---

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

              Friday, April 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 80

                            Headlines

AARK HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elmer Suit Alleges
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Dismisses Investor Suit Over Sexual Misconduct
ADVENT HEALTH: McHenry Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Bid to Dismiss Cohen Class Suit Denied
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Bid to File Opposition Under Seal OK'd

ALRO STEEL: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Reeb FLSA Suit
ARQIT QUANTUM: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Yu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 14 Deadline

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 20 Deadline
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Filing of a Class Action
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Robbins LLP Informs Investors of Class Action
BAKKT HOLDINGS; Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 20 Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Sues Over Zelle Money Transfer Service

BILTMORE GENERAL: Ramic Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA & NYLL
BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES: Case Management Order Entered in Torres
BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Deal to Settle Securities Class Actions
BUILD-A-BEAR: TCPA Suit Filed in Missouri
C&D SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Jones Says

CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Misclassifies Caregivers, Smith Suit Alleges
CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Suit in CA Court
CARMAX INC: Faces Miller Class Suit in CA Court
CARMAX INC: Settles Sabanovich Suit in CA Court
CEDAR FAIR: Class Suit Pursued Against Owner Over COVID Closures

CEDAR FAIR: Customers File COVID Refund Class Action Lawsuit
CEDAR FAIR: Judge Denies Request to Throw Out Class-Action Lawsuit
CEDAR FAIR: Refund Lawsuit Can Move Forward, Judge Rules
COAST DENTAL: Removes Davis Suit to Middle District of Florida
CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Case Management Order Entered in Mullen

CONTACTUS LLC: Pyfrom Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification
COSTCO WHOLESALE: 60 Days Extension of Case Schedule Sought
CREDIT CONTROL: Coleman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Modify Class Certification Order Tossed
DENNIS GROSS: Gunaratna, Camenforte Seeks to Certify Class

DRESSBARN.COM: Uses False Sale Pricing on Website, Says Class Suit
E.T. BROWNE: $3M Class Action Settlement Reached in False Ad Suit
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Painkillers
FARM JOURNAL: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Hall

FAT BRANDS: Investors Were Harmed Financially, Suit Alleges
FCA US: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
FCA US: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Gearshift Suit
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial Approval of Class Action
FIVE BELOW: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Suit Alleges

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Wins Class Certification Bid
FORD MOTOR: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Glassburg Suit
FRIO HOSPITAL: Palacios Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GENERAL MOTORS: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Riley Suit
GORDON INC: Faces Class Action for Misleading Consumers

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Lanzillotta Seeks to Certify Class Action
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Pugliese Suit Class Conditionally Certified
GREAT DIVIDE: Seeks to Clarify Scope of Bid to Compel Responses
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Sherwood Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
HOWARD NATIONS: Gaudet Bid to Strike Defenses Partly OK'd

HUNGRY BURRITO: Vargas Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
IRONNET INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
ISTANBUL REGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fidan Suit Alleges
KERRY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Buco Suit Alleges
KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Wins Bid for Class Certification

LANDMARK REALTY: Cheatem Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Alleges Firm Sold Defective Dishwashers
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 20 Deadline
LOWE'S CO: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
MATT MACAULEY: Sanders Files Suit in W.D. Michigan

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Amended Suit Demands 'New York' Name Removal
NESTLE WATERS: Scheduling Order Entered in Patante Fraud Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Sued Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Info
NEXUS SERVICES: Faces Nunez Suit Over FLSA Violations
OAKLAWN JOCKEY: Wilson Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA

OHIO LIVING: Wilhoit Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Compensation
OIL PRODUCERS: Summary Judgment Order in Fawcett Suit Affirmed
OPTAVIA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Douglass Suit Says
OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
PARK PLACE: Lovell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Mitchell Alleges
PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PREMIERFIRST HOME: Scheduling Order Entered in Campbell Suit
PROAMPAC LLC: Jackson Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages

PROCOLLECT INC: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Diallo
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Class in Hoffman Suit
RODAN & FIELDS: Suits Over Deceptive Serum Marketing, Explained
ROLLINS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
SACOLO LTD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hawkins Suit Alleges

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settles Contamination Suit for $26.2-MM
SAM SCHWARTZ: Alfalla Sues to Recover Untimely Wage Compensation
SAN DIEGO UNIVERSITY: Female Athletes Add Unequal Treatment to Suit
SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Suit in Nevada
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Remand of Navarro Suit to Super. Court Denied

STEELE COUNTY, MN: Final OK of Class Settlement Sought
STERICYCLE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Suit Alleges
STORM SMART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaume Suit Alleges
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Winter Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SUPER CARE INC: Cardenas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII

TAKATA AIRBAG: Carmax Gets Settlement Over Defective Airbag Suit
TGI FRIDAY'S: Montoya Sues Over Manual Workers' Untimely Wages
THOMSON REUTERS: Case Schedule Amended in Brooks Class Suit
THOR INDUSTRIES: Fails to Remit Benefit Payments, Scott Suit Says
TILLY'S INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Ward Suit

TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks Over Gonzales Suit Ongoing
TOWER HILL: MSP Bid for Leave to File Documents Under Seal OK'd
TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE: Faces Holmes Suit Over NSF Fee Charges
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Hass Files Bid for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Robinson Sues Over Unfair Criminal Justice System

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Arredondo Suit
VEFO INC: Faces Osorio Suit Over Illegal Employment Practices
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 23 Deadline
VXL ENTERPRISES: Avant Seeks to Send Notice to Medical Staff
WALMART STORES: Griego Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order

WALTER BERRY: Cummings Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Nixed
WELLS FARGO: Fryson Awarded $33K in Attorneys' Fees in Kang Suit
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co Faces 30,312 Pending Claims as of Mar. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Past Asbestos Prisoner Study May Affect J&J Suits


                            *********

AARK HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Elmer Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA ELMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMOL R. KOHLI; AARK HOSPITALITY; AARK
ENTERPRISES; AARK ENTERPRISES, INC.; AARK RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC;
AARK ENTERPRISES NJ, INC.; AARK ENTERPRISES PA, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY BENSALEM FR, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY CHADDS FORD, INC.;
AARK HOSPITALITY CWH FR, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY DANVILLE FR, LLC;
AARK HOSPITALITY DUNMORE FR, LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY EAST STROUDSBURG
FR,LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY FRAZER, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY FTW FR,
INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY GLASSBORO FR, LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY
GLOUCESTER INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY LANGHORNE FR, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY MEDIA, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY MOORESTOWN, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY MORRISVILLE FR, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY MT. LAUREL,
INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY MT. LAUREL II, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY
NORRISTOWN, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY NORTHFIELD, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY PENNSDALE FR, LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY PHILADELPHIA, INC.;
AARK HOSPITALITY SCRANTON FR, LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY SICKLERVILLE
TK, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY SICKLERVILLE, LLC; AARK HOSPITALITY
SPRINGFIELD, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY VINELAND MALL, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY VINELAND, INC.; AARK HOSPITALITY VOORHEES, INC.; AARK
HOSPITALITY VOORHEES II, INC.; and AARK HOSPITALITY WILKS BARRE FR,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02303 (D.N.J., April 20, 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.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as server.

AARK HOSPITALITY is a Travel Management company, specializes in
providing customized end to end travel solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          Email: lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
                 rgray@cwglaw.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Dismisses Investor Suit Over Sexual Misconduct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
frontofficesports.com reports that Activision Blizzard is no longer
facing a class-action lawsuit in California that claimed the video
game publisher misled investors regarding allegations of sexual
harassment and discrimination against its female employees.

The lawsuit - filed by shareholders in August 2021 - was dismissed
by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson, who found the investors
failed to provide evidence of false statements made by Activision.

Anderson also ruled that Activision didn't have a duty to disclose
investigations by three separate government agencies: the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Activision's legal jeopardy regarding sexual misconduct and
harassment is far from over, as it faces an ongoing investigation.
Recently, the company has taken steps to combat its ongoing issues.


It added two women, Lulu Cheng Meservey and Kerry Carr, to its
board.
Meservey serves as VP of communications at Substack, while Carr is
a senior VP at Bacardi.

The investigation could also stand in the way of Microsoft's deal
to acquire Activision for $68.7 billion. The deal, announced in
January, is currently under regulatory review.

                        Steady Business

Activision generated $2.1 billion in revenue in Q4 2021, compared
to $2.4 billion in revenue for the same period the year prior. The
company reported 371 million monthly active users in Q4.

Full-year revenue for Activision reached $8.8 billion, up from $8
billion in revenue in FY2020. [GN]


ADVENT HEALTH: McHenry Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advent Health
Partners, Inc. The case is styled as J. Paul McHenry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advent Health
Partners, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00287 (M.D. Tenn., April 20,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.

Advent Health Partners -- https://adventhp.com/ -- provides health
care and hospitals with their financial problems. They provide
health care centers with revenue optimization plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: aedwards@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Fax: (773) 496-8617
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street, NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (202) 800-2730
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Bid to Dismiss Cohen Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHMUEL COHEN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ALLEGIANCE
ADMINISTRATORS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-3411
(S.D. Ohio), Judge James L. Graham of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion
and Order:

   a. denying the motion to dismiss and motion to
      strike class allegations filed by Allegiance Administrator,
      LLC d/b/a Performance First ("Performance First");

   b. granting in part Autoguard Advantage Corporation's motion
      to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations; and

   c. overruling Performance First's objections to the Magistrate
      Judge's Feb. 3, 2022 opinion and order.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Shmuel Cohen, Yehuda Fischer, Eliezer Rosenberger, and
Mayer Tannenbaum are residents of New York who bring the putative
class action asserting breach of contract and violations of New
York General Business Law ("NYGBL"). Named as defendants are
Allegiance Administrator, LLC, doing business as Performance First,
an Ohio limited liability company, and Autoguard Advantage Corp.,
an Ohio corporation. The action is before the Court on Performance
First's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations;
Autoguard's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class
allegations; and Performance First's objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Feb. 3, 2022 opinion and order.

The excitement of leasing a vehicle can be muted by the
accompanying responsibility and obligations. Savvy lessees are
cognizant that upon completion of the lease they may be faced with
unexpected charges, such as driving more than the allotted miles or
damage to the vehicle in excess or normal wear and tear. One way to
offset these charges is to purchase plans limiting a lessee's
responsibility for excessive wear and tear.

This is exactly what the Plaintiffs in the case at bar did. Upon
leasing their respective vehicles, they each entered into identical
Excess Wear and Tear Protection Waivers with Performance First.
Pursuant to the Waiver, the Administrator "will waive or reimburse
You for charges defined as Excess Wear and Tear in Your Contract
that exists at the time You turn in Your vehicle up to a maximum of
$5,000."

The Terms and Conditions attached to the Waiver lists several
exclusions to what is covered. One of these exclusions is for
repairs of damage that would be covered by a standard automobile
policy unless the cost of repairs is less than the maximum single
event limit specified in the Waiver. The Terms and Conditions
defines a standard automobile policy as "a standard form of
automobile insurance policy that provides comprehensive coverage
(which includes fire, theft, flood, windstorm and hail) and
collision coverage at minimum."

The Waiver also assures lessees that performance is insured by
Lloyd's Underwriting Syndicate Number 5820. It instructs Lessees to
file a Claim with Lloyd's Underwriting Syndicate if the Waiver is
denied or not honored.

The Plaintiffs discovered the Waiver was too good to be true. They
assert that the Defendants have a "policy and practice to deny
eligible claims for reasons other than a term or condition found in
the Waiver Agreement."

Following two rounds of briefing on motions to dismiss, the
Plaintiff filed their second amended class action complaint with
corrected caption on May 17, 2021. The Plaintiffs bring in their
second amended complaint three claims on behalf of one class and
one subclass pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3).

The class, called the Nationwide Class, is: Each person who entered
into an Excess Wear & Tear Protection Waiver with Defendants to
provide coverage for a leased vehicle and who (a) submitted at
least one eligible claim for coverage under the Waiver Agreement
and (b) was denied coverage for a stated reason set forth in
Defendants' claims report (or other substantively similar document)
that is not a grounds for non-coverage under the terms and
conditions set forth in the Waiver Agreement.

The subclass, called the NYGBL subclass is "each person who, in
addition to meeting all of the criteria for membership in the
Nationwide Class, entered into a Waiver Agreement in connection
with leasing an automobile in the State of New York."

In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and the
Nationwide Class that the Defendants breached the Waiver by
"wrongfully refusing to honor its contractual obligations based on
reasons other than 'terms and conditions set forth' in the Waiver
Agreement." In Count II, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of
themselves and the NYGBL subclass that the Defendants engaged in
deceptive acts in violation of NYGBL Section 349. Finally, in Count
III, the Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and the NYGBL
subclass that Defendants engaged in unlawful false advertising in
violation of NYGBL Section 350.

Performance First filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike
class allegations on April 22, 2021. Autoguard followed suit,
filling its motion to dismiss and motion to strike class actions on
Aug. 2, 2021.

II. Analysis

A. Motions to Dismiss

Performance First moves to dismiss Claim I and Autoguard moves to
dismiss Claims II and III.

1. Breach of Contract

For purposes of the pending motions, the breach of contract laws of
New York apply. The Plaintiffs are residents of New York who
entered into the Waiver in New York as part of a lease transaction
consummated in New York. The only connection to any other state
obvious from the second amended complaint is that the Defendants
are Ohio-based companies.

Performance First moves for dismissal arguing that it is not a
party to the waiver agreement, therefore there is no contractual
privity between it and the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs argue that
Performance First is a party to the Waiver and argue that even if
it had not been, it became a contracting party by acting as one.

Judge Graham begins his analysis by looking at the Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that they entered
into the Waiver with Performance First. This factual allegation
must be accepted as true for purposes of the motions to dismiss
unless "a written instrument plainly contradicts the pleadings."

Judge Graham finds that the Waiver does not plainly contradict the
pleadings. Nor does the Waiver otherwise identify "the
Administrator." From this a reasonable inference can be drawn that
Autoguard is not the Administrator, but is merely acting on behalf
of the Administrator in handling claims brought under the Waiver.
The Waiver does suggest that Performance First may be involved. The
top of the Waiver has the words "Performance First" and the bottom
of the Waiver and Terms and Conditions contain the following line:
"LOL/Performance First/Excess W & T/04 4/2016."

Regardless, Judge Graham does not now need to definitively identify
the Administrator. It is enough that the Plaintiffs allege
Performance First entered into the Waiver and that the Waiver does
not plainly contradict this allegation. The Defendants have
therefore failed to meet their burden of showing that the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law.

2. NYGBL Claims

The Plaintiffs bring claims under NYGBL Sections 349 and 350.
Autoguard moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NYGBL Sections 349 and
350 claims on the basis that they are duplicative of the breach of
contract claim. Autoguard further moves to dismiss their NYGBL
Section 350 claim for the additional reason that the Plaintiffs do
not allege the existence of an advertisement. Facially, the
Plaintiffs allege only that the Defendants entered into the Waiver
with no intention of honoring it.

Judge Graham finds that the Plaintiffs executed the Waiver knowing
the contractual guarantees to which they were entitled. If the
Defendants fell short on honoring those contractual guarantees for
whatever reason, including if they never intended to honor the
guarantees, the proper recourse is through a breach of contract
claim. Therefore, Judge Graham concludes that the Plaintiffs' NYGBL
claims, Claims II and III, fail as a matter of law. He does not
reach Autoguard's alternative argument for dismissing the
Plaintiffs' NYGBL Section 350 claim.

B. Motions to Strike Class Allegations

The Plaintiffs assert the putative class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Four prerequisites must be
met to establish a class: (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 and defenses of
the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class.

Performance First moves to strike the class allegations asserting
that (1) the putative class is not ascertainable, (2) the class
definition does not satisfy the requirements of commonality and
typicality, and (3) the Plaintiffs do not adequately represent the
interests of the entire class. Autoguard adds that the class
allegations should be stricken with prejudice because "the defects
of the Plaintiff's proposed class cannot be cured."

First, Judge Graham finds that Performance First failed to show
that the class is unascertainable on the face of the complaint. The
Defendants' argument fails because their interpretation of the
Plaintiffs' class definition is too narrow. Second, it is premature
for the Court to decide whether the Plaintiffs satisfy the
commonality and typicality requirements. And, the Defendants have
failed to show that it is impossible that the Plaintiffs will be
able to satisfy the commonality and typically requirements. Lastly,
Judge Graham cannot evaluate whether the Plaintiffs are an adequate
representative of the class until the makeup of the class is better
defined, which cannot be done until the policy the Defendants
allegedly relied on in denying claims is fleshed out.

C. Objections

Performance First brings three objections to the Magistrate Judge's
opinion and order: (1) that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding
that the Plaintiff's search methodology resulted in production of
relevant data; (2) that the Magistrate Judge erred by "imposing the
burden on Performance First to solve an unsolvable discovery
problem created by the Plaintiffs' unascertainable class
definition; and (3) that the Magistrate Judge erred by relying on
the Plaintiff's objectively undefinable class to justify discovery
of claim denial data.

None of these arguments hold water, Judge Graham opines. He says,
the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that denied claims data is
relevant is not clearly erroneous considering the Plaintiffs' class
claims are premised on claims being denied in breach of the Waiver.
And Performance First's second and third arguments are defeated by
the conclusion in the Opinion that the Plaintiffs' class definition
is objectively ascertainable.

Underlying Performance First's objections is the concern that
discovery of its claim denial data is overbroad. As explained,
Performance First records descriptions of the damage for which it
denies coverage. It does not record an explanation for denial using
the language in the Terms and Conditions. Therefore, when it
performed the search using the Plaintiffs' search methodology, only
five claims denied within the class period were excluded. But this
does not render discovery improper. The Plaintiffs are unable,
prior to discovery, to ascertain every physical description which
Defendants may use to deny claims. The best they can do, with the
information they possess, is attempt to narrow discovery by claims
that were denied using the language of the Terms and Conditions.
That Performance First does not record the denials in this way
should not render the Plaintiffs unable to engage in class
discovery.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Graham denied Performance First's motion
to dismiss and strike class allegations; granted in part
Autoguard's motion to dismiss and strike class allegations; and
overruled Performance First's objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Feb. 3, 2022 opinion and order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3fph8uwm from Leagle.com.


ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT: Bid to File Opposition Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE BARNES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSUP EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-21121-BB (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order granting the
Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Under Seal.

Allsup Employment is a Social Security Administration-authorized
Employment Network.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EznViG at no extra charge.[CC]


ALRO STEEL: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Reeb FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS REEB, Plaintiff v. ALRO STEEL CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-12545 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Stephen J.
Murphy, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiff's the motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

I. Background

Plaintiff Reeb filed the present putative collective action against
the Defendant under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law. The
Plaintiff was a former warehouse employee for the Defendant at its
Tonawanda, New York location. As a warehouse employee, the
Plaintiff worked forty hours a week, and earned hourly wages.

The Plaintiff alleged that during his employment he and other
warehouse employees nationwide had to work unpaid compensable time,
in violation of the FLSA. According to him, warehouse employees
were required "to arrive 15 minutes before their shifts every day."
The 15-minute buffer was known as "Alro Time."

The Plaintiff further alleged that the Defendant "rounded its
warehouse employees' time only in its favor." And last, he noted
that "all warehouse employees were required to wear hard hats,
safety shoes, and safety glasses." But the Plaintiff alleged that
warehouse employees were not paid for the time between gearing up
and waiting for their shifts to begin, and the time between the end
of their shifts and before removing their gear. He called those
periods "post-donning and pre-doffing time."

The Plaintiff ultimately sued the Defendant "for overtime damages
and penalties under the FLSA on behalf of himself" and a putative
collective. He defined the collective as "all current and former
individuals employed by the Defendant as warehouse employees within
the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the
action."

Shortly after the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, he moved
for conditional certification under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the
FLSA. The parties briefed the motion.

II. Discussion

Judge Murphy first determines whether the Plaintiff has met his
"modest burden of showing that he is similarly situated" to the
individuals of the proposed collective such that conditional
certification is proper. After, he addresses the Plaintiff's
proposed notice and opt-in form.

A. Conditional Certification

Judge Murphy first details the evidence offered by each party.
After, he examines the evidence under the "fairly lenient" standard
to assess whether the proposed collective is similarly situated to
the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff has shown that the employees in the proposed
collective are similarly situated and has presented evidence of a
"common policy or plan that violated the law," Judge Murphy holds.
He says, the declarations from the Wisconsin employees and the
Plaintiff show that warehouse employees share similar experiences
at different branches of Defendant's company. And the Educational
Manager's deposition testimony bolsters the three declarations.
Taken together, the evidence points to a policy or expectation
instituted at all of the Defendant's locations, "Alro Time," that
potentially violated the FLSA. The evidence also shows that
warehouse employees were expected to wear PPE before starting their
shifts.

The Defendant lodged three arguments against certification: (1) the
Defendant's practices did not violate the FLSA; (2) its facilities
feature union and non-union facilities and are therefore dissimilar
for collective action purposes; and (3) the Wisconsin case should
not be relied on to support certification.

But the arguments do not weigh against certification for three
reasons, Judge Murphy finds. First, the Defendant's substantive
arguments are premature at the conditional certification stage.
Second, the Defendant did not support its argument about the union
and non-union facility distinction with any facts that show whether
those facilities included collective bargaining agreements that
bear on the issues raised. Third, the Plaintiff's reliance on
evidence from the Wisconsin case is not "misplaced" as the
Defendant argued.

All told, the Defendant's arguments do not prevent the Plaintiff
from meeting the lenient standard for conditional certification. At
the conditional certification stage, the Plaintiff "need only made
a 'modest factual showing' that he is similarly situated to
proposed class members," and the Plaintiff has met his low burden.
Judge Murphy therefore granted conditional certification.

B. Proposed Notice and Opt-In Form

Because he has granted conditional certification, Judge Murphy must
approve the Plaintiff's proposed notice and opt-in form. The
Plaintiff's proposed notice extends to "all current and former
individuals employed by Alro as warehouse employees within the
three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the action."

The Defendant challenged the proposed notice on three grounds.
First, it argued that the "Plaintiff does not narrow the collective
to employees allegedly injured by" "Unpaid Compensable Time." Next,
the Defendant stressed that "the notice should be limited to a
two-year period" because the Plaintiff did not offer "evidence to
support a finding that the Defendant willfully failed to compensate
its employees as required under the FLSA for a three-year statute
of limitations." Last, the Defendant objected that the notice does
not inform potential opt-in plaintiffs that they "may be required
to participate in written discovery, sit for a deposition, or
testify at trial."

Nevertheless, Judge Murphy approved in part the proposed notice and
opt-in form. He finds that the Defendant's first objection is
meritless because it offered no support that an opt-in notice must
delineate the subjective beliefs of potential collective members.
The second objection bears on the notice's temporal scope. The
operative date for the limitations period will be the date each
potential plaintiff's consent form is filed with the Court. Third,
the notice must contain a statement notifying potential opt-in
plaintiffs that they "may be required to participate in written
discovery, sit for a deposition, or testify at trial."

Finally, the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff's other
requests for the proposed notice and opt-in form, and the remaining
requests are reasonable. Thus, Judge Muprhy approved also approve
the following requests: (i) the Plaintiff may include a 90-day
opt-in period; (ii) the notice may be issued electronically or
though the United States Postal Service; (iii) the Plaintiff's
counsel may issue the notice to the potential collective members;
(iv) the Defendant must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with
contact information necessary to ensure delivery of notice,
including each individual's (1) name, (2) last known mailing
address, (3) last known email address, and (4) last known telephone
number; and (v) the Plaintiff's counsel may issue a reminder notice
45 days before the close of the opt-in period.

III. Conclusion

In sum, Judge Murphy granted conditional certification and approved
the Plaintiff's proposed notice and opt-in form in part. The notice
and opt-in form must adhere to the seven conditions:

     1. The operative date for the limitations period will be the
date each potential opt-in plaintiff's consent form is filed with
the Court.

     2. The notice must contain a statement notifying potential
opt-in plaintiffs that they may be required to participate in
written discovery, sit for a deposition, or testify at trial.

     3. The Plaintiff may include a 90-day opt-in period.

     4. The notice may be issued electronically or though the
United States Postal Service.

     5. The Plaintiff's counsel may issue the notice to the
potential collective members.

     6. The Defendant must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with
contact information necessary to ensure delivery of notice,
including each individual's (1) name, (2) last known mailing
address, (3) last known email address, and (4) last known telephone
number.

     7. The Plaintiff's counsel may issue a reminder notice 45 days
before the close of the opt-in period.

The motion for conditional certification is granted.

The Plaintiff's proposed notice and opt-in form is approved in
part, subject to the seven mentioned conditions.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3bradu from Leagle.com.


ARQIT QUANTUM: 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 Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition
Corp. (NASDAQ: ARQQ, CENH, CENHU, CENHW) resulting from allegations
that Arqit may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Arqit 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=5481 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 April 18, 2022, pre-market, The Wall Street
Journal published an article entitled "British Encryption Startup
Arqit Overstates Its Prospects, Former Staff and Others Say: Arqit
says its encryption system can't be broken by quantum computers,
but former employees and people outside the company question the
relevance of its technology[.]" The article states that "Arqit has
given investors an overly optimistic view of its future revenue and
the readiness and workability of its signature encryption system,
according to former employees and other people familiar with the
company, and documents viewed by The Wall Street Journal." The
article further states that "people familiar with the matter said
that the bulk of the company's committed revenue isn't from selling
its product and that at its public launch, the company had little
more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system."

On this news, Arqit's stock price fell $2.57 per share, or 17%, to
close at $12.49 per share on April 18, 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.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Yu Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Qiang Yu,
All other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of New Hyde Park, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New Hyde Park,
Respondents, Case No. 604715/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.,
April 8, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of
Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in
New York, United States.[BN]


AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) and Playstudios, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH)

Class Period: May 7, 2021 - February 25, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 14, 2022

Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet
medical need in Japan and the People's Republic of China ("China").
The Company's only product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the
treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurinia
was experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales
outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well short of expectations; (iii)
accordingly, the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's
commercial prospects; (iv) as a result, the Company had overstated
its financial position and/or prospects for 2022; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On February 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31,
2021. Among other items, Aurinia reported a year-over-year revenue
decline and announced a lower-than-expected sales outlook for
2022.

On this news, Aurinia's common share price fell $3.94 per share, or
24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28, 2022.

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

For more information on the Aurinia class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AUPH [GN]

AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Aurinia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) securities between May 7, 2021
and February 26, 2022, for violates of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies to treat diseases with unmet medical need
in Japan and the People's Republic of China. The Company's only
product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the treatment of adult
patients with active lupus nephritis.

If you would like more information about Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc.'s misconduct, click here.

What is this Case About: Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. Misstated the
Financial Impact of its Drug LUPKYNIS

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues
and that the 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall short of
expectations.

On February 28, 2022, Aurinia announced its financial results for
the full quarter and full year ended December 31, 2021, including a
year-over-year revenue decline and lower than expected sales
outlook for 2022. On this news, Aurinia's stock fell $3.94 per
share, or 24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28,
2022.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(AUPH) between May 7, 2021 and February 26, 2022, you have until
June 14, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.


All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. ("Bakkt" or the "Company")
(f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings ("VIH")) (NYSE: BKKT; BKKT
WS) (NASDAQ: VIHAU; VIH; VIHAW) and certain of its former officers
and directors. The Class Action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired: (1) Bakkt securities between
March 31, 2021 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"); and/or (2) Bakkt Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the business combination between the Company and Bakkt
Holdings, LLC ("Legacy Bakkt") completed on or about October 15,
2021 (the "Business Combination").

Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and
operated as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company
that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person.

On January 11, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt announced entry
into a definitive agreement for the Business Combination that would
result in Legacy Bakkt becoming a publicly traded company with an
enterprise value of approximately $2.1 billion.

On March 31, 2021, the Company filed a registration statement on
Form S-4 with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the Business Combination, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2021
(the "Registration Statement"). Also, on September 17, 2021, the
Company filed a proxy statement and prospectus on Form 424B3 with
the SEC in connection with the Business Combination, which formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Proxy" and, together with
the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

On or about October 15, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt
completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Offering
Documents. Thereafter, the Company changed its name to "Bakkt
Holdings, Inc." and began operating a digital asset platform that
enables consumers to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets.

The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had defective financial controls; (2) as a
result, there were errors in the Company's financial statements
related to the misclassification of certain shares issued prior to
the Business Combination; (3) accordingly, the Company would need
to restate certain of its financial statements; (4) the Company
downplayed the true scope and severity of these issues; (5) the
Company overstated its remediation of its defective financial
controls; and (6) as a result, the Offering Documents and
Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

On May 17, 2021, Bakkt-then still operating as VIH-notified the SEC
of its inability to timely file its quarterly report for the
quarter ended March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Company advised
that, as a result of a statement issued by the SEC, "the Company
reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants and
private placement warrants" and "is currently determining the
extent of the SEC Statement's impact on its financial
statements[.]"

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.13 per share, or
1.26%, to close at $10.18 per share on May 18, 2021.

Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing
that it had also previously failed to properly account for the
classification of its Class A ordinary shares and "adjust[ed] . . .
the initial carrying value of the Class A ordinary shares subject
to possible redemption with the offset recorded to additional
paid-in capital (to the extent available), accumulated deficit and
Class A ordinary shares." Notably, the Company revised its balance
sheet as of December 31, 2020, including, among other changes,
additional paid-in capital that was reduced from $9,860,338 to nil,
an accumulated deficit that ballooned from $4,861,190 to
$29,250,419, and total shareholders' equity of $5,000,009 that
swung to a total shareholders' deficit of $29,249,901.

Following these additional disclosures, the Company's share price
fell $0.47 per share, or 4.73%, to close at $9.46 per share on
October 14, 2021.

Finally, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed in another SEC
filing that the Company's management "has re-evaluated . . . the
accounting classification of the Class A ordinary shares . . . of
[VIH] . . . and has identified errors in the historical financial
statements of VIH . . . related to the misclassification . . . of
the Class A Ordinary Shares prior to the [Business Combination]."
Specifically, the Company found that, as a result of errors in its
condensed consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2020, and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021,
June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, Bakkt should "restate certain
of VIH's condensed consolidated financial statements from" those
periods.

On this news, Bakkt's stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%,
to close at $17.02 per share on November 22, 2021.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Bakkt
should contact the Firm prior to the June 20, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Filing of a Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. ("Bakkt" or the "Company") f/k/a VPC
Impact Acquisition Holdings ("VIH") (NYSE: BKKT; BKKT WS) (NASDAQ:
VIHAU; VIH; VIHAW) and certain of its former officers and
directors. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York and docketed under
22-cv-02283, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) Bakkt securities between March 31, 2021 and November
19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b)
Bakkt Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the business
combination between the Company and Bakkt Holdings, LLC ("Legacy
Bakkt") completed on or about October 15, 2021 (the "Business
Combination"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt
securities during the Class Period, or Bakkt Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Business Combination (defined above), you have
until June 20, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and
operated as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company
that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person.

On January 11, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt announced entry
into a definitive agreement for the Business Combination that would
result in Legacy Bakkt becoming a publicly traded company with an
enterprise value of approximately $2.1 billion.

On March 31, 2021, the Company filed a registration statement on
Form S-4 with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the Business Combination, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2021
(the "Registration Statement"). Also on September 17, 2021, the
Company filed a proxy statement and prospectus on Form 424B3 with
the SEC in connection with the Business Combination, which formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Proxy" and, together with
the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

On or about October 15, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt
completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Offering
Documents. Thereafter, the Company changed its name to "Bakkt
Holdings, Inc." and began operating a digital asset platform that
enables consumers to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation, and
that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective
financial controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the
Company's financial statements related to the misclassification of
certain shares issued prior to the Business Combination; (iii)
accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements; (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope
and severity of these issues; (v) the Company overstated its
remediation of its defective financial controls; and (vi) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On May 17, 2021, Bakkt-then still operating as VIH-notified the SEC
of its inability to timely file its quarterly report for the
quarter ended March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Company advised
that, as a result of a statement issued by the SEC, "the Company
reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants and
private placement warrants" and "is currently determining the
extent of the SEC Statement's impact on its financial
statements[.]"

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.13 per share, or
1.26%, to close at $10.18 per share on May 18, 2021.

Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing
that it had also previously failed to properly account for the
classification of its Class A ordinary shares and "adjust[ed] . . .
the initial carrying value of the Class A ordinary shares subject
to possible redemption with the offset recorded to additional
paid-in capital (to the extent available), accumulated deficit and
Class A ordinary shares." Notably, the Company revised its balance
sheet as of December 31, 2020, including, among other changes,
additional paid-in capital that was reduced from $9,860,338 to nil,
an accumulated deficit that ballooned from $4,861,190 to
$29,250,419, and total shareholders' equity of $5,000,009 that
swung to a total shareholders' deficit of $29,249,901.

Following these additional disclosures, the Company's share price
fell $0.47 per share, or 4.73%, to close at $9.46 per share on
October 14, 2021.

Finally, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed in another SEC
filing that the Company's management "has re-evaluated . . . the
accounting classification of the Class A ordinary shares . . . of
[VIH] . . . and has identified errors in the historical financial
statements of VIH . . . related to the misclassification . . . of
the Class A Ordinary Shares prior to the [Business Combination]."
Specifically, the Company found that, as a result of errors in its
condensed consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2020, and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021,
June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, Bakkt should "restate certain
of VIH's condensed consolidated financial statements from" those
periods.

On this news, Bakkt's stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%,
to close at $17.02 per share on November 22, 2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, Bakkt's Class A common
stock was trading between $4 to $5 per share and continues to trade
below its initial value from the Business Combination, damaging
investors.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Robbins LLP Informs Investors of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors of a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:
BKKT, BKKTWS) f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings (NASDAQ: VIHAU,
VIH, VIHAW) securities: (i) between March 31, 2021 and November 19,
2022; and/or (ii) pursuant to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the business combination completed on October 15,
2021. The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you would like more information about Bakkt Holdings, Inc.'s
misconduct, click here.

What is this Case About: Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (BKKT) Had Defective
Financial Controls Requiring the Company to Restate its Financials

According to the complaint, Bakkt was formerly known as VPC Impact
Acquisition Holdings and operated as a special purpose acquisition
company. On October 15, 2021, Bakkt and Legacy Bakkt completed a
business combination. Bakkt changed its name to Bakkt Holdings Inc.
and began operating a digital asset platform that enables consumers
to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets. However, the
Offering Documents were negligently prepared. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and defendants failed to disclose that the
Company had defective financial controls and as such, there were
errors in its financial statements related to the miscalculation of
certain shares issued prior to the business combination. The
Company downplayed the scope and severity of these issues and
overstated its remediation of its defective financial controls.

On November 22, 2021, just a month after assuring investors it had
remediated its defective financial controls, Bakkt disclosed it
would have to restate certain of its previously-issued financial
statements because of errors related to the misclassification of
certain shares issued prior to the business combination. On this
news, shares of Bakkt fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%, to close at
$17.02 per share on November 22, 2021. At the time the complaint
was filed, Bakkt's Class A common stock was trading between $4.00
to $5.00 per share, trading below its initial value from the
business combination.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Bakkt Holdings, Inc. (BKKT)
between March 31, 2021 and November 19, 2022, you have until June
20, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

BAKKT HOLDINGS; Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. ("Bakkt" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BKKT) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt securities traceable to the
October 15, 2021 IPO or between March 31, 2021 to November 19,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until June 20, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Bakkt was formerly known as "VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings" and
operated as a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), also
called a blank-check company, which is a development stage company
that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person.

On January 11, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt announced entry
into a definitive agreement for the Business Combination that would
result in Legacy Bakkt becoming a publicly traded company with an
enterprise value of approximately $2.1 billion.

On March 31, 2021, the Company filed a registration statement on
Form S-4 with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
connection with the Business Combination, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on September 17, 2021
(the "Registration Statement"). Also on September 17, 2021, the
Company filed a proxy statement and prospectus on Form 424B3 with
the SEC in connection with the Business Combination, which formed
part of the Registration Statement (the "Proxy" and, together with
the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

On or about October 15, 2021, the Company and Legacy Bakkt
completed the Business Combination pursuant to the Offering
Documents. Thereafter, the Company changed its name to "Bakkt
Holdings, Inc." and began operating a digital asset platform that
enables consumers to buy, sell, convert, and spend digital assets.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation, and
that throughout the Class Period Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective
financial controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the
Company's financial statements related to the misclassification of
certain shares issued prior to the Business Combination; (iii)
accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements; (iv) the Company downplayed the true scope
and severity of these issues; (v) the Company overstated its
remediation of its defective financial controls; and (vi) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

On May 17, 2021, Bakkt-then still operating as VIH-notified the SEC
of its inability to timely file its quarterly report for the
quarter ended March 31, 2021. Specifically, the Company advised
that, as a result of a statement issued by the SEC, "the Company
reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants and
private placement warrants" and "is currently determining the
extent of the SEC Statement's impact on its financial
statements[.]"

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.13 per share, or
1.26%, to close at $10.18 per share on May 18, 2021.

Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company disclosed in an SEC filing
that it had also previously failed to properly account for the
classification of its Class A ordinary shares and "adjust[ed] . . .
the initial carrying value of the Class A ordinary shares subject
to possible redemption with the offset recorded to additional
paid-in capital (to the extent available), accumulated deficit and
Class A ordinary shares." Notably, the Company revised its balance
sheet as of December 31, 2020, including, among other changes,
additional paid-in capital that was reduced from $9,860,338 to nil,
an accumulated deficit that ballooned from $4,861,190 to
$29,250,419, and total shareholders' equity of $5,000,009 that
swung to a total shareholders' deficit of $29,249,901.

Following these additional disclosures, the Company's share price
fell $0.47 per share, or 4.73%, to close at $9.46 per share on
October 14, 2021.

Finally, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed in another SEC
filing that the Company's management "has re-evaluated . . . the
accounting classification of the Class A ordinary shares . . . of
[VIH] . . . and has identified errors in the historical financial
statements of VIH . . . related to the misclassification . . . of
the Class A Ordinary Shares prior to the [Business Combination]."
Specifically, the Company found that, as a result of errors in its
condensed consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2020, and the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021,
June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, Bakkt should "restate certain
of VIH's condensed consolidated financial statements from" those
periods.

On this news, Bakkt's stock price fell $2.70 per share, or 13.69%,
to close at $17.02 per share on November 22, 2021.

As of the time the complaint was filed, Bakkt's Class A common
stock was trading between $4 to $5 per share and continues to trade
below its initial value from the Business Combination, damaging
investors.

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

                     About Bragar Eagel

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

BANK OF AMERICA: Tristan Sues Over Zelle Money Transfer Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE TRISTAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
30-2022-01255728-CU-FR-CJC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., April 20,
2022)is a class action  lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and
thousands of similarly situated customers of BOA who have signed up
for the Zelle money transfer service and who: have been the victim
of fraud on the Zelle service; who have incurred losses due to that
fraud that have not been reimbursed by BOA; and who were entitled
by the marketing representations of BOA regarding the Zelle service
and by the BOA's contract promises to a full reimbursement of
losses caused by fraud on the Zelle service.

There are approximately 1,500 member banks and credit unions who
participate in the Zelle service. Those members engage in their own
significant marketing efforts to encourage their accountholders to
sign up for the Zelle service by marketing Zelle as a fast, safe
and secure way for consumers to send money. This is false. In fact,
there are huge, undisclosed security risks of using the service
that BOA omitted from its marketing push to get its accountholders
to sign up for Zelle, the suit says.

Zelle is a payment transfer service wholly owned and operated by
seven of the largest banks in the U.S.

BOA prominently touts Zelle to its accountholders as a secure, free
and convenient was to make money transfers. However, it
misrepresents and omits a key fact about the service that is
unknown to accountholders: that there is virtually no recourse for
consumers to recoup losses due to fraud. Indeed, unlike virtually
every other payment method commonly used by  American consumers
--debit cards, credit cards, and checks—there is a no protection
for accountholders who are victims of fraud, and virtually no
recourse for accountholders attempting to recoup losses due to
fraud, added the suit.

The unique, misrepresented, and undisclosed architecture of the
Zelle payment system means -- again, unlike other payment options
commonly used by American consumers -- that virtually any money
transferred for any reason via Zelle is gone forever, without
recourse, reimbursement or protection.

As a result, users like Plaintiff sign up for and use the Zelle
service without the benefit of accurate information regarding that
service, and later end up with huge, unreimbursed losses due to
fraud. Such users never would have signed up for Zelle in the first
place if they had  known the extreme risks of signing up for and
using the service.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have been allegedly injured by
signing up for and using the Zelle service. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of herself, the putative Class, and the
general 3 public. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to
prevent Bank of America and Zelle from continuing to engage in its
llegal practices.

The Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

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

BILTMORE GENERAL: Ramic Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALMEDIN RAMIC and AGRON RAMIC, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. BILTMORE GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,
and FRANK GEISER, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-02255
(E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay
pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were allegedly paid per-shift rates that did not
include prevailing wages or supplemental benefits for the
construction work they performed on New York City and New Jersey
Public Schools. In addition, the Plaintiffs did not receive wages
of any kind for certain hours that they worked, including but not
limited to, work performed at Defendants' yard loading construction
materials onto trucks and travel time to/from Defendants' yard and
the New York City and New Jersey Public School Projects, resulting
in significant underpayment of regular and overtime wages each
week.

Biltmore is a construction and renovation contractor based in
Staten Island, New York that provides construction services and
labor on publicly funded school construction projects.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700

BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES: Case Management Order Entered in Torres
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAIKEL TORRES v.
BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES LLC, BRAND ENERGY SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:21-CV-01771-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand entered a Case Management Order as follows:

  1. The parties shall exchange initial        May 4, 2022
     disclosures required by Rule
     26(a)(1) on or before:

. 2. The parties shall file any motion         June 17, 2022
     to add new parties on or before:

. 3. The parties shall file any motion         June 17, 2022
     to amend the pleadings on or before:

. 4. A mediation session before                June 24, 2022
     Thomas J. Rueter will take place
     on or before:

. 5. The parties shall complete the            Nov. 18, 2022
     first phase of discovery, related
     to Plaintiff's individual claims and
     to Class Certification, on or before:

  6. The Plaintiff shall produce any           Sept. 9, 2022
     expert disclosures related to class
     certification as required by
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
     on or before:

. 7. The Defendant shall produce               Oct. 7, 2022
     expert disclosures related to
     class certification on or before:

. 8. The parties shall complete all            Nov. 18, 2022
     expert discovery related to class
     certification, including depositions,
     on or before:

  9. The Plaintiff's motion for class          Dec. 22, 2022
     certification, supporting brief,
     and appendix of supporting evidence
     shall be filed on or before:

10. The Defendants' brief in opposition       Jan. 20, 2023
     and appendix of supporting of
     evidence shall be filed on or before:

11. The Plaintiff's reply in support of       Feb. 3, 2023
     class certification, if any, shall
     be filed on or before:

BrandSafway provides access, specialized services, and forming and
shoring solutions to the industrial, commercial and infrastructure
business.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L8LbXf at no extra charge.[CC]

BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Deal to Settle Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braxia Scientific Corp. announced that it has reached an agreement
in principle (the "US Settlement") to settle claims alleged in a
securities class action ("US Class Action") pending against the
Company and certain of its former officers filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California in
April, 2021. The Company also announced it has signed a settlement
agreement (the "Canadian Settlement") to resolve a class action
lawsuit ("Canadian Class Action") that was filed in the British
Columbia Supreme Court in May 2021 against the Company its CEO,
certain of its former officers, a shareholder, and underwriters.

The US Settlement contemplates a cash payment by the Company of USD
$1 million to settle the US Class Action. The Canadian Settlement
contemplates a cash payment of CDN $1.9 million, of which the
Company will be paying CDN $1.6 million.

After available insurance, the total cost to the Company to settle
both class actions will be approximately CDN $1.36 million. This
does not include legal expenses incurred by the Company, estimated
at approximately CDN $950,000, of which approximately CDN $750,000
has been paid.

Both the US Settlement and the Canadian Settlement are subject to
court approval at hearings expected later in 2022. Under the
respective settlement agreement, once the US Settlement and the
Canadian Settlement receive court approval, both class actions will
be dismissed against all defendants, including the Company and its
officers. Approval by the respective courts, notice to the putative
classes, and the satisfaction of customary conditions to
effectiveness will take several months.

As previously disclosed, given the uncertainties of litigation, the
Company had not been in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to
reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss in connection with
the class actions. As a result of the entry into the US Settlement
and the Canadian Settlement, the Company expects that the
above-referenced total cost to settle will be incorporated into its
results of operations and financial condition for the fiscal
quarter ending June 30, 2022.

                    Resignation of Director

The Company announces that David Greenberg has resigned as a
director. The Company appreciates David's meaningful contribution
to the Company and wishes him well in future endeavours.

                   About Braxia Scientific

Braxia Scientific is a medical research company with clinics that
provide innovative ketamine treatments for persons with depression
and related disorders. Through its medical solutions, Braxia aims
to reduce the illness burden of brain-based disorders, such as
major depressive disorder among others. Braxia is primarily focused
on (i) owning and operating multidisciplinary clinics, providing
treatment for mental health disorders, and (ii) research activities
related to discovering and commercializing novel drugs and delivery
methods. Braxia seeks to develop ketamine and derivatives and other
psychedelic products from its IP development platform. Through its
wholly owned subsidiary, the Canadian Rapid Treatment Center of
Excellence Inc., Braxia currently operates multidisciplinary
community-based clinics offering rapid-acting treatments for
depression located in Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.
[GN]

BUILD-A-BEAR: TCPA Suit Filed in Missouri
-----------------------------------------
Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended January 29, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that in August 2021, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against it on September 24,
2021, asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) alleging that the Company continued to send marketing text
messages to mobile phone numbers registered on the National Do Not
Call Registry after allegedly opting-out of receiving them.

Statutory damages under the TCPA are assessed at $500 per violation
(i.e. per text message), and up to $1,500 per violation if the
violation was knowing or willful. No class has yet been certified
in the matter and the litigation is in the early stages of
discovery.

Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is an experiential specialty retailer
where children and their families could create their own stuffed
animals based in Missouri.


C&D SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EZRA JONES, individually and on behalf of Case No. all others
similarly situated v. C&D SECURITY MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES; C&D ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, LLC d/b/a ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC; SOS SURCURITY LLC d/b/a SOS
SECURITY LLC d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL RISK ADVISORY AND CONSULTING
SERVICES; SECURADYNE SYSTEMS INTERMEDIATE LLC d/b/a ALLIED
UNIVERSAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES; ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, LLC
d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES; AND UNIVERSAL SERVICES OF
AMERICA, LP d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, Case No.
2:22-cv-01536 (E.D. Pa., April 20, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed by Allied Universal to the
Plaintiff and Allied Universal's other non-overtime-exempt workers,
who were the ultimate victims of not just the Kronos hack, but
Allied Universal's decision to make its own non-exempt employees
workers bear the economic burden for the hack.

According to the complaint, Allied Universal alleged failed to pay
wages, including proper overtime, for all hours worked violates the
Fair Labor Standards Act and California law.

Like many other companies across the United States, Allied
Universal's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the
hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping
and payroll throughout Allied Universal's organization.

As a result, Allied Universal's workers who were not exempt from
overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all hours
worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for all
overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Ezra
Jones is one such Allied Universal worker. Allied Universal could
have easily implemented a system to accurately record time and
properly pay non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues
related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Allied
Universal used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to
avoid paying wages and proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly
and salaried employees, the suit says.

Allied Universal provides security personnel, technology, and
professional services. Allied Universal employs over 800,000
workers. Allied Universal, Our People,
https://www.aus.com/about-us/our-people (last visited Apr. 19,
2022).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Misclassifies Caregivers, Smith Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHIQUITA SMITH, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. CARE4ALL
CAREGIVERS, LLC, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, and SANDI
ANN SEYMOUR-NECAISE, an individual, Case No. 1:22-cv-00094-TBM-RPM
(D. Miss., April 20, 2022) alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly classify Plaintiff
and other similarly situated caregivers as employees and by failing
to pay them in accordance with the FLSA's overtime provisions
within weekly pay periods during all times relevant and material to
this lawsuit.

The Defendants allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and similarly
situated caregivers as exempt from the protections of the FLSA and
failed to pay proper regard to the amount of hours the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated actually worked or guarantee proper
payment of overtime hours.

Plaintiff Chiquita Smith was employed by Defendants as a caregiver
by Defendants in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi facility. She and all
other caregivers were classified as independent contractors rather
than employees.

Care4all is a is a local charity that provides a wide range of
services for older people and people with disabilities living in
North East Lincolnshire.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James K. Wetzel, Esq.
          Garner J. Wetzel, Esq.
          WETZEL LAW FIRM
          Post Office Box I
          Gulfport, MS 39502
          Telephone: (228) 864-6400
          Facsimile: (228) 863-1793
          E-mail: jkwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com
                  gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
           OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com

CARMAX INC: Faces Bendure Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that a class action was filed
alleging violation of the Labor Code, however, the plaintiff
subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or putative
class claim.

On July 9, 2021, "Daniel Bendure v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC et al.," a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Bendure
lawsuit seeks civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code,
attorneys' fees, costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest,
injunctive and equitable relief, general damages, and special
damages.

Bendure subsequently decided not to proceed with an individual or
putative class claim, but rather filed and served a PAGA-only
complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Bernardino on December 7, 2021, based on the same allegations pled
in the original complaint. CarMax filed a motion to compel
arbitration. The Court has stayed all discovery until after it
rules on CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Faces Miller Class Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that it is facing a class action
filed in August 12, 2021 captioned "Jordon Miller v. CarMax Auto
Superstores California, LLC et al." in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside. The Miller lawsuit also seeks
civil penalties for violation of the Labor Code, attorneys' fees,
costs, restitution of unpaid wages, interest, injunctive and
equitable relief, general damages, and special damages.

CarMax removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The parties are waiting for the
Central District to either grant or deny Miller's motion to remand
to state court. Miller also filed a separate action in the
California Superior Court for the County of Riverside for wrongful
termination and related claims. The Superior Court recently entered
a stipulation to stay the wrongful termination case while the
parties proceed through arbitration on these claims.

CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia.


CARMAX INC: Settles Sabanovich Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that it has settled a class action
filed against the company in October 31, 2017 captioned "Joshua
Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et al.," filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus asserting
wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.

The asserted claims included failure to pay minimum wage, provide
meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages,
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements, unfair competition, and Private Attorneys General
Act claims. The Sabanovich lawsuit sought unspecified damages,
restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys'
fees.

The parties have reached a settlement resolving Sabanovich's
individual arbitration claims and PAGA claim, which did not have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia.


CEDAR FAIR: Class Suit Pursued Against Owner Over COVID Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Cassi at lehighvalleylive.com reports that pass holders for
Cedar Fair amusement parks, which includes Dorney Park & Wildwater
Kingdom, are seeking a class action lawsuit over passes for the
2020 season shortened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Cedar Fair representative declined to comment to
lehighvalleylive.com, citing the pending litigation, after a judge
ruled the lawsuit can proceed.

Cedar Fair owns 15 amusement parks, including Dorney in South
Whitehall Township and Cedar Point and Kings Island in Ohio. The
parks' seasons usually last 130 to 140 days, according to court
papers, opening on the weekends beginning in April or May, and then
daily from Memorial Day until Labor Day.

At Dorney Park, the season extends to October for its annual
Halloween Haunt.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, the Ohio-based company
initially kept all of its parks closed. Some parks - including
California's Great America, Valleyfair and Canada's Wonderland -
never opened that year, according to the allegations.

Those that did open, like Dorney, were closed for a substantial
portion of the season with restrictions including capacity limits,
required reservations, and restricted ride and attraction access,
the lawsuit says.

Dorney Park cut the 2020 season short, closing after Sept. 7, but
said season passes for that year would be extended through the
following 2021 season.

Ticket and season pass sales are final, and there are no refunds or
transfers. When Cedar Fair refused to return any portion of the
season pass fees, pass holders sued in September 2020 in Ohio
federal court.

The federal judge in Ohio denied Cedar Fair's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit - for now.

At issue is whether Cedar Fair's advertising would have led a
reasonable consumer to believe that if the company couldn't provide
a substantial portion of the unlimited visits promised for season
pass holders, it would refund part of the passes' purchase price,
U.S. District Court Judge James Carr wrote.

Cedar Fair knew a force majeure event, or "Act of God," could
possibly force its parks to close for some or all of a season, Carr
wrote, but the plaintiffs claim that clause was not in the terms
and conditions on the company's websites, and they did not realize
the customers would bear the financial consequences.

"While proving that such is the case might well be difficult for
the plaintiffs, at this point I believe that they have adequately
stated a claim for relief ... to survive dismissal," the judge
ruled.

The group of plaintiffs are represented by the Dovel and Luner law
firm, which is looking for people seeking a refund for a 2020
season park pass. More information can be found at dovel.com.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe to
lehighvalleylive.com.

Sarah Cassi may be reached at scassi@lehighvalleylive.com. [GN]

CEDAR FAIR: Customers File COVID Refund Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Stone at wrhi.com reports that some Carowinds customers have
filed a class action lawsuit against the park's owner, asking for a
partial refund of their season passes. They filed the suit against
Cedar Fair because they say they had fewer days to visit the park.
The plaintiffs allege the policy online about season passes did not
say that if an unexpected event forced it to close, officials would
not refund even a portion of the season pass purchase price. This
became an issue during the pandemic when Cedar Fair's parks,
including Carowinds, couldn't open for their usual dates because of
COVID-19. In response to the lawsuit, Cedar Fair said, "A
reasonable consumer would not expect the company to return a
portion of the purchase price based on the disclaimer actually
printed on the tickets." But, the company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit was denied. [GN]

CEDAR FAIR: Judge Denies Request to Throw Out Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
wfmz.com reports that a federal judge has denied a request to throw
out a class-action lawsuit against the parent company of Dorney
Park.

The judge denied Cedar Fair's request.

The plaintiffs complain that they never got their money's worth on
season passes to Cedar Fair-owned amusement parks back in 2020.

Many of the parks, including Dorney, remained closed much of the
season because of the COVID pandemic. [GN]

CEDAR FAIR: Refund Lawsuit Can Move Forward, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Brady Macdonald at ocregister.com reports that a class action
lawsuit filed by a Knott's Berry Farm season passholder who was
refused a refund when the Buena Park theme park was shuttered for
more than a year by the COVID-19 pandemic seeks restitution for
millions of passholders.

A United States District Court Judge in Ohio denied a motion on
Thursday, April 21 by Knott's parent company Cedar Fair to dismiss
the class action lawsuit and ruled the suit over non-refunded
season passes during the coronavirus pandemic can move forward.

Judge James Carr said in the ruling that any reasonable passholder
would have expected a prorated refund when the Ohio-based Cedar
Fair closed its 11 theme parks during the pandemic.

Cedar Fair and Knott's Berry Farm officials declined to comment on
the pending litigation.

Cedar Fair offered 2020 season passholders an extension through the
2021 season when the pandemic shuttered the company's theme parks
in March 2020.

Knott's, California's Great America, Ohio's Cedar Point, Virginia's
Kings Dominion, Canada's Wonderland and other Cedar Fair theme
parks reopened at varying dates based on individual state health
and safety guidelines. Knott's reopened in May 2021 after hosting a
series of food festivals without rides during the pandemic closure
of the park.

The lawsuit was brought by Washington state resident Moneva Walker
who purchased a 2020 season pass for Knott's Berry Farm when she
lived in California.

The class action plaintiffs argue Cedar Fair refused to offer a
prorated refund for a portion of the regularly scheduled season
when the theme parks remained closed by the pandemic.

Cedar Fair counters season pass disclaimers indicated all sales
were final with no refunds or exchanges and operating dates were
subject to change without notice.

The ruling notes Cedar Fair didn't need to knowingly mislead
passholders for the company to be liable under Ohio's consumer
protection laws.

The class action lawsuit could include more than 2 million Cedar
Fair season passholders who paid $60 to $200 for their passes,
according to the law firm bringing the suit. [GN]


COAST DENTAL: Removes Davis Suit to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of AMANDA DAVIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COAST DENTAL
SERVICES, LLC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida, County of
Hillsborough (Case No. 22-CA-2116) to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on April 21, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-00941. The case is assigned to Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
and referred to Magistrate Thomas G Wilson.

Coast Dental Services, Inc. provides comprehensive business
services and support to general dentistry practices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          Email: josh@markmigdal.com
                 yaniv@markmigdal.com
                 eservice@markmigdal.com

CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Case Management Order Entered in Mullen
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARTLEY MULLEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CONCORD HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-RJC
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered a case
management order as follows:

  1. The parties shall move to amend the       April 29, 2022
     pleadings or add new parties by:

  2. The parties shall complete fact           Aug. 29, 2022
     discovery for class certification
     by:

  3. Plaintiff's Expert Reports as to          Sept. 5, 2022
     class certification are due on
     or before:

  4. The Defendant's Expert Reports as         Sept. 26, 2022
     to class certification are due
     on or before:

  5. Depositions of Plaintiff's experts        Sept. 19, 2022
     as to class certification shall
     be completed on or before:

  6. Depositions of Defendant's experts        Oct. 10, 2022
     as to class certification shall
     be completed on or before:

  7. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class          Nov. 7, 2022
     Certification, Brief in Support,
     and all supporting evidence
     shall be filed by:

  8. The parties shall complete the            May 23, 2022
     ADR process they selected by:

Concord Hospitality is a hotel management and development company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rJKwDT at no extra charge.[CC]

CONTACTUS LLC: Pyfrom Wins Bid for Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHADEZA PYFROM, on behalf
of herself and others situated, v. CONTACTUS, LLC D/B/A CONTACTUS
COMMUNICATIONS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04293-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and
court-supervised notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs:

   "All former and current hourly support associates, customer
   service representatives, agents, or similar call center or
   in-home representatives of the Defendants who were scheduled
   to work 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) beginning
   three years before the filing of this Motion and to the
   present."

The Plaintiff Khadeza Pyfrom brings this action against Defendants
ContactUS and ContactUS Technology, Ltd. for alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Complaint,
the Defendants provide call center and remote services to their
company customers and operate customer service call centers in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

The Plaintiff worked as a customer support representative for
Defendants and was paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiff alleges
that she and other similarly situated workers were required to
perform unpaid work after clocking out each day, including:
attending to technical issues and problems with Defendants'
systems; calling into Defendants' technical support line; waiting
for assistance from Defendants' technical support representatives;
resolving technical issues with computers or programs; and
otherwise when designated by Defendants as being in "reserve." In
short, the Plaintiff alleges that employees were not compensated
for work outside of actively taking customer calls.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L7OlKY at no extra charge.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: 60 Days Extension of Case Schedule Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SKRANDEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly Situated, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826-AMC (S.D.
Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
case schedule by roughly 60 days, extending the class discovery
deadline from April 18, 2022 to June 17, 2022, and the deadline for
Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification from May 2,
2022 to July 1, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16(b)(4) and Local Rule 7.1.

Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. As of 2020, Costco
was the fifth largest retailer in the world, and the world's
largest retailer of choice and prime beef, organic foods,
rotisserie chicken, and wine as of 2016.

A copy of the Parties motion to certify class dated April 7, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OzW4Ug at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
          FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          Robert. E. Gordon, Esq.
          Daniel G. Williams, Esq.
          GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
          4114 Northlake Boulevard
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                  rgordon@fortheinjured.com
                  dwilliams@fortheinjured.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Purvi G. Patel, Esq.
          Wendy J. Ray, Esq.
          Zachary Maldonado, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3542
          Telephone: (213) 892 5383
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: ppatel@mofo.com
                  wray@mofo.com
                  zmaldonado@mofo.com

               - and -

          Phillip J. Sheehe, Esq.
          Johanna E. Sheehe, Esq.
          SHEEHE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          9830 SW 77th Ave., Ste. 215
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 379-3515
          Facsimile: (305) 379-5404
          E-mail: psheehe@sheeheandassociates.com
                  jsheehe@sheeheandassociates.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Coleman Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEIGH COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC; UHG I LLC;
and UNITED HOLDING GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-01860-CI
(Fla Cir., April 21, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

CREDIT CONTROL, LLC provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services. Credit Control serves customers in the State of Missouri.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CRST INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Modify Class Certification Order Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Curtis Markson, et al., v.
CRST International, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01261-SB-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
denying motion to modify class certification order:

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' contention, the certification of a
narrower CRST-only class does not follow logically -- much less
inevitably -- from the Court's findings. To determine whether
Plaintiffs could satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) as to such a class, the
Court would have to permit the parties to raise new arguments on a
new motion for class certification. The time for filing such
motions has long passed. The Plaintiffs, who have litigated this
case for nearly five years without seeking certification of an
antitrust class or subclass against only CRST, are not entitled to
another bite at the apple. Accordingly, the motion is denied."

The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint against
Defendants nearly five years ago, on May 15, 2017. Over the
following three years, the Plaintiffs amended their pleadings four
times to add new claims and new Defendants. After initially filing
and withdrawing a motion, Plaintiffs waited to seek class
certification until August 2021, more than four years into this
litigation. Then they filed two motions to certify classes, one
directed only at CRST, and one directed at all Defendants and
alleging antitrust violations.

CRST is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vAXDIJ at no extra charge.[CC]

DENNIS GROSS: Gunaratna, Camenforte Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOCHA GUNARATNA, and RENEE
CAMENFORTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying class action on behalf of the following class
      of purchasers of the Products:

      "All residents of California who, within four years prior
      to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products
      (California Subclass);"

      Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns,
      successors, and legal representatives; (ii) any entities
      in which Defendant has controlling interests; (iii)
      federal, state, and/or local governments, including, but
      not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions,
      bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or
      subdivisions; and (iv) any judicial officer presiding over
      this matter and person within the third degree of
      consanguinity to such judicial officer.

   2. appointing that Plaintiffs Mocha Gunaratna and Renee   
      Camenforte are appointed as Class Representative.

   3. appointing Ryan J. Clarkson and Yana Hart of Clarkson Law
      Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare is a cosmetics company that offers hair,
skin and nail care product representation.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vD29qi
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

DRESSBARN.COM: Uses False Sale Pricing on Website, Says Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Garner at footwearnews.com reports that Dressbarn is under
fire for allegedly violating unfair competition and false
advertising laws.

In a new class action lawsuit filed by Jaimie Hernandez in U.S.
District Court of Central California on April 15, Dressbarn is
being accused of using false reference pricing on its website to
make its sale items appear to be offered at a greater discount.

In the complaint, Hernandez seeks monetary damages, restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief from Dressbarn - as part of the
class action - arising from the company's alleged deceptive
business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on its e-commerce website,
Dressbarn.com, where it sells women's clothing and other related
items.

Hernandez said she purchased four items from Dressbarn's website on
or around April 1 that allegedly used false reference pricing,
according to the lawsuit. Due to the advertised reference price,
Hernandez falsely believed she was getting a "significant discount"
on her items, which included, among other things, a pair of
Havaianas metallic rubber sandals.

Hernandez argues further that the false reference pricing led her
to believe that the discounted price would "likely not last,"
further inducing her to make a purchase. She added that the items
listed for sale were never sold at the advertised reference price
and "artificially inflated" the true market value of the items.

Hernandez said in the complaint that she "seeks to halt the
dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing
scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception it has
created in the minds of consumers, and to obtain redress for those
who have purchased products tainted by this deceptive pricing
scheme."

This lawsuit comes three years after the retailer shut down all of
its 650 stores across the United States after its parent company,
Ascena Retail Group, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
That same year, Retail Ecommerce Ventures purchased the
intellectual property assets of Dressbarn from Ascena and
relaunched the brand's e-commerce site in 2020. [GN]


E.T. BROWNE: $3M Class Action Settlement Reached in False Ad Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who Qualifies: The Palmer's stretch mark lotion settlement benefits
consumers who purchased Palmer's Massage Lotion for Stretch Marks,
Palmer's Massage Cream for Stretch Marks, and/or Palmer's Tummy
Butter for Stretch Marks in the United States between Dec. 31,
2016, and March 15, 2022.

Potential Award: Full purchase price with proof of purchase; $6
without proof

Proof of Purchase Required: Only for Tier 2 claimants

Claim Deadline: 6/13/2022

E.T. Browne agreed to pay $3 million to resolve claims that it used
deceptive marketing for Palmer's stretch mark lotion - and no proof
of purchase is needed for Class Members to benefit from the
settlement.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Palmer's Massage
Lotion for Stretch Marks, Palmer's Massage Cream for Stretch Marks,
and/or Palmer's Tummy Butter for Stretch Marks in the United States
between Dec. 31, 2016, and March 15, 2022.

Palmer's is a personal care brand from E.T. Browne that offers
oil-based products for skin and hair concerns. The brand stresses
its use of natural, raw ingredients such as shea butter, coconut
oil, and cocoa butter. Some of Palmer's most popular products are
stretch mark creams, oils, and butters.

However, according to a class action lawsuit against E.T. Browne,
Palmer's products are misleadingly marketed. The plaintiff in the
case contends Palmer's products are marketed as "for stretch marks"
and able to "help reduce the appearance of stretch marks."
According to the consumer, there is no factual basis for these
marketing claims.

These claims, despite lacking the support of scientific evidence,
allegedly cause consumers to purchase the products or pay a higher
price, believing the products could help prevent or reduce stretch
marks.

The Palmer's stretch mark lotion class action lawsuit brought
claims for breach of express warranty, fraud, and violations of
Illinois consumer protection laws.

E.T. Browne hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3
million to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect cash
refunds for their purchases.

Tier One claimants, or those who don't have proof of purchase, can
receive $3 per purchased unit. These claimants can claim up to two
units per household for a maximum payment of $6.

Tier Two claimants, or those who have proof of purchase, can
recover the full purchase price of the products and claim up to
five purchased units per household.

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

The final approval hearing for the Palmer's stretch mark lotion
settlement is scheduled for June 23, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by June 13, 2022. For higher
payments, Class Members should include proof of purchase such as
receipts.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Palmer's Massage
Lotion for Stretch Marks, Palmer's Massage Cream for Stretch Marks,
and/or Palmer's Tummy Butter for Stretch Marks between Dec. 31,
2016, and March 15, 2022.

Potential Award
Full purchase price OR $6.

Tier One claimants, or those who don't have proof of purchase, can
receive $3 per purchased unit. These claimants can claim up to two
units per household for a maximum payment of $6.
Tier Two claimants, or those who have proof of purchase, can
recover the full purchase price of the products and claim up to
five purchased units per household.
Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is required for Tier One claimants.

Proof of purchase for Tier Two claimants is a receipt or other
documentation from a third-party commercial source that reasonably
establishes the fact and date of the product purchase during the
Class Period in the United States.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/13/2022

Case Name
Watson, et al. v. E.T. Browne Drug Co. Inc., Case No. 2022LA000151
in the Circuit Court Of Dupage County, Illinois, 18th Judicial
Circuit

Final Hearing
06/23/2022

Settlement Website
StretchMarkLitigation.com

Claims Administrator
Watson v. E.T. Browne
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
1-833-620-3605
Class Counsel
BURSOR & FISHER PA

NICK LARRY LAW LLC

Defense Counsel
UNKNOWN [GN]

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a
Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ: EMBK, EMBKW, NGAB,
NGAB.U, NGAB.WS) between January 12, 2021 and January 5, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 31, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Embark class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4934 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 31, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Embark had performed inadequate
due diligence into Embark Trucks Inc. ("Legacy Embark"); (2) Legacy
Embark and the Company, following the November 2021 merger of
Legacy Embark and Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II (the
"Business Combination"), held no patents and an insignificant
number of test trucks; (3) accordingly, Embark had overstated its
operational and technological capabilities; (4) as a result of all
the foregoing, Embark had overstated the business and financial
prospects of the Company post-Business Combination; and (5) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Embark class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4934 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Painkillers
---------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Endo International Plc and Impax
Laboratories LLC will face an ordinary class action trial over
allegations they schemed to block generic versions of the
painkiller Opana ER, a federal judge in Chicago ruled, denying a
bid for separate trials of claims by direct and indirect
purchasers.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber rejected a motion by the Opana
purchasers leading the case to establish ad hoc "trifurcated" trial
proceedings in an effort to avoid prejudicing the claims of drug
distributors with evidence that they passed on overcharges to end
payers like consumers and health plans.

Leinenweber, writing for the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, said it should be enough for him to issue
ordinary jury instructions making clear that evidence of downstream
overcharges is relevant only to the indirect purchaser case, not as
a defense to the direct purchaser claims.

The request overlooked "the ability of jury instructions to
regulate how and for what purpose the jury considers evidence," the
judge wrote. "The Federal Rules do not advise courts to draw an
entirely new jury every time there is evidence which may only be
considered for one purpose."

Leading precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court state that a main
aim of both bespoke trial mechanisms and traditional
bifurcation-separating liability issues from damages
calculations-is "to prevent long, complicated proceedings,"
Leinenweiber noted in his ruling.

In that context, the "cure appears worse than the disease," he
wrote. "The proposed proceedings would appear to make a long,
complicated proceeding more so instead of less."

Endo and Impax, an Amneal Pharmaceuticals Inc. subsidiary, had
opposed the request, referring to it as "artificial
gerrymandering."

The long-running antitrust lawsuit, filed in 2014, accuses Endo of
agreeing to drop a patent lawsuit against Impax, and temporarily
stay out of the eventual market for generic Opana, in exchange for
a pledge by Impax not to challenge its patents.

The deal also allegedly called for Endo to pay $102 million if it
switched to a new Opana formulation that undercut Impax's generic
version.

A trial of those claims was originally scheduled for Nov. 1, but it
was delayed when a federal appeals court in July ordered
Leinenweber to revisit part of his ruling certifying the case as a
class action. The judge issued a new decision a month later
restoring class action status to that part of the case.

No new trial date appears to have been set, according to the court
docket.

Endo is represented by Dechert LLP and Williams & Connolly LLP.
Impax is represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The direct purchasers
are represented by Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP and Berger Montague
PC.

The end payers are represented by Labaton Sucharow LLP and Freed
Kanner London & Millen LLC. Certain major retailers are represented
by Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller and Kenny Nachwalter
PA.

The case is In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., N.D. Ill., No.
14-cv-10150, 4/21/22.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Leonard in Washington
at mleonard@bloomberglaw.com [GN]

FARM JOURNAL: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered in Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIA HALL v. FARM JOURNAL,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11811-DML-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
David M. Lawson entered a case management and scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Pretrial Disclosures (Rule 26(a)(1)):    April 26, 2022

  -- Expert Disclosure, plaintiff             June 13, 2022
     (class cert.):

  -- Expert Disclosure, defendant             July 8, 2022
     (class cert.):

  -- Class Certification Motion:              Aug. 1, 2022

  -- Interim Status Conference:               Aug. 11, 2022

  -- Expert Disclosure, plaintiff             Sept. 1, 2022
     (merits):

  -- Expert Disclosure, defendant             Sept. 30, 2022
    (merits):

  -- Discovery Cutoff:                        Nov. 30, 2022

  -- Motions Challenging Experts              Dec. 22, 2022
     Filed By:

  -- Dispositive Motions Filed By:            Dec. 22, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated April 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k3umkz at no extra charge.[CC]


FAT BRANDS: Investors Were Harmed Financially, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chipman v. Fat Brands Inc. et al.
FILED: APRIL 15, 2022 Sec 2:22-CV-02541

Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that FAT Brands Inc. faces
a proposed class action that alleges investors were injured
financially upon the revelation that CEO Andy Wiederhorn was the
subject of a federal probe.

DEFENDANT(S)
Fat Brands Inc. Andrew Wiederhorn Ron Roe Rebecca Hershinger Ken
Kuick

LAW(S)
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

STATE(S)
California

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

FAT Brands Inc. and its top officers face a proposed class action
that alleges those who bought shares in the restaurant operating
group were injured financially following the public revelation that
CEO Andy Wiederhorn was the subject of a federal probe.  

The 28-page suit alleges quarterly reports filed by the company,
who runs Johnny Rockets, Fatburger and other restaurant chains,
since 2017 were false and misleading given they neglected to
mention that Widerhorn and/or his son, FAT Brands' COO, had engaged
in certain business transactions "for no legitimate corporate
purpose."

Moreover, the lawsuit claims that FAT Brands misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose to investors that the company had ignored
"warning signs" related to the Wiederhorns' transactions, and that
as a result FAT would likely face "increased scrutiny,
investigations, and other potential issues."

As the case tells it, the truth began to emerge upon the February
19, 2022 publication of a Los Angeles Times report that revealed
the Wiederhorn family was under investigation for alleged
securities and wire fraud, money laundering and attempted tax
evasion. Per the Times, federal agents in December raided the
Beverly Grove, California home of Wiederhorn's son and
daughter-in-law, seizing phones, digital storage devices, documents
and other records.

"On this news, FAT Brands' class A common stock price fell $2.42
per share, or 23%, to close at $8.14 per share on February 22,
2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors," the
lawsuit says, noting that the company's class B stock price also
took a tumble following the news.

According to the Times, a November 2021 affidavit from a special
agent for the FBI alleged that Wiederhorn had "devised and executed
a fraudulent scheme" to avoid paying taxes and received millions in
sham loans through his companies.

The lawsuit goes on to state that two days after the publication of
the Los Angeles Times report, FAT Brands disclosed to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Central District of California had opened
investigations into the company and Wiederhorn, and formally sought
documents and materials concerning, among other matters, FAT's
December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital Group, transactions
between the companies and Wiederhorn and "compensation, extensions
of credit and other benefits or payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn
or his family."

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

The case, filed on April 15, 2022 in California, looks to cover all
individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded FAT Brands securities between December 4, 2017 and
February 18, 2022. [GN]

FCA US: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, V . FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
the current briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).

FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k6Ug6Z at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine A. Mitchell, Esq.
          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  hst@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Katherine A. Mitchell, Esq.
          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN &
          THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  kmitchell@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
                  pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Scott M. Sarason, Esq.
          Michael R. Holt
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL
          A Professional Association
          Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000
          80 S.W. 8th Street
          Miami, FL 33130-3037
          Telephone: (305) 358-5577
          Facsimile: (305) 371-7580
          E-mail: ssarason@rumberger.com
                  mholt@rumberger.com

               - and -

          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          Ian K. Edwards, Esq.
          KLEIN THOMAS & LEE
          101 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 509-9271
          E-mail: Fred.Fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com
                  Ian.Edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com

FCA US: Loses Summary Judgment Bid in Gearshift Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order denying the
defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Court said, "The Defendant contends that the plaintiff's
product liability claims are time barred under Colorado law, which
governs this dispute, because it is undisputed that they were filed
more than two years after the injury accident, and the record does
not support any exception under which the untimely filing may be
excused. The plaintiff responds that the record leaves open
questions of fact about whether a reasonable person in the
plaintiff's position would have been fully informed about the
existence of a gear shift design defect and its probable role in
causing the injury accident, and, at any rate, there is sufficient
evidence in the record to support the application of equitable
tolling to forgive the tardy filing of the plaintiff's claims. The
Court previously denied the defendant's motion to dismiss brought
on the same grounds. The discovery in the case has refined the
parties' arguments, but the facts that have emerged support the
plaintiff's argument and preclude judgment as a matter of law."

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k2WCnn at no extra charge.[CC]

FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Seeks Initial Approval of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS BONSANGUE, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated drivers, v. FERRELLGAS,
INC.; FERRELLGAS, L.P.; BLUE RHINO LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11169-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Granting preliminary approval of the proposed class action
      and PAGA settlement, including the amount of the
      settlement; the amount and methodology pertaining to
      distributions to the class; the procedure for giving
      notice to class members; the procedure for allowing class
      members to opt out of or object to the settlement; and the
      amounts allocated to incentive payments, attorney fees and
      costs, and administrative costs;

   2. Provisionally certifying the proposed Settlement Class for
      settlement purposes only;

   3. Approving the form and content of the class notice and
      directing the distribution of the class notice;

   4. Appointing Joseph Lavi, Vincent Granberry, and Courtney
      Miller from Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel and
      named Plaintiff Chris Bonsangue as Class Representative;

   5. Appointing Simpluris, Inc. as settlement administrator;
      and

   6. Setting a Final Approval Hearing and hearing on Class
      Counsel's Attorney Fees and Cost award and Class
      Representative’s Enhancement Payment for a date and time
      convenient to the Court approximately 120 days after
      granting preliminary approval.

Ferrellgas Partners is an American supplier of propane founded 83
years ago in Atchison, Kansas by A.C. Ferrell. The company is based
outside of Kansas City in the suburbs of Liberty, Missouri and
Overland Park, Kansas.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MvLHPz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Melissa A. Huether, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  mhuether@lelawfirm.com
                  cmiller@lelawfirm.com


FIVE BELOW: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER KRAWITZ and JUSTINA MCLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02253 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
has violated the New York Labor Law by paying its manual workers
every other week rather than on a weekly basis.

New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner. The Defendant has received no such authorization from
the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner, the suit
says.

The New York Court Of Appeals has explained that this law is
"intended for the protection of those who are dependent upon their
wages for sustenance."

The Plaintiffs demand liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees individually and on behalf of a putative class comprised of
all manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as
all persons who worked as manual workers in their employment for
Defendant in the State of New York from six years preceding this
Complaint to the date of class notice in this action.

Five Below owns a chain of Five Below retail stores that employ
hundreds, if not thousands, of manual workers in the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES: Carroll Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY CARROLL; TODD VAN
DER JAGT; JERRY RAY; TONY JELINEK; STEPHEN ANDERSON; and FRED
MINOR, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.; JERALD K. DITTMER; DERECK P. SCHMIDT;
and UNNAMED FIDUCIARIES OF FLEXSTEEL'S ERISA-GOVERNED SEVERANCE
PLAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-01005-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
C.J. Williams entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unresisted
motion for class certification, preliminary approval of settlement,
notice to class, and appointment of class counsel.

The Court preliminarily approves plaintiffs' proposed settlement
and authorizes the parties to proceed with notice to the class and
final motions necessary to bring the case to conclusion. The
proposed notice provides for a procedure for class members to opt
out of the settlement and gives class members 30 days from the
postmark date of the short form notice to complete the opt out
process. The Court finds this reasonable. Therefore, for persons
wishing to opt out, the deadline to file the opt out forms with the
class administrator is 30 days after the post mark of the short
form notice. Members who wish to object to the settlement must file
those objections with the class administrator no later than May 30,
2022. Class members who object may obtain legal representation at
their expense. In order to be heard at the Final Fairness Hearing,
counsel must file an appearance with this Court no later than May
30, 2022.

Class Counsel must file their motion for approval of service fees
for class representative, attorney fees, and costs by April 29,
2022. Counsel for the parties are instructed to contact Sali Van
Weelden at Sali_VanWeelden@iand.uscourts.gov to schedule a Final
Fairness Hearing. Counsel for the parties must submit a proposed
order regarding the requested final approval of the settlement 14
days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing.

Flexsteel is manufacturer, importer and marketer of residential and
commercial upholstered and wooden furniture products in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action seeking damages for
themselves and those similarly situated following the termination
of their employment between April 2020 and June 2020, primarily
from defendant Flexsteel's manufacturing centers in Dubuque, Iowa
and Starkville.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the WARN Act and ERISA for
defendants' failure to provide sixty days' notice of plant closings
and failure to pay severance in accordance with past policy,
practice, and plans.

The Plaintiffs also allege that defendant Flexsteel's corporate
officers breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
failure to pay severance.

Finally, the plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Iowa
Wage Payment Collection Act, Chapter 91A of the Iowa Code, by
failing to make termination payments. The Defendants moved to
dismiss plaintiffs' ERISA claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court denied defendants' motion. The
Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Complaint. Approximately
three months later, parties advised the Court they had reached a
settlement. The Defendants then filed this motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38b0qjT at no extra charge.[CC]

FORD MOTOR: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Glassburg Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued a Stipulated Protective Order
in the case, MAXWELL GLASSBURG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01333 ODW (MAAx) (C.D. Cal.).

The parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the
Stipulated Protective Order. The action is likely to involve trade
secrets, personally identifiable information ("PII"), and other
valuable research, development, commercially sensitive, financial,
technical and/or proprietary information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecution of the action is warranted.

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

Action refers to this pending federal putative class action
lawsuit. Counsel for Plaintiff also represents the Plaintiffs in
two other putative class actions based on allegations similar to
those asserted in the Complaint filed in the putative class action
-- Rodriguez et al. v. Ford Motor Company, N.D. Ill., Case No.
1:21-cv-02553; and Davis et al. v. Ford Motor Company, D. Mass.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11474. The parties have agreed to coordinate
discovery in the Rodriguez and Davis Actions with the Action. The
parties agree to the entry of the Stipulated Protective Order in
the Rodriguez and Davis Actions absent any specific requirements or
the local rules of the Courts in the Rodriguez and Davis Actions.

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

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

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

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or
destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification
to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to
the Designating Party) by the 60-day deadline that (1) identifies
(by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that
was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party
has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or
any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected
Material.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Stipulated
Protective Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bdwxw8f from
Leagle.com.

McGUIREWOODS LLP TANYA L GREENE -- tgreene@mcguirewoods.com -- in
Los Angeles, California.

Perry W. Miles IV -- pmiles@mcguirewoods.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice) Brian D. Schmalzbach -- bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com --
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) in Richmond, Virginia.

Abigail A. Golden -- agolden@mcguirewoods.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice), in Charlotte, North Carolina, Attorney for the Defendant,
FORD MOTOR COMPANY.


FRIO HOSPITAL: Palacios Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL PALACIOS and MARY VALENZUELA, Each Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. FRIO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00385 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 2022) seeks unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs propose the following collective under the FLSA:

   "All hourly-paid employees who earned a bonus in connection
with
   work performed in any week in which they worked more than forty

   hours in the past three years."

Frio Hospital operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers private patient rooms and basic primary care
services, including emergency room, obstetrical, general surgery,
clinical laboratory, and radiology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Riley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, v. GENERAL
MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth P. Deavers entered  a preliminary pretrial order:

  -- Initial disclosures shall be made by:      May 5, 2022

  -- Motions or stipulations to amend           June 6, 2022
     the pleadings or join additional
     parties shall be filed by:

  -- Motions for class certification            May 5, 2023
     shall be filed by:

  -- All discovery shall be completed by:       April 5, 2023

  -- Any dispositive motions shall be           Aug. 4, 2023
     filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement      July 11, 2022
     demand by:

  -- The Defendants shall respond by:           Aug.  1, 2022

This case involves the same alleged defect at issue in Napoli-Bosse
v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 18-cv- 01720 (D.Conn.)Discovery is
complete in the in the Connecticut Action, and the Parties intend
to use e-discovery conducted in the Connecticut Action to avoid the
exchange of duplicative materials here. The Parties' have agreed
that the use of e-discovery conducted in the Connecticut Action
will not limit the Parties' rights to request and obligations to
produce in this case other e-discovery which was not exchanged in
the Connecticut Action.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K39JQ8 at no extra charge.[CC]

GORDON INC: Faces Class Action for Misleading Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gorton's Inc.
("Gorton's") for misleading consumers by labeling its frozen
tilapia products as "sustainably sourced." The complaint alleges
that, in reality, the products are made from tilapia industrially
farmed using unsustainable practices that are environmentally
destructive and inhumane.

The complaint alleges that Gorton's products are made from tilapia
sourced, at least in part, from China, where the fish are raised in
large industrial fish farms or "ponds" known for their
unsustainable production methods. The action was filed Thursday,
April 21, on behalf of both a New York and California consumer by
Richman Law & Policy in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The consumers are asking the court for damages and
equitable relief in the form of an order declaring that Gorton's
deceptive marketing of the Products is unlawful and enjoining such
deceptive marketing.

The lawsuit alleges that tilapia farms in China primarily use an
ecologically dangerous method of tilapia production known as pond
aquaculture, which is often done in regions that are vulnerable to
river flooding and where the spread of disease and fish escapes are
common. Because tilapia are able to outcompete local fish species
in China, they are deemed "highly invasive." The 35-page complaint
also alleges:

From 2007 to 2018 the FDA rejected more than 200 tilapia shipments
from China, citing the presence of harmful chemicals, toxins, and
antibiotics considered "Highly Important for Human Medicine" by the
World Health Organization. Independent laboratory testing of
Gorton's tilapia revealed the presence of ethoxyquin, a toxic
preservative in industrial fish feed that has been banned in the
European Union due to human health concerns.

Tilapia ponds are extremely crowded and unsanitary environments in
which tilapia may becoming highly aggressive, causing harm to each
other. In these barren pond environments, tilapia experience
frustration, boredom, and discomfort, which results in abnormal or
stereotypic behaviors.

The complaint references survey data which found that consumers
seek out, and pay significantly more for, products labeled as
"ecologically sustainable." That finding is consistent with
research demonstrating that "consumers are willing to pay to
improve animal welfare and reduce undesirable environmental effects
from fish farming." [GN]

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Lanzillotta Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LANZILLOTTA suing
individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY (GEICO), GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO ADVANTAGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO SECURE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GEICO
INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01465-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class action defined as:

      "All persons insured by GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
      COMPANY (GEICO), GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
      INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO ADVANTAGE
      INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO
      SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
      COMPANY, or GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. under policies
      subject to the provisions of Insurance Law section 5102,
      who had actual monthly wages in excess of two thousand
      dollars per month, who have submitted First Party Benefit
      claims to and received payment from one or more of these
      defendants for First Party Benefits that included claims
      for lost wages, and which, after paying at least one month
      of First Party wage benefits, defendants claim coverage
      had fully exhausted on or after March 13, 2013;"

      Excluded from the Class are the defendant companies; any
      entity that has a controlling interest in one or more of
      the defendant companies; current or former directors,
      officers and counsel of the defendant companies; and any
      class member who has already received full compensation of
      his or her lost wages under the applicable insurance
      policy;

   2. appointing her as the class representative, and the
      undersigned as class counsel;

   3. directing the parties to submit to the Court proposed
      forms and schedules for providing notice to the class.

   4. establishing a schedule for notice, fact discovery, future
      motions practice, and trial.

GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with
headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KaAGl5
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
           Dirk Marschhausen, Esq.
           MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRCK, P.C.
           73 Heitz Place
           Hicksville, NY 11801
           Telephone: (516) 747-8000

                - and -

           John K. Weston, Esq.
           SACKS WESTON LLC
           1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (215) 925-8200

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Pugliese Suit Class Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC PUGLIESE, et al., on behalf of himself and a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No.
21-cv-11629-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

I. Introduction

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendant
Government Employees Insurance Co. ("GEICO") alleging violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, and
the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, Sections 148,
150, 151. The Plaintiffs, now Marc Pugliese and Michael Loughlin,
have moved to certify a collective action conditionally on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated persons under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

II. Background

The Plaintiffs allege that during the class period of at least
October 2018 through March 2021, GEICO failed to compensate the
Plaintiffs and other Massachusetts Adjusters for working overtime
in violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201. The Plaintiffs
seek to include Automobile, Residential and Catastrophic Adjusters
in the class, which they allege all have "primary job duties
including (i) contacting customers and setting up inspections to
evaluate vehicle/residential/catastrophic damage; (ii)
communicating with customers regarding the status of their claims
and explaining the claims process; (iii) inspecting
properties/vehicles to evaluate the extent of loss and/or
determining if a claim was repairable or a total loss; (iv)
negotiating with customers on amount of loss/settlement; (v)
setting up/approving rentals; (vi) setting up/monitoring repairs on
claims; and (vii) handling claim and repair paperwork."

During the relevant period, GEICO paid Massachusetts adjusters for
working a 7.75-hour day, 38.75-hour work week, based upon an 8:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. schedule with a forty-five-minute meal break
deduction. The Plaintiffs assert that GEICO first paid all the
Massachusetts Adjusters a flat weekly salary and then switched to
paying them all on an hourly basis.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, they and the
other Massachusetts Adjusters typically worked more than 40 hours
per week, and that GEICO failed to pay them overtime compensation.
They allege this was due to a company-wide policy that pressured
Massachusetts Adjusters to enter 7.75-hour days and 38.75-hour
weeks in their time sheets, despite working more than eight to 10
hours per day.

GEICO allegedly enforced this policy through threats of negative
performance evaluation resulting in "poor workplace reputation" and
"additional negative workplace consequences," including
"discipline, performance improvement plans, and potential loss of
employment." At all relevant times, the Plaintiffs allege that
GEICO had "actual knowledge through internal employee surveys,
employee complaints, text messages, emails, VPN monitoring,
employee claims management systems, internal employee chat or
messaging programs, and other employee monitoring systems that
GEICO's time sheet system and the content thereof was not
accurate."

The Plaintiffs instituted the action on Oct. 6, 2021, and now move
to certify a collective action conditionally pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). The Court heard the parties on the pending motion
and took the matter under advisement.

III. Discussion

A. Conditional Certification

Plaintiffs Pugliese and Loughlin request that the Court certifies
the following collective action group conditionally: All
individuals who worked for GEICO as an Automobile and/or
Residential and/or Catastrophic Damage Adjusters I and/or II and/or
III within Massachusetts at any time during the period October 2018
through March 2021.

GEICO's arguments against conditional certification are unavailing,
Judge Casper holds. First, GEICO argues that the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification should fail because they did not
present sufficient evidence of an unlawful common policy, plan and
scheme that is common to all Massachusetts Adjusters. Second, GEICO
contends that the claims are too individualized for class
certification. Third, GEICO argues that Massachusetts Adjusters'
job responsibilities vary too greatly for conditional
certification.

First, as to the lawfulness of its overtime policy, Judge Casper
finds that an employer's formal policy or process for reporting
overtime will not protect the employer if the employer prevents or
discourages accurate reporting in practice. It is a factual dispute
whether the Massachusetts Adjusters invoked GEICO's formal policy
for reporting overtime or whether GEICO forced them to report a
7.75-hour day and a 38.75-hour week, despite being required to work
overtime. Courts generally do not consider merits questions when
deciding whether to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action
group.

Second, GEICO's argument that the Court should deny conditional
certification because Plaintiffs' claims will require
individualized determinations also fails. Judge Casper holds that
factual determination as to whether similarly situated employees
have opted in does not occur until the second stage of
certification. In the present case, still at the notice stage, the
Plaintiffs have also made the "modest factual showing" that they
were subjected to GEICO's company practice of directing Adjusters
to enter 7.75-hour days and 38.75-hour weeks, with a 45-minute meal
deduction, despite working more than 40 hours a week, without a
meal break.

Third, GEICO's argument that the variety in Massachusetts
Adjusters' job responsibilities prevents conditional certification
fails. The Plaintiffs have made a "modest factual showing" that
individuals performing the Massachusetts Adjuster role are
performing "similar" job duties." Hence, the Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege that they perform similar job duties, the
modest showing that they need to make at this point.

Accordingly, Judge Casper conditionally certifies the class as: All
individuals who worked for GEICO as an Automobile and/or
Residential and/or Catastrophic Damage Adjusters I and/or II and/or
III within Massachusetts at any time during the period October 2018
through March 2021.

B. Notice

In addition to seeking conditional certification, the Plaintiffs
seek approval of their proposed procedure for notifying the Class
and consenting to join the class action. They also ask the Court
for an order requiring GEICO to disclose names, last known home
addresses, email addresses (business and home) and home and
cellular telephone numbers for the group named above within 10
business days. The Plaintiffs further request that notice be sent
to each potential class member by first class mail, email and text
message.

Although GEICO contends that the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the
Class should be limited to single mailed notice and that it should
not be required to produce phone numbers or email addresses, Judge
Casper finds that GEICO cites no authority for its reasoning. She
grants the Plaintiffs' proposed notice to the group by first class
mail, email and text message. A certified class must receive 'the
best notice practicable under the circumstances, including
individual notice to all members who can be identified through
reasonable effort.' Given the Court's discretion regarding the form
and content of notice, Judge Casper approves the notice and consent
form proposed by the Plaintiffs, and will enter the proposed Order
regarding same.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Casper allowed the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nywbmrj from Leagle.com.


GREAT DIVIDE: Seeks to Clarify Scope of Bid to Compel Responses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA DOLORES
AGUILAR-GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF
SANTIAGO SANTOYO THE SANTOYO FAMILY WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES,
v. JEFFREY VAN PATTEN AND GREAT DIVIDE TRANSPORT, LLC., Case No.
9:21-cv-00141-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Defendants file its motion to
clarify the scope of the motion to compel responses to written
discovery from Plaintiffs.

This is a wrongful death claim arising from a motor vehicle
accident alleged to have occurred on or about May 22, 2021 on
Highway 59 in Polk County, Texas.

The Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages from the Accident
for mental anguish, loss of companionship and society, loss of
inheritance, and exemplary damages.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xROkqC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sean Russell, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Diamond, Esq.
          J. DIAMOND AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          Houston, TX 77009
          Telephone (713) 227-6800
          Facsimile (713) 227-6801
          E-mail: Jeffrey@jdiamondandassociates.com
                  Sean@jdiamondandassociates.com
                  Service@jdiamondandassociates.com

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Sherwood Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Actuarial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Justin Sherwood, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Horizon Actuarial
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01495-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 19,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          Building 14, Suite 230
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 320-9979 ext 202
          Fax: (404) 320-9978
          Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
                 njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 500
          Cincinnati, OH 45002
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com


HOWARD NATIONS: Gaudet Bid to Strike Defenses Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH A. GAUDET, ET AL.
v.  HOWARD L. NATIONS, APC, ET AL., Case No. 2:19-cv-10356-WBV-JVM
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Wendy B. Vitter entered an order that
the Plaintiffs' motion to strike insufficient defenses in the
Defendants' Answers is granted in part and denied in part.

  -- The Motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to
     strike the Third, Fourth, Eleventh, Fourteenth, Twenty-
     Second, Thirty-Fourth through Forty-Third, and Forty-Fourth
     affirmative defenses asserted by the Nations Defendants,
     and seek to strike the Third, Fourth, Eighth, Eleventh,
     Nineteenth, Thirty-First through Forty-Third, and Forty-
     Fourth affirmative defenses asserted by the Nicks
     Defendants, and those defenses are hereby stricken.

  -- The Motion is otherwise denied.

The thrust of Plaintiffs' motion is that certain affirmative
defenses asserted by the Nations Defendants and the Nicks
Defendants should be stricken under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) because:
(1) they are thus insufficient as a matter of law; and/or (2) "the
probative value is substantially outweighed by the concerns
addresses [sic] in [Fed. R. Evid.] 403." The Plaintiffs do not
argue that the affirmative defenses are insufficiently pled under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The Nations Defendants oppose the Motion,
relying on Fifth Circuit jurisprudence which states that motions to
strike defenses are strongly disfavored and warranted only if the
defense cannot, as a matter of law, succeed under any circumstance.
The Nations Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs "have
completely failed to satisfy the very high bar required to strike
an affirmative defense since they cannot adequately demonstrate any
actual prejudice if the defenses in question are not stricken from
Defendants' Answers."

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38fkuSk at no extra charge.[CC]


HUNGRY BURRITO: Vargas Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUNGRY BURRITO I INC.; ARMANDO DE LA CRUZ;
and GREGORIO DE LA CRUZ, Defendants, Case No. 511535/2022 (N.Y.
Sup., Kings Cty., April 21, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid minimum wages due to an invalid tip credit deduction, unpaid
tip compensation due to an invalid tip pooling policy, and
attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff Vargas was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

HUNGRY BURRITO I INC. operates three Mexican restaurants in New
York City as under the name "Hungry Burrito". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

IRONNET INC: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that it
has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all those who
purchased IronNet, Inc. ("IronNet " or the "Company") (NYSE: IRNT)
securities during the period between September 15, 2021 and
December 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class"). The action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Alexandria Division) and is captioned Grad v. IronNet,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00449.

HOW TO JOIN: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act permits
any investor who is a member of the Class described above to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, please contact
Johnson Fistel, LLP to submit your losses:

Contact Lead Securities Analyst Jim Baker at jimb@johnsonfistel.com
or (619) 814-4471
Or click or paste the following web address into your browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/ironnet-inc-irnt
Lead plaintiff motions for the IronNet class-action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: On August 27, 2021, IronNet became a
publicly-traded company via a merger with LGL Systems Acquisition
Corp. ("LGL"), a blank check company otherwise known as a special
purpose acquisition vehicle ("SPAC"). Like other SPACs, LGL did not
initially have any operations or business of its own. Rather, it
raised money from investors in an initial public offering and then
later used the proceeds from the offering to acquire IronNet, which
had been a private company.

The complaint charges IronNet, its Co-Chief Executive Officers, and
its Chief Financial Officer with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose known adverse facts about IronNet's business, operations,
and prospects, including that: (i) the Company had materially
overstated its business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company
was unable to predict the timing of significant customer
opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of its
publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (iii) the Company had
not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to
reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate,
complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false, misleading,
and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times.

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

ISTANBUL REGO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fidan Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ALI FIDAN; and ECE KARAGOZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ISTANBUL REGO PARK INC.
d/b/a BLACK SEA FISH AND GRILL; ALI GULU; YASIN CABUK; YURI DOE,
and YUJIN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02252 (E.D.N.Y., April
20, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Plaintiff Fidan was employed by the Defendants as dishwasher and
salad chef. Plaintiff Karagoz was employed as server.

ISTANBUL REGO PARK INC. d/b/a BLACK SEA FISH AND GRILL is a
Family-owned restaurant offering traditional Turkish comfort dishes
& seafood. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert D. Salaman, Esq.
          Zafer A. Akin, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          Email: rob@akinlaws.com
                 zafer@akinlaws.com

KERRY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Buco Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
RENEE BUCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KERRY INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02005-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 20, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.

KERRY INC. is headquartered in Canada. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 230-2955
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
         Massillon, OH 44646
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                hans@ohlaborlaw.com

KPC HEALTHCARE: Gamino Wins Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Gamino v. KPC
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01126-SB-SHK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., entered an
order granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "the Plaintiff has met the low threshold of
knowledge required to qualify her as an adequate class
representative. She not only understands the gravamen of her claims
but also demonstrates knowledge of various details about SPCP and
how it benefited from the 2015 ESOP Transaction. The Plaintiff also
testified that she continues to be an active participant in this
litigation. For these reasons, the Court finds the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) to be satisfied."

The Plaintiff Gamino alleges that Defendant SPCP participated in
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
violations committed by Defendants Kali Pradip Chaudhuri (Dr.
Chaudhuri) and Alerus Financial, N.A. (Alerus) in connection with a
debt-leveraged purchase of Defendant KPC stock by its employee
stock ownership plan (ESOP). The Court previously granted
Plaintiff's motion for class certification against Alerus and KPC
but denied Plaintiff's request to amend her complaint to add SPCP
as a defendant.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OtV9Vq at no extra charge.[CC]

LANDMARK REALTY: Cheatem Class Certification Bid Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA CHEATEM v. LANDMARK
REALTY OF MISSOURI, LLC, Case No. 20-00958-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to withdraw her
      motion to certify class, over the Defendant's objection;

   2. withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to certify class;

   3. granting Plaintiff's request for leave to file a new
      Motion to Certify Class;

   4. granting the Plaintiff until and including April 19, 2022,
      to file a new motion to certify class.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MqSE4n at no extra charge.[CC]


LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Alleges Firm Sold Defective Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that LG Electronics
USA knowingly sells certain dishwashers containing defective LED
control panels, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Mark Wheeler claims some of LG's QuadWash-enabled
dishwashers are eventually rendered "inoperable" due to the alleged
LED control panel defect.

Wheeler claims moisture is able to penetrate the LED control panels
and damage the electronic parts within them on account of the
defect.

The water damage eventually renders the dishwasher's control panel
"unresponsive" and makes it so that it can no longer be used to
"commence a wash cycle as expected or intended," the LG class
action alleges.

Wheeler claims LG has known about the defect since at least 2015
due to receiving consumer complaints but yet has failed to either
remedy the issue or disclose it to the public.

"Although LG has long known, or had reason to know, that Class
Dishwashers' Control Panels are Defective and are unfit for their
ordinary and intended purpose and incapable of performing as
warranted, LG failed to disclose and actively concealed this
material fact from Plaintiffs and the Class," the LG class action
states.

LG Class Action Claims Replacement Dishwasher Part Also Likely
Fail
Wheeler argues the only way for a consumer to be able to continue
using the dishwasher is to replace the control panel with a
"non-defective replacement component," which will also "likewise
fail shortly after installation."

"Because LG repairs Class Dishwashers using defective Control
Panels that are doomed to fail, its warranty offers little in the
way of actual relief and fails of its essential purpose," the LG
class action states.

Further, Wheeler argues LG adds "insult to injury" by claiming the
defect does not exist after its one-year "labor and parts" warranty
ends, at which point he says the company declines to offer further
coverage.

Wheeler claims LG is guilty of breach of express warranty and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability and is in violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Wheeler wants to represent a nationwide class and California
subclass of consumers who have purchased one or more of an affected
LG QuadWash-enabled dishwasher.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages for
himself and all class members.

LG agreed to pay $1.5 million last year to resolve claims it sold
defective refrigerators that failed to maintain the temperature
level necessary to preserve perishables such as food and medicine.


Have you purchased an LG QuadWash-enabled dishwasher containing a
defective LED control panel? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Alex R. Straus, Gregory F. Coleman,
Adam A. Edwards and Mitchell M. Breit of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC.

The LG Dishwasher LED Control Panel Defect Class Action Lawsuit is
Wheeler v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00459, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN]

LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle
Holdings Corp. (NYSE: LICY) securities between February 16, 2021
and March 23, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Li-Cycle purports to be an industry leader in lithium-ion
battery resource recovery and the leading lithium-ion battery
recycler in North America.

If you would like more information about Li-Cycle Holdings Corp.'s
misconduct, click here.

What is this Case About: Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. (LICY)
Misrepresented its Business Prospects to Investors

According to the complaint, Li-Cycle merged with Peridot
Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company, on August
10, 2021. During the class period, defendants touted Li-Cycle's
patented technology and noted that the merger would enable Li-Cycle
"to fully fund its planned global expansion." However, defendants
failed to disclose that Li-Cycle's largest customer was merely a
broker providing working capital financial to the Company while
trying to sell the product to end customers. Further, Li-Cycle
engaged in questionable related party transactions. With regard to
accounting, the Company gave a false impression of growth, reported
revenues derived by marking up receivables on unsold products, and
concealed that the Company would need an additional $1 billion to
support planned growth.

The truth came to light on March 24, 2022, when market researcher
Blue Orca Capital released a report describing the Company as "a
near fatal combination of stock promotion, laughable governance, a
broker business hemorrhaging cash, and highly questionable
Enron-like accounting" and detailing the Company's failings. On
this news, Li-Cycle's shares fell approximately 5.6%, to close at
$7.93 per share on March 24, 2022.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Li-Cycle Holdings Corp.
(LICY) between February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022, you have until
June 20, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

LOWE'S CO: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-48 (W.D.N.C.,
April 20, 2022) seeks to recover these overtime wages and other
damages owed by Lowe's to the Plantiff and Lowe's other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Lowe's decision to make its own
non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for the hack
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri's Minimum
Wage and Maximum Hour Law.

Like many other companies across the United States, Lowe's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Lowe's organization. As a result, Lowe's workers who
were not exempt from overtime under federal and state law were not
paid for all hours worked and/or were not paid their proper
overtime premium for all overtime hours worked after the onset of
the Kronos hack, the suit says.

Shaun Taylor is one such Lowe's worker. Lowe's could have easily
implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay
non-exempt hourly and salaried employees until issues related to
the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Lowe's used prior
pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and
proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees,
the suit added.

Lowe's is an American retail company specializing in home
improvement. Headquartered in Mooresville, North Carolina, the
company operates a chain of retail stores in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          PO Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephonee (713) 999 5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

          Adam A. Smith, Esq.
          RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
          PO Box 11050
          Goldsboro, NC 27532
          Telephone: (919) 778-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 432-1751
          E-mail: aas@justicecounts.com

MATT MACAULEY: Sanders Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matt Macauley. The
case is styled as Jason L. Sanders, on behalf of himself and all
prisoners similarly situated v. Matt Macauley, Case No.
1:22-cv-00363-PJG (W.D. Mich., April 19, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Matt Macauley is the Warden of Bellamy Creek Correctional
Facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Amended Suit Demands 'New York' Name Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Serena Burks at giantswire.usatoday.com reports that a class action
lawsuit was filed in Manhattan against the New York Giants and New
York Jets. The suit, which takes issue with the NFL teams using
"New York" in their team names when neither team plays in the state
of New York, originally requested that the teams move to New York
rather than play in New Jersey.

The suit was then amended to demand the teams simply drop "New
York" from their names.

According to Insurance Journal, "The plaintiffs allege that the
NFL, the teams and MetLife Stadium in New Jersey where both teams
play have engaged in false advertising, deceptive practices,
fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence.

Now, however, the plaintiffs, New Yorkers Abdiell Suero and Maggie
Wilkins, maintain that because the teams have refused to move, they
want the teams to stop using New York in their names."

The Giants haven't played in New York since 1976 and the Jets since
1984. That didn't change when MetLife Stadium came to existence, so
the plaintiff's claim that using "New York" in the team name is
confusing is debatable. Not to mention that even people who reside
outside of New York and New Jersey understand that the two states
are closely intertwined at their border. The proximity eliminates
the confusion.

The NFL, both teams and MetLife Stadium have moved to dismiss the
lawsuit, citing the reasons above, that the claims are without
merit and the suit is a waste of the court's time.

Regardless of the strength of the plaintiff's case, they're an
unlikely match for the highly-paid team of attorneys representing
the four entities. Never say never, of course, but we wouldn't bank
on a name change any time soon. [GN]

NESTLE WATERS: Scheduling Order Entered in Patante Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patane, et al v. Nestle
Waters North America, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381 (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Jeffrey A Meyer entered a scheduling order as follows:

   1. Filing of motions for class           July 15, 2023
      certification and for Summary
      Judgment by:

   2. Opposition to Motions for Class       Aug. 31, 2023
      Certification and Summary Judgment
      by:

   3. Reply Briefs in support of            Oct. 1, 2023
      Motions for Class Certification
      and for Summary Judgment by:

The Court has not set any date at this time for disclosure of
supplemental expert reports as requested by the plaintiffs. The
Court understands the potential reasons why a supplemental expert
might be necessary and will consider any motion for leave to
disclose supplemental experts at an appropriate time and upon a
specific showing of need and will further consider any
corresponding requests for sur-rebuttal expert disclosures by
defendant.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property --
diversity-fraud

BlueTriton is an American beverage company based in Stamford,
Connecticut. It was formerly Nestle Waters North America, Inc., the
North American business unit of Nestle Waters.[CC]


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Sued Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER KOSMAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10552 (D.
Mass., April 13, 2022) arises from Defendant's practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.
("Facebook"), data containing its digital subscribers' (i)
personally identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and (ii)
the computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed
("Video Media").

This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against
Nexstar, as the owner of The Hill, for violating the VPPA by
disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and Video Media to
Facebook without the proper consent.

Like other businesses with an online presence, the Defendant
collects and shares the personal information of visitors to its
website and mobile application ("App") with third parties. The
Defendant does this through cookies, software development kits
("SDK"), and pixels. In other words, digital subscribers to The
Hill have their personal information disclosed to Defendant's
third-party business partners.

The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on its The Hill
website allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it
tracks when digital subscribers enter TheHill.com website or App
and view Video Media. The Hill website tracks and discloses to
Facebook the digital subscribers' viewed Video Media, and most
notably, the digital subscribers' FID. This occurs even when the
digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to share) such
information, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other The Hill digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal
and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's
practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers'
Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of
VPPA.

The Plaintiff began her digital subscription to The Hill in 2020
and continues to maintain the subscription to this day. Plaintiff
has had a Facebook account from approximately 2009 to the present.

Nexstar is a publicly traded American media company headquartered
in Irving, Texas. It is the largest television station owner in the
United States, owning 197 television stations across the U.S., most
of which are affiliates with the four "major" U.S. television
networks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (847) 208-4585
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

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

NEXUS SERVICES: Faces Nunez Suit Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
PEDRO NUNEZ and ADRIAN PENA, Each Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. NEXUS SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01897 (N.D. Ill., April 13, 2022) alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and overtime
provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other Risk
Compliance Managers (RCMs) did not exercise independent judgment as
to matters of significance in carrying out their duties. In
carrying out their duties, the Plaintiffs and other RCMs followed
the policies and processes set by Defendant or others.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but
the  Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs or other RCMs 1.5x their
regular rate for hours worked over 40 each week, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated sufficient overtime wages
under the FLSA and the IMWL within the applicable statutory
limitations period.

The Defendant's primary business is assisting individuals detained
by immigration detention facilities with bond payments and bond
hearings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

OAKLAWN JOCKEY: Wilson Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. OAKLAWN JOCKEY CLUB, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-06041-SOH
(W.D. Ark., April 14, 2022) is a collective action against the
Defendant for violations of the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act(the "FLSA"), and the
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act (the "AMWA").

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated  damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policies and
practice of failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime
compensation under the FLSA and the AMWA.

The Plaintiff performed Work for Defendant within the Hot Springs
Division of the Western District of Arkansas.

Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. provides gambling facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Wilson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

OHIO LIVING: Wilhoit Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA WILHOIT, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. OHIO LIVING, and OHIO LIVING COMMUNITIES, Case No.
2:22-cv-01962-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 14, 2022) seeks to collect
unpaid overtime compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Ohio Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants beginning in or around
July of 2016 until present. She was employed by Defendants as an
hourly Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at their Mount Pleasant
location in Monroe, Ohio. During her employment, the Plaintiff has
worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s), the lawsuit
says.

OL is a not-for-profit, multi-site aging services organization,
operating 12 life plan communities throughout the State of
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

OIL PRODUCERS: Summary Judgment Order in Fawcett Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, L. RUTH FAWCETT TRUST, CINDY K. PAGE-COLMER, TRUSTEE,
on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. OIL PRODUCERS INC. OF KANSAS,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 120,611 (Kan.), the Supreme
Court of Kansas issued an Opinion:

   a. affirming the district court's decisions:

      (1) to deny the Class' motion to amend its petition "to
          clarify" that the sole claim in its original petition;
          and

      (2) to grant OPIK's renewed motion for summary judgment;
          and

   b. vacating the holdings of the district court and the Court
      of Appeals to the extent they deny prejudgment interest,
      and affirming the decisions as right for the wrong reason.

Under Kansas law, all gas leases impose an implied duty on well
operators to market any minerals produced. To satisfy this duty,
the operator must market its production at reasonable terms within
a reasonable time following production. A corollary of the duty to
market is the marketable condition rule that requires well
operators to make gas marketable at their own expense, meaning they
cannot deduct the expenses to make gas marketable from royalty
payments to the landowners.

The Class is comprised of more than 2,200 Kansas royalty owners
with mineral rights in Seward County. The Class members lease their
mineral rights to Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas (OPIK) in exchange
for a royalty interest in the oil and gas produced under 25
different leases. OPIK produces raw natural gas from wellheads it
owns and operates on the leased premises.

The Class' original petition claimed OPIK breached the oil and gas
leases by violating its duty to market the gas. In support of its
claim, the Class relied on the marketable condition rule that
requires well operators to make gas marketable at their own
expense. The Class argued this rule requires OPIK to be solely
responsible for the processing costs needed to transform the gas
into interstate pipeline quality. The Class based this argument on
its claim that gas is never in marketable condition until it
reaches the interstate pipeline standard. And because the
third-party sales contracts deducted expenses for processing the
raw gas into interstate pipeline quality (i.e., expenses for making
the gas marketable from the Class' perspective), the Class alleged
OPIK underpaid royalties when it calculated payments based on the
proceeds it received after those processing and other expenses were
deducted.

This matter is the second appeal in a class action case alleging a
breach of the implied duty to market gas and underpaid royalties.
In Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansas, 302 Kan. 350, 365-66,
352 P.3d 1032 (2015) (Fawcett I), the Supreme Court held that a
well operator may satisfy its duty to market raw gas production if
the oil and gas leases provide that raw gas may be sold at the
wellhead, the gas is actually sold at the wellhead to a third-party
purchaser in a good faith transaction, and the gas is in a
condition acceptable to the third-party purchaser at the time of
the sale. While recognizing the marketable condition rule deems an
operator solely responsible for any pre-sale costs to prepare the
gas for the sale, it held that an operator could share costs with
royalty owners for any necessary post-sale, post-production
processing under the leases at issue. The Supreme Court remanded
the matter to the district court.

On remand, the class of royalty owners (Class) moved to amend the
petition "to clarify" that the sole claim in its original petition
-- breach of implied duty to market -- now "implicates the implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing." In support of the amendment,
the Class argued Fawcett I significantly altered the landscape of
Kansas oil and gas law by introducing the concept of an implied
duty of good faith and fair dealing, a factual question, into the
marketability determination. OPIK opposed the motion to amend,
arguing Fawcett I already resolved the marketable condition issue
when it found OPIK satisfied its implied duty to market. OPIK also
filed a renewed motion for partial summary judgment given the
outcome in Fawcett I.

The district court agreed with OPIK's arguments on both issues,
denying the Class' motion to amend its petition and granting
partial summary judgment for OPIK on the Class' breach of duty to
market gas as it relates to the marketable condition rule. The
district court also ruled OPIK could not assert a statute of
limitations defense to its illegal deduction of conservation fees.
Finally, it declined to award prejudgment interest to the Class for
OPIK's wrongful deduction of conservation fees. Both parties
appeal. A Court of Appeals panel affirmed on all issues (L. Ruth
Fawcett Tr. v. Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas, 58 Kan.App.2d 855,
876, 475 P.3d 1268 (2020) (Fawcett II)).

On review, the Class challenges the panel's decision to affirm the
district court's denial of its motion to amend and granting of
OPIK's summary judgment. The Class also argues the district court
and Court of Appeals erred in denying prejudgment interest on the
judgment for wrongfully withheld conservation fees.

OPIK cross-petitions for review on the Court of Appeals decision
affirming the district court's finding that OPIK was equitably
estopped from asserting its statute of limitations defense against
the conservation fee claim. OPIK cross-petitions for review on the
Court of Appeals' decision affirming the district court's finding
that OPIK was equitably estopped from asserting a statute of
limitations defense against a claim that OPIK wrongfully deducted
conservation fees from Class royalties over a 19-year period.

The Supreme Court affirms. It opines that in Fawcett I, it held
that under the leases at issue, OPIK satisfied its duty to market
the gas when the gas was sold at the wellhead. The law of the case
doctrine precludes the Class from relitigating its claim that OPIK
breached its implied duty of good faith in the marketable condition
component of the duty to market. As a result, the district court's
decisions to deny the Class' motion to amend its petition and to
grant OPIK's renewed motion for summary judgment are affirmed.

The Class is not entitled to prejudgment interest under K.S.A.
16-201 or K.S.A. 55-1615 because the parties' stipulated award for
damages did not become liquidated until they entered into the
stipulation. In reaching this holding, the Supreme Court
specifically declines to decide which statute would have determined
the amount of prejudgment interest for the royalty underpayments in
the case. So to the extent the district court and the Court of
Appeals denied prejudgment interest after holding -- as a matter of
law -- that K.S.A. 55-1615 controlled, it vacates those holdings
and affirms the decisions as right for the wrong reason.

The district court and panel appropriately applied the equitable
estoppel doctrine to bar OPIK's statute of limitations defense to
the Class' claim that OPIK improperly deducted conservation fees
from its royalty payments.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc46hdxy from Leagle.com.

Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- of Sharp Law, LLP, of
Prairie Village, argued the cause, and Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- and Ryan C. Hudson, of the same firm,
were with him on the briefs for the Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Robert W. Coykendall -- rcoykendall@morrislaing.com -- of Morris,
Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, of Wichita, argued the
cause, and Will B. Wohlford, of the same firm, was with him on the
briefs for the Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Jeff Kennedy -- wwohlford@morrislaing.com -- of Martin, Pringle,
Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, L.L.P., of Wichita, was on the brief for
amicus curiae Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association.

David E. Pierce -- david.pierce@washburn.edu -- of Topeka, and
Keith A. Brock, of Anderson & Byrd, L.L.P., of Ottawa, were on the
brief for amicus curiae Eastern Kansas Oil and Gas Association.

Charles C. Steincamp -- chris@depewgillen.com -- of Depew Gillen
Rathbun & McInteer, LC, of Wichita, and Joseph A. Schremmer,
University of New Mexico School of Law, of Albuquerque, were on the
brief for amicus curiae National Stripper Well Association.


OPTAVIA LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Douglass Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAIR DOUGLASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. OPTAVIA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00594-CCW (W.D. Pa., April 21, 2022) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.optavia.com/, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

OPTAVIA LLC sells weight loss meal plans, and provides personal
coaching services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 877-5220
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com


OUTBACK CARE: Wrenn Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS WRENN, and SHARAH
TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, v. OUTBACK CARE GROUP LLC and KEN BLACKMON, Case No.
4:21-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered
an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. conditionally certifies a collective group defined as:

      "All individuals who worked for Defendants as Live-in Care
      Providers, House Managers or similar positions ("Care
      Providers") and received a weekly payment for all time
      worked within the three years prior to the filing of the
      Complaint to the present;"

The Court further ordered that:

   (1) The Defendants shall, within 21 days of this Order,
       provide to Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable file
       with the following information for all putative
       collective members who worked as Care Providers from
       April 22, 2018 to the present date: names, last known
       mailing addresses, alternate addresses, all telephone
       numbers (work, cell, and personal), all known e-mail
       addresses (work and personal), dates of birth, last four
       digits of Social Security Numbers, and dates of
       employment.

   (2) The Court authorizes the Court Notice and the Consent to
       Join Form. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall send the Notice
       and the Consent to Join Form, in the form submitted to
       the Court by Plaintiffs, by U.S. mail and e-mail to all
       individuals within the collective group. Starting from
       the date of the issuance of the Notice, the Notice
       recipients will have 45 days to submit their Consent to
       Join Form to join this action.

   (3) The Court authorizes the Reminder Notice. The Plaintiffs'
       counsel will send the Reminder Notice, in the form
       submitted to the Court by Plaintiffs, 15 days from the
       end of the Notice Period to any individuals who have not
       completed and returned a Consent to Join Form.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36A6wtC at no extra charge.[CC]

PARK PLACE: Lovell Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL LOVELL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. PARK PLACE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00595-CAB (N.D.
Ohio, April 13, 2022) challenges policies and practices of the
Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff is a resident of Texas who was employed by Defendant
as a Field Service Engineer from May 2017 to the present.

The Defendant employed Representative Plaintiff and others
similarly situated as non-exempt employees as Field Service
Engineers. The Representative Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were routinely required to work in excess of 40
hours per workweek. But the Defendant failed to pay Representative
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime wages when they
worked over 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant required Representative Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees to fulfill the duties of a Field Service
Engineer, which required that they provide onsite technical
customer support for Defendant's customers, which primarily
involved troubleshooting failures in Defendant's customers'
computer hardware system.

Park Place Technologies is a global data center and networking
optimization firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St. NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Nancy Erika Smith, Esq.
          SMITH MULLIN, LLP
          240 Claremont Avenue
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 783-7607
          E-mail: nsmith@smithmullin.com

               - and -

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
          50 Millstone Road
          Building 300, Suite 202
          East Windsor, New Jersey 08520
          Telephone: (609) 469-2110
          E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com

PEPSICO INC: Fails to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack, Mitchell Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETHA MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v.PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00421-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla., April 13, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed by PepsiCo to the Plaintiff and the
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but also PepsiCo's decision to make its front
line workers bear the economic burden for the hack.

Like many other companies across the United States, PepsiCo's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout PepsiCo's organization.

As a result, PepsiCo workers in Florida were not paid the minimum
wage for all hours worked or were not paid their promised wages
for
all hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.

PepsiCo could have easily implemented a system for recording hours
and paying wages to non-exempt employees until issues related to
the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, PepsiCo used prior
pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying all wages
owed to these employees, the lawsuit says.

Kennetha Mitchell is one such PepsiCo worker. Mitchell represents a
class of similarly situated workers under Florida law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. This "Florida Class" is defined
as:

   "All current or former hourly and salaried employees of
PepsiCo,
   including its subsidiaries and alter egos, who were not exempt
   from overtime pay and who worked for PepsiCo in Florida at any
   time since the onset of the Kronos ransomware attack, on or
   about December 11, 2021, to the present."

PepsiCo is a food, snack, and beverage corporation.  Since at
least 2021, PepsiCo has used timekeeping software and hardware
operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com

PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Failure to Pay Wages After Kronos Hack
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBNEY IRVING-MILLENTREE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00440 (E.D.
Mo., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by PepsiCo to the Plaintiff and the
non-overtime-exempt workers who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but also PepsiCo's decision to make its
front-line workers bear the economic burden for the hack.

PepsiCo's failure to pay wages, including proper overtime, for all
hours worked violates Missouri's Minimum Wage and Maximum Hour Law
(MWHL), and Missouri common law.

Like many other companies across the United States, PepsiCo's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout PepsiCo's organization.

As a result, PepsiCo's workers who were not exempt from the
overtime requirements under Missouri law, were not paid for all
hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium for
all overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.

Robney Irving-Millentree is one such PepsiCo worker.

PepsiCo could have easily implemented a system for recording hours
and paying wages to non-exempt employees until issues related to
the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, PepsiCo used prior
pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and
proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees,
the lawsuit says.

PepsiCo pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. The burden of the
Kronos hack was made to fall on front-line workers -- average
Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages
to make ends meet.

PepsiCo is an American multinational food, snack, and beverage
corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York, in the hamlet of
Purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
           PARMET PC
           3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
           Houston, TX 77056
           Telephone: (713) 999 5228
           E-mail: matt@parmet.law

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) and Playstudios, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Playstudios, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS)

Class Period: June 22, 2021 - March 1, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 6, 2022

Playstudios repeatedly communicated to the market that its game
Kingdom Boss was "on track" for a 2021 release throughout that
year. The Company represented that it would enjoy significant
revenue and profits from this launch, including representations
near the SPAC merger between the Company and Acies Acquisition
Corp. The Company then announced on February 26, 2022, that Kingdom
Boss had been indefinitely "suspended."

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Playstudios was having significant problems with its flagship game,
Kingdom Boss; (ii) Playstudios would not be releasing Kingdom Boss
as expected; and (iii) Playstudios had not revised its financial
projections to account for the problems it had encountered with
Kingdom Boss. As a result of defendants' wrongful conduct, Class
members paid artificially inflated prices for their Playstudios
securities and suffered substantial losses and damages.

For more information on the Playstudios class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MYPS [GN]

PREMIERFIRST HOME: Scheduling Order Entered in Campbell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAHARA CAMPBELL, et al.,
v. PREMIERFIRST HOME HEALTH CARE INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-00199-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A.
Jolson entered a scheduling order:

  -- The parties shall exchange initial        May 2, 2022
     disclosures by:

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file their           Feb. 17, 2023
     motion for Rule 23 Class
     Certification, if appropriate, by:

  -- All discovery shall be completed by:      Jan. 20, 2023

  -- Any proposed protective order or          May 13, 2022
     clawback agreement shall be filed
     with the Court by:

  -- Primary expert reports must be            Oct. 28, 2022
     produced by:

  -- Rebuttal expert reports must be           Dec. 2, 2022
     produced by:

This is a class and collective action lawsuit arising under Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, as a Collective and Class Action. The Plaintiffs
have notified Defendant of their intention to file an FLSA motion
for conditional certification. The parties are exploring whether
they can agree to stipulate to conditional certification for the
FLSA putative class members.

PremierFirst provides home health services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37xjBo6 at no extra charge.[CC]

PROAMPAC LLC: Jackson Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
NOEMY JACKSON, ROBERTO PEREZ, and RAYMUNDO GALLARDO, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals, v.
ProAmpac LLC a/k/a ProAmpac, and Ampac Holdco Inc. a/k/a ProAmpac,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03120 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seeks unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, and damages for other violations of the
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").

The Plaintiffs Noemy Jackson, Roberto Perez, and Raymundo Gallardo
worked for the Defendants, which manufactures flexible packing
supplies in Walden, New York.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other
similarly-situated workers at the ProAmpac Walden facility were
required to arrive at work 5-15 minutes before their shifts began
each day and to begin work by donning protective gear, reviewing
the assignment board, and being on standby to take over operation
of machinery from their co-workers.

However, Plaintiffs and the other workers were not paid for this
pre-shift work, or for post-shift work. Then, beginning around
January 2020, ProAmpac began "rounding down" the work time of
Plaintiffs and others similarly-situated by as much as 15 minutes
-- always in favor of the company -- if workers were late to work.

The Defendants' actions caused significant harm to the workers at
the ProAmpac facility: A worker who was not paid for even 10
minutes a day was deprived of approximately 52 hours of overtime
pay per year -- well over a thousand dollars each year in unpaid
wages.

In addition, the Plaintiffs and other machine operators,
assistants, "catchers," and other similarly-situated workers
regularly had to purchase items such as steel-toed boots and work
tools, resulting in effective illegal deductions from their pay.

Ms. Jackson was employed by ProAmpac at the Walden facility,
full-time, for more than 25 years, until she was fired in March
2022. During much of this time, she worked for the company seven
days a week.

ProAmpac is, according to the website www.proampac.com, "a leading
global flexible packaging company with a comprehensive product
offering." In its Walden, New York facility, ProAmpac was primarily
engaged in producing paper bags and other packing materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert McCreanor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, P.L.L.C.
          245 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106
          Hawthorne, NY 10532
          E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com

               - and -

          Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
          Hugh Baran, Esq.
          KAKALEC LAW PLLC
          195 Montague Street, 14th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 705-8730
          E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com
                  Hugh@KakalecLaw.com

PROCOLLECT INC: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Diallo
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HADIATOU DIALLO, v.
PROCOLLECT INC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03199-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling
order as follows:

  1. The Plaintiffs must serve on           June 16, 2022
     defendants (but not file with
     the Court) their motion for
     class certification by:

  2. The Court will consider class          November 4, 2022
     certification on written
     submission on:

  3. All discovery except regarding class certification is
     stayed.

  4. Class discovery begins as of the date of this Order.

Procollect is operating as a debt collection company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L0buyV at no extra charge.[CC]

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Class in Hoffman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaim Hoffman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05794-LDH-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying class.

"Any letter that the Defendant sent in an attempt to collect a
consumer debt, during the period beginning October 18, 2020, up to,
and including, November 8, 2021, to all persons with addresses in
the State of New York, in the form or template similar to the
subject Collection Letter, attempting to collect a consumer debt on
behalf of Verizon providing multiple addresses, without identifying
the correct address to which to send a dispute; subsequently to
whom Defendant sent another collection letter, Offering a
"settlement offer", While also stating, "Payment will cause future
collection efforts to cease and a residual balance will remain with
Verizon."

Prior to June 20, 2021, the Plaintiff Hoffman allegedly incurred a
debt with Verizon. Verizon contracted Defendant to collect the
defaulted debt. On or about June 20, 2021, Defendant sent the
Plaintiff an initial collection letter regarding the alleged debt
owed to Verizon. Although the letter ostensibly provides the
notices as required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g regarding disputing
the debt, Defendant listed three addresses on the letter without
providing any direction for which one to use to dispute the
validity of the debt: (1) 20818 44h Ave. W. Suite 140, Lynnwood, WA
98036, (2) PO Box 2630, Southgate, MI 48195-4630 and (3) PO Box
1548, Lynnwood, WA 98046-1548.

RPM is a doing business in accounts receivable management.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 6,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xMWyQJ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ, 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: tsaland@SteinSaksLegal.co


RODAN & FIELDS: Suits Over Deceptive Serum Marketing, Explained
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabi Thorne at allure.com reports that Rodan + Fields Lash Boost
aims to help condition and strengthen lashes. But in three
class-action lawsuits filed in 2018, consumers alleged, among other
things, that the company didn't disclose information about the
potential risks of one of Lash Boost's ingredients, isopropyl
cloprostenate, which may cause adverse effects like ocular
irritation and iris color change. Rodan + Fields denied the
allegations, and now, four years later, the company has reached a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs of the lawsuits.

As part of the agreement, Rodan + Fields has offered to pay $38
million. Consumers who purchased a Rodan + Fields Lash Boost
between October 1, 2016, and March 11, 2022 could be eligible to
receive up to a $175 cash benefit or a credit voucher for no more
than $250 to be used on any Rodan + Fields product if they submit a
claim form by September 7, 2022. They also don't need to provide
proof of purchase.

In a statement from Rodan + Fields, the brand said it was pleased
to reach a resolution and that the settlement was in the "best
interest" of all parties involved. "The health, safety, and
satisfaction of our valued customers remains our top priorit[y],
and we are proud of, and stand by, Lash Boost, a much-loved,
industry-recognized innovation that has been used by millions of
customers for the last five-plus years," the statement reads.

In addition to the alleged lack of information about potential side
effects, the lawsuits claimed that Rodan + Fields incorrectly
marketed Lash Boost, and that the inclusion of isopropyl
cloprostenate - a prostaglandin analog in the same class of
ingredients used in drugs to treat glaucoma - means the product
should be considered a drug, and thus regulated by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA).

Prostaglandin analogs were first recognized as promising for lash
growth when longer lashes were reported as a side effect in
patients receiving treatment for glaucoma. The lash-growth
treatment, Latisse, for example, contains a prostaglandin analog
called bimatoprost. But, whereas the bimatoprost in Latisse is
FDA-approved, "isopropyl cloprostenate, the prostaglandin analog
often found in over-the-counter products, is not," according to the
American Academy of Ophthalmology. According to the FDA, a product
that aims to affect the structure or function of the body and has
the potential for side effects is considered a drug, not a
cosmetic, and should be regulated.

The FDA has previously claimed lash growth products with isopropyl
cloprostenate need to be classified as drugs and regulated. In
2011, the FDA sent a warning letter to a company using the
ingredient for lash and eyebrow products. The letter stated that
some of the products had violated parts of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act because they were formulated with isopropyl
cloprostenate and misbranded as promoting growth of lashes and
eyebrows. The letter noted that the products were essentially
"unapproved new drugs."

As of now, Rodan + Fields hasn't indicated whether or not the Lash
Boost will be submitted for FDA approval or if the isopropyl
cloprostenate will be replaced in the formula. [GN]

ROLLINS INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Rollins, Inc. (NYSE: ROL) resulting from
allegations that Rollins may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Rollins 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=2735 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 28, 2020, Rollins disclosed that a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation had
been initiated and believed the SEC's focus to be how accruals and
reserves were established at period ends and their impact on
reported earnings going as far back as January 2015.

On February 26, 2021, Rollins announced that an internal
investigation into the same matters found "a significant deficiency
in the Company's internal controls relating to the documentation
and review of accounting entries for certain reserves and
accruals."

Then, on October 29, 2021, Rollins stated that it "has initiated
discussions with the SEC staff regarding a potential resolution of
the investigation" and "recorded an accrual related to this matter
in the third quarter of 2021."

On this news, Rollins stock fell $1.02, or 3%, to close at $34.03
per share on November 1, 2021, damaging investors.

On April 18, 2022, the SEC announced that Rollins agreed to pay $8
million to settle the charges that Rollins made unsupported
reductions to its accounting reserves to improperly boost its
earnings per share.

On this news, Rollins share price fell $0.55, or approximately
1.6%, to close at $34.29 on April 18, 2022, damaging investors.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

SACOLO LTD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hawkins Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SACOLO, LTD. d/b/a PERFECT 10 MEN'S CLUB,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00384 (W.D. Tex., April 20, 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 Hawkins was employed by the Defendant as exotic dancer.

SACOLO, LTD. d/b/a PERFECT 10 MEN'S CLUB operates as a men's club
or gentlemen's club featuring female exotic dancers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100 phone
          Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Settles Contamination Suit for $26.2-MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed a bill into law that will allow
people exposed to toxic substances to sue the culpable facility for
medical testing or procedures to monitor for diseases from the
exposure.

The governor's bill signing came three days after U.S. District
Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford gave final approval to a $34 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against a plastics company
over toxic chemical contamination of soil and groundwater in the
Bennington area. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation will
pay $26.2 million into a fund to compensate Bennington area
property owners for alleged damages and $6 million for a program to
monitor the health of those exposed to perfluorooctanoic acid or
PFOA.

The legislation was based on Crawford's decision to allow medical
monitoring as a remedy, said Sen. Dick Sears of Bennington.

"It will make a huge difference for people that suffer the kind of
contamination that folks down here in Bennington did and North
Bennington," Sears said of the legislation. "It's taken . . . at
least five years for the suit to wind its way through the federal
courts and for Judge Crawford's decision."

The law, which takes effect in July, exempts small businesses with
less than 10 full-time employees, he said. Scott had twice vetoed
medical monitoring legislation. The legislation also allows the
state to sue manufacturers of hazardous material "who knew or
should have known that the material presented a threat of harm to
human health or the natural environment" for the costs of the
cleanup of a release of such material.

"Signing this bill is an important step towards holding polluters
responsible and signals support for families and communities who
should no longer bear the financial burden as victims of toxic
pollution," said Jon Groveman of the Vermont Natural Resources
Council in a statement.

Emily Joselin, an attorney representing the Bennington area
residents in the class-action lawsuit, said it will still be costly
and challenging to bring claims.

"These cases take years to litigate," she said in written testimony
filed with the legislature. "The defendant companies either have
insurance coverage, or internal financial resources, sufficient to
hire the most expensive and best-equipped defense law firms
available, as well as to retain as many high-priced expert
witnesses as necessary." [GN]

SAM SCHWARTZ: Alfalla Sues to Recover Untimely Wage Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Alfalla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAM SCHWARTZ PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 153030/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 7, 2022), seeks to
recover untimely wage compensation and other damages for Plaintiff
and similar flaggers and other similar manual labor positions who
work or have worked as manual workers for the Defendant in New York
State, in violation the New York Labor Law.

The Defendant has compensated Plaintiff and all other Manual
Workers on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis. Despite being manual
workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay the Plaintiff and
other Manual Workers their wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this
regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to the
Plaintiff and all other similar Manual Workers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by SSPTMS as a flagger from June 2015
until December 2020 throughout New York, including in New York
County.

Sam Schwartz Pedestrian Traffic Management Services, Inc. (SSPTMS)
handles pedestrian and vehicle traffic with hub operations in New
York and employs over 1,000 people in New York State, a majority of
whom are Manual Workers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 300-0375


SAN DIEGO UNIVERSITY: Female Athletes Add Unequal Treatment to Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seventeen female varsity athletes who sued San Diego State
University (SDSU) for depriving women of equal athletic financial
aid in February charged the school with denying women athletes
equal treatment and benefits, too-and retaliating against them for
trying to make SDSU comply with Title IX. Their Amended Complaint,
filed in federal court in San Diego, seeks court orders requiring
the school to treat its female and male student-athletes equally
and prohibiting SDSU from retaliating against its female athletes
in the future. It seeks damages from SDSU for retaliating against
its women athletes. And it continues to seek over $1.2 million for
the equal athletic financial aid the women athletes were deprived
of in the last two years, the additional money they are illegally
being denied this year, and a court order requiring SDSU to provide
equal athletic financial aid in the future.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits all
educational institutions that receive federal funds, including
SDSU, from discriminating on the basis of sex. It requires schools
to provide male and female student-athletes with equal athletic
financial aid and equal treatment and benefits. And it prohibits
all schools from retaliating against anyone for speaking out about
or challenging sex discrimination at the school.

"SDSU seems to be aiming for the Title IX sex discrimination
trifecta," said Arthur H. Bryant of Bailey & Glasser, LLP, in
Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the women. "It has been cheating its
female student-athletes out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
equal athletic financial aid each year. It is giving its male
student-athletes far better treatment and benefits than its female
student-athletes. And now it has blatantly retaliated against its
female student-athletes for standing up for their rights and trying
to hold the school accountable. This is not the way SDSU should be
marking Title IX's 50th anniversary."

"I wish I could say I'm shocked -- but it's been clear since we
began investigating this case that SDSU is bent on treating its
female student athletes like second-class citizens," said Jenna
Rangel, partner at Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, in San Diego and
co-counsel in the case. "We remain firm in our commitment to these
incredible plaintiffs, and we commend them for their ongoing
courage and grit."

The original SDSU Title IX lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2022,
charging the school with depriving women of over half a million
dollars annually in equal athletic financial aid. At that time,
SDSU knew the women were preparing to file a claim to require SDSU
to provide equal treatment and benefits going forward, unless SDSU
agreed to do so. It also knew that such a claim could only be
pursued by current female varsity student-athletes, that the only
current athletes who had sued for equal athletic financial aid were
five women on the women's track and field team, and that those
women had sued on behalf of all of the past and current female
student-athletes at the school.

On February 16, 2022, a previously-unscheduled Zoom meeting of the
women's varsity track and field team was called on short notice to
discuss the team's upcoming meet, held, and recorded. At the start
of that meeting, SDSU made clear to the five women and over 40 of
their teammates that it was disappointed with the team members who
had filed the Title IX suit. That was blatantly illegal
retaliation. It adversely affected the five women athletes and
their ability to pursue their claims. It also had a chilling effect
on the other women athletes, making them wary of pursuing their
claims and helping the women who had filed suit prove their claims
on behalf of all women athletes. When the women who had sued asked
SDSU to take specific steps to minimize the harm caused by this
illegal retaliation, SDSU refused.

"SDSU needs to take Title IX seriously and give its women athletes
the equal athletic financial aid and treatment they deserve," said
women's track and field team member Kailin Heri. "We're being
taught to think and stand up for ourselves, but, when we do so,
SDSU retaliates against us-and refuses to fix it-even though SDSU
is violating the law. We're going to keep fighting for equality.
SDSU needs to stop discriminating and comply with Title IX."

In addition to Heri, the lawsuit was filed by past and current SDSU
student-athletes Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Viss, Clare
Botterill, Maya Brosch, Olivia Petrine, Aisha Watt, Helen Bauer,
Carina Clark, Natalie Figueroa, Erica Grotegeer, Kamryn Whitworth,
Sara Absten, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Larisa Sulcs.

In addition to Bryant and Rangel, the women are represented by
Bailey Glasser's Lori Bullock in Des Moines, IA, and Cary Joshi and
Joshua Hammack in Washington, DC, along with co-counsel Amber Eck
of Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, and David S. Casey, Jr., and Gayle Blatt
of Casey Gerry in San Diego.

Bryant has successfully represented more female (and male) athletes
and potential athletes in Title IX litigation against schools and
universities than any lawyer in the country. He leads the Bailey
Glasser Title IX team that has recently won groundbreaking
settlements for female student-athletes at eight universities that
announced they were eliminating women's varsity intercollegiate
athletic teams: Brown University, the College of William & Mary,
the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, East Carolina
University, Dartmouth College, the University of St. Thomas, La
Salle University, and Dickinson College. The team also won a
historic settlement - the first Title IX victory ever for male
student-athletes - with Clemson University after the school became
the first facing class actions suits by both its male and female
student-athletes for violating Title IX by discriminating against
them in different ways. [GN]

SHIFTPIXY INC: Faces Splond Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------
Shiftpixy, Inc.  disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2022, that on April 8, 2019,
claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals in the Eighth
Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada, Clark County,
naming the company and its client as defendants, and alleging
violations of certain wage and hour laws.

Shiftpixy, Inc. develops a comprehensive HRIS platform as well as
an employment marketplace based in Florida.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Remand of Navarro Suit to Super. Court Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARNOLD NAVARRO, Plaintiff v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00095-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order:

   a. granting SDC's unopposed motion for leave to file
      additional briefs;

   b. granting Navarro's motion to amend complaint; and

   c. denying Navarro's motion to remand the action back to the
      Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
      Alameda.

I. Introduction

Arnold Navarro, the Paintiff in the putative class action, alleges
that SmileDirectClub, Inc., SmileDirectClub, LLC, Jeffrey Sulitzer,
and Jeffrey Sulitzer, D.M.D., P.C. (collectively "SDC"), engage in
the unauthorized practice of dentistry in violation of California
law. Both parties have motions pending: Navarro seeks to amend the
complaint and to remand the action back to the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, and SDC moves to compel arbitration.
SDC contends that when Navarro made an SDC account, he assented to
SDC's Informed Consent and Terms & SmilePay Conditions, which
require arbitration of his claims.

II. Background

Mr. Navarro filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda on behalf of himself and a
class of California residents on Dec. 3, 2021, alleging that SDC
engages in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. In the First
Amended Complaint ("FAC"), he claims that, among other things, SDC
failed to comply with consumer protection licensing requirements,
negligently provided dental care, and made misleading and false
representations to consumers about the scope of the dental services
that SDC could lawfully provide. He has pleaded various causes of
action against SDC, including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
fraudulent inducement, violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

SDC characterizes itself as a "teledentistry platform" that
connects consumers like Navarro with orthodontic treatment. It
claims that its business model facilitates access to orthodontic
treatment and allows consumers to straighten their teeth via clear
aligners without the hassle and cost of in-person appointments.
Consumers who are interested in SDC's dental services may request a
doctor prescribed impression kit from SDC's website, visit a SDC
retail location (known as a SmileShop), or visit the office of a
dentist or orthodontist that participates in SDC's Partner Network.
All three options require consumers to register and create an SDC
account online before they can access any of SDC's products or
services.

In April of 2020, Navarro visited SDC's website and reportedly
created an online account. According to SDC, as part of the account
creation process, and before Navarro could finalize his
registration as an SDC clear aligner candidate, he was required to
affirmatively check a clickwrap checkbox in which he agreed to
SDC's Informed Consent, Terms & SmilePay Conditions ("TOS"). The
checkbox is not pre-checked, and the full TOS are presented as
hyperlinks. When the hyperlinks are clicked, the consumer is taken
to another screen that displays the complete text of each of the
policies. Consumers have the option to read, download, and/or print
the policies.

SDC has also explained that its servers, which maintain an
electronic file for each customer, log the customer's transactions
and interactions. These servers also log a customer's electronic
assent to the TOS. In support of its motion to compel arbitration,
SDC provided evidence purporting to show that Navarro accepted
SDC's TOS on April 23, 2020.

On Jan. 6, 2022, SDC removed the case on the bases of diversity and
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). On Feb. 7, 2022,
Navarro moved to remand the matter back to Alameda Superior Court
based on a purported lack of jurisdiction. That same day, SDC filed
its motion to compel arbitration.

In the course of the remand briefing, Navarro filed the FAC under
Rule 15(a)(1) to add Sulitzer's professional corporation, Jeffrey
Sulitzer, D.M.D., P.C. as a defendant.Navarro's reply brief, which
he filed on the same day as the FAC, includes new arguments
regarding Sulitzer P.C. in support of remand.

In light of these new arguments, SDC then filed an unopposed motion
under Local Rule 7-11 for leave to file supplemental briefs. Both
parties provided supplemental briefing regarding whether Sulitzer
P.C. could properly be joined as a defendant. On the same day that
the Court held a hearing regarding the pending motions to remand
and compel arbitration, Navarro filed a motion to amend the
complaint to join Sulitzer P.C. in the event that I did not permit
him to amend the complaint as of right under Rule 15(a)(1).

III. Discussion

A. Motion to Amend the Complaint

The parties disagree whether Navarro could permissibly file the FAC
as of right under Rule 15(a)(1). Navarro argues that since SDC's
motion to compel arbitration does not constitute a "responsive
pleading" within the meaning of Rule 15(a)(1)(B), nor is it a
motion under Rule 12, he could amend as a matter of course pursuant
to the plain language of the Rule. SDC counters that its motion to
compel arbitration does constitute a "responsive pleading" within
the meaning of Rule 15 and that the FAC needed to be filed within
21 days of their motion. This distinction matters for Rule 15(a)(1)
purposes because SDC moved to compel arbitration on Feb.y 7, 2022,
and Navarro filed the FAC on March 14, 2022, which is outside of
the 21-day grace period allowed for under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).

Judge Orrick holds that joinder of Sulitzer P.C. is proper under
both Rule 15(a)(2) and section 1447(e). He finds that there has
been no undue delay in filing the FAC, and there is no prejudice to
SDC in the addition of Sulitzer P.C. And the case is in its early
stages: Aside from Navarro's motion to remand and SDC's motion to
compel arbitration, there has been little motion practice, SDC has
not yet answered, and discovery has not begun.

Juduge Orrick concludes that Sulitzer P.C. -- as the entity through
which Jeffrey Sulitzer engages in the practice of dentistry in
California -- appears sufficiently related to Navarro's claims
regarding SDC's unauthorized practice of dentistry to support
joinder under section 1447(e) or amendment under Rule 15. And even
if Navarro seeks to add Sulitzer P.C. in part to defeat federal
jurisdiction, "the mere preference for one forum over another does
not weigh in the section 1447(e) analysis." While Navarro could
have provided more detailed allegations regarding Sulitzer P.C.'s
role in the alleged unlawful dental enterprise, the claims against
Sulitzer P.C. appear plausible at this stage.

Navarro's motion for leave to amend is granted. Navarro may add
Sulitzer P.C. as a defendant, and the FAC is accepted as the
operative pleading in the case.

B. CAFA Jurisdiction

There is no basis for remanding the case, however, because CAFA
jurisdiction exists, Judge Orrick holds. CAFA vests a district
court with original jurisdiction over a class action where: (1)
there are one-hundred or more putative class members; (2) at least
one class member is a citizen of a state different from the state
of any defendant; and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, exclusive of costs and interest."

The first two CAFA requirements are easily met. First, Navarro
pleaded that the putative class includes "approximately 100,000
persons in the State of California." Second, there is minimal
diversity among the parties: Navarro is a citizen of California and
defendant Jeffrey Sulitzer, for instance, is a citizen of
Washington. The third requirement is also satisfied. The amount in
controversy is the "amount at stake in the underlying litigation."
As a result, all three requirements have been met and CAFA
jurisdiction exists.

Judge Orrick also concludes that because Sulitzer P.C. was not
named as a defendant prior to removal, Sulitzer P.C. cannot be
included in the CAFA jurisdictional analysis. Sulitzer P.C. cannot
serve as the California defendant for either the local controversy
or home state exceptions. And, because SDC met its burden to
establish CAFA jurisdiction, it was Navarro's burden to show that
an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies. As Navarro did not show
any of the Defendants were citizens of California, neither the
local controversy or home state exceptions can apply, and CAFA
jurisdiction remains intact.

Judge Orrick denied the motion to remand.

C. SDC's Motion to Compel Arbitration

SDC's motion to compel Navarro to arbitration primarily involves
three disputes: (1) whether Navarro assented to the arbitration
agreement, (ii) whether the arbitration agreement (in whole or in
part) is valid and enforceable, and (iii) whether the arbitration
agreement delegates these "gateway" questions of arbitrability,
meaning that the arbitrator, not the Court, should decide these
issues.

Judge Orrick cannot tell whether the appearance of SDC's clickwrap
agreement has changed over time, or if the version reflected in
SDC's briefing is the same as it would have been in April 2020.
This is a particular concern because Navarro alleges that he has a
different set of "terms and conditions" in his possession. Because
SDC failed to provide evidence showing what Navarro would have seen
on April 23, 2020, at the point in which he allegedly assented to
the clickwrap agreement, Judge Orrick finds that SDC failed to meet
its burden showing that Navarro assented to the TOS.

Because Judge Orrick concludes that SDC failed to show sufficient
evidence of Navarro's assent to the arbitration agreement, he takes
SDC's motion to compel arbitration under submission at this time.
He will issue his ruling on this motion in due course after SDC has
provided additional evidence regarding: (1) what Navarro would have
seen when he allegedly assented to SDC's clickwrap agreement on
April 23, 2020, and (2) the circumstances under which Navarro
received and allegedly assented to the addendum to the retail
installment contract, which is attached to Navarro's declaration at
Dkt. 23-2.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Orrick granted SDC's unopposed motion for leave to file
additional briefs, granted Navarro's motion to amend, and denied
Navarro's motion to remand.

By May 6, 2022, SDC is ordered to file a declaration with evidence
demonstrating: (1) the design and appearance of the clickwrap
agreement on April 23, 2020, the time when Navarro allegedly
assented to the agreement, and (2) the circumstances under which
Navarro received and allegedly assented to the addendum to the
retail installment contract. Should Navarro wish to file a response
to SDC's evidence, he must file a counter declaration with any
supporting evidence by May 20, 2022. Judge Orrick will rule on the
motion to compel arbitration following the submission of SDC's
evidence.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3rkw6uxr from Leagle.com.


STEELE COUNTY, MN: Final OK of Class Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaiah Coffey and Ron
Jaeger, on behalf of themselves individually and all others
similarly situated, v. Lon Thiele, in his official capacity as
Steele County Sheriff, Case No. 0:20-cv-02237-NEB-TNL (D. Minn.),
the Parties move the Court to file an Order as follows:

   1. Final approval of the Class Action Settlement as fair,
      reasonable, and adequate;

   2. Final approval of the class representative incentive
      award; and

   3. Final approval for an award of attorney's fees.

Steele County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vxNVaa at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradford Colbert, Esq.
          Matthew Wilkening, Esq.
          Andrew Harris, Esq.
          LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO
          MINNESOTA PRISONERS
          875 Summit Ave., Room 254
          St. Paul, MN 55105

The Defendant is  represented by:

          Stephanie A. Angolkar, Esq.
          Jason M. Hiveley, Esq.
          Julia C. Kelly, Esq.
          IVERSON REUVERS
          9321 Ensign Avenue South
          Bloomington, MN 55438
          Telephone: (952) 548-7200
          E-mail: jasonh@iversonlaw.com
                  stephanie@iversonlaw.com
                  julia@iversonlaw.com


STERICYCLE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Haas Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI SIPPEL HAAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERICYCLE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02071 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Haas was employed by the Defendant as educator.

STERICYCLE, INC. provides regulated medical waste management
services. The Company offers waste collection, transportation,
treatment, and disposal to customers in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Argentina, Chile, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Max Barack, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
          6252 N. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60659
          Telephone: (312) 736-7991
          Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com

STORM SMART: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaume Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GAUME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STORM SMART HOLDINGS LLC; THE SMART
COMPANIES, LLC; and STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00253-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., April 20, 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 Gaume was employed by the Defendants as installer.

STORM SMART HOLDINGS LLC provides construction services. The
Company constructs of single-family homes. Storm Smart Building
Systems serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
          Conor P. Foley, Esq.
          GUNTERFIRM
          1514 Broadway, Suite 101
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239)334-7017
          Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com
                 Conor@GunterFirm.com

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Faces Winter Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING, INC., GREGORY A. BEARD,
RICARDO R. ALARROUDE, WILLIAM B. SPENCE, B. RILEY SECURITIES, INC.,
COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES,
LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., COMPASS POINT RESEARCH & TRADING, LLC,
and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03088 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Stronghold Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2021
initial public offering, pursuing claims against under the
Securities Act of 1933.

On October 21, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In
the IPO, the Company sold 7,690,400 shares of Class A common stock
at a price of $19.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds
of approximately $132.5 million from the Offering. The proceeds
from the IPO were purportedly to be contributed to Stronghold LLC
in exchange for Stronghold LLC Units, and Stronghold LLC would
purportedly use the net proceeds for general corporate purposes,
including for acquisitions of miners and power generating assets.

On March 29, 2022, after the market closed, Stronghold announced
its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. The
Company reported a net loss of $0.52 for the quarter, below analyst
estimates of $0.04 earnings per share, and Stronghold's Chief
Executive Officer cited "significant headwinds in our operations
which have materially impacted recent financial performance."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell as much as $3.28, or
32%, to close at $6.97 per share on March 30, 2022.

By the commencement of this action, Stronghold stock has traded as
low as $4.78 per share, a more than 75% decline from the $19 per
share IPO price.

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state that contracted suppliers, including MinerVa, were
reasonably likely to miss anticipated delivery quantities and
deadlines.

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

Te Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Stronghold Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO, and suffered
damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions.

Stronghold is a crypto asset mining company focused on mining
Bitcoin. It wholly-owns and operates two low-cost, environmentally
beneficial coal refuse power generation facilities in Pennsylvania.
The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

SUPER CARE INC: Cardenas Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marina Cardenas and Susie Frazier-Telles, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Super Care, Inc., dba
SuperCare Health, Case No. 2:22-cv-00590-APG-NJK (Nev. 8th Judicial
Ct., Clark Cty., April 11, 2022), is brought as a result of the
Defendant's failure to safeguard the confidential personally
identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of the
Plaintiffs and thousands of individuals, and on behalf of patients
whose PII was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack that
accessed sensitive patient information through SuperCare's
services.

According to the complaint, from July 23, 2021 to July 27, 2021, a
group of cybercriminals had access to certain files on the
Defendant's computer network and servers containing personal
information belonging to the Class Members. The Plaintiffs and
Class Members were not notified of the data breach until March 25,
2022, more than eight months after their information was first
accessed. The cybercriminals accessed insufficiently protected
information belonging to Plaintiffs and the Class Members. As a
result of the Defendant's failure to properly secure Plaintiffs'
and the Class Members' personal information, the cybercriminals
obtained extensive personal information including names, addresses,
email addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health
insurance billing information, and treating physician information,
collectively known as PII.

As a result of the Defendant's actions and/or inaction, the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members were harmed and forced to take
remedial steps to protect themselves from future loss. Indeed, the
Plaintiffs and all of the Class Members are currently at a very
high risk of misuse of their Private Information in the coming
months and years, including but not limited to unauthorized credit
card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, identity
theft, and other fraudulent use of their financial accounts. The
Defendant's wrongful actions and/or inaction constitute common law
negligence, invasion of privacy by the public disclosure of private
facts, breach of contract, and breach of implied contract, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Clark County,
Nevada.

The Defendant is a respiratory treatment company, which operates
nationally, including in Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Haines, Esq.
          Gerardo Avalos, Esq.
          FREEDOM LAW FIRM
          8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Phone: 702.880.5554
          Fax: 702.967.6666
          Email: info@freedomlegalteam.com

               - and -

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KIND LAW
          8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Phone: (702 337-2322
          Fax: (702) 329-5881
          Email: mk@kindlaw.com


TAKATA AIRBAG: Carmax Gets Settlement Over Defective Airbag Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that the company was a class member
in a consolidated and settled class action lawsuit caption "In re:
Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation" in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Florida against Toyota, Mazda, Subaru,
BMW, Honda, Nissan and Ford related to the economic loss associated
with defective Takata airbags installed as original equipment in
certain model vehicles from model years 2000-2018.

On April 15, 2020, CarMax received $40.3 million in net recoveries
from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement
funds. On January 27, 2022, CarMax received $3.8 million in net
recoveries from the Ford settlement funds.

CarMax, Inc. is a retailer of used cars based in Virginia.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Montoya Sues Over Manual Workers' Untimely Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES MONTOYA AND MARLENY DEL CARMEN MEJIA SEVILLA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TGI FRIDAY'S
INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02240 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2022) seeks to
recover untimely wage compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs
and similar hourly dish washers, cleaners, kitchen workers and
other similar manual labor positions who work or have worked as
manual workers for the Defendants, pursuant to the  New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have compensated
Plaintiff and all other Manual Workers on a bi-weekly basis.
Despite being manual workers, the Defendants have failed to
properly pay Plaintiff and other Workers their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were
earned.

The Plaintiff brings the First and Second Causes of Action, NYLL
claims, under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
behalf of herself and a class of persons consisting of:

   "All persons who work or have worked as Manual Workers for TGI
   Friday's Inc. in New York between April 2016 and the date of
   final judgment in this matter (the New York Class)."

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, TGI Friday's sells food, beverages
and liquor throughout their restaurants in New York. TGI Friday's
operates approximately 34 locations in New York and employs over
1,000 people in New York State, a majority of whom are Manual
Workers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.  
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

THOMSON REUTERS: Case Schedule Amended in Brooks Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen
entered an order granting stipulation to amend case schedule as
follows:

               Event             Current         Amended
                                 Schedule        Schedule

-- Disclosure of Primary       May 2, 2022     June 1, 2022
   Class Certification
   Experts:

-- Disclosure of Class         Aug. 8, 2022    Sept. 7, 2022
   Certification Rebuttal
   Experts:

-- Close of Class              Sept. 8, 2022   Oct. 10, 2022
   Certification Expert
   Discovery:

-- Joint Status Report Due     June 28, 2022    No Change
   No change proposed:

-- Deadline to pursue          Sept. 22, 2022   Oct. 24, 2022
   private mediation:

-- Status Conference:          July 5, 2022     No change

-- Deadline to Amend           Oct. 10, 2022    Nov. 9, 2022
   Pleadings and
   Plaintiffs'
   deadline to Move
   for Class
   Certification:

-- Deadline for Opposition     Dec. 15, 2022   Jan. 26, 2023
   to Class Certification:

-- Deadline for                Jan. 26, 2023   March 9, 2023
   Plaintiffs' Reply
   Supporting Class
   Certification:

Thomson Reuters Corporation is a Canadian multinational media
conglomerate. The company was founded in Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
where it is headquartered at the Bay Adelaide Centre.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3MlBNj5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:

           Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
           Andre M. Mura, Esq.
           David Stein, Esq.
           Jeffrey B. Kosbie, Esq.
           GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
           505 14th Street, Suite 1110
           Oakland, CA 94612
           Telephone: (510) 350-9700
           Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
           E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                   amm@classlawgroup.com
                   ds@classlawgroup.com
                   jbk@classlawgroup.com

                - and -

           Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq.
           Neil K. Sawhney, Esq.
           GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
           100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
           San Francisco, CA 94111
           Telephone: (415) 573-0336
           E-mail: jennifer@guptawessler.com
                   neil@guptawessler.com

                - and -

           Albert Fox Cahn, Esq.
           SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
           OVERSIGHT PROJECT
           40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
           New York, NY 10006
           E-mail: albert@stopspying.org

                - and -

           Benjamin Elga, Esq.
           JUSTICE CATALYST LAW INC.
           123 William Street, 16th floor
           New York, NY 10038
           Telephone: (518) 732-6703
           E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org

The Attorneys the Defendant are:

           Susan D. Fahringer, Esq.
           Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
           Anna M. Thompson, Esq.
           PERKINS COIE LLP
           1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
           Seattle, WA 98101-3099
           Telephone: (206) 359-8000
           Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
           E-mail: SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
                   NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                   AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com

                - and -

           Gabriella Gallego, Esq.
           PERKINS COIE LLP
           3150 Porter Drive
           Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
           Telephone: (650) 838-4300
           Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
           E-mail: GGallego@perkinscoie.com

THOR INDUSTRIES: Fails to Remit Benefit Payments, Scott Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLICIA SCOTT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THOR INDUSTRIES, INC.; THOR MOTOR COACH, INC.; and
INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00313 (N.D.
Ind., April 20, 2022) is a claim under the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 for the Defendants' failure to remit
benefit payments withheld from employee paychecks, causing
insurance benefits to lapse and, in some cases, insurance claims to
be denied.

The Plan offers a variety of insurance benefits, including medical
and pharmacy benefits through Anthem, surgery benefits through
SurgeryPlus, Flexible Spending Accounts through Anthem, dental
benefits through Delta Dental, vision benefits through VSP, life
and short- and long-term disability insurance through Mutual of
Omaha, and accident and critical illness insurance through Aflac.

Therefore, the Plan constitutes an "employee welfare benefit plan"
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1) because it is a plan
maintained by an employer that was established or is maintained for
the purpose of providing for its participants or their
beneficiaries insurance benefits, including medical, and benefits
in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or
unemployment, says the suit.

Thor Industries is the Plan Sponsor, Plan Administrator, and
administers the Plan and Plan Assets. Thor Motor Coach is Ms.
Scott’s employer and assists in administering the Plan and Plan
Assets.

The injuries suffered by Ms. Scott's husband consisted of a
fracture and necessitated a hospital visit, imaging, surgery and
anesthesia, and other treatment. As a result, Ms. Scott was
eligible to recover benefits under the Aflac insurance coverage for
which she paid premiums through the Plan. The coverage is not
available to her due to the failure of the Defendants to remit or
ensure remittance of timely premium payments from the amounts
withheld from her paycheck.

As a result, Ms. Scott has been directly harmed by the Defendants'
alleged conduct by paying premiums through the Plan that were not
timely remitted to Aflac, lapse and loss of coverages for which she
had paid, and loss of the benefits of her insurance coverage for
which she was eligible due to the accidental injuries of her son
and husband.

Ms. Scott brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and
the following proposed class ("Class"):

   All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
   Plan, at any time between January 1, 2021 and the present (the
   "Class Period").

Ms. Scott is a full-time employee of Thor Motor Coach who works as
a cabinetry carpenter at Plant 150 located at 701 County Road 15,
Elkhart, Indiana.

During her employment Thor Motor Coach, Ms. Scott has participated
in the Thor Industries, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan, paying premiums
for insurance options offered by the Plan. Because she is eligible
to receive benefits under the Plan, Ms. Scott is a "participant" in
the Plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan G. Milligan, Esq.
          Peter D. Hamann, Esq.
          PFEIFER MORGAN & STESIAK LLP
          53600 N. Ironwood Rd.
          South Bend, IN 46635
          Telephone: (574) 272-2870
          Facsimile: (574) 271-4329
          E-mail: RMilligan@pilawyers.com
                  PHamann@pilawyers.com

TILLY'S INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Ward Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended January 29 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that in March 2022, the parties
executed a settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws over case captioned
"Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's, Inc.," Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought
class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties,
restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted
the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against it.
Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our
demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of
plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the
plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of
Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion
overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the
plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.

In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined
to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Since the case was
remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in
discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.

In October 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. In December 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal of the court's order denying her motion for class
certification. In October 2021, the plaintiff filed a request for
dismissal of her appeal, which the Court of Appeal granted with a
remittitur to return the case to the trial court where the case
would proceed only with respect to the plaintiff's individual
claims.

In March 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement which
obligated the plaintiff to dismiss the case with prejudice once
customary terms are met, as a result the company has established a
loss provision of $0.2 million.

Tilly's is a destination specialty retailer of casual apparel,
footwear, accessories and hardgoods based in California.


TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks Over Gonzales Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended January 29 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 14, 2022, that the company was named defendant
in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California's wage
and hour laws in case captioned "Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al,"
Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No.
30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. Settlement talks are ongoing.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2017, the
company filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims
and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed
a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)
against the company seeking penalties on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations
of California's wage and hour laws.

The defendants requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with its co-defendant, BaronHR,
the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the
Company.

In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed.
The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator
in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation,
the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions
with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a
trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's,
BaronHR is required to indemnify the company for all of its losses
and expenses incurred in connection with this matter.

Tilly's is a destination specialty retailer of casual apparel,
footwear, accessories and hard goods based in California.


TOWER HILL: MSP Bid for Leave to File Documents Under Seal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES 44 LLC, v. TOWER HILL
PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00262-AW-GRJ
(N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for leave to file certain
documents under seal are granted.

The Plaintiffs may transmit the referenced documents to the clerk
(by mail or email), and the clerk will maintain them under seal.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xFhOrK at no extra charge.[CC]

TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE: Faces Holmes Suit Over NSF Fee Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP HOLMES, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE BANK, INC. d/b/a TAB
BANK, Case No. 27-CV-22-5860 (D. Minn., April 20, 2022) arises from
TAB's (a) routine practice of assessing two or more fees ("Multiple
Fees"), including non-sufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees") or
overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on a single item; and (b) adopting a
policy that results in accountholders being assessed two ATM Fees
on ATM withdrawals immediately preceded by a purported "balance
inquiry," with TAB impermissibly assessing a second ATM Fee.

The alleged practice breaches contractual promises and violates the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. TAB's improper scheme to
extract funds from accountholders has victimized the Plaintiff and
thousands of other similarly situated accountholders. Unless
enjoined, TAB will continue to engage in this scheme and continue
to cause substantial injury to its accountholders, the lawsuit
says.

While there is nothing unlawful about assessing NSF Fees and OD
Fees on accounts when such fees are assessed in compliance with
contractual terms, NSF Fees and OD Fees in general have a crushing
impact on persons living paycheck to paycheck. This is why the
financial services industry is increasingly moving away from such
fees, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who is a citizen of Minnesota and
resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has held a checking account
with TAB. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff resided in, and
continues to reside in, Hennepin County, Minnesota.

TAB, an online bank, with accountholders throughout the country,
and has approximately $1.23 billion in assets. TAB has its
headquarters in Weber County, Utah.

During the Class Period, TAB allegedly charged the fees complained
of in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
suffered legally cognizable damages proximately caused by TAB's
misconduct in Hennepin County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          Gregory N. Arenson, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
                  garenson@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Hass Files Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA HAAS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVELEX INSURANCE
SERVICES INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06171-ODW-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4);

   2. appointing her as representative of the Classes; and

   3. appointing Jordan L. Lurie and Ari Y. Basser of Pomerantz
      LLP, and Zev B. Zysman of the Law Offices of Zev B.
      Zysman, APC, as co-lead class counsel for the proposed
      Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Travelex provides travel insurance.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 4,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rGHy39
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          A Professional Corporation
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 783-8836
          E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com

UNITED STATES: Robinson Sues Over Unfair Criminal Justice System
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONTE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01098
(D.D.C., April 20, 2022) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
for violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for
arbitrary and capricious action by a Federal agency, Equal
Protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.

The Plaintiff's story viscerally illustrates the alleged ongoing
systemic inequities in the criminal justice system, caused by
inherently racist medical algorithms.

According to the complaint, Jonte's story unfortunately is not
unique to his case. The African-American eGFR Multiplier is still
widely used in prisons and other medical facilities to test for
kidney disease, potentially harming an untold number of other Black
patients similar to Jonte Robinson who are the direct victims of
systemic racism in the healthcare and criminal justice system. It
is also illustrative of race-based disparities in potentially
life-saving medical treatments and how Black individuals are
deliberately excluded by the system from gaining access to medical
care, organ transplantation, and compassionate release
opportunities, added the suit.

As of April 12, 2022, Jonte Robinson has exhausted all available
administrative remedies prior to bringing this action.

Jonte Robinson, a person who has served more than eighteen (18)
years of his prison sentence for a crime he committed as a
teenager, could have been eligible for compassionate release.
Instead, because of an outdated medical algorithm that
differentiates a Black person's kidney function from non-Black
individuals, Jonte remains incarcerated. Jonte remains in prison,
knowing -- as a medical expert's affidavit reported during his
compassionate release hearing -- that his risk of dying from
COVID-19 is ten times higher than that of an average healthy
American
adult.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a United States federal law
enforcement agency under the Department of Justice that is
responsible for the care, custody, and control of incarcerated
individuals who have committed federal crimes; that is, violations
of the United States Code.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juyoun Han, Esq.
          Eric M. Baum, Esq.
          Andrew Rozynski, Esq.
          EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
          24 Union Square East, Penthouse
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 353-8700
          Facsimile: (212) 353-1708
          E-mail: jhan@eandblaw.com

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Arredondo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA ARREDONDO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, decertifying the class certified in
this action on February 8, 2022.

The Defendant contends that first the defined class is not
ascertainable, because the parties do not have means to identify
which undergraduate students paid their own tuition and fees.
Second, the class is overbroad. and fails for predominance because
the overwhelming majority of class members have no damages,
including Plaintiff, the sole class representative. Third, the
class is overbroad and lacks commonality because the Plaintiff
insists the class definition includes adult learners in the "CAPA"
program Campus Accelerated Program for Adults, a program that
allows adult learners to progress at their own pace, part-time or
full-time, toward a degree by taking accelerated course modules
over seven to ten days, with tuition paid per credit hour. When
Plaintiff moved for class certification, she never addressed CAPA
students, nor did she present any evidence that CAPA students
should be part of the certified class. The evidence also shows that
CAPA students are on a different calendar than ULV traditional
undergraduates (TUGs), and they pay a perunit charge for tuition
rather than a flat rate like TUGs.

The University of La Verne offers undergraduate, graduate, and
online degree programs across nine diverse California locations.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 4, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OshKS8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David R. Sugden, Esq.
          Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
          Marlynn P. Howe, Esq.
          Melinda Evans, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN
          A Professional Corporation
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          8 Tel: (949) 717-3000
          E-mail: dsugden@calljensen.com
                  jtrotter@calljensen.com
                  mhowe@calljensen.com
                  mevans@calljensen.com


VEFO INC: Faces Osorio Suit Over Illegal Employment Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMAN ROSENDO OSORIO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. VEFO, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV13154 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 20, 2022) challenges systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the California
Labor Code against Defendant's employees.

The Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees
from February 11, 2021, through the present, for Defendants'
violations of Labor Code for failing to pay all earned minimum,
regular and overtime wages, failing to provide off duty meal break,
failing to provide off duty rest breaks, failing to record meal
breaks, failing to pay all wages upon termination and failing to
provide accurate itemized wage statements.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as General
Helper. On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
ended. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, he has been an hourly,
non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was and is a corporation which
operates wireless telephone services throughout the State of
California, including in Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          Paul M. Yi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381-1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
          E-mail: edward. choi @choiandassoci ates. com
                  paul.yi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          David Lee, Esq.
          DAVID LEE LAW, A.P.C.
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236-3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658-4722

VERTIV HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 23, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Vertiv Holdings Co ("Vertiv" or the "Company")
(NYSE: VRT) securities between April 28, 2021 and February 23,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Vertiv investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/vertiv-holdings-co/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

On February 23, 2022, at 6:00 a.m. Eastern, Vertiv reported
disappointing financial results, including $0.06 earnings per share
for fourth quarter 2021, missing analyst estimates of $0.28 per
share. Vertiv's Chief Executive Officer attributed the poor results
to management "consistently underestimat[ing] inflation and supply
chain constraints for both timing and degree, which dictated a
tepid 2021 pricing response."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $7.19, or 37%, to
close at $12.38 per share on February 23, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants 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: (1) that the Company could not adequately respond to
supply chain issues and inflation by increasing its prices; (2)
that, as a result of the increasing costs, Vertiv's earnings would
be adversely impacted; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vertiv securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 23, 2022 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

VXL ENTERPRISES: Avant Seeks to Send Notice to Medical Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE AVANT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. VXL ENTERPRISES LLC,
DANIEL & YEAGER, LLC, TEAM HEALTH, LLC, PROVIDER CONTRACTING, LLC,
d/b/a SYCAMORE INDEPENDENT PHYSICIANS, MATTHEW A. CROUSE, and DOES
1-25, Case No. 4:21-cv-02016-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order, under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), to facilitate collective action notice to:

   "all medical staff who were hired by Defendants VXL
   Enterprises LLC and Matthew Crouse as independent contractors
   to provide treatment for inmates suffering from COVID-19 at
   various state prisons in California."

This motion is brought on the grounds that such medical staff are
similarly situated to Leslie Avant, and thus should be afforded the
same opportunity to join in the FLSA claim asserted in this
lawsuit.

VXL provides global security services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vvt8Ed at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Feder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FEDER
          235 Montgomery Street Suite 1019
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 391-9476
          Facsimile: (415) 391-9432
          E-mai: daniel@dfederlaw.com
                 Eric Lechtzin (SBN 248958)

               - and -

          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com

WALMART STORES: Griego Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDAN GRIEGO,
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; WALMART, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION SAM'S WEST, INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND DOES
1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-00401-L-MDD (S.D. Cal..), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to reconsider its Order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and Ex Parte to Reconsider
Defendant's motion to strike.

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted class certification in
Garcia, certifying a class and subclass defined as follows:

   a. Any and all individuals who worked for Defendants in the
      State of California whose employment ended at any time
      from February 1, 2015, through the present, and who
      received a Statement of Final Pay and then received any
      additional wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) on
      the Defendants' on-cycle payroll immediately subsequent to
      the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the
      individual; and

   b. California whose employment ended at any time from
      February 1, 2015, through the present, and who received a
      Statement of Final Pay and then received any additional
      wages (regular, overtime and/or vacation) more than 3 days
      after the issuance of the Statement of Final Pay on
      Defendants' oncycle payroll immediately subsequent to the
      issuance of the Statement of Final Pay to the individual
      (the "Subclass").

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 5,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQgqCR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
          591 Telegraph Canyon Rd, #376
          Chula Vista, CA 91910
          Telephone: (805) 618-2924
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 525
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

WALTER BERRY: Cummings Bid for Temporary Restraining Order Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS CUMMINGS, v. Warden
WALTER BERRY, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00019-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Tilman E. Self, III entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order.

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order. The Plaintiff did not file an objection to the
Recommendation, and the time period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. section
636 to file an objection has expired in connection with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(a)(1) & (d). Having reviewed the Recommendation for clear
error, the Court adopts it and makes it the order of the court.
There shall be no service of process until further order from the
Court, the Court adds.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vyejk5 at no extra charge.[CC]



WELLS FARGO: Fryson Awarded $33K in Attorneys' Fees in Kang Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JAMES KANG and MICHAEL MOSES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant. PATRICIA BARRERAS and JACQUELINE F. IBARRA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case Nos.
17-cv-06220-BLF, 21-cv-00071-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
Class Member-Objector Kirk Fyson's motion for attorneys' fees and a
service award.

I. Introduction

The Court has granted final approval of a class action settlement
in the suit against Defendant Wells Fargo on behalf of its
California-based home mortgage consultants ("HMCs"). The Plaintiffs
claim that Wells Fargo violated California wage and hour laws,
including California Labor Code Section 226.7, which governs meal
and rest breaks. Only one class member, Kirk Fyson, objected to the
settlement. The Court overruled Mr. Fyson's objection in its final
approval order, but it granted Mr. Fyson leave to file a motion for
attorneys' fees.

Mr. Fyson has filed a motion seeking (1) an award of $583,636 in
attorneys' fees and (2) a service award of $3,500. The motion is
opposed by the Plaintiffs. The Court finds the motion suitable for
decision without oral argument.

II. Discussion

A. Objector's Request for Attorneys' Fees

1. Mr. Fyson's Objection Did Not Result in an Increase to the
Settlement Fund

Judge Freeman finds that in the present case, Mr. Fyson did his
best to derail the extraordinary settlement achieved by the Class
Counsel, which creates a settlement fund of $95,696,122.35 for the
benefit of 4,939 class members. As discussed at length in the final
approval order, the case has a complicated procedural history
arising from the consolidation of three cases from two districts,
each at a different stage of the litigation process. Prior to
consolidation, one of the cases was appealed to and remanded from
the Ninth Circuit. At the time the settlement was negotiated, the
proper construction of California Labor Code Section 226.7 -- the
key issue with respect to the Plaintiffs' primary claim -- was
pending before the California Supreme Court and the only appellate
decision on point favored Wells Fargo, not the Plaintiffs. Against
this backdrop, the Class Counsel negotiated a settlement that will
result in an average net settlement payment of more than $12,000
per class member, and settlement payments in the $20,000 to $50,000
range to more than a quarter of the class members.

Mr. Fyson asserts that his objection was a catalyst for the
Plaintiffs' reduction of their fees request from 33% to 25% of the
settlement fund, or by $7,958,677. He acknowledges that the
Plaintiffs themselves attributed their reduced fees request to
"having given further thought to the Court's initial observations"
at the preliminary approval hearing and a desire "to avoid creating
undue controversy where none is warranted." However, Mr. Fyson
argues that the timing ofthe Plaintiffs' reduction of their fees
request, and the fact that the Plaintiffs made that reduction in
their formal response to his objection, suggests that the objection
was at least partly responsible for the reduced fees request. He
asks that his objection be credited with causing one-third of what
he characterizes as a "waiver" of fees, that is, that he be
credited with causing the Plaintiffs to waive $2,652,892 (one-third
of $7,958,677) in attorneys' fees. Mr. Fyson further asks that he
be awarded 22% of this $2,652,892 "benefit" to the class, which
would result in an award of attorneys' fees to Mr. Fyson in the
amount of $583,636.

Judge Freeman says the flaw in Mr. Fyson's argument is that even if
his objection were viewed as a partial catalyst for the Plaintiffs'
reduction in their fees request, the Plaintiffs' reduction in their
fees request did not translate into a dollar-for-dollar increase to
the common fund. In no universe would the Court have granted the
Plaintiffs' initial request for attorneys' fees totaling 33% of the
settlement fund. It cannot be said that the Court reduced the
Plaintiffs' fees award based on the merits of Mr. Fyson's
objection.

And, even though the Court agrees with Mr. Fyson that his objection
was a catalyst for the Plaintiffs' waiver of $7,958,677 in
attorneys' fees, the resulting benefit to the class cannot be
quantified in the manner he suggests.

Accordingly, while Mr. Fyson correctly states that the percentage
method is appropriate where an objector's "efforts resulted in a
readily quantifiable benefit to the class," it is not such a case.
Judge Freeman must determine an alternative method for calculating
an award of attorneys' fees based on the benefit Mr. Fyson actually
conferred on the class.

2. Mr. Fyson's Objection was a Catalyst for Plaintiffs' Waiver of
Appeal Rights

Mr. Fyson argues that his objection was a catalyst for the
Plaintiffs' voluntary reduction of their fees award from 33% to 25%
of the settlement fund, or by $7,958,677. By voluntarily agreeing
to that reduction, the Plaintiffs waived their appeal rights
regarding at least $7,958,677 of the amount by which the Court cut
the Plaintiffs' initial fees request. Given that waiver, Mr. Fyson
argues, the Plaintiffs are significantly less likely to appeal the
Court's final attorneys' fees award.

Judge Freeman holds that Mr. Fyson's objection was a catalyst to
the Plaintiffs waiving their appeal rights as to a portion of the
Court's attorneys' fees order. That waiver confers a benefit to the
class by offering some certainty to the class regarding the
finality of the Court's rulings. That certainty has value,
particularly in light of the Plaintiffs' express reservation of
their right to appeal the Court's attorneys' fees award. In the
Court's experience, it is quite unusual to include a reservation of
the right to appeal attorneys' fees in a class action settlement
agreement. It perhaps is understandable that the Plaintiffs sought
an express preservation of their appeal rights. As noted, they have
indicated that they do not intend to appeal the Court's fees award
in the amount of 22% of the common fund.

Although she has determined that Mr. Fyson's objection conferred a
benefit to the class under the catalyst theory, Judge Freeman holds
that that benefit is not easily quantified. Despite Mr. Fyson's
disclaimer that he does not seek a lodestar award, the lodestar
method appears to be the only means by which the Court can
calculate an appropriate award of attorneys' fees. Judge Freeman
therefore uses the lodestar method to determine an appropriate
award of attorneys' fees, applying California law because the
Plaintiffs' claims are asserted under California law based on
diversity jurisdiction. She accepts the hours reflected in the
chart for purposes of calculating the lodestar of Mr. Fyson's
counsel.

Mr. Fyson contends that his counsel's lodestar derives from all
hours spent on the following categories of tasks, numbered by the
Court for convenience: (1) Review of Docket, Procedural, Appellate,
and Substantive History of Ibarra and Kang; (2) Communications with
Client and Co-Counsel; (3) Drafting, Researching, Reviewing of
Objection and Opposition; (4) Final Approving Hearing - Preparation
for both hearings; and (5) Attendance at Final Approval Hearings.

Judge Freeman holds that this contention is not well-taken for two
reasons. First, only a small portion of that work could reasonably
have been devoted to challenging the Plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees. Mr. Fyson is not entitled to fees for his
counsel's work on other unsuccessful issues. Second, the hours
expended by Mr. Fyson's counsel were duplicative and excessive.

Judge Freeman determines the reasonable amount of hours for each
category of tasks, and then she calculates the portion of those
reasonable hours likely attributable to counsel's work on the
attorneys' fees issue. She finds that (i) a maximum of 8 hours per
attorney, for a total of 24 hours, was reasonably expended on the
tasks for getting up to speed on the case; (ii) at most counsel
reasonably expended 25 hours of attorney time for the
communications with client and co-counsels; (iii) 85 hours
reasonably were spent on drafting, researching, reviewing of
objection and opposition; (iv) the hours spent for the final
approval hearings were excessive and unnecessary and that, at most,
6 hours reasonably were spent preparing for the hearings; (v) the
lodestar for Mr. Fyson's counsel is $33,115; (vi) no multiplier is
warranted; and (vii) it is equitable that the award to Mr. Fyson be
paid from the settlement fund.

Accordingly, Mr. Fyson's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in
part and denied in part. Mr. Fyson is awarded attorneys' fees in
the amount of $33,115, to be paid from the common settlement fund.

B. Objector's Request for Service Award

Mr. Fyson requests a service award of $3,500. While that amount is
less than the $10,000 the Court approved for class representatives,
it is not warranted given that Mr. Fyson spent only 15 hours on the
case. Judge Freeman finds it reasonable to award him $75 per hour,
which would result in an award of $1,125. She will increase that
award to $1,500 because Mr. Fyson made his name public in order to
assert his objection, thus giving up his privacy. This award is
within the range of service fees commonly awarded to objectors.

Mr. Fyson's motion for a service award is granted in the amount of
$1,500. Mr. Fyson has indicated that he and his attorneys would not
object to payment of his service award out of the attorneys' fees
awarded to Mr. Fyson's counsel. However, given the relatively
modest fees awarded, and the modest amount of the service award,
Judge Freeman directs that the service award be paid from the
common settlement fund.

III. Order

Mr. Fyson's motion for attorneys' fees and a service award is
granted in part and denied part. Mr. Fyson is granted attorneys'
fees in the amount of $33,115 and a service award in the amount of
$1,500. Those amounts will be paid out of the settlement fund,
separate and apart from the attorneys' fees to Class Counsel and
the service awards to class representatives. As soon as is
practicable, the Plaintiffs will file a proposed judgment
consistent with both the present Order and the final approval
order. The Order terminates ECF 149.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 15, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdh5na53 from Leagle.com.


[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Register for the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference,
Monday, May 2nd, at the Harmonie Club.

New speakers are announced weekly.  If your firm is interested in
sponsorship or a speaking opportunity, please 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: Crane Co Faces 30,312 Pending Claims as of Mar. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of March 31, 2022, is a defendant in cases filed in
numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of the 30,312 pending claims as of March 31,
2022, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which
approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over
15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals
of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in
favor of the defense. We have also tried several other cases
resulting in plaintiff verdicts
which we paid or settled after unsuccessful appeals.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the three months ended March
31, 2022 and 2021 totaled $13.0 million and $9.1 million,
respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and
defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the
tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some
fluctuation from period to period.  Cash payments of settlement
amounts are not made until all releases and other required
documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both
settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due
to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer
to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain
reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement
and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the
three months ended March 31, 2022 and, 2021 totaled $7.5 million
and $10.8 million, respectively.

"Cumulatively through March 31, 2022, we have resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 144,000 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by
us and our insurance carriers is approximately $730 million, for an
average settlement cost per resolved claim of approximately $5,100.
The average
settlement cost per claim resolved during the years ended December
31, 2021, 2020 and 2019 was $18,800, $13,900, and $15,800,
respectively. Because claims
are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per
resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to
period. In addition to large group dismissals, the nature of the
disease and corresponding settlement amounts for each claim
resolved will also drive changes
from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in our periodic review of our
estimated asbestos liability."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Past Asbestos Prisoner Study May Affect J&J Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Strand, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reports that recent
legal proceedings have shed light on a previously unknown aspect of
Johnson & Johnson's (J&J's) history. Court documents show the
pharmaceutical giant funded prison-based medical experiments in the
1970s. A Bloomberg report shared details of these tests. In one
test, researchers paid male inmates to join a study that
deliberately injected them with asbestos. Asbestos causes
mesothelioma cancer.

The study aimed to compare the effects of asbestos versus talcum
powder on the inmates' skin. J&J talcum powder products
periodically tested positive for asbestos from the 1970s to the
2000s.

Regardless of the study results, J&J's sponsorship of it may cause
additional legal woes for the company. J&J has been fighting
litigation over asbestos in its talcum powder for nearly a decade.
However, only one jury has seen evidence of this prison study.

In that court case, the jury had to decide whether a J&J product
caused a woman to develop mesothelioma. Lawyers presented
information about the prison study as part of the evidence against
J&J. The study may have helped convince jury members that J&J knew
its talc contained a cancer-causing material.

Ultimately, the jury awarded a sizable verdict to the woman who
attributed her mesothelioma to J&J talc.

Publicly available evidence has not yet proven J&J understood the
carcinogenic nature of asbestos before the 1970s. However,
documents dating back more than 40 years show J&J knew their talc
sometimes contained asbestos. Those documents also show the company
actively covered up this knowledge.

Some may argue these documents demonstrate J&J knew their talc
could harm consumers. But several juries have not been convinced of
this.

Knowledge of J&J's asbestos injection prison study may change that.
According to one lawyer, these experiments show J&J worried about
asbestos in its talc decades ago. If a jury agrees, J&J may have
additional legal difficulties.

At least one jury has already demonstrated how this testing may
affect lawsuits filed against the company. After seeing evidence of
the prison study, a California jury ruled against J&J. That jury
awarded $26 million to a teacher who fell ill after years of
exposure to a J&J talcum powder product.

J&J no longer sells talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in the United
States and Canada. But asbestos-related diseases can take years to
develop. For instance, mesothelioma has a latency period of 10 to
50 years. This means asbestos-contaminated talc could still harm
people for decades to come.


                            *********

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 ***