/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220505.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 5, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 84

                            Headlines

13 SCENTS INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M COMPANY: Bartley Product Liability Suit Goes to E.D. Kentucky
3M COMPANY: Bowen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Burgdoff Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Dodson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams

3M COMPANY: Faces Hill Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Nolan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Risher Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
AFTERPAY US: Improperly Charges Bank Fees, Edwards Suit Alleges

AGWM UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Immigration Scam
ALTABA INC: Must Keep $800MM for Data Breach Class Action Damages
ARVIV MEDICAL: Mota Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
ATLAS SENIOR: Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class
AURINIA PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 14 Deadline

AURINIA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: MSP Seeks Class Certification Bid Hearing
BANK OF GREENE: Broockmann Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
BARNES & NOBLE: Class Action Over Background Checks Can Proceed
BINANCE: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

BOAR'S HEAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Green Suit Alleges
BRENDA'S LLC: Park Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN: Faces Mangold Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
BURGER KING: Faces PFAS Class Action in California Over Packaging
CARLISLE CONSTRUCTION: McCommon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.

CASH APP: Migliaccio & Rathod Investigates Alleged Data Breach
CAVA GROUP: Grain and Salad Bowls Contain PFAS, Hamman Alleges
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Suit Over False Reference Pricing Scheme
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Conner Seeks to Revive Class Cert Bid Issues
CLOROX COMPANY: Burt's Bees Lip Products Contain PFAS, Suit Claims

CREST MORTGAGE: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
FASHION NOVA: Accused of Suppressing Online Reviews, Suit Claims
FAT BRANDS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 17 Deadline
FLEETCOR TECH: Morrison Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
GHEBALY NYC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HAYA G: Alzubaidy Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Class
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Class Certification Deadline Extended to June 6
HOEGH LNG PARTNERS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gibbs Law Group Files Class Action Over ABS Defect

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
INSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $11M
IQVIA INC: Faces 401(k) Class Action in North Carolina
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Shiffler Suit Moved From D. Utah to W.D. Pa.
LANDCAR MANAGEMENT: Snyder Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona

LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 20 Deadline
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
LILIUM NV: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 17 Deadline
LILIUM NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 17 Deadline
MARATHON CHEESE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ackley Suit Alleges

MEMORIAL SLOAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Hines Suit Alleges
MHC HERITAGE: Noel Seeks May 13 Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Files Bid for Class Certification
NORTH BROWARD: Faces Joseph Suit Over Medical Records Data Breach
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Must File Class Cert Bid by July 11

PAPARAZZI LLC: Faces Hollins Suit Over Mislabeled Jewelry Products
PERMANENT GENERAL: Bedient Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
PETE AND GERRY'S: Dean Sues Over Nellie's Eggs' Deceptive Labels
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PLX TECHNOLOGY: Chancellor Lauds Firms for Fixing $14M Class Payout

PRIORITY TOW: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Alvarez Suit Alleges
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Has Until June 15 to Complete Discovery
R&R EXPRESS: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in MO Court
ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya, et al., Seek to Amend Scheduling Order

RUSH STREET: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Brown Suit Alleges
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $34MM Settlement Gets Court's Final Nod
SCRIBE OPCO: Eric Jones Files Bid for Class Certification
SEA LIMITED: Faces TPFRS Putative Class Action
SEA LIMITED: Settlement in Plutte Suit Wins Final Nod

SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Infantino
SECURE HOME: Pierce Atwood Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
SELECTQUOTE INC: Holden Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
SEVITA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bentton Suit Alleges
SIGNATURE AUDIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Tun Class Suit

SNAP INC: Faces Securities Suit in California
SPANX INC: Lawsuit Mulled Over Possible PFAs Presence in Leggings
TANYA BONAKDAR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TESLA INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware
TESLA INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Musk's Twitter Post

TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in DE Court
TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Musk's Twitter Post
TRADER JOE'S: 9th Circuit Reinstates ERISA Class Action Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Proper JSA Benefits, Brown Suit Says
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Faces Securities Class Action in New York

USI INSURANCE: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
VOLTA INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 28 Deadline
WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WESTJET AIRLINES: Ex-Flight Attendant's Class Action Certified
ZALE CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Reference Pricing Scheme

[*] PEPs May Limit Risk of Retirement Plan-Related Litigation

                            *********

13 SCENTS INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 13 Scents, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 13 Scents, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03392 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022).

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

13 Scents, Inc. doing business as Dossier -- https://dossier.co/ --
offers affordable fragrances and is a fair alternative to luxury
perfumes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


3M COMPANY: Bartley Product Liability Suit Goes to E.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAYMOND BARTLEY, GEORGE COLLINS and BARBARA
COLLINS, and JAMES HATFIELD and TAMMY HATFIELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES
COMPANY; 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING
COMPANY; KENTUCKY MINE SUPPLY COMPANY; and MINE SERVICE COMPANY,
INC., Case No. 22-CI-182, was removed from the Pike County,
Kentucky, Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky on April 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 7:22-cv-00032-DLB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence and strict
liability for selling defective respirators.

Mine Safety Appliances Company is a manufacturer of mine safety
products based in Pennsylvania.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
headquartered in St. Paul. Minnesota.

Kentucky Mine Supply Company is a provider of mining equipment
based in Kentucky.

Mine Service Company, Inc. is a provider of mining equipment based
in Kentucky. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Bryant J. Spann, Esq.
         Robert H. Akers, Esq.
         THOMAS COMBS & SPANN
         300 Summers Street, Suite 1380
         Charlestown, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 414-1800
         Facsimile: (304) 414-1801
         E-mail: BSpann@tcspllc.com
                 RAkers@tcspllc.com
                 JBrowne@tcspllc.com
                 LGibson@tcspllc.com

                  - and –

         Byron N. Miller, Esq.
         Michael J. Bender, Esq.
         734 West Main Street, Suite 400
         Louisville, KY 40202
         Telephone: (502) 585-9900
         Facsimile: (502) 585-9993
         E-mail: bmiller@tmslawplc.com
                 mbender@tmslawplc.com
                 mhess@tmslawplc.com
                 mhendricks@tmslawplc.com

3M COMPANY: Bowen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Bowen, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No.
2:22-cv-01225-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2022), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Burgdoff Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BURGDOFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01356-RMG (D.S.C., April 27, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention by
orchiectomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (888) 215-7834
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Dodson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Dodson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-01212-RMG (D.S.C., April 14,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
stomach cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Phone: 631-600-0000
          Facsimile: 631-543-5450

               - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


3M COMPANY: Faces Hill Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01355-RMG (D.S.C., April 27, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right
orchiectomy, says the suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (888) 215-7834
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Harris, individually and as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of Brett
Hamilton Harris, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:22-cv-01223-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2022), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Lori Harris, is the personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Brett
Hamilton Harris. The Plaintiff Brett Hamilton Harris was, at the
time of death, regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and, prior to death,
Decedent was diagnosed with metastatic skin cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Nolan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nolan and Mary Nolan, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:22-cv-01224-RMG (D.S.C., April 14,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Michael Nolan regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Risher Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Risher, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE;, Case No. 2:22-cv-01227-RMG (D.S.C., April 14, 2022), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.

This action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that
were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds.
AFFF compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly
known as "PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"),
and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with
PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade
organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as
fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds
are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create
a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.

AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming
substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with
fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an
aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The
manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to
have used fluorocarbon surfactants which are believed to include
PFOS and PFOA (and/or other per fluorinated compounds known as
"PFC"' are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to
break down in PFOS and PFOA).

The Plaintiff joined the US Army in 1983 and was subsequently
assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Tx (1989). The Plaintiff lived/worked
on Post at Fort Sam Houston using and drinking the water. Fort Sam
Houston has a PFAS environmental contamination level of 680,000ppt
(EPA max of 70ppt). In 2005, Risher was diagnosed with thyroid
disease and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of
surgical intervention. As known by the Defendants, thyroid disease
is a disease linked to PFAS contamination. Risher did not discover
that PFAS was a cause of the harm until later Spring 2020, when she
saw internet information, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Army, who during his service
was stationed at Fort Hood, a military installation identified as
being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the
subject of this action.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


AFTERPAY US: Improperly Charges Bank Fees, Edwards Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFTERPAY US, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00118-JDL (D. Me, April 27, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant's for misrepresenting and omitting in its marketing
materials the true operation and risks of its "buy now, pay later"
service.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Afterpay misrepresents
the true nature, benefits and risks of the "buy now, pay later"
service, which targets users with an extreme and undisclosed risk
of Afterpay triggering expensive, earnings, depleting bank fees.
The Plaintiff would not have used Afterpay if she had been
adequately informed of the risks of bank fees. As alleged herein,
the Plaintiff had no any idea, automatic Afterpay repayments could
cause $30 bank fees from their bank; she had no idea Afterpay would
process transactions when their accounts had insufficient funds.

Afterpay's marketing never discloses the most devastating risk of
using the service, that days of earnings can be wiped out by bank
fees associated with using the service. The Plaintiff would not
have chosen to use the Afterpay service if she had been informed of
the true risks associated with it.

AFTERPAY US, INC. provides payment services. The company offers an
installment payment service that is free for customers who pay on
time. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dov Sacks, Esq.
          BERMAN & SIMMONS, P.A.
          129 Lisbon Street, P.O. Box 961
          Lewiston, ME 04243-0961
          Telephone: (207) 784-3576
          Email: dsacks@bermansimmons.com

          - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 edwine@shamisgentile.com

AGWM UNITED: Faces Class Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Immigration Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
Georgia-based labor recruiter lured Mexican engineers to the United
States with promises of engineering jobs and then put them on
production lines in an auto factory long-term, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.

The class action lawsuit was filed by civil rights advocates
against AGWM United and agents mid-April in a Georgia federal
court, alleging a bait-and-switch immigration scam.

The lawsuit alleges that AGWM United obtained visas for Mexican
citizens by telling U.S. authorities they would be employed as
engineers.

Instead, they worked as production line workers for an auto parts
manufacturer, AJC reports.

The lawsuit alleges AGWM United and agents acting on the company's
behalf violated immigration laws when they helped secure temporary
visas for dozens of Mexican nationals, misleading the government by
indicating that they would be employed as professional engineers.

The workers were recruited through the temporary Tennessee visa
program, which allows "qualified" Canadian and Mexican citizens,
including engineers, to gain temporary entry into the United
States.

However, once the engineers were brought to the states, they were
stationed at the SMART Alabama auto parts manufacturer. SMART
Alabama is also a defendant in the lawsuit.

Mexican Nationals Worked Long Hours, Received Low Pay, Class Action
Claims

One of the plaintiffs is Jaime Obregon Acosta, who holds a
bachelor's in mechanical engineering and a master's in business
administration.

He alleges he and others "had to work horrendously long hours on
the production line at hourly wages that were a fraction" of that
of the U.S. citizens.

According to the complaint, Obregon saw an AGWM United job posting
for a quality control engineer position based in the southeastern
United States.

An AGWM employee got in touch and told him SMART was interested in
hiring him for a period of one year. Obregon was told he would work
on the production line for one year, earning around $39,000, but
that a promotion to an engineer role was possible after that.

SMART then told U.S. immigration authorities that Obregon would be
employed as an engineer rather than a line worker.

According to the complaint, in a three-year period between 2019 and
the present, defendants engaged in "similar separate fraudulent
acts" to recruit over 40 Mexican engineers as production line
workers.

Attorney for the workers Daniel Werner said the visa
misclassification was happening "over and over again" so that
companies' could lower their labor costs.

Meanwhile, a California federal judge has given the green light to
a class action settlement that will prohibit judges from setting
unreasonable bond amounts for detained, unauthorized immigrants
without considering their financial circumstances, according to the
settlement. [GN]

ALTABA INC: Must Keep $800MM for Data Breach Class Action Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Altaba Inc.,
successor entity to the former Silicon Valley giant Yahoo Inc.,
must retain $800 million as it dissolves to cover the maximum
damages it could face in connection with a Canadian data breach
class action, a Delaware judge ruled.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster set the amount in a post-trial
ruling for Delaware's Chancery Court, citing Altaba's agreement to
split any data breach damages with Verizon Communications Inc.,
which later bought and resold the Yahoo business through subsidiary
Oath Holdings Inc.

Laster, writing on April 18, acknowledged that the $800 million
figure reflects the unlikely maximum exposure in the Canadian case,
which is related to a separate class action that settled for just
$15 million, of which Altaba owes half. But he rejected the
company's request to set aside only $50 million.

The relevant legal standard "does not call for the court to pick
the most likely outcome" or even "the risk-adjusted outcome," but
to "err on the side of protecting creditors, even when their claims
seem unlikely to succeed," the judge said in a 37-page opinion.

He stressed that any ruling imposing an artificial cap on damages
would risk interfering with the class action by eliminating "tail
risks," improving the company's worst case scenario, and increasing
its leverage in settlement negotiations.

"There are realistic -- albeit low-probability -- outcomes"
involving enormous liability, and in those situations the Canadian
plaintiffs "would be left holding the bag," with any distribution
of Altaba's assets representing "a windfall for stockholders at the
expense of the company's creditors," Laster wrote.

The ruling comes about six months after the judge ordered Altaba to
set aside $400 million to cover the possibility that an appeals
court could overturn a $118 million data breach settlement it's
splitting with Verizon. A decision along those lines would
potentially expose the company to even more liability.

Laster also halted the dissolution process in August, ordering a
second trial over concerns stemming from the $4.25 billion sale of
the Yahoo brand from Verizon to Apollo Global Management Inc.

The Apollo deal's details cast doubt on prior assurances that Oath
Holdings had enough liquidity to cover damages of up to $750
million stemming from patent litigation it faced, the judge said at
the time.

The patent case recently led to damages of just $15 million. No
second trial has been scheduled yet in the dissolution case.

Altaba—which is partway through the complex process of winding up
and returning tens of billions to its backers—initiated the
proceedings in May 2020 by seeking permission to disburse roughly
half of its $13 billion in assets, after previously handing out
more than $26 billion.

Laster approved a major interim distribution in October 2020.

Altaba is represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
and Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP. The Canadian data breach plaintiffs
are represented by Cross & Simon LLC and Merchant Law Group LLP.

The case is In re Altaba Inc., Del. Ch., No. 2020-0413, 4/18/22.
[GN]

ARVIV MEDICAL: Mota Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Mota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARVIV MEDICAL AESTHETICS, PLLC, Case No. CACE-22-005507
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 14, 2022), is
brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a result of
the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Defendant's
telephonic sales calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including violations of their statutory rights,
statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their
privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual that received the Defendant's
telephonic sales calls.

The Defendant is a chain of medical spas that provide a variety of
aesthetic treatments, procedures, and products for consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Office: (786) 289-9471
          Direct: (305) 975-3320
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com


ATLAS SENIOR: Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNITA GREEN,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ATLAS
SENIOR LIVING, LLC F/K/A SHEPHERD SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00237-WTM-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court for
an oral argument regarding the relief requested in Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class and all subsequent briefing.

The Defendant estimates it will require 30 minutes for oral
argument and submits that Plaintiffs should be afforded equal time,
for a total estimated argument time of one hour. The parties have
submitted extensive legal authority to the Court, and the motions
discussed above encompass factual discovery arising from seven
depositions and several thousand pages of discovery, so oral
argument will provide the Court and the parties an additional means
of clarifying the issues presented and the law governing them.

Atlas Senior is a private company that has been in the industry for
8 years.

A copy of Defendant's motion dated April 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y4qAQ9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arnold W. Umbach III, Esq.
          STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
          100 Brookwood Place, Seventh Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 868-6000
          Facsimile: (205) 868-6099
          E-mail: tumbach@starneslaw.com
                  khardy@starneslaw.com

               - and -

          Lucas D. Bradley, Esq.
          BOUHAN FALLIGANT LLP
          One West Park Avenue
          Savannah, GA 31401
          E-mail: ldbradley@bouhan.com
          Telephone: (912) 644-5787
          Facsimile: (912) 233-0811

AURINIA PHARMA: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 19 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
("Aurinia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AUPH) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased Aurinia stock between November 4, 2019 and
February 24, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that the
Company was experiencing declining revenues and that the 2022 sales
outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall short of expectations. On February
28, 2022, the Company 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, the Company's stock fell $3.94 per
share, or 24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28,
2022.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Aurinia
should contact the Firm prior to the June 14, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

AURINIA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc. of a class action securities lawsuit. The lawsuit on behalf of
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. investors has been commenced in the
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired certain
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. securities between May 7, 2021 and
February 25, 2022. Follow ...
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc. ("Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
AUPH) of a class action securities lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. investors has
been commenced in the the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. Affected investors purchased or
otherwise acquired certain Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. securities
between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022. Follow the link below to
get more information and be contacted by a member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurinia-pharmaceuticals-inc-information-loss-submission-form?prid=26101&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Cannot view this image? Visit:
https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/7091/120864_256357_logo.jpg

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. NEWS - AUPH NEWS

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Aurinia was
experiencing declining revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook
for the Company's only product which it offers for the treatment of
adult patients with active lupus nephritis, 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Aurinia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. during the relevant timeframe, you have until
June 14, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurinia-pharmaceuticals-inc-information-loss-submission-form?prid=26101&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.

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

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: MSP Seeks Class Certification Bid Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP Recovery Claims,
Series LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Case No.
1:17-cv-23841-PAS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order to hold a hearing on its motion for class
certification and grant them 45 minutes for oral  argument.

The Plaintiffs have conferred with opposing counsel who declined to
join the motion.

On February 22, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. The Plaintiffs hereby request a hearing on that
motion. The decision to grant a hearing is with the trial judge.
However, this Circuit has often emphasized the importance of
hearings on motions for class certification. In King v. Gulf Oil
Company, the Fifth Circuit found that the "propriety of class
action suits can seldom be determined on the basis of pleadings
alone," and thus, the trial court had a duty to hold a hearing
"before deciding whether to grant or deny class certification."
Again, in Morrison v. Booth, the Eleventh Circuit unequivocally
stated that when any doubt exists about the issues raised in the
parties' class certification motions, trial courts should hold
evidentiary hearings, "even when counsel fails to move for such a
hearing."

Auto-Owners is a mutual insurance company that provides life, home,
car and business insurance. Their policies are sold exclusively
through local, independent insurance agents within their 26
operating states.

Auto-Owners is a mutual insurance company that provides life, home,
car and business insurance. Their policies are sold exclusively
through local, independent insurance agents within their 26
operating states.


A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Kx05pb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda McGovern, Esq.
          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: amcgovern@riveromestre.com
                  arivero@riveromestre.com
                  arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  ddaponte@riveromestre.com
                  npuentes@riveromestre.com

               - and -

          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          Eduardo Bertran, Esq.
          J. Alfredo Armas, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue, Suite 206
          Miami, Florida 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          Facsimile: (786) 221-2903
          E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
                  ebertran@armaslaw.com
                  alfred@armaslaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222
          E-mail: cwhorton@msprecoverylawfirm.com

BANK OF GREENE: Broockmann Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BROOCKMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF GREENE COUNTY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00390-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 26,
2022) is a class action arising from the Defendant's routine
practice of assessing an overdraft fee ("OD Fee") on transactions
that did not actually overdraw checking accounts.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
customers have been injured by its improper practices to the tune
of millions of dollars bilked from the Plaintiff and the Class's
accounts in violation the Defendant's clear contractual
commitments.

At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, the Defendant
immediately reduces accountholder's checking accounts by the amount
of the purchase, sets aside funds in a checking account to cover
that transaction, and as a result, the accountholder's displayed
"available balance" reflects that subtracted amount. Therefore,
customers' accounts will always have sufficient available funds to
cover these transactions because the Defendant has already
sequestered these funds for payment. However, the Defendant still
assesses crippling OD Fees on many of these transactions and
misrepresents its practices in its Account Documents, says the
suit.

Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card and
other POS transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, the Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a
negative balance. These types of transactions are "Authorize
Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions" ("APPSN
Transactions").

THE BANK OF GREENE COUNTY is engaged in the business of providing
retail banking services to consumers. BOGC has its headquarters in
Catskills, New York and operates banking branches throughout New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

BARNES & NOBLE: Class Action Over Background Checks Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fausey, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that in a rare development, a California state
court of appeals has opined on the requirements for obtaining
authorization for background checks pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

In Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., the plaintiff filed a putative
class action against retailer Barnes & Noble, contending it
willfully violated the FCRA by providing job applicants with a
disclosure that included extraneous language unrelated to the topic
of consumer reports. The plaintiff alleged that this extraneous
language violated the FCRA's requirement that an employer provide a
standalone disclosure informing the applicant that an employer may
obtain the applicant's consumer report when making a hiring
decision pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1681a(h) and 1681b(b)(1)(A).

Following discovery, Barnes & Noble filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that no reasonable jury could find that its
purported FCRA violation was willful, as the erroneous disclosure
form was the result of a mistake in drafting that occurred when
Barnes & Noble revised a sample disclosure provided by a consumer
reporting agency to ensure compliance with the FCRA. Barnes &
Noble's disclosure inadvertently included the following footnote:

Please note: Nothing contained herein should be construed as legal
advice or guidance. Employers should consult their own counsel
about their compliance responsibilities under the FCRA and
applicable state law. [The background check company] expressly
disclaims any warranties or responsibility or damages associated
with or arising out of information provided herein.

The trial court agreed with Barnes & Noble, granting its motion,
and entering judgment in its favor, agreeing that any
non-compliance resulted from a drafting error when it attempted to
update the sample disclosure. The plaintiff appealed and the
California Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court, holding that a reasonable jury could find Barnes &
Noble's violation was willful under the FCRA.

The Court's analysis was two-pronged: (1) the Court reasoned that
the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence through which a
reasonable jury could find a willful violation of the FCRA; and (2)
the Court noted that willfulness is typically a question for the
jury.

Considering the evidence before it, the Court noted that (i) Barnes
& Noble's employees, as well as outside counsel, were aware that
the extraneous language would be included in the disclosure prior
to its use; (ii) the disclosure was included in the documents
provided to applicants for a period of two years before being
corrected; (iii) Barnes & Noble "continued and prolonged use" of
the "problematic" disclosure form "suggest[ed] that it had no
proactive monitoring system in place to ensure its disclosure was
FCRA-complaint"; and (iv) Barnes & Noble's decision to entrust
certain FCRA compliance issues to non-attorneys could support a
conclusion that its actions were willful. Finally, the Court noted
that questions of willfulness were generally reserved to the jury
under Ninth Circuit law.

Although non-precedential, the Hebert decision underscores the
industry's need for hypervigilance when it comes to the
requirements for obtaining a consumer's credit report under the
FCRA. As part of such hypervigilance, companies would be well
served by having their policies and procedures periodically
reviewed and updated with the assistance of both in-house and
outside counsel. [GN]

BINANCE: New York Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Keith J. Barnett, Esq., Jay Dubow, Esq., Kalama Lui-Kwan, Esq.,
Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq., Ghillaine Reid, Esq., Carlin McCrory, Esq.,
Addison Morgan, Esq., and Elizabeth Waldbeser, Esq., of Troutman
Pepper, disclosed that on March 31, a New York federal court
dismissed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit filed against
Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. The lawsuit,
one of a host of similar actions brought against cryptocurrency
exchanges in 2020, was filed by token buyers who purchased
cryptocurrency on Binance's platform.

The plaintiffs asserted that Binance had violated two securities
statutes, the Securities Act of 1934 (Securities Act) and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Securities Act
prohibits the sale of unregistered securities, while the Exchange
Act requires securities issuers to make certain disclosures so
investors can make informed investment decisions. On April 3, 2019,
the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), released an assessment
strategy, "Framework for ‘Investment Contract' Analysis of
Digital Assets" (Framework), which identified the factors for
determining whether a digital asset, like cryptocurrency, is an
"investment contract" and therefore subject to the Securities Act
and the Exchange Act. An "investment contract," as defined by the
U.S. Supreme Court, exists when there is investment of money in a
common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits to be
derived from the efforts of others. SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S.
293, 294 (1946). This definition applies to any contract, scheme,
or transaction, regardless of whether it possesses any of the
characteristics of typical securities.

The plaintiffs contended that Binance violated the Securities Act
and the Exchange Act by failing to file a registration statement
with the SEC for the tokens it sold and by failing to inform token
buyers that their investments were securities rather than digital
assets. However, the court did not reach these questions, instead
dismissing the lawsuit for untimeliness and extraterritoriality.

1. Untimeliness

The parties agreed that Binance's latest potential violation of the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act occurred in February 2019.
However, the plaintiffs did not sue Binance until September 2020,
more than one year later. This means that plaintiffs had exceeded
the one-year window for filing suit under both statutes. As the
court explained, the clock began ticking on the statutory one-year
window the moment a violation occurred, not when the plaintiffs
learned about the violation. The court also explained that the
SEC's release of the Framework in April 2019 did not stop the clock
from running, and thereby extend the one-year window because the
Framework did not reveal any new facts about the case, it simply
made the plaintiffs aware of the Supreme Court's definition of an
"investment contract."

2. Extraterritoriality

The court also dismissed the lawsuit because of Binance's
extraterritoriality, or because it was not "domiciled" in the
United States, and therefore not governed by U.S. law. Binance's
corporate domicile is currently unknown, as the company maintains
no physical corporate headquarters. It does use U.S.-based computer
servers, but this and the plaintiffs' access of Binance's platform
from the United States were both too attenuated to subject Binance
to U.S. securities laws.

Our Take

This case provides a snapshot of the tensions resulting from
applying preexisting regulations to the digital asset industry.
Investors and issuers of digital assets alike are presently
attempting to conscientiously navigate the intricacies of an
unconfined, rapidly evolving market that was recently legitimized
by President Joe Biden's March 9 executive order. Given these
developments, we anticipate that courts will face more cases
raising issues like the Binance case that examine the applicability
of federal securities laws and regulations in the digital asset
realm. [GN]

BOAR'S HEAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Green Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DILLION GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS CO.,INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00069-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 27, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Green was employed by the Defendant as staff.

BOAR'S HEAD PROVISIONS CO., INC. supplies delicatessen meats,
cheeses, and condiments that distributes its food products to
retain locations throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW/WE HELP
          1 Riverfront Pl.-Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000

BRENDA'S LLC: Park Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Branded Group, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Joshua Park, individually, and on
behalf of other, members of the general public similarly situated
v. Brenda's LLC doing business as Brenda's French Soul Food, Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599371 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 26, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Brenda's LLC doing business as Brenda's French Soul Food --
https://frenchsoulfood.com/ -- offers fresh takes on beignets, po'
boys & other Big Easy bites draw crowds to this narrow but airy
spot.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN: Faces Mangold Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MANGOLD and ANTAR MORRAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN
CONSULTING, INC.; BCFORWARD RAZOR LLC; GAINWELL TECHNOLOGIES LLC;
BC FORWARDING LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22CV397331 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 27, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys Generals Act and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse
necessary business-related expenses, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during
employment, failure to pay a11 wages due upon separation of
employment, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees in California.

Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc. is a provider of information
technology (IT) consulting services based in Indiana.

BCforward Razor LLC is a software company based in Indiana.

Gainwell Technologies LLC is a health care company based in
Arizona.

BC Forwarding LLC is a business solutions provider based in
Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kashif Haque, Esq.
         Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
         Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
         AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
         9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 379-6250
         Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
         E-mail: icampbell@aegislawfim.com

BURGER KING: Faces PFAS Class Action in California Over Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Burger King says it lied to customers that
its products are safe and sustainable.

The case, filed April 11 in San Francisco federal court, is part of
a growing trend of cases involving chemicals known as PFAS. They
are found in firefighting foam and consumer products like non-stick
cookware and have made their way into the bloodstreams of virtually
every American.

PFAS lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems,
some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a
settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS
affect the human body is incomplete.

Meanwhile, as the government still requires PFAS in its
firefighting foam on military bases, lawyers pursue litigation like
an Ohio class action that alleges no illnesses. Most PFAS cases are
sent to a federal multidistrict litigation proceeding in South
Carolina federal court.

Consumer class actions might stay where they are filed, however,
because they allege violations of consumer protection statutes.
Pursuing the Burger King case is the law firm Bursor & Fisher.

The suit says PFAS found in Burger King's packaging violate the
company's promise on its website that products are "safe" and
"sustainable." Research has indicated 249.7 parts per million of
total organic fluorine, the suit says.

"Thus, based on Defendant's representations, a reasonable consumer
would expect that the product can be safely purchased and consumed
as marketed and sold," the suit says. "However, the product is not
safe, posing a significant health risk to unsuspecting consumers.

"Nor is the product sustainable." [GN]

CARLISLE CONSTRUCTION: McCommon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT MCCOMMON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CARLISLE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, LLC;
CARLISLE COMPANIES INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. FCS057949, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, Solano County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on April 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00427 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to provide sick
time, failure to reimburse necessary expenditures, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, violations related to the PayCard
system, failure to keep accurate payroll records, failure to pay
out resigned or terminated employees, failure to pay pre-employment
expenses, failure to disclose proper rates to employees, and unfair
business practices and competition.

Carlisle Construction Materials, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Carlisle Companies, Inc., with its principal place of business
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a manufacturing company, with
its principal place of business in Dixon, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Sara A. Moore, Esq.
         Ayushi Neogi, Esq.
         GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 986-5900
         Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
         E-mail: smoore@grsm.com
                 aneogi@grsm.com

CASH APP: Migliaccio & Rathod Investigates Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP disclosed that is currently investigating
Cash App Investing, LLC's alleged failure to protect sensitive
customer data in the wake of a massive data breach that occurred in
December of 2021. Roughly 8.2 million current and former Cash App
customers were affected by the data breach when a former employee
downloaded reports that contained customer information, including
users' full names, brokerage account numbers (the unique
identification number associated with a customer's stock activity
on Cash App Investing), brokerage portfolio value, and brokerage
portfolio holdings and stock trading activity.

In the wake of a data breach such as the one that recently affected
Cash App, users are often sent a letter or email that discloses the
issue. Sometimes a remedy, such a credit monitoring for a short
period of time, is offered. The remedy -- if there is one -- is
often inadequate because it fails to provide any compensation for
out-of-pocket losses due to phishing attacks, identity theft, lost
time dealing with the loss of personal information, and the
long-term risk posed by confidential financial information being in
the hands of criminals.

The attorneys at Migliaccio & Rathod LLP have experience with a
number of privacy-based class actions, including some against major
hospital systems, insurance companies, and financial institutions
that seek to provide much greater relief to customers who are the
victims of a data breach. Cash App users who received a
notification about the recent Cash App data breach should visit
Migliaccio & Rathod LLP's on the incident. [GN]

CAVA GROUP: Grain and Salad Bowls Contain PFAS, Hamman Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL HAMMAN and MICHAEL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAVA GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00593-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 27,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, fraud,
constructive fraud, fraudulent inducement, money had and received,
fraudulent concealment or omission, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of implied
warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, breach of express warranty,
and negligent failure to warn.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its grain and salad bowls. The Defendant represented its grain and
salad bowls as healthy and sustainable. In reality, the products
are not safe or healthy because they contain heightened levels of
fluorine indicating the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). As a result of the Defendant's omission and
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained
actual losses and damages.

Cava Group, Inc. is a restaurant company, with its principal place
of business in Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North Carolin Boulevard, Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com

                  - and –

         Joshua D. Arisohn, 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: jarisohn@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Suit Over False Reference Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that The
Children's Place uses false reference pricing to deceive consumers
into believing they are getting a greater discount than they
actually are, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Gabriela Gonzalez claims The Children's Place advertises
"fictitious" original prices to give its customers what amount to
"phantom discounts."

"False reference pricing occurs when a seller fabricates a false
'original' price for a product and then offers that product at a
substantially lower price under the guise of a sale," The
Children's Place class action states.

Gonzalez claims that, in addition to a discount, The Children's
Place induces consumers into buying their products by making it
seem like they are worth more than what they actually are.

Further, Gonzalez argues the false reference pricing tactic
"artificially inflates the true market price for these products"
since it raises a consumers' "internal reference price."

The Children's Place Class Action Alleges Sale Items Above True
Market Value
"Consequently, false reference pricing schemes enable retailers,
like Defendant, to sell products above their true market price and
value—and consumers are left to pay the price," The Children's
Place class action states.

Gonzalez says she relied on alleged false reference prices set by
The Children's Place for her purchase of four separate boy's
clothing bottoms in February.

"After observing the original price of the item and the
accompanying sale price, Plaintiff believed she was receiving a
significant discount on the products she had chosen," The
Children's Place class action states.

Gonzalez claims, however, that she later discovered the products
that were offered for sale had never been listed on The Children's
Place website for the listed original price as represented.

"Neither Plaintiff's receipt nor any other language on the website
observed or relied upon by Plaintiff indicated that the product was
not offered previously at the advertised reference price," The
Children's Place class action states.

Gonzalez claims The Children's Place is in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Gonzalez wants to represent a California class of consumers who
have made a purchase from The Children's Place website that was
marked as discounted from what allegedly turned out to be a false
reference price.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive and
declaratory relief along with actual, statutory and punitive
damages for herself and all class members.

The Children's Place previously agreed to pay $6.8 million last
year to resolve claims the company used false reference pricing for
products for sale on its website.

The plaintiff is represented by Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G.
Braden of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The Class Action Lawsuit is Gonzalez
v. The Children's Place, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00816, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
[GN]

CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Conner Seeks to Revive Class Cert Bid Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA B. CONNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA a/k/a CLEVELAND COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to revive her motion for
collective and class certification and issue a ruling on the
merits.

On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Collective
and Class Certification seeking Rule 23 class certification of her
state law breach of contract claim and conditional certification of
her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim.

As of January 30, 2019, the parties fully briefed Conner's Motion
for Collective and Class Certification. On December 21, 2018,
Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
On June 27, 2019, Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On August 21, 2019, the Court accepted the Report and
Recommendation granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

On January 4, 2022, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded the Court's August 21, 2019, Order dismissing Conner's
FLSA claim. The appellate court noted, "the district court declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Conner's state
breach-of-contract claim and dismissed it without prejudice.
Because we vacate and remand Conner's FLSA claim, we also vacate
and remand the district court's decision on Conner's
breach-of-contract claim."

Cleveland County is a county located in the foothills of the Blue
Ridge Mountains and western Piedmont, and on the southern border of
the U.S. state of North Carolina.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LqhOzT at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
          GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-Mail: corey@gibbonslg.com


CLOROX COMPANY: Burt's Bees Lip Products Contain PFAS, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Clorox has
joined the many companies facing lawsuits over chemicals known as
PFAS, as a class action lawsuit alleges Burt's Bees Lip Products
are contaminated with them.

The April 7 class action filed in Oakland, Calif., says Burt's Bees
has contradicted its stated goal of helping safeguard access to
clean water. PFAS is found in firefighting foam and some consumer
products and are found in the bloodstreams of virtually every
American.

PFAS lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems,
some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a
settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS
affect the human body is incomplete.

Meanwhile, as the government still requires PFAS in its
firefighting foam on military bases, lawyers pursue litigation like
an Ohio class action that alleges no illnesses.

The Burt's Bees lawsuit also says the company has claimed its
product is 100% natural. Clorox bought the brand 15 years ago.

"Reasonable consumers, therefore, fairly and reasonably understand
that Burt's Bees products, including specifically its lip products,
which are marketed as clean, conscious, 100% natural, free of
chemicals of concern, and environmentally sustainable would not
contain human-made chemicals like PFAS," the suit says.

Lawyers at Milberg Coleman are pursuing the case. PFAS lawsuits are
centralized in South Carolina federal court in a multidistrict
litigation proceeding, but a consumer class action might not be
sent there because it does not allege personal injury. [GN]

CREST MORTGAGE: Lipp Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crest Mortgage, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Lipp Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Crest Mortgage, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00582-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., April 26, 2022).

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

Crest Mortgage, Inc. -- https://www.crestmortgage.com/ -- is a
mortgage lender in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


FASHION NOVA: Accused of Suppressing Online Reviews, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Taylor, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that Fashion
Nova is under fire in a class action lawsuit on the heels of the
Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) findings that it intentionally
suppressed "hundreds of thousands" of online reviews to
artificially inflate the value of its low-priced products. [GN]

FAT BRANDS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against FAT Brands. Inc. ("FAT Brands" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FAT; FATBB; FATBP; FATBW) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, and docketed under 22-cv-02541, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded FAT Brands securities between December 4, 2017 and February
18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired FAT
Brands securities during the Class Period, you have until May 17,
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.

FAT Brands purports to be a franchising company which acquires,
develops, and markets quick-service, fast casual, and casual dining
restaurant concepts including the brands of: Fatburger, Johnny
Rockets, Twin Peaks, Fazoli's, Buffalo's Cafe, Buffalo's Express,
Ponderosa Steakhouse, Bonanza Steakhouse, Hurricane Grill & Wings,
Yalla Mediterranean, and Elevation Burger.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, statements
made by Defendants were materially false and/or misleading because
they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse
facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and
financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company, Andrew Wiederhorn, FAT Brands' Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") and President, and members of his family ("Wiederhorns")
engaged in transactions "for no legitimate corporate purpose"; (2)
the Company ignored warning signs relating to transactions with
Wiederhorns; (3) as a result, the Company was likely to face
increased scrutiny, investigations, and other potential issues; (4)
certain executives, who are touted as critical to the Company's
success, were at great risk of scrutiny—potentially, at least in
part, due to the Company's actions; (5) the Company's touted CEO
and Chief Operating Officer were under investigation regarding
transactions with the Company; and (6) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

On Saturday February 19, 2022, the Los Angeles Times published an
article entitled "Family behind Fatburger under investigation for
alleged fraud, money laundering, records show" which revealed the
investigations into Defendant Wiederhorn and his son and Company
COO Thayer Wiederhorn in connection with the Company.

On February 22, 2022 before trading hours, the Company filed with
the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 8-K, in which the
Company announced the following, in relevant part, regarding the
investigation: . . . [t]he U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central
District of California (the "U.S. Attorney") and the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission informed the Company in December
2021 that they have opened investigations relating to the Company
and our Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Wiederhorn, and are
formally seeking documents and materials concerning, among other
things, the Company's December 2020 merger with Fog Cutter Capital
Group Inc., transactions between these entities and Mr. Wiederhorn,
and compensation, extensions of credit and other benefits or
payments received by Mr. Wiederhorn or his family.

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.

On this news, FAT Brands' class B common stock price fell $1.83 per
share, or 17%, to close at $8.89 per share on February 22, 2022, on
unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

On this news, FAT Brands' preferred stock price fell $5.36 per
share, or 30%, to close at $12.37 per share on February 22, 2022,
on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

On this news FAT Brands' warrants' price fell $2.41, or 35%, to
close at $4.47 per warrant on February 22, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume, 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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

FLEETCOR TECH: Morrison Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY MORRISON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, and FLEETCOR
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-03950-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for conditional
certification of, and approval of notice to, the following putative
collective defined as:

   "All persons employed by FLEETCOR Technologies Operating
   Company, LLC in Wichita, KS, Peachtree Corners, GA (including
   the Metric and Norcross locations), Lexington, KY and/or
   Nashville, TN, and/or persons working remotely from home in
   Kansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and/or Tennessee (and not assigned
   to a particular location) as hourly-paid, non-exempt call
   center agents, including all persons who held the title of
   customer service representative, customer retention
   representative, account specialist, and/or inside sales
   representative (inbound and/or outbound), and/or whose
   primary job duties consisted of handling in-bound and/or out-
   bound calls to/from FLEETCOR's customers and providing them
   with information and assistance, and who reported their time
   by clocking into and/or out of FLEETCOR's Day Force
   Timekeeping system, at any time within the period of [date
   three years prior to the date on which the Court approves the
   stipulation] through [date on which the
   Court approves stipulation]."

The Plaintiff alleges that the members of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective are "similarly situated" because they all
have the same job duties (handling in-bound and/or out-bound
telephone calls to/from clients and customers providing them with
information and assistance), and were not paid for time spent
logging into required systems and applications before their shifts,
or for time spent during their shifts attempting to log back into
systems and applications after being disconnected due to technical
issues.

As noted above, the Defendants fully and completely deny all of
Plaintiff's allegations but have agreed not to oppose this Motion
to avoid contested motion practice over whether Plaintiff has
satisfied her burden of proving the standard applicable for
conditional certification. Defendants reserve all of their defenses
and arguments as set forth in the Parties' Stipulation.

On December 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class
and Collective Action Complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging
that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Kentucky's Wages and Hours Act, and Kentucky's Wages and Hours
Act.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LzNX84
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund Celiesius, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Roger Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (973) 898-0404
          E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com

GHEBALY NYC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ghebaly NYC LLC. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Ghebaly NYC LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03386 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022).

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

Ghebaly -- http://ghebaly.com/-- has presented an innovative,
eclectic program of Los Angeles-based and international
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


HAYA G: Alzubaidy Seeks to Conditionally Certify Collective Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NASEER ALZUBAIDY on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HAYA G, INC., et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01514-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. Conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed
      collective FLSA class defined as:

      "All current and former delivery drivers who, during the
      previous three years, drove a vehicle weighing less than
      10,000 pounds during one or more workweeks;

   2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent to Plaintiff's' proposed
      class; and

   3. Requiring the Defendants to, within 21 days of this
      Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the name, last known address, work and personal e-mail
      address(es), phone numbers, and dates of employment of all
      potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendants.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LvUUHf
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          4106 Bridge Ave.
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308-1522
          E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua Fuchs, Esq.
          14717 South Woodland Road
          Shaker Heights, OH 44120
          Telephone: (216) 505-7500
          E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Class Certification Deadline Extended to June 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVINS, et al., v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00928 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Skahill entered
an order that:

   -- The deadline for production is            May 6, 2022
      extended to:

   -- The class certification deadline          June 6, 2022
      is extended until:

   -- The May 17, 2022 status conference        June 21, 2022
      is adjourned until:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

HRRG is a debt collection agency, specializing in the collection of
medical debt.[CC]

HOEGH LNG PARTNERS: Faces Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
------------------------------------------------------
Hoegh LNG Partners LP disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 22, 2022, that in October 27, 2021, a
federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Partnership and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned "In re Hoegh LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation," Case
No. 2:21-cv-19374-KM-JBC.

The complaint alleges that the Partnership made materially false
and misleading statements about its business and operations, and
seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and any other relief the
court deems proper.

On March 11, 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel for the class, and has issued a schedule for the filing of
a consolidated amended complaint and briefing on defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss.

Hoegh LNG Partners LP -- https://www.hoeghlngpartners.com --
provides floating liquefied natural gas services. It owns, operates
and acquires floating storage and regasification units, LNG
carriers and other LNG assets.


HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelcey Caulder, writing for Law360, reports that consulting firm
Horizon Actuarial Services LLC is facing a proposed class action
over a November 2021 data breach that allegedly affected more than
100,000 individuals who were signed up for benefit plans through
their employers. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Gibbs Law Group Files Class Action Over ABS Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging a
dangerous defect in thousands of Hyundai and Kia cars puts them at
risk of catching fire while driving or parked. According to the
complaint, a defective module in their anti-lock brake systems
(ABS) may short circuit and catch fire at any time due to trapped
moisture. But despite knowing about this problem for more than a
decade, according to the lawsuit, Hyundai and Kia haven't done
enough to keep customers safe or even reimburse them for fires
damaging or totaling their cars.

If you or a loved one drive a Hyundai or Kia, visit our website to
learn if your car is affected and join the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, Pluskowski v Hyundai, alleges that as early as 2011,
Hyundai and Kia knew their cars had defective ABS modules (also
known as Hydraulic Electronic Control Units, HECUs) that could
cause spontaneous engine fires, creating dangerous risks of injury,
property damage to homes or other nearby buildings, and death.
Despite numerous customer complaints to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and ample data from their own
pre-sale part testing and defective part repair and sale records,
Hyundai and Kia's recalls have been woefully delayed and
incomplete. Further, the lawsuit alleges Hyundai and Kia haven't
adequately disclosed the defect to all affected car owners, nor
have they offered to reimburse owners for any expenses and costs.
The class action lawsuit demands that Hyundai and Kia properly warn
all affected car owners of this dangerous defect, pay car owners
who've been put in harm's way, and fix the defective ABS modules.

"People across the country rely on their cars to safely get to
work, school, and all life's activities. People need to be made
aware of, and the companies need to address, this serious safety
issue," said Gibbs Law Group partner Rosemary Rivas.

Rosemary M. Rivas is a partner with Gibbs Law Group. Ms. Rivas has
dedicated her 20-year legal career to representing consumers and
has a significant amount of experience and knowledge in litigating
complex, class actions cases, including car defect litigation.

To learn more about the class action lawsuit and find out if your
Hyundai or Kia could be affected, contact Gibbs Law Group at (800)
254-9493 or on our website.

About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group is committed to protecting the rights of clients
nationwide who have been harmed by corporate misconduct. It
represents individuals, whistleblowers, employees, and small
businesses across the U.S. against the world's largest
corporations. Its award-winning lawyers have achieved landmark
recoveries and over a billion dollars for its clients in
high-stakes class action and individual cases involving consumer
protection, data breach, digital privacy, and federal and
California employment lawsuits. Its attorneys have received
numerous honors for their work, including "Class Action Practice
Group of the Year," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California," "Top
Class Action Attorneys Under 40," "Consumer Protection MVP," "Best
Lawyers in America," and "Top Cybersecurity/ Privacy Attorneys
Under 40."

This press release may constitute Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
EILEEN EPSTEIN
PHONE: 510.359.9728
EMAIL: EJE@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN]

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. (NYSE American: IGC) on April 18
disclosed that on April 13, 2022, the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland entered an Order granting final
approval of a settlement the Company and two of its officers (the
"Class Action Defendants") and the plaintiffs in two (2) previously
disclosed shareholder class action lawsuits, both filed on November
2, 2018 and then consolidated on February 28, 2019: Tchatchou v.
India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
8:18-cv-03396; and Harris-Carr v. India Globalization Capital,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-03408 (collectively, the
"Litigation").

As previously disclosed, on April 6, 2021, the plaintiffs and Class
Action Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle all
pending shareholder litigation matters, subject to the execution of
formal settlement documentation and approval by the Court. On
October 20, 2021, the plaintiffs and Class Action Defendants
executed formal settlement documentation. The Company complied with
its obligations under the settlement, with most of the settlement
paid through the Company's insurance policy, as previously
disclosed. At the April 13, 2022 final settlement approval hearing,
the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement
and dismissing the Litigation. The settlement and related dismissal
resolve all shareholder class action lawsuits pending against the
Company and its officers. Additional information regarding the
terms of settlement can be found on the Company's February 10, 2022
Form 10-Q.

The Company is focused on working on Alzheimer's disease. Having
completed a Phase 1 trial on safety and tolerability using IGC-AD1,
the first, naturally derived, THC based investigational new drug
candidate, the Company is working on obtaining FDA approvals for a
multisite, randomized, Phase 2, powered, placebo controlled, study
to evaluate the efficacy of IGC-AD1 on neuropsychiatric symptoms,
including agitation, associated with dementia due to Alzheimer's.
The Company will be presenting its findings at the 3rd Latinos &
Alzheimer's Symposium to be held in Florida on April 25 and 26,
2022.

Alzheimer's disease impacts about 50 million people worldwide and
about 5.5 million individuals in the U.S. Over 70% of these
patients face one or more debilitating symptoms, including
agitation, anxiety, and depression (Mendez, 2021). Agitation in
dementia patients can include excessive physical movement and
verbal activity, restlessness, pacing, belligerence, aggression,
screaming, crying, and wandering. Currently, there is no
FDA-approved medication to alleviate symptoms of dementia, such as
agitation, due to Alzheimer's disease. The Company is hopeful that
eventually IGC-AD1 can help millions of Alzheimer's patients
worldwide that suffer from these neuropsychiatric symptoms. [GN]

INSURANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $11M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Insurance Technologies Corp. (ITC)
and Zywave Inc. agreed to pay a combined $11 million as part of a
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims surrounding a
2021 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information.

The settlement benefits consumers whose personal information was
compromised in the Zywave data breach in February 2021. Eligible
consumers had an address on file at the time of the data breach and
should have received a mailed or email notice of settlement
eligibility.

Zywave is an insurance technology company that offers digital
services to insurance companies. Insurance Technologies is a
similar company Zywave acquired in 2020, according to Zywave's
website.

According to a 2021 class action lawsuit, Zywave and ITC put
consumers at risk by failing to implement reasonable cyber security
measures. As a result, in February 2021, cyber criminals reportedly
hacked Zywave's cloud-based systems and stole consumer names,
Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passwords, and
other sensitive personal information.

"Not only did hackers steal the [personally identifiable
information] of Plaintiffs and class members, but, upon information
and belief, criminals have already used the PII to attempt to steal
certain of Plaintiffs' and class members' identities," the data
breach class action lawsuit contends.

The defendants also allegedly failed to tell consumers about the
breach until May 2021 -- despite knowing of the incident as early
as March. According to the plaintiffs, this valuable time could
have been used by data breach victims to monitor their credit
reports and take steps to protect themselves from identity theft
and fraud.

Insurance Technologies and Zywave haven't admitted any wrongdoing
in the data breach. However, the companies agreed to resolve the
class action lawsuit against them with an $11 million settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can recover a cash
payment.

Payments include a flat payment of up to $100 for California
residents whose Social Security number and/or driver's license
number was compromised in the breach. If funds remain in this
portion of the settlement, payments could be increased to a maximum
of $300.

The settlement also provides reimbursement of up to $5,000 in
out-of-pocket expenses relating to the data breach. Expenses could
include fraudulent charges, costs related to identity theft, fees,
miscellaneous expenses, and up to eight hours of lost time at a
rate of $25 per hour.

In addition to providing cash benefits, the settlement allows Class
Members to collect 12 months of identity theft protection services
and 12 months of identity restoration services.

The deadline for exclusion and objection in the ITC and Zywave
lawsuit settlement is June 9, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the data breach settlement is
scheduled for Sept. 7, 2022.

All Class Members can receive 12 months of identity protection and
repair services through Aura without needing to file a claim.

In order to receive a cash payment from the settlement, Class
Members must submit a valid claim form by July 5, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Consumers whose personal information was compromised in the Zywave
data breach in February 2021. Eligible consumers had an address on
file at the time of the data breach and should have received a
mailed or email notice of settlement eligibility.

Potential Award
Up to $5,300.

Payments include a flat payment of up to $100 for California
residents whose Social Security number and/or driver's license
number was compromised in the breach. If funds remain in this
portion of the settlement, payments could be increased to a maximum
of $300.

The settlement also provides reimbursement of up to $5,000 in
out-of-pocket expenses relating to the data breach.

Proof of Purchase
Unique claim number

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
07/05/2022

Case Name
Heath, et al. v. Insurance Technologies Corp., et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-01444-N in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas

Final Hearing
09/07/2022

Settlement Website
ITCSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
ITC and Zywave Data Breach
Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-855-944-3456
info@ITCSettlement.com

Class Counsel
John A. Yanchunis Sr.
Ryan D. Maxey
MORGAN & MORGAN

Gary E. Mason
David K. Lietz
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

M. Anderson Berry
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.

Joe Kendall
KENDALL LAW GROUP PLLC

Defense Counsel
Eileen Ridley
Peter Loh
Sara Brown
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP [GN]

IQVIA INC: Faces 401(k) Class Action in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
challenging IQVIA Inc.'s 401(k) plan should be certified as a class
action covering thousands of participants and beneficiaries in the
health care researcher's $1.6 billion plan, according to a filing
in North Carolina federal court.

The lawsuit stems from IQVIA's "plan-level conduct" and seeks
remedies on behalf of all the plan's participants, making the case
a "paradigmatic example" of one appropriate for class treatment,
Darya Dearing said in a class certification motion filed on April
18 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Shiffler Suit Moved From D. Utah to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DOUG SHIFFLER, individually and as personal
representative for the estate of JOLEEN SHIFFLER v. KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC f/k/a RESPIRONICS, INC.;
PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORPORATION; WM. T. BURNETT FOAM
LLC; WM. T. BURNETT & CO.; WM.T. BURNETT MANAGEMENT, INC.; WM. T.
BURNETT HOLDING LLC; WM. T. BURNETT FIBER LLC; and WM. T. BURNETT
IP LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00623-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged defective design,
manufacturing defect, inadequate warning, breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence/gross negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
wrongful death, survival, loss of consortium, and punitive
damages.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America Holding Corporation is a company that
manufactures and markets medical devices with its principal place
of business located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

WM. T. Burnett Foam LLC is a manufacturer of technical polyurethane
foams based in Maryland.

WM. T. Burnett & Co. is a manufacturer of a range of technical foam
and nonwoven products based in Maryland.

WM.T. Burnett Management, Inc. is a manufacturer of technical
polyurethane foams based in Maryland.

WM. T. Burnett Holding LLC is a manufacturer of a range of
technical foam and nonwoven products based in Maryland.

WM. T. Burnett Fiber LLC is a manufacturer of a range of technical
foam and nonwoven products based in Maryland.

WM. T. Burnett IP LLC is a manufacturer of a range of technical
foam and nonwoven products based in Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kelly H. Macfarlane, Esq.
         KELLY H. MACFARLANE, PLLC.
         205 26th St. Suite 21
         Ogden, UT 84401
         Telephone: (801) 364-3724
         Facsimile: (801) 315-1104
         E-mail: Kelly@macfarlanelegalworks.com
                 Jake@macfarlanelegalworks.com

LANDCAR MANAGEMENT: Snyder Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landcar Management
LTD. The case is styled as Ronald Snyder, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Landcar Management LTD,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00705-DLR (D. Ariz., April 26, 2022).

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

Landcar Management, Ltd. is located in Sandy, Utah and is part of
the Office Administrative Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathanael Melvin Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Ste. 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: (602) 529-3474
          Email: nathan.brown@brownpatentlaw.com


LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on April 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. ("Li-Cycle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LICY) 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 Li-Cycle securities between
February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022, 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.

On March 24, 2022, Blue Orca Capital published a report (the
"Report") characterizing the Company as "a near fatal combination
of stock promotion, laughable governance, a broken business
hemorrhaging cash, and highly questionable Enron-like accounting."
According to the Report, "Li-Cycle recognizes revenues using an
Enron-like mark-to-model accounting gimmick Li-Cycle recognizes
revenues months prior to the actual sales of its recycled black
mass, based on its own provisional estimate of the future value of
the product. This accounting treatment is plainly vulnerable to
abuse, giving Li-Cycle discretion over its reported revenues. We
suspect that under this framework, Li-Cycle marks up the value of
its receivables on unsold products and runs the gains through its
revenue line."

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Li-Cycle's largest customer, Traxys North America LLC, is not
actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working capital
financial to the Company while Traxys tries to sell Li-Cycle's
product to end customers; (2) the Company engaged in highly
questionable related party transactions; (3) the Company's
mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false
impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the Company's
reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (5) the Company's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; (6) the Company will
require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned
growth (which is a figure greater than the Company raised via the
merger); and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

On this news, Li-Cycle's stock price fell $0.47 cents per share, or
5.60% to close at $7.93 per share on March 24, 2022.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Li-Cycle 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 & Squire, P.C.:

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.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 19
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a
Peridot Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: LICY, PDAC) between February 16,
2021 and March 23, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Li-Cycle investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Li-Cycle class action, go
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4885 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Li-Cycle's largest customer, Traxys North America LLC, is not
actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working capital
financial to the Company while Traxys tries to sell Li-Cycle's
product to end customers; (2) the Company engaged in highly
questionable related party transactions; (3) the Company's
mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false
impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the Company's
reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (5) the Company's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; (6) the Company will
require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned
growth (which is a figure greater than the Company raised via the
merger); and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 20,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4885 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

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

LILIUM NV: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on April 19 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or acquired the securities of Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell
Acquisition Corp. ("Lilium" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LILM, LILMW,
QELL, QELLU, QELLW) between March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant Lilium purports to be a next-generation transportation
company focused on developing an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing ("eVTOL") aircraft, the Lilium Jet, for use in
a new type of high-speed air transport system for people and goods.
According to the Company's March 30, 2021 press release, the Lilium
7-Seater Jet has a projected cruise speed of 175 mph at 10,000 feet
and a range of 155+ miles, including reserves. In the same release,
the Company stated that proceeds from its merger with Qell
Acquisition Corp. ("Qell") were intended to fund the launch of
commercial operations, planned for 2024. This included the
finalization of serial production facilities in Germany, launch of
serial production aircraft and completion of type certification.

Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Lilium materially overstated the Lilium Jet's design and
capabilities; (2) Lilium materially overstated the likelihood for
the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresented
its ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the
Lilium Jet; (4) the merger with Qell would not and did not generate
enough cash to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell
Acquisition Corp. did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
the merger; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements and
statements to journalists were materially false and/or misleading
at all relevant times.

On March 14, 2022, market analyst Iceberg Research released a
report regarding the Company entitled "LILIUM NV – THE LOSING
HORSE IN THE EVTOL RACE" which detailed several alleged issues with
the Company (the "Iceberg Report"). Among other things, the Iceberg
Report expressed doubts about Lilium's claims that its vehicle can
fly 155 miles and the report estimated the Company had about 18
months before it would run out of cash.

On this news, Lilium's stock price fell almost 34%, to close at
$2.44 per share on March 14, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Lilium securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Lilium N.V. Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

LILIUM NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 18
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition
Corp. (NASDAQ: LILM, LILMW, QELL, QELLU, QELLW) between March 30,
2021 and March 14, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Lilium investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Lilium class action, go
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4894 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Lilium materially overstates the Lilium Jet's design and
capabilities; (2) Lilium materially overstates the likelihood for
the Lilium Jet's timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its
ability to obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium
Jet; (4) the SPAC-merger would not and did not generate enough cash
to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell Acquisition Corp.
did not engage in proper due diligence regarding the Merger; and
(6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 17,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4894 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

CONTACT:

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

MARATHON CHEESE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ackley Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KARRIE ACKLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARATHON CHEESE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-232 (W.D. WI., April 26, 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 Ackley was employed by the Defendant as line worker.

Marathon Cheese Corporation was founded in 2007. The company's line
of business includes providing various business services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

MEMORIAL SLOAN: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Hines Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA HINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03425 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Hines was employed by the Defendant as clinical data
specialist.

MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER is a cancer treatment and
research institution in the borough of Manhattan in New York City.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLP
          90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Email: canderson@gslawny.com

MHC HERITAGE: Noel Seeks May 13 Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOEL, KATHLEEN
WIKSTEN, and CLAIRE LADOUCEUR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. MHC HERITAGE PLANTATION, LLC and
EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC. f/k/a MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-14492-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order extending until May 13,
2022, the deadlines to:

    (i) join additional parties and amend pleadings; and

   (ii) move for class certification.

The extension is necessary for the Plaintiffs, and will not impact
other case-related deadlines set out in the Scheduling Order.

This case involves a putative class action brought by homeowners in
a mobile home park against the property owner and manager relating
to incessant flooding that plagues the mobile home park and its
occupants when it rains.

The Defendants answered the complaint and raised various
affirmative defenses. On March 9, 2022, this Court entered an Order
Referring Case and Setting Trial Date.

Magistrate Judge Maynard set a Scheduling Conference for March 30,
2022. In advance of the Scheduling Conference, the parties filed
their Joint Planning and Scheduling Report that proposed
agreed-upon deadlines for joining additional parties and/or
amendments to the pleadings and for class certification motion.

On March 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Partially Unopposed
Motion to Modify Trial Date that proposed the case-related
deadlines agreed to by the parties. On March 31, 2022, this Court
denied that motion, and the Magistrate Judge entered a Pretrial
Scheduling Order and Order Referring Case to Mediation.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lxjfg1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          Daniel E. Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 1100
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 384-7269
          E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          500 Grant St., Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 346-4104
          Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
          E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com
                  beth@feganscott.com

NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Files Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A.,
a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN
CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE CENTER OF
FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L.,
Florida limited liability companies, Case No. 2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for
class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3):

  -- Class A

     "All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax,
     on or about April 2, 2020, April 16, 2020, April 21, 2020,
     and June 9, 2020, that states: "In-Office and Telemedicine
     Appointments for Pain Available! or "Dedicated Physician
     Hotline for Pain Management Referrals."

     In the alternative, if the Court finds it necessary to
     distinguish between faxes successfully sent to "stand-
     alone" fax machines versus faxes that were successfully
     sent to an "online fax service," Plaintiff seeks to certify
    the following class:

  -- Class B

     All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax to
     their stand-alone fax machine, on or about on or about
     April 2, 2020, April 16, 2020, April 21, 2020, and June 9,
     2020, that states: "In-Office and Telemedicine Appointments
     for Pain Available! or "Dedicated Physician Hotline for
     Pain Management Referrals."

     The Plaintiff also seeks an Order from the Court appointing
     the Plaintiff as class representative and appointing the
     law firm of Anderson + Wanca as class counsel.

In violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA), the Defendants, allegedy successfully sent 16,227
unsolicited fax advertisements to 8,147 unique fax numbers in 18
separate broadcasts conducted on April 2, 2020, April 16, 2020,
April 21, 2020, and June 9, 2020, advertising their "in-office" and
"telemedicine" services for pain management. The Faxes were
"addressed" to no one, contain no opt notice (precluding as a
matter of law the affirmative defense of established business
relationship), and Defendants did not have prior express invitation
or permission to send fax advertisements.

National Spine provides health care services. The Company offers
pain management, joint injections, and platelet rich plasma
therapies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vrFluL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

NORTH BROWARD: Faces Joseph Suit Over Medical Records Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSELENE JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a
BROWARD HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-006111 (Fla., Cir.,
Broward Cty., April 27, 2022) is an action alleging that the
Defendant failed to protect the Plaintiff and the Class medical
records from hackers.

On January 1, 2022, the Defendant disclosed that it was the subject
of a massive data breach whereby hackers gained unauthorized access
to its networks between October 15 and October 19, 2021 (the "Data
Breach").

The hackers were able to access and exfiltrate highly-sensitive
information stored on Broward Health's servers, including patients'
and employees' full names, dates of birth, addresses, phone
numbers, financial and bank account information, Social Security
numbers, insurance information, account numbers, medical
information including history, condition, treatment and diagnoses,
medical record numbers, driver's license numbers and email
addresses, alleges the suit.

The Data Breach occurred because the Defendant failed to implement
reasonable security procedures and practices, failed to disclose
material facts surrounding its deficient data security protocols,
and failed to timely notify the victims of the Data Breach. As a
result of the Defendant's failure to protect the sensitive
information it was entrusted to safeguard, the Plaintiff and class
members did not receive the benefit of their bargain with the
Defendant and now face a significant risk of medical-related
identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other
identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future, the suit
added.

North Broward Hospital District operates as a non-profit health
care organization. The Hospital offers cardiology, pediatrics,
oncology, emergency care, orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation, pain
management, behavioral health, cardiovascular medicine, transplant,
and digestive health services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle - Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          Email: julie@colson.com

              - and –

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          Kasey A. Youngentob, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                 moore@stuevesiegel.com
                 youngentob@stuevesiegel.com

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Must File Class Cert Bid by July 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-PA-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order regarding the
Parties' second joint stipulation to extend time to file class
certification motion 30 days, as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class
      certification on or before July 11, 2022;

   2. Northwestern Mutual shall file its opposition on or before
      July 25, 2022;

   3. The Plaintiff shall file her reply on or before August 1,
      2022;

   4. The Court shall hold a hearing on the class certification
      motion on August 15, 2022 or the next available date. No
      further extensions.

Northwestern Mutual is an American financial services mutual
organization based in Milwaukee.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y29xyc at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

PAPARAZZI LLC: Faces Hollins Suit Over Mislabeled Jewelry Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIE HOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPARAZZI, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00393-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 27, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its jewelry products as lead-free and nickel
free.

According to the complaint, the Defendant designed, sourced and
sold jewelry that contained detectable levels of lead and nickel,
among other heavy metals (the "Products").

Contrary to the representations on the Defendant's website, the
Products allegedly contain toxic heavy metals such as antimony,
arsenic, cadmium, lead, and nickel, which, if disclosed to the
Plaintiff prior to purchase, would have caused the Plaintiff not to
purchase or consume the Products. As a result, the Product's
labeling is deceptive and misleading.

PAPARAZZI, LLC is in the clothing stores industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, D.C. 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
          Email: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
                 jshub@shublawyers.com

PERMANENT GENERAL: Bedient Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BEDIENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERMANENT GENERAL COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a THE
GENERAL INSURANCE, Defendant, (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., April 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telephonic sales
calls to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an
attempt to promote its goods and services without prior express
written consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed, including violations
of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of their privacy.

Permanent General Companies, Inc., doing business as the General
Insurance, is an insurance company, headquartered in Nashville,
Tennessee. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         Christopher Gold, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com

PETE AND GERRY'S: Dean Sues Over Nellie's Eggs' Deceptive Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA DEAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETE AND GERRY'S ORGANICS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00806-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for false and misleading
advertising and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its Nellie's Free Range Eggs. The Defendant markets the eggs as
being "Free Range" eggs from hens raised in humane living
conditions. In reality, the Defendant's hens are crammed into sheds
up to 20,000 at a time, preventing them from extending their wings,
foraging or making their way to the outdoor space as advertised.
Had the Plaintiff and Class members known that the product was not
as advertised, they would not have purchased the eggs. As a result
of the Defendant's deceptive and unfair acts, the Plaintiff and
Class members have been damaged.

Pete and Gerry's Organics, LLC is a producer of eggs, with its
principal place of business in Monroe, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         William Wright, Esq.
         THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
         515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
         West Palm Beach, FL 33410
         Telephone: (561) 514-0904
         E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

                - and –

         Daniel Faherty, Esq.
         TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL
         815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201
         Titusville, FL 32780
         Telephone: (321) 269-6833
         E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com
                 cguntner@ctrfa.com

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on April 20 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Playstudios, Inc. ("Playstudios" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MYPS) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios securities
between June 22, 2021 to March 1, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until June 6, 2022 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios 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 & Squire, P.C.:

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.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

PLX TECHNOLOGY: Chancellor Lauds Firms for Fixing $14M Class Payout
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Krebs, writing for Law360, reports that Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Cooch & Taylor PA and the firm now known as Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC were lauded by a Delaware
vice chancellor for their "assiduousness" in helping ensure a $14.1
million settlement payout for a class of PLX Technology Inc. [GN]


PRIORITY TOW: Underpays Tow Truck Drivers, Alvarez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ATILANO ZAMBRANO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY TOW, LLC; CED AUTO, LLC;
CHRISTIAN ISAAC; BRENT AIR TOWING; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13936 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 27, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys Generals Act and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate
for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure
to pay rest period compensation, failure to pay meal period
compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure
to pay wages upon discharge, statutory penalties, failure to
indemnify and illegal deductions from wages, and unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a tow truck driver
for four months through January 9, 2022.

Priority Tow, LLC is an automotive business, with its principal
place of business located in Los Angeles, California.

CED Auto, LLC is an automotive business, with its principal place
of business located in Los Angeles, California.

Brent Air Towing is an automotive business, with its principal
place of business located in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
         SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
         3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (818) 473-5003
         Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
         E-mail: contact@slawla.com

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Has Until June 15 to Complete Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Assaf v. Progressive
Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-06209 (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order that:

-- the Defendant Progressive shall have until June 15, 2022 to
    complete class certification discovery.

-- Progressive's response to Plaintiff's motion for class
    certification and motion to seal shall be due July 12, 2022;
    and

-- Plaintiff's reply shall be due Sept. 2, 2022.

The nature of suit states contract – insurance.

The Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company.[CC]

R&R EXPRESS: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that when fighting a FLSA class action on an
exemption issue, the employer must seek to prove all class members
fit within an exemption and/or attack the legitimacy of the class.
A recent case demonstrates how difficult it is to defeat a class
certification motion by claiming the class is too small, especially
when there is evidence the employer has tried to keep people from
becoming class members. The case involves workers titled as
"Logistics Coordinators." The case is entitled Rood v. R&R Express
Inc. and was filed in federal court in the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The Judge stated that the small number of opt-ins was not
indicative that the class was deficient as the Court found it
remained easier to litigate the case as a class action, especially
given the employer's action. The Court wrote that "this is an
unusual case in that R&R Express took affirmative steps to
discourage its past and current employees from participating in the
class R&R Express cannot actively work to limit the size of the
putative class and then use its success as a basis to thwart
certification." Thus, the Court denied the motion to de-certify and
also would not dismiss the case on exemption grounds.

The job duties of these workers included arranging transportation
for cargo for Company customers. They were first paid hourly, but
then switched to a flat salary and then commissions, but not paid
overtime. In July 2021, the Judge certified a class, but only three
workers joined the action. The bigger class was a maximum of
seventeen people, asserted the Company, so it requested that the
Court decertify the class into two separate categories. The Judge,
however, observed that there no legally mandated minimum number of
opt-ins was necessary to keep the collective action going. Although
the seventeen was below the forty member "guideline" adopted by the
Third Circuit, the Judge found this did not mandate
decertification, but rather only a more exacting analysis on the
class action treatment issue.

The Judge also would not reward the Company's deliberate efforts to
cut down the number of class members. The Judge stated that, "for
example, R&R Express's president made threats to draw out the
proceedings for any claimant who tried to join the action by
subpoenaing their phone records, reviewing every email they ever
sent, and so on. The Judge also commented that "R&R Express also
drafted and distributed affidavits to the putative class members
containing averments that directly contradicted the class claims.
R&R Express then encouraged the class members who received these
affidavits to sign them under coercive circumstances."

The exemption defense, the "magic bullet" defense, as I call it,
was also rejected. The Judge concluded that the employees did not
fit within the administrative exemption (the hardest one to prove)
as he found their primary duty was making sales, not office work
directly related to management or general business operations.

The Takeaway

The Company unnecessarily and improperly sought to limit the size
of the class. This irritated the Judge no end and he was not
inclined at all to give the Company any consideration on an
argument that it had contrived to manufacture. This highlights the
difference between Rule 23 actions, which depend upon numbers to a
greater extent, and FLSA collective actions, where numbers are not
as critical to the survival of a class. [GN]

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Antitrust Suit in MO Court
--------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-k Report for the
fiscal year ended April 25, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 20, 2022, that the company, various
national brokerage franchisors and other industry organizations
were named defendants in several putative class action lawsuits
that allege violation of certain state and federal antitrust laws,
including the actions captioned "Sitzer and Winger v. The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of
America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty,
Inc." and "Burnett v. The National Association of Realtors."

On April 22, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri granted class certification to the Sitzer plaintiffs.

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a real estate agent and manager based in
Madison NJ


ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya, et al., Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL ZELAYA, et al., v.
ROBERT HAMMER, et al., Case No. 3:19-CV-00062-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the
Scheduling Order to permit a modest extension of the deadline to
file a motion for class certification, currently set for May 2,
2022.

The Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of the time to May 31, 2022 or a
reasonable date following any deadline the Court imposes for
further production from the Defendants after ruling on the pending
discovery disputes.

The Plaintiffs propose this amendment in light of discovery
developments, including the United States' recently filed motion
for a protective order seeking to shield certain communications
involving federal agent the Defendants who planned the Raid at
issue in this case, as well as pending discovery disputes over
which the Plaintiffs have sought the Court's intervention.

The resolution of these disputes will inform the scope of the
information that Plaintiffs may obtain in support of their motion
for class certification. The Plaintiffs' proposed extension for
their class certification motion will not impact the remainder of
the deadlines in this case and will not prejudice Defendants. The
Plaintiffs conferred with the Defendants about this extension
motion on April 9, 2022, and Defendants indicated they oppose.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F1gBMV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michelle Lapointe, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 247
          Decatur, GA 30031
          Telephone: (213) 279-2508
          Facsimile: (213)-639-3911
          E-mail: lapointe@nilc.org

               - and -

          Norma Ventura, Esq.
          Julia Solórzano, Esq.
          Sharada Jambulapati, Esq.
          Meredith B. Stewart, Esq.
          Felix A. Montanez, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 1287
          Decatur, GA 30031
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          Facsimile: (404) 221-5857
          E-mail: norma.ventura@splcenter.org
                  julia.solorzano@splcenter.org
                  sharada.jambulapati@splcenter.org
                  meredith.stewart@splcenter.org
                  felix.montanez@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Eben P. Colby, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Berman, Esq.
          PRO BONO LAW
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573-4855
          Facsimile: (617) 305-4855
          E-mail: Eben.Colby@probonolaw.com
                  Jeremy.Berman@probonolaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur R. Bookout, Esq.
          Andrew D. Kinsey, Esq.
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          6749Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-3026
          Facsimile: (302) 434-3026
          E-mail: Art.Bookout@probonolaw.com
                  Andrew.Kinsey@probonolaw.com

               - and -

          Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Esq.
          Facundo Bouzat, Esq.
          Joanna Elise Cuevas Ingram, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3450 Wilshire Blvd. No. 108-62
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: martinez-olguin@nilc.org
                  bouzat@nilc.org
                  cuevasingram@nilc.org

               - and -

          William L. Harbison, Esq.
          Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
          John L. Farringer IV, Esq.
          SHERRARD ROE VOIGT & HARBISON, PLC
          150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-4200
          Facsimile: (615) 742-4539
          E-mail: bharbison@srvhlaw.com
                  pcramer@srvhlaw.com
                  jfarringer@srvhlaw.com


RUSH STREET: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Brown Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KENDRA BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC; and CAPITAL REGION
GAMING, LLC d/b/a RIVERS CASINO & RESORT SCHENECTADY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00392-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as cocktail server.

RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC operates as an online gambling company. The
Company offers platform that enables internet casinos, sportsbooks,
and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Matt Dunn, Esq.
        GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
        260 Fair Street
        Kingston, NY 12401
        Telephone: (845) 255-9370
        Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
        Email: mdunn@getmansweeney.com

              - and -

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

               - and -

        Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
        Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
        McCLELLAND LAW FIRM
        200 Westwoods Drive
        Liberty, MO 64068-1170
        Telephone: (816) 781-0002
        Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
        Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
               mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: $34MM Settlement Gets Court's Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rathke, writing for Associated Press, reports that a federal
judge has given 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 a southern Vermont
community.

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, under
the settlement approved on April 18. VTDigger first reported on the
final approval.

The settlement agreement provides significant monetary compensation
to the owners of approximately 2,365 residential properties in
Bennington and North Bennington contaminated with PFOA by the
plants, according to Emily Joselson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

It also, for the first time in Vermont, establishes a 15-year
medical monitoring program that will allow more than 500 class
members "who unknowingly drank PFOA-contaminated water and have
above background-levels of PFOA in their blood" to be monitored
yearly "for the earliest signs or symptoms of medical conditions
associated with PFOA," Joselson said by email.

"I think this is going to be very significant for the community,"
David Silver, another attorney for the plaintiffs, said on April
19. "It also gives the community a sense of closure and the ability
to go on but also very important is the remedy of medical
monitoring, which was really groundbreaking,"

PFOA was traced to exhaust emissions from two former ChemFab Corp.
factories, which had been bought by Saint-Gobain. The state and the
public learned of the contamination in 2016 and the lawsuit was
filed in May of that year. Saint-Gobain paid more than $40 million
to comply with state consent orders to extend municipal water lines
and provide clean drinking water to homes with contaminated wells,
Joselson said by email.

Bill Knight, whose well was contaminated, said he will seek
property damages and medical monitoring after an earlier blood test
showed he had elevated levels of PFOA. He said lawyers worked
tirelessly for a good settlement and he was very pleased it.

"We are encouraging people to file a claim," Knight said. Claims
can be filed through Aug. 22.

An email seeking comment was sent to a lawyer representing
Saint-Gobain.

The Vermont Legislature has passed a bill that codifies that in
Vermont people exposed to toxic chemicals can sue the polluter for
medical monitoring. Gov. Phil Scott is expected to sign the
legislation into law, after vetoing two other previous medical
monitoring bills.

PFOA is one of a group of contaminants often called forever
chemicals because they last so long in the environment. PFOA is
known to cause kidney, testicular, and other cancers and diseases.
Levels of PFOA in the blood decrease over a number of years, the
Bennington Banner has reported. [GN]

SCRIBE OPCO: Eric Jones Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC JONES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. SCRIBE OPCO, INC.
d/b/a BIC GRAPHIC, Case No. 8:20-cv-2945-T-33SPF (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
former Scribe Opco, Inc. employees whose rights under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act were violated:

  -- Nationwide Class

     "All persons employed by Defendant, who worked at of
     Defendant's facilities in Florida or Minnesota, which
     employed 50 or more full-time employees, excluding part-
     time employees, who were laid off or furloughed without
     cause on their part, on or about March 25, 2020, or within
     30 days of that date or thereafter as part of, or as the
     reasonably expected consequence of, a mass layoff at the
     Facilities which lasted longer than six months, who do not
     timely opt-out of the class."

The Plaintiff says that hundreds of putative class members satisfy
this definition. Notably, this motion carefully-tracks a Rule 23
Motion for Class Certification granted by Judge Roy B. Dalton in a
similar case, Benson v. Enter. Leasing Co. of Orlando, LLC (M.D.
Fla., Case No. 6:20-CV-891-RBD-LRH). Not only did Judge Dalton in
Benson certify a nationwide class with a definition that included
over forty Enterprise facilities across the country, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Benson defendant's Rule 23(f)
petition seeking to appeal the Benson class certification order.
The proposed class definition in this case is much narrower -- it
includes only four Scribe facilities, the Plaintiff adds.

From 2004 until March 26, 2020, Jones worked for Scribe, a supplier
of promotional products and Bic pens.

According to Scribe, the nationwide putative class consists of
approximately 344 individuals. Based on information Scribe
submitted to Florida and Minnesota government officials, the number
is likely closer to 500.

The mass layoffs by Scribe at its two Minnesota-based facilities,
located in Red Wing and Sleepy Eye, were collectively larger than
the Florida layoffs. The Minnesota mass layoffs at Scribe occurred
during the same time as the Florida mass layoffs, according to the
letter from Scribe to Minnesota "Dislocated Worker Program and
Trade Adjustment Assistance".

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vUcmib
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Justice, Esq.
          JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
          1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Direct No. (813) 566-0550
          Facsimile: (813) 566-0770
          E-mail: chad@getjusticefo

SEA LIMITED: Faces TPFRS Putative Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Sea Limited disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that in February 11, 2022, a putative
class action captioned "City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System v. Sea Limited, et al.," No. 151344/2022, was filed in New
York state court against the company, directors, one of our
shareholders, registered agent, and the underwriters of its
American Depository Shares (ADS) offering in September 2021.

The plaintiff's complaint alleges that the registration statement
for its ADS offering contained material misstatements or omissions
in violation of the U.S. securities laws. The action remains at its
preliminary stages.

Sea Limited is a global consumer internet company founded in
Singapore.


SEA LIMITED: Settlement in Plutte Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------
Sea Limited disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that in April 2021, a New York state
court held a hearing where it gave its final approval to a
settlement of a putative class action captioned "Plutte v. Sea
Limited, et al.," Case No. 655436/2018, filed in New York state
court in November 1, 2018.

Said action was filed against the company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters arising out of its October 2017
initial public offering. On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint alleging that the prospectus and registration
statements for its initial public offering contained material
misstatements or omissions in violation of the U.S. securities
laws.

In March 2019, the company moved to dismiss the action in its
entirety. In July 2020, the parties reached agreement in principle
to settle this class action at US$10.75 million. In April 2021, the
court held a hearing where it gave its final approval to the
settlement.

Sea Limited is a global consumer internet company founded in
Singapore.


SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Infantino
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY INFANTINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SEALAND
CONTRACTORS CORP. And DANIEL J. BREE, Case No.
6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson
entered an order granting the joint motion for an extension of time
to complete discovery and amending the January 11, 2022 Scheduling
Order as follows:

  1. All factual discovery in this          May 23, 2022
     case, including depositions,
     shall be completed on or
     before:

  2. Any motions for class                  July 5, 2022
     certification shall be
     filed by no later than:

  3. Dispositive motions, if any,           July 5, 2022
     shall be filed no later than:

All motions to compel discovery shall be filed at least 30 days
prior to the factual discovery cutoff. The parties shall identify
any expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and
provide reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and/or disclosures
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C) within 90 days after the Court issues
a decision on any dispositive motions. The Parties shall complete
all discovery relating to experts, including depositions, within 60
days after service of any expert disclosure.

Sealand Contractors Corp. is a well established heavy highway and
bridge contractor.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3krYdmY at no extra charge.[CC]


SECURE HOME: Pierce Atwood Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that class actions are like
butterflies; they must undergo a metamorphosis before they fly. The
transformation occurs when a court grants class certification. At
that instant, what had started out as an individual lawsuit emerges
as its own entity, with a number of legal consequences flowing from
the change. Among them, plaintiff's counsel becomes class counsel,
representing and owing fiduciary duties to the entire class; the
court also becomes a fiduciary, charged with its own responsibility
for protecting absent class members (including, importantly, the
duty to scrutinize proposed class settlements); and class members
become represented parties, which triggers the ethical rules that
limit or prohibit defense counsel from communicating with them.

The situation before class certification is different. Because the
class does not yet exist, most courts recognize that the fiduciary
duties of plaintiff's counsel and the court to putative class
members do not kick in (or, at least, not fully), and defense
counsel is generally free to communicate directly with putative
class members (subject to other ethical restrictions prohibiting
fraud and coercion). For that reason, would-be class actions
pending in federal court are often settled as individual cases
between private parties without the need for judicial oversight. A
recent decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court,
however, serves as an important reminder that state class action
practice does not always fall in lockstep with its federal
counterpart.

The Decision
In Kingara v. Secure Home Health Care Inc., decided on March 28th,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered two questions
arising from an unusual and unfortunate circumstance, namely, the
death of the sole named plaintiff prior to class certification. The
first question had to do with the authority of plaintiff's counsel
to act on behalf of the putative class after the named plaintiff's
death, and the second had to do with the power of the trial court
to notify putative class members of the plaintiff's passing.

The answer to the first question was straightforward. The specific
question posed was "[w]hether a deceased plaintiff's attorney has
the authority to act on the deceased plaintiff's behalf prior to
class certification, and before any motion to certify a class had
been filed, and without motion by the plaintiff's legal
representative to substitute as a party to the putative class
action." The question arose because plaintiff's counsel had filed a
motion in the trial court for an order to notify putative class
members of the plaintiff's death and invite them to join the
action, to require defendants to identify putative class members,
and to extend the tracking order deadlines in the case. The trial
court granted the motion, and on interlocutory review, the SJC
reversed and remanded.

Recognizing the distinction between a putative class action's
status pre-certification and post-certification, the Court chose
not to lay down a blanket rule but rather to rely on the specific
facts the case presented. It held that plaintiff's counsel was "in
no position to act on behalf of anyone whose interests are
implicated in the putative class action," observing that counsel
"has not filed for class certification, has failed to locate the
deceased plaintiff's personal representative, and has failed to
identify any other potential members of the putative class who
could serve as class representative." The Court also held that
counsel could not rely on their role as an officer of the court
because that "would allow the attorney to utilize the courts as an
instrument of client solicitation."

The Court's holding that counsel had no authority to act on behalf
of putative class members led to the second question, "whether the
Superior Court ha[s] the power to order, sua sponte, notice to the
putative class members under Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 (d)." The Court
answer this question in the affirmative. Specifically, "a trial
judge has the power to order notice to putative class members
pursuant to rule 23 (d) if those putative class members would
otherwise face significant prejudice." Here, the Court discounted
the significance of the pre-certification status of the case,
citing one of its own precedents from 1975 (Wolf v. Comm'r of Pub.
Welfare, 367 Mass. 293, 298 (1975)), and relying on the language of
two subsections of Mass. R. Civ. P. 23 (Rule 23 (c), which provides
that "[a] class action shall not be dismissed or compromised
without the approval of the court," and Rule 23 (d), which grants
courts broad discretion to order notice to the class). It also held
that courts may order notice sua sponte, because Rule 23 (d),
unlike other rules, "does not refer to any necessary request for
relief."

The only limitation the Court recognized on the trial court's
discretion to order notice to putative absent class members is the
need to find "significant prejudice" if notice does not issue. The
example of "significant prejudice" provided in a footnote involves
putative class members who rely on the tolling of a statute of
limitations while a case is pending and who therefore would be
prejudiced if they were not informed that a dismissal or other
termination of the case had started the clock running again on
their individual claims. Noting that it would be "an abuse of
discretion for the [trial] court to issue notice to putative class
members without finding that those members face significant
prejudice," but providing no additional guidance concerning what
might satisfy the "significant prejudice" standard, the Court
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Outlook
The first part of the Court's decision is unsurprising. Because the
only plaintiff had passed away and there was no certified class,
counsel had no client and thus had no authority to act on anyone's
behalf. The situation might have been different had counsel been
engaged to act on behalf of the deceased plaintiff's legal
representative, but that did not happen. And the Court was wise not
to let counsel use the trial court as a vehicle for soliciting new
clients.

The issue of the trial court's authority to issue notice to members
of an uncertified class may be a closer call. The "plain language"
of Rule 23 (c) could support either outcome. Its requirement that a
"class action" not be dismissed or compromised without court
approval could just as easily be read as applying only to a case
that had been certified, not to the individual lawsuit that had not
yet been transformed into a class action through the critical act
of certification. Rule 23 (d), on the other hand, which expressly
grants trial courts authority to issue orders "at any stage of an
action under this rule," does appear to provide trial courts broad
discretion even before a case is certified.

The Court's reliance on Wolf v. Comm'r of Public Welfare, a case
decided less than a year after Massachusetts' version of Rule 23
took effect half a century ago, raises additional questions. That
case concerned whether defendant's payment to the named plaintiff
of the money she had claimed prior to class certification rendered
the entire case moot. It is closely analogous to more recent cases
in which both state and federal courts have held that unaccepted
offers of judgment that would have provided named plaintiffs with
all of the individual relief they sought did not moot class claims,
a topic we wrote about here. Its resemblance to a case in which the
named plaintiff has passed away, leaving no legal representative to
pick up the torch, is limited at best. (Indeed, the named plaintiff
in Wolf also had passed away, but the Court had allowed a motion to
substitute her oldest child who also had a legal interest in the
outcome of the case.) The policy reasons that preclude allowing a
defendant to use the offer-of-judgment mechanism to avoid class
liability by "picking off" class representatives have little force
to the situation presented in Kingara. Nevertheless, the Court in
Wolf did say that the trial judge in that case "should have treated
the suit as a class suit for the purposes of dismissal or
compromise" even before class certification, and the Court's
quotation of that language in Kingara demonstrates that its concern
for the interests of putative class members even before class
certification has not diminished over time.

Indeed, Kingara does not represent the first time in recent memory
that the SJC has applied Wolf to reject a mootness claim in a
putative class action. In 2016, the Court relied on Wolf in a case
seeking to enjoin allegedly unlawful prison conditions (the named
plaintiffs had been released from the challenged confinement but
other prisoners continued to experience them). That decision, too,
implicates important issues of public policy, and could just as
easily have been supported by the longstanding equitable principle
that a claim for injunctive relief may not be dismissed as moot if
dismissal would render the challenged conduct both capable of
repetition and evading review. It need not have depended on an
interpretation of Massachusetts Rule 23 that holds that class
claims in a not-yet-certified case remain viable even if the named
plaintiffs' claims do not.

The "significant prejudice" standard may also prove problematic.
The Court's tolling example may well be the most obvious
circumstance in which such prejudice might occur, but would there
also need to be a showing that one or more putative class members
actually knew about and relied on the pendency of the putative
class action? And why solve that problem before knowing that it
really is a problem? Couldn't it also be addressed when, but only
when, a putative class member files a complaint and is met with a
motion to dismiss it as untimely? Perhaps more important, what
other circumstances would support a finding of "significant
prejudice," and what types of proceedings are trial judges now
required to undertake in order to make a "significant prejudice"
determination? The Court's decision does not limit the trial
court's authority to circumstances in which the named plaintiff has
passed away, and the broad potential applicability of the ruling
may well open the door to a host of litigation with potential
unintended consequences.

Time will tell whether the SJC's decision in Kingara will have a
significant impact on other cases or will be viewed as applying
narrowly to limited circumstances. What happens on remand, and how
the decision is invoked in future cases, bears watching. In the
meantime, Kingara's broad interpretation of Rule 23 (c), combined
with its invocation of the language from Wolf, underscores what for
many will be the unwelcome notion that parties wishing to resolve a
putative class action pending in Massachusetts state court by
settling the individual claims of named plaintiffs before a class
has been certified may well need court approval to do so. One hopes
that the Court will find an occasion to clarify whether Wolf and
Kingara do, and should, reach that far. [GN]

SELECTQUOTE INC: Holden Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote, Inc. The
case is styled as JoAnne E. Holden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SelectQuote, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01006-KLM (D. Colo., April 26, 2022).

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

SelectQuote -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- can be a one-stop
for life, auto insurance, home insurance, Medicare insurance and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
          STEFAN COLEMAN, PA-MIAMI
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (877) 333-9427
          Fax: (888) 498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com


SEVITA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bentton Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAICHEL BENTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEVITA HEALTH, formerly known as MENTOR
NETWORK, INC.; MENTOR MANAGEMENT, INC.; THE MENTOR NETWORK, INC.;
FIRST STEP INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV13818 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 26, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Plaintiff Bentton was employed by the Defendants as staff.

SEVITA HEALTH operates as a caregiving service and facility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          Ava Issary, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

SIGNATURE AUDIO: Scheduling Order Entered in Tun Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MIGUEL TUN et al., v.
SIGNATURE AUDIO DESIGN, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00677-PGG-JLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James L. Cott entered a scheduling
order:

  -- The parties propose June 30, 2022 as the deadline by which
     the parties may move to amend the pleadings or join any
     parties.

  -- The parties propose that the first phase of discovery end
     on September 30, 2022.

This lawsuit concerns the wage and hour practices of Signature
Audio, and specifically, whether Signature:

   (a) paid plaintiffs and putative collective/class members a
       premium for hours worked over 40 (FLSA and NYLL);

   (b) provided plaintiffs and putative class members the proper
       wage notices and/or wage statements (NYLL);

   (c) made unlawful deductions from plaintiffs' and putative
       class members' pay by requiring them to purchase tools
       and equipment for work (NYLL); and

   (d) did not pay plaintiffs and putative class members on a
       weekly basis (NYLL).

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MAwHzI at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gianfranco Cuadra, Esq.
          Mirian Albert, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17 th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine L. Hogan, Esq.
          DORF & NELSON LLP
          555 Theodore Fremd Avenue
          Rye, NY 10580
          Telephone: (914) 381-7600

SNAP INC: Faces Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 22, 2022, that in November 11, 2021, the company, and
certain of its officers, were named as defendants in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court Central District of California.

The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its
Class A common stock. The lawsuit alleges that Snap and certain of
its officers made false or misleading statements and omissions
concerning the impact that Apple's App Tracking Transparency
framework would have on the business.

Snap Inc. is a camera application company headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.


SPANX INC: Lawsuit Mulled Over Possible PFAs Presence in Leggings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that the bulk of its latest issue deals
with products under scrutiny for possibly containing PFAS, also
known as "forever chemicals." PFAS refers to a group of chemicals
(per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances) that are used in a variety of
consumer products as a cost-effective way to make them resistant to
sweat, water and grease. Unfortunately for consumers, exposure to
the chemicals has been linked to a number of serious health
problems, including decreased fertility, an increased risk of
certain cancers, reduced immune response and hormone interference.

Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are now looking into whether
a lawsuit can be filed against Spanx over the possible presence of
PFAS in its leggings. Seventh Generation, Tampax and O.B. brands
are also under investigation as attorneys have reason to believe
that PFAS are being used in certain menstrual products. Plus,
Burger King is facing a new lawsuit that alleges the company uses
PFAS in its fast-food packaging. And, to round things out, we have
a lawsuit claiming that certain Burt's Bees lip products aren't as
natural as the company claims. Keep reading for all this and more.

Spanx Investigation: Do Your Leggings Contain PFAS?
Do certain Spanx leggings contain PFAS? That's what attorneys
working with ClassAction.org are currently looking into, as
lawsuits continue to mount against companies allegedly exposing
their customers to toxic chemicals. Specifically, attorneys working
with ClassAction.org are looking into whether PFAS are present in
Spanx's Look at Me Now high-waisted seamless leggings, Mama Look at
Me Now seamless leggings, and EcoCare seamless leggings. If PFAS
are detected, a class action lawsuit could be filed to help
consumers get back some of the money they paid for their leggings.
Legal action could also force Spanx to change the way it markets
its leggings by disclosing any PFAS found to be present in the
clothing. If you purchased any of the Spanx leggings mentioned
here, you may be able to help get a class action lawsuit started.
To learn more about your rights and how you can take action, head
on over to this page.

PFAS in Tampons and Maxi Pads?
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are also looking into
whether certain tampons, maxi pads and pantiliners contain toxic
PFAS chemicals and, if so, whether a class action lawsuit could be
filed. Attorneys are specifically interested in hearing from
individuals who purchased any of the following products: Seventh
Generation Free and Clear maxi pads (regular), Seventh Generation
Free and Clear pantiliners, Tampax Pure unscented tampons (super),
and O.B. organic tampons with plant-based applicator (regular).
PFAS in menstrual products are particularly concerning as the
chemicals have been linked to decreased fertility and are known to
accumulate in the body and contaminate breast milk. If filed and
successful, a class action lawsuit could help consumers get back
some of their money and force the manufacturers to change the way
they market their products by, for instance, including a disclosure
if PFAS chemicals are present. If you bought any of the products
listed here, share your story with us over on this page.

Class Action Settlements:
Can You File a Claim?
Latest Settlements

Rodan + Fields Lash Boost
You may be covered by this settlement if you bought Rodan + Fields
Lash Boost between October 1, 2016 and March 11, 2022.

RiverLink Unpaid Toll Fees
This settlement covers those who paid fees or penalties related to
the use of RiverLink toll bridges and who weren't refunded before
February 7, 2022.

UKG Timeclock (Illinois)
This settlement covers those who scanned their fingers or had their
pictures taken in Illinois using an UltiPro TimeBase timeclock,
UltiPro TouchBase timeclock, or NOVAtime timeclock between March 3,
2015 and December 29, 2021. [GN]

TANYA BONAKDAR: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tanya Bonakdar
Gallery, Ltd. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tanya Bonakdar
Gallery, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-03388 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022).

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

Tanya Bonakdar Gallery -- https://www.tanyabonakdargallery.com/ --
is an art gallery founded by Tanya Bonakdar, located in both
Chelsea in New York City and Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


TESLA INC: Faces Securities Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that a derivative action was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery in June 17, 2020 by a purported
Tesla stockholder, purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against certain
of Tesla's current and former directors regarding compensation
awards granted to Tesla's directors, other than Elon Musk, between
2017 and 2020.

The suit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unspecified
damages and other relief. Defendants filed their answer on
September 17, 2020. Trial is set for September 11, 2023.

Tesla, Inc. is into designing, developing, manufacturing and
selling high-performance fully electric vehicles and design,
manufacture, install and sell solar energy generation and energy
storage products.


TESLA INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Musk's Twitter Post
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that it is facing seven derivative
lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on
behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of Tesla's board
of directors, as constituted at relevant times, in relation to
statements made and actions connected to a potential going private
transaction, with certain of the lawsuits challenging additional
Twitter posts by Mr. Musk, among other things.

Five of those actions were consolidated, and all seven actions have
been stayed pending resolution of the above-referenced consolidated
purported stockholder class action. In addition to these cases, two
derivative lawsuits were filed on October 25, 2018 and February 11,
2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
purportedly on behalf of Tesla, against Mr. Musk and the members of
the Tesla board of directors as then constituted. Those cases have
also been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of another
pending consolidated purported stockholder class action.

Tesla, Inc. is into designing, developing, manufacturing and
selling high-performance fully electric vehicles and design,
manufacture, install and sell solar energy generation and energy
storage products.


TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that in January 25, 2021, a class of
Tesla stockholders was certified by the court as a class action. On
September 30, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a verified amended derivative complaint.

On October 1, 2021, defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson
(both serving on Tesla's board) moved for summary judgment as to
the claims against them. Following the motion, plaintiff agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal Musk and Steve
Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment on October 1,
2021. On October 27, 2021, the court approved the parties' joint
stipulation that, among other things, all claims against Kimbal
Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the complaint are dismissed with
prejudice, the class is decertified and the action shall continue
exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery and the
direct claims against the remaining defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.

On November 18, 2021, the remaining defendants moved for partial
summary judgment, opposed plaintiff's summary judgment motion and
opposed the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. In January
2022, the case was assigned to a different judge.

On February 24, 2022, the court granted plaintiff's motion to amend
his complaint and canceled oral argument on the summary judgment
motions, stating that the court is "skeptical that this litigation
can be resolved based on the undisputed facts" and the "case is
going to trial," but that the "parties may reassert their arguments
made in support of summary judgment in their pre-trial and
post-trial briefs." Trial is currently set for October 24-31,
2022.

Tesla, Inc. is into designing, developing, manufacturing and
selling high-performance fully electric vehicles and design,
manufacture, install and sell solar energy generation and energy
storage products.


TESLA INC: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Musk's Twitter Post
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2022, that between August 10, 2018 and
September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were
filed against Tesla and CEO Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's
August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla
private.

All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities. Plaintiffs
filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019 and added as
defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors. The
now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead
counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6,
2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of
stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020.

On January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment. On April 1, 2022, the court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment. The company disagreed with the
ruling and accordingly, on April 22, 2022, asked the court for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification to file an
interlocutory appeal. Trial is set for January 17, 2023.

Tesla, Inc. is into designing, developing, manufacturing and
selling high-performance fully electric vehicles and design,
manufacture, install and sell solar energy generation and energy
storage products.


TRADER JOE'S: 9th Circuit Reinstates ERISA Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News Company reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals has ordered reinstatement of a putative class action
against Trader Joe's Company based on an alleged failure to invest
wisely the $1.7 billion in funds in the company's retirement
account.

Richard A. Kong and three other named plaintiffs sued on behalf of
themselves and 35,470 other participants in Trader Joe's Company
Retirement Plan. They brought the action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") alleging that
Trader Joe's breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and
loyalty.

In particular, it asserted, among other things, that Trader Joe's
pays Capital Research an excessive amount for its for its
recordkeeping services, does not seek competitive bids every three
years for such services, charges the participants an excessive
amount, and fails to monitor the performance of those appointed to
the committee overseeing the fund.

Anderson Reversed

District Court Judge Percy Anderson for the Central District of
California on Nov. 30, 2020, dismissed the first amended complaint
without leave to amend, declaring that the allegations were merely
conclusory. The Ninth Circuit on April 15 reversed and remanded in
a memorandum opinion signed by Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber,
Senior Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, and District Court Judge
Stephen M. McNamee of the District of Arizona, sitting by
designation.

The judges said:

"Here, the operative complaint plausibly alleges a failure to
provide cost- effective investments with reasonable fees. Taking
the allegations as true, as we must at this stage of the
litigation. Defendants Trader Joe's Company, its board of
directors, and its executive committee failed to monitor and
control the offering of a number of mutual funds in the form of
'retail' share classes that carried higher fees than those charged
by otherwise identical 'institutional' share classes of the same
investments. Except for the extra fees, the share classes were
identical. That choice resulted in more than $30,464,538 in extra
fees."

Explanation 'Unvailing'

Trader Joe's "explanation for the more expensive choice is
unavailing at the pleading stage," the judges said, remarking:

"Though the parties signed a revenue sharing agreement that might
provide some explanation for this choice, the agreement shows only
what could occur in theory—not what occurred in fact."

The judges added:

"Taking all the allegations as true, Defendants did not act with
the purpose of defraying reasonable administrative expenses."

The case is Kong v. Trader Joe's Company, 20-56415. [GN]

UNITED PARCEL: Fails to Pay Proper JSA Benefits, Brown Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BROWN, RONNIE SUVEG, JOSEPH BOBERTZ, CLIFFORD POTTERS,
STACEY RICHARDS, WARREN WASHBURN, NANCY YOUNGERMANN, and JOHN
BRAXTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC., THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UPS RETIREMENT PLAN, and THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE UPS PENSION PLAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01672-TCB (N.D. Ga., April 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay joint
and survivor annuity (JSA) benefits under the UPS Retirement Plan
and the UPS Pension Plan in amounts that satisfy the actuarial
equivalence requirements in the ERISA. As a result of the
Defendants' failure to pay JSA benefits in amounts that are
actuarially equivalent to the single life annuities (SLAs) offered
to participants, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been harmed
because they have been receiving less each month than they would
have been receiving if reasonable, up-to-date actuarial assumptions
had been used.

United Parcel Service of America, Inc. is a global package delivery
company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         David J. Worley, Esq.
         James M. Evangelista, Esq.
         Kristi Stahnke McGregor, Esq.
         EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
         500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
         Atlanta, GA 30350
         Telephone: (404) 205-8400
         E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                 jim@ewlawllc.com
                 kristi@ewlawllc.com

                 - and –

         Robert A. Izard, Esq.
         Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
         Oren Faircloth, Esq.
         IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
         29 South Main Street, Suite 305
         West Hartford, CT 06107
         Telephone: (860) 493-6292
         Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
         E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                 dneedham@ikrlaw.com
                 ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

                 - and –

         Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
         Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 463-2101
         Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
         E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                 mboyko@baileyglasser.com

                 - and –

         Erin M. Riley, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Telephone: (510) 463-3900
         E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macauley Peterson, writing for Blockworks, reports that a class
action lawsuit against developers and venture capital backers of
decentralized digital assets exchange Uniswap alleges because the
protocol allows users to freely list and trade tokens, its creators
are responsible for "rampant fraud on the exchange," and it needs
to register as a broker-dealer with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, or FINRA.

The plaintiff in the case is Nessa Risley, a North Carolina
resident who claims to have purchased about $8,545 worth of obscure
ERC-20 tokens via Uniswap in May and June of 2021. The suit was
filed in the Southern District of New York.

"Uniswap has offered and sold unregistered securities," the lawsuit
claims, and, consequently, the people who developed and funded the
software that facilitates the exchange owe restitution to anyone
who has ever used Uniswap.

The suit names Hayden Adams, Uniswap's creator, as a defendant,
along with Universal Navigation Inc., formerly known as Uniswap
LLC, the company he founded. Other defendants are venture capital
firms Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures.

None of the defendants returned requests for comment.

The venture firms are chiefly involved due to their holding equity
stakes in Adams' company and their alleged participation in Uniswap
pools as liquidity providers, who earn fees from trades executed on
the platform.

Universal Navigation issued $1.8 million of equity shares in the
company to Adams and Paradigm in 2019, according to an SEC filing.
The company later raised $11 million from equity sales, options and
warrants to the other VC firms.

The suit repeatedly conflates the front-end user interface at
app.uniswap.org with the Uniswap protocol, which is a set of
immutable smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. The latter,
which neither Adams, nor Paradigm, nor anyone else has any control
over -- as they are not upgradeable -- is what allows the
unfettered creation of liquidity pools for Ethereum-based tokens.

Key to the suit's claims is the assertion that Uniswap's terms of
service misrepresent the facts of its business when it states, "We
. . . do not facilitate the execution or settlement of your trades,
which occur entirely on the public distributed Ethereum
blockchain."

Uniswap now averages approximately $1.79 billion per day in trading
volume, according to Dune Analytics.

Swap widget provides new way to access Uniswap
Anyone can build a Uniswap user interface, considering its software
is open-source. There are those maintained by wallet providers like
Argent, Rainbow and Instadapp, as well as decentralized exchange
aggregators such as 1inch, Paraswap and Zerion.

But in fact, none is required. With the right technical know-how,
anyone running an Ethereum node can directly interact with Uniswap
smart contracts.

To make it easier for developers to integrate the decentralized
exchange (DEX) into their own apps and websites, Uniswap.org
unveiled a "swap widget," in a blog post, that lets users
"seamlessly swap tokens, join a community or DAO, wrap assets, and
more, without leaving their apps."

For example, OpenSea's use of the widget allows NFT collectors to
seamlessly swap tokens for wrapped ETH, which is needed to purchase
non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

The widget supports all chains where the Uniswap protocol is
available, including Arbitrum, Optimism and Polygon.

"We envision a world in which everyone is able to access fair,
open, and transparent markets. The Swap Widget brings this vision
closer to reality by allowing developers to easily embed Uniswap
swapping functionality," the blog post states. [GN]

USI INSURANCE: Jackson Lewis Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
René Thorne, Esq., and Blaine Veldhuis, Esq., of Jackson Lewis
P.C., in an article for JDSupra, report that a New York district
court recently dismissed, without prejudice, a 401(k) plan
participant's putative class action complaint alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged that the plan
fiduciary-defendants breached their duties of prudence and loyalty
by failing to properly monitor the plan's costs. Cunningham v. USI
Ins. Servs., LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54392 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25,
2022).

First, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants allowed the 401(k)
plan to pay recordkeeping fees that were nearly three times what an
alleged prudent and loyal fiduciary would have paid for similar
services. The plaintiff alleged that the fees were paid directly
from the plan participants' accounts, and indirectly paid through
revenue sharing with the recordkeeper. The court rejected that
claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege how she
calculated the plan's direct and indirect fees, and how the sum of
those fees was excessive in relation to the specific services
provided to the plan as compared to alleged "comparable plans."
Although the plaintiff provided a table of alleged "comparable
plans" and their recordkeeping fees, the defendants pointed to the
publicly available Form 5500s, which demonstrated that the alleged
"comparable plans" offered different services than that of the plan
in this case. As such, the court held that the plaintiff failed to
allege sufficient facts to allow for inferences that the
"comparable plans" offered the same "basket of services."

Second, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their
duty of loyalty by employing their own subsidiary as the plan's
recordkeeper and allowing the plan to pay the recordkeeper
"multiples of the reasonable per-participant amount for the Plan's
[recordkeeping] fees." The court held that the plaintiff's duty of
loyalty claim was intrinsically dependent on her dismissed breach
of prudence claim and therefore dismissed the breach of duty of
loyalty claim.

Lastly, like the breach of duty of loyalty claim, the court found
the failure to monitor claim depended on the breach of prudence
claim. Because a claim for breach of the duty to monitor requires
an antecedent breach to be viable and the plaintiff failed to plead
a viable breach of prudence or breach of loyalty claim, the court
dismissed the failure to monitor claim as well.

This decision is one of the first following the Supreme Court's
recent opinion addressing the pleading standards in these fee
cases. As there have been more than 170 similar class action suits
filed around the country in the last few years, this decision may
provide a roadmap on how district courts can address complaints
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty which fail to explicitly
provide the formula used to calculate the alleged imprudent
recordkeeping fees. [GN]

VOLTA INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor
Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman,
LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. 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.

Volta Inc. (NYSE: VLTA)
Class Period: August 2, 2021 - March 28, 2022
Deadline: May 28, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/vlta.

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 Volta had improperly accounted for restricted
stock units issued in connection with the Business Combination; (2)
that, as a result, the Company had understated its net loss for
third quarter 2021; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting that resulted
in a material error; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company would restate its financial statements; (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Legacy Volta's founders would imminently
exit the Company; (6) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results would be adversely impacted; and (7) 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.

Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID)
Class Period: November 15, 2021 - February 28, 2022
Deadline: May 31, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/lcid.

The Complaint 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 and operations. Specifically, Defendants overstated
Lucid's production capabilities while concealing that
"extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges" were
hampering the Company's operations from the start of the Class
Period. The complaint continues to allege that as a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock,
Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant
damages.

Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II

(NASDAQ: EMBK; EMBKW; NGAB.U; NGAB; NGAB WS)
Class Period: January 12, 2021 - January 5, 2022
Deadline: May 31, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/embk.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had performed
inadequate due diligence into Legacy Embark; (ii) Legacy Embark and
the Company following the Business Combination held no patents and
an insignificant amount of test trucks; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had overstated its operational and technological
capabilities; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company
had overstated the business and financial prospects of the Company
post-Business Combination; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

WEBSTER FINANCIAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Webster Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Webster
Financial Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03389 (S.D.N.Y., April 26,
2022).

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

Webster -- https://public.websteronline.com/ -- is an American
commercial bank based in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


WESTJET AIRLINES: Ex-Flight Attendant's Class Action Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ballard, writing for CBC News, reports that the B.C. Court of
Appeal has certified a former flight attendant's class-action
lawsuit against WestJet Airlines, overturning the ruling of the
B.C. Supreme Court judge who had dismissed her application.

Former WestJet flight attendant Mandalena Lewis filed the suit
against WestJet in 2016, alleging the airline breached its contract
by failing to create a safe work environment for female flight
attendants.

Lewis has also launched a separate lawsuit against the company,
claiming it didn't take proper action after she reported being
sexually assaulted by a pilot while on a stopover in Hawaii. She
claims the company chose to protect the pilot and fired her.

Court overturns original dismissal
Her initial bid to have her class action lawsuit certified failed
when the court ruled she had not been able to establish that this
type of suit was the most efficient and fair course of action to
resolve her claims.

"I conclude that there are other reasonably available means for
class members to achieve substantive and procedural justice that
are more practical and efficient than a class proceeding," B.C.
Supreme Court Justice Karen Horsman, wrote in her decision.

Horsman found the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal or collective
bargaining would be a more efficient means of redress.

However, the Court of Appeal's Justice Peter Voith disagreed,
finding the lower court judge had made errors in law when
evaluating the criteria for a class-action lawsuit and determining
whether it met the legal grounds as the "preferential procedure."

Voith found the other judge misconstrued Lewis's claim as one of
workplace discrimination when she suggested the class action be
better suited to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

"In a human rights complaint, only those class members who had
actually suffered discrimination, in the form of harassment or
otherwise, could potentially seek monetary compensation," wrote
Voith.

But since the class action wasn't alleging harassment but breach of
contract, Voith determined that it was, in fact, the preferential
procedure.

It's an important distinction, said Lewis's lawyer Karey Brooks.

"The claim is not about damages for harassment occurring. That is
key," she said.

"I think what's really significant about this case and why it's so
important is … it doesn't require women to be harassed in order
to enforce contractual rights they have to a harassment-free
workplace."

For Lewis, she admits she feels like she's in a state of shock
following the class-action certification.

"I'm really thrilled," she said. "I kind of can't believe because
it's been such a long time . . . I just feel so pleased."

Lewis and Brooks will now have the chance to prove their
class-action claims in court. [GN]

ZALE CORP: Faces Class Action Over False Reference Pricing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Zale
Corporation uses false reference pricing to make sale items on its
website appear to be at a greater discount than what is true, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Jane Villalpando claims Zale advertises fictitious
"original prices" for sale items that were never actually sold at
the alleged false reference price.

In addition to not being honest about the discount amount,
Villalpando argues the alleged tactic "artificially inflates the
true market price for these products" by raising a consumer's
internal reference price.

"Consequently, this reference pricing schemes enable retailers,
like Defendant, to sell products above their true market price and
value -- and consumers are left to pay the price," the Zales class
action states.

Villalpando says she purchased several pieces of fsale jewelry on
Zales website that were listed under what she argues was false
reference pricing.

The alleged false reference pricing gave Villalpando more urgency
to purchase the product since she felt the discount "would likely
not last," according to the Zales class action.

Villalpando argues that only later would she find out that the
items were never listed on the website for what was being as used
as their "original price."

"This product was never offered for sale at the original price
listed on Zales' e-commerce website and certainly not within the 90
days preceding Plaintiff's purchase," the Zale's class action
states.

Villalpando claims Zales is in violation of California's False
Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

Villalpando wants to represent a California class of consumers who
purchased a product from zales.com or zalesoutlet.com that was for
sale under what turned out to be a false reference price.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with statutory, actual, and punitive
damages for herself and all class members.

Zales previously failed to have dismissed a class action lawsuit
from 2019 that alleged the company does not honor the terms of the
lifetime warranties it sets.

The plaintiff is represented by Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G.
Braden of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The Zales False Reference Pricing
Class Action Lawsuit is Villalpando v. Zale Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00432, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California. [GN]

[*] PEPs May Limit Risk of Retirement Plan-Related Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rope & Gray reports that set against the backdrop of the continuing
wave of ERISA litigation that is being brought against employers
who sponsor retirement plans, Pooled Employer Plans ("PEPs") are
emerging in the US retirement plan marketplace as an alternative
that may limit employers' risk of retirement plan-related
litigation. There have been over 220 ERISA class action suits filed
in connection with retirement plans since 2018, and the top ten
ERISA settlements for 2021 alone totaled $840 million in the
aggregate. Since ERISA litigation is a serious and relevant
concern, many plan sponsors, including private equity sponsors and
their portfolio companies, would benefit from evaluating whether a
PEP is a viable retirement plan solution for them.

Many of the salient attributes of PEPs appear to align with the
priorities of our private equity clients' portfolio companies as
they navigate transactions and work to streamline operations. PEPs
are still relatively new, but our benefits consulting group has
been closely monitoring the PEP market and can provide guidance and
insight on which PEPs might best align with the specific needs of
your portfolio companies.

Overview of Pooled Employer Plans
PEPs were established by the SECURE Act legislation and were rolled
out January 1, 2021. At a high level, a PEP is a multiple employer
defined contribution retirement plan (i.e. a 401(k) plan that
allows unrelated employers to participate). A PEP is sponsored by a
third party (rather than the employer), called a pooled plan
provider.

Under a PEP arrangement, a portfolio company would not sponsor its
own plan -- instead, it would be a "participating employer" that
outsources most of its ERISA fiduciary responsibilities, as well as
the burden of retirement plan management and administration, to the
PEP. This is of significant importance, since much of the current
ERISA litigation is brought against employers who are cited for
inadequate ERISA fiduciary oversight of their retirement plans.

PEPs are now being offered by many of the retirement plan
record-keepers, consulting firms, payroll providers, and benefits
administrators who have established PEPs and have registered as
pooled plan providers with the DOL.

Why Private Equity Firms / Portfolio Companies May Want to Consider
PEPs
In addition to managing ERISA fiduciary litigation exposure, PEPs
have the potential to offer the following advantages to employers
and their plan participants when compared to traditional
single-employer 401(k) retirement plans:

Participant Fees - Due to economies of scale, PEPs generally have
lower recordkeeping and administrative costs compared to smaller
single-employer retirement plans. Many of the ERISA litigation
class action suits revolve around excessive participant fees.
Shift ERISA Fiduciary Responsibilities - PEPs allow employers to
shift the majority of their ERISA fiduciary responsibilities (e.g.,
monitoring the menu of investment options, management of retirement
plan administration and investment management) to the PEP and its
providers.

Reduce Plan Administration Management - The PEP's pooled plan
provider takes on most of the day-to-day plan administration from
the employer. The pooled plan provider is responsible for plan
documentation, required governmental filings, and ongoing plan
compliance, which reduces the amount of resources an employer needs
to allocate to benefits administration.

Reduce Vendor Relationships - Typically, for single-employer
retirement plans, a company will need to engage with a
record-keeper, custodian, investment advisor, trustee, auditor, and
possibly an actuary. These additional engagements can be costly -
for instance: an investment advisor can cost an employer or
retirement plan an additional $50,000 to $250,000 a year based on
size. Under a PEP, all of these services are bundled with one
provider, offering economies of scale.

Private Equity Sponsors, Transactions, and PEPs
Although the ultimate decision as to whether to participate in a
PEP must be evaluated and decided upon by each individual portfolio
company, PEPs may provide practical advantages for private equity
sponsors in connection with transactions.

For private equity sponsors on the buy-side of a transaction, PEPs
appear to have the following advantages:

Implementation Time - Typically, PEPs can be implemented more
quickly than single employer retirement plans. Given the trend of
condensed timing between sign and close, PEPs serve as a viable
option that may allow private equity sponsors to avoid unnecessary
transitional service agreement fees while ensuring that a
retirement plan can be set-up as of closing.

Carve-outs - PEPs have been increasingly popular for carve-outs.

Participant Fees - Employees being acquired in a carve-out from a
larger employer are typically accustomed to fairly low retirement
plan fees -- a PEP is more likely to offer participant fees which
are more comparable to these employers' plans.

Limited Internal Benefit/HR Resources - In many cases with
carve-outs, limited or no HR/benefits internal resources are
acquired during the transaction. This can hinder the carve-out's
ability to properly manage a traditional single-employer plan and
its associated fiduciary obligations. With a PEP, however, the
carve-out may assign much of the retirement plan management to the
PEP, which significantly reduces administrative needs and costs and
shifts much of the fiduciary responsibility (and risk) to the PEP.

An Alternative Solution - Rather than assuming/purchasing a
retirement plan that has outstanding compliance or litigation
concerns upon close, a PEP could be implemented quickly and serve
as an alternative solution. As a result, the buyer is not forced to
assume a problematic seller's plan simply because of time
constraints.

Takeaways
PEPs are intended to lower participant costs, achieve higher levels
of efficiency, alleviate the burden of plan administration, and
decrease ERISA fiduciary liability when compared to single-employer
retirement plans. However, some risk and liability still exist for
participating employers in a PEP. Not all PEPs are structured the
same way, and it is crucial to understand which risks and
liabilities shift to the PEP and which ones remain with the
portfolio company as a participating employer.

The decision as to whether to join a PEP requires a prudent
decision-making process and a PEP's fees and investments will still
need to monitored and benchmarked on an on-going basis. To this
end, our benefits consulting group has extensive knowledge of the
PEP market and can provide unbiased advice on the different PEP
offerings, how they compare to single-employer retirement plans,
and which ones may align with the needs of specific portfolio
companies. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***