---

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

              Wednesday, May 11, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 88

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Kilpatrick Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Cole Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
AIRGAS SAFETY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AMBASSADOR GROUP: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Sept. 1

AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification in Quackenbush Partly Revisited
ANDROS FOODS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ATHLETICA HEALTH: Barnett Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Conaway Suit Over Violation of EFTA
BATH & BODY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Glaser NYLL Suit Claims

BEACH BOYS: Conrey Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
CALERES INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Iskhakova Says
CAPITAL ON DEMAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Suit Alleges
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Muccio Suit Over Unfair Collection Practices
CCH HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobedo Suit Claims

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: PTG Live Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
CINTAS CORP: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hawkins Suit Upheld
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Barnett Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
COSMOLEDO LLC: New York District Court Approves Class Settlement
CROWN CASTLE: Byler Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California

CUTTER & COMPANY: Whitlow Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Sessions Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
DOCTOR ON DEMAND: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOWN ETC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRESS OUTLET: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DRSAYS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUST BUNNY: Campbell Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
E.I. DUPONT: Weatherford Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
ELANCO US: Creason Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
FULLY RINSED: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

G A V REST: Avila Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Waiters
HUNTSMAN ADVANCED: Marcum Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
HZ PROPS: Faces Access 4 All Suit Over Denied ADA Accommodations
IMAMURA INC: Beltran Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
IN DEMAND SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griggs Alleges

INTELLIPURE INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ISDIN CORP: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAGUAR HEATING: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JILL-EST INC: Smith Alleges Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers
JRN INC: Spencer Files ADA Suit in E.D. Kentucky

JUUL LABS: Bellingham Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wash.
JUUL LABS: Big Rapids Public Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Cal. App. Affirms Order Staying Grove Shareholder Suit
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Deer Creek Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, El Segundo Suit Alleges

JUUL LABS: East Grand Rapids Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Faces Asotin-Anatone Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Brady Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Hemet Unified Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Tulsa Public Says

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Dener Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Wipes
KINGS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Horta Suit Alleges
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Braud Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Travera Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Pa.
LATHEM TIME: Bray Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia

LATINOS UNIDOS: Barron Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Tex.
LOU MADDALONI JEWELERS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCKESSON CORP: Treble Damages Awarded in True Health TCPA Suit
MDLIVE INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICANOPY, FL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Exley Says

MIDLAND CREDIT: District Court Certifies Class in Butela FDCPA Suit
NCSPLUS INCORPORATED: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Breaches 401(k) Plan's Fiduciaries, Suit Says
OREGON: Order Denying Bid to Dismiss Linn County Suit Reversed
PARABLE GROUP: Disclosed Customers' Mailing Lists, Bracy Claims

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Personal Care Products Contain Benzene, Suit Says
PVH RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Suit Alleges
QUALITY ROOFING: Cruz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
QWIK LOGISTICS: Barrios Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
QWIK LOGISTICS: Muller Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers

R&L CARRIERS: Montero Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Sexual Harassment
RICOH USA: Halpern UTPCPL Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SC DATA: Orders Giving Standing to Schumacher's FCRA Claims Vacated
SEATBELT SOLUTIONS: Shand FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SEAVIEW NURSING: Benavides Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

SN SERVICING: Hladik's Bid to Dismiss Riotto FDCPA Suit Granted
SNAP INC: Faces L.W. Class Suit Over Online Sexual Grooming
SR EMPLOYERS: Graham Sues Over Leasing Consultants' Unpaid Wages
TESLA ENERGY: Polson Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
TESLA MOTORS: Court Enters Verdict for Defense in Stockholder Suit

TWISTER ROOFING: Perez Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
VIASAT INC: Faces Best "Capital Stock" Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
WALGREEN COMPANY: Taylor BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Give Adequate COBRA Notice, Blessinger Says
WORLD EMBLEM: Hupp BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois


                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Kilpatrick Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA TATUM KILPATRICK and CANDACE KILPATRICK GARRETT, as Personal
Representatives/Administrators/Executors of the Estate of ROBERT E.
KILPATRICK, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01419-RMG
(D.S.C., May 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Decedent as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Decedent, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death,
alleges the suit.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

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

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

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

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

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

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

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

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

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

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Faces Cole Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01420-RMG (D.S.C., May 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Palmer Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01410-RMG (D.S.C., May 2, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease/cancer and
commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via a total thyroidectomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

AIRGAS SAFETY: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Ramirez, individually and on behalf of the general public and
all non-exempt aggrieved employees v. AIRGAS SAFETY INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV15002 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 4, 2022), is
brought pursuant to the Labor Code seeking unpaid minimum wage and
overtime; unpaid timely wages; unreimbursed business expenses; and
failure to provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is alleging that the Defendants have engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California
Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things: failing to pay all wages owed,
including minimum wage and overtime; failure to pay timely wages;
failing to reimburse for business expenses; willfully failing to
provide accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November 2016
through July 2, 2021 as a non-exempt employee who worked for the
Defendants as a Total Access Specialist at one of the Defendants'
worksites in California.

Airgas operates packages and delivers specialty gases throughout
the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
          Kacey E. Cook, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Isandra@iameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Kacev@iameshawkinsaplc.com



AMBASSADOR GROUP: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Extended to Sept. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Del Obispo Youth Baseball,
Inc. v. The Ambassador Group LLC, et al., Case No. SACV
21-199-JVS-DFMx (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna entered
an order granting the motion to extend the deadline for filing a
motion for class certification to September 1, 2022.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has diligently prosecuted this
action and shown good cause for modifying the case management
schedule. The Court grants Plaintiff's request to extend the
deadline to file a motion for class certification to September 1,
2022.

Ambassador also claims that it will be prejudiced by this extension
to the class certification deadline. To remedy that issue,
Ambassador seeks similar extensions to the trial date and the
discovery deadlines to allow for damages discovery after a
potential class is certified. Under the current case management
schedule, Ambassador would be able to conduct additional discovery
after the scope of the class is settled. However, if the class
certification deadline were extended without adjusting other
deadlines, it would lose that opportunity. The Plaintiff suggests
that it is willing to meet and confer to set new deadlines that
accommodate Ambassador’s concerns. This order extends the class
certification deadline by approximately four months. The Court
finds that it would be appropriate to extend the trial date,
discovery deadline, and related case management deadlines by a
similar amount of time. The Court orders the parties to meet and
confer within seven days of entry of this order and stipulate to
new case management deadlines consistent with this order.

This case concerns an alleged scheme to sell counterfeit insurance
policies to youth sports teams, leagues, and athletes around the
United States. On January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its initial
complaint, which named four defendants, including The Ambassador
Group, LLC and Brandon M. White.

On April 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint
(FAC), which added Dominic Cyril Gagliardi as a defendant. On April
29, 2021, the Court entered an order setting case management dates,
which established a deadline of April 29, 2022 to file a motion for
class certification.

On October 25, 2021, a joint stipulation was filed by Plaintiff,
The Ambassador Group, LLC, Brandon M. White, and Dominic Gagliardi
to allow Plaintiff to amend its complaint because "Plaintiff,
through its investigation, recently discovered an individual, Mr.
Marco Solomon Gagliardi, who Plaintiffs believe is partially or
fully responsible for the harms suffered and damages alleged in the
FAC."

On October 26, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file the
SAC and add Marco Gagliardi as a defendant. See Dkt. 61. Plaintiff
filed the SAC that same day.

Ambassador Group specializes in the captive insurance marketplace.

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Class Certification in Quackenbush Partly Revisited
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY QUACKENBUSH, GHERI SUELEN, ANNE PELLETTIERI,
MARISSA FEENEY, and CARYN PRASSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. Defendants, Case No. C
20-05599 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration of an order on class certification.

I. Background

The action concerns vehicle owners who purchased certain Honda
vehicles equipped with Variable Timing Control (VTC) actuator
14310-R44-A01 from authorized Honda dealers and now seek to recover
for an alleged design defect in the VTC actuator. The Plaintiffs
moved for class certification. Correcting the previous statement of
facts, Judge Alsup clarifies that both Defendants opposed. The
prior order certified classes. The judge made some errors, but not
as many as the counsel say.

II. Analysis

1. Anne Pellettieri

The prior order erred in treating named Plaintiff Pellettieri as a
California purchaser instead of an Illinois purchaser. Her VTC
actuator rattled but was never fixed or replaced.

Judge Alsup's order now corrects the error. Plaintiff Pellettieri
may represent an Illinois class of new and used purchasers, all of
whom bought class vehicles from authorized Honda dealers.

2. The Payment Issue

The Court's order further refused to allow a class member who paid
for a repair to represent class members who did not pay for
repairs. The Plaintiffs say this was clear error.

Not so, Judge Alsup opines. He says, the Plaintiffs have not
provided authority requiring the district court to allow a
representative who is not a member of the class to represent that
class. The Plaintiffs want Plaintiff Mary Quackenbush, who
purchased her vehicle from an authorized Honda dealer in California
and who paid for a replacement VTC actuator, to represent
California claimants who did not obtain or pay for a replacement or
repair. But Judge Alsup finds no error in the December 27
determination that a member of one class should not represent a
different class. Plaintiff Quackenbush is inadequate to represent
class members who did not obtain or pay for a VTC actuator repair.
She is not adequate to represent a new and used California class of
individuals who bought class vehicles from authorized Honda dealers
but who did not obtain or pay for a repair.

Hence, reconsideration on this point is denied. Judge Alsup
therefore does not reach the Defendants' argument regarding
excluding partial zero-emission vehicle purchasers from a
California new and used class.

3. Clarification About Replacement Parts

Judge Alsup now clarifies, at the Defendants' request, that any
class member who received a free replacement part has suffered no
injury and is not a class member. The Plaintiffs respond only to
note that such clarification is unnecessary. The need to determine
these class members' identities, however, will not preclude class
certification. Honda repair records will facilitate the sorting.

4. Illinois Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claims

The Plaintiffs contend that the Court's prior order erred in
refusing to certify Illinois implied warranty of merchantability
claims for class treatment because it failed to consider their
cited Illinois authority.

Judge Alsup disagrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown
"a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented." He rejects the
Plaintiffs' argument that defendants conceded this point by failing
to oppose their recitation of the Illinois standard for implied
warranty of merchantability or by failing to supply Illinois
authority stating a holding matching Hicks v. Kaufman & Broad Home
Corporation. Judge Alsup does not consider the Defendants to have
conceded. The Defendants continued to maintain, citing persuasive
authority, that the Illinois implied warranty claims require
showing substantial likelihood that the defect would manifest
within the cars' useful lives. Hence, reconsideration of this issue
is denied.

5. Honda's Knowledge of Safety-Related Defect

The Plaintiffs' theory of the safety hazard includes at least two
possibilities: That the VTC rattle stretched the cam chain and that
it damaged the cam chain tensioner teeth. Either problem could
cause the engine to skip time, the Plaintiffs contend. The
Defendants maintain that Test 2 represented "an artificial
laboratory condition," from which a jury cannot generalize. In
reality, they say, oil always flowed into the actuator and
tensioner after a few seconds, halting the rattle. They ask this
order to accept Test 1 as the real-life analogue and hold that the
rattle "alone" does not damage the tensioner.

Having considered both sides' briefing on this issue, Judge Alsup
finds their record contains common evidence going to Honda's
knowledge of a safety defect. Therefore, common evidence will
facilitate a determination about whether Honda had a duty to
disclose the alleged defect when it sold class vehicles. The
December 27 order did not manifestly err on these points.
Reconsideration is denied.

6. Class Definition

The Defendants further request that the Court excludes, for
clarity, any purchaser who paid for a repair and belongs to a
"repair" class, from any "new and used" class. This comports with
the prior order's intention to avoid dual class membership or
double recovery. This request is granted by Judge Alsup. For
clarity, he says, all class members must have purchased their class
vehicle from an authorized Honda dealer. He also grants the
Plaintiffs' request to exclude certain exempt individuals, such as
persons who suffered personal injuries flowing from these facts.

Incorporating the changes described and certain clarifications and
exclusions requested, the following classes are now certified:

      a. California Repair Class: All persons who purchased a new
or used Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from
an authorized Honda dealer in California, and who paid to have
their VTC Actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in
California. Mary Quackenbush will represent this Class.

      b. Illinois Repair Class: All persons who purchased a new or
used Class Vehicle equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an
authorized Honda dealer in Illinois, and who paid to have their VTC
Actuator repaired by an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois.
Marissa Feeney will represent this Class.

      c. Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class: Current owners of
both new and used Class Vehicles who purchased their Class Vehicles
equipped with VTC Actuator 14310-R44-A01 from an authorized Honda
dealer in Illinois and former owners of the same who resold (or
traded it in) to an authorized Honda dealer in Illinois. No member
of a repair class will be a member of this Class. This Class also
excludes any purchaser who has received an R5A replacement actuator
free of charge. Anne Pellettieri will represent this Class.

Excluded from the classes are: (1) the Defendants, any entity or
division in which they have a controlling interest, and its legal
representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2)
the judge to whom the case is assigned and the judge's staff; and
(3) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result
of the facts alleged.

III. Conclusion

Within 21 calendar days, the counsel will submit a proposed form of
notice and a proposed plan of distribution that includes
first-class mail. The Plaintiffs will assume the cost of notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/32t7dhum from Leagle.com.


ANDROS FOODS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andros Foods USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Andros
Foods USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02528-PKC-JRC (E.D.N.Y., May 3,
2022).

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

Andros Foods -- https://androsna.com/ -- is an international
producer with high-quality industrial capabilities of fruit
processing, frozen desserts and confectionery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATHLETICA HEALTH: Barnett Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHLETICA HEALTH & FITNESS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-22-005836 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April
22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The
electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the
electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the
complaint.

The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the consumer debt.

Athletica Health & Fitness LLC is a health club in Coral Springs,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Conaway Suit Over Violation of EFTA
----------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA B. CONAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01387-BHH (D.S.C., April 29, 2022) alleges
violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiff and Class Members'
benefits from fraud, has deprived them of their statutory right to
public benefits without providing them with notice or an
opportunity to be heard, and has otherwise failed to ensure that
they are able to receive and access the public benefits to which
they are lawfully entitled.

Pursuant to an exclusive contract between South Carolina Department
of Employment and Workforce ("DEW") and the Defendant, the
Plaintiff and Class Members received their periodic benefits
payments not from DEW directly, but through Bank-issued and
Bank-administered prepaid debit cards ("DEW Debit Cards" or
"Cards"), which are linked to individual Bank depository accounts
("DEW Debit Card Accounts" or "Accounts").

Although the Defendant was entrusted with administering these
critical DEW Benefits, on which millions of vulnerable Americans'
lives depend, and although the Defendant was legally required to
take necessary and reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff's and
Class Members' DEW Debit Cards and Accounts from fraudulent access
by third parties, the Defendant failed to do so and indeed treated
these Cards and Accounts with less care than it affords its regular
consumer debit and credit cardholders. Among other things, the
Defendant failed to secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
Card and Account information and issued them DEW Debit Cards
without the industry-standard, fraud-preventing EMV chip technology
that the Defendant has used on all its regular consumer customers'
debit and credit cards since 2014, says the suit.

Instead, for its government benefits customers, the Defendant chose
to issue debit cards with only outdated magnetic stripe technology,
which makes those cards far more susceptible to skimming, cloning,
and other schemes that have allowed third parties to fraudulently
use and access Plaintiff's and Class Members' DEW Debit Cards and
Accounts.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Moore, Esq.
          Will Lewis, Esq.
          RICHARDSON THOMAS HALTIWANGER
          MOORE & LEWIS, LLC
          1513 Hampton Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 281.8150
          Email: Chris@richardsonthomas.com
                 Will@richardsonthomas.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio South, Ste. 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          Email: Josh@swigartlawgroup.com



BATH & BODY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Glaser NYLL Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY GLASER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02530 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for its failure to pay timely wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual laborer at
a Bath & Body Works store located in Lake Grove, New York from
approximately April 2018 to August 2018.

Bath & Body Works, LLC is an American retail store chain which
sells soaps, lotions, fragrances, and candles, with a principal
place of business in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. [BN]

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

BEACH BOYS: Conrey Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CONREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEACH BOYS OF FT. LAUDERDALE, LLC, and
KRIKOR KEVORKIAN, individually, Defendant Case No.
0:22-cv-60843-XXXX (S.D., Fla., May 2, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants have violated the tip provisions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act by retaining 35% of tips earned by servers and
bartenders each shift they work.

Plaintiff Conrey was employed by the Defendants as bartender.

BEACH BOYS OF FT. LAUDERDALE, LLC owns and operates a restaurant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 David@usaemploymentlawyers.com
                 Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

CALERES INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Iskhakova Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARINA ISKHAKOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALERES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02468-RPK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2022) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

CALERES INC. manufactures and distributes footwear. The Company
offers shoes, sandals, and heel sandals for men, women, and
children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

CAPITAL ON DEMAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Graham Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CIARA GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ON DEMAND INC.; MARCUS TENNEY; and
REUNEKIEA WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01732-AT (N.D.,
Ga, May 2, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to
pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Graham was employed by the Defendant as loan associate.

CAPITAL ON DEMAND specializes in residential flip loans,
construction loans, long-term rental, and commercial development
loans services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
          THE MIXON LAW FIRM
          1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
          Atlanta, GA 30349
          Telephone: (770) 955-0100
          Email: steve@mixon-law.com

               - and -

          Jackie Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW FIRM, LLC
          1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 250
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 301-8973
          Email: jackie@leelawga.com

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Muccio Suit Over Unfair Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MUCCIO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-005887 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The
electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 p.m.and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The Defendant
did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with Plaintiff
between the said hours. As such, by and through the electronic
communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the complaint.

The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the consumer debt.

CAPITAL ONE FUNDING LLC is primarily in the business of
asset-backed securities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

CCH HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escobedo Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICK FREDERICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CCH HEALTHCARE OH, LLC; and CCH HEALTHCARE
LIMITED LIABILITY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00699 (N.D., Ohio,
April 29, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Frederick was employed by the Defendants as nursing
assistant.

CCH HEALTHCARE OH, LLC is in the skilled nursing care facilities
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: PTG Live Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as PTG Live Events LLC doing business as: Pabst
Riverside Theater Group, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Case No.
2022cv1619 was removed from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
May 3, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00530-WED to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

The Cincinnati Insurance Company -- https://www.cinfin.com/ -- is
an insurance provider located in Ohio that offers policies to
customers in 45 states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Jay A Urban, Esq.
          URBAN & TAYLOR SC
          4701 N Port Washington Rd-Ste 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53212-1040
          Phone: (414) 906-1700
          Fax: (414) 906-5333
          Email: jurban@wisconsininjury.com

               - and -

          Richard W Schulte, Esq.
          BEHNKE MARTIN & SCHULTE LLC
          812 E National Rd
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Phone: (937) 435-7500
          Fax: (937) 435-7511

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ericka C. Hammett, Esq.
          Mark W. Rattan, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
          250 E Wisconsin Ave-Ste 800
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Phone: (262) 789-8984
          Fax: (262) 784-8812
          Email: hammett@litchfieldcavo.com
                 rattan@litchfieldcavo.com


CINTAS CORP: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hawkins Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND HAWKINS and ROBIN LUNG, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
CINTAS CORPORATION; INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE; SCOTT D. FARMER,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CINTAS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. 21-3156 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's denial of Cintas' motion
to compel arbitration.

I. Introduction

In deciding whether a case belongs in arbitration, a court
typically asks whether the party bringing the claim has agreed to
arbitrate. But sometimes it is difficult to discern exactly who is
bringing what claim. In the present case, individual would-be
plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate certain claims, but the claim they
seek to adjudicate is brought through an unusual procedure on
behalf of an abstract entity.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Raymond Hawkins and Robin Lung alleged that
their former employer, Appellant Cintas, breached the fiduciary
duties it owed to the company's retirement plan. They brought a
putative class action pursuant to Section 502(a)(2) of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). But
the Plaintiffs had each signed employment agreements that contained
arbitration provisions. Cintas moved to compel arbitration, arguing
that the Plaintiffs were bringing individual claims covered by
those provisions.

II. Background

Appellant Cintas is a national uniform and business-supply company.
As with many companies, Cintas has established a retirement plan --
the Cintas Partners' Plan -- for its employees. The Plan is a
"defined contribution" plan, meaning that the Plan's sponsor
selects a "menu" of investment options in which each participant
can invest. Cintas is the Plan's sponsor. Each participant in the
Plan maintains an individual account, the value of which is based
on the amount contributed, market performance, and associated
fees.

Plaintiffs Hawkins and Lung, who were Cintas employees
participating in the Plan, contend that Cintas breached both
duties. First, they argue that Cintas offered participants the
ability to invest only in actively managed funds, rather than more
cost-effective passively managed funds. Second, they claim that
Cintas charged the Plan imprudently expensive recordkeeping fees.

Plaintiffs Hawkins and Lung sued Cintas, as well the Cintas
Investment Policy Committee (which is tasked with administering the
Plan) and the Cintas Board of Directors (which appoints members to
the committee). The suit was brought as a putative class action;
Plaintiffs seek to represent all participants in or beneficiaries
of the Plan during the class period.

But the Plaintiffs entered into multiple employment agreements with
Cintas during the course of their employment. While the various
agreements differ slightly, all contained materially similar
arbitration provisions and a provision preventing class actions.

Arguing that those agreements required Hawkins and Lung to
arbitrate these claims, Cintas moved to compel arbitration and stay
the federal proceedings. The district court denied both motions. It
concluded that the action was brought on behalf of the Plan, and it
was therefore irrelevant that Hawkins and Lung had consented to
arbitration through their employment agreements. Because the Plan
itself did not consent, the court reasoned, the matter was not
subject to arbitration. Cintas now timely appeals.

III. Analysis

Cintas contends that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all "rights
and claims" relating to their employment, including the ERISA
claims at issue. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and the
"right" to assert them "belong," it argues, to the Plaintiffs
alone, and therefore this case belongs in arbitration. The
Plaintiffs respond, and the district court agreed, that although
they are bringing a putative class action, the claims belong to the
Plan itself. It is irrelevant, according to the Plaintiffs, that
they may have agreed to arbitrate certain claims, since the Plan
has not likewise consented to arbitration.

The Sixth Circuit agrees that the Plaintiffs' employment agreements
do not force the case into arbitration. It opines that the
Plaintiffs are seeking Plan-wide relief through a statutory
mechanism that is designed for representative actions on behalf of
the Plan. The weight of authority suggests that these claims should
be thought of as Plan claims, not the Plaintiffs' claims. And
because the arbitration provisions only establish the Plaintiffs'
consent to arbitration, the employment agreements do not subject
these claims to arbitration.

Even assuming arguendo that the claims are the Plaintiffs' claims,
or that it is the Plaintiffs' right to bring the claim and that
"right" is covered by the arbitration provision, the Sixth Circuit
opines that compelling arbitration would still be improper absent
Plan consent. First, the "right" to bring the claim is not
necessarily exclusive. Section 502(a)(2) claims belong to the Plan
as well. Second, Cintas does not provide any authority suggesting
that the Plaintiffs can unilaterally bind an ERISA plan to
arbitration in the absence of an arbitration provision in the plan
documents or some other manifestation of the plan's consent.

In the absence of a sufficient manifestation of the Plan's consent
to arbitrate these claims, the Sixth Circuit holds that the Plan
has not consented to arbitration. There is, therefore, no basis for
the Plaintiffs' claims to be arbitrated.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons given, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district
court's conclusion that the Section 502(a)(2) claims are not
covered by the arbitration provisions in the Plaintiffs' respective
employment agreements and that the Plan's consent is required for
arbitration. It further affirms the district court's ruling that
the Plan has not in fact consented to arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mpvfeu53 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Robert N. Hochman, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois,
for the Appellants.

Mark K. Gyandoh -- markg@capozziadler.com -- CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.,
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Robert N. Hochman, Mark B. Blocker -- mblocker@sidley.com
-- Chris K. Meyer -- cmeyer@sidley.com -- Caroline A. Wong, M.
Caroline Wood, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for the
Appellants.

Mark K. Gyandoh -- markg@capozziadler.com -- Donald R. Reavey --
donr@capozziadler.com -- Gabrielle Kelerchian --
Gabriellek@capozziadler.com -- CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C., in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, for the Appellees.


CITIGROUP INC: Faces Barnett Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIGROUP INC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-005886 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., Broward Cty., April 22, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant allegedly sent electronic communication to Plaintiff
in connection with the collection of the consumer debt. The
electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff between the hours of
9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time zone of Plaintiff. The
Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to communicate with
Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by and through the
electronic communications, Defendant violated FCCPA, asserts the
complaint.

The consumer debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
consumer debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the consumer debt.

CITIGROUP INC. or Citi is a multinational investment bank and
financial services corporation headquartered in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

COSMOLEDO LLC: New York District Court Approves Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re COSMOLEDO, LLC, et al., Chapter 11, Debtors,
Case No. 20-12117 (MEW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Michael E. Wiles of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued
a decision granting the motion to approve a class action settlement
and, in connection with that settlement, approving various fees.

I. Background

Judge Wiles' decision is a revised version of rulings that the
Court announced in open court on April 14, 2021. It has been
modified to correct inadvertent errors, to add or correct
citations, and to clarify the Court's rulings. This written bench
decision constitutes the official decision of the Court.

Judge Wiles has before him a motion to approve a class action
settlement and, in connection with that settlement, to approve
various fees. The class action was brought on behalf of former
employees of the debtors in these cases. The parties have proposed
that an allowed general unsecured claim of $1.8 million be approved
in favor of the class. The likely distributions on the allowed
claim would be between 20% and 25%, or between $360,000 and
$450,000.

The original proposals that were made in connection with the
settlement were that the following fees and costs would be paid
from the actual recoveries before the remainder would be
distributed to the class members:

     a. One-third of the recoveries would be paid to the class
action attorneys, the Lee Litigation Group;

     b. 15% of the first $500,000 of any recoveries, plus 7.5% of
any excess recoveries over $500,000, would be paid to Dundon
Advisers, LLC, a financial advisory firm;

     c. $75,000 would be paid to Advanced Litigation Strategies,
LLC to administer the class action settlement; and

     d. $20,000 would be paid to the class representative, Mr.
Lieble, as something that has variously been referred to in the
papers or in the cited court decisions as either an incentive fee,
a service award or an enhancement award.

As originally proposed, these various fees would have left
somewhere between $91,000 and $137,500 for distribution to the
class members. The parties later amended the proposal to provide
for an additional $25,000 administrative expense claim in favor of
the class action settlement administrator. That amendment did not
affect the class members' recoveries as the payout on the
additional administrative claim came, instead, out of the estate.

At a hearing on March 9, 2022, Judge Wiles noted that no class
member had objected to the settlement or to the proposed fee
awards. He also stated that the overall settlement amount appeared
reasonable from the perspective of the debtors' estates and from
the perspective of the class. However, Judge Wiles noted that Rule
23 requires me to make findings as to the reasonableness of
proposed fees. He suggested that the proposed payments to the class
action administrator were fine but that no supporting data had been
offered in support of the other proposed fee awards. H expressed
particular concern as to the proposed service fee for the class
representative and the legal authority for such an award. The
hearing on the motion then was adjourned to permit additional
supporting information to be filed.

The additional submissions have been filed, and Judge Wiles has
reviewed them carefully. He has also considered the arguments of
counsel and is prepared to rule on each aspect of the pending
motions.

II. Settlement Approval

The motion before Judge Wiles requires, first, that he approves the
settlement from the perspective of the estate. He has already
indicated at the prior hearing that, from the perspective of the
estate, this is a fair and reasonable resolution of this matter and
complies with all of the relevant criteria for approval of a
settlement under Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure and the various case law applying that rule. He has
considered the criteria listed in Rule 23(e), and from the
perspective of the class, the settlement is a reasonable
compromise. The only issues that he has are as to what fees are
appropriate to award for payment from the class recovery.

III. Attorneys' Fees

The attorneys for the class have provided a supplemental
declaration and time records estimating that counsel spent more
than 480 attorney and paralegal hours in pursuit of the case and
calculating that, at normal hourly rates, the attorneys' fees would
have amounted to $270,752.50. The counsel has confirmed, however,
that some of the estimates are not based on actual contemporaneous
time records.

Judge Wiles is not inclined to accept the estimate of the time
spent by the relevant associate, which on the record appears to be
little more than a rough guess. He notes, however, that the actual
hourly attorneys' fees -- even if he were to exclude all of the
time of the associate who kept no contemporaneous records -- would
still be in excess of $190,000. He says, those charges would still
be more than the amount that would actually be paid to the counsel
under the terms of the proposed settlement. More particularly,
under the proposed fee arrangement the attorneys would likely
receive somewhere between $120,000 and $150,000, depending on the
payouts on general unsecured claims.

Under these circumstances, Judge Wiles will approve the attorneys'
fees as they have been requested. The time spent (excluding the
time of the associate who kept no records) was reasonable, the
hourly rates were reasonable, and the actual fees that will be paid
are less than what the hourly rates would have been.

IV. Fees of Dundon Advisers

Dundon Advisers has indicated that it was retained after the filing
of the bankruptcy case, which apparently was after a tentative
class action settlement had been reached but before a settlement
could be presented to the District Court for approval. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, Dundon would receive a payment of
between $54,000 and $67,500 for its services. Dundon Advisers did
not keep contemporaneous time records. It estimates that its
personnel spent 90 hours working on this matter and that, at normal
hourly rates, the charges would have amounted to $62,800. Dundon
says that it normally would have contracted for a premium of 50
percent, which would have raised the fee to $94,200.

Judge Wiles is not at all convinced that this is appropriate. He
received no application for the retention of Dundon Advisers as
financial advisors to the Creditors' Committee. In addition, there
is an insufficient showing that Dundon's work in connection with
the Creditors' Committee's general activities was necessary or
beneficial, either to creditors general or to the class. He I will
not approve a proposed percentage fee award under these
circumstances. Judge Wiles does not think it is reasonable given
the nature of what Dundon was hired to do and what it actually did.
He will give Dundon Advisers some benefit of the doubt, however,
and he will approve a total fee to Dundon Advisers in the flat
amount of $20,000.

V. The Proposed "Incentive Fee"

As to the proposed service award or incentive fee award for Mr.
Lieble: the parties have proposed to reduce it to $10,000, or
alternatively, to replace the $20,000 payment with a $20,000
allowed claim. If an incentive award were to be granted in the form
of an allowed claim in the amount of $20,000, the payout would be
between $4,000 and $5,000. Obviously, if Mr. Lieble were simply
awarded a $10,000 fee off the top, then he would receive a $10,000
payment.

Judge Wiles remains unconvinced of the propriety of the proposed
incentive fee or service award. It is clear that many courts have
approved them. However, it also appears that most of the courts who
have approved such awards have done so without objection and
without making any apparent ruling at all as to the authority to
approve such payments. More importantly, he is very concerned about
the huge disparity in recoveries that would occur if a service
award were to be approved in the case.

Judge Wiles asked the class counsel to submit a statement as to
what the class representative's litigation recovery would be in the
absence of the proposed service award. The statement submitted by
the counsel indicates that under the settlement as it has been
proposed the class representative, Mr. Lieble, would receive a
distribution of approximately $17.72. Other class members who are
in positions equivalent to that of Mr. Lieble would receive similar
small recoveries. Mr. Lieble's proposed service award, under any of
its versions, would provide him with a recovery that is more than
2,000 times greater than the recoveries of other class members.

Judge Wiles does not believe that any special circumstances justify
a service award in the case, and they particularly do not justify
an award that would provide such a drastically disproportionate
recovery by Mr. Lieble. He therefore will not approve any proposed
incentive fee or service award for Mr. Lieble.

VI. Disposition

A separate order will be entered to reflect these rulings.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Bench Decision is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4a9544mk from Leagle.com.

THOMPSON COBURN HAHN & HESSEN LLP, By: Mark Indelicato, Esq.,
Aleksandra Abramova, Esq., New York, New York, Attorneys for
William H. Henrich, the Liquidation Trustee.

LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC, By: Anne Seelig, Esq., New York, New
York, Attorneys for S.D. Ryan Lieble and the Class Plaintiffs.

DUNDON ADVISERS, LLC, By: Matthew Dundon -- md@dundon.com -- White
Plains, New York, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, By: Samantha Chu, Esq., New
York, New York, Attorneys for the City of New York.

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, By: Brian S. Masumoto, Esq.,
New York, New York, Attorneys for the United States Trustee.


CROWN CASTLE: Byler Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS FOSTER BYLER, III, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. CROWN CASTLE USA INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2204108, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00765 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices.

Crown Castle USA Inc. is a real estate investment trust and
provider of shared communications infrastructure, headquartered in
Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Hardy Ray Murphy, Esq.
         David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: hardy.murphy@ogletree.com
                 david.szwarcsztejn@ogletree.com

CUTTER & COMPANY: Whitlow Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BUDDY WHITLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. CUTTER & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00131-RWS-RSP
(E.D. Tex., May 2, 2022) alleges violations of statutory employment
right to receive overtime pay from the Defendant as a result of
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all those similarly
situated workers overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff seeks to represent all other similarly situated past
and present employees, who have not been paid overtime and to have
this action certified as a collective action. For himself and all
those similarly situated, the named employee seeks his unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief,
attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert
witness fees and expenses, the Plaintiff says.

The Plaintiff also seeks relief individually for damages and
equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

Founded in 1988, Cutter & Company is an independent broker-dealer,
insurance agency, and investment advisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 596-7100

DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Sessions Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT SESSIONS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT, INC. and
WILLIAM GARDNER, Case No. 5:21-cv-00888, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 2, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-01390 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated inspectors overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Directional Project Support, Inc. is a construction company
headquartered in Magnolia, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
         THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
         2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
         Houston, TX 77018
         Telephone: (713) 868-3388
         Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
         E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

DOCTOR ON DEMAND: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctor On Demand,
Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Doctor On Demand, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03566 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

Doctor On Demand -- https://doctorondemand.com/ -- is a video
telemedicine company, offering on-demand and scheduled visits with
US-licensed healthcare provider.[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


DOWN ETC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Down Etc, LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Down
Etc, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03563 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

Down Etc -- https://www.downetc.com/ -- is the foremost purveyor of
luxury hotel pillows and bedding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DRESS OUTLET: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Dress Outlet,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Dress Outlet, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03565 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

The Dress Outlet -- https://www.thedressoutlet.com/ -- is the
Ultimate Destination for prom, mother of the bride dresses & formal
plus size gowns.[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


DRSAYS LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DrSays LLC. The case
is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DrSays LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03568
(S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

DrSays, LLC -- https://www.drsays.com/ -- is a drug stores &
pharmacies company based in Houston, Texas.[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


DUST BUNNY: Campbell Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. DUST BUNNY JANITORIAL SERVICES, LLC, and
CAROL McDANIEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-02270-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 2,
2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees lawful overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week
throughout his tenure with the Defendant. Other janitors regularly
or occasionally worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout
their tenure with the Defendant.

The Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiff and other salaried
janitors 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over
40 each week. The Plaintiff and other janitors never agreed that
their salary would be sufficient to cover all hours worked.

In performing their services for Defendants, the Plaintiff and
other janitors were not required to utilize any professional
education relevant to their job duties. The Plaintiff and other
janitors were classic blue-collar workers, spending physical,
demanding, long shifts cleaning Defendant's customers'
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

E.I. DUPONT: Weatherford Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMIE WEATHERFORD and KIMBERLY WEATHERFORD, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, FC, LLC; 3M LLC;
and 3M COMPANY, Case No. 2022CP1600264, was removed from the Court
of Common Pleas, Fourth Judicial Circuit, of Darlington County,
South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina on May 3, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-01427-RBH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, strict
liability for ultrahazardous activity, trespass, nuisance, and
medical monitoring by using toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in textile treatment and finishing at the Galey &
Lord plant in Darlington County and releasing the chemicals into
the environment, contaminating the Plaintiffs' property.

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

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

3M LLC is a multinational conglomerate corporation, headquartered
in Minnesota.

3M Company is a multinational conglomerate corporation and
designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of
firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at
3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
         Patrick Wooten, Esq.
         DUFFY & YOUNG LLC
         96 Broad Street
         Charleston, SC 29401
         Telephone: (843) 720-2044
         E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
                 pwooten@duffyandyoung.com

ELANCO US: Creason Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLAYTON W. CREASON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ELANCO US INC., Case No.
83C01-2202-PL-00001, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
State of Indiana, Vermillion County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on May 2, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00853-RLY-MPB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff purportedly accrued and unused vacation wages at the time
of his separation in violation of Indiana's Wage Payment Statute
and its permission of employees to purchase additional vacation
time in violation of Indiana's Wage Assignment Statute.

Elanco US Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company based in
Greensboro, North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andrew B. Murphy
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
         2200 Wells Fargo Center
         90 S. Seventh Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 766-7000
         Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
         E-mail: andrew.murphy@faegredrinker.com

                  - and –

         James R. Strickland, Esq.
         FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
         300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2500
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 237-0300
         Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
         E-mail: james.strickland@faegredrinker.com

FULLY RINSED: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fully Rinsed
Productions LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Fully Rinsed Productions LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02527 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 3, 2022).

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

Fully Rinsed Productions is a domestic limited liability company
located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G A V REST: Avila Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Waiters
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G A V REST. CORP., d/b/a GOOD EATS DINER,
JOHN KOLOMBOS, GEORGE KOLOMBOS, and MARIA KOLOMBOS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02518 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay accurate wages due to an
invalid tip credit and failure to pay overtime wages due to
time-shaving in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a waiter/busboy from
July 2021 until April 11, 2022.

G A V Rest. Corp. is an owner and operator of a restaurant called
Good Eats Diner, located at 69-32 Grand Ave, Queens, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1180
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

HUNTSMAN ADVANCED: Marcum Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LOLA MARCUM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HUNTSMAN ADVANCED MATERIALS AMERICAS LLC,
HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV03845, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02974 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal and rest period premiums,
failure to overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, emotion distress, attorneys' fees, and punitive
damages.

Huntsman Advanced Materials Americas LLC is a global material
solutions provider, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Huntsman International LLC is a chemical manufacturing company,
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Christian Keeney, Esq.
         Alis M. Moon, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695
         Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: christian.keeney@ogletree.com
                 alis.moon@ogletree.com

HZ PROPS: Faces Access 4 All Suit Over Denied ADA Accommodations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACCESS 4 ALL INCORPORATED and JOHN MEGGS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HZ PROPS RE,
LTD. and HZ OPS HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A POPEYE'S LOUISIANA KITCHEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01093-SKC (D. Colo., May 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiffs by denying them access to, and full and
equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages and/or accommodations of their commercial property. The
Plaintiffs encountered several barriers during their visit to the
Defendants' commercial property including at parking area, entrance
access and path of travel, and restrooms. In order to remedy this
discriminatory situation, the Plaintiffs require an inspection of
the Defendants' places of public accommodation to determine all of
the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The Plaintiffs further request a remediation plan and the
opportunity to participate in the crafting of the remediation plan,
says the suit.

Access 4 All Incorporated is a non-profit corporation based in
Torrence, California.

HZ Props RE, Ltd. is an owner and operator of a commercial
fast-food restaurant, with its principal place of business in Sugar
Land, Texas.

HZ Ops Holdings, Inc., doing business as Popeye's Louisiana
Kitchen, is an owner and operator of a commercial fast-food
restaurant, with its principal place of business in Sugar Land,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
         Beverly Virues, Esq.
         GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
         1600 Broadway, Suite 1600
         Denver, CO 80202
         Telephone: (720) 996-3500
         Facsimile: (720) 381-0515
         E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
                 bvirues@lawgmp.com

IMAMURA INC: Beltran Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
HABACUC APOLINAR BELTRAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMAMURA, INC. (D/B/A YAKITORI
SUN-CHAN) and TOKISHIGE IMAMURA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03636
(S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to furnish
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and waiter
at Yakitori Sun-Chan restaurant from approximately 2009 until
February 18, 2022.

Imamura, Inc. is an owner and operator of a Japanese restaurant
under the name Yakitori Sun-Chan, located at 2707 Broadway, New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Aygul Charles, Esq.
         Toneille Raglan, Esq.
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, PC.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

IN DEMAND SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griggs Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CASSIDY GRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IN DEMAND SERVICES, LLC d/b/a IN DEMAND SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 5:22-cv-00175 -BO (E.D.N.C., May 2, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Griggs was employed by the Defendants as staff.

IN DEMAND SERVICES, LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of
business includes providing various business services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Kimberly De Archangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                 kimd@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Adam A. Smith, Esq.
          RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
          PO Box 11050
          Goldsboro, NC 27532
          Telephone: (919) 77809700
          Facsimile: (919) 432-1751
          Email: AAS@justicecounts.com

INTELLIPURE INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intellipure, Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Intellipure, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03569 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

Intellipure -- https://www.intellipure.com/ -- offers air purifiers
that eradicate harmful particles with unmatched total system
efficiency from homes to hospitals.[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


ISDIN CORP: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ISDIN Corp. The case
is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons v. ISDIN Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-03564-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

ISDIN -- https://www.isdin.com/en-US/ -- is a leading company in
European dermocosmetics who produces, and distributes skin care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JAGUAR HEATING: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Heating & Air,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Moreno, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Kadence
Healthcare, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00319213-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 3, 2022).

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

Jaguar Heating & Air -- https://www.jaguarheatingandair.com/ -- is
family owned and operated same-day service residential heating and
air conditioning repair, installation and maintenance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 818-265-1020
          Fax: 818-265-1021


JILL-EST INC: Smith Alleges Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers
---------------------------------------------------------------
CASSI SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JILL-EST INC. D/B/A BLUE GOOSE CANTINA,
BGHVXX INC. D/B/A BLUE GOOSE CANTINA, BGFXX INC. D/B/A BLUE GOOSE
CANTINA, BGMXX INC. D/B/A BLUE GOOSE CANTINA, BGGVXX INC. D/B/A
BLUE GOOSE CANTINA, BGFWXX LLC, D/B/A BLUE GOOSE CANTINA, and BGCX
INC. D/B/A BLUE GOOSE CANTINA, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00980-K
(N.D. Tex., May 2, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for their failure to pay for hours worked at the minimum wage rate
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendants' McKinney,
Texas Blue Goose Cantina restaurant from September 2021 until March
of 2022.

Jill-Est Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator
of a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Dallas, Texas.

BGHVXX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator
of a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Highland Village,
Texas.

BGFXX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator of
a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Frisco, Texas.

BGMXX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator of
a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in McKinney, Texas.

BGGVXX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator
of a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Grapevine, Texas.

BGFWXX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator
of a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Fort Worth, Texas.

BGCX Inc., doing business as Blue Goose Cantina, is an operator of
a Tex-Mex Restaurant, which does business in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
         Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
         SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 621-2277
         Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
         E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                 marbuckle@eeoc.net

JRN INC: Spencer Files ADA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JRN, Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Brian Spencer, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JRN, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:22-cv-00024-GFVT
(E.D. Ky., May 3, 2022).

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

JRN Inc. is a restaurants company based in Leesburg, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Peterson, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Phone: (859) 469-5000
          Fax: (859) 469-5001
          Email: jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com


JUUL LABS: Bellingham Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BELLINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02676 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis.

Bellingham Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1306 Dupont Street in Bellingham, Washington.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Big Rapids Public Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BIG RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02686-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Big Rapids Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 21034 15 Mile Road in Big Rapids, Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Cal. App. Affirms Order Staying Grove Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL GROVE, Plaintiff and Appellant v. JUUL LABS,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. A162276 (Cal. App.), the
Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division
Three, affirmed the order staying Grove's shareholder lawsuit
against Juul pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

I. Background

Juul is a Delaware corporation that, during the period relevant to
the case, was headquartered in San Francisco. Grove is a former
employee of Juul who during his employment received options to
acquire shares in the company. In accepting these options, Grove
acknowledged they were being granted under a standard-form stock
option agreement and could only be exercised under another
standard-form agreement (the Exercise Agreement). Grove stopped
working for Juul in late 2017, and the following year he exercised
options to acquire 5,000 shares of Juul stock.

On Dec. 27, 2019, Grove sent Juul a demand to inspect the company's
books and records pursuant to California Corporations Code section
1601. In his demand letter, Grove stated that the purpose of his
inspection was to determine the value of his stock and to
investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty by officers and
directors. Grove requested a response within five business days and
advised that if Juul refused to comply with his demand, he might
seek an order from the San Francisco Superior Court.

The company got to the courthouse first. On Jan. 6, 2020, Juul
filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief in Delaware
(the Delaware action). Juul sought a judgment establishing that:
Grove's inspection rights are governed by Delaware law; Grove
waived by contract his rights to inspect company books and records;
Juul is not obligated to make its books and records available to
Grove; and Grove is prohibited from asserting an inspection right
under California law.

The following day, on Jan. 7, 2020, Grove filed the case, a
shareholder class action and derivative complaint for damages and
injunctive relief (the California action). Grove's original
complaint named officers and majority shareholders as defendants
and Juul as a defendant and nominal defendant. Grove purported to
allege seven distinct causes of action based on allegations that
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to minority
shareholders by failing to hold annual meetings, failing to
disseminate annual reports, self-dealing, and acting in bad faith.

One of Grove's claims was framed as a direct, individual cause of
action against Juul for violating his inspection rights under
section 1601. Grove alleged that, as a shareholder of record, he
made a lawful request to inspect Juul's books and records for the
purpose of determining the value of his stock and investigating
breaches of fiduciary duty, and that he is entitled to an order of
mandamus requiring Juul "to comply with its obligations" under
section 1601.

Several weeks later, Grove requested leave to amend his original
complaint in the California action, explaining that Juul had
notified him of its view that a forum selection clause required the
derivative and class claims to proceed in Delaware. Grove "desired
to avoid motion practice over" a forum selection clause, and so, on
March 4, 2020, filed a first amended complaint naming Juul as the
sole defendant and alleging just a single cause of action for
violating section 1601. Grove's complaint repeated allegations that
he made a proper demand to inspect company books and records,
adding that Juul "wrongfully" rejected the demand and refused to
produce any documents. Grove prayed for an order of mandamus
requiring Juul to comply with his inspection demand and an award of
costs and attorney fees.

In June 2020, Juul filed a motion to stay the California action
under section 410.30. On July 1, 2020, the trial court held a
hearing on and granted Juul's motion. Grove did not appeal the July
2020 stay order.

On Aug. 13, 2020, the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted Juul
judgment on the pleadings in its declaratory relief action. The
27-page opinion, which was subsequently admitted into evidence in
the California action, is part of the record on appeal. The
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking declarations
on these issues is granted. Grove's cross motion for judgment on
the pleadings is denied." Grove did not appeal the judgment in the
Delaware action.

After receiving the adverse judgment in Delaware, Grove filed in
September 2020 a motion to lift the stay of his California action.
Over Juul's objection, the trial court granted the motion, finding
the California action had been stayed "to allow the parties'
Delaware litigation to proceed," and the Delaware action was "now
over."

On Nov. 13, 2020, Juul filed a demurrer to Grove's then-operative
first amended complaint on the ground that Grove's sole cause of
action had been fully adjudicated in the Delaware action. It
requested that the court sustains its demurrer without leave to
amend and dismisses Grove's action with prejudice on the ground
that Grove's section 1601 claim is barred by principles of
collateral estoppel and full faith and credit.

In December 2020, Juul's demurrer was removed from the court
calendar after Grove obtained an ex parte order granting him leave
to file a second amended complaint. Grove's second amended
complaint is substantially similar to his original complaint
against Juul and the individual defendants, alleging class and
derivative causes of action as well as the direct, individual claim
against Juul for violating his inspection rights under section
1601.

In January 2021, Juul once again filed a motion to dismiss or stay
the California action on the ground of forum non conveniens. On
Feb. 17, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Juul's motion to
dismiss or stay the action and on another pending motion that Grove
had filed the previous November, seeking to void the forum
selection clause in the Exercise Agreement pursuant to Labor Code
section 925 (section 925).

On Feb. 19, 2021, the trial court granted Juul's motion for a stay
and denied Grove's motion to void the Exercise Agreement's forum
selection clause (the February 2021 order). Because Grove is a
California resident, the trial court ordered that the California
action be stayed rather than dismissed while Grove decided whether
to pursue relief in Delaware.

The court denied as moot Grove's motion under Labor Code section
925 to void the forum selection and choice-of-law provisions in the
Exercise Agreement.

II. Discussion

A. Issues on Appeal

Grove contends the trial court erred by staying the California
action under section 410.30. The Court of Appeals reviews the
challenged rulings for abuse of discretion.

In the present case, the trial court gave different reasons for
staying Grove's class and derivative claims, on the one hand, and
the section 1601 claim, on the other. The class and derivative
claims were stayed pursuant to the charter's forum clause. The
section 1601 claim was stayed pursuant to principles of collateral
estoppel and full faith and credit.

B. The Class and Derivative Claims

Grove does not dispute the trial court's finding that his class and
derivative claims "fall squarely" within the forum clause in the
corporate charter. Instead, Grove offers two reasons why enforcing
that clause is unreasonable, contending: (1) Juul waived its right
to enforce the charter's forum clause; and (2) requiring Grove to
litigate his claims in Delaware violates public policy.

The Court of Appeals holds that Juul did not actively litigate
Grove's claims in California. Instead, Juul got the California
action stayed while both parties litigated in Delaware, and, after
the stay in California was lifted, Juul's participation in the
California action was limited to seeking a dismissal or stay. Under
these relevant facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by rejecting Grove's waiver theory.

It further holds that it is enough to observe that the forum
selection clause in those agreements was not the basis for Juul's
second stay motion, nor for the trial court's decision in the
February 2021 order that the case should proceed in Delaware. Grove
may not moot the forum selection clause in the corporate charter by
attempting to void a different forum selection clause. Because the
class and derivative claims fall within the forum selection clause
in the corporate charter and that provision has not been rendered
void, Grove establishes no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
decision to stay those claims.

C. The Section 1601 Claim

Grove contends that even if the forum clause in the corporate
charter supports a stay of his class and derivative claims, the
trial court committed reversible error by staying his direct claim
against Juul for refusing his inspection demand pursuant to
California Corporations Code section 1601.

The Court of Appeals is not persuaded by Grove's arguments on this
point, all of which attempt an end run around the judgment in the
Delaware action. First, it finds that the trial court stayed the
section 1601 claim because the parties have already litigated
Grove's inspection rights in Delaware, and the trial court found
that principles of collateral estoppel and full faith and credit
preclude Grove from relitigating a dispute in California that was
already adjudicated in the Delaware action. Second, Grove litigated
his inspection rights in Delaware, received an unfavorable ruling,
and elected not to appeal. The present appeal is not from the
Delaware judgment, but from a stay order that gives full faith and
credit and collateral estoppel effect to the Delaware judgment.
Finally, Grove fails to articulate how denying him a second bite at
the apple would be detrimental to the public interest.

III. Disposition

The February 2021 order is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to
the Respondent.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mw2jdp72 from Leagle.com.

Bottini & Bottini Inc, Francis A. Bottini, Jr. --
mail@bottinilaw.com -- Albert Y. Chang, and Yury A. Kolesnikov for
the Plaintiff and Appellant.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Bruce A. Ericson --
bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com -- Colin T. Kemp --
colin.kemp@pillsburylaw.com -- and Lee Brand --
lee.brand@pillsburylaw.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent.

Reed Smith LLP, Raymond A. Cardozo -- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- and
Elizabeth S. Bowman -- ebowman@reedsmith.com -- for Professor
Joseph Grundfest as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and
Respondent.


JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Deer Creek Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEER CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02679 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Deer Creek Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 20701 North MacArthur in Edmund, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, El Segundo Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02677-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

El Segundo Unified School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 641 Sheldon Street in El Segundo,
California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: East Grand Rapids Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
EAST GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02675 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

East Grand Rapids Public Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 2915 Hall Street Southeast in Grand Rapids,
Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Asotin-Anatone Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ASOTIN-ANATONE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02678-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Asotin-Anatone School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 314 1st Street in Asotin, Washington.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Brady Public Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02680 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Brady Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 112 East Popleton Avenue in Brady, Nebraska.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Hemet Unified Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02688-WHO (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Hemet Unified School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1791 West Acacia Avenue in Hemet, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Tulsa Public Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TULSA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02684 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Tulsa Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 2819 South New Haven Avenue in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Dener Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Wipes
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD DENER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION OF WI AKA
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION and BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-22-006416 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., May 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for selling contaminated flushable wipes.

The case arises from the Defendants' distribution of contaminated
Kimberly Clark's Cottonelle Flushable Wipes and Cottonelle
GentlePlus Flushable Wipes products. The Defendants failed to
detect the bacterial contamination on the products, warn the
public, or otherwise take any steps whatsoever to remediate the
serious health risks to which it had exposed the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation of WI, also known as Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, is an American multinational personal care
corporation, with its principal place of business located in Irving
Texas.

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. is an American membership-only warehouse
club chain, with its principal place of business in Westborough,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kenneth D. Cooper, Esq.
         400 S.E. 8th Street
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 522-7177
         E-mail: kcooper543@aol.com

KINGS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Horta Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR HORTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KINGS LOGISTICS, L.L.C.; GRAND MARKET
INTERNATIONAL CORP.; and SAIDABROR KHODJAEV, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02508 (E.D.N.Y., May 2, 2022) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Plaintiff Horta was employed by the Defendant as driver.

KING LOGISTICS, LLC provides trucking services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
          Nicolas Bittner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, N.Y. 10004
          Telephone: (646)-430-7930
          Facsimile: (646)-349-2504


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Braud Suit Moved From E.D. La. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PENNY BRAUD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01059, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 4,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00661-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranties, breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of the Louisiana
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law by manufacturing and
selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel
Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices containing
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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

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

Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
distributes medical systems and lighting appliances, headquartered
in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Lindsey A. Cheek, Esq.
         THE CHEEK LAW FIRM, LLC
         650 Poydras, Suite 2310
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Telephone: (504) 304-4333
         Facsimile: (504) 324-0629
         E-mail: lcheek@thecheeklawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Calle M. Mendenhall, Esq.
         FARRIS RILEY & PITT, LLP
         505 20th Street North, Suite 1700
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 324-1212
         Facsimile: (205) 324-1255
         E-mail: cmendenhall@frplegal.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Travera Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROGER TRAVERA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, ADAPTHEALTH CORP., and
CMMC, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05674, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 3,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00652-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged design defect strict
liability, negligent design, personal injury, and breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose by manufacturing and
selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel
Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices containing
polyester-based polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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

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

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

AdaptHealth Corp. is a full-service home medical equipment company
headquartered in Pennsylvania.

CMMC, Inc. is a pharmacy in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
         Telephone: (215) 963-5000
         Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
         E-mail: john.lavelle@morganlewis.com

                 - and –

         Michael H. Steinberg, Esq.
         SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
         1888 Century Park East
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 712-6670
         Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
         E-mail: steinbergm@sullcrom.com

                 - and –

         William B. Monahan, Esq.
         SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
         125 Broad Street
         New York, NY 10004-2498
         Telephone: (212) 558-7375
         Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
         E-mail: monahanw@sullcrom.com

LATHEM TIME: Bray Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bret Bray, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lathem Time Co., Case No. 20102248 was
removed from the Superior Court of Cobb County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 3,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01748-JPB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Lathem -- https://www.lathem.com/ -- provides the best in time
clock solutions for small businesses and designs and sells
biometric-based timekeeping systems to employers to track time
worked by hourly employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Lewis Goodmark, Esq.
          GOODMARK LAW FIRM
          1425A Dutch Valley Place
          Atlanta, GA 30324
          Phone: (404) 719-4848
          Email: cgoodmark@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gerald R. Weber, Esq.
          PO BOX 5391
          Atlanta, GA 31107
          Phone: (404) 522-0507
          Email: gweber@schr.org

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHANZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Graham Dean, Esq.
          MCDONALD HOPKINS, LLC-OH
          600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 2100
          Cleveland, OH 44144
          Phone: (216) 430-2045
          Email: cdean@mcdonaldhopkins.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Peter Panayotopoulos, Esq.
          WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC-ATL
          3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 876-2700
          Fax: (404) 875-9433
          Email: npanayo@wwhgd.com


LATINOS UNIDOS: Barron Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTEFANIA BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LATINOS UNIDOS AUTO SALES, LLC and
ARASH "ANDREW" DARVISH-KOJORI, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01400
(S.D. Tex., May 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a salaried employee from
January 4, 2019 until April 8, 2022.

Latinos Unidos Auto Sales, LLC is a used car dealer in Houston,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
         THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
         P.O. Box 10099
         Houston, TX 77206
         Telephone: (713) 868-3388
         Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
         E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

LOU MADDALONI JEWELERS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lou Maddaloni
Jewelers, Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lou Maddaloni
Jewelers, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03580 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

Lou Maddaloni Jewelers -- https://maddalonijewelers.com/ --
specialized in diamond and bridal jewelry, both men's and women's
designer watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCKESSON CORP: Treble Damages Awarded in True Health TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
McKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California awards True Health
damages of $500 and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc.,
damages of $6,000.

I. Background

Plaintiffs True Health and McLaughlin brought a putative class
action against Defendants McKesson Corp. and McKesson Technologies,
Inc. ("MTI"), alleging that the Defendants sent unsolicited faxes
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47
U.S.C. Section 227.

While the Court initially granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, an intervening FCC decision changed the requirements
for TCPA liability. As a result, the Court entered summary judgment
against those who had received the faxes via an online fax service,
and the stand-alone fax machine class was ultimately decertified.
This left only the Plaintiffs' individual claims for the
Defendants' alleged violations of the TCPA and for treble damages.

The Court approved the parties' request that these remaining claims
be decided by the Court through a streamlined bench trial, with no
live testimony. The parties submitted deposition testimony, witness
declarations, briefs, and an omnibus stipulation.

Defendant McKesson Corp. is a publicly-traded corporation with
hundreds of subsidiaries or affiliated companies, all of which are
separate legal entities. Its business ranges from the sale of
pharmaceuticals to behavioral coaching and information technology.
Defendant MTI was a wholly-owned subsidiary of McKesson Corporation
during the relevant time period.

In 2009 and 2010, Plaintiff McLaughlin provided chiropractic and
other medical services from its location in Knoxville, Tennessee.
In 2009, Plaintiff True Health provided chiropractic services from
its location in Ohio.

On May 9, 2008, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
served "McKesson Corporation f/k/a Relay Health Corporation" by
certified letter with an "official CITATION" stating that "your
company, acting under your direction, apparently sent one or more
unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the TCPA." The 2008 FCC Citation attached a copy of
the TCPA and the FCC's implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200, and advised McKesson Corp. that "in the event of a
complaint or dispute, the burden rests with the fax sender" to
demonstrate compliance with the law.

From September 2009 through May 2010, Plaintiff McLaughlin received
12 faxes on a stand-alone fax machine advertising software products
called "Medisoft" and "Lytec." On April 20, 2010, Plaintiff True
Health received a fax on a stand-alone fax machine from "McKesson"
advertising a $1,500 rebate on the purchase of "Medisoft"
software.

Of the 13 Faxes received by the Plaintiffs, four purported to be
from an identified person, Kari Holloway. Ms. Holloway's electronic
signature and, immediately below that signature, identified her as
follows: Kari Holloway Vice President-Direct Sales, Medisoft
Physician Practice Solutions McKesson Corporation
kari.holloway@mckesson.com. None of the Faxes made any reference to
MTI or purported to be from a representative of MTI.

Judge Gilliam finds that Lytec and Medisoft were products of
McKesson Corp. and that the Faxes were sent on behalf of McKesson
Corp.

II. Conclusions of Law

The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs, finding that the Defendants did not have prior express
consent for the Faxes. It concludes that the Faxes were
unsolicited.

The Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the Faxes are
"advertisements" within the meaning of the TCPA. An "advertisement"
is defined as "any material advertising the commercial availability
or quality of any property, goods, or services."

Judge Gilliam concludes that the fax sent to Plaintiff True Health
on April 20, 2010, is an "advertisement" within the meaning of the
TCPA because it advertised the commercial availability or quality
of any property, goods, or services -- namely, Medisoft. He
similarly concludes that the 12 faxes sent to Plaintiff McLaughlin
from September 2009 through May 2010 are "advertisements" within
the meaning of the TCPA because they advertise the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods, or services --
namely, Medisoft and Lytec.

The Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that each Defendant "sent"
the Faxes. With regard to the TCPA, the term "sender" is defined as
"the person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited
advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or
promoted in the unsolicited advertisement."

Judge Gilliam concludes that McKesson Corp. is a "sender" of and
"sent," for purposes of TCPA liability, each of the 13 Faxes. He
concludes that MTI is a "sender" of and "sent," for purposes of
TCPA liability, each of the 13 Faxes.

The Plaintiffs have the burden to prove that the Defendant(s) sent
the Faxes "to a telephone facsimile machine" by the use of a
"telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device." A
"telephone facsimile machine" is defined as "equipment which has
the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper
into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a
regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or
both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone
line onto paper."

Judge Gilliam concludes that all 13 Faxes were sent using a
"telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device." He
concludes that all of the Faxes were sent "to a telephone facsimile
machine" as both Plaintiffs used traditional ink-and-paper fax
machines in 2009 and 2010.

Because (1) the Faxes were "unsolicited advertisements"; (2) the
Faxes were sent by the use of a "telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device" to a "telephone facsimile machine"; and
(3) each Defendant is a "sender" of the Faxes, Judge Gilliam
concludes that each Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(C) and is, therefore, liable to the Plaintiffs.

The TCPA imposes statutory damages of $500 per violation. It grants
courts discretion to award treble damages upon finding the
defendant acted "willfully or knowingly."

Neither party has cited, and Judge Gilliam has not found, any
Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit authority clarifying whether the
"willfully or knowingly violated" requirement in the TCPA means
simply that the Defendant took action intentionally as opposed to
inadvertently, or further requires that the defendant knew the
facts establishing that its actions violated the statute. He
concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that McKesson Corporation or MTI
willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA by sending the Faxes to
the Plaintiffs. Other than the 2008 FCC Citation, the Plaintiffs
have presented no evidence even suggesting that the Defendants
knowingly or recklessly flouted the law.

The Plaintiffs do not allege they sent a direct request to the
Defendants to stop sending the faxes, nor is there any evidence
that Plaintiffs marked "Do Not Fax" on any forms. This is in
contrast to cases in which courts have found defendants acted
willfully or knowingly after receiving direct requests to stop
calling or sending faxes. Similarly, there is no evidence that
those involved knew they were violating the law, knew or were
reckless in not knowing that the recipients did not want to receive
faxes, or were deliberately acting in bad faith. The Plaintiffs
have failed to meet their burden to show Defendants the willfully
or knowingly violated the TCPA.

For these same reasons, Judge Gilliam finds in his discretion that
even if the Plaintiffs had introduced evidence sufficient to show a
willful and knowing violation, an award of treble damages would be
unwarranted. The weakness of their willfulness case counsels
against a treble damages award on this record.

Because he concludes that Defendants violated the TCPA by sending
one unsolicited facsimile advertisement to Plaintiff True Health
but did not violate the TCPA willfully or knowingly, Judge Gilliam
finds in favor of True Health and against the Defendants and awards
True Health damages of $500.

Because he concludes that the Defendants violated the TCPA by
sending 12 unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Plaintiff
McLaughlin but did not violate the TCPA willfully or knowingly,
Judge Gilliam finds in favor of McLaughlin and against the
Defendants and awards McLaughlin damages of $6,000.

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment consistent with the Order
and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Findings of Fact &
Conclusions of Law is available at https://tinyurl.com/57f7p8x6
from Leagle.com.


MDLIVE INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MDLive, Inc. The case
is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MDLive, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03567
(S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

MDLIVE -- https://mdlnext.mdlive.com/ -- offers reliable 24/7
health care by phone or video.[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


MICANOPY, FL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Exley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB EXLEY, ROBERT FIELDS, WILLIAM GREENSTEIN, and MORGAN
PEDERSEN, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. TOWN OF MICANOPY, FLORIDA, Case No.
1:22-cv-00095-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., May 2, 2022) is a class action as
a collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against the Defendant on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated because of
Defendant's unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights to minimum
wage and overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. section
2201 and compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the FLSA.

Plaintiffs Jacob Exley, Robert Fields, William Greenstein, and
Morgan Pedersen are current and/or former employees of the
Defendant Town of Micanopy, Florida. The Defendant has employed
Plaintiffs in the position of firefighters at the Micanopy Fire
Rescue Department.

The Defendant is a body corporate and political subdivision of the
State of Florida, and at all times material herein, Defendant has
been a "public agency" and "employer" within the meaning of the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. The Defendant employs or employed Plaintiffs and is
located within the Northern District of Florida and within Alachua
County, Florida.

While working for Defendant, the Plaintiffs, as well as all others
similarly situated, have been assigned to work, and in fact did
work, a schedule of 24 hours on-duty, followed by 48 hours
off-duty.  While working for Defendant, at times material herein,
Plaintiffs, as well as all others similarly situated, have been
assigned to work, and in fact did work, in excess of 40 hours per
week, as well as in excess of 53 hours per week, in excess of 106
hours in a 14-day period, and in excess of 212 hours in a 28-day
period. The Defendant has allegedly failed to pay overtime premiums
for their overtime work. Instead, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs at
a straight hourly rate including for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a week, in excess of 53 hours in a week, in excess of
106 in a 14-day period, or in excess of 212 hours in a 28-day
period, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Donnelly, Esq.
          Jung Yoon, Esq.
          DONNELLY + GROSS
          2421 NW 41st Street, Suite A-1
          Gainesville, FL 32606
          Telephone: (352) 374-4001
          Facsimile: (352) 374-4046
          E-mail: paul@donnellygross.com
                  jung@donnellygross.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: District Court Certifies Class in Butela FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH BUTELA, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-1612 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
William S. Stickman, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania grants Butela's Motion for Class
Certification.

I. Introduction

Mr. Butela filed the putative class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692-1692p,
against Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In the
single-count Complaint, Butela asserts, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, that MCM violated the FDCPA by sending
settlement offer letters that contained false, deceptive, or
misleading representations in connection with the collection of
debt, and that used unfair or unconscionable means to collect debt.
MCM removed the case to the Court on the basis of federal-question
jurisdiction. After the close of discovery, Butela filed a Motion
for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).

II. Background

Mr. Butela, a resident of Pennsylvania, opened a credit card
account with Capital One Bank. He used that credit card primarily
for personal (and not business) purposes. After Butela failed to
make payments, Capital One Bank sold the defaulted account to MCM,
a California corporation that at times purchases and collects debt.
On Aug. 15, 2020, MCM sent Butela a settlement offer letter. At the
time MCM sent this letter, it had not yet filed a debt collection
lawsuit against Butela. Rather, MCM only filed such a suit on Sept.
14, 2020, in a Magisterial District Court in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.

Mr. Butela filed the present lawsuit against MCM one day later, on
Sept. 15, 2020. He alleges that MCM's representation in the
settlement offer letter that "a judgment could be awarded by the
court before the expiration of the discount offer," was "false,
deceptive, or misleading" and "unfair or unconscionable," in
violation of the FDCPA.

III. Analysis

Mr. Butela now moves to certify a class action. In support of the
motion, he argues that all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3) have been satisfied. In response, MCM disputes that Butela
has satisfied Rule 23. It further argues that certification should
be denied because Butela has not shown that each putative class
member has Article III standing.

A. Article III Standing

MCM invoked federal jurisdiction by removing the case from state
court. It is therefore MCM -- and not Butela -- that has the burden
of establishing Article III standing.

Judge Stickman opines that MCM has satisfied that burden by showing
that Butela, the putative class representative, has standing.
First, Butela has alleged that he suffered an injury in fact from
MCM's materially false, misleading, and deceptive communication.
This informational injury, though intangible, satisfies the first
requirement of Article III standing because it constitutes an
invasion of a debtor's legally protected interest in truthful
information under the FDCPA and is sufficiently actual, concrete,
and particularized. Second, Butela's injury is fairly traceable to
MCM's representation in the settlement offer letter. Third, and
finally, his injury is likely to be redressed by a judicial
decision awarding statutory damages.

Notwithstanding Butela's standing to sue, MCM argues that
certification should be denied because Butela has not shown that
each putative class member has standing. It cites to the Supreme
Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190
(2021), for the proposition that "all class members must have
Article III standing for a class action to be proper." However,
contrary to MCM's assertion that TransUnion "raised the bar," Judge
Stickman says, that case considered the question of Article III
standing at a very different stage of the litigation -- namely,
after trial. The Supreme Court thus held that "every class member
must have Article III standing in order to recover individual
damages" and stated that evidence of such must be adduced at trial.
But it expressly declined to address "the distinct question whether
every class member must demonstrate standing before a court
certifies a class."

As such, TransUnion did not abrogate the Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit's prior decisions in Neale v. Volvo Cars of N. Am.,
LLC, 794 F.3d 353, 362, 364 (3d Cir. 2015) (A class action is
permissible so long as at least one named plaintiff has
standing."); and Mielo v. Steak 'N Shake Operations, Inc., 897 F.3d
467, 478 (3d Cir. 2018). Those cases, which are binding on the
Court, provide that "unnamed, putative class members need not
establish Article III standing" at the class certification stage.
Rather, at that early stage, the case-or-controversy requirement of
Article III is satisfied "so long as a class representative has
standing." Accordingly, since Butela has standing, Judge Stickman
need not consider the standing of each putative class member at
this time.

B. Rule 23 Analysis

A class may be certified where the moving party satisfies the four
requirements of Rule 23(a), and, depending on the avenue, the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). Under Rule 23(a):
(1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (numerosity); (2) there must be questions of law or
fact common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses
of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or
defenses of the class (typicality); and (4) the named plaintiffs
must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
(adequacy of representation, or simply adequacy).

a. Class Definition

Following oral argument, the Court permitted the parties to file
supplemental briefing. In his supplemental brief, Butela maintained
that certification of the first amended class definition would be
proper.

But the Plaintiff also took the Court's suggestion and offered a
second amended class definition, which he refers to as a "no
lawsuit" class: All individuals who: i) received a letter from
Defendant that made one or more settlement offer(s), listed an
expiration date for the offer(s), and stated a judgment could be
awarded before the expiration date of the listed offer(s); and ii)
at the time the letter was sent, had not yet been sued for the debt
identified in the letter ("second amended class definition").

Though MCM filed its supplemental brief prior to Butela's, MCM had
notice of this type of amendment to the class definition due to the
Court's repeated questioning during oral argument. MCM thus had the
opportunity to respond, both during oral argument and in its
supplemental brief.

After careful consideration, Judge Stickman declines to adopt
verbatim any of the described class definition in the complaint.
He, therefore, adopts the following modified class definition,
which has been slightly altered from the second amended class
definition: All Pennsylvania residents who: (i) on or after Sept.
15, 2019, were sent a letter by Midland Credit Management, Inc.
that made one or more settlement offer(s), listed an expiration
date for the offer(s), and stated a judgment could be awarded
before the expiration date of the listed offer(s); and (ii) at the
time the letter was sent, had not yet been sued in any court in the
United States for the debt identified in the letter.

Judge Stickman finds that these modifications are in keeping with
the clarifications offered by the parties during oral argument. He
further finds that the modified class definition "will better serve
the purposes of Rule 23 and the underlying policies of the
substantive law than would denying certification altogether."

Having defined the class and the class claims, Judge Stickman now
turns to the myriad requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). He
holds that the modified class definition satisfies each of these
requirements. He finds that (i) the Defendant stipulates to
numerosity which resolved their discovery dispute; (ii) commonality
requirement has been satisfied, as the case raises numerous
questions of law and fact that are common to the class; (iii) since
the modified class definition satisfies each of the three
typicality factors, Butela has met his burden under Rule 23(a)(3);
(iv) Butela is an adequate class representative and that the
attorneys of East End Trial Group LLC will serve as adequate class
counsel; (v) common issues predominate in the case; (vi) a class
action is the superior method of adjudicating the case; (vii) the
process of identifying class members in the case will not require
any individualized inquiries about receipt; and (viii) present
class is not a fail-safe class, as class membership can be
determined without first resolving the merits of the case.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Stickman holds that Butela, the putative class
representative, has standing to sue, which is sufficient at the
class certification stage. He further holds that the proposed class
-- as modified by the Court -- satisfies the requirements of Rule
23. He, therefore, grants Butela's class certification motion.

The following class is certified under Rule 23(b)(3): All
Pennsylvania residents who: (i) on or after Sept. 15, 2019, were
sent a letter by Midland Credit Management, Inc. that made one or
more settlement offer(s), listed an expiration date for the
offer(s), and stated a judgment could be awarded before the
expiration date of the listed offer(s); and (ii) at the time the
letter was sent, had not yet been sued in any court in the United
States for the debt identified in the letter.

An Order of Court will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3f96a4xj from Leagle.com.


NCSPLUS INCORPORATED: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCSPLUS Incorporated.
The case is styled as Miriam Spira, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers v. NCSPLUS Incorporated, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02532 (E.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

NCSPlus Incorporated -- https://www.ncsplus.com/ -- is an accounts
receivable management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Breaches 401(k) Plan's Fiduciaries, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA R. BARRETT, KATHLEEN D. VINCENT, CONNIE ENDERLE, EDWARD Q.
INGERSON, II, PENNY M. KENOYER and GILBERT J. ONTIVEROS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF O'REILLY
AUTOMOTIVE, INC., O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 6:22-cv-03111-DPR (W.D. Mo.,
May 2, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant to sections 409 and
502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include O'Reilly
Automotive, Inc. and the Board of Directors of O'Reilly Automotive,
Inc. and its members during the Class Period and the O'Reilly
Automotive 401(k) Plan Investment Committee and its members during
the Class Period.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(21)(A),
breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to
the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost.

The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment
of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the
lawsuit says.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," 29 U.S.C. section
1104(a)(1)(A), with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that
would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope.

The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a large plan in
the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest
plans in the United States. As a large plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments. Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves
and the following proposed class:

"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members,
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time
between May 2, 2016 through the date of judgment (the "Class
Period").

O'Reilly Automotive is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with
a principal place of business being 233 South Patterson Avenue,
Springfield, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly M. Spann, Esq.
          FORTMANSPANN, LLC
          250 St. Catherine Street
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
          E-mail: kms@fortmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  gabriellek@capozziadler.com

OREGON: Order Denying Bid to Dismiss Linn County Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COUNTY OF LINN, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent Cross-Appellant v. STATE
OF OREGON and State Forestry Department, an Oregon administrative
agency, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Respondents, Case Nos.
16CV07708; A173658 (Or. App.), the Court of Appeals of Oregon
reversed the trial court's order denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

I. Background

In 2016, Plaintiff Linn County brought the class action against
Defendants the State of Oregon and the State Forestry Department,
alleging a single claim of breach of contract and seeking over $1
billion in damages.

Linn County's complaint alleged that it and other Oregon counties
had transferred forestlands to the state pursuant to Oregon Laws
1939, chapter 478, amended by Oregon Laws 1941, chapter 236,
codified as amended at ORS 530.010 to 530.181 (the Act); that the
Act required the state to return to the counties a specified
portion of the revenues derived from defendants' management of
those forestlands; that defendants had a contractual obligation
under the Act to manage the forestlands in a manner so as to
"maximize the potential revenue that should be generated" from the
forestlands; and that defendants breached that contractual
obligation by failing to manage the forestlands so as to maximize
revenue.

The Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the Act did not
create a contractual obligation on the part of them to manage the
forestlands so as to maximize revenue. They argue, among other
points, that the "Plaintiff has not pleaded a clear and
unmistakable term of a statutory contract that required the
Defendants to maximize revenue for the benefit of the Plaintiff."

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning that "ORS
530.030 - 530.110 clearly sets out the elements of contract
including transfer of title in land by the counties in
consideration for certain promises to perform by the state"; that
"the meaning of the contract term 'greatest permanent value to the
state' is the gravamen of the case"; that that term was "to some
extent vague"; and that the meaning of that term was a question for
the trier of fact.

After denying the motion, the trial court certified a plaintiff
class comprising the 15 Oregon counties that transferred land to
the state pursuant to the Act, as well as certain governmental
entities with whom those counties share such revenue.

The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the
Plaintiffs, awarding them over $1 billion in damages for past and
future economic losses. The Defendants appeal the resulting
judgment, raising 28 assignments of error.

II. Analysis

Because it is dispositive, the Court of Appeals addresses the
Defendants' seventh assignment of error, in which they assert that
the trial court erred in denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
In their motion to dismiss, as noted, the Defendants argued that
they did not have a contractual obligation under the Act to manage
the forestlands to maximize revenue. As addressed, analyzing that
assignment of error requires that the Court of Appeals considers
the obligations owed by the state to various Oregon counties with
regard to lands acquired by the state under the Act. Specifically,
the Court of Appeals must consider whether the provision in Oregon
Laws 1941, chapter 236, section 5, codified as amended at ORS
530.050, requiring the Board of Forestry to manage certain lands
"so as to secure the greatest permanent value of such lands to the
state," is a term in a statutory contract between the state, on the
one hand, and various Oregon counties, on the other.

Considering the text, context, and legislative history of the
provision of Oregon Laws 1941, chapter 236, section 5, requiring
the Board to manage lands transferred by counties to the state
under the Act "to secure the greatest permanent value of such lands
to the state," the Court of Appeals concludes that that provision
is not a term in a statutory contract between the state, on the one
hand, and various Oregon counties, on the other. Accordingly, it
will reverse and remand.

III. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals concludes that the state and the Oregon
counties have long cooperated in the management of Oregon's
forests. And, particularly in view of Tillamook Co. v. State Board
of Forestry, 302 Or. 404, 407-09, 730 P.2d 1214 (1986) (describing
the statutory scheme), there can be no doubt that the statutory
scheme attendant to that cooperation, ORS 530.010 to 530.181,
creates certain enforceable rights insofar as the state's
management of formerly county-owned forestland is concerned.
However, the text, context, and absence of useful legislative
history regarding the obligation of the Board to secure the
"greatest permanent value of such lands to the state," as
originally set forth in Oregon Laws 1941, chapter 236, section 5,
and now codified as amended at ORS 530.050, do not reflect the
clear and unmistakable intent necessary to conclude that that
obligation is a term in a statutory contract. Consequently, the
Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court erred in denying
the Defendants' motion to dismiss. It reversed and remanded. It
denied as moot the cross-appeal.

Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, argued the cause for
appellants-cross-respondents. Also on the briefs were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant
Attorney General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney
General.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3wztkb3z from Leagle.com.

John A. DiLorenzo, Jr. -- johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- argued the cause
for respondent-cross-appellant. Also on the combined answering and
cross-opening brief were John F. McGrory, Jr., Gregory A. Chaimov,
Aaron K. Stuckey, Kevin H. Kono, Christopher Swift, Alicia Leduc,
Trinity Madrid, and David Wright Tremaine LLP. Also on the reply
brief were John F. McGrory, Jr., Gregory A. Chaimov, Carol J.
Bernick, Aaron K. Stuckey, Kevin H. Kono, Chris Swift, Trinity
Madrid, and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Ralph O. Bloemers -- ralph@crag.org -- and Crag Law Center filed
the brief amici curiae for Northwest Guides & Anglers, North Coast
Communities for Watershed Protection, Oregon Wild, Native Fish
Society, Wild Salmon Center, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for
Biological Diversity, Umpqua Watersheds and Beyond Toxics.

Ryan P. Steen -- ryan.steen@stoel.com -- Kirk B. Maag --
kirk.maag@stoel.com -- Crystal S. Chase -- crystal.chase@stoel.com
-- and Stoel Rives LLP filed the brief amicus curiae for Oregon
Forest & Industries Council.

Rob Bovett and Lauren Smith filed the brief amicus curiae for
Council of Forest Trust Land Counties.


PARABLE GROUP: Disclosed Customers' Mailing Lists, Bracy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY BRACY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PARABLE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00403-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich., May 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of Michigan's Preservation of
Personal Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly disclosed
mailing lists containing the Plaintiff's Private Reading
Information to data aggregators and data appenders, who then
supplemented the mailing lists with additional sensitive
information from their own databases, before sending the mailing
lists back to the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant rented and/or
exchanged its mailing lists containing the Plaintiff's Private
Reading Information to third parties, including other
consumer-facing companies, direct-mail advertisers, and
organizations soliciting monetary contributions, volunteer work,
and votes. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful
disclosure of Private Reading Information, the Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered invasions of their statutorily protected
right to privacy.

The Parable Group, Inc. is a retail company, with its principal
place of business in San Luis Obispo, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 dal@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Personal Care Products Contain Benzene, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHERI CASOLARI, DAN LEWIS, BERENICE BERNIER, CHAKA THEUS, and
SONDRA TRENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
1:22-cv-00235-SJD (W.D. Ohio, May 2, 2022) is a class action
brought on behalf of persons who purchased certain aerosol
antiperspirant and deodorant sprays and aerosol dry conditioner and
dry shampoo products manufactured, marketed, advertised, and
distributed by P&G which were contaminated with the harmful
chemical benzene, a known carcinogen.

P&G is a global leader in providing a wide range of household
personal care goods, including in the health and beauty products
segments, which P&G manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells
nationwide. P&G warrants that these products are safe, effective,
and fit for human application. In fact, contrary to consumers'
knowledge and reasonable expectations, several of P&G's aerosol
products were contaminated or adulterated with benzene -- rendering
such products unsafe, ineffective, unfit for the ordinary purpose
for which these health and beauty products are used, and otherwise
worthless, says the suit.

In 2021, the independent laboratory Valisure LLC ("Valisure")
tested a variety of manufacturers' antiperspirant and deodorant
sprays and detected that a number of P&G's spray products contained
benzene. Valisure thereafter filed a follow-on citizen's petition
on November 3, 2021 with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") asking the agency to recall all batches aerosol
antiperspirant and deodorant sprays that contained 0.1 parts per
million ("ppm") or more of benzene. 1 Valisure stated that its
testing revealed several of these products contained 0.1 ppm or
more of benzene, and thus were adulterated under Section 501 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") and misbranded under
Section 502 of the FDCA. Of the 38 tested product batches which
yielded more than 0.1 ppm of benzene, more than one-third (13 in
total) were sold under P&G's Secret and Old Spice brands.

Following Valisure's reporting on benzene in certain of P&G's spray
products, on November 23, 2021, P&G announced the voluntary recall
of specific aerosol antiperspirant and deodorant sprays under its
Old Spice and Secret brands due to the detection of benzene. Weeks
later, on December 17, 2021, P&G issued a further voluntary recall
of specific aerosol dry conditioner and dry shampoo products under
its Pantene, Aussie, Herbal Essences, and Waterless brands (as well
as certain discontinued dry shampoo products under its Old Spice
and Hair Foods brands) due to the detection of benzene.

The health hazards associated with benzene have been recognized for
over a hundred years and the FDA states that "benzene is a
carcinogen that can cause cancer in humans," classifying it as
"Class 1" solvent that should be "avoided." 3 No amount of benzene
is acceptable in aerosol antiperspirant and deodorant sprays and
aerosol dry conditioner and dry shampoo products, such as P&G's
Recalled Products, the suit added.

Benzene is not listed as an active or inactive ingredient on any of
the labels of P&G's Recalled Products. Indeed, P&G specifically
states that benzene is one of the materials "we do not use as
ingredients in any of our formulated products."

Through this action, the Plaintiffs, both individually and on
behalf of classes of other similarly situated purchasers of the
Recalled Products, seek all applicable and available relief and
damages under the laws of Illinois, Arizona, California, Florida,
and the United States.

Benzene is a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke.
Its harmful effects and dangers are widely known. For instance, the
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has determined that
benzene causes cancer in humans. Likewise, given its Class 1
status, the FDA describes benzene as a chemical which "should not
be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and
drug products because of [its] unacceptable toxicity."

P&G's November 2021 recall covered the following eighteen Recalled
Aerosol Antiperspirant Products:

  -- Old Spice High Endurance AP Spray Pure Sport 12/6oz

  -- Old Spice Hardest Working Collection Inv Spray Stronger
     Swagger 3.8oz

  -- Old Spice Hardest Working Collection Inv Spray Pure Sport
     Plus 12/3.8oz

  -- Old Spice Hardest Working Collection Inv Spray Stronger
     Swagger 12/3.8oz

  -- Old Spice Hardest Working Collection Inv Spray Ult Captain
     12/3.8oz

  -- Old Spice Below Deck Powder Spray Unscented 12/4.9oz

  -- Old Spice Below Deck Powder Spray Fresh Air 12/4.9oz

  -- Secret Aerosol Powder Fresh Twin Pack

  -- Secret Aerosol Powder Fresh 12/6oz

  -- Secret Aerosol Powder Fresh 12/4oz

  -- Secret Fresh Collection Inv Spray Waterlily 3.8oz

  -- Secret Fresh Collection Inv Spray Lavender 12/3.8oz

  -- Secret Fresh Collection Inv Spray Water Lily 12/3.8oz

  -- Secret Fresh Collection Inv Spray Light Essentials 12/3.8oz

  -- Secret Fresh Collection Inv Spray Rose 12/3.8oz

  -- Secret Outlast Inv Spray Completely Clean 12/3.8oz

  -- Secret Outlast Inv Spray Protecting Powder 12/3.8oz

P&G manufactures and distributes its products—including the
Recalled Hair Spray Products and Recalled Aerosol Antiperspirant
Products -- throughout Illinois, Arizona, California, Florida, and
the United States. Defendant P&G authorized and/or created the
false, misleading, and deceptive marketing and advertising of the
Recalled Products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY MURRAY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Rd.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Dustin L. Schubert, Esq
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  dschubert@sjk.law
                  nschubert@sjk.law

PVH RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acosta Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GAMBOA-ACOSTA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVH RETAIL STORES, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00016377-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., May 20, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
meal periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Acosta was employed by the Defendants as staff.

PVH RETAIL STORES, LLC owns and operates retail stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com

               - and -

          J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLY, APC
          2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone:(760) 209-5894
          Email: kdonnelly@jkd-law.com

QUALITY ROOFING: Cruz Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Cruz, and other similarly situated individuals v. Quality
Roofing, Inc., and John R. Garrison, individually, Case No.
8:22-cv-01018 (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2022) is an action to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was paid his regular daily rate for 6 days or
$1,500.00 weekly, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as
required by law.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages,
at the rate of time and a half his regular rate, for every hour
that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of Section 7 (a) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Ismael Cruz as a non-exempted,
full-time roof installer from approximately April 1, 2016, to
February 17, 2022, or more than five years. However, for FLSA's
purposes, Plaintiff's relevant time of employment is 149 weeks.

Quality Roofing is a roofing company specializing in new
construction for commercial and residential projects. The
individual Defendant John R. Garrison was and is now the
owner/partner/officer and Manager of Defendant Corporation Quality
Roofing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

QWIK LOGISTICS: Barrios Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Barrios, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated as Class Representative, Plaintiff v. Qwik Logistics Group
LLC a/k/a Qwik Logistics, Daniel Catelmo and John Yancigay,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02296 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the overtime provisions
of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage,
overtime, spread of hours, gratuities and hiring and wage notice
provisions of New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Frank Barrios was hired by the Defendants as a delivery
driver in August 2020. He seeks his earned but unpaid wages and
tips, liquidated damages, statutory damages pursuant to the NYLL,
and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and interest, as well as
declaratory relief.

Qwik Logistics Group LLC is a grocery delivery service company
operating across the greater New York metropolitan area and holds
lucrative contracts with online, large-scale grocery delivery
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert McCreanor, Esq.   
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, P.L.L.C.
          245 Saw Mill River Road Suite 106
          Hawthorne, NY 10532
          Telephone: (845) 202-1833
          E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com

QWIK LOGISTICS: Muller Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QWIK LOGISTICS GROUP LLC a/k/a QWIK
LOGISTICS, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02500-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May
2, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay tips, failure to
furnish wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to provide paid sick days, illegal wage deductions, and
failure to offer health benefits.

The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for the Defendant from
September 2020 through February 2022.

Qwik Logistics Group LLC, also known as Qwik Logistics, is a
delivery service provider based in Deer Park, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David R. Ehrlich, Esq.
         Amanda B. Slutsky, Esq.
         STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP
         401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 812-4550
         E-mail: dehrlich@staggwabnik.com
                 aslutsky@staggwabnik.com

R&L CARRIERS: Montero Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
LILA MONTERO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R&L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, L.L.C.; JEFF
ANESETTI; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV14839 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 4, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California's Public Policy, California
Labor Code, and California's Business and Professions Code
including sexual harassment; failure to prevent harassment;
negligent hiring, retention and supervision; wrongful constructive
discharge; negligent infliction of emotional distress; intentional
infliction of emotional distress; failure to compensate for all
hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages when employment ends; failure to pay wages
owed every pay period; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to
provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; and
unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a customer service
representative at San Fernando Service Center located in Pacoima,
California until January of 2022.

R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC is a freight shipping and
logistics company, headquartered in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

RICOH USA: Halpern UTPCPL Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT HALPERN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RICOH U.S.A., INC., Case No.
220301922, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 2, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01688-CDJ to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability and violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) in
connection with the Plaintiff's purchase of an allegedly defective
Pentax Model K-50 camera manufactured by Ricoh.

Ricoh U.S.A., Inc. is an information management and digital
services company, headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
         Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
         Matthew D. Klayman, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
         Telephone: (215) 963-5000
         Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
         E-mail: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
                 franco.corrado@morganlewis.com
                 matthew.klayman@morganlewis.com

SC DATA: Orders Giving Standing to Schumacher's FCRA Claims Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ria Schumacher, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SC Data Center,
Inc., doing business as Colony Brands, Inc. Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 19-3266 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit vacates the district court's orders determining that
Schumacher has standing as to all three claims under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and remands to the district court with
directions that the case be remanded to the state court.

I. Introduction

In February 2016, Schumacher commenced this purported class action,
alleging SC Data committed three violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x. In May 2016,
the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. Four days
later, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.
330 (2016), which led SC Data to move to dismiss the action for
lack of standing. Without deciding standing, the district court
approved the settlement. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district
court's approval of the settlement agreement and remanded for a
determination on whether Schumacher has standing to pursue her
claims. On remand, the district court determined that Schumacher
has standing as to all three claims. SC Data again appeals.

II. Background

In August 2015, Schumacher applied for employment with SC Data. As
part of the application process, she responded "no" to a question
asking whether she had ever been convicted of a felony. She signed
a certification on the form attesting that the answers she provided
to the questions were true and correct and further authorized SC
Data to contact, among other entities, references, past or present
employers, law enforcement agencies, and "any other sources of
information which may be relevant to her application for
employment."

SC Data reviewed Schumacher's application and called her to let her
know that it would send her links to complete pre-employment tests.
After Schumacher completed the tests, she was offered a position to
begin on Oct. 21, 2015. It sent Schumacher an orientation email and
asked her to complete an Authorization for Release of Information
form.

The Authorization notified Schumacher that SC Data intended to use
Sterling Infosystems "to conduct a criminal background search." It
further stated that a "search will only be conducted once an offer
of employment has been made." Schumacher was directed to read the
form because it contained information pertaining to the FCRA and
her rights under the Act.

SC Data requested, and Sterling Infosystems prepared, a "Background
Screening Report" on Schumacher. After SC Data reviewed the report
and one week before Schumacher was scheduled to start, SC Data
called Schumacher and informed her that it was withdrawing the
conditional offer of employment and that a confirmation letter
would follow. Schumacher was afforded neither an opportunity to
correct nor to explain the results in the report before the
employment offer was withdrawn. Schumacher received a letter two
weeks later -- one week after her start date had passed.

The background report Sterling Infosystems provided to SC Data
consisted of the following components: County criminal records, an
enhanced nationwide criminal search with national sex offender,
locator-county validator, and a national sex offender search. The
report stated that a Social Security trace/address locator search
was completed "to locate jurisdiction for purposes of expanding the
scope of the criminal background check."

Ms. Schumacher, individually and on behalf of others, commenced the
action alleging SC Data committed three violations of the FCRA: (1)
taking adverse employment action based on a consumer report without
first providing the report to the applicant, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) ("adverse action claim"); (2)
obtaining a consumer report without providing a disclosure form
that complied with the FCRA, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) ("improper disclosure claim"); and (3) exceeding
the scope of the Authorization by obtaining more information than
disclosed in the Authorization, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) ("failure to authorize claim").

SC Data moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of standing. The district court
construed the motion as a factual attack on jurisdiction. It
initially denied the motion as to the adverse action claim and
granted it as to the two remaining counts. On reconsideration, the
district court discovered that it overlooked evidence in the record
regarding Schumacher's failure to authorize claim and reinstated
count three. It also reinstated count two after re-evaluating the
evidence and the law, reasoning that SC Data's failure to provide a
clear disclosure regarding the type of consumer report it was
procuring amounted to a de facto injury-in-fact resulting in harm
that was not only akin to a common law claim of invasion of privacy
but also claims based on misrepresentation and contract. SC Data
appeals, contending Schumacher lacks standing to pursue any of her
FCRA claims.

III. Analysis

A. Adverse Action Claim

Ms. Schumacher's first count alleges SC Data took an adverse
employment action based on her consumer report without first
showing her the report. SC Data repeatedly disputes the
characterization of the report it obtained, noting it only procured
a "limited consumer report" reflecting Schumacher's criminal
history. The FCRA defines "consumer report" as "any written, oral,
or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting
agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness character, general
reputation, personal characteristic, or mode of living collected in
whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in
establishing the consumer's eligibility for employment purposes."
SC Data obtained a type of consumer report within the meaning of
the statute.

The Eighth Circuit holds that neither the text of the FCRA nor the
legislative history provide support for Schumacher's claim that she
has a right under the FCRA to not only receive a copy of her
consumer report, but also discuss directly with the employer
accurate but negative information within the report prior to the
employer taking adverse action. While it is true that Schumacher
did not receive a copy of her report prior to rescindment of the
job offer, she has not claimed the report was inaccurate. SC Data
wrote on the report the reason for the job offer withdrawal -- the
undisclosed felony convictions. Schumacher may have demonstrated an
injury in law, but not an injury in fact.

One of the primary goals of the FCRA is to protect consumers and
employees from the dissemination of inaccurate information. The
Eighth Circuit declines Schumacher's request to create an
additional right under the FCRA -- that is, the right to explain to
a prospective employer negative but accurate information in a
consumer report prior to the employer taking an adverse employment
action. Schumacher's adverse action claim is not redressable under
the plain language of the statute.

B. Improper Disclosure Claim

Ms. Schumacher next asserts that SC Data obtained her consumer
report without first providing her with a disclosure form that
complied with the FCRA. Specifically, she contends the disclosure
was not clear and conspicuous because most of the text in the
Authorization was no larger than six-point font, constituting
"eye-straining text" within "a host of non-disclosure language."
She also contends the Authorization was non-conforming because it
did not use the words "consumer report" and did not tell her that a
consumer report may be procured for employment purposes, although
it did expressly inform her that a criminal background search would
be conducted only after an offer of employment was made. Another
alleged non-conforming defect was that the Authorization violated
the "solely" mandate by including extraneous information, such as a
statement regarding the consequences for failing to provide
accurate or complete information, information applicable only to
those applying for motor carrier positions, release of liability
provisions, and information about what to do if the report contains
disputed information.

The Eighth Circuit holds that Schumacher's improper disclosure
claim consists of a panoply of alleged defects in the Authorization
along with an allegation that SC Data acted in willful disregard of
the Federal Trade Commission's guidance and the unambiguous
language of the statute. Notably absent is any claim of harm,
neither tangible nor intangible. Schumacher has not established
that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure.
She lacks standing to pursue her improper disclosure claim.

C. Failure to Authorize Claim

Ms. Schumacher's last claim is that she did not authorize SC Data
to obtain a consumer report. She did, however, explicitly authorize
Sterling Infosystems to conduct a criminal background search and
"make an independent investigation of her criminal records
maintained by public and private organizations."

The Eighth Circuit finds that assuming arguendo that conducting a
search in the national sex offender database went beyond the scope
of Schumacher's authorization because it is "non-criminal" in
nature, the only possible harm noted by the district court was
invasion of privacy. Schumacher, however, has not pleaded any facts
demonstrating a concrete harm -- a prerequisite for Article III
standing. Schumacher lacks standing to pursue her failure to
authorize claim.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Eighth Circuit vacates the district
court's orders. When a case is in federal court because it has been
removed there by the defendant and it turns out the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the claims, "the case
will be remanded." The Eighth Circuit remands to the district court
with instructions to return the case to the state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9hzepd from Leagle.com.


SEATBELT SOLUTIONS: Shand FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN SHAND, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SEATBELT SOLUTIONS, LLC; JEFF BIEGUN
HOLDINGS, LLC; and JEFFREY L. BIEGUN, Case No. 50-02022-CA-003192,
was removed from the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on May 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:22-cv-80693 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, and unlawful retaliation.

Seatbelt Solutions, LLC is a provider of seatbelt solutions based
in Jupiter, Florida.

Jeff Biegun Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company based in
Jupiter, Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Adi Amit, Esq.
         ADI AMIT, P.A.
         101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-5922
         Facsimile: (954) 302-4963
         E-mail: adi@defenderofbusiness.com

SEAVIEW NURSING: Benavides Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlon J. Benavides and other similarly situated individuals v.
2401 NE 2ND Street Operations LLC, d/b/a Seaview Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 0:22-cv-60839-JEM (S.D. Fla., May
2, 2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was paid a wage rate of 22.44 an hour. The
Plaintiff's overtime was $33.66 an hour. During his employment with
Defendant, the Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of 6 days per
week. From Monday to Friday, Plaintiff worked from 7:00 AM to 5:00
PM (10 hours daily). On Saturdays, Plaintiff was On-Call for 2
hours. Plaintiff worked a total of 50 hours or more, and he was
paid overtime hours correctly. However, the Plaintiff is claiming
that during the relevant period, Defendant deducted 0.30 minutes of
lunchtime daily, regardless of whether Plaintiff could take lunch
or not. The Plaintiff was unable to take lunch at least 3 times per
week or 1.5 hours weekly, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff Marlon J. Benavides as a
non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee from May 8, 2002, to March
2, 2022. He was hired as a maintenance employee for the nursing
home. He had multiple responsibilities, including maintenance,
emergency repairs, plumbing, electricity, and painting.

Seaview Nursing Center is a skilled nursing home and rehabilitation
center engaged primarily in the care of the sick or aged. Defendant
has facilities located at 2401 NE 2ND Street, Pompano Beach,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SN SERVICING: Hladik's Bid to Dismiss Riotto FDCPA Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH M. RIOTTO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SN SERVICING CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-cv-13921 (D.N.J.), Judge
Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Defendant Hladik, Onorato & Federman, LLP's motion
to dismiss Plaintiff Riotto's first amended putative class-action
complaint.

I. Background

The matter arises out of the Plaintiff's loan default in connection
with a mortgage, and subsequent debt collection efforts made by
Defendant Hladik on behalf of Reliant Loan Servicing LLC. The
Plaintiff alleges that on June 7, 2019, the Defendant sent him a
collection letter that was "misleading" and failed to "effectively
convey" information about the debt he owed Reliant. As a result,
Plaintiff claims that the Letter violated his rights under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et
seq.

The Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleges that in 2006 he
obtained a loan secured by a second position mortgage on his
property located at 128 Big Piece Road, Fairfield, New Jersey. He
further claims that, sometime before 2014, "due to unforeseen
financial circumstances," he defaulted on the loan. By February
2019, the Plaintiff asserts he began to receive debt collection
correspondences, and, on June 7, 2019, the Plaintiff purportedly
received the Letter at issue from Defendant notifying him that the
Defendant, on behalf of Reliant, intended to collect the
$181,554.22 the Plaintiff owed on the debt. The Letter, which
allegedly was the Defendant's first communication to the Plaintiff
regarding the debt, also appears to contain numerous disclosures
that implicate his rights under the FDCPA.

On June 18, 2019, the Plaintiff brought the putative class-action
against the Defendant and SN Servicing. The Defendant and SN
Servicing each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and after
the parties engaged in briefing, they entered mediation on June 26,
2020. Following mediation, the parties agreed to dismiss SN
Servicing from the action.

Thereafter, on Aug. 17, 2021, the Court directed the Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint to include allegations he raised for the
first time in his opposition to the motions to dismiss. The Court
further ordered that, should the Defendant choose to move to
dismiss an amended complaint, the parties should address the
Court's recent holding in Lloyd v. Pluese, Becker, & Saltzman, LLC,
No. 18-cv-9420, 2019 WL 6113859 (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2019). On Sept.
14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint.
Subsequently, the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint on Sept. 28, 2021, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposed the motion, and
the Defendant replied.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff alleges that the disclosures in the Letter do not
effectively convey to the debtor the information in the validation
notice on the Letter's second page, in violation of section 1692g,
and that these disclosures are also "misleading" and "deceptive,"
in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e.

In opposition, the Defendant argues that, at the threshold, it is
not a debt collector as defined by 15 U.S.C.Section 1692a(6), and
thus is not subject to the Plaintiff's pending FDCPA claims.
Moreover, the Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's claims are
untimely. However, even if Defendant can be subjected to suit under
sections 1692g and 1692e and the Plaintiff's claims are timely, the
Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has stated no claims because
the Letter effectively conveys the information therein and is not
misleading.

To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) he
is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the
defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a
'debt' as the Act defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a
provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt."

Judge Cecchi opines that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the
first and third elements of his claim: The Plaintiff was a consumer
as he obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on his New Jersey
property, and he is challenging the Defendant's attempt to collect
a debt. However, in addition to the issue of timeliness, the
parties dispute elements two and four. Specifically, they dispute
whether the Defendant is a debt collector under section 1692a of
the FDCPA and whether the Letter has violated a provision of the
FDCPA, namely sections 1692g and 1692e.

a. Section 1692a(6)

Relying on Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S.Ct. 1029
(2019), the Defendant argues that it is not a debt collector under
the primary definition of section 1692a(6), but instead is covered
by the provision's secondary definition. Further, because it is
covered by the secondary definition, the Defendant asserts it
cannot be subjected to Plaintiff's sections 1692e and 1692g claims.
In advancing this argument, the Defendant asks the Court to extend
Obduskey to situations, like the present case, where an entity in
the business of attempting to enforce security interests does so
through a judicial foreclosure.

However, Judge Cecchi opines that courts that have considered this
argument, including others within the Third Circuit, have declined
to extend Obduskey to cases beyond those involving nonjudicial
foreclosures. In the absence of sufficient authority to extend
Obduskey to the judicial foreclosure context at issue, she proceeds
to analyze whether the Plaintiff adequately pleads his section
1692g and 1692e claims.

b. Statute of Limitations

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff's claims regarding
"type face, bold facing, use of the word 'us' and the requirement
that disputes be in writing" alleged for the first time in the
amended complaint are time-barred. Specifically, it contends that
such allegations were brought outside the FDCPA's one-year statute
of limitations period, and do not "relate back" to the original
complaint, as is required for amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(c).

Judge Cecchi opines that the Plaintiff's original complaint
contains allegations that the Defendant's collection letter
violated sections 1692e and 1692g. While the amended complaint
includes new facts about "type face, bold facing, use of the word
'us' and the requirement that disputes be in writing," these
allegations only specify and bolster the Plaintiff's sections 1692e
and 1692g claims first asserted in the original complaint.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's new claims relate back to his original
pleading and are not time barred.

c. Violations to FDCPA Provisions

Turning to whether the Defendant violated provisions of the FDCPA,
the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated sections 1692g and
1692e. Specifically, he claims that the content of the Letter
overshadows the validation notice on page two, and as a result,
misleads a debtor regarding his rights under the FDCPA, in
violation of section 1692g. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Letter's disclosures are misleading and deceptive, in violation
of section 1692e.

i. Section 1692g

The Plaintiff first claims that the Defendant violated section
1692g. He aleeges that (1) that the "form" of the letter
overshadows the validation notice; (2) the Letter's form
overshadows the validation notice by asserting that the notice's
placement at the very end of the Letter increases the likelihood
that the least sophisticated debtor would have overlooked the
disclosure or would have been "confused by it in relation to the
other information being conveyed"; (3) the validation notice is
overshadowed on the grounds that the substance of the Letter
contains conflicting information that would mislead the least
sophisticated debtor; and (4) the Letter overshadows or contradicts
the validation notice because it is not clear, based on other
content in the Letter, that a debtor was required to dispute the
debt in writing, thereby triggering his rights under section
1692g.

Judge Cecchi finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead that the Letter's validation notice was ineffective under
section 1692g. She holds that the Plaintiff does not contest
whether the Defendant's notice makes the proper statutory
disclosures. She also holds that while the notice's header is not
capitalized, it is bolded, and printed in similar font and size to
the other headers in the Letter. And, unlike the Letter's preceding
paragraphs, the text of the paragraph containing the notice is
completely capitalized, emphasizing, not detracting from, its
importance.

Judge Cecchi further finds that the least sophisticated debtor is
presumed to read a collection letter in its entirety, and to that
end, courts have found that the placement of the validation notice,
even if it appears towards the end of a collection letter, does not
overshadow the notice's disclosures. Lastly, she finds that because
the validation notice instructs the Plaintiff to dispute his debt
in writing, and the statement containing the Defendant's contact
information does not inform him that by calling it he could pause
collection efforts pursuant to his section 1692g rights, the
validation notice has not been overshadowed.

ii. Section 1692e

The Plaintiff's section 1692e claim is premised on the same
theories as his section 1692g claim. He argues that the Letter
contains misleading information and is deceiving in violation of
section 1692e.

Judge Cecchi opines that for the reasons why the Plaintiff fails to
state a claim under section 1692g, his claims under section 1692e
also fail. She finds that Section 1692e specifies several types of
forbidden unlawful communications, including a catch-all provision
that forbids "the use of any deceptive means to collect or attempt
to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer." This catch-all provision is meant to be interpreted
broadly and "thus encompasses virtually every FDCPA violation,
including those not covered by the other subsections." As a result,
"when allegations under Section 1692e are based on the same
language or theories as allegations under Section 1692g, the
analysis of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive."

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint without prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies the
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p99ssrx from Leagle.com.


SNAP INC: Faces L.W. Class Suit Over Online Sexual Grooming
-----------------------------------------------------------
L.W., minor child through her legal guardian Jane Doe, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SNAP INC., APPLE INC.,
and GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00619-BEN-RBB (S.D. Fla., May 2,
2022) arises from appalling online sexual grooming perpetrated by
an adult against L.W., a child, over Snapchat, one of the most
popular social media platforms in the country.

According to the complaint, the adult coerced and manipulated L.W.
and many other children to send Child Sexual Abuse Material
depicting themselves over the course of two-and-a-half years. To
make matters worse, the adult then  downloaded an application
called Chitter and distributed those photos and videos to other
adults. This adult has been convicted and sentenced for his
crimes.

The claims alleged in this case are not against the adult
perpetrator -- they are against 18 three major technology companies
who enable him and others to commit these crimes.

The Plaintiff brings claims for violations of consumer protection
laws, products liability torts, misrepresentations, and the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The facts alleged focus on the
data-driven tools that the Defendant companies develop and deploy
by collecting troves of personal data from their users, ostensibly
to protect minor users from egregious harm.

Yet, as experienced by L.W. and so many more, these tools and
policies are more effective in making these companies wealthier
than protecting the children and teens who use them.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated class members demand that
Defendants bring their services into compliance with laws that
prohibit child sexual abuse and enforce their stated policies to
eradicate such criminal conduct from their services. The Plaintiff
and similarly situated class members also demand that the Defendant
companies redress the harm they have caused its users.

Minor child L.W. brings this class action through her legal
guardian Jane Doe. From age 12 to 16, L.W. was repeatedly sexually
groomed and abused on Snapchat.

On or about September 5, 2018, L.W. was approached by a stranger,
B.P., on Instagram. At the time, B.P. was an adult and L.W. was
only 12 years old, soon to turn 13.

The Plaintiff, a young child, did not expect that malicious actors
would be on the Snapchat platform. Less than a week later, on
September 11, 2018, B.P. demanded that L.W. send him a nude
photograph of herself. When L.W. refused B.P.’s request, saying
that she did not want to send him a nude photograph, B.P. responded
with a photograph of himself, unclothed, and with an erect penis.

Over a period of two-and-a-half years, starting with the incident
on September 11, 2018, and continuing until April 15, 2021, B.P.
manipulated and coerced L.W. into sending him pornographic images
and videos of herself over Snapchat. B.P. would ridicule and berate
her if L.W. refused and would compliment her when she would
comply.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Juyoun Han, Esq.
           Eric Baum, Esq.
           EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP
           24 Union Square East, PH
           New York, NY 10003
           Telephone: (212) 353-8700
           Facsimile: (212) 353-1708

                - and -

           John K. Buche, Esq.
           Byron E. Ma, Esq.
           BUCHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
           875 Prospect St., Suite 305
           La Jolla, CA 92037
           Telephone: (858) 459-9111
           Facsimile: (858) 430-2426
           E-mail: jbuche@buchelaw.com
                   bma@buchelaw.com

SR EMPLOYERS: Graham Sues Over Leasing Consultants' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN RUSH and HAILEY GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SR EMPLOYERS, INC. and
SUNRIDGE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00287-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La., May 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay
accrued vacation wages and paid sick leave following separation in
violation of the Louisiana Wage Payment Act.

The Plaintiffs worked as leasing consultants for Sunridge at the
Parc at Denham Springs property located in Livingston Parish,
Louisiana.

SR Employers, Inc. is a property management company based in
Dallas, Texas.

Sunridge Management Group, Inc. is a property management company
based in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
         STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
         318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
         New Orleans, La. 70124
         Telephone: (504) 267-0777
         Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
         E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

TESLA ENERGY: Polson Labor Code Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL KIRK POLSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TESLA ENERGY OPERATIONS, INC. and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C22-04412, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on May 2, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02648 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful
meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to timely pay final wages at termination,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair
competition.

Tesla Energy Operations, Inc. is a solar power energy services
provider based in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
         Tuyet T. Nguyen Lu, Esq.
         Daniel R. Rodriguez, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
                 tuyet.nguyen@morganlewis.com
                 daniel.rodriguez@morganlewis.com

TESLA MOTORS: Court Enters Verdict for Defense in Stockholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TESLA MOTORS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION,
Consolidated C.A. No. 12711-VCS (Del. Ch.), the Court of Chancery
of Delaware enters a verdict for the defense.

I. Background

In 2006, Elon Musk, co-founder, CEO and Chairman of Tesla, publicly
declared in a so-called "Tesla Motors Master Plan" that "Tesla's
mission is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable
energy" and, more specifically, "to help expedite the move from a
mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric
economy." Ten years later, Tesla purported to execute the Master
Plan when it announced on June 21, 2016, that it would acquire a
solar energy company, SolarCity Corporation, in a stock-for-stock
merger valued at the time at approximately $2.6 billion. Several
Tesla stockholders have alleged the Acquisition, as consummated,
was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty and other wrongdoing.
They have sued members of the Tesla board of directors and,
separately, Elon as Tesla's controlling stockholder seeking damages
and equitable remedies. After denying defense motions to dismiss
and cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court convened an
eleven-day trial. This is the Court's post-trial verdict.

Elon owned approximately 22% of Tesla's common stock at the time of
the Acquisition. In addition to his leadership roles at Tesla, Elon
was Chairman of the SolarCity board of directors and the largest
stockholder of that company. He was also the catalyst and a vocal
proponent of the Acquisition. Despite conflicts among its members,
the Tesla Board elected not to form a special committee of
independent directors to negotiate the Acquisition. It did,
however, condition the Acquisition on the affirmative vote of a
majority of the minority of Tesla's disinterested stockholders,
even though that vote was not required by Delaware law. While Elon
was recused from certain Tesla Board discussions regarding the
Acquisition, he actively participated in others. And he had several
private discussions directly with the target (SolarCity) and with
Tesla's financial advisor for the deal without the knowledge of the
Tesla Board.

According to the Plaintiffs, as Tesla's controlling stockholder,
Elon caused Tesla's servile Board to approve the Acquisition of an
insolvent SolarCity at a patently unfair price, following a highly
flawed process, in order to bail out his (and other family
members') foundering investment in SolarCity. This, say the
Plaintiffs, was a clear breach of Elon's fiduciary duty of loyalty.
Given Elon's status as a conflicted controlling stockholder, the
Plaintiffs maintain that the Court must review their claims under
the entire fairness standard, which requires Elon to prove the
Acquisition was the product of a fair process that yielded a fair
price.

Elon counters that the Plaintiffs failed to prove he was Tesla's
controlling stockholder, failed to prove the Tesla Board was
conflicted, and failed to prove the Tesla stockholder vote
approving the Acquisition was uninformed or coerced. Given these
failures of proof, Elon maintains that he is entitled to deference
under Delaware's venerable business judgment rule. Should the Court
disagree, Elon argues the trial evidence reveals the Acquisition
was entirely fair, regardless of which party bore the burden of
proof.

Against this factual backdrop, the Plaintiffs' claims against Elon,
and Elon's defenses, call out like a carnival barker, beckoning the
Court to explore a wide range of interesting and arguably unsettled
legal issues, including, among others, the contours and nuances of
Delaware's controlling stockholder law, the extent to which
personal and business relationships among fiduciaries will result
in disabling conflicts of interest, the appropriate means by which
a corporation's board of directors can disable fiduciary conflicts,
the applicability and effect of an eleventh-hour "fraud on the
board" theory of fiduciary liability, the applicability and effect
of stockholder ratification of fiduciary conduct as a defense to
various breach of fiduciary duty claims, the triggers and effects
of shifting burdens of proof when litigating claims of fiduciary
misconduct under the entire fairness standard of review, and the
interaction between fair process and fair price when reviewing a
transaction for entire fairness.

The litigation began when several stockholders filed separate
actions bringing claims against the entire Tesla Board in
connection with the Acquisition. The Court consolidated the
individual actions and appointed certain plaintiffs and counsel to
leadership positions. All the Defendants moved to dismiss, and
after the parties briefed and argued that motion, the Court of
Chancery issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion (the "MTD
Opinion").

Specifically, the Court held, in part, that "the Complaint pleads
sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that Elon
exercised his influence as a controlling stockholder with respect
to the Acquisition." The MTD Opinion also observed that, even
though Plaintiffs carried their burden of well-pleading that Elon's
status as Tesla's controlling stockholder was reasonably
conceivable at the motion to dismiss stage, "the facts developed in
discovery may well demonstrate otherwise." The Defendants filed an
application for certification of interlocutory appeal, which the
Court of Chancery (and later the Supreme Court) denied.

On April 18, 2021, the Court entered a Stipulated Order of Class
Certification with respect to certain of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendants then filed cross-motions for
summary judgment and, after briefing and oral argument, the Court
issued a Memorandum Opinion (the "SJ Opinion") denying the motions,
with limited exceptions not relevant in the case.

Well before trial, the Plaintiffs reached an agreement with all
Tesla Board members except for Elon -- namely, Kimbal, Gracias,
Jurvetson, Buss, Ehrenpreis and Denholm -- to settle all claims
against them for $60 million, funded by insurance. This partial
settlement was approved by the Court on Aug. 17, 2020.
After several delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court
held a 10-day, in-person trial from July 12-16 and July 19-23, with
one additional remote trial day on August 16, 2021.345 After
receiving post-trial briefs, the Court heard post-trial oral
argument on January 18, 2022. The matter was deemed submitted for
decision on that date.

On Sept. 20, 2021, the Supreme Court of Delaware issued its opinion
in Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. v. Rosson, expressly
overruling Gentile v. Rossette, and holding that "corporation
overpayment/dilution Gentile claims, like those present in the
instant case, are exclusively derivative under Tooley." Following
this development, the parties stipulated to decertify the class,
dismiss the direct claims, and submit only the Plaintiffs'
derivative claims for decision.

II. Analysis

Four counts remain to be adjudicated after motion practice and
settlement: Counts I and II assert derivative breach of the duty of
loyalty claims against Elon in his capacities as Tesla's
controlling stockholder and as a member of the Tesla Board by
causing the company to acquire an insolvent SolarCity; Count III
asserts a claim of unjust enrichment against Elon in connection
with the Tesla stock he received in the Acquisition; and Count VI
asserts that the Acquisition constituted waste.

The parties' dispute begins, unsurprisingly, with the "gating
question" of what standard of review is implicated by the
Plaintiffs' showcase claims of breach of fiduciary duty. Again
unsurprisingly, the Plaintiffs argue the Court should review the
fiduciary duty claims under the entire fairness standard, and they
proffer the means by which entire fairness is triggered -- namely,
that a majority of the Tesla Board was conflicted with respect to
the Acquisition and that Elon is a conflicted controlling
stockholder. Predictably, Elon counters that the business judgment
rule is the correct answer to the standard of review question
because he is not a controlling stockholder, a majority of the
Tesla Board was not conflicted and, even if it was, the fully
informed, uncoerced vote of Tesla's stockholders "cleansed" any
fiduciary duty breaches.

The Court of Chancery opines that to be sure, in answer to the
barker's call, it is tempting to venture into each tent and
confront the legal enigmas that await there. Given the clarity
provided by compelling trial evidence, however, there is no need to
take on the challenge of discerning the appropriate standard of
review by which to decide the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court of
Chancery says, even assuming (without deciding) that Elon was
Tesla's controlling stockholder, the Tesla Board was conflicted,
and the vote of the majority Tesla's minority stockholders
approving the Acquisition did not trigger business judgment review,
such that entire fairness is the standard of review, the persuasive
evidence reveals that the Acquisition was entirely fair.

The process employed by the Tesla Board to negotiate and ultimately
recommend the Acquisition was far from perfect. Elon was more
involved in the process than a conflicted fiduciary should be. And
conflicts among other Tesla Board members were not completely
neutralized. With that said, the Tesla Board meaningfully vetted
the Acquisition, and Elon did not stand in its way. Equally if not
more important, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that
Tesla paid a fair price -- SolarCity was, at a minimum, worth what
Tesla paid for it, and the Acquisition otherwise was highly
beneficial to Tesla. Indeed, the Acquisition marked a vital step
forward for a company that had for years made clear to the market
and its stockholders that it intended to expand from an electric
car manufacturer to an alternative energy company. The Court's
verdict, therefore, is for the defense.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court of Chancery's
verdict is for the defense on all claims. A final order and
judgment to this effect will be entered.

AA full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc2dpa9y from Leagle.com.

Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esquire -- jeisenhofer@gelaw.com -- Christine M.
Mackintosh, Esquire -- cmackintosh@gelaw.com -- Kelly L. Tucker
Esquire, and Vivek Upadhya Esquire, of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Michael Hanrahan, Esquire, Kevin H. Davenport
Esquire, and Samuel L. Closic Esquire, of Prickett, Jones &
Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Daniel L. Berger Esquire, of
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, New York; Lee D. Rudy, Esquire,
Eric L. Zagar, Esquire, Justin O. Reliford, Esquire, Matthew
Benedict Esquire, of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor,
Pennsylvania; Randall J. Baron Esquire, and David T. Wissbroecker
Esquire, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego,
California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

David E. Ross, Esquire -- dross@kasowitz.com -- Garrett B. Moritz
Esquire -- gmoritz@ramllp.com -- and Benjamin Z. Grossberg Esquire
-- bgrossberg@ramllp.com -- of Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware and Evan R. Chesler, Esquire, Daniel Slifkin,
Esquire, Vanessa A. Lavely Esquire, and Helam Gebremariam Esquire,
of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Defendant Elon Musk.

Kevin R. Shannon, Esquire -- kshannon@potteranderson.com -- Berton
W. Ashman, Jr., Esquire -- bashman@potteranderson.com -- Jaclyn C.
Levy Esquire, and Nicholas D. Mozal Esquire, of Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant
Tesla, Inc.


TWISTER ROOFING: Perez Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Diaz Perez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Twister Roofing & Construction, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00821 (M.D.
Fla., May 2, 2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked more than 40 hours during one
or more weeks on or after January 2022, without being adequately
compensated.

Twister Roofing is a roofing company specializing in new
construction for commercial and residential projects. Twister
Roofing employed Plaintiff Roberto Diaz Perez as a non-
exempted, full-time roof installer from approximately January 21,
2022, to March 10, 2022, or 7 weeks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

VIASAT INC: Faces Best "Capital Stock" Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL A. BEST, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARK D. DANKBERG, SEAN S. PAK JOHN P. STENBIT, ROBERT
W. JOHNSON, RICHARD A. BALDRIDGE, VARSHA RAO, THERESA M. H. WISE,
and JAMES F. BRIDENSTINE, Case No. (Del. Ch., May 2, 2022) is an
action to enforce the fiduciary duties of the board of directors of
Delaware corporation Viasat, Inc. in connection with Viasat's
pending acquisition of the capital stock of Connect Topco Limited,
a private company limited by shares and incorporated in Guernsey in
a cash-and-stock transaction.

Viasat stockholders will also vote on whether to approve the
Company's issuance of more than 20% of its outstanding capital
stock to Inmarsat's Sellers in the Proposed Acquisition.

However, Viasat's preliminary proxy solicitation statement, its
third iteration having been filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, allegedly omits material
information concerning financial advisor compensation and conflicts
of interest that Viasat's stockholders need to cast informed votes
on the Acquisition Proposals.

Specifically, the Board has failed to disclose the amount of fees
that PJT Partners, Viasat's financial advisor for the Proposed
Acquisition, stands to receive for arranging Viasat's approximately
$2.3 billion in acquisition financing and $3.2 in additional
backstop commitments for the Proposed Acquisition, says the suit.

On these subjects, the Preliminary Proxy reveals only that PJT
Partners stands to receive for its financing efforts a portion of
$250 million in Viasat's total anticipated transaction-related
fees, in addition to the $24 million in fees PJT Partners will
receive on closing for advising the Board and the $4 million it has
already received for delivering its fairness opinion.

Viasat's stockholders must be able to understand what factors might
have influenced PJT Partners' analytical efforts in providing a
fairness opinion on the financial fairness of consideration offered
for Inmarsat in the Proposed Acquisition.

Viasat's stockholders are entitled to vote on the Proposed
Acquisition, which is scheduled to close as early as July 1, 2022,
with the benefit of full disclosure of all material information
pertaining to the Proposed Acquisition, the lawsuit says.

Viasat's stockholders will be unable to cast fully informed votes
on the Acquisition Proposals at the upcoming special stockholder
meeting without disclosure of all information concerning PJT
Partners' compensation, PJT Partners' actual and potential
conflicts of interest, and the Board's knowledge of and efforts to
manage such conflicts, the lawsuit adds.

The Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of Viasat's common stock and
has been a Viasat stockholder at all relevant times.

Inmarsat is currently owned by affiliates of Warburg Pincus LLC,
Apax Partners LLP, and two Canadian pension plans. The issuance of
stock to Inmarsat's Sellers in connection with the Proposed
Acquisition will require an amendment to Viasat's Second Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, to increase the number
of authorized shares of Company common stock, which will require
the affirmative votes of holders of a majority of Viasat's
outstanding stock. The Individual Defendants are directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          Adrienne Bell, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (888) 715-1740

               - and -

          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
          Michael C. Wagner (#6955)
          Julie M. O'Dell (#6191)
          1000 North West Street, Suite 1501
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 652-8400
          E-mail: mcw@skjlaw.com
                  jmo@skjlaw.com

WALGREEN COMPANY: Taylor BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALGREEN COMPANY d/b/a WALGREENS and
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2022 CH 00627, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 2,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02295 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, capturing,
receiving, otherwise obtaining, or disclosing the Plaintiff's and
Class members' voiceprint, without their consent, and/or failing to
have their voiceprint timely deleted.

Walgreen Company, doing business as Walgreens, is a pharmacy store
chain in the United States, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

Honeywell International, Inc. is an American publicly traded,
multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Charlotte,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Anne E. Larson, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 558-1220
         Facsimile: (312) 807-3619
         E-mail: anne.larson@ogletree.com

WELLS FARGO: Fails to Give Adequate COBRA Notice, Blessinger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUY BLESSINGER, AUDRA NISKI, and NELSON FERREIRA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS
FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01029-KKM-SPF (M.D.
Fla., May 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant, as the plan sponsor and
plan administrator of the Wells Fargo & Company Health Plan,
violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries
in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA), of their right to
continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of
a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute.

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco,
California. [BN]

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

WORLD EMBLEM: Hupp BIPA Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled STACY HUPP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WORLD EMBLEM INTERNATIONAL INC., Case
No. 2022 LA 23, was removed from the Circuit Court of Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois, Law Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on May 2,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-03069-SEM-KLM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by requiring its
employees, including the Plaintiff, to clock in and clock out of
work shifts by having their fingerprints scanned by a biometric
timeclock.

World Emblem International Inc. is a company that designs and
manufactures apparel emblems, headquartered Hollywood, Florida.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ryan Benson, Esq.
         O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC
         One E. Wacker Dr., Suite 3400
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 422-6100
         E-mail: rbenson@ohaganmeyer.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***