advisors or professional money managers, they
would not have placed their accounts with FWTB.

The Plaintiffs further allege that FWTB assured them "both orally
and in writing that there would be strong communications and
concise statements" in the management of their reviews. However,
after the Plaintiffs signed the Investment Agreement with FWTB,
"not a single representative of FWTB met with them to check on
their understanding of the investment strategies, the investments
that were made, or if the Flecks understood FWTB's statements."
Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege that in over 12 months of serving
as a fiduciary, FWTB reported that it had disbursed over $800,000
to the Flecks, but the Flecks received no distributions. Finally,
they allege that when Aaron Fleck realized there were major losses
in the trusts in excess of $500,000, he directed FWTB to harvest
the losses to offset other gains the Flecks had realized on other
personal transactions, and FWTB failed to do so.

The Plaintiffs filed suit in state court on March 16, 2021, and the
Defendants removed the case to federal court on April 16, 2021. In
their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert five claims for
relief: (1) breach of fiduciary duty as an individual and class
action claim against FWTB; (2) fraudulent inducement as an
individual claim against all the Defendants; (3) fraudulent
concealment/non-disclosure as an individual claim against all the
Defendants; (4) breach of fiduciary duty as an individual claim
against FWTB; and (5) breach of contract as an individual claim
against FWTB.

The Defendants filed the instant Partial Motion to Dismiss with
respect to the Plaintiffs' four tort claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on May 28, 2021. The Court referred the
Defendants' Motion to Judge Gallagher, who issued his
Recommendation on Feb. 17, 2022. Therein, Judge Gallagher
recommends that the Court denies the Defendants' Partial Motion to
Dismiss. The Defendants timely objected, and the Plaintiffs filed a
Response to the Objection.

III. Discussion

Judge Arguello's analysis will proceed in two steps. First, she
will review the portions of the Recommendation to which no party
objects in order to determine whether there are any clear errors in
Judge Gallagher's findings and conclusions. Second, she will
conduct a de novo review of the portions of the Recommendation to
which the Defendants object.

A. Clear Error Review

The Defendants' objection "focuses on the recommendation not to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Claims for Relief for
breach of fiduciary duty." As such, the Defendants do not appear to
object to Judge Gallagher's Recommendation to deny their Partial
Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' Second and Third
claims for relief.

Judge Arguello has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the
Plaintiffs' Second and Third claims for relief as well as the
Recommendation and applicable legal authority. Based on this
review, she is satisfied that Judge Gallagher's Recommendation is
sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, she
affirms and adopts the applicable portions of the Recommendation
and denies the Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss with respect
to the Plaintiffs' Second and Third claims for relief.

B. De Novo Review

The Defendants object to the Recommendation to the extent it
concludes that the Plaintiffs' First and Fourth Claims for Relief
should survive dismissal. Specifically, they argue that the
Recommendation erred in deciding that the Plaintiffs' First and
Fourth Claims for Relief for breach of fiduciary duty are not
barred by Colorado's economic loss rule or otherwise precluded
under Colorado law.

In his Recommendation, Judge Gallagher found that the Plaintiffs
plausibly alleged claims for common law breach of fiduciary duty
and concluded that there was insufficient information to warrant
dismissal of those claims pursuant to the economic loss rule at
this stage of the litigation. Specifically, Judge Gallagher noted
that the "the language in the contract giving rise to a contractual
duty, if any at all, is sparse" and determined that it would be
premature to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims without further factual
development or discovery.

Judge Arguello agrees with Judge Gallagher that barring the
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims under the economic loss
doctrine, at this stage, would require the Court "to read language
into the contract that is simply not there." Moreover, she finds
the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts, taken in the light
most favorable to them, that would amount to a violation of a tort
duty that is independent of the Investment Agreement. Therefore,
dismissal pursuant to the economic loss rule is inappropriate.
Judge Arguello overrules the Defendants' Objection and affirms and
adopts Judge Gallagher's Recommendation.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arguello overruled the Defendants'
Objection. She affirmed and adopted the Feb. 17, 2022
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge as an order of the
Court. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint's Tort Claims is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5bennfek from Leagle.com.


FRED ASTAIRE DANCE: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Astaire Dance
Studios, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Fred Astaire
Dance Studios, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02717 (S.D.N.Y., April 1,
2022).

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

Fred Astaire Dance Studios, Inc. -- https://www.fredastaire.com/ --
is a ballroom dance franchise chain of studios in the United States
and Canada, named after and co-founded by famous dancer Fred
Astaire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


FRESHLY PICKED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshly Picked, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Freshly Picked, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02576 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Freshly Picked -- https://freshlypicked.com/ -- offers high-quality
leather moccasins, soft sole shoes and diaper bags.[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


FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FullBeauty Brands,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02639 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

FullBeauty Brands -- https://www.fbbrands.com/ -- is an American
holding company based in New York City, featuring online and
catalog retail brands for plus size women's apparel, big & tall
men's apparel, and home goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


GANNETT CO: Sells Private Data Without Consent, Batts Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTEPHER BATTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GANNETT CO., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-10685-SDK-CI (E.D., Mi., March 31, 2022) alleges violation
of the Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, to supplement its revenues,
the Defendant rents, exchanges, or otherwise discloses its
customers' information -- including their full names, titles of
publications subscribed to, and home addresses ("Private Reading
Information"), as well as myriad other categories of individualized
data and demographic information such as gender and interests -- to
data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and other
third parties without the written consent of its customers.

By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing - rather than
selling - its customers' Private Reading Information, the Defendant
is able to disclose the information time and time again to
countless third parties.

The Defendant's alleged disclosure of Private Reading Information
and other individualized information is not only unlawful, but also
dangerous because it allows for the targeting of particularly
vulnerable members of society. While the Defendant profits
handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and disclosure
of its customers' Private Reading Information and other
individualized information, it does so at the expense of its
customers' statutory privacy rights (afforded by the PPPA) because
the Defendant does not obtain its customers' written consent prior
to disclosing their Private Reading Information.

GANNETT CO., INC. operates as a local newspaper company. The
Company publishes news through storytelling and events that connect
readers and communities, as well as focuses on business practices
for sourcing, consumption, and waste. Gannett serves customers in
the United Stated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                 aravindran@hedinhall.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212)989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com


GEICO ADVANTAGE: Murphy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angelica Murphy, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Geico Advantage Insurance
Company, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 31, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01232 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

GEICO Advantage Insurance Company -- http://www.geico.com/--
operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property and
casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Ave. of The Americas 38th Fl
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Phone: (212) 389-5000
          Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com


GEOVERA SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Alexander Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY W. ALEXANDER, ET AL. v. GEOVERA SPECIALTY
INSURANCE CO, Case No. 2:21-CV-03166 (W.D. La.), Judge James D.
Cain, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint and/or Strike the Class Action Allegations.

I. Background

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that at
some undetermined time and continuing through the current date, the
Defendant engaged in a corporate pattern and practice of breaching
its insuring agreements with its insureds by violating Louisiana
Revised Statute 22:1892. The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendant
employed default settings within its Xactimating software that
caused its estimates to result in underpayments.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the software failed to
"round up" and account and pay for a full commercial sales unit for
plywood, drywall, drip edge and roofing felt on property insurance
claims. Instead the software paid for only a fraction of commercial
sales units for these material components, despite the fact that a
person cannot purchase a fraction of a commercial sales unit of
these material components.

The Plaintiffs further complain that the Defendant's software
failed to apply, account, and pay for the labor unit price for
handling measuring, cutting, fitting, installing, and/or disposing
of the omitted fractions of the full commercial sales units of the
specified material components on property insurance claims as well
as the state and local sales tax associated with the omitted
fractions.

The Plaintiffs suggest that such a practice is a breach of
Condition D.2.a(2)-(3) of its property insurance policy pertaining
to "Loss Settlement." Consequently, they assert that residents of
the state of Louisiana who have made claims for property damage
under property insurance policies issued by Defendant have received
less in payment on their property insurance claims than the
Defendant was obligated to pay or that the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members were entitled to receive based upon the failure to "round
up" and account and pay for a full commercial sales unit of all the
specified material components; the labor unit price thereon; and
the state and local taxes on such omitted fractions of the full
commercial sales units.

Before the Court is Defendant Geovera's Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint and/or Strike the Class Action Allegations. Geovera
maintains that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a breach of a
specific policy provision and facts that could plausibly establish
that the total payment they received was less than what their
policy requires. In other words, the Complaint fails to allege any
facts regarding the Plaintiffs' loss, such as the adjustment of
their insurance claim, any specific policy provision, or facts that
would establish that the Plaintiffs' total payment was
insufficient.

In addition, the Defendant maintains that (1) the Plaintiffs' claim
for injunctive relief is (1) time-barred by the two-year
contractual limitations period in the policy, and/or (2) barred
because the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in the form
of monetary damages. Finally, the Defendant maintains that the
Plaintiffs' claim for insurance bad faith fails because such a
claim is unavailing in the absence of a viable breach of contract
claim.

The Defendant further moves to strike the Plaintiffs' class action
allegations because (1) the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy any of the
requirements of Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
(2) Rule 23(b)(1) is inapplicable, (3) there is no risk of
inconsistent adjudications creating incompatible standards of
conduct, and (4) the Plaintiffs have not alleged the existence of a
limited fund.

Subsequent to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, the
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint to cure the alleged
deficiencies argued by the Defendant. In response, the Defendants
filed "Defendant Geovera Specialty Insurance Co.'s Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and/or Strike the
Class Action Allegations" to address the new allegations.

II. Analysis

Judge Cain will deem the first Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
and/or Strike the Class Action Allegations filed by Defendant
Geovera as moot and consider its Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Compliant and/or Strike the Class Action
Allegations.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims
should be dismissed because they have not alleged facts to
plausibly establish that the total payment received was
insufficient. It also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' bad faith
claims pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute 22:1892 and to strike
the Plaintiffs' class allegations.

A. Breach of contract

The Defendant argues that the breach of contract claim must be
dismissed because the Second Amended Complaint does not allege that
the total payment was insufficient under the policy terms. It
complains that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege whether any
repairs were completed, and if so the cost. It also complains that
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege which, if any, of the four
building components at issue have been replaced by a contractor or
what the contractor actually charged to perform the work, or if the
Plaintiffs asked GeoVera to pay more for an additional fraction of
the commercial unit.

Judge Cain is concerned that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege
sufficient facts to establish a breach of contract claim. However,
because the case is in its infancy and discovery has not been
conducted, he will allow the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to
cure these deficiencies.

B. Class allegations

The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of GeoVera's property insurance policyholders in
Louisiana, from Aug. 31, 2019, to present.

The Property insured Class is defined as: All property insurance
policyholders of GEOVERA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (GeoVera) in
the State of LOUISIANA who, between August 31, 2019 and the present
made a claim and received a loss payments from Defendant for damage
to their insured property, which claim included one or more of the
following specified material components: plywood, drywall, drip
edge and roofing felt.

The Plaintiffs allege that there are thousands of class members who
had a well-defined community of interest in law and fact. They
allege that GeoVera set its Xactimate estimating system software
default settings to not "roundup" and account and pay for a full
commercial sales unit of plywood, drywall, drip edge and roofing
felt on property insurance claims.

The Plaintiffs allege that the common questions of fact and law for
the entire Class include, but not limited to: (i) Whether GeoVera
had an obligation under property insurance policies under Condition
D.2.a(2)-(3) of its property insurance policies pertaining to Loss
Settlement to the Plaintiffs and the Class Member to round up and
account and pay for a full commercial sales unit of plywood,
drywall, drip edge and roofing felt on property insurance claims;
(ii) Whether GeoVera had an obligation to Plaintiffs and Class
Members to apply, account and pay for the labor unit price for
handling  measuring, cutting, fitting, installing, and/or disposing
of the omitted fractions of the full commercial sales units of the
specified material components on property insurance claims; and
(iii) Whether GeoVera had an obligation to the Plaintiff and the
Class Members to include compensation for state and local taxes on
such omitted fractions of the full commercial sales units of the
specified material components on the property insurance claims.

Rule 23(a) requires as prerequisites to class certification that
"(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. In addition, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that
the court finds "that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

The Defendant argues that the class action allegations fail under
Rule 23 because the Plaintiffs are unable to show that the total
amount they received to repair their property was not sufficient,
and that although it did not round up on certain material
components, it may have overpaid on other materials.

Judge Cain holds that the necessity of calculating damages on an
individual basis will not necessarily preclude class certification.
He also finds that the case is in its infancy and that it would be
premature at this state of the proceeding to strike the class
allegations. He will allow the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint
to address the Court's concerns regarding the class allegation and
the breach of contract claim.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Cain denied the Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint and/or Strike the
Class Action Allegations, and the Plaintiffs are allowed to amend
their Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4hm4ek49 from Leagle.com.


GRAYL INC: Tavarez-Vargas Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grayl Inc. The case
is styled as Carmen Tavarez-Vargas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Grayl Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02624
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

GRAYL -- https://grayl.com/ -- specializes in the fields of
manufacturing, food, and beverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


GREY DOG: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Jerez Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALEJANDRO JEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated v. THE GREY DOG, INC., DAVID ETHAN,
individually, and PETER STEIN, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-02662
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022) seeks redress against the Defendants for
systematic failure by the Defendants to provide the required
minimum wage and/or overtimes wages, as well as for the failure to
provide accurate wage statements and wage theft prevention act
notification in violation of the pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a cafe and coffee shop and
its day-to-day overseers -- as a non-exempt employee for 25 years,
ending on March 14, 2020. During his employment, the Defendants
required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff indeed did work, at least
40 hours per week while being paid according to a flat weekly rate,
by check, regardless of the number of hours worked in a given
week.

However, the Defendants never paid Plaintiff an overtime premium
for those hours worked over 40 in a week while he was employed by
Defendants. Thus, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at a
rate of one and one half his regular hourly rate for hours worked
in a week over forty in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, alleges
the suit.

Moreover, Plaintiff did not receive an accurate wage theft prevent
act notification at the time of hiring and did not receive accurate
wage statements each week in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants
paid and treated all of their non-managerial salespeople in the
same manner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          116 Jackson Avenue
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          E-mail: ft@Belllg.com

H&R ACCOUNTS INC: Powell Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&R Accounts Inc. The
case is styled as Amy Powell, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. H&R Accounts Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01052-JD
(D.N.C., April 1, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

H&R Accounts, Inc. is a debt collection agency located in Moline,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dave Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
          PO Box 11865
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: (803) 509-6800
          Fax: (855) 299-1656
          Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com


HEALTH PLUS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Plus, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Health Plus, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02669
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Health Plus -- https://www.healthplusinc.com/ -- provides 100%
Natural Dietary Supplements.[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


HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Homology Medicines, Inc.
("Homology" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FIXX ) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Homology securities between June 10, 2019 and
February 18, 2022, (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/fixx.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had overstated
HMI-102's efficacy and risk mitigation; (2) accordingly, it was
unlikely that the Company would be able to commercialize HMI-102 in
its present form; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/fixx or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Homology you have until May 24, 2022, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220331005010/en/
[GN]

HORNELL BREWING: Iglesias Sues for False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01795-VC
(N.D. Cal., March 21, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
false and misleading advertising in violation of California's
Business & Professions Codes and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Defendant falsely labels and advertises its AriZona beverage
products, including but not limited to, AriZona Kiwi Strawberry
Fruit Juice Cocktail, Lemonade Fruit Juice Cocktail, Mucho Mango
Fruit Juice Cocktail, Fruit Punch Fruit Juice Cocktail, Orangeade,
Grapeade, Lemonade Drink Mix, Golden Bear Strawberry Lemonade, and
Rx Energy as being "All Natural," when in reality, they contain
added coloring, including but not limited to "beta carotene,"
"fruit and vegetable juices," "annatto," and "vegetable juice." The
"All Natural" AriZona beverages are collectively referred to as
(the "Products").

The prominent label "ALL NATURAL" is depicted on the front of the
Product container, to mislead consumers to believe that the
Products are entirely natural. The Defendant has realized that,
based on the public's concern about natural and healthy foods,
there is a financial benefit to be derived in selling products
claiming to be natural. Accordingly, the Defendant labels its
Products as "All Natural," even though the Products contain added
coloring in violation of California and federal advertising laws.
The Defendant made and continues to make false and misleading
statements in its advertising of the Products. Specifically,
Defendant labels the Products as "All Natural" (depicted in capital
letters on the front label) and markets them as such, even though
the Products contain coloring additives, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a purchaser of the Products within the State of
California.

The Defendant is among the United States' leading producers of
beverage products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com


IRVING FARM COFFEE: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irving Farm Coffee
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Irving Farm Coffee
Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01845 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

Irving Farm Coffee -- https://irvingfarm.com/ -- offers the
freshest, most delicious coffee that is sourced and roasted by
Irving Farm Coffee Roasters.[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


J.MCLAUGHLIN LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.McLaughlin, LLC.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. J.McLaughlin, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01839-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

J.McLaughlin -- https://www.jmclaughlin.com/ -- is a destination
for defining style offering a collection of women's and men's
clothing and accessories that reflects casual, classic style
peppered with a dose of wit.[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



JIMMY'S HEALTHY FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jimmy's Healthy Foods
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Jimmy's Healthy Foods Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02623 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Jimmy's Healthy Foods Inc. doing business as JiMMYBAR --
https://jimmybars.com/ -- offers low sugar, high protein bar.[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


KAO USA: Jergens Ultra Recalled Due to Bacterial Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bradley-Smith at topclassactions.com reports that KAO USA Inc.
has expanded its Jergens(R) Ultra Healing Moisturizer recall. Two
additional lot codes of the 3 oz. size lotion have been added:
ZU722861 and ZU722871. The recall stems from suspicion of
contamination by the bacterium Pluralibacter gergoviae. This
bacterium poses a risk of infection to individuals with weakened
immune systems.

KAO USA continues to investigate the scope of the potential
contamination. Any customers with the affected lot numbers are
urged to stop use of the lotion and to contact the Kao USA Inc.
Consumer Care Center at 1-800-742-8798 or consumer@kao.com.
Customers will receive a free product coupon and a postage paid
label with a plastic bag via mail to return the recalled product.

Kao USA Jergens Ultra Healing Moisturizer Recall Overview:
Who: Kao USA is recalling several lots of Jergens Ultra Healing
Moisturizer in 3 oz. and 10 oz. sizes.
Why: The products have been pulled from the shelves due to
bacterial contamination.
Where: The recall is effective in the United States.
(3/16/2022)

Consumers are being urged to check their Jergens moisturizers after
a number of the brands' products were pulled from the shelves due
to bacterial contamination.

In a recall notice posted by manufacturer Kao USA, the company says
it is recalling several lots of Jergens Ultra Healing Moisturizer,
3 oz. and 10 oz. sizes, after Pluralibacter gergoviae bacteria was
detected.

The company says it "takes the safety of its products seriously,"
and as such, it was issuing the voluntary recall.

Jergens Ultra Healing Moisturizer Bacteria Poses Risk of Infection
to Some
Although Pluralibacter gergoviae rarely poses medical risk to
healthy people, those with weakened immune systems and other health
issues may be more susceptible to infections.

Kao says the recall is limited to 3 oz. size bottles with lot
codes:

ZU712851
ZU712861
ZU712871
ZU712881
ZU712911
ZU722851
ZU722881

And 10 oz. bottles with lot codes:

ZU722741
ZU722771
ZU722781
ZU732781
ZU732791
ZU732801
ZU732811
ZU732821

Kao is urging customers to stop using the recalled moisturizers and
call the company for a replacement coupon. The company says further
investigation is needed to determine the scope of the issue, but
for now it has removed the product in question from warehouses, and
it is working with retailers to ensure the product does not remain
on store shelves.

In 2020, Kimberly-Clark issued a Cottonelle Flushable Wipes recall
over concerns that two varieties of the wipes could be contaminated
with the same bacteria. The company was quickly hit with a class
action lawsuit from consumers who said they were seeking "recovery
for the personal and economic harms caused by the recall of
millions of contaminated, dangerous, and now-worthless flushable
wipes . . . ." [GN]

KIRAKU GLEN: Ng Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAI KUAN NG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KIRAKU GLEN HEAD INC. d/b/a KIRAKU, JIN HANG ZHENG,
and MENG JIN LIN, Case No. 2:22-cv-01780 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit,
unpaid overtime wages due to invalid tip credit, unpaid wages due
to time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese-cuisine restaurant under
the tradename of Kiraku, located at 127 Glen Head Road, Glen Head,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clara Lam, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 295-5828
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          E-mail: clam@bkllawyers.com


LAKEVIEW LOAN: Faces Guarino Class Action Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GUARINO, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-20981 (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2022) arises out of the recent
cyber attack and data breach at Lakeview Loan Servicing that
targeted the information of consumers who utilized LLS for
residential mortgage services (the "Data Breach").

The alleged Data Breach resulted in unauthorized access to the
sensitive data of consumers that used LLS's services. Because of
the Data Breach, 2,537,261 Class Members' suffered ascertainable
losses inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their
time incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and
the present and substantial risk of imminent harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information, including their
name, address, loan number, and social security number (and, for
some, information connected with a loan application, a loan
modification, or other items involving their loan's servicing (the
"Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII").

To compound matters, LLS's Data Breach occurred from October 27,
2021 through December 7, 2021 and LLS did not ascertain what
information was accessed until January 31, 2022.

Then LLS sat on the information for over a month -- failing to
disseminate data breach consumer notifications until March 18,
2022. When a data set that is inclusive of the aforementioned PII
is breached, every moment is precious to ensure that that data is
not then weaponized against the rightful owner of that data through
identity theft. Sitting on this information allowed LLS to dodge
responsibility and inevitably worsened the Data Breach victims'
chances at weathering the storm that LLS created, says the suit.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
have been harmed -- they have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members must now and forever closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft.

Plaintiff Guarino is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and was harmed by the alleged Data.

Lakeview Loan Servicing is a private residential mortgage loan
servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Cohen, Esq.
          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          Blake Hunter, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          3833 Central Ave.
          St. Petersburg, FL 33713
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
                  gklinger@milberg.com
                  dlietz@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Rivera Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN RIVERA, ALISHIA CARTAGENA, and DOREEN ENDRESS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20968 (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2022)
is a class action lawsuit that stems from Lakeview's failure to
secure the sensitive personal information (PII) of its customers
and employees.

The PII includes without limitation, name, address, loan number,
and Social Security number and, for some, information provided in
connection with a loan application, loan modification, or other
items regarding loan servicing.

On October 27, 2021, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's
network system, accessed the PII stored therein, and exfiltrated
information from Lakeview's systems (the "Data Breach"). In early
December 2021, the Defendant identified this "security incident
involving unauthorized access to [its] file servers." The Defendant
determined that "an unauthorized person obtained access to files on
[its] file storage servers from October 27, 2021 to December 7,
2021."

On January 31, 2022, the review process generated a preliminary
list of individuals affected by the Data Breach. Defendant
determined that the unauthorized actor accessed and exfiltrated the
PII of more than 2,537,261 current and former Lakeview customers
("Class Members"), including that of Plaintiffs and Class Members.

On March 18, 2022, the Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs and
Class Members of the Data Breach.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to these individuals. The Defendant admits that
the unencrypted PII accessed and exfiltrated includes highly
sensitive information, such as names, dates of birth, addresses,
phone numbers, financial or bank account information, Social
Security numbers, insurance information and account numbers,
medical information including history, condition, treatment and
diagnosis, medical record numbers, driver's license numbers, and
email addresses.

The exposed PII of Defendant's current and former customers can be
sold on the dark web. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
their information has already been placed onto the dark web.
Hackers can now access and/or offer for sale the unencrypted,
unredacted PII to criminals. Defendant’s current and former
customers face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
heightened by the loss of their Social Security numbers, the
lawsuit says.

Until notified of the breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members had
no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and
continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will
remain for their rest of their lives.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members who obtained loan services from
Defendant were required to entrust some of their most sensitive and
confidential information.

The Defendant is a mortgage loan servicer. Lakeview obtains certain
personally identifying information related to its customers --
current and former mortgagees, as well as mortgage applicants—in
furtherance of services it performs on their behalf.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Simon Grille, Esq.
          Kimberly Macey, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California St, Ste 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com
                  kmacey@girardsharp.com

               - and -

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

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCMAHON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-20978-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2022) is a class action
complaint against Lakeview Loan to hold the Defendant accountable
for the harm it caused Plaintiff and over 2.5 million similarly
situated people (Class Members), from its failure to properly
secure and safeguard its customers' sensitive personally
identifiable information (PII), including their names, addresses,
loan numbers and Social Security numbers, and potentially
information provided in connection with a loan application, loan
modification, or other items regarding loan servicing.

In early December 2021, Lakeview discovered that an unauthorized
threat actor gained access to its file servers. Upon further
investigation, Lakeview determined that the unauthorized threat
actor obtained access to files on Lakeview’s server for at least
almost a month and a half, from October 27, 2021 to December 7,
2021, which included Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive PII
(the Data Breach).

In mid-March 2022, almost five months after Lakeview believes the
Data Breach began, Lakeview finally started sending Data Breach
incident letters to Plaintiff and Class Members. Lakeview also sent
templates of the Data Breach incident letters to state attorneys
general including the Maine Attorney General. The notification sent
to the Maine Attorney General identified that approximately
2,537,261 individuals like Plaintiff had their PII accessed,
exfiltrated, and/or compromised by the Data Breach. Lakeview also
reported the Data Breach to the California Attorney General's
Office, says the suit.

According to the complaint, the Data Breach occurred because
Lakeview failed to adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class
Members. Indeed, the deficiencies in Lakeview's data security
protocols and practices were so significant that unauthorized
person(s) were able to access, view, and/or exfiltrate Plaintiff's
and Class Members’ PII that can be made available for sale on the
illegal marketplace known as the "dark web."

Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members,
assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence,
intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and all other
relief as authorized in equity or by law.

Lakeview touts itself as the Fourth Largest Mortgage Servicer in
the United States and claims to work with more than 1.4 million
customers annually with their mortgages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
          Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                  edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com
                  msawyer@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.com

LEMONADE INC: Faces Clarke Class Suit Over Biometrics' Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Clarke, Milton Citchens, Andrew Garcia, Ebony Jones, Kyle
Swerdlow, Marlaw Walker, and Ryan Webb, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Lemonade, Inc., Lemonade, Ltd.
Lemonade Insurance Company, Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC, and
Lemonade Life Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 2022LA000308 (Ill.
Cir., Dupage Cty., March 31, 2022) seeks damages and other legal
and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants in collecting, storing, and using the Plaintiffs' and
other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or
providing the data retention and destruction policies to consumers.


The Plaintiffs bring this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies against all Defendants resulting from their
unfair and deceptive collection, storage, and use of biometric
information without Plaintiffs' and the Class's knowledge and
consent in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Additionally, the Defendants Lemonade, Inc. and Lemonade, Ltd.'s
alleged collection, storage and use of biometric information
without Plaintiffs' and the Class's knowledge and consent
constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act,
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Lemonade, Inc. is a Delaware holding company with operating
subsidiaries based in New York. The company uses artificial
intelligence and behavioral economics to process insurance claims
from its subsidiaries, Lemonade Insurance, which offer homeowners,
renters, and pet insurance in the United States. According to
Lemonade's securities filing, customers seeking renters or
homeowners' insurance can have a two-minute chat with its bot, AI
Maya, while claims can be filed by chatting with another bot, AI
Jim, which pays claims in as little as three seconds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo
          SCOTT+SCOTT
          ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: 212-223-6444
          Facsimile: 212-223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON &
          MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette St.
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

MCDONALD'S CORP: Big Mac's Packaging Contains PFAS, McDowell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEN MCDOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01688 (N.D.
Ill., March 31, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who purchased for
personal, family, or household use, Defendant's Big Mac, which is
unfit for human consumption because the packaging in which it is
contained -- and is essential and integral to delivering the
Product to the consuming public contains unsafe per- and
polyfluoralkyl substances.

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to both
the environment and humans. Because PFAS persist and accumulate
over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. Indeed, "PFAS
have been shown to have a number of toxicological effects in
laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid disorders,
immunotoxic effects, and various cancers in epidemiology studies."
In fact, scientists are studying -- and are extremely concerned
about -- how PFAS affect human health. Consequently, the CDC
outlined "a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure,
including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased
risk of asthma and thyroid disease."

Despite Defendant's alleged representations to consumers that their
products are "safe," and "sustainable," including in its website
and the Product packaging -- which is an essential and integral
part of delivering the Product to consumers -- independent research
conducted by Consumer Reports determined that the Product
packaging—which is an essential and integral part of delivering
the Product to consumers -- contains 195.3 parts per million (ppm)
of total organic fluorine."

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendant
individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly
situated for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law;
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (3) breach of the
Implied Warranty under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and
California Commercial Code; violation of California's False
Advertising Law; Fraud; Constructive Fraud; Fraudulent Inducement;
Money Had And Received; Fraudulent Omission or Concealment;
Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and Negligent Misrepresentation.

Plaintiff Ken McDowell is a natural person and citizen of
California who resides in San Rafael, California. Plaintiff
McDowell has purchased the Product from Defendant for several
years, including as recently as March 2022 from a McDonald's
located in San Rafael, California. Mr. McDowell suffered and
continues to suffer, economic injuries, the suit says.

McDonald's is an American multinational fast food corporation,
founded in 1940 as a restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice
McDonald, in San Bernardino, California, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  slitteral@bursor.com
                  jvenditti@bursor.com
                  jarisohn@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS Use in Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that McDonald's is facing a
multi-state consumer class action lawsuit over its use of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances in packaging because of alleged
migration of those chemicals into food products.

PFAS are considered "forever chemicals" because their
carbon-fluorine bonds are extremely strong and not appreciably
degraded under environmental conditions, according to the lawsuit
filed March 28 at the Southern District of Illinois.

"Exposure to PFAS can be incredibly devastating to vulnerable
populations including young children and pregnant women," the suit
claims. "PFAS are capable of crossing the placenta, meaning
pregnant women transfer PFAS to their unborn children. Women
exposed to PFAS during pregnancy have higher risks of gestational
diabetes and pre-eclampsia, and their babies are more likely to
undergo abnormal growth in utero, leading to low birth weight, and
later face an increased risk of childhood obesity and infections."

McDonald's has not yet responded to a request for comment.

The suit was filed by attorney Steffan T. Keeton of the Keeton Firm
in Pittsburgh on behalf of lead plaintiff Larry Clark of Illinois
who claims to have made purchases primarily in Effingham, Jackson,
Madison and St. Clair counties, as well as across the U.S.

Keeton seeks to include class members from California, Florida,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington.

Compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $5 million are
sought, as well as an order requiring McDonald's to immediately
cease and desist from selling their "misbranded products," among
other demands.

According to the lawsuit, the use of PFAS in McDonald's packaging
"stands in stark contrast to McDonald's brand identity which
espouses food safety."

"Even though McDonald's Corporation has been using PFAS in its
products for decades, it repeatedly denied that PFAS were used in
the products," it claims. "Only recently in 2021, McDonald's
Corporation admitted that PFAS are used in the Products."

It further claims that McDonald's uses a "profits over people"
approach to "save pennies" per unit sold.

"The Products Plaintiff and Class Members purchased are either
worthless or worth less than the purchase price because Defendant
failed to disclose that they contain PFAS which are dangerous to
the health of the consumer and to the environment."

The suit claims violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. breach of express warranties,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation of
Magnusson-Moss Warrant Act and unjust enrichment.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel has been assigned to the
case. [GN]


MORGAN GRAHAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA D. BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN GRAHAM, INC. d/b/a AROUND
THE CLOCK CARE, Defendant, Case No 3:22-cv-00035-RLY-MPB (S.D.,
IN., March 31, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Baker was employed by the Defendant as caregiver.

MORGAN GRAHAM, INC. d/b/a AROUND THE CLOCK CARE provides 24/7
in-home care services in Sydney, Central Coast and the Blue
Mountains. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com


NEOGENOMICS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO) resulting from
allegations that NeoGenomics may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased NeoGenomics 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=4888 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 March 28, 2022, NeoGenomics issued a press
release announcing that its Chief Executive Officer "will step down
as CEO and member of the Board, effective immediately." The Company
also announced that it "expects revenue for Q1 2022 may be below
the low end of its prior guidance of $118 - $120 million and EBITDA
for Q1 2022 will be below the low end of its prior guidance of
$(15) - $(12) million." NeoGenomics disclosed that "[t]he larger
than anticipated EBITDA loss was primarily driven by higher than
anticipated Clinical Services cost of goods sold" and that it "has
withdrawn its 2022 annual financial guidance issued February 23,
2022."

On this news, NeoGenomics's stock price fell $5.30 per share, or
29%, to close at $12.49 per share on March 29, 2022.

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. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Leslie Sues Over Unlawful Collection of DNA
---------------------------------------------------------
Shakira Leslie and Shamill Burgos, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK; KEECHANT SEWELL,
Police Commissioner for the City of New York, in her official
capacity; KENNETH COREY, Chief of Department for the New York City
Police Department, in his official capacity; JAMES ESSIG, Chief of
Detectives for the New York City Police Department, in his official
capacity; EMANUEL KATRANAKIS, Deputy Chief in the Forensic
Investigations Division of the New York City Police Department, in
his official capacity; and DR. JASON GRAHAM, Acting Chief Medical
Examiner for the City of New York, in his official capacity; Case
No. 1:22-cv-02305-NRB (S.D.N.Y. March 21, 2022), is brought to
challenge New York City's policy and practice of secretly taking
and analyzing the DNA of people whom the police suspect of
committing a crime without a warrant or court order and maintaining
this DNA in an index where it is perpetually compared to past and
future crime scene evidence.

Through this practice, the City has seized the DNA of thousands of
unsuspecting, primarily Black and Latinx New Yorkers, and turned
them into permanent criminal suspects. For years now, New York City
Police Department ("NYPD") detectives have targeted unsuspecting
New Yorkers, including young children, by bringing them into
interrogation rooms that have been prepared in advance to capture
saliva, skin cells, or other genetic material. In these
interrogation rooms, detectives offer people cigarettes and drinks
to secretly collect their DNA. In one example, detectives handed a
12-year-old boy a McDonald's soda and, after the boy drank from it
and was escorted out the room, they secretly removed the straw for
DNA testing and placed the boy's DNA in an index of people
suspected of criminal activity ("the Suspect Index").

The NYPD sends these DNA samples to the Office of Chief Medical
Examiner ("OCME"), which analyzes the samples, creates a DNA
profile, and compares that profile to crime scene DNA evidence in
perpetuity. Through the Suspect Index, the NYPD and OCME partner to
put people's DNA profiles through a genetic lineup that compares
the profiles against all past and future crime scene DNA
evidence—all without obtaining a warrant or court order to
conduct these DNA searches.

The Suspect Index is illegal. Unlike state and federal DNA index
systems, the City's Suspect Index lacks legislative authorization.
As a result, it operates without any independent oversight. New
York law prohibits the indexing of a person's DNA unless the person
has been convicted of a crime. Nonetheless, the City's Suspect
Index ignores state laws and regulations that limit DNA indexing
and hoards the DNA of arrestees and suspects. Without any
independent oversight, the NYPD and OCME have additionally deployed
a new and invasive investigatory technique using DNA samples to
investigate a suspect's entire family.

Because of a history of institutional racism and disparities in
arrest rates in New York City, Black and Latinx people make up the
vast majority of arrestees who are subject to the City's DNA taking
and indexing practice. And, with the City's new genealogical
investigative technique, the parents, grandparents, siblings,
children, and even the distant relatives of suspects and arrestees
can be swept into the City's genetic investigations.

The Defendants have violated and continue to violate the
Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and their rights under New York law. The Plaintiffs
seek injunctive and declaratory relief to end the City's practice
of targeting thousands of individuals, many of whom have never been
convicted of a crime, to take their DNA and turn them into
permanent suspects, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are a Black and a Latino residents of New York City
and has no criminal convictions whose DNA was taken from them by
the Defendants without their knowledge.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation within the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip Desgranges, Esq.
          J. David Pollock, Esq.
          Brittany Thomas, Esq.
          Anna Blondell, Esq.
          Allison Durkin, Esq.
          Lisa Freeman, Esq.
          Corey Stoughton, Esq.
          THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          199 Water Street
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-577-3398
          Email: pdesgranges@legal-aid.org
                 jpollock@legal-aid.org
                 bthomas@legal-aid.org
                 ablondell@legal-aid.org
                 adurkin_fellow@legal-aid.org
                 lafreeman@legal-aid.org
                 cstoughton@legal-aid.org


NEW YORK: Srabyan's Amended Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NVARD SRABYAN, A.V., a minor, by his parent and
guardian ad litem, NVARD SRABYAN, and M.V., a minor, by her parent
and guardian ad litem, NVARD SRABYAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ANDREW CUOMO, in his personal
capacity and official capacity as Governor of the State of New
York, SHANNON TAHOE, in her personal capacity and official capacity
as Interim Commissioner of Education for the State of New York,
BILL DE BLASIO, in his personal capacity and official capacity as
Mayor of New York City, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and RICHARD CARRANZA, in his personal
capacity and official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-3137 (NGG)
(RML) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are two New York City public school students, A.V.
and M.V., and their mother, Nvard Srabyan. Together they bring the
putative class action following a series of Executive Orders issued
by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
that directed every school in New York State to close its doors and
shift to remote learning for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school
year. According to the Plaintiffs, these Orders, and the blended
learning plans for the 2020-2021 school year, represent "an attack
on our liberties and unalienable rights for all students to have an
equal opportunity to receive education," and "can be construed as
an attempt to subvert our democratic government and move this
nation a step closer towards totalitarianism."

The Plaintiffs' 70-page, 264-paragraph amended complaint begins
with a quote from Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
An apt reference, because by the end, one feels as if they've gone
through the looking glass. They allege the Executive Orders
violated some 19 federal and state constitutional rights. Under the
U.S. Constitution, they allege that Defendants violated the
Commerce Clause; Contracts Clause; Republican Guarantee Clause;
prohibition on Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws; the Fifth
Amendment's Takings Clause; the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and
Thirteenth Amendments; and the Fourteenth Amendment's Procedural
Due Process, Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection, and
Privileges and Immunities Clauses. For good measure, they tack on
several alleged violations of the New York State Constitution. They
seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a general
request for unspecified damages.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on a host of grounds
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs Abandoned most of their Claims

The Defendants moved to dismiss each alleged cause of action for
failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs respond to only three of
those arguments and have, therefore, abandoned the unaddressed
causes of action. Thus, all but three of the original 19 causes of
action are dismissed. The remaining claims are for alleged
violations under the Equal Protection Clause, the Commerce Clause,
and the Contracts Clause.

B. Plaintiffs' Request for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief is Moot

Judge Garaufis explains that a case becomes moot—and therefore no
longer a 'Case' or 'Controversy' for purposes of Article III --
when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." In the case, New
York (City and State) has reopened its schools; Governor Cuomo
rescinded the declaration of a disaster emergency and the
challenged Executive Orders; and the New York Legislature curtailed
the Governor's emergency powers to reissue COVID-19 restrictions.

In light of these developments, the Second Circuit in a series of
summary orders has held that similar challenges to previous
COVID-19-related Executive Orders were moot. Judge Garaufis now
follows suit and dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief as moot. Because the Plaintiffs also seek
damages, however, their remaining claims survive.

C. Plaintiffs Lack Standing

To establish standing, the plaintiff must have (1) suffered an
injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by
a favorable judicial decision. "To establish injury in fact, a
plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a
legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized'
and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" A
"particularized" injury "affects the plaintiff in a personal and
individual way." "A 'concrete' injury must be 'de facto'; that is,
it must actually exist"; it must be "real," and not "abstract."

Judge Garaufis dismisses the remaining claims for damages because
he finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert them. He holds
that the Plaintiffs fail to establish injury in fact, "the first
and foremost of standing's three elements," because the alleged
injuries are neither particularized nor concrete. The Plaintiffs'
displeasure with the New York City Public Schools curricula is not
a concrete injury arising out of remote learning that satisfies
Article III standing. In addition, the alleged injury as to Srabyan
involving some vague economic harm to parents who must stay home to
supervise their children's remote learning, is not particularized
as to the Plaintiffs, and they lack standing to bring a claim based
on it.

D. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim

Even if the Plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate
Article III standing, Judge Garaufis holds that their complaint
would still fail. He disposes of the three remaining claims
pursuant to the Defendants' motions to dismiss for a failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

First, the Commerce Clause claim fails because the Plaintiffs do
not come close to adequately pleading that the Executive Orders
"interfered with the natural functioning of the interstate market
either through prohibition or through burdensome regulation."
Second, the Contracts Clause claim fails for the simple reason that
the Plaintiffs fail to "identify the precise contractual right that
has been impaired." Third, and finally, the Equal Protection Clause
claim fails because the Plaintiffs allege neither that they are
part of an identifiable or suspect class, nor that they are treated
differently than any other similarly situated New Yorkers.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims, even if they satisfied Article
III standing, would be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Garaufis granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8h8ebw from Leagle.com.


OGAWA USA: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ogawa USA Inc. The
case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ogawa USA Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02583 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Ogawa World USA's -- https://www.ogawaworldusa.com/ -- ultimate
goal is to promote health and wellness through advanced products
that are easy to use and reliable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ONE MEDICAL GROUP: Etri Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Etri, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. One Medical Group, Inc., Case No.
22-002178-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court
in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on March 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-20831-JLK to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

One Medical -- https://www.onemedical.com/ -- is committed to
providing the best primary care through exceptional quality, a
world-class experience, and second-to-none technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
          1547 Brooksbend Drive
          Wesley Chapel, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 789-4413
          Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Scott Sackel, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Phone: (561) 650-8545
          Fax: (561) 822-5503
          Email: msackel@shutts.com

               - and -

          Leo P. Norton, Esq.
          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Phone: (858) 550-6207
          Fax: (858) 550-6420
          Email: lnorton@cooley.com
                 mdoolin@cooley.com

               - and -

          Eric Matthew Yesner, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 524-5505
          Email: eyesner@shutts.com


OPTAVIA LLC: Zeller Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optavia, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Jamie Zeller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Optavia, LLC, Medifast, Inc., Case
No. 3:22-cv-00434-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 1, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Optavia -- https://www.optavia.com/ -- is a popular lifestyle
program focused on weight loss and building healthy habits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER
          201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 656-7066
          Email: jonas@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com


OTG EXPERIENCE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OTG Experience, LLC.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. OTG Experience, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01835-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

OTG -- https://www.otgexp.com/ -- is an award-winning airport
hospitality group with more than 250 restaurants and retail spaces
in 11 airports across North America.[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


P&M SOLUTIONS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against P&M Solutions, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. P&M Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02674 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

P&M Solutions LLC operates as an online pest control store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENN CREDIT: Summary Judgment Bid in Schmelczer FDCPA Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAFTALI SCHMELCZER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-2380 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M.
Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and
denied the Plaintiff Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Background

Plaintiff Schmelczer brings the putative class action against Penn
Credit, alleging that the Defendant engaged in unlawful credit and
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692, et seq.   
The Plaintiff is "a citizen of the State of New York residing in
Spring Valley, New York," and a "consumer" as defined by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692(a)(3). The Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined
by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6). As relevant to the instant dispute,
the Defendant contracts with RevSpring -- a company that provides
document creation and delivery services for accounts receivable
management companies, healthcare organizations, banking
institutions, municipal and county governments, and
telecommunication companies -- to assist in its collection
activities.

On June 18, 2019, Suez New York (a utility company) placed the
Plaintiff's account, which at the time held a negative balance of
$1,448.28, in collections with the Defendant. On June 19, 2019, the
Defendant transmitted an electronic request to RevSpring to prepare
and send a collection letter to the Plaintiff. The following day,
RevSpring sent the Plaintiff a letter, dated June 19, 2019, that
sought to collect on the Plaintiff's unpaid balance with Suez New
York on behalf of the Defendant. The Payment Letter also notes that
the Plaintiff owed $1,448.28 for a "delinquent utility bill" with a
"service date" of May 17, 2019, and identifies "SUEZ New York" as
the creditor. It also directs the recipient to the "reverse side
for important information concerning your rights."

The Plaintiff claims that the Payment Letter confused him when he
received it for several reasons. First, the Plaintiff was confused
because he did not believe he owed Suez New York $1,448.28. Second,
he was confused because he did not understand how to dispute the
debt; while the Payment Letter explains that written disputes
should be mailed to the Defendant's "office," the Plaintiff was
confused as to whether the Oaks Address or the Harrisburg Address
was the Defendant's office address. The Plaintiff never mailed any
written correspondence or payments to either the Harrisburg Address
or the Oaks Address; instead, he gave the Payment Letter to his
attorney.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 18, 2020. On June 2,
2020, the Defendant filed a pre-motion letter in anticipation of
filing a motion to dismiss. After receiving the Plaintiff's
response, the Court held a pre-motion conference on July 16, 2020
and adopted a briefing schedule. On July 31, 2020, the Defendant
filed its Motion To Dismiss. On Aug. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed
his Opposition, and on Aug. 28, 2020, the Defendant filed its
Reply.

On Feb. 1, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion & Order denying the
Defendant's Motion To Dismiss. It relied heavily on its then-recent
Opinion & Order on the motion to dismiss filed in Adler v. Penn
Credit Corporation, No. 19-CV-7084 (S.D.N.Y.), a nearly identical
action brought against the same defendant and involving the same
counsel for both parties, and ruled that "given the appearance of
the Coupon and the lack of clear instructions in the Payment
Letter, the Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under the FDCPA
and that the Court could not dismiss the Complaint at this early
stage."

On Feb. 12, 2021, the Defendant filed its Answer, and on March 4,
2021, the Defendant filed a letter proposing a briefing schedule
for the Parties' anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment,
which the Plaintiff did not dispute. The Court entered the Parties'
proposed briefing schedule, and on April 9, 2021, the Parties filed
their cross-motions, Rule 56.1 submissions, and accompanying
papers. On May 18, 2021, the Parties exchanged Opposition papers.

II. Analysis

The Plaintiff brings two causes of action under the FDCPA based on
the Defendant's conduct as laid out. The Defendant argues that it
is entitled to summary judgment because there is no genuine dispute
that: (1) the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to assert a
claim under the FDCPA because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate actual
injury; and (2) the Payment Letter is not deceptive as a matter of
law, including because any potential deceptiveness is immaterial.
The Plaintiff, in opposing the Defendant's Motion, argues that he
does have Article III standing, and that there is at least a
genuine dispute as to whether the Payment Letter's deceptiveness is
material.

Alternatively, the Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to summary
judgment because the law of the case doctrine mandates that the
Court, having determined at the motion to dismiss stage that the
Plaintiff plausibly alleged a violation of the FDCPA via the
Payment Letter's alleged deceptiveness, maintain its position and
grant judgment to the Plaintiff. The Defendant disputes the
applicability of the law of the case doctrine in the case.

Judge Karas opines that the Plaintiff has wholly failed to
demonstrate that he suffered any concrete harm. He says the
Plaintiff has not alleged, let alone demonstrated, that he suffered
any monetary or reputational harm; instead, the Plaintiff claims
only that the Payment Letter caused the Plaintiff to become
"confused" and "concerned." These claims are insufficient to
establish concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III
standing.

Accordingly, Judge Karas finds that there is no genuine dispute of
material fact that the Plaintiff does not have Article III standing
to pursue his FDCPA claims and thus, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the Action. Therefore, Judge Karas need not
address the substantive merits -- or lack thereof -- of the
Plaintiff's claims, as it must grant the Defendant's Motion and
deny the Plaintiff's Motion.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karas granted the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the pending Motions, enter judgment for the Defendant,
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3h92cpnc from Leagle.com.

Craig B. Standers, Esq. -- csanders@barshaysanders.com -- Jonathan
M. Cader, Esq. -- jcader@sbglawny.com -- Kara McCabe, Esq. --
KMcCabe@sanderslaw.group -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC, in Garden City,
New York, Counsel for the Plaintiff.

Richard J. Perr, Esq. -- rperr@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich &
Voluck, LLP, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Counsel for the
Defendant.


PENTEGRA SERVICES: Bid to Dismiss Khan ERISA Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IMRAN KHAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF PENTEGRA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-07561 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Imran Khan, Joan Bullock, and Pamela Joy Wood bring the
putative class action against the Board of Directors of Pentegra
Defined Contribution Plan, Pentegra Services, Inc. ("PSI"), John E.
Pinto, Sandra L. McGoldrick, Lisa A. Schlehuber, Michael N.
Lussier, William E. Hawkins, Jr., Brad Elliott, George W. Hermann,
and John Does 1-20, for breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited
transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001, et seq.

The Plaintiffs are participants in the Pentegra Defined
Contribution Plan, which is a "defined contribution" or "individual
account" employee benefit plan. The Plan is a multiple employer
plan ("MEP"), which has been adopted by approximately 250 banks for
their employees. The Plan is among the largest 0.07% of all defined
contribution plans in the United States, with over 27,000
participants and $2.1 billion in assets.

The Defendants are alleged to be the Plan's fiduciaries. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, in retaining PSI, failed to
ensure that PSI's compensation was reasonable for its services to
the Plan and relative to market rates for what they contend are the
same services. They allege that Defendants retained PSI as the
Plan's recordkeeper without competition, or even arm's-length
negotiation, and caused it to receive over $50 million in Plan
assets since 2014, including uncapped, asset-based fees ranging
from 28 basis points to 60 basis points, in addition to annual fees
of $75 per participant and $1,950 per employer.

Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs press four claims for relief
contending that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under 29
U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1) with respect to the Plan's recordkeeping,
administrative, and investment management fees, engaged in
prohibited transactions in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1106, and
that the Board of Directors and its individual members breached the
duty to monitor fiduciaries.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Sept. 15, 2020. On Dec. 11,
2020, the Court consolidated into this action a case filed on Oct.
13, 2020 by Richard Greenberg, Gregory S. Digsby, Lindsey Clark,
and Chrystal Lewis. The Plaintiffs then, on Dec. 28, 2020, filed a
consolidated class action complaint. The Court subsequently
appointed Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP as the interim class
counsel and granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated
class action complaint. The amended pleading was filed on March 5,
2021.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
supported by the Declaration of Robert D. Alin with exhibits and a
memorandum of law. The Plaintiffs filed opposition, and the motion
was fully briefed on June 4, 2021, with the filing of the
Defendants' reply memorandum of law.

II. Analysis

A. Documents Considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

The Defendants submitted to the Court the following documents
annexed to the Alin Declaration to support their motion to dismiss:
(1) the Plan's Form 5500 Annual Report for the plan year beginning
January 1, 2019; (2) the Plan Document, effective as of Jan. 1,
2018; (3) Federal Home Loan Bank of New York Plan Fee Disclosure
Statement for PSI services; (4) Services Agreement between the Plan
and PSI, effective as of Dec. 1, 2018; (5) By-Laws of the Board of
Directors of the Plan, as amended as of Jan. 1, 2010; (6) By-Laws
of the Board of Directors of the Plan, as amended as of Jan. 1,
2018; (7) Services Agreement between the Plan and PSI, effective as
of 2013; and (8) Plan Form 5500 Annual Report for the plan year
beginning Jan. 1, 2018. The Plaintiffs opposed that filing.

Judge Halpern opines that holds that each of these documents
contains substantive legal arguments that belong in the parties'
memoranda of law under Local Civil Rule 7.1(a)(2). Accordingly, he
disregards the Defendants' supplemental brief in support of their
request for judicial notice, the Plaintiffs' 11-page opposition
thereto, and the reply in further support of the application.

Judge Halpern notes, in any event, that the Court "is entitled to
consider facts alleged in the complaint and documents attached to
it or incorporated in it by reference, documents 'integral' to the
complaint and relied upon in it, and facts of which judicial notice
may properly be taken under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence." Even if a document is not incorporated into the
complaint by reference, the Court may consider it "where the
complaint 'relies heavily upon its terms and effect,' thereby
rendering the document 'integral' to the complaint." Moreover,
"courts regularly take notice of publicly available documents
including regulatory filings."

Accordingly, Judge Halpern considers the Defendants' exhibits
themselves only to the extent necessary and only as permitted by
the applicable case law to resolve the instant motion.

B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

1. Defendant PSI

The Defendants contend that PSI was not a fiduciary with respect to
the Plan and therefore, the claims alleged against it must fail.

Judge Halpern opines that the Plaintiffs have alleged that PSI was
a fiduciary, that it had a prior relationship to the Plan in that
Pinto was both a member of the Board of Directors and President of
PSI, and that there was a lack of market competition with respect
to PSI's contract in that there was no competitive bidding, there
were "automatic" contract renewals, and because PSI's compensation
relative to the market was excessive. He accepts the Plaintiff's
well-pled allegations as true and declines the invitation to engage
in a fact-finding missive at this juncture. The parties are free to
continue to probe this issue in discovery.

2. First and Third Claims for Relief: The Breach of Fiduciary
Duties Claims

The Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint presses two claims
of breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1): The
first claim for relief, which relates to excessive recordkeeping
and administrative fees, and the third claim for relief, which
relates to unreasonable investment management fees.

a. Duty of Prudence

Judge Halpern cannot conclude that the pleading contains
insufficient benchmarks for a meaningful comparison of fees at this
stage of the proceedings, where such a conclusion evidently
requires the Court to resolve fact disputes. The allegations are
each, and taken together, a plausible breach of the duty of
prudence. Simply put, the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to
withstand the motion to dismiss the breach of duty of prudence
claims set forth in the first claim for relief. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that it can be reasonably
inferred that Defendants breached their duty of prudence by
providing the higher-cost options. The motion to dismiss this claim
is, therefore, denied.

b. Duty of Loyalty

Judge Halpern granted the Defendants' motion to the extent the
first and third claims for relief allege a breach of the duty of
loyalty. He opines that because the Plaintiffs do not allege that
Pinto's relationship with PSI "caused him to take or fail to take
any actions detrimental to the Plan while he was wearing his
'fiduciary hat,'"  they have not sufficiently alleged a breach of
the duty of loyalty. The Plaintiffs also fail to allege sufficient
facts "that would support an inference of disloyalty, as opposed to
imprudence." Similarly, the retread allegations only further
complicate this pleading's already-muddied appearance.

C. Second Claim for Relief: The Prohibited Transactions Claim

The Plaintiffs second claim for relief alleges that PSI's provision
of administrative services to the Plan violates ERISA's prohibited
transaction rules. ERISA prohibits: (1) transactions between a plan
and a "party in interest," 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a)(1), and (2)
transactions between a plan and a fiduciary.

Judge Halpern opines that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently
that PSI is a party in interest. And while "reasonable" payments
for necessary services qualify for an exemption as the Defendants
argue, a plan is "entitled to recover" any excess above a
reasonable fee. The Plaintiffs have alleged that PSI received
excessive asset-based payments that exceeded reasonable
compensation for its services rendered to the Plan.

Moreover, Judge Halpern declines to hold as a matter of law at this
stage in the proceedings that PSI was not a fiduciary. He says, the
Defendants' remaining argument that PSI's interests were not
adverse to the Plan because PSI was "merely providing service to
the Plan for a fee," ignores the Plaintiffs' allegations,
including, inter alia, that PSI's fees were significantly higher
than prevailing market rates.

Accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true and drawing
inferences in a light most favorable to them, as the Court must at
this stage, Judge Halpern concludes that the Defendants have failed
to show that the second claim for relief should be dismissed.

D. Fourth Claim for Relief: The Breach of Duty to Monitor Claim

The Plaintiffs' fourth claim for relief for breach of the duty to
monitor is alleged against the Board of Directors and its
individual members. The Defendants principally contend that the
duty to monitor claim must be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have
failed to adequately allege any underlying fiduciary breach. They
also argue that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged what
the Plan's monitoring processes were or what systems should have
been in place to show how the monitoring process was deficient.

Judge Halpern holds that he has already determined that the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a breach of the fiduciary duty of
prudence. In addition, because the appropriate ERISA mandated
monitoring procedures vary according to the nature of the Plan at
issue and other facts and circumstances, an analysis of the precise
contours of the Defendants' duty to monitor at this stage is
premature. Accordingly, Judge Halpern denied the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the fourth claim for relief.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he outlined, Judge Halpern granted in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' first and third
claims only to the extent they allege breaches of the duty of
loyalty are dismissed. The parties will proceed with discovery on
the Plaintiffs' remaining claims -- the first and third claims
alleging breaches of the duty of prudence, the second claim for
prohibited transactions, and the fourth claim for breach of the
duty to monitor -- in accordance with the established schedule, as
amended.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion sequences pending at Doc. 93 and Doc. 105.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5t4zpwny from
Leagle.com.


PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Workers' OT After Onset of Kronos Hack
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES MADRIZ and RODNEY ULLOA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PEPSICO, INC.; NAKED JUICE CO.; NAKED
JUICE CO. OF GLENDORA, INC.; TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC.; TROPICANA
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES No. 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:22-cv-00549 (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) fails to pay overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' timekeeping and payroll
systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many
other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems
in timekeeping and payroll throughout Defendants' organizations. As
a result, the Defendants' workers who were not exempt from the
overtime requirements under federal and state law, were not paid
for all overtime hours worked or were not paid their proper
overtime premium after the onset of the Kronos hack.

Moises Madriz and Rodney Ulloa are each such workers for
Defendants. The Defendants could have easily implemented a system
to accurately record time and properly pay hourly and non-exempt
employees until issues related to the hack were resolved. But they
didn't. Instead, Defendants did not pay their non-exempt hourly and
salaried employees their full overtime premium for all overtime
hours worked, as required by federal and California law. The
Defendants pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in their workforce, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper wages for all hours
worked, including  overtime hours, violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and applicable state law.

Madriz and Ulloa bring this lawsuit to recover these unpaid wages
and other damages owed by Defendants to him and Defendants' similar
workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack,
but Defendants' decision to make their own workforce bear the
economic burden for the hack.

The Defendants are a food, snack, and beverage corporation. Many of
Defendants' employees are non-exempt hourly and salaried workers.
Since at least 2021, the Defendants have used timekeeping software
and hardware operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (310) 928 1277
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Damaris A. Martinez, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,
John Does 1 to 10, Case No. NJ, ESX-L-001086-22, was removed from
the Superior Court of Essex County, Law Div., to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on March 31, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01840 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1251 Avenue of The Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 548-2167
          Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


POWER BALANCE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Power Balance
Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Power Balance
Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02622 (S.D.N.Y., March 30,
2022).

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

Power Balance -- https://www.powerbalance.com/ -- is a leader in
performance technology, selling holographic wristbands trusted by
athletes worldwide.[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


PREMIER LACROSSE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Lacrosse
League, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Premier Lacrosse
League, Inc., Case No 1:22-cv-02664 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Premier Lacrosse League -- https://premierlacrosseleague.com/ -- is
an American professional field lacrosse league.[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


PRILLA INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prilla, Inc. The case
is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prilla, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02582
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Prilla, Inc. -- https://prilla.com/us/ -- offers a vast selection
of nicotine pouch brands and flavors delivered directly to
customers doorstep from their US warehouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Suit Over Undervalued "Total Loss" Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------------
fenderbender.com reports that Progressive Insurance faces a
potential class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania for using
unexplained adjustments to lower its actual cash value (ACV)
calculations in total loss cases.

According to a story by Insurance World, the lawsuit claims
Progressive "systematically adjusts the scale" when calculating
ACVs by applying "projected sales adjustments" to vehicle prices
from comparable occasion.

The plaintiffs claim that the adjustments are "misleading and
unexplained" and are "not based on facts, as they are contrary to
the pricing and inventory management practices of the used car
market".

The lawsuit was filed March 21, three days after a similar lawsuit
was filed against State Farm in an Illinois court. The Progressive
lawsuit seeks payments estimated at more than $5 million for
Pennsylvania customers, while State Farm plaintiffs seek
unspecified benefits for a proposed national class.

According to the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Progressive's practice
violates Pennsylvania consumer protection laws, its own political
language and professional standards.

"Appraisers use advertised prices and only make adjustments based
on observed and verifiable data; valuation standards do not permit
arbitrary adjustments to the advertised price based on undocumented
and unverifiable projections," the suit states. [GN]

PUBLIC BENEFIT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Public Benefit Corp.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Public Benefit Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-02676 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Benefit corporations -- https://benefitcorp.net/ --  or
public-benefit corporation are for-profit companies that want to
consider additional stakeholders in addition to making a profit for
their shareholders.[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


PURE FISHING: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Chung Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID CHUNG, Plaintiff v. PURE FISHING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-3983 (RPK) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Rachel
P. Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted Pure Fishing's motion to dismiss the complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiff Chung, a recreational fisherman, brings the lawsuit
against the Defendant, the maker of the "Berkley Gulp!" line of
bait. Mr. Chung started using "Berkley Gulp!" around 2015. Soon
afterward, he alleges, he learned that the containers in which the
bait is packaged are prone to leaking. Nevertheless, Mr. Chung
found the bait "highly effective." He kept buying the product until
August 2020, when he filed the lawsuit.

Mr. Chung filed the putative class action lawsuit on behalf of "all
persons who purchased one or more Gulp! replicator products in the
United States and its territories or possessions." His claims
center around the allegedly leaky containers. He alleges that Pure
Fishing breached express and implied warranties and violated the
MMWA through its sales of the product.He also alleges that Pure
Fishing committed fraud, made negligent misrepresentations, and
violated the consumer-protection provisions in Sections 349 and 350
of the New York GBL by failing to disclose the leakage
problem.Finally, he alleges that the company received unjust
enrichment from sales of the bait.

Mr. Chung claims that as a result of the product's propensity for
leakage, which Pure Fishing did not disclose, the company breached
express and implied warranties, violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA"), committed fraud, made negligent misrepresentations,
violated New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350
and similar consumer-protection laws of other States, and received
unjust enrichment.

Pure Fishing has moved to dismiss the complaint.

II. Discussion

A. Mr. Chung Has Failed to State a Claim for Violations of New
York's General Business Law

To successfully assert a claim under either section, a plaintiff
must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented
conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff
suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or
practice." A claim under these sections accrues when a plaintiff is
injured. The statute of limitations ends three years from the date
on which the claim accrues. Accordingly, Mr. Chung may only bring
claims under these sections for violations in the three years
between August 2017 and August 2020, when the complaint was filed.

Judge Kovner finds that Mr. Chung (i) has failed to adequately
plead a violation, within the statute of limitations, of Sections
349 and 350 of New York's GBL; (ii) errs in contending that the
continuing violations doctrine permits him to bring claims based on
purchases going as far back as 2015, when he first bought the
product; (ii) has failed to adequately plead that Pure Fishing
violated Sections 349 and 350 within the statute of limitations,
because he has not plausibly alleged that Pure Fishing engaged in
deceptive conduct that caused him injury in the past three years;
(iv) has failed to plead a violation of Sections 349 and 350 within
the statute of limitations because he has not adequately pleaded
any theory of injury. Mr. Chung acknowledges that he learned that
the containers in which "Berkley Gulp!" is packaged were prone to
leakage soon after he first bought the bait, but that he elected to
keep buying the product; (v) has not plausibly alleged that he was
tricked into paying a premium price, and he has not plausibly
alleged any other injury; and (vi) cannot allege that he was
deceived into purchasing the product at any time within the
limitations period.

B. Mr. Chung Fails to State a Claim for Breach of Warranty or
Violation of the MMWA

Judge Kovner holds that Mr. Chung falls short on his warranty
claims. To be entitled to recover for breach of an express or
implied warranty under New York law, "the buyer must within a
reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any
breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy."
This requirement means that plaintiffs "must allege some form of
timely, pre-litigation notice."

Judge Kovner finds that Mr. Chung has failed to adequately plead
breach of an express or implied warranty under New York law. Since
Mr. Chung has failed to plead breach of a warranty under New York
law, he has failed to state a claim under the MMWA. Amendment of
Mr. Chung's warranty claims would be futile because Mr. Chung has
conceded that he provided no pre-suit notice to Pure Fishing.
Accordingly, Mr. Chung's breach of warranty and MMWA claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

C. Mr. Chung Fails to State a Claim for Fraud

Mr. Chung has not adequately pleaded fraud, Judge Kovner states. To
plead fraud under New York law, a plaintiff must allege "(1) a
material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by a
defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud;
(4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5)
resulting damage to the plaintiff.

Judge Kovner holds that Mr. Chung has failed to adequately plead
fraud. First, his vague descriptions of the asserted omission do
not satisfy Rule 9(b). Second, Mr. Chung fails to demonstrate a
duty to disclose because he has failed to adequately allege that he
could not have learned about the leaky containers through
reasonable inquiry. Mr. Chung therefore offers "no allegations that
show that Pure Fishing was in possession of any information
relevant to the defect that was not also possessed by outside third
parties."

D. Mr. Chung's Failure to Allege a Special Relationship Requires
the Dismissal of his Negligent-Misrepresentation Claim

Mr. Chung has failed to state a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, Judge Kovner finds. To state a claim for
negligent misrepresentation under New York law, a plaintiff must
allege "(1) the existence of a special or privity-like relationship
imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to
the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect or withheld;
and (3) reasonable reliance on the information or omission."

Judge Kovner finds that (i) Mr. Chung has not set out facts
suggesting that it is the rare case in which a buyer and product
manufacturer have a relationship so close as to approach privity of
contract; and (ii) the slogan "catch more fish" is not a scientific
or technical claim of this sort and while the label's claim that
the product increases scent dispersion by "up to 400x" might
qualify as a scientific or technical claim, Mr. Chung has not
suggested that this claim is inaccurate. In sum, Mr. Chung has
failed to plead a special relationship that would sustain a
negligent-misrepresentation claim.

E. Mr. Chung's Unjust-Enrichment Claim Is Duplicative

Judge Kovner holds that Mr. Chung has also failed to adequately
plead unjust enrichment. An "unjust enrichment claim is not
available where it simply duplicates, or replaces, a conventional
contract or tort claim." "Two claims are duplicative of one another
if they 'arise from the same facts and do not allege distinct
damages.'"

Mr. Chung does not assert that his unjust-enrichment claim arises
from different facts than those at issue in his other claims, or
that he is seeking distinct damages. Instead, he urges that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8 allows him to plead unjust enrichment and
other claims in the alternative. Yet "even pleaded in the
alternative, claims for unjust enrichment will not survive a motion
to dismiss where plaintiffs fail to explain how their
unjust-enrichment claim is not merely duplicative of their other
causes of action." Since Mr. Chung has failed to do so, his
unjust-enrichment claim is dismissed.

F. Mr. Chung Lacks Standing to Bring Claims Under Other States'
Consumer Protection Laws

Insofar as he seeks to do so, Mr. Chung may not bring claims under
other states' consumer protection laws, Judge Kovner rules. He
finds that Mr. Chung is a citizen of New York, and does not allege
that he bought or used the product outside New York. He
nevertheless alleges that Pure Fishing's conduct also violates the
consumer protection statutes of other states. And he seeks to raise
those allegations "on behalf of the class" that he wishes to
represent.

"Where plaintiffs themselves do not state a claim under their
respective state's consumer statutes, however, they do not have
standing to bring claims under other state statutes—even where
they are named plaintiffs in a purported class action." Given that
Mr. Chung's claim under New York's consumer protection statute
fails, Mr. Chung lacks standing to bring claims under other states'
consumer protection laws.

III. Conclusion

Judge Kovner granted Pure Fishing's motion to dismiss. Mr. Chung
may file a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint within
30 days. Any such motion should include the proposed amended
complaint as an exhibit and explain why leave to amend should be
granted. If Mr. Chung does not seek leave to amend within thirty
days, judgment will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/42zzchxd from Leagle.com.


PURPOSE POINT: Faces Labor Class Suit Over Human Trafficking
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Gomez-Echeverria and Hervil Gomez-Echeverria, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Purpose Point
Harvesting LLC, Emilto Moreno Gomez, and Lucille Jean Moreno, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00314 (W.D. Mich., March 31, 2022) is a class action
complaint for human trafficking and labor exploitation brought by
low‐income migrant farmworkers who were brought to Michigan by
Defendants to work on farms in Newaygo County and the surrounding
areas.

According to the complaint, the Defendants acted together to charge
plaintiffs illegal recruitment fees, confiscated travel documents
when Plaintiffs arrived in the United States, and paid Plaintiffs
less than the contract wage and, at times, the minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants individually
and jointly for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), the civil RICO statute, the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act, and for compensation under the Michigan Human Trafficking
Victims Compensation Act

The Plaintiffs are migrant agricultural workers who were employed
by Purpose Point to perform agricultural labor in Michigan through
the H‐2a program.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in Newaygo County, Michigan,
at a variety of farms.

Defendant Purpose Point is a company owned and operated by
Defendants Emilto and Lucille. Defendant Emilto recruits workers
and oversees day to day operations of employees.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Teresa Hendricks, Esq.
          Benjamin O'Hearn, Esq.
          Molly Spaak, Esq.
          MIGRANT LEGAL AID
          1104 Fuller Ave. NE
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503‐1371
          Telephone: (616) 454‐5055
          E-mail: thendricks@migrantlegalaid.com
                  bohearn@migrantlegalaid.com
                  mspaak@migrantlegalaid.com

REALOGY BROKERAGE: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Bumpus TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH BUMPUS, et al., individually, and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. REALOGY BROKERAGE
GROUP LLC (F/K/A NRT LLC), et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-03309-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

I. Background

Named Plaintiffs Sarah Bumpus, Micheline Peker, and Cheryl Rowan
seek certification of multiple classes for Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) claims against Defendants Realogy and Mojo
Dialing Solutions. Realogy operates large real estate
conglomerates, which include brands like Coldwell Banker and
Sotheby International Realty. It contracts with thousands of real
estate agents across the country to identify and reach out to leads
for residential sales. Mojo is an autodialing and lead generation
platform used by real estate agents, including Realogy's agents.

The Named Plaintiffs are individual home owners in California,
Minnesota, and Florida. The Plaintiffs allege that they received
unwanted calls from Realogy Agents affiliated with Coldwell Banker
asking them to list their homes for sale. Plaintiffs Rowan and
Peker also received prerecorded messages from Realogy agents. The
Plaintiffs allege that the unwanted calls violated the TCPA.

The Plaintiffs ask to certify four classes under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3):

     (1) A National Do Not Call Registry Nationwide (NDNC) class
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of all persons in the
United States who received two or more calls made by a Coldwell
Banker-affiliated Agent using a Mojo, PhoneBurner, and/or Storm
dialer in any 12 month period on a residential landline or cell
phone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for
at least 31 days for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to
present;

     (2) A National Internal Do Not Call (Internal DNC) class under
Rule 23(b)(2) consisting of all persons in the United States who
received, in any 12-month period, two or more calls promoting
Coldwell Banker's services and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated
Agent to their residential landline or cell phone number, for the
time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present;

     (3) A National Artificial or Prerecorded Message (Prerecorded
Message) class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of all
persons in the United States who received a call on their
residential telephone line or cell phone number with an artificial
or prerecorded message, as indicated by the following call
disposition codes: (1) 'Drop Message' (if using the Mojo dialer);
(2) 'ATTENDED_TRANSFER' (if using the Storm dialer; and (3)
'VOICEMAIL' (if using a PhoneBurner dialer) in the call records
listed in Appendix A and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent
for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present; and

     (4) An Artificial or Prerecorded Message Mojo (Prerecorded
Message Mojo) class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of
all persons in the United States who received a call on their
residential telephone line or cell phone number with an artificial
or prerecorded message, as indicated by the call disposition code
Drop Message in the call records listed in Appendix A and made by a
Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a Mojo dialer for the time
period beginning June 11, 2015, to present.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs must show that their proposed classes satisfy all
four requirements of Rule 23(a), and at least one of the
subsections of Rule 23(b). As the parties seeking certification,
they bear the burden of showing that the requirements of Rule 23
are met for each of their proposed classes.

First, Judge Donato hods that his analysis based on evidence in the
record, entails reasonable and appropriate methods, and yields
reliable results that establish numerosity. The blunderbuss of
challenges that Mojo and Realogy fire at Verkhovskaya do not lead
to a different conclusion. They question at length her ability to
match phone numbers to names. But for present purposes, namely the
determination of whether Verkhovskaya's report is adequate to
demonstrate numerosity, matching names to numbers is not a material
concern. What matters for numerosity is that the report readily
demonstrates that the proposed classes are comprised of hundreds of
thousands of individuals. To the extent the Defendants are
suggesting a question of ascertainability, that factor is not a
requirement of certification.

Second, the Defendants have not made a persuasive challenge to
typicality or adequacy. Consequently, these elements of Rule 23(a)
are met. Mojo and Realogy dispute typicality and adequacy only for
named Plaintiffs Sarah Bumpus and Micheline Peker. But, James
Donato finds that the Plaintiffs have proffered evidence showing
that Plaintiff Bumpus repeatedly told Realogy agents not to call
her again when they started calling her to list her home with them.
This evidence, which is largely undisputed, overcomes Realogy's
objections. Mojo also does not cite to any good law holding that
Peker was required to remember a call from a Realogy agent to have
a TCPA claim or represent a class.

Third, Judge Donato finds it appropriate to assess commonality and
predominance in tandem, with a careful eye toward ensuring that the
specific requirements of each are fully satisfied. He finds that
(i) the evidence indicates that Plaintiffs' claims can be proved
through common evidence, and that common questions predominate;
(ii) the class certification for the Prerecorded Message Mojo
Subclass is denied because the Plaintiffs have not adduced any
evidence that shows Mojo initiated the calls on a classwide basis;
(iii) the Plaintiffs have adequately provided a damages model for
their proposed classes; and (iv) there can be no doubt that a class
is the superior method of handling these TCPA claims.

Fourth, a (b)(2) class is certified only for the Internal DNC
class. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the Internal DNC class solely
as an injunctive relief class under Rule 23(b)(2). They also seek
to certify the NDNC, Prerecorded Message, and Prerecorded Message
Mojo classes under both Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2). They
request injunctive relief in the form of a requirement that Realogy
create and maintain minimum standards for its internal do not call
list.

Judge Donato holds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden for
proving the Rule 23(a) requirements for the NDNC, Internal DNC, and
Prerecorded Message classes but not for the Prerecorded Message
Mojo Class. Realogy objects that plaintiffs primarily seek monetary
relief on their claims, making certification of a (b)(2) class
inappropriate. That is certainly not true for the Internal DNC
class, for which the Plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief and no
monetary relief. For the other classes, it is true that
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is not appropriate for claims
where monetary relief predominates. That is not to say that
injunctive relief is ruled out for the (b)(3) classes. Rather, such
relief may be awarded in addition to a monetary recovery.
Consequently, a (b)(2) class is certified only for the Internal DNC
class.

III. Conclusion

Judge Donato certified the NDNC class and Prerecorded Message class
under Rule 23(b)(3). He certified the Internal DNC class under Rule
23(b)(2). Certification is denied for a Prerecorded Message Mojo
class.

Plaintiff Sarah Bumpus is appointed the class representative of the
NDNC class and Internal DNC class. Plaintiffs Cheryl Rowan and
Micheline Pecker are appointed the class representatives of the
Prerecorded Message class. Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Reese LLP, and
Kaufman P.A. are appointed as the class counsel for all three
classes.

The Plaintiffs are directed to file by April 22, 2022, a proposed
plan for dissemination of notice to the classes. They will meet and
confer with the Defendants at least 10 days in advance of
submitting the plan so that the proposal can be submitted on a
joint basis, to the fullest extent possible.

A status conference is set for May 26, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The
parties are directed to file a joint statement by May 19, 2022,
with proposed dates for the final pretrial conference and trial.

The parties are further referred to Magistrate Judge Hixon for a
settlement conference to be held as his schedule permits.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4t7uf8up from Leagle.com.


RECOVERY AGENTS: Faces Zahriyeh Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABDEL ZAHRIYEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE RECOVERY AGENTS LLC AND JACOB BABINS, Case No.
CACE-22-004718 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., March 30, 2022) is a class
action under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Defendants allegedly engage in telephonic sales calls to
consumers without having secured prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA. The Defendants' telephonic sales calls have
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of their privacy, the lawsuit says.

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

On March-2022, the Defendants began sending telephonic sales calls
to Plaintiffs cellular telephone number. The Defendants called
Plaintiff from multiple different numbers, including, but not
limited to, 954-710-9346 and 561 -808-2892. The purpose of
Defendant's telephonic sales call was to solicit the sale of
consumer goods and/or services.

The Plaintiff was in Florida when she received the above call
mentioned calls, and Defendant's violative conduct occurred in
substantial part in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street, 17th Floor
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: www.JibraelLaw.com

ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocky Mountain
ATV/MC. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rocky Mountain
ATV/MC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02579 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Rocky Mountain ATV/MC -- https://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/ -- is
a one-stop shop for motocross, ADV, UTV, ATV, dirt bike and street
bike gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SAF-HOLLAND INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SAF-Holland, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAF-Holland, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02621 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

SAF-HOLLAND -- https://safholland.com/us/en/ -- is one of the
leading international manufacturers of chassis-related assemblies
and components for trailers, trucks and buses.[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


SCOTT SHAW: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott Shaw, et al.
The case is styled as Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Scott Shaw, Trustees of the California State
University, California State University-San Jose, an Unincorporated
Association Form Unknown, Case No. 22CV395973 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 18, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Civil Rights Unlimited."

Scott Shaw is the former Director of Sports Medicine and athletic
trainer at San Jose State University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St. 3FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-495-7800
          Fax: 415-495-7888
          Email: rsa@arnslaw.com



SHORE FUNDING: Floyd Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Floyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHORE FUNDING SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York corporation,
Case No. 5:22-cv-01746-VKD (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the telephones
of consumers nationwide without their prior express consent; and
obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.
Plaintiff also seeks an award of statutory damages to the members
of the Class, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its implementing
regulations, prohibit companies, such as the Defendant, from
placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice"
("prerecorded calls") and/or an ATDS ("autodialed calls") to
telephones without first obtaining consent.

The Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and
its regulations by placing prerecorded and/or autodialed calls to
telephone subscribers who have not expressly consented to receiving
such calls. In an effort to obtain leads for its services, the
Defendant made (or directed to be made on its behalf) prerecorded
calls to the telephones of the Plaintiff and other members of the
alleged class without first obtaining express consent to do
so—all in violation of the TCPA.

By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, the
Defendant caused Plaintiff and the members of the Class actual harm
and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation and
nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of
such calls, in addition to a loss of value realized for the monies
consumers paid to their wireless carriers for the receipt of such
calls. Furthermore, the calls interfered with the Plaintiff's and
the other class members' use and enjoyment of their phones,
including the related data, software, and hardware components. The
Defendant also caused substantial injury to their phones by causing
wear and tear on their property, consuming battery life, and
appropriating cellular minutes and data, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Floyd is a natural person who resides in the city of
Campbell in Santa Clara County, California.

Shore Funding is a "one stop lending source" company that provides
loans and funding solutions for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca Davis, Esq.
          LOZEAU DRURY LLP
          1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 836-4200
          Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
          Email: rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 216-0676
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


THIARA LIQUORS: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Esquivel Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
YULY ESQUIVEL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. THIARA LIQUORS INC. d/b/a BRIGHTWATERS WINE & LIQUORS,
BAY SHORE WINE AND LIQUOR, SMITHTOWN SPIRITS, INC. d/b/a SMITHTOWN
WINE & LIQUORS, and HARVINDER THIARA, Case No. 2:22-cv-01811
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022)alleges that the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff premium overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff at least at the
minimum wage rate for all hours worked, in violation of the NYLL;
failed to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period
under NYLL section 195(3); and failed to furnish a proper wage
notice at his time of hire under NYLL section 195(1).

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against the Defendants pursuant
to the collective action of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on
behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period
who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' willful
violations of the FLSA.

Specifically, for the period of October 3, 2016, through October
2017, the Plaintiff worked at Defendant Brightwaters' location; for
the period of November 2017 through May 2018, the Plaintiff worked
at Defendant Smithtown's location; during the period of July 2019
through July 2021, Plaintiff worked at Defendant Bay Shore's
location; and finally from August 2021 through October 21, 2021,
Plaintiff returned to Defendant Brightwaters' location. At all
times during the Relevant Period, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant Thiara.

Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in
a workweek. Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work, and did in
fact work, either six or seven days per week, from 10:00 a.m. until
8:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and from 10:00 a.m. until 9:00
p.m., on Fridays and Saturdays, and occasionally from 10:00 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m. on Sundays, each week that she worked, for a total
of between 62 and 69 hours per week.

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

The Corporate Defendant operates a liquor store selling wines and
spirits, with its principal place of business located at 1241
Sunrise Highway, Bay Shore, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
           LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO, P.L.L.C.
           490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
           Hauppauge, NY 11788
           Telephone: (631) 257-5588
           E-mail: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com

TWITTER INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Weston Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WESTON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LLLP; THE TWITTER INVESTOR
GROUP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and KHAN M. HASAN; KHAFRE BARCLIFT,
Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC.; JACK DORSEY; SEGAL,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-17465 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the lawsuit.

I. Introduction

Every day, millions of people use Twitter to share and read news,
offer (often horrendous) hot takes, and fire off mean tweets.
Twitter, in turn, mines the personal data of its users to better
target advertisements. In August 2019, Twitter revealed that it had
inadvertently shared with advertisers the personal data of users
who had opted out of data-sharing, but it reassured its users that
it had "fixed these issues." A few months later during its
quarterly earnings announcement, Twitter disclosed that software
bugs had hampered its advertisement customization and that it had
suffered a $25 million revenue shortfall. The plaintiffs then filed
this securities fraud lawsuit, alleging that Twitter had misled
investors by hiding the scope of its software bugs when it touted
its latest advertisement initiative.

Securities laws, however, do not require real-time business updates
or complete disclosure of all material information whenever a
company speaks on a particular topic. To the contrary, a company
can speak selectively about its business so long as its statements
do not paint a misleading picture. Twitter's statements about its
advertising program were not false or misleading because they were
qualified and factually true. The company had no duty to disclose
any more than it did under federal securities law.

II. Background

Twitter operates a social media platform that allows people to
share short 280-character messages to the public. Like most social
media outlets, Twitter does not charge its users but rather earns
money through advertising. Twitter shares certain user data--e.g.,
cell phone location data--with companies that pay more for ads
tailored to certain users. But because of privacy concerns, Twitter
has permitted users to opt out of such data-sharing since 2017.

At issue is Twitter's Mobile App Promotion ("MAP") product, which
allows advertisers to prompt users to download their apps onto
their phones or tablets. MAP is most effective when an advertiser
knows information about the user's device settings, such as its
operating system or which apps the user has already downloaded.
Twitter has highlighted MAP as an important driver of Twitter's
future revenue growth, and has invested in an improved, next
generation MAP product.

Despite its earlier pledge to allow user opt-outs, Twitter
announced in a May 13, 2019 blog post that it had discovered
software bugs that caused sharing of cell phone location data of
its users. It, however, told its users that it had fixed the
problems. Then about three months later on August 6, Twitter
announced in a tweet that it had again accidentally shared user
data with advertisers, even for those who had opted out.

When Twitter said that it had "fixed these issues," it did not mean
resolving the software bugs, which proved to be difficult. Rather,
Twitter had stopped sharing user data for its MAP advertising
program altogether. This meant no data-sharing for all users and
thus also less revenue from MAP. Twitter did not disclose these
facts at that time. And according to the complaint, Jack Dorsey,
Twitter's Chief Executive Officer, and Ned Segal, its Chief
Financial Officer, had access to the company's key performance
metrics, including Cost Per Ad Engagement, which allegedly would
have flagged this brewing problem with MAP.

Finally, about 11 weeks later on October 24, Twitter in its
quarterly earnings report disclosed the software bugs hampering MAP
and reported a $25 million revenue shortfall. In response to this
news, some analysts downgraded the stock and the share price
dropped over 20%.

Within five days of this announcement, Khan Hasan, an individual
investor, filed a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who bought Twitter's stock between July 26, 2019 and Oct. 23, 2019
against Twitter and its two top executives, Dorsey and Segal. Under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4, the district court consolidated it with
another similar action, and named the Weston Family Partnership,
LLP and the Twitter Investor Group as co-lead plaintiffs and
counsel for the class.

The Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5,
17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. It also included a claim against
Dorsey and Segal for control person liability under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t.

The Plaintiffs allege that these statements were false or
materially misleading:

     (1) Twitter's July 26, 2019 shareholder letter and July 31,
2019 Form 10-Q stated the company is continuing [its] work to
increase the stability, performance, and flexibility of its ads
platform and MAP, but that it is not there yet and that this work
will take place over multiple quarters, with a gradual impact on
revenue. Segal added that the company is still in the middle of
that work relating to MAP improvements, and that it is still at the
state where he believes that you would see its impact be gradual in
nature. The Plaintiffs allege that these statements are false
because the defendants did not disclose the software bugs allegedly
plaguing MAP then and suggested that MAP was on track.

     (2) The Form 10-Q also contained warnings that the company's
products and services may contain undetected software errors, which
could harm its business and operating results. The Plaintiffs claim
that this statement is misleading because Twitter supposedly knew
by this time that software errors would—not just may—harm the
bottom line.

     (3) Because of the allegedly false or misleading statements in
the 10-Q filing, Twitter's Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) certifications
signed by Dorsey and Segal were also false or misleading.

     (4) On Aug. 6, 2019, the company issued a tweet that stated:
We recently discovered and fixed issues related to your settings
choices for the way we deliver personalized ads, and when we share
certain data with trusted management and advertising partners, and
Twitter's Help Center claimed that it fixed these issues on Augu.
5, 2019. The Plaintiffs assert that this statement misleadingly
suggested Twitter had solved the software bugs, not just the
privacy leak.

     (5) On Sept. 4, 2019 at an investor conference, Segal stated
that the company's MAP work is ongoing and that Twitter continued
to sell the existing MAP product. The Plaintiffs again claim that
Twitter failed to disclose the scope of the software bugs hindering
MAP.

     (6) At the same conference, Segal stated that Asia has tended
to be more MAP-focused historically. This statement, according to
the Plaintiffs, glossed over MAP's software bugs. The Defendants
filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing that the
Plaintiffs failed to (1) allege statements that are materially
false or misleading, or are otherwise actionable; (2) establish a
strong inference of scienter; and (3) establish loss causation. The
district court granted the motion on the first two grounds, but it
did not address loss causation. And because the Section 20(a)
control liability claim relies on the same allegations as the
Section 10(b) claim, the district court also dismissed it. The
district court granted leave to amend, but the Plaintiffs did not
file an amended complaint and instead filed the notice of appeal.
Then several days later, the district court sua sponte considered
the claims dismissed and closed the case.

III. Analysis

A. The Court Has Appellate Jurisdiction Because the District Court
Ultimately Issued a Final Order

To start, the Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
hear the appeal because the Plaintiffs appealed a non-final order.
The Defendants rest their argument on WMX Techs. v. Miller, 104
F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). In that case, WMX sought appellate
review of an order in which the district court dismissed some of
its claims with leave to amend.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction
because "a plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not
file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file
an amended complaint. A further district court determination must
be obtained."  That last sentence is key: Unlike in the case, the
district court in that case had not received a "further district
court determination" -- a final order dismissing the case—by the
time we heard the appeal. So the district court never cured the
premature appeal under Rule 4(a)(2). In the case, the district
court issued a final order dismissing the case, giving us
jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

B. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim Under Section 10(b) Because
Twitter's Statements Are Not False or Materially Misleading

To state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, the complaint must plausibly allege: "(1) a material
misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) a
connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the
purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the
misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation.

The Plaintiffs must also overcome several hurdles to successfully
plead a claim under Section 10(b). First, under the PSLRA's
particularity requirements and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b), allegations of "fraud must be accompanied by the who, what,
when, where, and how of the misconduct charged." Second, an
allegedly misleading statement must be "capable of objective
verification." Finally, even if a statement is objectively false or
misleading, the PSLRA provides a "safe harbor" for forward-looking
statements if such statements are either identified as
forward-looking and accompanied by a meaningful cautionary
statement, or if the plaintiff fails to show that the statement was
made with actual knowledge that it was false or misleading.

The Circuit opines that (i) Twitter had no legal duty to disclose
immediately the software bugs in its MAP program, especially given
that its earlier statements about MAP's progress were qualified and
vague; (ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege falsity
based on their theory that the software issues had materialized and
impacted revenue in July; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' challenge of
Twitter's July 2019 statements in its shareholder letter and 10-Q
fails for another reason: They were identified as forward-looking
statements and fall within the safe harbor of the Exchange Act.

C. The District Court Properly Dismissed the Section 20(a) Claims

Under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, "certain 'controlling'
individuals are also liable for violations of section 10(b) and its
underlying regulations." Because a Section 20(a) claim is
derivative, "a defendant employee of a corporation who has violated
the securities laws will be jointly and severally liable to the
Plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff demonstrates 'a primary
violation of federal securities law' and that 'the defendant
exercised actual power or control over the primary violator.'" But,
the Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a primary violation of
Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 by any defendant. Thus, control person
liability under Section 20(a) cannot survive.

IV. Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2up8v5ev from Leagle.com.

Tamar Weinrib -- taweinrib@pomlaw.com -- (argued) and Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, in New York
City; Jeffrey P. Campisi, Robert N. Kaplan, and Jason A. Uris,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, in New York City; Laurence D. King and
Mario M. Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, in Oakland, California;
Shannon L. Hopkins and Andrew E. Lencyk, Levi & Korinsky LLP, in
Stamford, Connecticut; for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Susan E. Engel -- susan.engel@lw.com -- (argued), Andrew B. Clubok
-- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- and Matthew Peters --
matthew.peters@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, in Washington, D.C.;
Michele D. Johnson, Latham & Watkins LLP, in Costa Mesa,
California; Elizabeth L. Deeley and Nicholas Rosellini, Latham &
Watkins LLP, in San Francisco, California; for the
Defendants-Appellees.


USPACK LOGISTICS: Denial of Arbitration in Easterday Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL EASTERDAY, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USPACK LOGISTICS LLC,
Defendant, Civil No. 15-7559 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.), Judge Robert B.
Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Camden Vicinage, affirmed Judge Donio's June 30, 2021 order denying
the Defendant's renewed motion to compel arbitration.

I. Background

Plaintiff Michael Easterday is a former employee of the Defendant.
US Pack provides courier services throughout the Northeastern
United States for companies selling pharmacy-related services to
customers in the health care industry. The Plaintiff worked as a
courier for US Pack, delivering medicine and other pharmaceutical
products on behalf of the company.

The Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, namely other delivery drivers for US Pack. He
alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and other drivers as
independent contractors, thereby subjecting them to improper
deductions from pay and denial of overtime pay. He brings causes of
action for violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the
Overtime Wage and Hour Law, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff signed an employment contract which contains a
binding arbitration agreement. The Arbitration Provision then sets
forth the process by which arbitration will take place.

The Defendant first moved to compel arbitration in November 2015.
In response, the Plaintiff argued that the Court could not compel
arbitration because he, as a transportation worker engaged in
interstate commerce, was subject to the FAA's "Section 1
Exemption."

In February 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in New
Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S.Ct. 532 (2019), a case that would
directly address the issue of whether a distinction existed between
employees and independent contractors for purposes of the FAA's
Section 1 Exemption. Accordingly, in December 2018, Judge Donio
ordered that the proceedings in the current case be stayed pending
the Supreme Court's decision in New Prime. In January 2019, the
Supreme Court held in New Prime that the Section 1 Exemption
applies to both independent contractors and employees, finding that
a distinction between the two categories of workers was
immaterial.

On Feb. 27, 2019, Judge Donio held a telephone conference in which
both parties agreed that the Supreme Court's decision in New Prime
resolved the issue of whether the Plaintiff fell within the FAA's
Section 1 Exemption. She therefore held in an April 2020 order that
the Plaintiff was excluded from the FAA's coverage.

After reaching this determination, Judge Donio moved to the
question of whether the Plaintiff could be compelled to arbitrate
his claims under any other law. She held that because the
Arbitration Provision was silent as to the application of any state
law in the event that the FAA was deemed inapplicable, Defendant
failed to demonstrate mutual assent to arbitrate under state law.

At the time of Judge Donio's April 2020 order, there existed an
inconsistency within New Jersey appellate courts on whether a court
should apply the New Jersey Arbitration Act ("NJAA") in the event
of the FAA's inapplicability. This inconsistency was settled by the
New Jersey Supreme Court in July 2020 in Arafa v. Health Express
Corporation, 233 A.3d 495 (N.J. 2020), ("Arafa II"). In Arafa II,
the New Jersey Supreme Court held that NJAA applies automatically
as a matter of law to all non-exempted arbitration agreements made
on or after its Jan. 1, 2003 effective date. Id. at 506. Further,
NJAA will apply even if not explicitly mentioned in an arbitration
agreement, as its application is "automatic."

On May 23, 2020, the Defendant appealed Judge Donio's April 2020
decision to the District Court. On Dec. 4, 2020, the Court vacated
Judge Donio's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Following the Court December 2020 opinion, the parties submitted
supplemental briefing on the Defendant's renewed motion to compel
arbitration under the NJAA. In her June 30, 2021 Order, Judge Donio
denied request to compel arbitration.

On July 28, 2021, the Defendant appealed Judge Donio's June 30,
2021 order denying its request to compel arbitration. It argues
that Judge Donio's June 2021 order is "expressly at odds" with the
Court's December 2020 opinion. It points to several decisions by
the New Jersey Appellate Division and in the District of New Jersey
which it claims demonstrate trending case law favoring enforcement
of arbitration provisions since Arafa II was decided.

In response to the Defendant's appeal, the Plaintiff argues that
Judge Donio was correct to hold that Arafa II does not require a
court to automatically compel arbitration, but rather requires an
additional finding that the arbitration provision meets the
relevant contractual standards in New Jersey outlined in Atalese v.
U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 99 A.3d 306, 315 (N.J. 2014) and
reiterated in Arafa II. The Plaintiff further argues that the
Defendant misrepresented the similarities between the Arbitration
Provision in the present case and the provisions considered in
Arafa II and that Judge Donio properly distinguished the language
present in the Plaintiff's agreement.

II. Discussion

Judge Donio's rulings on the applicability and impact of Arafa II
and the validity of the arbitration clause under New Jersey law are
legal conclusions, so Judge Kugler reviews each de novo.

A. Arafa II's Mandate

The Defendants contend that Judge Donio erred in holding that the
New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Arafa II did not require her
to enforce the Arbitration Provision. Arafa II stands for the joint
propositions that where an arbitration agreement made under the FAA
is found to be exempt from the same, the NJAA "applies
automatically as a matter of law to all non-exempted arbitration
agreements from its January 1, 2003 effective date on," and that
because of this automatic application, "no express mention of the
NJAA is required to establish a meeting of the minds that it will
apply."

Judge Kugler opines that after holding that the NJAA applied
automatically to the arbitration provision at issue even in the
absence of express language, the New Jersey Supreme Court next
considered whether the provision should be enforced. Specifically,
it looked to whether there was mutual assent and a clear and
unambiguous waiver of rights.

In the Court's prior opinion, it recognized that Arafa II requires
automatic application of the NJAA, but not automatic enforcement of
an arbitration provision. In that decision, the Court noted that a
court should "automatically apply the NJAA and grant a motion
compelling arbitration if it otherwise determines that the standard
to grant a motion to compel is satisfied." Arafa II promotes the
federal and statewide policy favoring arbitration by automatically
applying the NJAA even when the parties have not expressly agreed
to do so. It does not, however, abrogate a court's responsibility
to ensure that an arbitration provision is valid and enforceable
under traditional standards of contract formation.

B. Mutual Assent and Waiver

The Defendants further contend that Judge Donio erred in holding
the Arbitration Provision to be unenforceable because it failed to
establish a clear waiver of the Plaintiff's rights. Because the
Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that there is a question as
to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, the Defendant's motion
will be reviewed using a summary judgment standard. The Defendant's
motion should therefore be denied if the Plaintiff can establish
that there is a genuine dispute as to the enforceability of the
arbitration clause.

Judge Kuger opines that the failure of the Arbitration Provision to
mirror the language found enforceable in Arafa II is not fatal to
the Defendant's argument that the Provision should be enforced,
especially in light of the New Jersey Supreme Court's statement
that "no magical language is needed to accomplish a waiver of
rights in an arbitration agreement." What is fatal to Defendant's
argument, however, is the lack of a clear and unambiguous waiver in
the Arbitration Provision.

The key purpose of the waiver requirement is to ensure that a
plaintiff knows he is giving up his right to bring his claims in
court or to have a jury resolve the dispute. The language in the
Arbitration Provision that comes closest to meeting this
requirement is the language above the signature block informing the
signee that the Contract contains a binding arbitration provision
that affects his legal rights. The Arbitration Provision, however,
does not explain what these legal rights are (i.e., the right to
bring suit in court), nor does it explain how these legal rights
are affected by the Arbitration Provision (i.e., they are waived
entirely). The Defendant argues that this language was sufficient
to inform the Plaintiff that he waived "certain rights" by agreeing
to be bound by the Provision.

In evaluating the enforceability of arbitration agreements,
however, Judge Kugler holds that New Jersey law requires that the
agreement do more than inform the parties that they have waived
"certain rights" -- the parties must be informed that they have
waived their right to bring suit in a judicial forum.

C. Atalese's Applicability to Non-Consumer Fraud Cases

The Defendant makes an additional argument that the New Jersey
Supreme Court's holding in Atalese does not apply to the case at
hand, citing an unpublished decision of the Superior Court of New
Jersey. 1567 South Realty, LLC v. Strategic Contract Brands, Inc.,
No. A-0935-10T2, 2020 WL 3864974 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020).
It argues that the holding in Atalese is a "heightened standard"
that is "only applicable in the context of consumer fraud cases."

This argument fails for two reasons, Judge Kugler says. First, this
argument misrepresents the holding in 1567 South Realty. The court
in 1567 South Realty did distinguish the commercial construction
contract before it from the consumer fraud context of Atalese.

Second, if the Court were to apply the holding of 1567 South Realty
to the facts at hand, the Plaintiff is much more similar to the
"average member of the public" discussed in Atalese than he is to
the business-owner plaintiffs in 1567 South Realty who negotiated
contracts daily. The Plaintiff, an individual working as a delivery
driver for the Defendant, did not have the same bargaining power or
level of legal sophistication as Subcontracting Concepts, Inc., the
other party to the Contract and a contract management services
company.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons contained in his Opinion, Judge Kugler affirmed
Judge Donio's June 30, 2021 order. An order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/97pmwe3m from Leagle.com.


VOLTA INC: Faces Kampe Securities Class Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAROLINE KAMPE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VOLTA INC., SCOTT MERCER, and FRANCOIS P. CHADWICK,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02055 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Volta securities between August 2, 2021 and
March 28, 2022, inclusive pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 26, 2021, Volta Industries, Inc., a private entity, and
Tortoise Acquisition Corp. II, a special purpose acquisition
company, completed a business combination pursuant to which the
combined entity was named Volta Inc.

On March 2, 2022, after the market closed, Volta revealed that the
financial impact of the restatement of its third quarter 2021
financial results was greater than previously disclosed, expecting
to report a net loss of $69.7 million for the quarter. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.11, or 2.6%, to close at
$4.01 per share on March 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on March 21, 2022, Volta announced that it would reschedule
its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.38, or 8.4% to close at
$4.12 per share on March 21, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Then, on March 28, 2022, Volta announced that its founders, Scott
Mercer and Christopher Wendel, had resigned from their positions as
CEO and President, respectively, and from the Board of Directors of
the Company. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.76, or
18%, to close at $3.37 per share on March 28, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that Volta 11 had improperly accounted for
restricted stock units issued in connection with the Business
Combination.

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

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

Volta partners with real estate and retail businesses to locate and
deploy its electric vehicle charging stations. The Company
generates revenue from advertising on its content-driven charging
stations, installing and maintaining the charging stations, and
delivering electricity at the charging stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com
                  prajesh@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

VOLTA INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 31 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Volta
Inc. (NYSE: VLTA) securities between August 2, 2021 and March 28,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until May 31, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Kampe v. Volta Inc., No.
22-cv-02055 (N.D. Cal.). The Volta class action lawsuit charges
Volta as well as certain of its top executive officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Volta 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 Volta class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 31,
2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Volta partners with real estate and retail
businesses to locate and deploy its electric vehicle charging
stations. On August 26, 2021, Volta Industries, Inc. ("Legacy
Volta"), a private entity, and Tortoise Acquisition Corp. II, a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC" or blank-check
company), completed a business combination pursuant to which the
combined entity was named Volta Inc.

The Volta class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Volta had improperly accounted for restricted
stock units issued in connection with the business combination;
(ii) as a result, Volta had understated its net loss for third
quarter 2021; (iii) there were material weaknesses in Volta's
internal control over financial reporting that resulted in a
material error; (iv) as such, Volta would restate its financial
statements; (v) consequently, Legacy Volta's founders would
imminently exit Volta; (vi) thus, Volta's financial results would
be adversely impacted; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Volta's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On March 2, 2022, Volta revealed that the financial impact of the
restatement of its third quarter 2021 financial results was greater
than previously disclosed, expecting to report a net loss of $69.7
million for the quarter. On this news, Volta's share price fell by
2.6%.

Then, on March 21, 2022, Volta announced that it would reschedule
its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. On this
news, Volta's share price fell an additional 8.4%.

Finally, on March 28, 2022, Volta announced that its founders,
defendant Scott Mercer and Christopher Wendel, had resigned from
their positions as CEO and President, respectively, and from the
Board of Directors of Volta. On this news, Volta's share price fell
by approximately 18%, further damaging investors.

Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Volta
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Volta 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]

WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter's Bid for Certification Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DATISHA HUNTER, et al., Plaintiff v. WIRELESSPCS
CHICAGO LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 980 (N.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional
certification and the issuance of notice pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Datisha Hunter, Latricia Hunter and Wilfredo Rivera
filed the putative class and collective action against Defendants
WirelessPCS Chicago LLC, Sky Net Wireless IL, LLC, Moeen Hasan
Khalil, and Saed Khalil for claimed violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et seq. ("IMWL"),
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS Section
115/1 et seq. ("IWPCA"), and various local ordinances.

The Plaintiffs were each employed as sales clerks at various
Chicagoland MetroPCS franchise locations, where they sold cellular
phone products and services. They allege that they were jointly
employed by the Defendants, and that the Defendants willfully
violated the FLSA and state and local laws by failing to pay them
and other similarly situated employees minimum wages for all time
worked, and failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over
40 in individual workweeks.

Specially, the Plaintiffs contend that although they were sometimes
paid appropriate regular wages for their work, at other times their
rate of pay was not as high as minimum wage. They further allege
that they worked off-the-clock hours (i.e., time for which they
were not compensated), that their hours were not consistently
tracked and compensated correctly, and that Defendants unlawfully
deducted money from their wages, resulting in payments of less than
the applicable minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of all
similarly situated current and former employees of the 10 MetroPCS
franchise locations in Illinois that the Defendants operated,
estimating there may be around 100 such individuals.

The Plaintiffs move pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for
conditional certification and notice of the following two
collectives:

      a. Minimum wage collective: All individuals employed by
Defendants in Illinois to sell cell phones, cell phone accessories,
and cell phone services, regardless of the specific job title or
titles used to describe such individuals in Defendants' data
systems during the Class period who were not paid minimum wages for
all time worked (FLSA Minimum Wage Collective).

      b. Overtime collective: All individuals employed by
Defendants in Illinois to sell cell phones, cell phone accessories,
and cell phone services, regardless of the specific job title or
titles used to describe such individuals in Defendants' data
systems during the Class period who worked more than 40 hours in
one or more individual workweeks and were not paid appropriate
overtime (FLSA Overtime Collective).

The motion is not the Plaintiffs' first motion for conditional
certification, and a review of the history of the case is important
to the consideration of the current motion. The Plaintiffs first
moved for conditional certification on April 18, 2018, shortly
after the filing of their initial complaint, as is typical in FLSA
putative collective actions. On May 2, 2018, the Court set a class
discovery schedule and briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion.
Both were subsequently extended to accommodate class discovery and
corresponding discovery disputes. By August 2018, the parties
turned their attention to the possibility of a class-wide
settlement, and they requested and received a referral to the
Magistrate Judge to assist in that endeavor.

A settlement conference was held on Oct. 15, 2018, and the parties
consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge that same
day. In efforts to maximize the possibility of settlement, the
Court stayed formal discovery two days later, and presided over the
informal exchange of information in connection with settlement
discussions for the next several months. On March 7, 2019, the
Court struck by agreement the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, without prejudice to its refiling if the parties
were unable to reach a settlement. On May 24, 2019, the Court
recruited a second Magistrate Judge to preside over further
settlement negotiation sessions, again noting the parties'
agreement to forego formal discovery pending the outcome of their
mediation efforts.

Several months of further settlement negotiations followed,
including the court-facilitated informal exchange of additional
information, and at least six settlement-related conferences with
the recruited Magistrate Judge. Despite these efforts, however, by
Dec. 12, 2019, the Court concluded that settlement was not "a
realistic possibility at this juncture and that it was not a
productive use of the parties' and the Court's time to focus
exclusively on the possibility of settlement at this time."  The
Court therefore terminated settlement proceedings on Dec. 16,
2019.

Litigation resumed thereafter, and in January 2020, the parties
proposed a new discovery schedule. The case was reassigned to the
undersigned the next month, and discovery motion practice resumed
shortly thereafter. A schedule was subsequently set and extended
for the re-filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification. On April 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their renewed
motion for conditional certification. The Court then set a briefing
schedule, which was extended three times upon the Defendants'
request, and was eventually completed on Aug. 10, 2021. In
addition, because the parties' extensive discovery disputes had
resulted in repeated depositions of the Defendants as well as the
named Plaintiffs, supplementation of the conditional certification
briefs was allowed. The Plaintiffs' supplement was filed on Dec.
31, 2021, and the Defendants' supplement was filed on Jan. 7, 2022,
a little over two months ago.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs seek step one conditional certification of the two
collectives described: One for FLSA minimum wage claims, and
another for FLSA overtime claims. The Plaintiffs' theory of FLSA
violation is that they and other individuals employed at the
Defendants' MetroPCS franchise locations were not always paid for
all of the hours they worked and sometimes paid below the minimum
wage or the premium overtime wage because Defendants took improper
deductions from their paychecks and required off-the-clock work.
The Plaintiffs also seek an order equitably tolling the statute of
limitations for the claims of the putative opt-ins from the filing
of the Plaintiffs' first conditional certification motion on April
18, 2018, to the present. The Defendants oppose conditional
certification on the merits, and argue that equitable tolling
should not apply.

A. Conditional Certification

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other employees had their wages
deducted without authorization and were required to work
"off-the-clock" -- first, for a period of time when they were
initially hired but lacked credentials to access a computerized
timekeeping system, and second, both before stores opened and after
they closed, when they were required to work but directed not to
log in and account for their time. They further allege that they
and other employees were not always paid for their time, and that
they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week without
compensation at the overtime rate.

To support their allegations, the Plaintiffs submit several
affidavits, some payroll documentation, and deposition testimony.
They first submit affidavits from each of the named Plaintiffs, who
attest that they and other employees logged into and out of a
computerized timekeeping system in conjunction with opening and
closing of the stores, and that each believed that Defendants did
not accurately provide the payroll company with their actual hours
worked or commissions earned.

According to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' evidence fails to make
the requisite showing to conditionally certify either proposed
collective for several reasons. The Plaintiffs' respective
declarations are both too vague as to other employees and too
individualized as to their own underpayment claims. The Defendants
argue that the only reference to other employees in each named
Plaintiff's affidavit is found in statements that the affiant "and
other employees" logged into a computerized time system as part of
their store opening process at the start of their shifts, and
logged out of the system as part of store closing at the end of
their shifts. They further argue on this point that Plaintiffs do
not indicate what these "other" employees' positions were, in which
stores they worked, what their duties entailed, whether they were
salaried or hourly, whether they had supervisors common to the
Plaintiffs, or when they worked for the Defendants.

The Defendants contend that this lack of particularity renders the
statements lacking in personal knowledge, and insufficient to
support Plaintiffs' motion. Moreover, they say, given the
infirmities in the Plaintiffs' affidavits, and the fact that the
Defendants testified that employees were expected to be paid beyond
store hours and the Defendants' timekeeping records demonstrate the
Plaintiffs' clock in and out times were beyond store hours, the
Plaintiffs present "no evidence" that any timekeeping policy
violated the FLSA or that the Plaintiffs were not paid for their
time. Finally, the Defendants contend, because the Plaintiffs'
claims are based in part on deductions, the specifics of each
employees' pay will be at issue, thus rendering proceeding as a
collective action inefficient and improper.

Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments, Judge Jantz
concludes that the Plaintiffs have made the "modest plus" factual
showing sufficient to carry them past the first stage of the
conditional certification process, although just in part. The
affidavits and deposition testimony of the three named Plaintiffs,
paired with their pay records and the Defendants' testimony about
how they conducted their business, make a sufficient showing that
the Plaintiffs and other employees -- at the store(s) at which the
Plaintiffs worked -- were subjected to the same practices and
policies requiring them to perform certain tasks past store hours
or incur payroll deductions, which may have resulted in payment
below the federal minimum wage and/or overtime rate.

Additionally, the fact that all of the named Plaintiffs attest to
having had no means of recording their time for a period when they
were first hired, and that they regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week and rarely were paid overtime for such work, suggests that
the alleged practice of underpayment was not limited to just one
employee. On the "modest plus" standard that must be satisfied at
step one, it may be inferred that these practices were common to
all employees at the store(s) where the Plaintiffs worked. The
Plaintiffs' affidavits "need not be 'highly specific,' and 'it is
not necessary for the affiants to provide such details as the dates
and times they worked overtime hours for which they were not
compensated."

Although conditional certification is warranted, however, the
Plaintiffs' definition of the collectives is too broad. They
include no defined class period. Similarly, although the Plaintiffs
have had the opportunity to depose multiple corporate
representatives of WirelessPCS Chicago and Sky Net Wireless IL, the
Plaintiffs' purported evidence about centralized management and
operation of the Chicagoland stores is insufficient to extrapolate
that what the Plaintiffs experienced or observed at their store(s)
also occurred at all of the other franchise locations.

In sum, because the Plaintiffs' first step evidence provides
insufficient support for including employees who worked at store(s)
other than those where the named Plaintiffs worked, Judge Jantz
therefore narrows the proposed opt-in collectives accordingly to
only those store(s) at which the named Plaintiffs worked.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' minimum wage and overtime collectives
will be certified, but limited to the store(s) at which the named
Plaintiffs worked.

B. Defendants' Further Objections

The Defendants' additional objections to conditional certification
of either collective are unpersuasive. First, despite the
limitations in the Plaintiffs' showing as discussed, the
Defendants' contention that the Plaintiffs offer no evidence of any
FLSA violation or that they were not compensated for time worked is
inaccurate. The Plaintiffs have pointed to evidence that they had
no means of recording their time for a period when they were first
hired, that they were not compensated for all of the hours that
they worked, and that they routinely worked more than 40 hours per
week but were rarely compensated at the overtime rate. Each named
Plaintiff also describes that they and other employees logged into
and out of the computerized timekeeping system as part of store
opening and closing procedures. Each of the named Plaintiffs also
attests that their wages were deducted without their knowledge or
authorization, and Plaintiffs submit evidence to show that in the
case of Datisha Hunter, those deductions resulted in payment below
the minimum wage. Although the Defendants may challenge the import
of this evidence at a later stage, these affidavits and deposition
testimony are evidence sufficient to meet the Plaintiffs' step one
showing, albeit with the limitations discussed.

Second, notwithstanding the Defendants' argument, a lack of
specificity in the Plaintiffs' affidavits as to when and how much
they contend they were underpaid does not suggest a lack of
personal knowledge rendering their evidence insufficient. The
Plaintiffs describe what they saw their co-workers do, and their
affidavits sufficiently demonstrate their knowledge as to their own
and their co-workers' practices of clocking in and out. The
Defendants offer no reason to think that the Plaintiffs would not
have been in a position to see other employees clock in or out, or
otherwise work at the store off of the clock. Although the
Plaintiffs' evidence might be thin, and much more will be needed at
step two, the Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to meet the
"modest plus" burden at step one.

Further, while the Defendants raise legitimate concerns about the
individualized analysis of each potential opt-in plaintiff's
circumstances, such arguments are not appropriately adjudicated at
step one certification. It remains to be seen at a later stage
whether the Plaintiffs might avoid individualized issues and be
able to prove their claims by representative evidence that "would
enable a rational determination of each class member's damages."

Similarly, the Defendants' argument regarding potential individual
set-off issues based on a group chat message involving Rivera and
various other employees which refers to "holding the deposits" is
speculative and premature at this stage of the litigation. In sum,
although it is possible that individual issues will eventually
predominate in their claims, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown
a common policy or practice affecting them and other similarly
situated employees at their own store(s) such that conditional
certification is appropriate.

Finally, contrary to the Defendants' assertions, there is no
adequacy of representation problem. The Defendants present no
authority to support their assertion that either the limits of
Datisha Hunter or Rivera's memory or the manner in which they
testified at deposition so taints each of them that a finding that
they are incapable of serving as representative plaintiffs should
be made in conjunction with conditional certification. Such
unsupported arguments are forfeited.

Moreover, even if it were not forfeited, the Defendants' challenge
based on the named Plaintiffs' adequacy is inapplicable. "Most
courts articulating the requirements for conditional certification
of a collective action have concluded that the FLSA does not
incorporate Rule 23's adequacy criterion for conditional
certification."

C. Statute of Limitations & Equitable Tolling

Because the Court grants conditional certification, it next turns
to the Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll the limitations period
as to putative opt-in plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, the
claims of the putative opt-in plaintiffs should be tolled from the
April 18, 2018, filing of their first conditional certification
motion to the present, given the Court's prior vacating of the
briefing schedule on their first motion, and the parties'
subsequent agreement to strike it without prejudice in efforts to
encourage their settlement negotiations. The Defendants, on the
other hand, assert that equitable tolling should not apply to the
Plaintiffs' claims, because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that
some extraordinary circumstance prevented potential claimants
either from opting in or filing their own action(s) against
Defendants in the years since Plaintiffs' initial motion.

Judge Jantz concludes that tolling of the limitations period is
appropriate from the filing of the Plaintiffs' first conditional
certification motion, April 18, 2018, until the termination of
settlement proceedings on Dec. 12, 2019, for a total of 603 days.
Additionally, given the Defendants' agreement that some period of
tolling during the pendency of the current conditional
certification motion is appropriate, and the fact that the briefing
schedule on the current motion was extended three times upon the
Defendants' request, resulting in a total extension of 90 days,
i.e., from May 12, 2021, to Aug. 10, 2021, tolling for an
additional 90 days is appropriate, for a total tolling of the
three-year limitations period of 693 days. The Plaintiffs' motion
to equitably toll the limitations period is thus granted in part
and denied in part.

Accordingly, even if the Defendants no longer employed anyone as of
June 8, 2018, as they claim, it is not the case that no unexpired
claims of putative plaintiffs could remain (because by the Court's
calculation, tolling the three-year limitations period by 693 days
means that claims arising as of June 8, 2018, may not expire until
around May 1, 2023). The tolling period must be taken into
consideration in the Plaintiffs' revised collective definitions,
and the Court thus turns to the Plaintiffs' proposed form of
notice.

D. Plaintiffs' Proposed Form of Notice

Having found that conditional certification is appropriate, and
that unexpired claims of putative plaintiffs may remain, Judge
Jantz therefore concludes that notice of the action should issue to
people who worked at the same MetroPCS franchise location(s) as any
of the named Plaintiffs. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants
identified those particular store(s) for the Court. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs must revise their proposed Notice and Consent with
these narrowed collectives in mind. The Plaintiffs must also
include a proposed time period in the definition of their
collectives, consistent with the Court's equitable tolling
analysis. Further, the Plaintiffs' amended proposed notice must
remove characterization of the case as in its "early" pretrial
stage, and must either remove reference to Ghaben and Hamad
Brothers as Defendants, or note that they have been dismissed
without prejudice.

As to these issues and the Defendants' additional objections to the
notice, the Plaintiffs are directed to meet and confer with
Defendants and file an agreed motion for approval of an amended
proposed Notice and Consent, or setting out in no more than two
pages the parties' respective positions as to the form.

Finally, to assist in the distribution of notice, the Plaintiffs
additionally request an order instructing the Defendants to produce
within seven days the names, last known addresses and email
addresses of prospective opt-in plaintiffs in Microsoft Excel
format. The also request the visible posting of a copy of the
court-approved notice in the Defendants' business premises in
Illinois, an order precluding the Defendants from securing any
releases or waivers from their employees of their FLSA claims, and
an order compelling Defendants to "enclose the court-approved
notice in pay envelopes in English and in Spanish to all of the
Defendants' current employees."

The Defendants do not respond to these requests, and have
accordingly waived any objection to them, which are granted in part
as unopposed. Accordingly, within seven days of the Court's
approval of an amended proposed Notice and Consent, the Defendants
will produce the names, last known addresses and email addresses of
prospective opt-in plaintiffs in whatever format such information
is stored and may be made accessible to the Plaintiffs, so that the
Plaintiffs may issue notice and one subsequent reminder by U.S.
postal mail and email (in English and Spanish). In the event that
the Defendants still operate any of the operative store(s) within
the scope of the collectives and have employees there, theys will
post the Court-approved Notice within seven days of its approval
and include the notice in potential opt-in plaintiffs' next pay
envelopes (in both English and Spanish versions, if provided by the
Plaintiffs).

III. Conclusion

For each of the foregoing reasons, Judge Jantz granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' renewed motion, consistent with her
Opinion. An agreed motion was due April 6, 2022, for approval of an
amended proposed Notice and Consent, or setting out in no more than
two pages the parties' respective positions as to the form. The
parties also are directed to meet and confer on a proposed
collective discovery schedule, by April 13, 2022. A Joint Status
Report setting out their agreed proposed schedule, or stating the
parties' respective positions on it (rather than argument), is due
by April 20, 2022. All other previously ordered dates to stand.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p97czah from
Leagle.com.Leagle.com.


XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Marshall Fire
----------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Mares at kdvr.com reports that investigators said it could
take months to pinpoint the cause of the devastating Marshall Fire,
but a handful of victims are going after the power company now.

They're suing Xcel Energy on the claim that their power lines and
equipment sparked the fire.

This is the first legal action taken for the most destructive fire
in Colorado's history. It's likely this lawsuit won't be the last
in connection with the Marshall Fire.

"It is unquestionable that there will be a series of lawsuits,"
FOX31 legal expert Chris Decker said.

Class-action lawsuit filed in Marshall Fire
The first is a class-action lawsuit against Xcel Energy.

"The process of establishing a class must be done through the court
and a court action," Decker said. "This is the first attempt to
establish a class of plaintiffs."

This is a strategic move by attorneys representing a number of
people affected by the fire against Xcel Energy. The attempt could
legally identify a class of plaintiffs for cases to come.

"A class action is a group of individuals who are similarly
situated, who have similar claims against a, or multiple,
defendants," Decker said.

The law firm handling the lawsuit is the Schack Law Group out of
San Diego which, according to their website, has handled wildfire
lawsuits before.

"If they are able to establish a class and represent the group of
plaintiffs, then they would be in the driver's seat of all of the
litigations," Decker said.

               What caused the Marshall Fire?

Officials in Boulder County said their investigation into what
caused the fire is not finished just yet, so why file a lawsuit
before the case is closed?

"My guess is that they believe that they have sufficient evidence
at this time to meet their claims and they also probably believe
that as the investigation matures and we get more information, that
will only support their claims," Decker said.

For their part, Xcel Energy told FOX31 the power lines and
equipment in question were thoroughly inspected and showed no signs
that they started a fire.

The energy provider said it's reviewing the lawsuit and will
continue to work with authorities in the ongoing investigation.[GN]

[*] Canadian Beef Consumers Get Relief From High Prices After Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Marowits at The Canadian Press reports that Canadian beef
consumers have a chance of getting some relief from high prices
after a second class-action lawsuit has been filed alleging that
the country's largest beef suppliers conspired to restrict
competition and raise prices.

The latest lawsuit was filed by the Belleau Lapointe law firm on
March 24 in Quebec Superior Court.

"I find this situation infuriating," said Sylvie de Bellefeuille,
the lead plaintiff and a lawyer with Option consommateurs, in an
interview.

"When we're talking about meat, especially beef, it's something
that lots of people purchase for their basic food needs and when it
comes to people with lower income, for example, they have a hard
time now buying beef, so this is something that really outrages
me."

She said the case was filed after reviewing a similar national
lawsuit filed in British Columbia in February that would apply to
everyone in Canada.

That one was filed by Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman on behalf of
Giang Bui, a Vancouver resident who purchased beef for himself and
his family.

In the statement of claim, the law firm argued that the companies
effectively severed the economic relationship between the price of
cattle purchased by them for slaughter from the price of beef sold
in Canada.

"As a result, while the price the defendants paid for cattle
dropped, the supply of beef was restricted and the price of beef
was fixed at an elevated, anticompetitive level, causing damages to
the plaintiff and class members, while increasing the profits of
the defendants and their co-conspirators."

Lead attorney Reidar Mogerman said the Quebec and B.C. cases make
the same allegations.

"We are working with the Quebec lawyers and ultimately there will
be a co-ordinated national strategy," he said from Vancouver.

De Bellefeuille said the lawsuit has attracted a lot of attention
because people are frustrated by the situation.

"It's one thing to have prices that are higher because of the
pandemic, but learning that there could be more to it and that
there's collusion between those companies makes things even more
unacceptable."

The lawsuits allege that various companies related to Cargill Inc.,
JBS Canada ULC, Tyson Food Inc. and National Beef Packing Co LLC
acted in concert since Jan. 1, 2015.

The lawsuits, which still have to be certified by judges, are
seeking financial compensation equivalent to revenues generated by
the artificially inflated portion of selling prices.

De Bellefeuille said the amount of compensation would likely be
determined at trial.

But the sums could be large if class action lawsuits are certified
to represent Canadians across the country.

"Hopefully we will be able to reimburse and get people to have at
least part of their share. So we'll see how it goes, but our goal
is to try to make sure that people get their money back."

The plaintiffs say the meat-packing plants control 85 per cent of
the Canadian beef market and 80 per cent of the U.S. market.

The legal filing comes after JBS USA agreed in early February to
pay US$52.5 million to settle one of several price-fixing lawsuits
in Minnesota without admitting liability.

The U.S. Justice Department has been investigating the industry
since the attorneys general for 11 Midwestern states urged it
nearly two years ago to look into market concentration and
potential price fixing by meat packers in the cattle industry
during the coronavirus pandemic.

"The claims lack merit," Cargill spokeswoman April Nelson wrote in
an email.

"We compete vigorously in the market and conduct ethical business,
and we are confident in our efforts to maintain market integrity on
behalf of our customers and consumers."

The other companies didn't respond to requests for comment. [GN]

[*] London Court Blocks Planned Forex Class Suit Against Big Banks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley at Reuters reports that a proposed multi-billion
pound claim brought by thousands of asset managers, pension funds
and financial institutions against major banks over alleged foreign
exchange (forex) rigging has been blocked by a London court.

London's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which had been
considering the case against JPMorgan (JPM.N), Citigroup (C.N),
Barclays (BARC.L), UBS (UBSG.S) and NatWest (NWG.L) since last
July, ruled the case was not suitable to proceed as a U.S.-style,
opt-out class action. read more

The European Commission paved the way for the proposed lawsuit by
fining banks more than 1 billion euros ($1.11 billion) in 2019 over
two forex cartels, dubbed "Essex Express" and "Three Way Banana
Split", between 2007 and 2013.

Michael O'Higgins, the former chairman of British watchdog The
Pensions Regulator, and Phillip Evans, a former inquiry chair at
the Competition Markets Authority, had been vying to lead a class
action on behalf of financial claimants.

O'Higgins said his team was reviewing its options.

"This decision is extremely disappointing, because this claim is
exactly the sort of claim that opt-out proceedings were introduced
to facilitate in order to provide access to justice to all entities
affected by the illegal behaviour of cartelists," he said.

"We are reviewing our options to decide how to move forward in a
way that best serves the class that we seek to represent."

A representative for JPMorgan welcomed the news, saying the
tribunal had "acknowledged the clear weaknesses in the applicants'
cases". Others were not immediately available for comment. [GN]

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Monday, May 2nd.

The conference will be held in person at The Harmonie Club in
Manhattan.

Sponsorship opportunities are currently available.

Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of 150+ class
action attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers,
consultants, claims administrators, reporters and academics.

Major sponsors include Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC, and Schochor,
Federico and Staton, P.A.

For sponsorship options and details, contact:

     Bernard Toliver, CMP
     Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
     E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com

For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.com/

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Defends Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries are named
as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product
liability claims based principally on allegations of past
distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that
may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate
defendants in addition to us. In our experience, a large percentage
of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have
been dismissed by the courts. We have not suffered any adverse
verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and
intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. During 2021, we
recorded a loss contingency reserve of approximately $0.3 million,
which represents our estimate of our potential losses related to
the settlement of open cases. When appropriate, we may settle
certain claims. We do not expect the resolution of these cases to
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3DHao8a


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Defends Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable
to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/37kzn55

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Granted Expedited Appeal of Ch. 11 Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dietrich Knauth, writing for Reuters.com reports that a U.S.
bankruptcy judge granted an expedited appeal of his order that
allowed Johnson & Johnson to use the bankruptcy system to try to
resolve multi-billion-dollar litigation claiming its talc products
cause cancer.

Last month, Judge Michael Kaplan ruled that the Chapter 11 filing
by a J&J subsidiary was not an abuse of the bankruptcy system.  He
allowed cancer plaintiffs to challenge that ruling directly in the
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, fast-tracking a dispute that has
drawn attention and criticism from lawmakers.

"Clearly, this impacts decisions and potential restructurings
beyond what's being litigated in this court," Kaplan said.

J&J used a "Texas two-step," which allows companies to split
valuable assets from liabilities through a so-called divisive
merger.  In October, J&J, which maintains its talc products are
safe, put the claims into a newly created entity called LTL
Management LLC, which filed for bankruptcy days later.

Judge Kaplan said that the bankruptcy would provide a quicker and
fair alternative to jury trials for resolving 38,000 individual
lawsuits.  But critics, like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode
Island, called the bankruptcy maneuver "a blot on our legal system"
that allows wealthy companies to avoid facing victims in court.

LTL had opposed a fast-track appeal, and asked for the dispute to
first be heard in a U.S. District Court.  Judge Kaplan rejected
that, saying an interim appeal "doesn't serve any purpose" and
would delay the ultimate resolution of the case.

Judge Kaplan also ruled that talc plaintiffs should be represented
by just one official committee in the bankruptcy case. Attorneys
representing mesothelioma patients had argued that there should be
separate committees to represent ovarian cancer plaintiffs and
mesothelioma plaintiffs.

In the 38,000 cases that drove J&J to place LTL into bankruptcy,
plaintiffs had alleged that J&J's talc-based products contained
asbestos and caused ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a type of
cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

J&J denies the allegations, saying decades of scientific testing
and regulatory approvals have shown its talc to be safe and
asbestos-free.

Before the bankruptcy filing, the company faced costs from $3.5
billion in verdicts and settlements, including one in which 22
women were awarded a judgment of more than $2 billion, according to
bankruptcy court records.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Co-Defends 106 Personal Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., is a co-defendant in approximately 106
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 169 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants. In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at $3 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at $3 million
compensatory and $1 million punitive damages; one count at $1
million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
and punitive damages, each in the amount of $20.0 million, for
three separate causes of action, and $5.0 million compensatory
damages for the fifth cause of action. In the fourth case, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in
the amount of $10.0 million, for ten separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3jclhp2


                            *********

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 ***