/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220509.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 9, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 86

                            Headlines

2038 AMSTERDAM: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ACUITY-CHS: Ct. Directs Parties to Confer Class Cert Deadlines
ADOMANI INC: Faces Brooks Shareholder Suit in CA Court
ADOMANI INC: Faces Mollik Shareholder Suit in CA Court
ADP SCREENING: Grijalva Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona

ADVANCED DOMINO: Abdulzalieva, et al., Seek Final OK of Settlement
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement Reached in Martin Class Suit
ALDER HOLDINGS: Carman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
AMERICAN STANDARD: Scheduling Order Entered in Duckworth Suit
APPLE INC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Iphone Antitrust Suit

ARJO INC: Ardinazo Suit Removed to C.D. California
BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Blumenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
BIG HEART: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule Filed
BIG LOTS STORES: Lang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought

BKSR LOGISTICS: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit
BPS DIRECT: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Kitchin Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Banks
BROCK SMITH: Hurdsman Files Suit in W.D. Texas
CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CAR CREDIT: Confirmation of Arbitration Award in Pitts Suit Upheld
CIRCLE K STORES: Webb Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
CITARELLA OPERATING: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COUNTRY CASUAL TEAK: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Time Extension to File Class Cert. Sought

DIFFERIO LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Action Over Lisama Oil Well Spill
ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Covenas Loading Dock Mishap
ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Environmental Incidents
ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Can File Exhibit Under Seal in Mendoza Suit

FCA US: Seeks Extension on Class Certification Briefing Sched
FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Seeks to Stay Briefing Schedule
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Court Affirms Discovery Order in Pilots Suit
GAOTU TECHEDU: Faces Wu Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York Court

GEORGIA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for June 30
GLENN HAWBAKER: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Packer
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Settlement in Hesse Suit Wins Final Nod
H.I.S. GUAM: Asks Court to Strike Igarashi Class Allegations
HLNATURAL INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
INSPERITY INC: Court Junks Building Trades Pension Fund Suit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
J WALES HOME: Loses Bid to Junk Starling Class Suit
JENKINS & YOUNG: Muralidharan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas

JOBCO INC: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Approval
JUNONIA LTD: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LACOSTE USA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LANGUAGE LINE: Oliveira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fralish Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana

LOLA DIGITAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAKE UP FOR EVER: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MEDLEY INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MILWAUKEE, WI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Shaw v. Police
MONIQUE LHUILLIER: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Wins Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal
NATIONS LENDING: First Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
NEWREZ LLC: Durham's Responses to Bids to Dismiss and Strike Denied
NKSFB LLC: Davood FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
NONOO LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

OH MY GREEN: Class Settlement in Kastler Suit Wins Final Nod
ONLINE STORES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPERA LIMITED: Brown Shareholder Suit in New York Dismissed
PAVMED INC: Term Sheet Agreement Entered in Spritzer Suit
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Extends Class Certification Deadlines

PILLPACK LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE WEST: Griffin Suit Removed to N.D. California
RANGE RESOURCES: Faces Lewis Shareholder Suit in Texas
RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Securities Class Suit Dismissed
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Darnis Shareholder Suit

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in AZ Court
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suits in DE Court
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo Seafood Sues Over Unlawful Overcharging
SEAN SHAO: Shareholder Suit in NY Court Closed
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Schedule

SKINZWEAR.COM INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOLARA MEDICAL: Settlement Class Certified in Data Breach Suit
SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for May 24
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Naming of Lead Roles in Winter Suit on July 29

STUPP BROS: Filing for Conditional Class Status Extended to July 11
TARENA INTERNATIONAL.: Faces Yili Security Suit in New York Court
TEAK & TABLE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TEAM PRIOR: Settlement Deal Wins Initial OK in Anderson Class Suit
TENCENT MUSIC: Shareholder Suits in NY Court Pending

TFORCE LOGISTICS: Lim Allowed to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
THREE IN ONE EQUITIES: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid for Class Certification Extended to July 25
UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
US ASSET MGMT: Summary Judgment Order in Tweedie Suit Affirmed

VACO LLC: Court Awards $420K in Attorneys' Fees in Bush Suit
VERMONT BREAD: Chaney, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Employees
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Loses Bid to File Documents Under Seal
WALGREEN CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

YUNJI INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Dismissed
YUNJI INC: Guilford Securities Suit Dismissed
YUNJI INC: Ng Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

                            *********

2038 AMSTERDAM: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2038 Amsterdam
Grocery & Tobacco, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kimmarie
Norman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. 2038 Amsterdam Grocery & Tobacco, Inc., 2308 Associates LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03171-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022).

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

2038 Amsterdam Grocery & Tobacco is a retail food store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Phone: (516) 783-9662
          Fax: (646) 435-4376
          Email: james@civilrightsny.com


ACUITY-CHS: Ct. Directs Parties to Confer Class Cert Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arbuthnot v. Acuity - CHS,
LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00658 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding
deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise
the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report.

The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of
expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2)
discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4)
response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion
for class certification, Judge Judge Byron says.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.[CC]

ADOMANI INC: Faces Brooks Shareholder Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that its predecessor,
ADOMANI, Inc. is facing a class action complaint, captioned "Alan
K. Brooks v. ADOMANI, Inc., et al., Case No. 1-CV-349153 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, against
the company, certain of its executive officers and directors, two
of the underwriters of its offering of common stock and certain of
the underwriters' personnel.

Alan K. Brooks, an ADOMANI investor, filed said complaint alleging
that the company and other defendants breached the terms of an
agreement between Mr. Brooks and the company by refusing to release
1,320,359 shares of ADOMANI, Inc. stock to Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks
seeks damages of $13,500,000.00 plus interest and attorney's fees.

On September 20, 2019, Mr. Brooks filed his first amended complaint
reasserting his breach of contract claim and alleging five
additional claims for violations of California Corporation Code,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, elder abuse, and unfair
competition. In August 10, 2021, the company filed a motion for
summary judgement and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.

The parties participated in two days of mediation with Mark
LeHocky. Mr. LeHocky provided the parties with a mediator's
proposal. Both parties accepted the proposal and reduced the
proposal to a written settlement agreement. Pursuant to the
settlement agreement, the company has agreed to pay plaintiffs
$197,500 in cash and $197,500 in shares of common stock. In
addition, the company's insurance carrier has agreed to pay
plaintiffs $170,000.

In January 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for an order
approving the fairness of the terms of the settlement agreement. In
March 7, 2022, the Court issued an Order approving the settlement
and the parties are in the process of effectuating its terms. This
settlement is still subject to court approval.

Envirotech Vehicles is a provider of purpose-built zero-emission
electric vehicles focused on reducing the total cost of vehicle
ownership and helping fleet operators unlock the benefits of green
technology, serving commercial and last-mile fleets, school
districts, public and private transportation service companies and
colleges and universities to meet the increasing demand for light
to heavy-duty electric vehicles.

ADOMANI INC: Faces Mollik Shareholder Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------
Envirotech Vehicles, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that its predecessor,
ADOMANI, Inc., certain of its executive officers, Edward R.
Monfort, the former Chief Technology Officer and a former director
of ADOMANI, Inc. and the two underwriters of its offering of common
stock under Regulation A in June 2017 is facing a purported class
action securities lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Riverside in August 23, 2018
captioned "M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al.," Case No.
RIC 1817493.

This complaint alleges that documents related to its offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially
false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and that the company and
the individual defendants violated Section 15 of the Securities
Act. The plaintiff sought on behalf of himself and all class
members certification of a class under California substantive law
and procedure, compensatory damages and interest in an amount to be
proven at trial, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees, awarding of
rescission or rescissionary damages and equitable relief at the
discretion of the court.

Plaintiff's counsel has subsequently filed a first amended
complaint, a second amended complaint, a third amended complaint,
and a fourth amended complaint. Mollik was replaced by putative
class representatives Alan K. Brooks and Electric Drivetrains, LLC.
Alan K. Brooks was subsequently dropped as a putative class
representative. On October 27, 2020, the company answered the
fourth amended complaint, generally denying the allegations and
asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 5, 2019, the underwriters filed a cross-complaint
against the company seeking indemnification under the terms of the
underwriting agreement the company and the Underwriters entered for
its initial public offering.

On December 10, 2019, the company filed its answer to the
underwriters' cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations
and asserting affirmative defenses. Also on this date, the company
filed a cross-complaint against the underwriters seeking
indemnification under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement.

On January 14, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a cross-complaint against
the underwriters seeking indemnification under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement. On January 15, 2020, Mr. Monfort filed a
cross-complaint against the company seeking indemnification under
the terms of its Amended and Restated Bylaws and Section 145 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

On February 18, 2020, the company filed an answer to Mr. Monfort's
cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses. In March 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains filed
its motion for class certification. In March 17, 2021, the court
held a case management conference. At the case management
conference, the court set a tentative schedule for class discovery
and briefing on the motion for class certification.

On June 2, 2021, Electric Drivetrains and ADOMANI filed a
stipulation extending the deadline for class certification
discovery proposing the following deadlines: close of class
discovery on September 28, 2021, defendants' opposition to the
motion for class certification due on October 28, 2021, plaintiff's
reply in support of its motion due on November 29, 2021, a case
management conference on December 13, 2021 to set a date for
hearing on the merits of the motion for class certification.

Electric Drivetrains settled its claims against Mr. Monfort. The
underwriters have reached settlements with Electric Drivetrains on
the primary claims in this matter. All defendants are maintaining
their cross claims against each other. In July 13, 2021, Electric
Drivetrans' counsel moved to be relieved as counsel and on August
23, 2021, the court granted this motion. Also on August 23, 2021,
the Clerk of Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint
should not be stricken and matter dismissed for failure to retain
new counsel to Electric Drivetrains. On October 28, 2021, Electric
Drivetrains filed a substitution of attorney, substituting J. Ryan
Gustafson of Good Gustafson Aumais LLP as its new counsel. On
December 10, 2021, the Court vacated the order to show cause. On
January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his cross-complaint for
indemnification against the company.

On March 28, 2022, Electric Drivetains forwarded its proposed Fifth
Amended Complaint, in which it drops certain class allegations,
adds certain state law claims (various violations of California
Corporations Code), aider and abettor liability, and negligent
misrepresentation, but leaves the remaining claims against
defendants intact. In January 20, 2022, Mr. Monfort dismissed his
cross-complaint for indemnification against the company in the
Mollik action. On April 8, 2022, the company and Boustead
Securities, LLC settled their respective cross-claims against each
other in both the Mollik action and Brooks action in exchange for
the company paying $50,000 in cash and $125,000 in stock and mutual
releases between parties. There are no longer any cross claims
pending in the Mollik action.

Envirotech Vehicles is a provider of purpose-built zero-emission
electric vehicles focused on reducing the total cost of vehicle
ownership and helping fleet operators unlock the benefits of green
technology, serving commercial and last-mile fleets, school
districts, public and private transportation service companies and
colleges and universities to meet the increasing demand for light
to heavy-duty electric vehicles.


ADP SCREENING: Grijalva Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADP Screening and
Selection Services Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as
Tracie Ann Grijalva, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated v. ADP Screening and Selection Services
Incorporated, Unknown Parties named as Does 1-10, Case No.
4:22-cv-00206-JAS (D. Ariz., April 28, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

ADP Screening & Selection Services, Inc. -- https://www.adp.com/ --
provides background screening services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          PRICE LAW GROUP APC - TUCSON, AZ
          2290 E Speedway Blvd.
          Tucson, AZ 85719
          Phone: (520) 622-2481
          Fax: (818) 600-5433
          Email: susan@pricelawgroup.com


ADVANCED DOMINO: Abdulzalieva, et al., Seek Final OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATYANA ABDULZALIEVA and
ALENA DAINEKA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly-situated, v. ADVANCED DOMINO, INC., and DOMINO GROUP,
LLC, and PROGRESS VGA, LLC, and BORIS SALKINDER, individually, and
GENADI VINITSKI, individually, and YAKOV BEKKERMAN, individually,
and ALEKSANDR MALTSEV, Case No. 1:21-cv-00124-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Granting final approval of the settlement for the Rule 23
      and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement classes in
      accordance with the parties' Settlement Agreement;

   2. Authorizing the distribution of settlement checks to all
      Plaintiffs who previously opted into this action as well
      as all Class Members who timely submitted a valid Claim
      Form and Release ("Claim Form"), representing their
      respective shares of the class settlement;

   3. Awarding Service Awards to the two Named Plaintiffs and
      five Opt-in Plaintiffs in the total amount of $75,000.00,
      for their work provided to secure the result on behalf of
      the Class Members;

   4. Awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $382,500.00, for
      legal services performed in prosecuting and settling the
      claims in this action, to Stevenson Marino LLP as Class
      Counsel;

   5. Awarding $13,860.37 for costs and out-of-pocket expenses
      to Class Counsel;

   6. Awarding $20,000.00 for claims administration fees and
      costs to Arden Claims Service LLC, the court-appointed
      Claims Administrator in this matter;

   7. Providing for the release of all claims as specified in
      the Settlement Agreement by all Class Members who did not
      properly and timely opt-out of the settlement; and

   8. Dismissing this action against Defendants with prejudice,
      but with the Court's continued jurisdiction over the
      construction, interpretation, implementation, and
      enforcement of the parties' settlement, as well as over
      the administration and distribution of the settlement
      fund.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 20,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39pY01k
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          105 Maxess Road, Suite 124
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229
          E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement Reached in Martin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 25, 2022, that a settlement has
been reached with regards to a putative class action filed against
its subsidiary, Safeway Inc., in May 31, 2019 entitled "Martin v.
Safeway" filed in the California Superior Court for the County of
Alameda. The court has yet to review the settlement for approval.

Said action alleges that the company failed to comply with the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing receipts
that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as required by
law. In January 8, 2020, the company commenced mediation
discussions with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in
principle on February 24, 2020. The parties have sought court
approval of the settlement.

Albertsons is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the
United States, with both strong local presence and national scale.
It also manufactures and processed some of the food for sale in its
stores.


ALDER HOLDINGS: Carman Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alder Holdings, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Mitzi Carman, Donald Carman,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Alder Holdings, LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. 4:22-cv-10917-GCS-CI
(E.D. Mich., April 29, 2022).

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

Alder -- https://www.alder.com/ -- is a privately owned and
operated company offering security, home automation, and life
safety services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ahmad T. Sulaiman, Esq.
          Marwan Daher, Esq.
          Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq.
          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


AMERICAN STANDARD: Scheduling Order Entered in Duckworth Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN DUCKWORTH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, Case No.
4:21-cv-00214-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Court entered a scheduling order
as follows:

  -- Plaintiff's expert disclosures          May 11, 2022
     and reports as to class
     certification are due:

  -- The Defendant's expert                  May 25, 2022
     disclosures and reports
     as to class certification
     are due:

  -- Rebuttal expert disclosures             June 18, 2022
     and reports as to class
     certification are due
     (solely for rebuttal):

  -- Deadline to complete class              July 18, 2022
     action certification
     discovery:

  -- Motion for class certification          July 25, 2022
     due:

  -- Opposition to class                     Aug. 25, 2022
     certification due:

    Reply in support of class:               Sept. 8, 2022

American Standard operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yapLWe at no extra charge.[CC]

APPLE INC: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Iphone Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RE APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an case management and scheduling
order as follows:

               Event                             Date

-- Documents Redacted According to          April 27, 2022
    Sealing Order at Dkt. 631:

-- Second Class Certification Motion        August 26, 2022
    and Supporting Expert Evidence:

-- Second Class Certification               December 2, 2022
    Opposition and Supporting Expert
    Evidence:

-- Second Class Certification Reply         January 20, 2023
    and Rebuttal Evidence

-- Hearing on Second Class                  March 1, 2023
    Certification Motion:

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

A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3scDTum at no extra charge.[CC]


ARJO INC: Ardinazo Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sean Ardinazo, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Arjo Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No.
22STCV07339 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02836 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Arjo -- http://www.arjo.com/-- is a global medical technology
company with an annual turnover of app.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Allison M. Scott, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-1800
          Fax: (213) 457-1850
          Email: ascott@dykema.com


BALANCED HEALTHCARE: Blumenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balanced Healthcare
Receivables LLC. The case is styled as Victor Blumenfeld,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Balanced Healthcare Receivables LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02433
(E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022).

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

Balanced Healthcare Receivables (BHR) -- https://www.bhrllc.com/ --
is a third-party healthcare specific professional debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS LLC
          1 University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (540) 907-8248
          Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com


BIG HEART: Joint Stipulation to Extend Case Schedule Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNIE ROPER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIG HEART PET
BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order granting joint
stipulation to extend case schedule as follows:

   1. The date set for the Close of Non-Expert Fact Discovery
      shall be continued from May 9, 2022 to August 9, 2022;

   2. The deadline for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
      Certification shall be continued from May 31, 2022 to
      August 31, 2022;

   3. The deadline for Defendant’s Class Certification
      Opposition shall be continued from August 1, 2022 to
      November 1, 2022;

   4. The deadline for Plaintiff’s Class Certification Reply
      shall be continued from October 18, 2022 to January 18,
      2023; and

   5. The date set for the Class Certification Hearing shall be
      continued from December 9, 2022 at 9:30 AM to March 10,
      2023 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate
      Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.

Big Heart Pet Brands is an American company that manufacturers,
distributes and markets branded pet food and other products for the
U.S. retail market. Now a subsidiary of The J.M. Smucker Company,
it is headquartered at the One Maritime Plaza in San Francisco.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LYuv52 at no extra charge.[CC]

BIG LOTS STORES: Lang Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Lots Stores-PNS,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lauren Lang, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Big Lots Stores-PNS, LLC, PNS Stores,
Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00318520-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 19, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Big Lots, Inc. -- https://www.biglots.com/corporate/ -- is a
community retailer operating more than 1,400 Big Lots stores in 47
states, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Fax: 213-488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gary Nestler, Viewed
Student Female 200, Viewed Student Male 300, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The Bishop of
Charleston, a Corporation Sole, Bishop England High School,
Tortfeasors 1-10, The Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston, in his
official capacity, and Robert Guglielmone, individually, Case No.
2:21-cv-00613-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order reconsidering and vacating its March 24, 2022 denial of
their motion for class certification, and granting their motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs said, "Had the Court determined that "actual
viewing” is not required, class-wide treatment of Plaintiffs
claims is the perfect vessel to manage thousands of identical
claims, which damages can be addressed in sub-classes or matrices
of recognizable damage claims. Collective action is plainly
superior in cases involving victims of assault or abuse often do
not wish to subject themselves to litigation, whether to avoid
making their experience public, having to testify about
it, or having to confront their abuser in court."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KKa62y
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          Lawrence E. Richter, Jr.
          THE RICHTER FIRM, LLC
          622 Johnnie Dodds Blvd.
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 849-6000
          E-mail: LRichter@RichterFirm.com
                  Anna@RichterFirm.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Solomon, Esq.
          SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC
          P.O. Box 1866
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 391-3120
          E-mail: carl@solomonlawsc.com

               - and -

          Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
          Stephen Slotchiver, Esq.
          Anna E. Richter, Esq.
          SLOTCHIVER & SLOTCHIVER LLP
          751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 100
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: 843-577-6531
          E-mail: dan@slotchiverlaw.com
                  steve@slotchiverlaw.com

              - and -

          Brent S. Halversen, Esq.
          BRENT SOUTHER HALVERSEN, LLC
          751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 200
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: 843-284-5790
          E-mail: brent@halversenlaw.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com


BKSR LOGISTICS: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY LEWIS v. BKSR
LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 22-CV-00072-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen R. Bough entered an scheduling order:

   1. Any motion to amend the pleadings       Aug. 8, 2022
      shall be filed on or before:

   2. Any motion to join additional           Aug. 8, 2022
      parties shall be filed on or before:

   3. The Plaintiff's motion for class        Dec. 16, 2022
      certification shall be filed on or
      before:

   4. The Defendant's response to the         Jan. 16, 2022
      motion for class certification
      shall be filed on or before:

   5. The Plaintiff's reply in support        Feb. 3, 2023
      of the motion for class
      certification shall be filed on
      or before:

BKSR is a freight shipping trucking company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39yqOoC at no extra charge.[CC]

BPS DIRECT: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BPS Direct, LLC. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BPS Direct, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03507 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

BPS Direct, L.L.C, doing business as Bass Pro Shops --
https://www.basspro.com/shop/en -- is an American privately held
retailer which specializes in hunting, fishing, camping and other
related outdoor recreation merchandise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


BRIDGETON LANDFILL: Kitchin Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Banks
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN C. KITCHIN, JR., et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIDGETON
LANDFILL, LLC, et al., Defendants; BRIDGETON LANDFILL, LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiff v. COTTER CORPORATION, N.S.L., Third-Party
Defendant, Case No. 4:18 CV 672 CDP (E.D. Mo.), Judge Catherine D.
Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants' Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings.

The lawsuit is stayed pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on
a petition for writ of certiorari anticipated to be filed in a
related action, Banks, et al. v. Cotter Corp., et al., Case No.
4:20CV1227 JAR (E.D. Mo.); In re Cotter Corp. (N.S.L.), 22 F.4th
788 (8th Cir. 2022).

The central issue in Banks is whether the Price-Anderson Act (PAA)
applies to the plaintiffs' claims in that action, which would
provide the district court federal subject-matter jurisdiction over
the claims. Likewise, in the present case, a central issue before
the Court -- and squarely raised in the Defendants' pending motion
for judgment on the pleadings -- is whether the factual allegations
giving rise to the Plaintiffs' state-law claims make the claims
subject to the PAA, which would thereby preempt any recovery
plaintiffs seek under state law.

Although she exercises jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims is
not an issue given that the Eighth Circuit has already decided that
federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), Judge Perry nevertheless agrees with the
parties that the Supreme Court's decision in Banks "would affect
the landscape of this case," including the potential question of
whether plaintiffs can proceed on their claims.

The Court has inherent power to grant a stay "in order to control
its docket, conserve judicial resources, and provide for a just
determination of the cases pending before it." In determining
whether to grant a stay, it weighs the potential hardship to the
parties and interests of judicial economy.

In the case, the Parties jointly request a stay, and a Supreme
Court decision on the issue presented by Banks could substantially
affect the litigation for the reasons set out above. After careful
consideration, Judge Perry finds that granting a stay will serve
the public interest and promote judicial economy without
prejudicing any party.

Accordingly, Judge Perry granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Stay
of Proceedings. The Parties will file a Joint Status Report with
the Court not later than June 6, 2022, and every 60 days
thereafter. They will also file a Joint Status Report within 10
days of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the petition for writ
of certiorari related to Banks.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc2vjr2c from Leagle.com.


BROCK SMITH: Hurdsman Files Suit in W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brock Smith, et al.
The case is styled as Rodney A. Hurdsman, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Brock Smith, Judge, 271st Judicial
District Court; Gregory Lowery, Former Wise County, District
Attorney; Sharon Keller, Barbara Hervey, Kevin Yeary, Bert
Richardson, David Newell, Judges, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals;
Case No. 1:22-cv-00406-RP-DH (W.D. Tex., April 28, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Prisoner
Civil Rights.

Brock Smith is a judge on the 271st District Court in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CAESARS ENTERPRISE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caesars Enterprise
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Caesars
Enterprise Services, LLC doing business as: Caesars Entertainment,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02464 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC --
https://www.caesars.com/corporate -- provides entertainment
services. The Company specializes in gaming activities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


CAR CREDIT: Confirmation of Arbitration Award in Pitts Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAR CREDIT, INC., Respondent v. CATHY L. PITTS,
Appellant, Case No. SC99335 (Mo.), the Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc, affirmed the Jackson County circuit court's judgment
confirming an arbitration award in favor of Car Credit.

I. Background

In July 2011, Pitts entered into a Retail Installment Contract and
Security Agreement with Car Credit to purchase and finance a
vehicle. As part of the transaction, Pitts and Car Credit entered
into a written arbitration agreement. The Arbitration Agreement
also contained a delegation clause. Finally, the bottom of the
Arbitration Agreement provided a line to designate an "Arbitration
Organization (If none listed, the Arbitration Organization is the
National Arbitration Forum) See reverse side for addresses and
phone numbers of arbitration organizations." The parties left the
line blank.

Car Credit sent Pitts a notice of repossession and plan to sell
property after Pitts failed to make payments. Car Credit
repossessed the vehicle and sued Pitts for the remaining deficiency
balance. Pitts filed an answer and counterclaim, asserting a
"consumer class action seeking relief to redress an unlawful and
deceptive pattern of wrongdoing followed by Car Credit regarding
collection, enforcement, repossession and disposition of
collateral, and collection of alleged deficiencies." Pitts also
moved to dismiss the claim, but Car Credit voluntarily dismissed
its petition.

Ms. Pitts moved to amend her counterclaim and assert class action
claims against Car Credit. Car Credit moved to compel arbitration
and stay court proceedings. The circuit court sustained Pitts'
motion to amend, and overruled Car Credit's motion to compel
arbitration. Pitts filed a motion for class certification, which
the circuit court sustained.

Car Credit then renewed its motion to compel arbitration, which the
circuit court sustained. As relevant in the case, the circuit court
found: (1) the Arbitration Agreement contained an enforceable
Delegation Clause that delegated threshold issues of arbitrability
to the arbitrator; (2) Pitts failed to challenge the Delegation
Clause; (3) the court was compelled to appoint a substitute
arbitrator pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement and
the Federal Arbitration Act ("the FAA"); and (4) Pitts had to
proceed in individual arbitration before the substitute arbitrator,
the American Arbitration Association ("the AAA"), as opposed to the
National Arbitration Forum ("the NAF").

Ms. Pitts initiated arbitration before the AAA, but objected to the
AAA arbitrator's jurisdiction. The AAA arbitrator concluded he had
authority to arbitrate Pitts' claims and found the arbitration
agreement was valid and enforceable. As relevant now, the AAA
arbitrator further found: (1) the class claims were not subject to
arbitration; (2) Pitts' claim was included in the term "Dispute" in
the Arbitration Agreement; and (3) the AAA could be substituted for
the NAF as the arbitration organization.

Ms. Pitts filed motions in the circuit court to reconsider the
order sustaining the renewed motion to compel arbitration and to
vacate the arbitration order regarding jurisdiction, which were
both overruled. Pitts then sought writs of mandamus in the court of
appeals and this Court, which were both denied.

The AAA arbitrator entered an award on the merits of Pitts' claim,
in favor of Car Credit. Pitts filed motions in the circuit court to
reconsider the order compelling arbitration and to vacate the
arbitration award. Car Credit filed a motion to confirm the
arbitration award, enter judgment in accordance therewith, and to
decertify the class. The circuit court overruled Pitts' motions,
and sustained Car Credit's motions. The circuit court entered an
order confirming the arbitration award and decertifying the class.
It entered judgment in Car Credit's favor "on all issues, claims,
counterclaims, and/or causes of action in accordance with the
January 21, 2020, arbitration award."

Ms. Pitts appealed, arguing the circuit court erred in entering
judgment confirming the arbitration award in Car Credit's favor
because the NAF was the exclusive agreed-upon arbitration forum and
the AAA arbitrator exceeded his authority. The court of appeals
reversed the circuit court's order confirming the arbitration
award. It concluded the circuit court erred in entering judgment
confirming the arbitration award because the arbitrator exceeded
his authority in that the NAF was the only valid arbitration forum
under the Arbitration Agreement.

II. Analysis

Ms. Pitts argues the circuit court erred in sustaining Car Credit's
renewed motion to compel arbitration because the entire Arbitration
Agreement must fail due to the NAF being designated as the
arbitrator, and the NAF being unavailable to serve as the
arbitrator.

The Supreme Court concludes that Pitts' arguments fail to challenge
the Delegation Clause specifically. Pitts argued to the circuit
court that the selection of the NAF was so integral to the
Arbitration Agreement that the entire Arbitration Agreement should
be rendered invalid, and that there was no agreement to arbitrate
all disputes, including the threshold gateway issues. On appeal,
Pitts argued the "plain language of the Alleged Arbitration
Agreement shows the parties agreed to arbitrate any clearly and
unmistakably delegated arbitrability issues and issues on the
merits befor the NAF." At no point did Pitts claim the Delegation
Clause giving the arbitrator the power to decide gateway issues is
unenforceable. Rather, Pitts claimed that the entire Arbitration
Agreement is unenforceable.

Without a challenge to the Delegation Clause itself, Pitts cannot
avoid its application. This is true regardless of the language
chosen by Pitts. Pitts' additional arguments on appeal provide no
support for a challenge to the Delegation Clause, as both points
challenge the merits of the Arbitration Agreement itself.

The enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement due to the
unavailability of the NAF is a matter of threshold arbitrability
that is properly subject to arbitration so long as the Delegation
Clause, standing alone, is valid, the Supreme Court finds. Because
Pitts failed to specifically challenge the Delegation Clause, this
Court must treat it as valid under 9 U.S.C. Section 2 "and must
enforce it under Sections 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the
validity of the Agreement as a whole for the arbitrator."   
III. Conclusion

The circuit court's order confirming the arbitration award in favor
of Car Credit is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yck5bnpu from Leagle.com.


CIRCLE K STORES: Webb Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle K Stores
Incorporated. The case is styled as Steve Webb, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Circle K Stores
Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-00716-MHB (D. Ariz., April 28,
2022).

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

Circle K -- https://www.circlek.com/ -- is a convenience store and
gas station chain offering a wide variety of products for people on
the go.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITARELLA OPERATING: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citarella Operating,
LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Citarella Operating, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02474 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Citarella -- https://www.citarella.com/ -- has been New York's
premier seafood & fresh fish market, serving up sustainable fish &
seafood delicacies in-store and online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


COUNTRY CASUAL TEAK: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Casual Teak,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Country Casual
Teak, Inc. doing business as: Country Casual Teak, Case No.
1:22-cv-02466 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Country Casual Teak -- https://www.countrycasualteak.com/ -- is the
nation's leading designer and manufacturer of solid teak outdoor
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Time Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA WILLIAMS, DAKOTA
FISHER, individually and on behalf of those similarly Situated, and
WES PIGOTT, v. D'ARGENT FRANCHISING, LLC, D'ARGENT CONSTRUCTION,
LLC, THOMAS GIALLONARDO, III, JUSTIN GIALLONARDO, and XYZ INSURANCE
CO., Case No. 1:20-cv-01501-JPM (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs Samantha
Williams, Dakota Fisher and Wes Pigott ask the Court to enter an
order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to file
motion for collective action certification.

On November 2, 2021, this Court denied Plaintiffs first "Motion for
Conditional Certification and Equitable Tolling, or in the
Alternative, Equitable Tolling," pending the Parties engaging in
initial discovery, as a result of the recent Fifth Circuit case,
Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir.
2021).

On January 12, 2022, this Court Ordered an "Initial Discovery Plan"
regarding the appropriateness of collective action certification in
this matter. The Court's Order further provided that this initial
discovery be completed by March 11, 2022, and that Plaintiff file
any motion for collective action certification no later than April
14, 2022.

On February 1, 2022, due to scheduling conflicts conveyed by
Defense counsel, theParties jointly moved this Court for an
extension of the discovery and collective action certification
deadlines in the instant matter. This Court granted an extension of
the preliminary discovery deadline until March 21, 2022, and
further extended Plaintiffs' deadline to move for certification of
this collective action until April 24, 2022.

On April 12, 2022, due to unresolved discovery disputes, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Compel Preliminary Discovery Responses from
Defendants.

As a result of this Court's briefing schedule, it is unlikely that
this Court will have ruled on the discovery dispute, and/or that
any deficiencies would be cured, by the April 24, 2022 deadline
currently set for the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vItFnE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth Bordes, Esq .
          KENNETH C. BORDES, A TTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          4224 Canal St.
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 588-2700
          Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
          E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com

DIFFERIO LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Differio LLC. The
case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Differio LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03467
(S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022).

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

Differio -- https://www.differio.com/ -- is the best online clothes
shopping sites for scoring the latest mens fashion clothes that's
fashionable, bold, and different.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Action Over Lisama Oil Well Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing a class
action seeking compensation for damages allegedly suffered as
consequence of an oil spill in its Lisama 158 well.

Approximately 600 people, members of the community and fishermen
who live in the vicinity of where the incident took place, filed
said class action seeking compensation for damages allegedly
suffered as consequence of the incident. Senator Antonio Eresmid
Sanguino filed said class action, seeking protection of collective
rights (no compensation or indemnification petitions), arguing that
the incident led to the destruction of people's health and damages
to the environment caused by the incident.

Ecopetrol S.A. is an oil company based in Bogota, Colombia.


ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Covenas Loading Dock Mishap
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it was served with a
class action suit on October 22, 2014 seeking monetary damages of
approximately COP$7.4 trillion related to an incident that occurred
on August 21, 2014, during the loading operations of the BT Energy
Challenger vessel. The claimants alleged possible damage to the
port area of Ecopetrol S.A.'s terminal in Covenas, as well as of
marine and submarine areas and beaches that form the geographical
area of the Morrosquillo Gulf. This allegation is currently under
investigation by the Harbor Master of Covenas.

Ecopetrol S.A. filed a motion requesting the judge to require the
claimants to amend their claim to more precisely set forth the
facts and evidence that allegedly support Ecopetrol S.A.'s
liability.

On March 3, 2015, Ecopetrol S.A. filed its statement of defense
arguing the exclusive fault of a third party. On October 20, 2015,
the Court denied a class action of more than 100 informal traders
in the region because there is no common identity with the initial
class (hotel employees). However, during 2016 the Sucre
Administrative Court accepted another 1,208 informal traders and
fishermen as claimants.

On March 10, 2017, a mandatory settlement hearing was held in order
to seek an agreement, but it failed.

In January 2018, a judicial order was issued to commence the
evidence production phase, a decision which was objected by the
parties.

In September 2018, all the ordered statements were made, the
evidentiary stage was finalized and the parties filed their final
closing arguments. A first instance judgment is pending.

Ecopetrol S.A. is an oil company based in Bogota, Colombia.


ECOPETROL SA: Faces Class Suit Over Environmental Incidents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ecopetrol S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing a class
action lawsuit filed on April 2, 2018 against Ecopetrol S.A. and
Cenit by the Inda Guacaray and Inda Sabaleta reservations of the
AWA Indigenous community who claim damages to their communities by
environmental contamination and damage to natural resources that
the defendants supposedly caused by act or omission during various
environmental incidents. The parties are currently waiting for the
evidentiary stage to start.

In November 14, 2020, the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca
declared that an inadequate claim was filed by the AWA community,
considering that the claims related to the reestablishment of
measures specific to restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction
and guarantees of non-repetition, could not be sought through a
class action.

The foregoing implies that Ecopetrol S.A., along with the National
Agency for Legal Defense of the State (Agencia Nacional de Defensa
Jurídica del Estado or ANDJE) and Cenit, need to recalculate the
amount of the claims based on the decision of the Administrative
Court of Cundinamarca.

Although the plaintiffs did not clearly determine the amount of
their claims, Ecopetrol S.A. and the National Agency for Legal
Defense of the State (Agencia Nacional de Defensa Juridica del
Estado or ANDJE) had initially estimated the amount to be
approximately COP$358,201,371,800. However, based on the November
14, 2020 decision, Ecopetrol S.A., ANDJE and Cenit, need to
recalculate the amount of the claims.

As of the date of this annual report, a compliance agreement
hearing was still pending.

Ecopetrol S.A. is an oil company based in Bogota, Colombia.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Midea Can File Exhibit Under Seal in Mendoza Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIKA MENDOZA, et al., an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01133-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
request to file an exhibit under seal.

The motion is brought pursuant to Local Rule 141 by Defendant Midea
Microwave and Electrical Appliances Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ("Midea
China").

I. Background

The matter is before the Court on a request to file an exhibit
under seal pursuant to Local Rule 141 brought by Defendant Midea
China. Defendant Midea China requests the Court's permission to
file under seal two documents attached as Exhibit 5 to a
declaration in support of motions to dismiss filed by Defendants
Midea America Corp. and Midea China. In addition to Defendant Midea
China's notice of request to seal, which is publicly filed on the
Court's docket, Midea China has also separately provided the Court
with the exhibit Defendant Midea China seeks to file under seal.

Pursuant to Local Rule 141, on Jan. 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Erika
Mendoza and James Hunt submitted to the Court an opposition to
Defendant Midea China's request.

II. Analysis

Because Defendant Midea China requests sealing in connection with a
motion to dismiss, the "compelling reasons" standard plainly
applies. Even under that higher standard, however, Judge Drozd
finds that the exhibit in question should remain sealed.

The putative products liability class action pertains to allegedly
defective handles on certain microwaves that were designed,
manufactured, marketed, tested, distributed, and/or sold by the
various Defendants in the action. On Nov. 30, 2020, Defendants
Midea China and Midea America each filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Defendant Midea China now
requests an order authorizing it to file under seal Exhibit 5 to
the supplemental declaration of Gerhard P. Dietrich in support of
Midea China and Midea America's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint.

The exhibit consists of two agreements between defendant Midea
China and third-party Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. ("UL")
pertaining to the testing and use of the UL mark on certain
products (the "UL Agreements"). According to Midea China and Midea
America, the Plaintiffs received access to these documents when UL
produced 2,700 pages of documents in a PDF titled "Agreements with
Midea" in response to a subpoena in a related case, Rice v.
Electrolux Prods., Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00371 (M.D. Pa.). The parties
do not dispute that the documents were marked confidential by UL
when the documents were initially produced, or that "by agreement,
the parties are allowed to use the documents produced in Rice in
related litigation, including the case."

The Plaintiffs placed the UL Agreements at issue in their first
amended complaint in the action. In its pending motion to dismiss,
Defendant Midea China asserts that the quoted choice of forum
provision is irrelevant to the action and does not establish that
personal jurisdiction exists over Midea China in the state of
California, particularly because "the agreement does not mention
California." In addition, it quotes the UL Agreements' Paragraph
10.0 in its reply in support of its motion to dismiss.

In seeking to seal the documents at issue, Defendant Midea China
first argues that the UL Agreements are "not relevant to the issues
raised in the action." Apart from Paragraphs 10.0 and 11.0, Midea
China contends that "no other provisions in the UL Agreements are
arguably relevant to this litigation." It thus seeks to file the UL
Agreements under seal "only to demonstrate to the Court that the UL
Agreement are plainly irrelevant as they both relate to the testing
and use of the UL mark and do not mention California."

In its request to seal, Midea China also argues that the UL
Agreements contain "competitively sensitive business information
that may present a threat of competitive harm if disclosed
publicly," such as non-public payment arrangements and negotiated
contract terms. Moreover, it repeats that because the UL Agreements
are not relevant to this litigation, and the only paragraphs that
could arguably be relevant -- Paragraphs 10.0 and 11.0 -- are
available on the court's docket without redaction, "the public's
interest in being informed about this case will not be injured by
filing the UL Agreements under seal."

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that it is merely "conjecture"
that trade secrets will be divulged if the UL Agreements are not
filed under seal. They assert that the pricing provision in the UL
Agreements "does not provide specifics and is a generic form
paragraph that also appears in the contracts between UL and
Electrolux and Sharp Electronics Corp." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
argue that the pricing provision is "not a negotiated provision"
and that Midea China's arguments are "based purely" on hypothesis
or conjecture.

In addition, the Plaintiffs contend that Midea China's "true goal"
in seeking to seal the UL Agreements is "to prevent disclosure of
their consent to be subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois,"
because "their business model is to prevent adjudication for
defective products they sell in the United States by universally
challenging personal jurisdiction and attempting to maintain their
business operations to avoid the courts in the United States."
Finally, the Plaintiffs contend that because none of the defendants
in this action objected to the inclusion of Paragraph 11.0 in their
amended complaint, "the relevant provision of these UL contracts
already exists in the public forum" and defendants Midea China and
Midea America waived any assertion that the UL Agreements should be
sealed.

Judge Drozd finds that Defendant Midea China has established a
compelling reason to seal Exhibit 5 of Mr. Dietrich's supplemental
declaration submitted in the action. He is unpersuaded by the
Plaintiffs' argument that a lack of specific prices being listed in
the UL Agreements necessarily means that the pricing provisions
therein are merely "generic form paragraphs" and are not negotiated
provisions containing sensitive business information. A compelling
reason to file a document under seal exists "where public
disclosure of proprietary business information could harm the
business's competitive standing and/or result in the improper use
of the information by others who might circumvent investing their
own time and resources."

In the case, the UL Agreements contain non-public contract terms
that were the final product of negotiations between Midea China and
UL. Similarly, the Plaintiffs' unsupported allegation that the same
pricing provisions appear in agreements between UL and other
companies does not diminish the fact that the publication of these
documents could provide a negotiating advantage to UL's business
partners or competitors.

Moreover, Midea China does not oppose the presence of Paragraph
11.0 of the UL Agreements -- the Illinois forum selection clause --
on the public docket in the action, and indeed has set forth the
full text of both Paragraphs 10.0 and 11.0 in its reply brief in
support of its motion to dismiss. Thus, Judge Drozd finds that the
Plaintiffs' argument that Midea China's true motivation in filing
the pending motion is to "prevent disclosure of its consent to be
subject to personal jurisdiction in Illinois" is unavailing. Midea
China has made no efforts to file under seal the only paragraph of
the UL Agreements that bears on personal jurisdiction in Illinois.

Lastly, Judge Drozd has read the UL Agreements in their entirety
and agrees with Defendant Midea China that, apart from Paragraphs
10.0 and 11.0, the contents of the UL Agreements are irrelevant to
the action. Notably, the Plaintiffs appear to concede that the
remainder of the UL Agreements are irrelevant in the case referring
to Paragraph 11.0 as "the relevant contractual provision" from the
UL Agreements and stating that this provision "already exists in
the public forum." Because the only terms of the UL Agreements that
are relevant to the action are already available on the public
docket, Judge Drozd finds that in this instance, the competitive
business interests of UL outweigh the public's interest in
accessing the entirety of the UL Agreements.

III. Conclusion

After reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, Juduge Dorzd
granted Defendant Midea China's request to seal. Defendant Midea
China shall provide an electronic copy of the documents to be
sealed to the Clerk of the Court by email at
ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov, at which time the Clerk of the
Court will file the documents under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sbwwu4md from Leagle.com.


FCA US: Seeks Extension on Class Certification Briefing Sched
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. (), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending the current briefing
schedule on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)”

            Event                  Current         Proposed
                                   Deadline        Date

  -- FCA US's Response in          May 3, 2022     June 5, 2022
     Opposition to Plaintiffs'
     Motion for Class
     Certification shall be
     filed:

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply in          May 24, 2022    June 26, 2022
     Support of their Motion
     for Class Certification
     shall be filed:

On April 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs Jason Nuwer, Amarillis Ginoris,
and Kevin Van Allen filed their Motion for Class Certification.

The Court, recognizing the complexity of this Motion and the
accompanying briefing granted the parties leave to exceed this
Court's standard page limits.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification included Plaintiff's
Rule 26 expert disclosures. FCA US will rely on its own expert
witnesses in its Response in Opposition. However, FCA US's expert
disclosures are not due until June 5, 2022.

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

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37gqdHo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          Ian K. Edwards, Esq.
          KLEIN THOMAS & LEE
          Brookstone Office Complex
          340 E Palm Ln a310
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 935-8300
          E-mail: Fred.Fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com
                  Ian.Edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com

FOX REHABILITATION: Conner Seeks to Stay Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN A. CONNER DPM,
P.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-01580-MMB
(E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) staying the deadlines
for briefing class certification until this Court has had the
opportunity to evaluate and resolve the pending discovery motions
and provide time for Fox to implement any remedial measures this
Court adopts.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of itself and
other recipients of faxes that Defendant sent as part of a campaign
in 2020, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and conversion under state law.

On February 22, 2022, this Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order
which set the current briefing schedule for class certification.
Pursuant to that schedule, the deadline for Plaintiff to file a
class-certification motion is April 26.

The Defendant then has until May 30 to file its opposition, and
Plaintiff's reply is due June 13. Discovery is not set to close
until December 19, 2022.

The Plaintiff has a motion to compel currently pending before the
Court. The Defendant responded on April 13, 2022. The Plaintiff
will submit its reply today, The motion seeks materials directly
related to Defendant's prior invitation or permission defense,
which Plaintiff understands is Defendant's primary basis for
opposing class certification.

The Defendant recently made supplemental production of responsive
materials on April 13 and April 16, 2022. As discussed in the
pending motion, the Plaintiff does not believe -- and witnesses’
deposition testimony confirms -- that these documents are not all
existing responsive materials.

FOX Rehabilitation provides evidence-based physical therapy,
occupational therapy and speech language pathology rehabilitation
services.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LJoY2p at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Barry J. Blonien, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM LLC
          203 North La Salle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 -5555
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS , LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Court Affirms Discovery Order in Pilots Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re FRONTIER AIRLINES LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
19-cv-3468-CMA-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado overruled the
Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty's
Oct. 25, 2021 Discovery Order and affirmed the Discovery Order.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by pilots who work
for Defendant Frontier. The Plaintiffs allege that Frontier
discriminated against them and failed to accommodate their "needs
related to pregnancy and breastfeeding" which "caused them to
suffer serious penalties, both at and outside of work, simply
because they had children." They allege that they were forced to
take unpaid leave during their pregnancies and were denied
accommodations to pump breastmilk once they returned from their
pregnancy leave.

The Plaintiffs assert 13 causes of action against Frontier, based
on what they describe as "Frontier's systemic, pervasive and
discriminatory employment policies and practices." They allege
violations of: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e; (2) the Colorado's Pregnant Workers Fairness
Act, C.R.S. Section 24-34-402.3 ("PWFA"); (3) Colorado's Workplace
Accommodations for Nursing Mothers Act, C.R.S. Section 13-1-124(1)
("WANMA"); and (4) the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S.
Section 24-34-401 ("CADA").

On Aug. 27, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Comparator Data. The Parties dispute the scope of comparator data
that Frontier is required to provide. In written discovery requests
to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs requested that Frontier provide
comparator data "for all its pilots regarding pay,
separation/termination, promotions, discipline, and accommodations,
including requests for leave." Frontier objects to the discovery
request as overly broad.

The Plaintiffs argue that they should be given wide latitude with
respect to their discovery of comparator data. For their failure to
accommodate claims, the Plaintiffs seek discovery "related to
relevant policies and disciplinary actions against all pilots who
took breaks during flight for any reason." For their disparate
treatment claims, they seek discovery regarding "accommodations
Frontier granted to other pilots similar in their ability to work."
For their WNMA and PWFA claims, the Plaintiffs seek discovery
related to accommodations Frontier provided to others.

In contrast, the Defendant seeks to limit the comparator data
discovery to those pilots who requested accommodations.
Specifically, the Defendant argues that comparator data should be
limited to Frontier pilots who: (1) "were not pregnant or
experiencing a pregnancy-related condition, but who" (2) "were
unable to work due to their own physical limitations or
restrictions of some kind without some form of accommodation."

On Oct. 25, 2021, the magistrate judge issued the Discovery Order.
The magistrate judge determined that the Plaintiffs' discovery
request is overbroad. Thus, the magistrate judge adopted the
Defendant's proposed comparator universe, as amended by the Court:
All pilots over the relevant time period who were unable to work
for any length of time due to their own disabilities, medical
conditions, physical limitations or restrictions of any kind
without some form of accommodation.

The magistrate judge further noted that the Plaintiffs "have not
established at this point that production of comparator information
on such a broad scope is warranted." However, the magistrate judge
stated that the Plaintiffs "may request a supplemental discovery
conference for the purpose of expanding production of comparator
information" if they have a "reasoned argument" that discovery is
insufficient to advance their anticipated motions to certify a
class.

The Plaintiffs filed their Objections on Nov. 8, 2021. The
Defendant did not file a response to the Objections.

II. Analysis

The Plaintiffs argue that the Discovery Order's "cramped -- and
wrong -- interpretation of Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575
U.S. 206, 135 S.Ct. 1338, 1343 (2015) deprives them of the majority
of the information relevant to proving some of their claims and may
foreclose them from pursuing others at all." Thus, because the
Plaintiffs' arguments center on Young, Judge Arguello first
analyzes Young and then addresses each objection in turn.

In Young, the plaintiff was a part-time driver for United Parcel
Service ("UPS"). After several miscarriages, the plaintiff became
pregnant, and her doctor told her that "she should not lift more
than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy or more
than 10 pounds thereafter." UPS drivers were required to be able to
lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds -- and up to 150 pounds with
assistance. UPS told the plaintiff that she could not work while
she was under a lifting restriction. Thus, the plaintiff stayed
home without pay during the majority of her pregnancy, and she
eventually lost her medical coverage.

The plaintiff filed suit, arguing that UPS acted unlawfully in
failing to accommodate her restrictions. The plaintiff also argued
that UPS was required to accommodate her like other drivers who
were accommodated and were "similar in their inability to work."

Ultimately, the Young court determined that a plaintiff can
demonstrate an employer's proffered reasons for disparate treatment
are pretext for pregnancy discrimination by "providing evidence
that the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant
workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant
workers." Under the facts of Young, the Supreme Court stated that
the plaintiff in that case could "show that UPS accommodates most
nonpregnant employees with lifting limitations while categorically
failing to accommodate pregnant employees with lifting
limitations." Thus, the Supreme Court's opinion suggests that the
scope of comparator data will depend on the facts of each case.

Turning now to the facts of the case, Judge Arguello addresses each
of the Plaintiffs' objections, which center on the fourth prong of
the prima facie test and what comparator data the Plaintiff needs
to demonstrate accommodations of others who were "similar in their
ability or inability to work."

First, the Plaintiffs contend that the magistrate judge
misconstrued the Supreme Court's ruling in Young because it
"incorrectly interprets the fourth prong of the prima facia case to
refer only to nonpregnant pilots and flight attendants with
physical limitations or disabilities.

Judge Arguello disagrees with the Plaintiffs. In Young, the Supreme
Court rejected a broad interpretation of the fourth prong. Further,
the Supreme Court recognized that the plaintiff in Young "can show
that UPS accommodates most nonpregnant employees with lifting
limitations while categorically failing to accommodate pregnant
employees with lifting limitations." Thus, given that Judge Hegarty
is permitting similar discovery regarding pilots who received
accommodations, his interpretation of Young was not contrary to
law.

Next, the Plaintiffs argue that the Discovery Order improperly
limits their claims under WANMA and PWFA, which they argue entitles
them to "evidence of all other pilots and flight attendants granted
accommodations for any reason." They argue that such information
would help them prove their claims because "both statutes impose an
independent, affirmative obligation on employers to provide
accommodations so long as they are either `reasonable' under WANMA
or do not `impose an undue hardship' under PWFA."

However, Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiffs have cited to no
case law that automatically entitles them to the broad discovery
they seek. She agrees that the broad discovery requested by the
Plaintiffs -- virtually all records of any pilot at Frontier during
the relevant period -- would be overly broad and unduly burdensome.
Thus, the Discovery Order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law on this basis.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the Discovery Order is erroneous
because their claims related to bans on pumping are not tied to
medical accommodations. They argue that they are entitled to
comparator data regarding pilots who took breaks for any reason to
support their claims related to pumping. However, Judge Arguello
agrees with Frontier that pumping relates to medical needs.
Regardless, the Discovery Order is broad enough to encompass
comparator data related to accommodations. If the Plaintiffs find
that the scope of discovery is insufficient, they are not
foreclosed from requesting a discovery conference and seeking
additional discovery. Accordingly, the Discovery Order is neither
contrary to law nor clearly erroneous on this basis.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the Discovery Order is erroneous
because it ignores the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims and thus
fails to apply the correct standard to assess the relevance of the
information sought." However, as Judge Arguello noted, the
Discovery Order was not as limited as the Plaintiffs suggest. Judge
Hegarty is permitting discovery regarding "disabilities, medical
conditions, physical limitations or restrictions of any kind" that
required accommodation. A disparate impact claim can be proven by
demonstrating that a plaintiff was treated differently than other
employees with disabilities or medical needs. Accordingly, the
discovery limitations set forth in the Discovery Order were not
contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

III. Conclusion

Having reviewed Judge Hegarty's Discovery Order and the Plaintiffs'
Objections, the relevant briefing and portions of the record, and
applicable authority, Judge Arguello is satisfied that the
Discovery Order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. She,
therefore, overruled the Plaintiffs' objections and affirms Judge
Hegarty's ruling and affirmed the Discovery Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3u49fc8k from Leagle.com.


GAOTU TECHEDU: Faces Wu Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------
Gaotu Techedu Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended February 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing a putative
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned "Wu v.
Gaotu Techedu Inc., et al," Case No. 2:20-cv-04457-ES-CLW filed in
April 17, 2020.

On November 2, 2020, lead and named plaintiffs filed—purportedly
on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a
result of their purchases or acquisitions of its American
Depository Shares (ADS) between June 6, 2019 and October 20, 2020,
an amended class action complaint, which alleges that the company's
public filings with the SEC contained material misstatements or
omissions in violation of the federal securities laws. Briefing on
the company's motion to dismiss the complaint was completed on
February 7, 2022. The court has yet to rule on the motion.

Gaotu Techedu Inc. is a Chinese education technology company
offering online tutoring services for K-12 students, along with
foreign language and professional training courses for adults.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Shareholder Suits in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that since November 2017,
several putative shareholder class actions under the federal
securities laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated
individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In October 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a fifth amended
consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and
current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for
long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of
shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and
January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019.

In January 2021, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as
to the majority of the claims. Specifically, the court dismissed
all claims related to insurance reserves, as well as all claims
related to accounting for long-term service agreements, with the
exception of certain claims about historic disclosures related to
factoring in the power business that survive as to GE and its
former CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein. All other individual defendants
have been dismissed from the case.

In April 2022, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification for shareholders who acquired stock between February
26, 2016 and January 23, 2018, and granted the plaintiffs' request
to amend their complaint.

General Electric Company (General Electric, GE or the Company) is a
high-tech industrial company that operates worldwide through its
four segments, Aviation, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Power.
Its products include commercial and military aircraft engines and
systems, healthcare systems and pharmaceutical diagnostics, wind
and other renewable energy generation equipment and grid solutions
and gas, steam, nuclear and other power generation equipment.


GEORGIA: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for June 30
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brandon Cobb, Carlos
Herrera, Joseph Nettles, Ernest Wilson, Jeremy Woody and Jerry Coen
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
Georgia Department of Community Supervision, and Michael Nail in
his official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of
Supervision, Case No. 1:19-cv-03285-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
William M. Ray II entered an order setting a hearing to be
conducted via Zoom Video on the motion to certify class and motion
for summary judgment for June 30, 2022.

The Georgia Department of Community Supervision is an executive
branch agency of the U.S. state of Georgia. DCS is headquartered in
the James H "Sloppy" Floyd Veterans Memorial Building with
additional field offices throughout the state.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Ox7nq at no extra charge.[CC]

GLENN HAWBAKER: Amended Case Management Order Entered in Packer
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER SR., LESTER
PACKER II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and situated, on behalf
of the GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER,
INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., the PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew W. Brann entered an amended case management order as
follows:

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class       July 29, 2022
     Certification:

  -- The Defendants' Response in        Sept. 29, 2022
     Opposition:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief:       Nov. 29, 2022

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kFQ7HI at no extra charge.[CC]


GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Settlement in Hesse Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE HESSE and ADAM
BUXBAUM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GODIVA CHOCOLATIER, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00972-LAP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska entered an order that:

   1. The Settlement is finally approved in all respects,
      and the Court certifies the following Settlement Class:

      "All Persons who purchased any Godiva Chocolate Product in
      the United States during the Class Period."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Godiva and any
      of its parents', affiliates', or subsidiaries' employees,
      officers and directors, (b) distributors, retailers or re-
      sellers of Godiva Chocolate Products, (c) governmental
      entities, (d) the Court, the Court's immediate family,
      Court staff; (e) the mediator and her staff and immediate
      family; (f) counsel of record for the Parties, and their
      respective law firms; and (g) all Persons who timely and
      properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.

      The Class Period is from January 31, 2015 through October
      26, 2021.

      Godiva Chocolate Product means any product manufactured
      and sold by Godiva, or sold under the Godiva brand, which
      contains chocolate.

   2. The Court appoints Plaintiffs as representatives of the
      Class and Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and the Wand Law Firm, P.C.
      as counsel for the Class.

   3. The Parties are hereby directed to further implement the
      Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions
      consistent with this Order. The Settlement Agreement is
      hereby incorporated into this Final Approval Order in full
      and shall have the full force of an Order of this Court.

   4. Kroll is authorized and directed to issue Settlement
      Benefits to Settlement Class Members who submitted timely
      and valid Claim Forms in accordance with the terms of the
      Settlement Agreement. Any funds that are validly claimed
      but not negotiated by Settlement Class Members within the
      timeframe set forth in the Settlement Agreement shall be
      paid to NCLC.

   5. The Court approves and awards: (1) attorneys' fees and
      expenses in the amount of $2,850,000, and (2) a Class
      Representative Service Award of $2,500 to each of the two
      named Plaintiffs. These payments shall be paid by Godiva
      to Plaintiffs and Class Counsel in accordance with the
      terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Godiva Chocolatier is a Belgian chocolate maker which is jointly
owned by Turkish conglomerate Yıldız Holding and South Korean
equity company MBK Partners.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3vFTRiq  at no extra charge.[CC]


H.I.S. GUAM: Asks Court to Strike Igarashi Class Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSAMU IGARASHI v. H.I.S.
GUAM, INC., Case No. CV-21-00025 (D. Guam), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order to strike the class allegations in
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f), 23(a), 23(b)(3),
23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D) of 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and dismiss the case in its entirety should the Court agree that
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act),
does not apply to Defendant.

The Defendant caters primarily to Japanese tourists and was
directly impacted by the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic and the
effective closure of the island of Guam to tourism by the Governor
of Guam and the Guam Department of Public Health and Social
Services March 2020, and subsequent, Emergency Orders.

The Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on September 16, 2021, by the
filing of a single-count Complaint in Class Action in which he
alleged both individual and class claims under the WARN Act.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the WARN Act by Defendant and
seeks statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs of no less than
$400,000 and lost wages and benefits for employees of Defendant in
the amount no less than $400,000.00.

On March 14, 2020, Governor Leon Guerrero issued Executive Order
2020-03 declaring a Public Health Emergency for the Island of Guam
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The declared Emergency still
continues as of the filing of this Motion. On March 16, 2020, in
response to confirmed cases of COVID-19, Governor Leon Guerrero
issued Executive Order 2020-04 ordering that all nonessential
government of Guam offices immediately close. Private businesses
including Defendant's were also directly effected by the unforeseen
pandemic, its severe impact on tourism which effectively closed
inbound and outbound tourist travel. On April 5, 2020, Governor
Leon Guerrero issued Executive Order 2020-09 extending the
Emergency and all provisions outlined in Executive Orders 2020-03
to 2020-09 to May 5, 2020.

On April 30, 2020, Governor Leon Guerrero issued Executive Order
2020-11 extending the Emergency for an additional 30 days from May
5, 2020. The monthly pattern of extending Emergency Orders have
continued since. The effect of the Emergency and quarantine
requirements on Guam, as well as Japan which is the primary source
of the Defendant's customers, was that after March 20, 2020, there
were no more incoming tourists to Guam.

The Plaintiff worked for HIS from 2016 to 2020. He was a full-time
employee of the Defendant and his primary job was to greet and
assist arriving and departing HIS tourist customers at the Guam
International Airport. The pandemic and the Executive Orders
effectively eliminated Defendant’s need for most of its
employees.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38LeEbw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          TORRES LAW GROUP
          3 Suite 2a, 130 Aspinall Avenue
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Telephone: (671) 477-9891
          Facsimile: (671) 472-2601

HLNATURAL INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HLNatural, Inc.. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HLNatural, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03463 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022).

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

HLNatural, Inc. doing business as Hilma -- https://www.hilma.co/ --
creates quality products and natural remedies to support health
when needed it most.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, 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 26, 2022, that it currently facing a
Class Action Complaint in the Southern District of Texas alleging
aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based
upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held
at its subsidiary, Bank of Houston (BOH) and the alleged knowledge
of certain its officer.

On May 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to
file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint presents claims including aiding and abetting or
participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of
deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged
knowledge of certain BOH officers.

The plaintiffs seek recovery from the Bank and other defendants for
their losses. The case has been inactive due to a Court-ordered
discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on
plaintiff's motion for class certificate and designation of class
representatives and counsel.

In November 7, 2017, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously
ordered discovery stay. In January 11, 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on
January 27, 2020. Due to agreed upon extensions of discovery on
July 25, 2019, the court amended the scheduling order to provide
that the case be ready for trial on January 11, 2021. In light of
additional agreed upon extensions of discovery deadlines, the Court
entered a new scheduling order on March 9, 2020, which provided
that the case be ready for trial March 15, 2021.

In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021. The defendants have filed a
motion to remand the case. The Bank also filed its motion for
summary judgment on February 12, 2021. On the same day, the Bank
also joined in on an omnibus motion for summary judgment based on
procedural issues common to all Defendants.

In March 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of abandonment of five
of the seven causes of action against the Bank. In March 11, 2021,
the defendants filed a motion to amend the scheduling order, which
was granted, effectively vacating the May 6, 2021 trial date, with
a new trial date to be determined upon remand.

In January 20, 2022 the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion for summary judgment by the Bank and the other
defendants. On the same date, the Court issued a suggestion of
remand of the case to the Southern District of Texas. As of March
11, 2022, the case has been officially remanded to the Southern
District of Texas.

Independent Bank Group, Inc. through its subsidiary, Independent
Bank, a Texas state banking corporation, does business as
Independent Financial, provides a full range of banking services to
individual and corporate customers in the North, Central and
Southeast, Texas areas and along the Colorado Front Range, through
its various branch locations in those areas.


INSPERITY INC: Court Junks Building Trades Pension Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, 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 26, 2022, that in March 15, 2022, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice a federal
securities class action filed against the company and certain of
the company's officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York in July 2020, captioned "Building
Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc. et
al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB.

In December 22, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
complaint alleging that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and operations in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief and
such other relief.

On April 26, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with prejudice. The lead plaintiff filed its opposition
to the motion to dismiss on June 10, 2021, and the defendants filed
their reply in support of the motion to dismiss on July 12, 2021.
On March 15, 2022, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice and the deadline to appeal has passed.

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


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) disclosed in its
Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that
in April 5, 2022, a putative securities law class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that during the period from April 4,
2017 through October 20, 2021, certain strategic imperatives
revenues were misclassified.

The company, two current IBM senior executives, and two former IBM
senior executives are named as defendants. On March 25, 2022, the
Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter making
similar allegations and demanding that the company's Board of
Directors take action to assert the company's rights. A special
committee of independent directors has been formed to investigate
the issues raised in the letter.

International Business Machines is into computer and office
equipment and is based in Armonk NY.


J WALES HOME: Loses Bid to Junk Starling Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY STARLING, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. J WALES
HOME SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-01261-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order denying the Defendant's motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The Court said, "Before addressing the merits of the motion to
dismiss, the Court must dispose of Defendant's Motion for Leave to
Amend the Motion to Dismiss, filed March 17, 2022. The Defendant
moved to amend its motion to dismiss twenty days after filing it,
and eighteen days after the deadline to respond to the complaint."

The Defendant invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 in support
of its motion for leave to amend. But Rule 15 concerns amendment of
"pleadings," not motions -- it does not grant parties 21 days to
supplement their motions as a matter of course. Rather, because
Defendant moves to respond to the complaint after the deadline to
do so, the proper standard is "good cause" under Rule 6(b).
Defendant provides no reason why the Court should permit another
extension to respond to the complaint, let alone "good cause" for
an extension, the Court adds.

Home Solutions offers roofing repair services in Texas. It The
Defendant a telemarketing campaign to raise business. The callers
offer to schedule complementary roofing inspections and recommend
Defendant for repairs if damage is found. The Plaintiff received
such a call on May 10, 2021.

When Plaintiff asked who was calling her, the caller refused to
give a company name. The Plaintiff then agreed to an appointment.
The next day, the Plaintiff received a call from an employee of
Defendant. Again, Plaintiff did not receive Defendant's company
name. Eventually, two of the Defendant's employees showed up at
Plaintiff’s residence for the inspection.

The Plaintiff told them she was not interested in an inspection.
The Plaintiff did not consent to the calls and has been on the
national do-not-call registry since 2004. The Plaintiff sued
Defendant for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), alleging three causes of action.

First, Plaintiff claims Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. section
227(c)(5) for each call it made to someone on the national
do-not-call registry. Second, the Plaintiff claims Defendant
violated 47 U.S.C. section 227(c)(5) by failing to record or honor
"do not call" requests and by failing to comply with the
identification and disclosure requirements of 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(d)(4). Third, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's
telemarketing calls violated section 305.053 of the Texas Business
& Commerce Code.

The Plaintiff also seeks certification of three classes aligning
with the three causes of action. Plaintiff requests damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of herself and the putative classes.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and strike the proposed
classes.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F9atCi at no extra charge.[CC]

JENKINS & YOUNG: Muralidharan Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jenkins & Young,
P.C., et al. The case is styled as Agustin Muralidharan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Jenkins & Young, P.C., Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00422
(W.D. Tex., May 2, 2022).

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

Jenkins & Young, P.C. -- https://www.jwylaw.com/ -- handles a wide
variety of matters with an emphasis in commercial and consumer
litigation and business transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


JOBCO INC: Settlement in Pineda Suit Gets Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO PINEDA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. JOBCO INCORPORATED,
and COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING SERVICES INC., and JAIME DELAHUNT,
individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-05321-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Joan M. Azrack entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement:

   1. certifying, for settlement purposes only, the settlement
      classes, as:

      a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), individuals
         that Plaintiffs have alleged were employed by Defendant
         as manual laborers that worked overtime hours at any
         time during the period of July 13, 2018 through
         September 28, 2018 at the Moxey Rigby Project located
         in Freeport, New York according to the time records
         maintained at the jobsite ("New York Class"); and

      b. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), individuals that Plaintiffs
         have alleged were employed by Defendant as manual
         laborers that worked overtime hours at any time during
         the period of July 13, 2018 through September 28, 2018
         at the Moxey Rigby Project located in Freeport, New
         York according to the time records maintained at the
         jobsite, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby
         opting into the settlement of all FLSA claims
         ("Federal Class").

   2. appointing Julio Pineda as as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Stevenson Marino LLP as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s0ZcPt at no extra charge.[CC]

JUNONIA LTD: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Junonia LTD. The case
is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Junonia LTD, Case No. 1:22-cv-03469
(S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022).

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

Junonia -- https://junoactive.com/ -- offer long lasting, high
quality pants, hoodies and swimwear for casual and leisure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


LACOSTE USA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lacoste USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lacoste USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02467 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Lacoste -- https://www.lacoste.com/ -- offers polos, clothing,
shoes, watches, bags, fragrances and sportswear for men, women &
kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


LANGUAGE LINE: Oliveira Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Oliveira, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Language Line Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:22-cv-02410-VKD (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
California Labor Codes, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Order and California Business & Profession premised on the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff all earned minimum and
overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal-and-rest periods,
failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses,
and failure to pay all earned wages due upon separation.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff, the Collective Members
and the Class Members one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all time they spent working over 40 hours in a workweek.
The Defendant violated the FLSA and OMFWSA by requiring the
Plaintiff, the Collective Members and the Class Members to provide
the internet service, internet equipment and replacement computer
equipment necessary to complete their Interpreter job duties for
the Defendant while failing to reimburse the Plaintiff, the
Collective Members and the Class Members for the costs of the same,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of the Defendant, who worked
as an Interpreter within the state of California from November 21,
2018 through May 31, 2019 and who worked for the Defendant as an
Interpreter within the state of Ohio from June 1, 2019 through
November 30, 2020.

LLS provides remote translation and interpretation services to its
clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Shant Karnikian, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          KABATECK LLP
          633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Email: bsk@kbklawyers.com
                 sk@kbklawyers.com
                 jfb@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Phone: (216) 525-8890
          Email: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Phone: (847) 986-5889
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fralish Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company. The case is styled as John Fralish, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00336 (N.D. Ind., April 28,
2022).

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

Liberty Mutual Group -- http://www.libertymutual.com/-- is an
American diversified global insurer and the sixth-largest property
and casualty insurer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC
          155 N Michigan Ave Suite 732
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 729-5288
          Fax: (312) 719-5289
          Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com


LOLA DIGITAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lola Digital Media,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lola Digital Media, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03507 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Lola Digital Media -- https://www.loladigitalmedia.com/ --
publishes best-in-class content for millions of readers each
month.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


MAKE UP FOR EVER: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Make Up For Ever,
LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Make Up For Ever, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02443 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Make Up For Ever -- https://www.makeupforever.com/ -- is a French
cosmetics brand owned by LVMH.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


MEDLEY INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medley, Inc. The case
is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medley, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02450-FB-JRC (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Medley Inc. -- https://medley-inc.com/ -- specialize in helping
clients reach diverse markets through public relations, branding
and digital media marketing.[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



MILWAUKEE, WI: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Shaw v. Police
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM ROBERT SHAW, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-C-1544 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William
C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued an order:

   a. granting the Plaintiff's first motion to compel discovery;

   b. denying as unnecessary the Plaintiff's motion, and second
      motion, for default judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for
      a hearing; and

   c. denying the Plaintiff's second motion for the matter to be
      certified as a part of a class action and the Plaintiff's
      motion for recusal.

Plaintiff Shaw is representing himself in the 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 action. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with claims
that Defendants Angela Gonzalez and Randy Piontkowski violated his
Fourth Amendment rights when they stopped and frisked him, arrested
him for homicide, and searched his vehicle on Nov. 16, 2016; that
Defendants Patrick Elm and Thomas Wroblewski saw the incident and
failed to intervene; and that Defendants City of Milwaukee, Edward
Flynn, and/or the Fire and Police Commission have a custom or
policy of conducting "stop-and-frisks" based on race and the
Defendants used this policy during the November 16 incident.
Discovery closes July 19, 2022; and dispositive motions are due
Aug. 18, 2022.

The matter is before the Court on several pending motions: (1) the
Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and/or motion for default
judgment and motion for hearing; (2) the Plaintiff's motion for
default judgment and/or renewed motion to compel discovery; (3) the
Plaintiff's second motion for this matter to be certified as a part
of a class action; and (4) the Plaintiff's motion for recusal.

In Plaintiff's motions to compel and/or default judgment and
hearing, the Plaintiff states that the Defendants failed to respond
to his multiple sets of interrogatories and requests to admit. The
Defendants filed a response conceding that they failed to respond
due to an error in the City Attorney's office. They indicate that
they will be able to provide responses provided the Court give them
30 additional days.

Judge Griesbach therefore grants the motion to compel and orders
the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's outstanding discovery
requests, assuming he has not exceeded the number allowed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), within 30 days of the order. He denies as
unnecessary the motions for default judgment and motion for a
hearing.

While striking a defendant's answer and entering a default judgment
against him is a sanction a court can order for violating an order
to provide or permit discovery, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2), Judge
Griesbach holds that there is no showing that the Defendants in the
case violated an order of the Court. Failure to respond to a
party's discovery request is not, by itself, a violation of a court
order. Moreover, striking a defendant's answer and entering a
default judgment is a drastic remedy that should only be used when
less drastic remedies are ineffective. This is especially true in
cases where the requested default judgment would harm an individual
defendant who does not bear personal responsibility for the
violation.

Yet, Judge Griesbach recognizes the need to hold counsel
accountable for failing to fulfill basic responsibilities to the
Court and the other parties. He says, the counsel should take
whatever steps are necessary to avoid the error or errors that led
to the counsel's failure to file a timely response to the
Plaintiff's discovery request. At the same time, the Court will
ensure that the Plaintiff suffers no prejudice by adjusting
deadlines, if necessary, to accommodate the late response. In any
event, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the drastic sanction he
seeks.

In the Plaintiff's second motion for the matter to be certified as
a part of a class action, the Plaintiff redirects the Court to his
original complaint and again asks the Court to "certify" the case
because a similar case, Collins v. City of Milwaukee, Case No.
17-cv-234-jps, was also certified in the district.

Judge Griesbach denies the second motion for the same reasons it
denied the first motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(4), the Plaintiff must be an adequate representative for his
proposed class. Federal courts have repeatedly held that pro se
prisoners are inadequate to represent the interests of their fellow
inmates in a class action lawsuit. As explained in the prior order,
the Plaintiff is not an adequate representative for his proposed
class. The case he cited, which closed in July 2018, had counsel
that represented the plaintiffs. Thus, Judge Griesbach denies his
second motion for the matter to be certified as a class action.

Finally, the Plaintiff asks Judge Griesbach to recuse himself. The
Plaintiff states that Judge Griesbach "has some sort of financial
interests with the Defendants" because the Defendants in the case,
as well as the Defendants in his other cases (i.e., 19-C-1059,
20-C-365, and 20-C-483) continue to prevail even though they "fail
to respond to motions."

Judge Griesbach says he does not have any financial interests with
any of the Defendants in any of his cases. His interest is in
moving the cases forward, and it is often unreasonable or
unnecessary to require the Defendants to respond to all of the
Plaintiff's voluminous motions and await the full 21 days for a
response to be filed. In the case, it is not unreasonable to direct
the Defendants to respond before considering whether to grant the
relief requested. When a response to a motion is necessary (such as
with the motion to compel in the case), Judge Griesbach has
required responses. Thus, Judge Griesbach denies the motion for
recusal, as he has denied the Plaintiff's previous motions seeking
his recusal.

For these reasons, Judge Griesbach granted the Plaintiff's first
motion to compel; and denied as moot his renewed motion to compel.
The Defendants shall submit responses to the Plaintiff's third set
of discovery requests within 30 days of the Order.

Judge Griesbach denied as unnecessary the Plaintiff's motion, and
second motion, for default judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for
a hearing. He denied the Plaintiff's second motion for the matter
to be certified as a part of a class action and the Plaintiff's
motion for recusal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/35ukd85s from Leagle.com.


MONIQUE LHUILLIER: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monique Lhuillier,
Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Monique Lhuillier, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02447 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Monique Lhuillier -- https://moniquelhuillier.com/ -- offers ready
to wear, dresses, accessories & shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


NATIONAL SPINE: Scoma Wins Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
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, SPINE CENTER OF FL, LLC and PAIN MANAGEMENT
CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Case No.
2:20-cv-00430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mac R. McCoy
entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiff's Amended Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
      Under Seal is granted.

   2. No later than May 3, 2022, the Plaintiff must send or
      deliver the three exhibits containing confidential
      business information to the Clerk's in an envelope bearing
      the caption of the case and stating on the cover that the
      exhibits are to be filed under seal pursuant to this
      Order.

   3. If possible, Plaintiff must also provide a computer disc
      (CD or DVD) containing the exhibits in PDF file format for
      ease of electronic filing by the Clerk's Office.

   4. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the exhibits under
      seal upon receipt. The Clerk of Court is also directed to
      link the sealed exhibits to the Plaintiff's Motion and
      Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Class
      Certification on the docket.

   5. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain the exhibits
      under seal for days after dismissal or entry of final
      judgment not subject to further appeal in this matter.

National Spine provides health care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w2obD5 at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONS LENDING: First Amended Sched Order Entered in Fitzhenry
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Fitzhenry, v. Nations
Lending Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-04043-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Richard M. Gergel entered a first amended scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Any motion to amend pleadings or           May 19, 2022
     join parties shall be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiff(s) shall file and            June 20, 2022
     serve a document identifying by
     full name, address, and telephone
     number each person whom Plaintiff(s)
     expects to call as an expert at
     trial and certifying that a written
     report prepared and signed by the
     expert pursuant to Fed. R.
     Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or,
     where allowed, a report prepared by
     counsel has been disclosed
     to the other parties by:

  -- The Defendant(s) shall file and            July 18, 2022
     serve a document identifying by
     full name, address, and telephone
     number each person whom
     Defendant(s) expects to call as an
     expert at trial and certifying
     that a written report prepared and
     signed by the expert pursuant to Fed.
     R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) or, where
     allowed, a report prepared by
     counsel has been disclosed to the
     other parties by:

  -- Records Custodians: Counsel shall          July 25, 2022
     file and serve affidavits of
     records custodian witnesses
     proposed to be presented by
     affidavit at trial no later
     than:

  -- Discovery shall be completed no           Aug. 19, 2022
     later than:

  -- The Plaintiff must file his               Sept. 9, 2022
     class certification on or
     before:

  -- Mediation shall be completed              Sept. 19, 2022
     in this case on or before:

Nations Lending Corporation a privately held, Ohio-based, national
direct mortgage lender and servicer.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Q14DW at no extra charge.[CC]

NEWREZ LLC: Durham's Responses to Bids to Dismiss and Strike Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COURTNEY D. DURHAM, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEWREZ, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, and NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, a Florida registered fictitious name entity
solely registered to do business in Duval County, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-89-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, denied without prejudice both the
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Strike.

The cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Response to
Motion to Strike, both filed on April 22, 2022. In the Responses,
the Plaintiff, in addition to asserting that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss and strike is due to be denied, alternatively requests
leave to amend her complaint.

Preliminarily, Judge Howard notes that a request for affirmative
relief, such as a request for leave to amend a pleading, is not
properly made when simply included in a response to a motion.
Moreover, even if it were proper to include this request in the
Responses, she holds that the request is otherwise due to be denied
for failure to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.01(g), United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)).

Judge Howard explains that Local Rule 3.01(a) requires a memorandum
of legal authority in support of a request from the Court. Local
Rule 3.01(g) requires certification that the moving party has
conferred with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve
the issue raised by the motion and advising the Court whether
opposing counsel agrees to the relief requested. In addition to
these deficiencies under the Local Rules, the request in the
Response also fails to satisfy the requirement that "a motion for
leave to amend should either set forth the substance of the
proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment."

Thus, Judge Howard will not entertain the Plaintiff's request for
relief included in the Responses. The Plaintiff is advised that, if
she wishes to pursue such relief, she is required to file an
appropriate motion, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules of the Court.

Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiff requests affirmative
relief from the Court, Judge Howard denied the Plaintiff's Response
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Response to
Motion to Strike without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yhtxcw37 from Leagle.com.


NKSFB LLC: Davood FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Soheil Davood, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NKSFB, LLC, Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV09874 was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02826 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

NKSFB, LLC -- https://www.nksfb.com/ -- is the largest business
management firm in the country, with six West and East Coast
offices and nearly 600 employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David A. Wimmer, Esq.
          SWERDLOW FLORENCE SANCHEZ SWERDLOW AND WIMMER ALC
          9401 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 828
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2921
          Phone: (310) 288-3980
          Fax: (310) 733-1727
          Email: dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com


NONOO LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nonoo, LLC. The case
is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nonoo, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02448
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Misha Nonoo -- https://mishanonoo.com/ -- designs the ultimate
capsule wardrobe. Shop sustainable and woman-owned workwear,
loungewear, and event pieces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


OH MY GREEN: Class Settlement in Kastler Suit Wins Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNE KASTLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. OH MY GREEN, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-02411-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
granting final approval of class action settlement and granting in
part and denying in part motion for attorneys' fees.

  -- Class Definitions

     The Settlement Class is defined as "all current and former
     non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant within
     California at any time during the period between February
     28, 2015 and preliminary approval."

  -- Settlement Benefits Settlement Benefits

     The Defendant will make a $500,000 non-reversionary payment
     into a "Gross Settlement Fund." The Gross Settlement Fund
     includes payments to Class Members, settlement
     administration expenses, PAGA penalties in the amount of
     $50,000, incentive awards, attorneys' fees, and litigation
     costs.

     In addition to the Gross Settlement Fund, the Defendant
     will pay its "share of the employer-side payroll taxes on
     the amount of the Settlement allocated to wages."
     Individual settlement payments will be calculated
     proportionally based on the number of work weeks a Class
     Member worked during the class period.

  -- PAGA Allocation

     As to the PAGA payment, the parties propose that 75%
     ($37,500) of the total sum of $50,000 will be
     proportionally paid to the California Labor and Workforce
     Development Agency ("LWDA"). Id.

     Enhancement Awards The Settlement Agreement permits
     Plaintiff Kastler to apply for an enhancement award up to
     $7,500, and Plaintiffs Andrade and Stallings to each apply
     for awards of up to $5,000. The Defendant agreed not
     to oppose these requests. Id. If the Court approves less
     than the amount requested, the difference between the
     requested and awarded amounts will be included in the Net
     Settlement Fund.

     Attorneys' Fees and Costs The Settlement Agreement permits
     Class Counsel to file an application for attorneys' fees in
     an amount up to $175,000, as well as costs up to $40,000.

On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff Anne Kastler filed a wage and
hour putative class action complaint against the Defendant.

Ms. Kastler was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee in California from November 2017 to January 2018. She
alleges, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
that Defendant underpaid Plaintiffs in violation of California
labor laws, including failing to pay regular, minimum, and overtime
wages as well as failing to provide compliant meal periods, rest
periods, and associated premium pay.

On May 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the class action and PAGA settlement. Following the hearing on
the motion, the parties filed a supplemental brief and an addendum
to the settlement agreement, which clarified certain settlement
terms. The Court granted preliminary approval on August 13, 2021.

Oh My Green, Inc. provides healthy food and wellness services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MNs9Gg at no extra charge.[CC]

ONLINE STORES: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Stores, LLC.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Online Stores, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03465 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022).

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

Online Stores -- https://www.onlinestores.com/ -- is a market
leader in flags & flagpole, fireplace & chimney, construction
safety equipment, clothing and boots, tea, gourmet food, LED
lighting and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OPERA LIMITED: Brown Shareholder Suit in New York Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Opera Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 25, 2022, that the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed a class action suit
filed against the company captioned "Brown v. Opera Limited. et
al.," Case No. 20-cv-674 in April 22, 2021.

In January 2020, the company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
in said court alleging that the company had made certain material
misstatements and/or omissions in violation of U.S. securities
laws.

In March 13, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing all of the claims on multiple grounds. The
plaintiffs in the action determined to forgo their right to file a
further amended complaint and instead stipulated to dismissal of
the litigation. The case was dismissed with prejudice in an order
entered on April 22, 2021.

Opera Ltd. operates a web browser of the same name.


PAVMED INC: Term Sheet Agreement Entered in Spritzer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pavmed Inc. disclosed in its 8-K Report for the fiscal period ended
April 26, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 25, 2022, that in January 28, 2021, PAVmed Inc. entered
into a term sheet agreement for the settlement of a putative class
action lawsuit commenced in November 2020, captioned "Spritzer v.
PAVmed Inc., et al.," C.A. No. 2020-0935-KSJM, filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The terms of settlement are subject to final approval by the court,
and the latter has scheduled a hearing for November 3, 2022 at 1:30
p.m., Eastern Time, to be held in person in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500
North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to consider approval
of the terms of settlement. The deadline for the submission by
stockholders of an objection was set in October 20, 2022, fourteen
calendar days prior to the hearing.

PAVmed Inc. is into surgical and medical instruments and is based
in New York, NY.


PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Extends Class Certification Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE LEE LEMMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIERCE COUNTY, Case No. 3:21-cv-05390-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order on stipulated motion to
extend deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification as
follows:

-- All depositions related to class         July 1, 2022
    certification must be completed
    by:

-- All discovery motions related to         Aug. 1, 2022
    class certification must be filed
    by:

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class         Oct. 14, 2022
    certification is due by:

Pierce County is a county in the U.S. state of Washington.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sbYbnt at no extra charge.[CC]

PILLPACK LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PillPack, LLC. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PillPack, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02470
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

PillPack -- https://www.pillpack.com/ -- is a full-service online
pharmacy that packages medication and delivers to customers' door
every month.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


PROGRESSIVE WEST: Griffin Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Denise Griffin, Adamma Ison, Melanie Barber, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Progressive West Insurance Company, United Financial Casualty
Company, Progressive Select Insurance Company, Case No. 22CV008853
was removed from the Alameda County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on April 29, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-02634 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Progressive West Insurance Company -- http://www.progressive.com/
-- provides insurance services. The Company offers auto, home,
property, health, and casualty insurance solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Fax: (412) 281-1007
          Email: wlison@fdpklaw.com

               - and -

          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Phone: (415) 484-0980
          Fax: (415) 658-7758
          Email: christian@osclegal.com

               - and -

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          OLIVIER & SCHREIBER LLP
          475 14th Street, Suite 250
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (415) 484-0980
          Fax: (415) 658-7758
          Email: monique@os-legal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Villalobos, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223
          Phone: (213) 430-3400
          Fax: (213) 430-3409
          Email: amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com


RANGE RESOURCES: Faces Lewis Shareholder Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Range Resources Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in January 20, 2022, a
derivative action styled as "Lewis v. Ventura et al." was filed
under seal in the Northern District of Texas (Case No.
4-22CV-051-0) claiming that Range misclassified certain wells as
inactive rather than having plugged the wells and that such alleged
misclassification affected the determination of its asset
retirement obligation accrual.

Range Resources Corporation is a Fort Worth, Texas-based
independent natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil company
engaged in the exploration, development and acquisition of natural
gas properties in the Appalachian region of the United States.


RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Range Resources Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in March 4, 2022, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth
Division) granted the companies' motion to dismiss and each claim
was dismissed with prejudice with regards to a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Western District of Pennsylvania in March
4, 2021.

Case captioned "Jacobowitz v. Range Resources Corporation et al."
Case No. 2:21-CV-301 (March 4, 2021, W.D. Pa.) in which the
plaintiff sought to represent a class of Range stockholders who
purchased or acquired stock from April 29, 2016 to February 10,
2021.

This lawsuit had been transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division) and claimed
that Range misclassified certain wells as inactive rather than
having plugged the wells and that such alleged misclassification
affected the determination of its asset retirement obligation
accrual.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted the companies motion to
dismiss and each claim was dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs
have until May 2 to file an appeal of the March 31 ruling and
dismissal.

Range Resources Corporation is a Fort Worth, Texas-based
independent natural gas, natural gas liquids and oil company
engaged in the exploration, development and acquisition of natural
gas properties in the Appalachian region of the United States.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Darnis Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut several former employees of United
Technologies Corporation (UTC) or its subsidiaries in August 12,
2020 captioned "Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies
Corporation, et al."

Said complaint was filed against the company, Otis, Carrier, the
former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of
the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors. The complaint challenged
the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to Raytheon,
Otis, and Carrier equity awards following the separation of UTC
into three independent, publicly-traded companies on April 3,
2020.

The complaint also claimed that the defendants are liable for
breach of certain equity compensation plans and also asserted
claims under certain provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 13, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
supersedes the initial complaint and continues to assert claims for
breach of the equity compensation plans against the Company, Otis
and Carrier, but no longer asserts ERISA claims.

Raytheon Technologies Corp. is into aircraft engines & engine
parts.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in AZ Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing four
shareholder lawsuits filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company and
certain of its executives alleging that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making material misstatements in
regulatory filings regarding internal controls over financial
reporting in RMD.

Raytheon Technologies Corp. is into aircraft engines & engine
parts.


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Suits in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Technologies Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing three
shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware against the former Raytheon
Company Board of Directors, the company and certain of its
executives, each alleging that defendants violated federal
securities laws and breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in
improper accounting practices, failing to implement sufficient
internal financial and compliance controls, and making a series of
false and misleading statements in regulatory filings.

Raytheon Technologies Corp. is into aircraft engines & engine
parts.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Buffalo Seafood Sues Over Unlawful Overcharging
------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Seafood House LLC, Budget Inns Of Pensacola, Inc. d/b/a
Palm Court Inn, Adele J. Oriol as trustee of Adele Di Stefano
Living Trust, and Svo Lawn & Garden LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., REPUBLIC
SERVICES OF SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC, BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES OF
FLORIDA, INC., ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., and REPUBLIC WASTE
SERVICES OF TEXAS, LTD, Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C., April
16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant who has engaged in a
widespread and systematic practice of overcharging its customers
through two separate, but related coordinated schemes: implementing
unlawful rate increases and charging unlawful and excessive "Fuel
Recovery Fees."

Like thousands of other small businesses across the country,
Plaintiffs paid Republic for waste disposal pursuant to a standard,
preprinted contract. Notably, this contract is uniform among
putative class members in all relevant aspects and typically
contains a multi-year term. The primary purpose of the form
contract is to establish rates a given customer will pay Republic
for waste pickup. In violation of the form contract and of state
statutory and common law, Republic has carried out a systematic
deceptive and unfair scheme to charge its customers more than the
agreed amounts.

In blatant violation of this contractual limitation, Republic has
deliberately and repeatedly overcharged customers through automated
rate increases that far out-strip the increases--if any--in
consumer price index. These rate increases are imposed frequently
and are significant in amount, often exceeding 90% over the course
of a contractual term, and greatly exceed the increases in the
consumer price index which purportedly justify them.

In addition to assessing automated rate increases on its customers,
Republic has also increased prices by imposing a fee it calls a
"Fuel Recovery Fee" but which, in fact, has no relationship to its
actual or increased fuel costs. Rather, Republic uses this fee--in
intent and effect--as a hidden price increase. The Fuel Recovery
Fee bears absolutely no relation to Republic's actual or increased
fuel costs and Republic does not use the proceeds from the Fuel
Recovery Fee to offset such costs. In fact, Republic includes any
fuel costs it might incur in delivering its services through the
standard rates it charges customers. Republic simply uses the Fuel
Recovery Fee to generate extra profit at its customers' expense,
all the while deceiving customers into believing that the fee is a
legitimate charge directly related to specific increased costs it
incurs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs entered into a form contract with Republic.

Republic is one of the largest solid waste disposal companies in
the United States, with some $950 million in annual revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY, PC
          229 Magnolia Street
          PO Box 2765
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Phone: 864.585.3873
          Email: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
          Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
          Garrett Owens, Esq.
          PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
          1919 Cahaba Road
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Phone: 205.208.9588
          Email: oscar@pricearmstrong.com
                 nick@pricearmstrong.com
                 garrett@pricearmstrong.com

               - and -

          Ryan Lutz, Esq.
          CORY WATSON
          2131 Magnolia Ave. S.
          Birmingham, AL 5205
          Phone: 205.850.8532
          Email: rlutz@corywatson.com



SEAN SHAO: Shareholder Suit in NY Court Closed
----------------------------------------------
VNET Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that one of its directors,
Sean Shao, an independent director and chairman of the audit
committee of Jumei International Holding Limited, was named as a
defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
against Jumei International Holding Limited, a company formerly
listed on the New York Stock Exchange, regarding an alleged
omission and misrepresentation in that company's
solicitation/recommendation statement filed with the SEC in
connection with its privatization transaction. This case closed in
October 2021.

VNET Group is a cyberspace infrastructure service provider and
carrier-neutral data center service provider in China.


SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Parties Seek to Modify Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA VILLANUEVA, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SELECT
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC., a corporation, CONCENTRA HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; SELECT CORPORATION, a corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-06875-JCS (N.D. Cal.
), the Parties Jointly stipulate to modify the briefing schedule
regarding motion for class certification.

The Parties stipulate to either Schedule No. 1 or, with the Court's
approval, Schedule No. 2:

SCHEDULE NO. 1

             Event               Current          Proposed
                                 Date             Date

-- Deadline to File the          May 5, 2022     June 1, 2022
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Deadline to File and         June 17, 2022    July 14, 2022
   Serve the Opposition

-- Deadline to File and         July 1, 2022     July 28, 2022
   Serve the Reply

-- Hearing on the Motion        July 29, 2022    August 26, 2002
   for Class Certification

SCHEDULE NO. 2

             Event               Current          Proposed
                                 Date             Date

-- Deadline to File the         June 1, 2022     July 15, 2022
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Deadline to File and         July 14, 2022    Sept. 1, 2022
   Serve the Opposition

-- Deadline to File and         July 28, 2022    Sept. 22, 2022
   Serve the Reply

-- Hearing on the Motion        Aug. 26, 2022    Oct. 21, 2002
   for Class Certification

A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ff6YdO at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Pooja V. Patel, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  ppatel@lelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles L. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
          Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: charles.thompson@ogletree.com
                  jared.palmer@ogletree.com
                  alexander.chemers@ogletree.com

SKINZWEAR.COM INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skinzwear.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Skinzwear.com, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03504-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Lola Digital Media -- https://www.loladigitalmedia.com/ --
publishes best-in-class content for millions of readers each
month.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


SOLARA MEDICAL: Settlement Class Certified in Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit In : Solara Medical Supplies Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-02284-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff entered an order:

   (1) certifying class for settlement purposes;

   (2) preliminarily approving class settlement;

   (3) appointing class representatives and counsel;

   (4) approving class notice; and

   (5) scheduling final approval hearing

   -- The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as:

      "All Persons in the United States and its Territories who
      were sent a letter from Solara notifying them that their
      Protected Health Information and/or Personally
      Identifiable Information may have been compromised by the
      Security Breach that occurred during the Class Period."

      The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1)
      Defendant, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or
      controlled Person by the Defendant, as well as the
      officers, directors agents, and servants of Defendant, and
      the immediate family members of such persons; (b) the
      presiding District Judge and Magistrate Judge in the
      Action, and their staff, and their immediate family
      members; and (c) all those otherwise in the Settlement
      Class who timely and properly exclude themselves from the
      Settlement Class as provided in this Agreement.

      The Class Period is April 2, 2019 through June 20, 2019.

      Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant will pay the
      Settlement Amount of $5,060,000.

Solara is the independent distributor of continuous glucose
monitors (CGM) in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37gPfGk at no extra charge.[CC]

SOUTHERN FIDELITY: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER THACKER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated within the state of
Louisiana, v. SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-02313-SM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting their joint motion for continuance of the Hearing
and class certification deadlines.

On December 16, 2021, the Plaintiff brought this action against,
Southern Fidelity seeking recovery of alleged Hurricane Ida related
damages caused to his property in Houma, Louisiana during Hurricane
Ida.

The Plaintiff and Defendant request that the Hearing on Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Class Certification Discovery be reset from
May 19, 2022 to June 22, 2022.

In addition, Plaintiff requests that the deadline for Plaintiff to
file its Motion to Certify the Proposed Class be extended for 30
days, on or after August 29, 2022.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kz1b9n
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Sullivan, Esq.
          Francine M. Giugno, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Ley, Esq.
          Michael E. Hill, Esq.
          KELLEY KRONENBERG, PA
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 208-9055
          E-mail: ssullivan@kelleykronenberg.com;
                  fgiugno@kelleykronenberg.com;
                  jley@kelleykronenberg.com;
                  mhill@kelleykronenberg.com

The Counsel for Defendant, are:

          David W. Ardoin, Esq.
          Matthew D. Ory, Esq.
          AMO TRIAL LAWYERS
          114 Laura Drive, Suite D
          Thibodaux, LA 70301
          Telephone: (985) 446-3333
          E-mail: david@amotriallawyers.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Hearing for Class Certification Bid Set for May 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEILEE FANT, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:15-cv-00253-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Audrey g. fleissig entered an order that:

  -- a hearing will be held on Plaintiffs' motion for class
     certification on Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

  -- the parties shall promptly meet and confer, and shall, no
     later than April 28, 2022, file a joint notice advising the
     Court of (1) whether any party intends to present evidence
     or solely oral argument at the hearing, and (2) whether the
     parties prefer an in-person or remote hearing.

St. Louis is a major city in Missouri along the Mississippi River.
Its iconic, 630-ft. Gateway Arch, built in the 1960s, honors the
early 19th-century explorations of Lewis and Clark and America's
westward expansion in general.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OSVTU3 at no extra charge.[CC]

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Naming of Lead Roles in Winter Suit on July 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK WINTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING, INC.,
GREGORY A. BEARD, RICARDO R. A LARROUDE, WILLIAM B. SPENCE, B.
RILEY SECURITIES, INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, TUDOR, PICKERING,
HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., COMPASS POINT
RESEARCH & TRADING, LLC, and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.,
Defendants, No. 22-CV-3088 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will
hold a conference on July 29, 2022, at 4:00 p.m., to consider any
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for
consolidation.

On April 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
stock in Stronghold pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with Stronghold's
October 2021 initial public offering. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Section 77z-1 of the Securities Act requires that: Not later than
20 days after the date on which the complaint is filed, the
plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, in a widely
circulated national business-oriented publication or wire service,
a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class -- (I)
of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein, and the
purported class period; and (II) that, not later than 60 days after
the date on which the notice is published, any member of the
purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of
the purported class.

It also requires that not later than 90 days after the date on
which notice is published, the Court shall consider any motion made
by a purported class member in response to the notice and shall
appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported
plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most capable of
adequately representing the interests of the class members. In the
event that more than one action on behalf of a class asserting
substantially the same claim or claims has been filed, and any
party has sought to consolidate those actions for pretrial purposes
or for trial, the Court shall not appoint a lead plaintiff until
after a decision on the motion to consolidate is rendered.

In the case, Judge Abrams holds that the members of the purported
class therefore have until 60 days from the Plaintiff's filing of
the required notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs.
Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be
served and filed by July 21, 2022.

Accordingly, Judge Abrams will hold a conference on July 29, 2022,
at 4:00 p.m., to consider any motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. Unless the
parties request otherwise, he will hold said conference by
telephone. The parties shall use the dial-in information provided
below to call into the conference: Call-in Number: (888) 363-4749;
Access Code: 1015508. This conference line is open to the public.

The named Plaintiff shall promptly serve a copy of the Order on
each of the Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5djzfuh9 from Leagle.com.


STUPP BROS: Filing for Conditional Class Status Extended to July 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA STOKLOSA,
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STUPP BROS., INC. d/b/a STUPP CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick
entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the deadline
to issue class and other deadlines to be extended for an additional
90 days:

-- The Plaintiffs to file a Motion for Conditional Class
   Certification of Collective Action and for Notice to
   Prospective Class Members by Monday, July 11, 2022.

Stupp Bros is a privately-owned company focused on providing
infrastructure development in the United States as well as serving
the St. Louis market through a successful community bank.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fdy44U at no extra charge.[CC]



TARENA INTERNATIONAL.: Faces Yili Security Suit in New York Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tarena International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10 Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is facing a putative
securities class action captioned "Yili Qiu v. Tarena
International, Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-03502 (June 22, 2021,
E.D. N.Y.).

The complaint asserts that defendants made false or misleading
statements in certain SEC filings between August 16, 2016, and
November 1, 2019, related to the company's business and operating
results in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In September 1, 2021, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff in this action. In September 14, 2021, the parties filed
a joint status report and proposed scheduling stipulation, pursuant
to which, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November
1, 2021.

On January 18, 2022, Tarena International Inc. moved to dismiss the
complaint. On April 4, 2022, lead plaintiff served its opposition
to the motion. Briefing is scheduled to be complete by May 19,
2022.

Tarena International is an educational service provider based in
Beijing.


TEAK & TABLE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teak & Table LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Teak & Table LLC doing business
as: Teak & Table Outdoor Living, Case No. 1:22-cv-02471 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 29, 2022).

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

Teak and Table -- https://www.teakandtable.com/ -- sells quality
teak outdoor furniture online and in stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


TEAM PRIOR: Settlement Deal Wins Initial OK in Anderson Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNOR ANDERSON,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. TEAM
PRIOR, INC. and LEE PRIOR, Case No. 2:19-cv-00452-NT (D. Maine),
the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement and
for leave to file an amended complaint.

The settlement class is provisionally certified for settlement
purposes only, and the proposed class notice of settlement attached
to this order is approved. The clerk is directed to schedule a
final approval hearing.

This case concerns wages allegedly owed to Domino's Pizza delivery
drivers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Maine's wage
laws.

The Plaintiff, Connor Anderson, brought suit on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Domino's Pizza franchises owned by the Defendants Team Prior, Inc.
and Lee Prior complaint alleges that the Defendants' driver
reimbursement policy violates the FLSA and Maine law because it
fails to reasonably cover all of the drivers' expenses relating to
their personal vehicle use, and these unreimbursed expenses caused
the delivery drivers' wages to fall below the minimum wage.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OScirX at no extra charge.[CC]


TENCENT MUSIC: Shareholder Suits in NY Court Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Tencent Music Entertainment Group disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is
facing two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

In September 2019 and October 2019, respectively, the company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers were named
as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Amended
complaints in both actions were filed in February 2020, at which
time Tencent, based on its status as our controlling shareholder,
was named as a defendant in the Federal Court Action, and the
company's underwriters in its initial public offering were added as
defendants in both actions.

Both actions, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons
who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading in the
company's American Depository Shares (ADS), alleging that its
Registration Statement dated December 12, 2018 and annual report
dated April 19, 2019 on Form 20-F contained material misstatements
and omissions in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws.

In April 14, 2020, the company served a motion to dismiss the
Federal Court Action, which was fully briefed and submitted to the
court on May 15, 2020. In May 8, 2020, the company filed a motion
to dismiss, or in the alternative, stay, the state court action. By
order dated August 21, 2020, the state court action was stayed in
all respects, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the
federal court action.

In March 31, 2021, the company's motion to dismiss the federal
court action was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. In April 29, 2021, the plaintiffs in the
Federal Court Action filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint, which was granted on December 27, 2021.

A second amended complaint was filed in the federal court action on
January 10, 2022. In February 18, 2022, the company served a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the federal court
action, which was fully brief and submitted to the court on March
11, 2022. These actions remain in their preliminary stages.

Tencent Music Entertainment Group is a company that develops music
streaming services for the Chinese market.


TFORCE LOGISTICS: Lim Allowed to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTIAGO LIM individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TFORCE
LOGISTICS, LLC, and TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-04390-JAK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt
entered an order granting:

  -- The Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Under Seal
     Documents Designated as Confidential by Defendants That Are
     Submitted in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification as well as Defendants' Response in Support of
     Plaintiff's Application to File Under Seal.

The documents identified by bates stamps TFLIM042193-042221 shall
be filed seal; provided, however, that the sealing is without
prejudice to an application by a non-party to unseal the filing,
the Court says.

TForce offers same-day and next-day delivery solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LB3qox at no extra charge.[CC]


THREE IN ONE EQUITIES: Norman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Three In One
Equities, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kimmarie Norman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Three In One Equities, LLC, 3 Star Deli Grocery Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03173-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022).

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

Three In One Equities, LLC is a business entity registered with the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Phone: (516) 783-9662
          Fax: (646) 435-4376
          Email: james@civilrightsny.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bid for Class Certification Extended to July 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER GRAMMER, et al.,
v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-01525-CJC-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order modifying
briefing schedule on class certification motion as follows::

                              Event                Deadline

-- Motion for Class Certification              July 25, 2022
    with Expert Reports:

-- Opposition to Class Certification           Oct, 17. 2022
    with Expert Reports:

-- Reply in Support of Class                   Nov. 14, 2022
    Certification:

-- Hearing on Motion for Class                 Dec. 5, 2022
    Certification:

Toyota Motor is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Y4BQk at no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED SERVICES: Tomczak Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, LUIS
RIVERA-SOLIS, KALITHA HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED
SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a second amended scheduling order
as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff(s) shall file their       Oct. 7, 2022
      motion for class certification
      no later than:

   2. The Defendant(s) shall file their       Jan. 18, 2023
      brief in opposition to the Motion
      for Class Certification no later
      than:

   3. The Plaintiff(s) shall file their       March 17, 2023
      reply brief in support of their
      Motion for Class Certification no
      later than:

   4. Motions to join other parties and       Sept. 27, 2022
      amend the pleadings
      (Fed.R.Civ.P.16(b)(3)(A)) shall be
      filed no later than:

   5. Counsel shall file and serve            March 1, 2023
      affidavits of records custodian
      witnesses proposed to be
      presented by affidavit at trial no
      later than:

   6. Fact discovery shall be completed       March 31, 2023
      no later than:

   7. The Plaintiff(s) shall file and         May 15, 2023
      serve a document identifying by
      full name, address, and telephone
      number each person whom
      Plaintiff(s) expects to call as
      an expert at trial and certifying
      that a written report prepared and
      signed by the expert including all
      information required by Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been
      disclosed to other parties by:

   8. The Defendant(s) shall file and        July 14, 2023.
      serve a document identifying by
      full name, address, and telephone
      number each person whom
      Defendant(s) expects to call as
      an expert at trial and certifying
      that a written report prepared and
      signed by the expert including all
      information required by Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been
      disclosed to other parties by:

   9. Expert discovery shall be completed    Aug. 14, 2023
      no later than:

  10. The parties shall file a joint         Aug. 28, 2023
      status report with the Court by:


  11. Mediation shall be completed in        Sept. 13, 2023
      this case on or before:

The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking,
investing, and insurance to people and families who serve, or
served, in the United States Armed Forces.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kwCASz at no extra charge.[CC]

US ASSET MGMT: Summary Judgment Order in Tweedie Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Leslie Tweedie and Christina Waugh, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Below,
Petitioners v. US Asset Management, Inc., Defendant Below,
Respondent, Case No. 20-0932 (W. Va. App.), the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit court's Oct. 14, 2020
order granting summary judgment in favor of US Asset Management.

I. Background

Petitioners Leslie Tweedie and Christina Waugh appeal from the Oct.
14, 2020 order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County granting
summary judgment in favor of Respondent US Asset Management
("USAM"). USAM filed a response in support of the circuit court's
order. The Petitioners filed a reply.

The matter stems from the Petitioners' previous relationships with
AT&T. Both Petitioners were former AT&T customers who obtained
cellular phone devices and services from AT&T. At some point
several years ago, Ms. Waugh entered electronically signed written
contracts with AT&T for cellular phone and hotspot service. She
also received cellular phone devices at the time. Following Ms.
Waugh's agreement to receive cellular phone service, she received
monthly billing statements from AT&T. After some time, Ms. Waugh
began to question the amounts she was being charged and stopped
paying AT&T. Ms. Waugh's AT&T account remained open until AT&T
charged off her past due debt in 2010. Subsequently, USAM bought
Ms. Waugh's debt from AT&T, and on January 30, 2015, USAM's debt
collector mailed Ms. Waugh a collection letter seeking to collect
on the debt originally owed to AT&T.

On June 15, 2007, Ms. Tweedie also opened an account with AT&T for
a cellular phone device and cellular phone service. After opening
an account, Ms. Tweedie began to receive monthly billing statements
and later started to question the amounts being charged. Ms.
Tweedie stopped making regular payments, and AT&T charged off the
debt on her account on March 13, 2009. USAM then purchased Ms.
Tweedie's debt from AT&T, and on Nov. 16, 2014, USAM's debt
collector sent Ms. Tweedie a collection letter seeking to collect
on the debt on USAM's behalf.

The Petitioners filed a class action complaint on Nov. 26, 2018, in
the Circuit Court of Fayette County. The complaint alleged that
USAM violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act
("WVCCPA") when it attempted to collect sales contract debts that
were more than four years after default and, therefore, time-barred
by the four-year statute of limitations in the Uniform Commercial
Code ("UCC").

Specifically, the Petitioners maintain that USAM's debt collection
correspondence did not contain any of the disclosures required by
West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-128(f)2 for a time-barred debt
including: The legal status of the debt and the fact that the
consumer cannot be sued for the debt. USAM answered the complaint
and contended that Petitioners' claims failed because: (1) the UCC
statute of limitations was not applicable to the debts at issue
because they were for services, not goods; (2) the time-barred debt
disclosure therefore was not required; and (3) to the extent the
court determined that the letters violated the WVCCPA, such a
violation was the result of a bona fide error.

According to the Petitioners, on July 16, 2019, the circuit court
held a status conference to determine how the case should proceed
and the court ordered limited discovery to take place on the
Petitioners' individual claims. The parties engaged in written
discovery and the Petitioners' depositions were taken. Following
this discovery, USAM filed its motion for summary judgment and
memorandum in support on July 9, 2020, arguing that the ten-year
contract statute of limitations applied because the original debts
were created pursuant to written contracts signed by Petitioners
and were for monthly cellular device services. Subsequently, the
Petitioners filed a response in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment reasserting that the UCC applied

USAM filed a reply continuing to argue that the underlying
agreements were solely for services, not goods. Alternatively, it
contended that assuming arguendo that the underlying agreements
were hybrid agreements that contained both the sale of goods and
services, the predominant purpose was for services.

The circuit court held a hearing on USAM's motion for summary
judgment in August of 2020. On Oct. 14, 2020, it entered an order
granting summary judgment in favor of USAM. In its order, the
circuit court found that "there was no record evidence that shows
that Ms. Waugh's past due debt was related to the purchase of goods
or a cell phone," but rather "the record evidence shows that the
defaulted debt sought to be recovered from Ms. Waugh by USAM is a
debt related to monthly cell phone services and hot spot services
previously provided by AT&T."

Additionally, in its order, the circuit court found that "there was
no record evidence that shows that Ms. Tweedie's past due debt was
related to the purchase of a blackberry cellular device." Instead,
the court found that "the record evidence shows that the defaulted
debt sought to be recovered from Ms. Tweedie by USAM was a debt
related to monthly cell phone services previously provided by
AT&T." Further, "even if a separate agreement for the purchase of a
cell phone exists, there is no evidence that such a contract was
ever in default, that USAM purchased such contract from AT&T, or
that USAM attempted to collect on such contract."

Moreover, through its order, the circuit court stated regarding
both Petitioners that "while significant argument can be had that
the contract was purely a contract for services rather than goods,
the court gives Ms. Waugh and Ms. Tweedie the benefit of the doubt
in its determination of whether the contract is, at a minimum, a
hybrid contract." The court found that "since phones were received
by the Petitioners at the time the contracts were entered, the
court considers the contracts between the Petitioners and AT&T
mixed or hybrid contracts involving both services and goods."

Accordingly, the circuit court analyzed the underlying case
pursuant to a predominant purpose test5 and concluded that the
contracts entered by Petitioners with AT&T were predominantly for
the purpose of obtaining cellular phone services. As a result, it
determined that the letters to the Petitioners did not require the
time-barred debt disclosures pursuant to West Virginia Code Section
46A-2-128(f) because the four-year statute of limitations set forth
in West Virginia Code Section 46-2-725 did not apply, but instead,
the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in West Virginia Code
Section 55-2-6 was applicable. Because the debt was not time-barred
and the disclosures were not required, the circuit court found that
"no genuine issue of material fact remained, nor was further
inquiry desirable or necessary to clarify the application of the
law." The circuit court then granted USAM's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

The appeal followed. On appeal, the Petitioners ask the Court to
review the order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County granting
summary judgment in favor of USAM.

II. Discussion

The Petitioners assert that the "lower court erred in relaxing the
standard of proof to which a moving party is held at the summary
judgment stage by failing to draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party and by relying on its own life
experiences to supplement the factual record before it." In other
words, they contend that the circuit court acknowledged that there
was a genuine dispute regarding a fundamental factual issue but
resolved the dispute by supplementing the factual record with its
own common knowledge.

USAM responds that the circuit court's granting of summary judgment
was entirely proper. Specifically, USAM argues that the contractual
terms of the defaulted contracts make no mention of cellular phone
devices and that the contracts relate solely to cellular phone
services. Furthermore, the AT&T billing statements demonstrate that
the past due debts purchased by USAM are derived solely from the
cellular and hotspot services AT&T provided to its former
customers.

The Supreme Court of Appeals agrees that the evidence presented
supports an award of summary judgment in favor of USAM; however, it
basis its decision on reasoning different than that relied on by
the circuit court. Namely, it finds that the evidence presented in
the record demonstrates that the contracts and debts purchased by
USAM upon which USAM was seeking to recover were based solely on
cellular phone services, not cellular phone device purchases or a
hybrid thereof. As such, under the circumstances as presented,
there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to whether
the respective contracts were in writing.

Examining whether the respective contracts involve only the
provision of services or if the sale of goods is also involved in
any capacity, the Supreme Court of Appeals finds that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and that the contracts at issue were
solely for the provision of cellular phone services. Therefore, the
10-year statute of limitations applies to the Petitioners
respective underlying agreements and the collection letters sent to
them were not required to contain the disclosures pursuant to West
Virginia Code Section 46A-2-128(f) as the debt USAM was attempting
to collect was not time-barred. Because the debt was not
time-barred, no genuine issue of material fact remains and USAM is
entitled to summary judgment.

III. Disposition

For the reasons it set forth, the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed
the circuit court's Oct. 14, 2020 order granting summary judgment
in favor of USAM.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cmedmry from Leagle.com.


VACO LLC: Court Awards $420K in Attorneys' Fees in Bush Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTIANA BUSH, Plaintiff v. VACO LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-05605-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part
the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and awarded
$420,000 in attorneys' fees.

The Order addresses the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
made in connection with the final approval of a class action
settlement in the matter. The Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking
attorneys' fees, costs, an enhancement award, and settlement
administrator expenses. A separate order will address final
approval of the class action settlement and requests for costs, an
enhancement award, and settlement administration expenses. The
Order addresses solely the request for attorneys' fees.

In its motion for attorneys' fees, the Class Counsel requests
$500,000 in fees, representing 33% of the Total Settlement Amount.
The lodestar cross check shows fees for 418.25 hours of attorney
time equaling $292,221.25 and a multiplier of 1.71 to equate to the
requested 33%. The Court is satisfied that the number of hours
expended on the case was reasonable and Class Counsel's hourly
rates are in line with fee awards in this District for attorneys of
equal experience and quality. But that is not the end of the
inquiry.

The Ninth Circuit benchmark for fees is 25%. Higher awards are
often approved for exceptional results. Although the Classes
clearly benefit from significant payments in the case, Judge
Freeman finds that there were no novel issues in the case or
exceptional circumstances. She further notes that the vast majority
of the hours expended were devoted to four motions to dismiss the
class allegations.

In each of the first three orders, the Court determined that the
alleged class definitions were overly broad and without any factual
support. The Court repeatedly admonished the Plaintiff that the
class definition had to align with the factual allegations
regarding Plaintiff's own job duties and assignments. Indeed, the
Court determined that the class definitions were "wholly
implausible." Finally, after the fourth go-around, the Court
allowed the case to proceed on alleged class definitions aligned
with the Plaintiff's job roles. The case settled a few months
later.

On this procedural record, Judge Freeman does not find that an
award of 33% is warranted. Although the Class Counsel is certainly
entitled to enhanced fees in recognition of a good result for the
Classes and the risk and contingent nature of the fee arrangement
taken by Class Counsel, she determines that an award of 28%, or
$420,000, is reasonable. A lodestar cross check shows a multiplier
equal to 1.44 and a full award for the hours expended at the Class
Counsel's requested rates.

Accordingly, the request for attorneys' fees is granted in part and
denied in part. The Class Counsel is awarded $420,000 in attorneys'
fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdfaewhh from Leagle.com.


VERMONT BREAD: Chaney, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW CHANEY, NADINE
MILLER, AND ARTHUR GUSTAFSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. VERMONT BREAD COMPANY, SUPERIOR BAKERY,
INC., KOFFEE KUP BAKERY, INC., KOFFEE KUP DISTRIBUTION, LLC, KK
BAKERY INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC, KK BAKERY HOLDING ACQUISITION
COMPANY, and AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the
Defendants, and LINDA JOY SULLIVAN, in her capacity as the
Dissolution Receiver for Koffee Kup Bakery, Inc., Vermont Bread
Company, Inc. and Superior Bakery, Inc., the Intervenor-Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-wks (D. Vt.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

  (a) certifying a class pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
      comprised of the Plaintiffs and all former employees who
      worked at or reported to any of the facilities located at
      80 Cotton Mill Hill, Brattleboro, VT 05301 (the
      "Brattleboro Facility"), 72 Main St. N., Grosvenordale, CT
      06255 (the "Superior Facility") or 436 Riverside Ave.,
      Burlington, VT 05401 (the "Burlington Facility,"
      collectively referred to with the Brattleboro Facility and
      the Superior Facility as the "Facilities") and were
      terminated without cause on their part on or about April
      26, 2021 or within 30 days of that date or thereafter, as
      part of or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of
      the alleged mass layoffs and/or plant closings (as defined
      under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
      ("WARN") Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 2101 - 2109 and 29 C.F.R.
      section 639.3) carried out at the Facilities and who do
      not file a timely request to opt-out of the class (the
      "Class");"

  (b) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

  (c) appointing Lankenau & Miller, LLP, The Gardner Firm,
      P.C., and Cleary Shahi & Aicher as Class Counsel;

  (d) approving the form and manner of Notice to the Class; and

  (e) granting such other and further relief as this Court may
      deem proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KQkANz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          Johnathan Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th FL
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Thomas P. Aicher, Esq.
          CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER P.C.
          110 Merchants Row, Third Floor
          Rutland, VT 05701
          Telephone: (802) 775-8800
          E-mail: tpa@clearyshahi.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Loses Bid to File Documents Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICO CARLOS, an individual
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00294-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.),  the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr. entered an order denying plaintiff's application to
file under seal confidential information submitted with plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff seeks to seal several exhibits cited to in his Motion
for Class 23 Certification because: (1) "Defendant has designated
[these documents] as 'Confidential' or 'Highly Confidential'"; and
(2) Plaintiff was unable to confer with Defendant prior to filing
the Application, the Court says.

However, pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order, the
parties acknowledged that the Protective Order "does not entitle
them to file confidential information under seal" and that "Civil
Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff must first meet and confer with counsel
for Defendants before seeking to file under 7 seal the exhibits
noted in the instant Application, the Court adds.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 19,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ORuIJk
at no extra charge.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreen Co. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-02453-BMC
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Walgreen Company, d/b/a Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ --
is an American company that operates the second-largest pharmacy
store chain in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whole Foods Market
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02472 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022).

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

Whole Foods Market Services, Inc. --
https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ -- retails organic and natural
foods. The Company provides foods that derived from natural
ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


YUNJI INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yunji Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that case captioned "In Re Yunji
Inc., Securities Litigation," No. 1:19-cv-06403-LDH (U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Amended Complaint filed
March 19, 2020) was dismissed in May 4, 2021.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Yunji American Depositary Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the company's May 2019 initial
public offering. Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants,
under the Securities Act of 1933.

Yunji operates a social e-commerce platform in China based on a
membership based model.


YUNJI INC: Guilford Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Yunji Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that the case captioned "Christopher
Guilford v. Yunji, et al.," Case No. 23095/2020E (Bronx County
Supreme Court of the State of New York, filed on March 3, 2020) was
dismissed when plaintiffs in the case voluntarily discontinued
their actions.

The actions alleged that defendants made misstatements and
omissions in connection with our initial public offering in May
2019 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Yunji operates a social e-commerce platform in China based on a
membership based model.


YUNJI INC: Ng Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Yunji Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that that case captioned "Stephanie
Ng v. Yunji, et al., Case No. 24906/2020E (Bronx County Supreme
Court of the State of New York, filed on May 29, 2020) was
dismissed when plaintiffs in said case voluntarily discontinued
their actions.

The actions alleged that defendants made misstatements and
omissions in connection with our initial public offering in May
2019 in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Yunji operates a social e-commerce platform in China based on a
membership based model.



                            *********

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 ***