/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220517.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 17, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 92

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Pelachik Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
ACCOLADE INC: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ACUSHNET CO: Court Refuses to Remand Garcia's Unpaid Wages Suit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Mahoney Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Joyce Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop

AMAZON.COM INC: Pomerantz Law Discloses July 5 Deadline
ANAPLAN INC: Monteverde & Associates Continues Probe
APHRIA INC: Securities Suit Granted Class Certification in S.D.N.Y.
ARCARE: Hale Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Information
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Campbell Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Products

ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Glick Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
ASTER HEALTH: Fails to Pay Caregivers' Minimum Wages, Nweke Alleges
AURINIA PHARMA: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of June 14 Deadline
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of June 20 Deadline
BARCLAYS PLC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims

BERBIX INC: Mahmood Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
BEST BUY: Fails to Issue Proper Repossession Notice, Dashiell Says
BLACKBOARD STUDENT: Faces Richert FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
BOB EVANS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Tipped Employees
BONDI SANDS: N.D. California Trims Claims in Moran Class Suit

CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Verdugo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
CEDAR REALTY: Kim Sues Over Shareholder Investment Value Scheme
CENTERPOINT LEGAL: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Gomez Suit
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Estevez Sues Over Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid OT

COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CRAWLSPACE DOCTOR: Faces Cobb FLSA Suit for Unpaid OT in E.D. Ark.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Suit Removed to N.D. California
DELAVAL INC: Triple S Farms Sues Over V300's Concealed Defects
DELAWARE: Light Suit Challenges Delaware Unclaimed Property Statute

DROPBOX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
EPIC HEALTH: Dismissal of Vickers' Liability Claims Upheld in Part
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
HANNAH FORREST: Fails to Pay Farmworkers, Martinez-Morales Alleges
HATCH HAVEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Flores Suit Claims

HOMETOWN AMERICA: Sept. 13 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss ABS Module Class Action
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 24 Deadline
IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
IRONNET INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 21 Deadline

ISRAEL: Settles Class Action Over Pension Tax Payments
JERRY INSURANCE: Hooper FTSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Edley Sues Over Concealment, Evidence Spoliation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: HealthyLiving Suit Removed to D. Columbia
KAISER ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woodruff Suit Says

L&L SUPPLIES: Hua Jing Go Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Receptionists
LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Bid for Class Decertification in Vasquez Suit
LILIUM NV: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 17 Deadline
LIVE NATION: Scott Among Defendants in Astroworld Class Action
LTL MANAGEMENT: Court Enjoins Securities Suit Trial in SDCERA Suit

MANDIANT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, White Says
MARRIOTT INT'L: Moledina Sues Over Illegal Conversations' Recording
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Brown Seeks Blind's Online Store Access
MATCHABAR INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAURICE BADLER: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Ristine Files Suit in D. North Dakota
MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS: Faces Rodwell FLSA Suit in W.D.N.C.
MERCURY AIR: Fierro PAGA Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages in California
MI CASA: Faces Pardini Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
MISAHARA JEWELRY: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action in Texas
NATERA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT: Browne Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NEIMAN MARCUS: Zaimi Suit Removed to C.D. California
NELSON LEWIS: Preece Sues Over Bore Crew Workers' Unpaid Overtime

NESTLE PURINA: Court Dismisses in Part Barker's 1st Amended Suit
NEW HARVEST COFFEE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NHS MANAGEMENT: Griggs Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
NOSWEAT PERFORMANCE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NYS OFFICE OF INFORMATION: Stiegman Appeals Case Dismissal

ORANSI LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OTTE MANHATTAN: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PARACHUTE HOME: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Class Action Suit Filed After Data Hack
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Sustains Prelim. Objections in Chester Suit

PERFECT BAR: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RAIN ALBANY: Faces Xue Fang Huang Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
RALPHS GROCERY: Johnson BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
RICHLAND COUNTY, OH: Attorney Appointed for Opioid Suit Settlement

RIPPLE FOODS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Wilkins FLSA Suit in C.D. California
RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action
RODD & GUNN USA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ROGER CLEVELAND: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ROKIT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guffey Suit Alleges
ROWDY BEVERAGE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over RainBrella False Advertising
SAINT NINE AMERICA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCRAPPY THOMAS: Underpays Scrap Metal Workers, Medders Claims

SD BIOSENSOR: Cenci Sues Over Sale of Unapproved COVID-19 Tests
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SMITH JEWELERS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPRING FOOTWEAR: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPUN BAMBOO: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

STATE FARM: District of Arizona Certifies Class in McClure Suit
STELLATO ENTERPRISES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SULPHUR SPRINGS: Underpays Occupational Therapists, Fetters Says
SUN VALLEY: Cross-Complaint v. Pineda, Becerra, Brower & Su Tossed
SUPERIOR HOTEL: Faces Davis FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Gender Pay Inequity Class Action
TALBOTS INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TASTES ON THE FLY: Chowdhury Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
TECHNIQUE GOLF: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California

TESLA INC: Talley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
THATS EPIC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIMILON CORPORATION: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOUR EDGE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUEACCORD CORP: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

TWITTER INC: Former Pres. Donald Trump's Censorship Suit Dismissed
TWITTER INC: Orlando Police Balks Over Musk's Proposed Takeover
UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardenas Suit Alleges
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Medrano v. Prisons Bureau
URBN US RETAIL: Dawkins Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website

VEON LTD: Rosen Law Named Lead Counsel in Securities Class Suit
VES GROUP: Underpays Quality Analysts, Grant Class Action Alleges
VICTORY PROFESSIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLVIK USA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WASHINGTON: Judge Dismisses Long-Term Cares Act Class Action

WATA INC: Knight Suit Alleges Video Game Market Manipulation
WEC ENERGY: Munt et al. File Suit Over Insurance Plan Losses
WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
WHITE WATER GEAR: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WONOLO INC: Turner Challenges Criminal History Screening Policies

WOOJER USA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ZERO FRICTION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Wilson Elser Attorneys Discuss Rulings in BIPA Class Lawsuits

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Pelachik Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PELACHIK, 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-01491-RMG (D.S.C., May 10, 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.

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

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

ACCOLADE INC: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on April 30 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Accolade, Inc. ("Accolade" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
ACCD) for violations of the securities laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Accolade released its quarterly financial
results on April 28, 2022. As part of its release, the Company
admitted that "a large customer notified us that they would be
ending their service relationship with us after the end of calendar
2022." The Company revealed during its earnings call that the major
customer was Comcast, one of its oldest customers. The Company also
reported steep losses for the quarter, missing analyst estimates.
Based on this news, shares of Accolade fell by almost 50% on April
29, 2022.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at bschall@schallfirm.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]

ACUSHNET CO: Court Refuses to Remand Garcia's Unpaid Wages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLANCA GARCIA and MATILDE CABRERA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACUSHNET
COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01581-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the
U.S.  District Court for the Southern District of California denies
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Request for Attorneys' Fees.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Garcia and Cabrera, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated bring the employment action against Defendant
Acushnet. The crux of the Complaint is that the Defendant's
employees were required to travel three to five minutes every day
between entering the premises and clocking in and again when
exiting the premises and clocking out. The Plaintiffs allege they
were not compensated for this time. They make the same allegations
with respect to employees traveling to and from the designated meal
and break area, claiming that up to ten minutes of their daily meal
breaks and rest periods were spent traveling. Because of the time
spent traveling to the meal and break area on the worksite, the
Plaintiffs allege their breaks fell short of what is required under
California law.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege the following eight claims for
relief: (1) Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum
Wage in Violation of Labor Code section 1194 and 1197; (2) Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages for Daily Overtime Worked in Violation of
Labor Code section 510 and 1194; (3) Failure to Authorize or Permit
Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code section 512 and 226.7; (4)
Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor
Code section 226.7; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Earned Wages During
Employment in Violation of Labor Code section 204; (6) Failure to
Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor
Code section 226; (7) Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and
Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of Employment in
Violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; and (8) Unfair
Business Practices, in Violation of California's Business and
Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.

As the basis for these eight claims for relief, the Plaintiffs
allege Defendant "maintained a policy, practice, and/or procedure
of failing to include bonus pay" with respect to their claims
regarding overtime pay, meal periods, and rest periods. They
further allege the Defendant's policies, practices, and/or
procedures prevented them from being paid all wages for the time
they worked.

Additionally, the Complaint maintains the Defendant's policies,
practices, and/or procedures resulted in its failure to: (1) timely
pay wages; (2) provide complete and accurate wage statements; (3)
timely pay at the time of separation; and (4) adhere to
California's Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
When describing the Defendant's alleged "policies, practices,
and/or procedures," the Plaintiffs claim that employees were
required to travel "every day" to a designated clock-in location
without being compensated. They make the same allegations with
respect to employees traveling to the designated meal and break
area resulting in their breaks falling short of what is required.

On July 7, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced this civil action against
Defendant in San Diego County Superior Court, captioned Blanca
Garcia, et al. v. Acushnet Company, et al., Case No.
37-2021-00029094-CU-OE-CTL. On Sept. 8, 2021, the Defendant removed
the Complaint to the Court based on diversity of citizenship and
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On Oct. 8,
2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Remand.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that diversity of citizenship exists,
or that the minimum number of class members exceeds 100. Instead,
they challenge the amount in controversy asserting that it does not
exceed $5 million. They also request attorneys' fees in the amount
of $5,775.

A. Amount in Controversy

The Defendant retorts that the Plaintiffs fail to present any
evidence proving the amount in controversy is less than $5
million.

Judge Benitez accepts the Defendant's argument and finds it
reasonable to assume a 100 percent violation rate, because the
Plaintiffs allege employees were required to travel to a designated
location "every day," and the physical layout of the facility could
not be altered day-to-day. Aside from the 100 percent violation
rate, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the underlying numbers the
Defendant provides as evidence. Although the Plaintiffs are not
required to submit evidence or alternative violation rates, the
only evidence available to the Court weighs in favor of removal.

Because the Defendant has met its burden of establishing that it
relied on reasonable assumptions in alleging the amount in
controversy, Judge Benitez need not conduct an in-depth analysis of
the calculations and accepts the Defendant's evidence supporting
the $11,547,287.90 sum. Therefore, he finds the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. Accordingly, he denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

B. Attorneys' Fees

The Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand seeks attorneys' fees in the
amount of $5,775. Because Judge Benitez denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand, the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees is
also denied.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Benitez denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand and Request for Attorneys' Fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2xcesv4w from Leagle.com.


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Mahoney Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES (DELAWARE), INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01783-MMB (E.D. Pa., May 9, 2022)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site,
https://local.acmemarkets.com/pa/horsham/200-blair-mill-rd.html, 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.

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES (DELAWARE), INC. is primarily in the business
of retail-grocery stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
          123 South Broad Street, Suite 1640
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Tel: (215) 981-5400
          Fax: (267) 319-1993
          Email: david.glanzberg@gtlaw


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Joyce Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONNY JOYCE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, JEFFREY P. BEZOS,
BRIAN T. OLSAVKSY, DAVID A. ZAPOLSKY, and NATE SUTTON, Case No.
2:22-cv-00617 (W.D. Wash., May 6, 2022) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Amazon stock between February 1, 2019 and April 5, 2022, both dates
inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On the Company's Amazon.com e-commerce platform, Amazon sells both
third-party merchandise and Amazon's own private-label products. As
the owner and operator of the Amazon.com e-commerce platform,
Amazon has access to certain non-public data of the third-party
sellers that use the Amazon.com platform.

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary (the
"House Judiciary Committee") initiated a bipartisan investigation
into the state of competition online. The investigation, led by the
Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law (the
"Subcommittee"), examined the business practices and market
dominance of Facebook, Google, Apple, and, of particular relevance,
Amazon (the "Subcommittee Investigation").

In the course of the Subcommittee Investigation, the Subcommittee
held several oversight hearings in which various officers of the
above referenced companies, including their respective Chief
Executive Officers ("CEOs"), offered witness testimony on topics
such as the effect of market power on the press, innovation, and
privacy, and the market dominance of the firms under investigation.
After each of the hearings, members of the Subcommittee submitted
questions for the record to the witnesses.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct in its
private-label business practices, including giving Amazon products
preference over those of its competitors and using third-party
sellers' non-public data to compete with them.

On March 9, 2022, media outlets reported that the House Judiciary
Committee had requested that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
open a criminal investigation into Amazon and certain of its
executives for allegedly lying to Congress about its business
practices during the course of the Subcommittee Investigation. In
response, Amazon asserted that there was "no factual basis" for the
House Judiciary Committee's allegations.

Then, on April 6, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an
article entitled "SEC Is Investigating How Amazon Disclosed
Business Practices." The article reported, inter alia, that the
SEC's probe has been underway for more than a year and focuses on
Amazon's disclosures regarding its use of third-party seller data
for its own private-label business.

On this news, Amazon's stock price fell $105.98 per share, or 3.2%,
to close at $3,175.12 per share on April 6, 2022.

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

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Amazon common stock
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and
suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions.

Amazon is a multinational technology company that engages primarily
in the businesses of e-commerce, cloud computing, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence. The Company was founded in
1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Amazon's common
shares trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "AMZN". The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jpafiti@pomlaw.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Pomerantz Law Discloses July 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMZN)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle Division, and docketed under 22-cv-00617, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Amazon
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 5, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Amazon is a multinational technology company that engages primarily
in the businesses of e-commerce, cloud computing, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.

On the Company's Amazon.com e-commerce platform, Amazon sells both
third-party merchandise and Amazon's own private-label products. As
the owner and operator of the Amazon.com e-commerce platform,
Amazon has access to certain non-public data of the third-party
sellers that use the Amazon.com platform.

On or around June 3, 2019, the U.S. House Committee on the
Judiciary initiated a bipartisan investigation into the state of
competition online. The investigation, led by the Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law (the "Subcommittee"),
examined the business practices and market dominance of Facebook,
Google, Apple, and, of particular relevance, Amazon (the
"Subcommittee Investigation").

In the course of the Subcommittee Investigation, the Subcommittee
held several oversight hearings in which various officers of the
above referenced companies, including their respective Chief
Executive Officers, offered witness testimony on topics such as the
effect of market power on the press, innovation, and privacy, and
the market dominance of the firms under investigation. After each
of the hearings, members of the Subcommittee submitted questions
for the record to the witnesses.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amazon engaged in
anticompetitive conduct in its private-label business practices,
including giving Amazon products preference over those of its
competitors and using third-party sellers' non-public data to
compete with them; (ii) the foregoing exposed Amazon to a
heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions;
(iii) Amazon's revenues derived from its private-label business
were in part the product of impermissible conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading.

On March 9, 2022, media outlets reported that the House Judiciary
Committee had requested that the U.S. Department of Justice open a
criminal investigation into Amazon and certain of its executives
for allegedly lying to Congress about its business practices during
the course of the Subcommittee Investigation.

In response, Amazon asserted that there was "no factual basis" for
the House Judiciary Committee's allegations.

Then, on April 6, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an
article entitled "SEC Is Investigating How Amazon Disclosed
Business Practices." The article reported, inter alia, that the
SEC's probe has been underway for more than a year and focuses on
Amazon's disclosures regarding its use of third-party seller data
for its own private-label business.

On this news, Amazon's stock price fell $105.98 per share, or 3.2%,
to close at $3,175.12 per share on April 6, 2022.

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

ANAPLAN INC: Monteverde & Associates Continues Probe
----------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Anaplan,
Inc., relating to its proposed acquisition by Thoma Bravo. Under
the terms of the agreement, PLAN shareholders will receive $66.00
in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/anaplan-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC, Friday, May 6, 2022, Press release
picture
About Monteverde & Associates PC

Did the current market drop catch you flat-footed? Don't let it
happen again! Chief Market Strategist, Matt Maley is helping
traders guide the markets for success. Click Here to Sign Up for
His Starter Newsletter!

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

If you own common stock in PLAN and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341. [GN]

APHRIA INC: Securities Suit Granted Class Certification in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern District of New York issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class action in the case of In re Aphria,
Inc. Securities Regulation. The order certified the class as
shareholders who purchased Aphria Inc. securities between July 17,
2018 and April 12, 2019.

The plaintiffs' memorandum in support of class certification states
that each member of the class suffered damages when they purchased
Aphira stock at artificially inflated prices due to Aphira's
misrepresentation about the acquisition of a series of assets for
$193 million (LATAM Assets).

The memorandum states that Aphira was a Canadian cannabis company
that sought to drive value for shareholders through international
expansion. The plaintiffs state that Aphira purported that the
LATAM Assets were cannabis businesses across Latin America and the
Caribbean that would grow Aphira's international presence and
provide value to shareholders.

However, the memorandum states that on December 3, 2018, Hindenburg
Research and Quintessential Capital Management issued a report with
conclusive evidence that the LATAM Assets were not what Aphira
represented, and the assets were barely operational, and in some
cases, not even licensed to do the business.

Following the report, Aphira's stock plummeted to $4.51 per share
from a previous closing price of $7.90 representing a total market
capitalization loss of more than $220 million. The Memorandum
further states that on February 15, 2019, a Special Committee
created by Aphira's board of directors announced that an
investigation revealed that several Aphira insiders had a conflict
of interest in the LATAM Assets acquisition that was not reported
resulting in another stock plummet resulting in an additional $97.5
million market capitalization loss.

The plaintiffs argue that their claims and damages are identical in
nature making the lawsuit particularly suited for class action
treatment. In the court's order, Judge George Daniels granted the
plaintiffs' motion, certified the class and appointed Levi &
Korinsky, LLP as class counsel after considering the plaintiffs'
memorandum and receiving no opposition to the motion.

Aphira is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and
Latham & Watkins, LLP.[GN]

ARCARE: Hale Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GREG HALE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCARE, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00117-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 10, 2022) arises from the
Defendant’s alleged failure to properly and adequately secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and medical
diagnosis or condition information and health insurance information
(PHI) which violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act).

On February 24, 2022, the Defendant has experienced a data security
incident that impacted its computer systems and caused a temporary
disruption to services. According to the result of the
Defendant’s investigation of the incident on March 14, 2022, an
unauthorized actor may have accessed and/or acquired sensitive data
during a period of unauthorized access to the Defendant’s
computer systems between January 18 and February 24, 2022.
Accordingly, at least the following sensitive information was
compromised: Social Security numbers, driver’s license or state
identification numbers, dates of birth, financial account
information, medical treatment information, prescription
information, medical diagnosis or condition information, and health
insurance information, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who have
directly entrusted the Defendant with their sensitive and
confidential information, allege the Defendant of the following:

     -- negligence by failing to safeguard their PII and PHI;

     -- breach of implied contract by failing to safeguard and
protect their information as agreed, and by failing to timely and
accurately notify them if their data has been breached and
compromised or stolen;

     -- breach of fiduciary duty by failing to protect the
integrity of its systems containing his and other similarly
situated individuals’ PII and personal health information; and

     -- unjust enrichment by saving the costs they reasonably
should have expended on data security measures to secure their PII
and PHI.

Arcare is a healthcare network throughout Arkansas, Kentucky and
Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                -and-

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

                -and-

          Bryan L. Bleicher, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Tel: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambrone.com


ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Campbell Sues Over Mislabeled Snack Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA CAMPBELL, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC; and
HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02752-RMI
(N.D. Cal., May 9, 2022) is a class action arising from the
Defendants' deceptive and misleading practices with respect to its
marketing and sale of their fruit snack products (the "Products").

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, sell, and
distribute the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign
focused on claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers -
specifically the importance of real fruit and its presence in the
Products. The Defendants engage in a deceptive marketing campaign
to convince consumers that the Products contain significant amounts
of the actual fruits shown in the marketing and on the labeling of
the Products, they are nutritious and healthful to consume, and are
more healthful than similar products.

The deception lies in the fact that the Products are devoid of real
fruit. Rather than containing real fruit, the Products are packed
with sugar. The Defendants' Products contain sugar levels
comparable to candy and none of the vibrantly depicted fruits, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Products
if they had known that the Products did not contain real fruit in
significant amounts and were actually devoid of real fruit.

ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC was founded in 2010. The Company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
          GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
          2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Tel: (310) 274-4663
          Email: cta@ggallp.com

               -and-

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste 102
          Pittsburgh PA 15212
          Tel: (888) 412-5291
          Email: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

ARQIT QUANTUM: Faces Glick Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GLICK, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARQIT QUANTUM INC. F/K/A CENTRICUS ACQUISITION CORP.,
DAVID WILLIAMS, NICK POINTON, CARLO CALABRIA, STEPHEN CHANDLER,
MANFREDI LEFEBVRE D'OVIDIO, VERALINN JAMIESON, GARTH RITCHIE, AND
STEPHEN WILSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-02604 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of: (i) all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Arqit securities between September
7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, inclusive; and/or (ii) all holders of
Centricus securities as of the record date for the special meeting
of shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the
merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger") and entitled to
vote on the Merger, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 18, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled, "British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its Prospects,
Former Staff and Others Say." The WSJ article stated, in relevant
part:

   When the company secured its Nasdaq listing last autumn, its
   revenue consisted of a handful of government grants and small
   research contracts, and its signature product was an early-stage

   prototype unable to encrypt anything in practical use, according

   to [former employees and other people familiar with the
   company]. The encryption technology the company hinges on -- a
   system to protect against next-generation quantum computers—
   might never apply beyond niche uses, numerous people inside and

   outside the company warned, unless there were a major overhaul
   of internet protocols.

On this news, Arqit share price fell $2.57 per share, or 17%, to
close at $12.49 per share on April 18, 2022, damaging investors.

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

The Plaintiff purchased Arqit securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

Arqit is purportedly a cybersecurity company that has pioneered a
unique quantum encryption technology. The Individual Defendants
officers of the company.

Centricus was a special purpose acquisition corporation formed for
the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business
combination with one or more businesses. Prior to the
Merger, Centricus shares traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker
symbol "CENHU." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

ASTER HEALTH: Fails to Pay Caregivers' Minimum Wages, Nweke Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
INE NWEKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ASTER HEALTH GROUP, INC., and KELLY GILBERT, Case No.
1:22-cv-02410 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2022) is a collective action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the minimum wage provisions of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
and the payment provisions of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

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

The Defendants do business as Visiting Angels or Visiting Angels of
Chicago. The  Defendant directly hired the Plaintiff and other
Caregivers to work on its behalf, controlled their work schedules,
duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment
conditions, and kept at least some records regarding their
employment. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff an hourly or salary
rate, the lawsuit says.

Aster Health is a home health agency in Evanston, llinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AURINIA PHARMA: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 20 years, announces that a
purchaser of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) filed a
class action complaint against the Company for alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Aurinia class action
lawsuit seeks to represent purchasers of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (NASDAQ: AUPH) securities between May 7, 2021 and February 25,
2022 inclusive (the"Class Period"). Commenced on April 15, 2022,
the Aurinia class action lawsuit – captioned Ortmann v. Aurinia
Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 22-cv-02185 (E.D.N.Y.) – charges
Aurinia and certain of its top executive officers with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Aurinia Accused of Misleading Shareholders

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

The Aurinia class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues;
(ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well
short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, Aurinia had significantly
overstated LUPKYNIS' commercial prospects; (iv) as a result,
Aurinia had overstated its financial position and/or prospects for
2022; and (v) thus, Aurinia's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31,
2021. Among other items, Aurinia reported a year-over-year revenue
decline and announced a lower-than-expected sales outlook for 2022.
On this news, Aurinia's common share price fell by more than 24%,
damaging investors.

Lead plaintiff motions for the Aurinia class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than June 14, 2022.

Aurinia Shareholders Urged to Contact the Firm

If you purchased Aurinia securities, have information, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please click here or contact Timothy
L. Miles, Esquire, at 615-587-7384, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or
by email to . If you inquire by email please include your mailing
address, telephone number, and the number shares owned.

About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentely
selected by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM as a 2020 Top Ranked
Lawyer and a 2020 Top Rated Litigator. Mr. Miles also maintains the
AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating
for both legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the
prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National
Trial Lawyers Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a
recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of
America (2019) and recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer,
Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction
(2019). Awards: Top Rated Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and
ALM (2019); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)
and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial
Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2019); AV(R)
Preeminent™ Rating by Martindale-Hubble(R) (2014-2020); PRR AV
Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated
Lawyer in Litigation™ for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability
(Martindale-Hubble(R) 2015); Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier
Lawyers of America (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top
Rated Lawyer for (Avvo 2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored numerous
publications advocating for shareholdings including most recently:
Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities
Firms Provides Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles,
Dec. 3, 2019).

Contact:
Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
124 Shiloh Ridge
Hendersonville, TN 37075
Telephone: (855-846-6529)
Email: Website:
SOURCE: The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
Timothy Lee. Miles
Law Offices Of Timothy L. Miles
+1 6155877384 [GN]

BAKKT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of June 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Bakkt Holdings, Inc. ("Bakkt" or the "Company")
f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings ("VIH") (NYSE: BKKT) (NYSE:
BKKT.WS) (NASDAQ: VIHAU) (NASDAQ: VIH) (NASDAQ: VIHAW) and certain
of its former officers and directors. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and docketed under 22-cv-02283, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bakkt securities between March
31, 2021 and November 19, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (b) Bakkt Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the
business combination between the Company and Bakkt Holdings, LLC
("Legacy Bakkt") completed on or about October 15, 2021 (the
"Business Combination"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BARCLAYS PLC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Barclays
PLC (NYSE: BCS), CIRCOR International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR), and
NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO). Our investigations concern whether
these companies have violated the federal securities laws and/or
engaged in other unlawful business practices. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS)

On March 28, 2022, Barclays disclosed that it had sold $15.2
billion more structured notes and exchange-traded notes than it had
registered. Barclays would repurchase the affected securities at
their original price, resulting in approximately $592 million in
losses.

On this news, Barclays' share fell $0.96, or 10.6%, to close at
$8.09 per share on March 28, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

For more information on the Barclays investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BCS

CIRCOR International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR)

On March 14, 2022, CIRCOR disclosed that it may restate financial
results dating to 2018 due to accounting irregularities related to
its pipeline engineering unit. The Company stated that the
irregularities appear to be "in the range of $35 to $45 million of
pre-tax income on a cumulative basis over a period of at least five
years."

On this news, the Company's stock fell as much as 2.4% during
after-hours trading on March 14, 2022.

For more information on the CIRCOR investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CIR

NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO)

NeoGenomics specializes in cancer genetics testing and information
services and aims to provide comprehensive oncology-focused testing
menus in the world for physicians to help them diagnose and treat
cancer.

On Monday, March 28, 2022, NeoGenomics' Chief Executive Mark Mallon
stepped down as the health-testing company revealed that
first-quarter financials will miss guidance and rescinded its
forecast for the full year.

On this news, the price of NeoGenomics shares declined by $5.30 per
share, or approximately 29.8%, from $17.79 per share to close at
$12.49 per share on March 29, 2022.

For more information on the NeoGenomics investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NEO

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

BERBIX INC: Mahmood Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SABA MAHMOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BERBIX INC., Case No. 22LA00000112,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 9,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02456 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by requiring its
customers to upload a photo of their faces and collecting biometric
facial geometry scans from their photos without first obtaining
their informed written consent and without providing written
disclosures regarding its purpose for collecting their biometrics
and disclosing its retention practices.

Berbix Inc. is a software company in San Francisco, California.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Bethany C. Lobo, Esq.
         Joseph D. Mornin, Esq.
         Wazhma Sadat, Esq.
         COOLEY LLP
         3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
         Telephone: (415) 693-2000
         Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
         E-mail: blobo@cooley.com
                 jmornin@cooley.com
                 wsadat@cooley.com

                 - and –

         Robert E. Earles, Esq.
         Tiana A. Demas, Esq.
         COOLEY LLP
         110 N. Wacker Drive, 42nd Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 881-6500
         Facsimile: (312) 881-6598
         E-mail: rearles@cooley.com
                 tdemas@cooley.com

BEST BUY: Fails to Issue Proper Repossession Notice, Dashiell Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RHASHAUNA DASHIELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY IMPORTS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 220500968 (Pa. Com. Pl., May 10, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant to redress systemic
violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has availed the
Defendant's offer to finance his acquisition of a used 2008 Buick
Lacrose pursuant to a Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC) in
which monthly payments were required to be made and the annual
percentage rate was 21 percent. However, the Defendant has declared
a default in or about January 2022 and ordered a repossession of
the Plaintiff's automobile. Although the Defendant issued a
Repossession Notice to the Plaintiff, the Defendant failed to
provide him and other similarly situated consumers with the proper
notice of repossession and disposition of collateral. Allegedly,
the Defendant's repossession notice failed to advise the Plaintiff
that she is entitled to an accounting of any unpaid indebtedness,
failed to state the place where the vehicle is stored, and failed
to provide a phone number.

Best Buy Imports Inc. is a buy-here-pay-here car dealership which
regularly finances the purchase of automobiles for consumer use in
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Tel: (610) 822-0782

BLACKBOARD STUDENT: Faces Richert FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RICHERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBOARD STUDENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00508 (E.D. Va., May 9, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky
Wages and Hours Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
advisor from July 2019 to February 2021.

Blackboard Student Services, Inc. is an education technology
company, with its principal place of business in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan L. Stone, Esq.
         THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC.
         500 Crawford Street, Suite 200
         Portsmouth, VA 23704
         Telephone: (757) 393-4093
         Facsimile: (757) 397-7257
         E-mail: jstone@moodyrrlaw.com

                  - and –

         Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
         Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
         JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
         444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
         Saint Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (612) 436-1800
         Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
         E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

BOB EVANS: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Tipped Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
RODNEY MITCHELL and RHONDA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOB EVANS RESTAURANTS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02123-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 9,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated tipped employees
appropriate minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, and the Indiana Minimum Wage
Law.

Plaintiffs Mitchell and Thomas have been employed by the Defendant
as tipped employees at its stores in Kentucky and Indiana from
September 2019 and from April 1, 2012, respectively, until the
present.

Bob Evans Restaurants, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, with
its principal place of business at 8111 Smith's Mill Road, New
Albany, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
         BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX LLP
         4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
         Columbus, OH 43219
         Telephone: (614) 221-4221
         E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

                 - and –

         Jerome P. Prather, Esq.
         J. Conner Niceley, Esq.
         GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC
         141 North Broadway
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Telephone: (859) 254-9352
         Facsimile: (859) 233-9769
         E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com
                 cniceley@garmerprather.com

                 - and –

         Andrew Clarke Weeks, Esq.
         LAWRENCE & LAWRENCE, PLLC
         440 South Seventh Street, Suite 200
         Louisville, KY 40203
         Telephone: (502) 589-5855
         Facsimile: (502) 589-9472
         E-mail: acweeks@reallawky.com

                 - and –

         D. Todd Varellas, Esq.
         James J. Varellas III, Esq.
         VARELLAS & VARELLAS
         249 West Short Street, Suite 201
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Telephone: (859) 252-4473
         Facsimile: (859) 252-4476
         E-mail: tvarellas@varellaslaw.com
                 jayvarellas@varellaslaw.com

BONDI SANDS: N.D. California Trims Claims in Moran Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE MORAN, Plaintiff v. BONDI SANDS (USA) INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07961-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part Bondi
Sands' motion to dismiss.

I. Background

In the summer of 2021, Moran purchased can of Bondi Sands' aerosol
fragrance-free sunscreen. The front label of the Purchased Product
includes the phrase "Reef Friendly." Moran alleges that the term
Reef Friendly "led her to believe that the Purchased Product's
ingredients were all reef-safe and otherwise could not harm reefs,
including the coral reefs and marine life that inhabits and depends
on them."

According to Moran, the Purchased Product, and other similar
products containing the Reef Friendly statement, actually contain
chemical ingredients, such as avobenzone, homoslate, octisalate,
and/or octorylene, which "are not safe for reefs because they can
harm and/or kill reefs, including the coral reefs and the marine
life that inhabits or depends on them." Moran alleges she was not
aware of that fact when she purchased the Product, and would not
have purchased the Product, or would have paid substantially less
for it, had she known the truth. She also alleges that she
continues to see Bondi Sands' Products that use Reef Friendly on
the labels. She would like to purchase them in the future, if that
representation was true, but because she does not "possess any
specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or education in sun care
products," she has no way to determine the truth.

Based on these and additional allegations that the Court will
address in the analysis, Moran seeks relief on behalf of herself
and putative classes for violations under each prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL Claim"), for
violations of California's False Advertising Law (the "FAL Claim"),
for violations California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA
Claim"), for breach of warranty, and for unjust enrichment.

The matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion
to dismiss filed by Defendant Bondi Sands. The Court has considered
the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in
the case.

II. Analysis

A. The Court Denies Bondi Sands' Motion to Invoke the Primary
Jurisdiction Doctrine.

Bondi Sands moves to dismiss or stay pursuant to the primary
jurisdiction doctrine. "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows
courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without
prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special
competence of an administrative agency."

The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has promulgated
regulations and labeling requirements for over the counter ("OTC")
sunscreens. Bondi Sands also notes Congress is considering
legislation that would require the FDA, in consultation with other
agencies, to develop labeling requirements for the term "Reef
Safe." The legislation was introduced in July 2021 and, to date,
has not been passed. Each version of the proposed bill also
provides the FDA with at least two-years from the date the law is
enacted to develop those requirements. Moran does not seriously
dispute that this is an area that would fall within the FDA's
expertise and that it has not yet been addressed. However, "primary
jurisdiction is not required when a referral to the agency would
significantly postpone a ruling that a court is otherwise competent
to make." Efficiency is the deciding factor in whether to invoke
primary jurisdiction.

In one of the other cases that Moran's counsel has filed in the
District, Judge White holds that the Court considered this issue
and determined that, at this juncture, action by the FDA appeared
too remote to warrant invocation of the doctrine, citing White v.
The Kroger Co., No. 21-cv-08004-RS, 2022 WL 888657, at *2-3 (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 25, 2022). He concurs and, in light of that uncertainty,
concludes invoking the doctrine would not be efficient.
Accordingly, he denies in part Bondi Sands' motion on that basis.

B. The Court Denies Bondi Sands' Motion to Dismiss Based on FDCA
Preemption.

Bondi Sands also argues Moran's claims are preempted by the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. sections 301, et seq.
The FDCA contains a preemption provision, which provides that "no
State may establish or continue in effect any requirement that is
different from or in addition to, or that is otherwise not
identical with a requirement under the FDCA." The FDA's regulations
governing OTC sunscreen do not currently address environmental
claims.

Moran argues she asks only that the Reef Friendly phrase be removed
from the label. She alleges, however, that the Court should require
"prominent qualifications and/or disclaimers on the [Bondi Sands'
Products'] front label concerning their true nature."
Judge White holds that even if the FDA neither prohibits nor
permits the phrase Reef Friendly, Moran fails to meaningfully
engage with Bondi Sands' argument that she asks the Court to ask
Bondi Sands to add information not currently required by the FDA to
the Products' labels. For that reason, he finds that Prescott v.
Bayer Health Care, LLC, on which she relies, distinguishable. No.
20-cv-00102-NC, 2020 WL 4430958, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020).
However, it also is evident that Moran's claim is based on the
theory that the phrase Reef Friendly is misleading, and FDCA
regulations prohibit "claims that would be false and/or misleading
on sunscreen products." Accordingly, Judge White concludes Moran's
claims are not preempted in their entirety and denies in part Bondi
Sands' motion on that basis as well.

C. The Court Concludes Moran Has Stated Claims for Relief.

Bondi Sands also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A
motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Bondi Sands argues Moran is proceeding on a
lack of substantiation theory because she alleges it was
"statutorily required to ensure it has adequate substantiation for"
the "Reef Friendly" representation.

Bondi Sands' argument that Moran fails to show the chemicals at
issue are actually dangerous goes to whether she ultimately will be
able to prove her claims that the statement is false or misleading,
rather than whether she has alleged that is the case. Accordingly,
Judge White denies in part Bondi Sands' motion to dismiss on this
basis.

Bondi Sands moved to dismiss the breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment claims solely on the basis that they were derivative of
Moran's consumer protection claims. Because he concludes the
consumer protection claims can proceed, Judge White also denies
Bondi Sands' motion to dismiss these derivative claims.

D. The Court Grants, in Part, Bondi Sands' Motion to Dismiss the
Equitable Claims.

Bondi Sands moves to dismiss Moran's claims for equitable relief on
the basis that she has an adequate remedy at law. It is
well-established that claims for relief under the FAL and the UCL
are limited to restitution and injunctive relief. In addition to
seeking restitution, Moran seeks prospective injunctive relief.

Judge White concludes that the allegations do not establish that
the damages she seeks are necessarily inadequate or incomplete.
That is, Moran's inability to obtain damages would result from her
CLRA and common law claims' failure on the merits" not that there
"there is an inherent limitation of the legal remedy that renders
it inadequate." In addition, Moran alleges that she bought her
sunscreen in July 2021, "so her damages or restitution would not be
affected by whether the statute of limitations is three or four
years."

Accordingly, Judge White concludes that Moran fails to allege she
lacks an adequate monetary remedy at law, and he grants in part
Bondi Sands' motion to dismiss on this basis. Because he cannot
conclude it would be futile, Judge White grants Moran leave to
amend.

E. The Court Concludes Moran Alleges She Has Standing.

Bondi Sands' final argument is that Moran fails to allege facts to
show she has standing. A lack of Article III standing requires
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Moran alleges she purchased the
Product based on the Reef Friendly representation and would not
have done so, or would have paid substantially less for it, had she
known the truth. Therefore, to the extent Bondi Sands argues that
Moran fails to allege injury-in-fact to pursue damages, Judge White
denies the motion.

Bondi Sands also challenges Moran's standing to seek injunctive
relief, which requires her to allege she "has suffered or is
threatened with a 'concrete and particularized' legal harm, coupled
with a 'sufficient likelihood that she will again be wronged in a
similar way.'" Moran alleges that she "is not personally familiar
with the ingredients in the Products and does not possess any
specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or education in sun care
products, and their ingredients or formulations." Therefore, she
claims she has no way to determine if the Reef Friendly
representation is true and is unable to rely on the representation
in the future. Bondi Sands argues Moran can simply review the
ingredients list to determine if the allegedly harmful chemicals
are present.

Judge White concludes that it is reasonable -- and plausible -- to
infer Moran may not be able to determine whether the Bondi Sands
Products are reef friendly when confronted with them in the future.
Moran's allegations are sufficient to plausibly allege she has
standing to seek injunctive relief.

Accordingly, the Court denies Bondi Sands' motion to dismiss on
this basis as well.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge White grants in part and denies in
part Bondi Sands' motion to dismiss. As noted, the parties
stipulated that Moran may file a Second Amended Complaint, and the
Court has approved that stipulation. The Court will not require
Moran to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint until she
determines whether she intends to amend her allegations regarding
the claims for monetary injunctive relief.

Accordingly, Judge White grants Moran until May 20, 2022, to file a
second amended complaint, that will include the amendments
addressed in the stipulation and which may amend the allegations
regarding equitable relief. Bondi Sands will answer or otherwise
respond by June 3, 2022, although the parties may stipulate to
extend that deadline.

The parties will appear for a case management conference on June
24, 2022, and they will file a joint case management conference
statement by June 17, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yr4jjftr from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the State Bar
of California is taking its fight against a proposed class action
over an alleged data breach to federal court, California filings
show.

Plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms sued the California State
Bar and JudyRecords.com in March in Orange County Superior Court.

The complaint, which was later amended, alleges that about 322,525
nonpublic records by the State Bar were published on
Judyrecords.com between October 2021 to February 2022.

The suit alleges the State Bar failed to notify those affected in a
timely manner.

Defendants moved the suit to federal court on May 13.

Causes of Action: Violation of California Information Practices Act
of 1977, invasion of privacy, Sherman Act, negligence, negligence
per se.

Relief: Injunctive relief in the form of disclosures, damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Class Size: Proposed class includes all Californians identified in
the 188 to 322,525 nonconfidential files released.

Response: The California State Bar declined to comment on pending
litigation.

Attorneys: The plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices of Lenore
Albert.

The case is Roe v. State Bar of Cal., C.D. Cal., No. 8:22-cv-00983,
5/13/22. [GN]

CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Verdugo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREA OTANEZ VERDUGO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CAPSTONE LOGISTICS, LLC and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV09270, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May
9, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03141 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 provide meal periods and pay missed meal
period premiums, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
failure to pay all wages owed in a timely manner, waiting time
penalties, and unfair competition.

Capstone Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Georgia.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
         Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                 jriley@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Justin T. Curley, Esq.
         Ian T. Long, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
                 itlong@seyfarth.com

CEDAR REALTY: Kim Sues Over Shareholder Investment Value Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Kim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Cedar Realty Trust, Inc., Bruce J. Schanzer, Gregg A. Gonsalves,
Abe Eisenstat, Steven G. Rogers, Sabrina Kanner, Darcy D. Morris,
Richard H. Ross, and Sharon Stern, Case No. 1:22-cv-01103-GLR (D.
Md., May 6, 2022) seeks to enjoin this sham transaction or, at the
very least, require Cedar to honor the terms of its agreements with
the preferred shareholders by requiring a vote by the preferred
shareholders on the fairness of this transaction.

According to the complaint, if this Proposed Transaction is allowed
to proceed, it will not only result in harm to the Company's
preferred shareholders, it will have far reaching implications for
Maryland law and damage the investment prospects for Maryland
REITs.

The directors of the Maryland real estate investment trust Cedar
have devised a scheme to rob their preferred shareholders of their
investment value and transfer it to themselves and their common
stockholders. Specifically, Cedar's board of directors has
structured a transaction whereby they will essentially cease all
meaningful operations, sell off the lion's share of the Company's
material assets, and use the proceeds of the sale of these assets
to retire all of Cedar's debt and pay the Board and the common
stockholders nearly $400 million. Meanwhile, the preferred
shareholders, who collectively invested $161.25 million into the
Company, will receive nothing, says the suit.

Worse, if this transaction is consummated, the preferred shares
will fall under the control of Wheeler Real Estate Investment
Trust, L.P. a company with a history not only of underperformance,
but of an unwillingness to honor its obligations to its own
preferred shareholders. This sham "merger" the Defendants have
devised will, in the end, leave the surviving shell company with no
ability to honor the obligations to its preferred shareholders to
which Cedar, members of its senior management, and its Board are
legally bound. This transaction must therefore be stopped, the suit
added.

The Plaintiff is and has been at all relevant times, the owner of
Series C preferred shares of Cedar Realty. She purchased these
shares prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction and
has continuously held her shares since that time.

Cedar is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal
offices at 928 Carmans Road, Massapequa, New York. It is a real
estate investment trust (REIT). Organized in 1984, it has elected
to be taxed as a REIT under applicable provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code. To qualify as a REIT under those provisions, Cedar
must have a preponderant percentage of its assets invested in, and
income derived from, real estate and related sources. To that end,
Cedar has focused primarily on ownership, operation and
redevelopment of approximately 50 grocery-anchored shopping centers
in high-density urban markets from Washington, D.C. to Boston. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew Heffner, Esq.
          Matthew Hurst, Esq.
          HEFFNER HURST
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1210
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-3466
          E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com
                  mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Andrew abramowitz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3062
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
                  aabramowitz@bm.net

CENTERPOINT LEGAL: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Gomez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MERVELIN A. GOMEZ, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CENTERPOINT LEGAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Respondent, Docket No. A-2927-20 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division, reversed the order granting the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and the order denying the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

Plaintiff Mervelin A. Gomez appeals from a May 5, 2021 Law Division
order granting Defendant CenterPoint Legal Solution's (CenterPoint)
Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of
action; and a June 15, 2021 order denying the Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration. Utilizing Rule 4:6-2(e), the trial court
dismissed the complaint, with prejudice, relying solely on the
entire controversy doctrine (ECD), which it applied as though there
still existed a requirement of mandatory party joinder.

The Appellate Court opines that this misapplication of the ECD,
which no longer compels mandatory party joinder, requires that the
trial court order be reversed.

I. Background

Ms. Gomez filed suit in the U.S. District for the District of New
Jersey in 2017 against a debt buyer, LVNV Funding LLC, its master
servicer, Resurgent Capital Services, and LVNV's collection
attorneys, Forster & Garbus (F&G). She alleged they violated the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and invaded her privacy
when they enforced a garnishment against her bank account based on
a judgment against a different person with a similar name.

The federal claim provided for federal court jurisdiction and
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law privacy claims. Gomez
was unaware of CenterPoint's involvement in LVNV's collection
efforts since CenterPoint's role had not been disclosed and was
unknown. Gomez learned of CenterPoint when she conducted
depositions of LVNV's and F&G's employees in July 2019.2 During
these depositions, it was disclosed that CenterPoint directed or
controlled the actions of F&G and that F&G had not had any contact
with LVNV. Gomez alleges that the manner of CenterPoint's
operations shielded it from view and its participation in, or
supervision of, the practices complained of could not have been
detected.

Based on what Gomez learned as a result of the deposition
testimony, she filed the State court action on Feb. 1, 2021,
alleging that CenterPoint engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law. In her complaint, the Plaintiff complied with Rule 4:5-1(b)(2)
by certifying that the matter in controversy was the subject of a
pending federal lawsuit.

The Plaintiff asserted three causes of action in her complaint
against CenterPoint: (1) enjoining CenterPoint from engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law; (2) a violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -227, by committing
unconscionable commercial practices; and (3) damages for the
unauthorized practice of law in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-22(a).

The Superior Court declines, on this record, to opine as to whether
the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish each cause of
action. That issue is not before it. The basis for the relief
granted was not the inadequacy of the pleadings as constituted, but
the perceived fatal consequence of commencing the State court
action given the pendency of a related federal court suit against
other parties.

The State action asserts entirely different theories of liability
than those asserted in the federal suit; the claims arise
exclusively under State law; CenterPoint is not a party to the
federal case; the parties to the federal case are not (and need not
be) parties to the state court case; the State court case is a
putative class action; the federal case is not.

CenterPoint filed a motion to dismiss Gomez's complaint on March
23, 2021, claiming that Gomez's claims were barred by the ECD.
Following oral argument on April 30, 2021, the trial court granted
CenterPoint's motion to dismiss on May 5, 2021.

A motion to reconsider was denied on June 15, 2021, for essentially
the same reasons the motion was granted in the first instance. This
appeal followed. On appeal, the {laintiff argues the trial court
misapplied the ECD and that CenterPoint, as a non-party to the
federal case, had no grounds to raise the ECD and certainly none to
obtain relief pursuant to it.

II. Discussion

A. Part Joinder

The trial court's attention was fixed on the Plaintiff's failure to
add CenterPoint to the federal suit. Contrary to the court's focus
during oral argument that the Plaintiff failed to join CenterPoint
as a party in the federal case, the ECD is not about mandatory
party joinder. As the Superior Court explained in Hobart Bros. Co.,
there is no penalty under the ECD for failure to have joined a
party to some other separate but transactionally related lawsuit
unless some showing can be made that the failure was inexcusable
and non-joinder caused substantial prejudice. Nothing in the trial
court's opinion or CenterPoint's motion speaks to this standard,
and the cited caselaw is from an era when the ECD rubric included
mandatory party joinder.

While the tone of the trial court's opinion implies, at least, that
it felt the Plaintiff's failure to join CenterPoint to the federal
case was inexcusable there is nothing at all to suggest a finding
of "substantial prejudice." Despite a passing reference to
"prejudice" near the end of the opinion, there is nothing in the
record that would cause the Superior Court to conclude the
prejudice was substantial. Indeed, the only prejudice cited by the
court, the amount of discovery taken by the Plaintiff in the
federal court action, could easily be mitigated by ordering that
all such discovery be produced to CenterPoint and by providing
ample time and latitude to CenterPoint to consider that discovery
and to take its own. The sanction of dismissal with prejudice of
the case for failing to join CenterPoint to the federal case is
without legal basis on this record.

B. Claim joinder

The Plaintiff's allegations in her complaint demonstrate the claims
against CenterPoint and the Defendants in the federal case are
different though they are transactionally related. That nexus,
without more, is insufficient to force the conclusion that the
claims in this suit had to have been made part of the claims in the
federal action, the Superior Court opines.

In this complaint, paragraphs twenty-four, twenty-five, and
twenty-six, allege that CenterPoint contracted with LVNV to
practice law by providing legal advice on post-judgment litigation,
and that CenterPoint directed F&G to take actions against the
Plaintiff. But the equitable nature of the ECD requires that the
Superior Court considers more than only whether claims against a
possible new party may be transactionally related to the claims in
the pending federal case.

Even assuming the ECD required mandatory party joinder, the
Superior Court opines that the Plaintiff did not have a realistic
opportunity to amend the federal pleadings to name CenterPoint as a
party in the federal case nor any obligation, under the facts set
forth in the state court complaint, to do so. By the time the state
court matter was filed, the federal case was well along, discovery
was over, and the time to add additional parties had passed.

The Superior Court holds that the dismissal with prejudice was
unwarranted because the "claims asserted in the state court action
did not lie at the core of the federal action." Moreover, the
Defendants were not prejudiced by the Plaintiff's failure to join
them to the federal action and the interests of judicial economy
were not disserved because there was no likelihood of duplication
of effort or inconsistent determinations.

III. Conclusion & Order

The Superior Court begins by first stating the obvious: The ECD
applies only to known claims. It does not bar unknown claims. Gomez
maintains that at the deposition in the federal case she first
learned about CenterPoint's involvement. By that time, she alleges
a federal court scheduling order precluded pleading amendments. It
is academic whether Gomez would have succeeded if a motion was
belatedly filed in the federal case for leave to amend the second
amended complaint to name CenterPoint as a defendant in the federal
case.

CenterPoint contends the Plaintiff must have known about it sooner
than the deadline for amending pleadings in the federal case. The
Superior Court cannot resolve that factual dispute on CenterPoint's
Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss. The lack of a hearing on that
issue, and reliance by the trial court on the pleadings alone,
requires that the Superior Court examines the record in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff.

Second, CenterPoint made its motion to dismiss while the federal
action was pending before an adjudication on the merits against the
defendants in the federal case. This is a significant point. The
Superior Court has already established that failure to join
CenterPoint to the federal action, is not, and on this record
cannot be, a basis by itself to impose the most punitive effect of
the ECD. The inapplicability of ECD relief is compounded by the
fact that at the time the matter under review was filed, there was
no disposition substantive or otherwise, of the federal suit. In
this State court action, Gomez did not sue a party already sued.
Plaintiff sued a new party while the federal suit was ongoing.
Thus, the Superior Court is satisfied that the case is not a
"successive action" and as such is almost certainly out of bounds
for ECD relief.

Third, CenterPoint has not demonstrated an inability to defend the
action or any related prejudice. This is yet another vital point.
The judge found CenterPoint was prejudiced because the Plaintiff
"had the benefit of over three years of discovery" in the federal
case. As observed earlier, this "prejudice" can be surmounted.
CenterPoint can easily obtain the discovery from the federal case
and use it in the case, and the judge can manage discovery in the
case by ensuring CenterPoint has enough time to defend the
allegations in the complaint that it engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law. The Plaintiff did not sue CenterPoint at the last
second. CenterPoint will have ample time to prepare for trial.

Nothing in the record satisfies us that CenterPoint's rights have
been prejudiced in any way and certainly not substantially. Thus,
even if we were inclined to find some ECD or Rule violation, which
the Superior Court does not, the penalty of dismissal with
prejudice is one to be imposed sparingly and only when no other
lesser remedy would be adequate.

Fourth, related to the preceding consideration, application of the
ECD is discretionary and the boundaries are not limitless; it is
"constrained by principles of equity." The Superior Court applies
the doctrine under the totality of the circumstances of each case.
Gomez argues, and the Superior Court agrees, that the judge did not
take full stock of the procedural history in the federal case. Had
the judge weighed the "equitable underpinnings" that were
apparently overlooked, or were unclear in a pleadings-based review,
dismissal would not have been granted.

To the extent the Plaintiff seeks relief on other grounds not
expressly addressed, the Superior Court considers these issues to
lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

The Superior thus concludes that the trial court's reasoning to
rest on an incorrect understanding of the ECD and, as such,
dismissal of the case with prejudice on ECD grounds was a mistaken
exercise of discretion. It reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/367w2p5d from Leagle.com.

Philip D. Stern argued the cause for appellants (Kim Law Firm, LLC
and Scott C. Borison (Borison Firm, LLC) of the District of
Columbia, Maryland and California bars, admitted pro hac vice,
attorneys; Yongmoon Kim -- jhk@thekimlawfirm.com -- and Scott
Borison, of counsel and on the briefs).

Peter G. Siachos -- psiachos@grsm.com -- argued the cause for
respondent (Gordon Reese Scully & Mansukhani, LLP, attorneys; Peter
G. Siachos, of counsel and on the brief; Kasey Theresa Mahoney --
kmahoney@grsm.com -- and Patrick D. Tobia -- ptobia@grsm.com -- on
the brief).


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Estevez Sues Over Non-Exempt Workers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
BOLIVAR ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00327 (M.D. Tenn., May 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its 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 has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt worker
since at least December 2021.

Change Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare company, headquartered in
Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
         E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         R. Burke Keaty, II, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN – NASHVILLE, PLLC
         801 Broadway, Suite 105
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 514-4205
         E-mail: bkeaty@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

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

COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. COMMERCE DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LLC, SMART &
FINAL STORES LLC, SMART & FINAL LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 22STCV11092, was removed from the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on May 6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00780 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to pay wages when due, failure to
reimburse employees for required expenses, unlawful deductions from
paychecks, and unfair competition.

Commerce Distribution Company LLC is a company that operates a
distribution center located in Los Angeles, California.

Smart & Final Stores LLC is an operator of grocery and foodservice
stores, headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

Smart & Final LLC is a chain of warehouse-style food and supply
stores based in Commerce, California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
         Dessi N. Day, Esq.
         Noel J. Meza, Esq.
         GREENE & ROBERTS
         402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 398-3400
         Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
         E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
                 dday@greeneroberts.com
                 nmeza@greeneroberts.com

CRAWLSPACE DOCTOR: Faces Cobb FLSA Suit for Unpaid OT in E.D. Ark.
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAILAND COBB and RICKY TATE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRAWLSPACE DOCTOR OF
ARKANSAS, LLC and ELLIS LEE MANUEL, JR., Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00409-BRW (E.D. Ark., May 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs 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 and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Cobb was employed by the Defendants as a laborer from September
2021 until March 2022.

Mr. Tate was employed by the Defendants as a foreman from September
2021 until February 2022.

Crawlspace Doctor of Arkansas, LLC is a family-owned business in
Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Patrick Wilson, Esq.
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: patrick@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC.;
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV392800, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on May 6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02734 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 required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties, unfair and unlawful business practices, and
civil penalties.

Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. is a global real estate services
firm, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. is a provider of real
estate management services located in Walnut Creek, California.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is a manufacturer of surgical equipment
based in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         John R. Giovannone, Esq.
         Allison Chua, Esq.
         CDF LABOR LAW LLP
         707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 612-6300
         E-mail: jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com
                 achua@cdflaborlaw.com

DELAVAL INC: Triple S Farms Sues Over V300's Concealed Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRIPLE S FARMS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELAVAL INC., WEST AGRO, INC.,
DELAVAL INTERNATIONAL AB, DELAVAL HOLDING BV, DELAVAL HOLDING AB,
and TETRA LAVAL INTERNATIONAL SA, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00309-HFS (W.D. Mo., May 9, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose, breach of express warranty, strict products
liability, negligence, fraudulent inducement, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment or omission, and
violation of Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the DeLaval VMS
V300 milking system. The Defendants misrepresented the V300's
abilities, benefits, capabilities and past performance and at the
same time concealed their knowledge of the defects and problems
with the V300. As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations,
the Plaintiff and Class members purchased the V300 system and
suffered financial losses. Had they known the truth, they would not
have purchased the V300.

Triple S Farms, LLC is a dairy farm operator located at 24376 343rd
Avenue, Belgrade, Minnesota.

DeLaval Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DeLaval Holding BV,
with its principal place of business at 11100 N. Congress Ave.,
Kansas City, Missouri.

West Agro, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DeLaval Inc., with
its principal place of business at 11100 N. Congress Ave., Kansas
City, Missouri.

DeLaval International AB is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DeLaval
Holding BV, with its principal place of business located in Tumba,
Sweden.

DeLaval Holding BV is a manufacturer of milking equipment and dairy
farm solutions, with its principal place of business located in
Overijssel, Netherlands. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DeLaval
Holding AB.

DeLaval Holding AB is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tetra Laval
International SA or Tetra Laval Group, with its principal place of
business located in Tumba, Sweden.

Tetra Laval International SA is a manufacturer of milking equipment
and solution for dairy farms, with its principal place of business
located in Pully, Switzerland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
         Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
         K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
         STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
         460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
         Kansas City, MO 64113
         Telephone: (816) 714-7100
         E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
                 wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                 merrill@stuevesiegel.com

                 - and –

         Daniel C. Perrone, Esq.
         PERRONE LAW PLLC
         2136 Victory Boulevard
         Staten Island, NY 10314
         Telephone: (646) 470-9244
         E-mail: dcp@theperronefirm.com

                 - and –

         Arend R. Tensen, Esq.
         CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC
         199 Heater Road, Suite 2
         Lebanon, NH 03766
         Telephone: (603) 448-7100
         E-mail: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com

DELAWARE: Light Suit Challenges Delaware Unclaimed Property Statute
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LIGHT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE HONORABLE COLLEEN C. DAVIS, State Treasurer of the
State of Delaware, and BRENDA MAYRACK, ESQ., State Escheator and
Director, Office of Unclaimed Property, Case No. 1:22-cv-00611-UNA
(D. Del., May 6, 2022) challenges the constitutionality of the
Delaware Unclaimed Property statute, 12 Del. C. section 1130, et
seq., under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution and under Article I, Section 8 of the Delaware
Constitution of 1897.

According to the complaint, the act authorizes and requires the
State of Delaware to take and hold for public use private property
that is presumed to be abandoned under the Act without paying just
compensation to the owners thereof. The Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment prohibits the government from taking or using private
property for public use without just compensation to the property
owner.

Art. I, section 8 of the Delaware Constitution likewise prohibits
the State from taking a person's property or applying it to public
use without their consent and without compensation being made: "nor
shall any person's property be taken or applied to public use
without the consent of his or her representatives, and without
compensation being made."

As protected by the Fifth Amendment and Art. I, section 8 of the
Delaware Constitution, just compensation means the full monetary
equivalent of the property taken from its owner or another who is
entitled to the property, including the benefit of the use of that
property by the State. The Fifth Amendment and Art. I, section 8 of
the Delaware Constitution protect not only the principal of
unclaimed property in the custody of the State, but also the
time-value of the property.

At a minimum, just compensation requires that the owners and others
entitled to claim property that is "unclaimed" or "presumed
abandoned" are entitled to receive back from the State the
so-called "time value" of their property for as long as the
property is in the possession or control of the State and used by
the State for governmental or public purposes.

However, the Act prohibits the accrual and payment of interest over
and above the original amount of the unclaimed property received by
the State Escheator to the owner or person entitled to recover the
unclaimed property, and does not otherwise provide for the payment
of dividends, accruals, earnings, investment returns, and other
benefits earned on and from, or just compensation for, unclaimed or
abandoned property for public purposes to the owner thereof, says
the suit.

The Act thus violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and
Art. I, section 8 of the Delaware Constitution because it denies
just compensation to the owner or person entitled to recover the
unclaimed property. As alleged, the State Escheator does not pay
interest, dividends, accruals, earnings, investment returns, or
other benefits above the original amount of the unclaimed property
to the owner or person entitled to recover the unclaimed property.

The Plaintiff is and has been at all relevant times a citizen and
resident of New Castle County, State of Delaware. The Plaintiff is
the "owner" of certain "property" as those terms are defined in 12
Del. C. sections 1130(17) and (19), that is "presumed abandoned"
under 12 Del. C. section 1133 and, pursuant to the Act, currently
is held in custody by the State Escheator.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave., 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Arthur Susman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
          1540 N. Lake Shore Drive
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (847) 800-2351

               - and -

          James G. McMillan III, Esq.
          William E. Green, Jr., Esq.
          HALLORAN FARKAS + KITTILA LLP
          5801 Kennett Pike, Suite
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 257-2103
          Facsimile: (302) 257-2019
          E-mail: jm@hfk.law / wg@hfk.law

               - and -

          Arthur Susman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
          1540 N. Lake Shore Drive
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (847) 800-2351

DROPBOX INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Dropbox Inc.
will avoid facing a securities class action in California state
court after an appellate panel on May 13 refused to void provision
in the company's bylaws designating federal district court as the
exclusive forum for claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

Jon Simonton sued Dropbox in 2019 on behalf of a proposed class of
shareholders, alleging the registration statement the company
issued for its 2018 initial public offering was inaccurate and
misleading.

A trial court in San Mateo County granted Dropbbox's motion to
dismiss the suit based on a forum selection provision in its
bylaws. [GN]



EPIC HEALTH: Dismissal of Vickers' Liability Claims Upheld in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONNA VICKERS, INDIVIDUALLY, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
ALL WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES, AND AS AN HEIR AT LAW AND
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY VICKERS, DECEASED, Appellant
v. EPIC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., AOC SENIOR HOME HEALTH CORP., D/B/A
ANGELS OF CARE AND/OR ANGELS OF CARE PEDIATRIC HOME HEALTH AND
AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Appellees, Case No. 05-20-00054-CV (Tex.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Fifth District,
Dallas, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's
order dismissing health care liability claims for inadequate expert
reports under Chapter 74 of the civil practice and remedies code.

I. Background

The matter is an appeal from an order dismissing health care
liability claims for inadequate expert reports under Chapter 74 of
the civil practice and remedies code. The Appellant argues she
timely supplemented the expert reports after the trial court
granted an extension and that the reports are sufficient to meet
the statutory requirements.

Donna Vickers's husband, Jerry Vickers, was diagnosed with
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2010. As the disease
progressed, Jerry Vickers could not breathe on his own and could
not swallow. By 2013, he was dependent on a ventilator and feeding
tube and required complete support for all activities of daily
living. He was completely paralyzed by 2014.

Epic began providing home health nursing services to Jerry Vickers
in early 2014. Despite his paralysis, Jerry could still blink and
was able to communicate with the aid of a computer. He was also
able to take and complete online courses. However, in July 2015,
Epic unilaterally terminated its services and stopped sending staff
to the Vickers's home on July 6, 2015. Donna attempted to obtain
adequate skilled home nursing after Epic's termination but was
unable to do so. Less than three weeks after Epic's termination,
Jerry died.

After Epic terminated its services, Donna contracted with AOC to
provide sixty hours per week of skilled nursing care with a start
date of July 9, 2015. AOC, however, failed to provide adequate
skilled nursing care for Jerry. Several nurses were selected but
they lacked sufficient experience to care for a paralyzed ALS
patient.

Amerigroup administered Jerry's Medicaid services. Amerigroup
refused to approve a different home health care service with the
needed respiratory therapist because that group was out of network.
On July 22, 2015, Jerry suffered a cardiac arrest and sustained
brain damage. He was declared brain dead on July 28, 2015.

Ms. Vickers filed the suit against Epic, AOC, and Amerigroup on
Dec. 3, 2015. Vickers timely served Epic and AOC with expert
reports and curricula vitae from registered nurses Yvette C.
Rodgers-Musial and Mary Beth Geise on the standard of care and
breach and from Dr. Peter Gailiunas, Jr., on causation. Epic and
AOC objected to Gailiunas's reports on the basis that he was not
qualified and his reports were insufficient on causation. They did
not object to the standard of care and breach of the standard of
care reports from the two nurses. Vickers timely served Amerigroup
with expert reports and curricula vitae from Dr. Patrick Daly and
nurse Geise on Aug. 31, 2016. Amerigroup objected to the
qualifications of these experts and to Daly's report as to standard
of care and causation.

Epic and AOC contend that the trial court orally granted Vickers a
30-day extension to correct deficiencies in Gailiunas's report at
the Sept. 16, 2016 hearing on their objections. At the hearing, the
judge stated she was "going to allow you 30 days to correct any
deficiencies in the reports" but the judge did not sign a written
order at that time. Vickers did not serve a supplemental report
within 30 days of that hearing but did serve a report and
curriculum vitae from Dr. Robert Todd, a neurologist, on Dec. 21,
2016.

Epic and AOC objected to the timeliness of Todd's report and moved
to dismiss Vickers's claims against them. Epic also objected to
Todd's qualifications and the sufficiency of his report. After a
hearing on Feb. 3, 2017, the trial court signed an order granting
Epic's motions to dismiss. However, the court vacated this order on
March 21, 2018 and signed a written order granting Vickers 30 days
to cure any deficiencies in the reports.

Ms. Vickers served Epic, AOC, and Amerigroup with a supplemental
report from Todd on April 20, 2018. Each of the Defendants filed
objections to Todd's supplemental report. The trial court dismissed
Vickers's claims against Amerigroup at a hearing on Aug. 24, 2018.
By an order signed Oct. 26, 2018, the trial court granted Epic's
objections to Todd's supplemental report and its motion to dismiss.
On Dec. 10, 2019, the trial court signed an order dismissing the
claims against AOC, resulting in a final judgment. Vickers then
filed the appeal.

II. Analysis

A. Epic and AOC

In her first issue, Vickers argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by granting Epic's and AOC's objections and motions to
dismiss. Epic and AOC argue the trial court orally granted a 30-day
extension at the Sept. 16, 2016 hearing and Todd's expert reports
were not served within that time. Vickers also argues the trial
court abused its discretion by concluding that Todd was not
qualified to give an opinion on causation. She next argues the
trial court abused its discretion by sustaining Epic's and AOC's
objections to Todd's reports on causation.

The Court of Appeals (i) concludes that both of Todd's reports were
timely; (ii) the trial court abused its discretion to the extent it
sustained Epic's and AOC's objections to Todd's qualifications
because reading Todd's reports and curriculum vitae as a whole
shows he has the necessary knowledge, skill, experience, and
training to render an opinion on causation in the case; and (iii)
the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining Epic's and
AOC's objections because Todd's reports represent a good faith
effort to explain factually how proximate cause will be proven as
to Epic and AOC.

B. Amerigroup

Vickers's last three issues concern the dismissal of her claims
against Amerigroup. Initially, Vickers argues she was not required
to satisfy the Chapter 74 expert report requirements because
Chapter 74 does not apply to her claim against Amerigroup. Next,
she contends that Todd's supplemental report regarding Amerigroup
was sufficient to satisfy the section 74.351 requirements. In her
third and fourth issues, Vickers argues that Chapter 74 is
preempted by federal law because Amerigroup is a Medicaid payor and
that the trial court erred by denying her motion for class
certification of her claims against Amerigroup.

The Court of Appeals opines that because Vickers asserted a claim
under Chapter 88, she was required to comply with the expert report
requirements of section 74.35; (ii) the trial court did not abuse
its discretion in concluding that Todd was not qualified as an
expert as to a Medicaid managed care organization such as
Amerigroup because neither the report nor the curriculum vitae
indicate Todd is qualified to opine on the degree of care that a
managed care entity of ordinary prudence would use under the same
or similar circumstances; and (iii) because the second amended
petition was not filed until after the trial court dismissed
Vickers's claim against Amerigroup with prejudice, the petition was
not properly before the court, and the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by rejecting Vickers's preemption argument and her
motion for class certification. The Court of Appeals overrules
Vickers's second, third, and fourth issues.

III. Conclusion

The Court of Appeals concludes the trial court abused its
discretion by granting Epic's and AOC's objections to Vickers's
expert reports. It also concludes the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by granting Amerigroup's objections to the expert
reports. Accordingly, it will reverse the trial court's orders
granting Epic's and AOC's objections and motions to dismiss and
remand the claims against those parties to the trial court for
further proceedings. It will affirm the trial court's order
dismissing Vickers's claims against Amerigroup.

IV. Judgment

In accordance with the Court of Appeals' Opinion of this date, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in
part. The trial court's Oct. 26, 2018 order sustaining Defendant
Epic's objections to the Plaintiff's supplemental chapter 74 expert
report and granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Dec.
10, 2019 order granting Defendant AOC's objections to Robert E.
Todd's Chapter 74 Report and motion to dismiss are reversed. The
Aug. 24, 2018 and Nov. 16, 2018 orders dismissing the Appellant's
claims against Amerigroup Texas, Inc. are affirmed. The Court of
Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

Appellant Donna Vickers, individually, as the representative for
all wrongful death beneficiaries, and as an heir at law and
representative of the estate of Jerry Vickers, deceased, recover
her costs of this appeal from Appellees Epic and AOC. Appellee
Amerigroup recovers its costs of this appeal from Appellant Vickers
individually, as the representative for all wrongful death
beneficiaries, and as an heir at law and representative of the
estate of Jerry Vickers, deceased.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ypyu2ruk from Leagle.com.


FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against First
High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS) and Enservco
Corp. (NYSE: ENSV). Our investigations concern whether these
companies have violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged
in other unlawful business practices. Additional information about
each case can be found at the link provided.

First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd. (NYSE: FHS)

On or around March 11, 2021, First High-School Education conducted
its initial public offering ("IPO"), and the company sold 7.5
million shares for $10.00.

The investigation seeks to determine whether the Company's filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
its March 2021 IPO and subsequent investor communications contained
untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading
concerning the Company's business, and operations.

Since the IPO the stock has plummeted and on April 6, 2022, First
High-School Education stock closed at $1.43.

For more information on the First High-School investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/FHS

Enservco Corp. (NYSE: ENSV)

On April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it had "concluded that the
Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial
statements as of and for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June
30, 2021 and September 30, 2021 (collectively, the 'Relevant
Periods') should no longer be relied upon due to the Company's
utilization of certain deferred tax liabilities in 2021" and that
"[t]he Company intends to amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q
for the Relevant Periods to reflect restatements of its condensed
consolidated financial statements for the Relevant Period."

On this news, Enservco's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on April 19, 2022.

For more information on the Enservco investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ENSV

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

HANNAH FORREST: Fails to Pay Farmworkers, Martinez-Morales Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CRUZ MARTINEZ-MORALES, MARGARITO DE LA CRUZ-NAVA, CUAUHTEMOC
FLORENCIO-GUTIERREZ, MARISOL FLORENCIO-GUTIERREZ, AGUSTIN
FLORENCIO-SANCHEZ, JEIDY FLORES-ARRIAGA, ROSA IRMA GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ,
IVAN OSWALDO MEZA-GARCIA, FELICIANO NAVARRETE-FLORES, PEDRO
PROCOPIO-DIAZ, JOSE ROMERO-PATRICIO, BENIN BETUEL VARGAS-ESPIRITU,
and SERGIO VILLALVA-GATICA, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons v. VALENTINO LOPEZ, JR. aka and/or d/b/a
VALENTINO LOPEZ AND VALENTINO LOPEZ GOMEZ, GILBERTO LOPEZ, HANNAH
FORREST FARMS, LLC aka and/or d/b/a HANNAH FORREST BLUEBERRIES,
LLC, and RONNIE CARTER FARMS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00187-BO
(E.D.N.C., May 6, 2022) is a class action by 13 former H-2A
temporary agricultural workers and employees of Defendants under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act,
the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, and
and the common law of contracts for failure to pay the minimum
wage, failure to pay wages at least at the promised rate(s) as
required by the NCWHA and their work contracts with Defendants,
failure to pay all wages owed to the Plaintiffs when due, and
liquidated damages.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the agricultural corporate
enterprises, farm labor contractors (FLCs).

By using FLCS, the North Carolina farms and enterprises avoided
incurring costs of direct H-2A program participation while still
benefitting from the provision of H-2A labor to their farms and
enterprises.

In 2020 the FLC defendants recruited foreign farmworkers in
numerous states in Mexico and convinced many of those recruited
workers to pay exorbitant, unlawful recruitment fees for the
opportunity to work lawfully in the U.S. as H-2A workers. The FLC
defendants made fraudulent promises to the recruited workers about
the wages they would earn and the terms and conditions of the
contracted employment in the U.S. in order to persuade the workers
to pay the recruitment fees.

The FLC defendants' alleged fraudulent recruitment scheme left
Plaintiffs in stifling debt. The Plaintiffs incurred debt from both
the unlawfully charged recruitment fees and the expenses FLC
defendants required Plaintiffs to pay to travel from their homes in
Mexico to North Carolina to work for them in North Carolina. The
Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiffs for such expenses, in
violation of the terms of the H-2A contract, H-2A regulations, and
federal law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron V. Jacobson, Esq.
          Caitlin A. Ryland, Esq.
          LEGAL AID OF NORTH CAROLINA
          FARMWORKER UNIT
          224 South Dawson Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          E-mail: AaronJ@legalaidnc.org
                  CaitlinR@legalaidnc.org

HATCH HAVEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Flores Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HATCH HAVEN, LLC, an Arizona Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00795-DLR (D. Ariz.,
May 10, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee from February 2020 to March 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not properly
compensated him on an hourly basis. Although he normally worked
more than 40 hours in a week, the Defendant did not pay him
overtime premiums for any hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. The Defendant compensated him only depending on the type
of work he did at one to three hourly rates during each pay
period.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and penalties, litigation costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the highest rates, and other relief as
may be necessary and appropriate.

Hatch Haven, LLC provides day treatment, group homes, and clinics
for persons with developmental and other disabilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel.: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com

HOMETOWN AMERICA: Sept. 13 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Linton, writing for The Sun Chronicle, reports that a class
action lawsuit settlement for $1.2 million to go to a group of
tenants at the Oakhill mobile home park will go to a judge in
September for final approval.

The lawsuit claimed that Hometown America Communities Inc., the
park owners, overcharged rent to the tenants from October 2006
through January 2021.

The company and tenants previously reached a preliminary settlement
for the tenants to be paid $1,264,804, Peter Tekippe, the Attleboro
lawyer who represents the tenants, said on
April 29.

The proposal goes to a state Housing Court judge for final approval
on Sept. 13.

Combing through real estate records, Tekippe said he has already
tracked down 144 tenants who paid rent during the period covered in
the settlement.

A group of tenants filed a lawsuit in 2012 against Hometown America
in a case that went all the way to the state Supreme Judicial
Court. The SJC ruled in the tenants' favor in November 2020 and
sent the case back to the Housing Court for settlement.

Tekippe placed legal ads on April 29 in The Sun Chronicle and other
newspapers in order to notify any other possible tenants who may be
eligible to receive funds to file a claim by July 5. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss ABS Module Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for Car Complaints, reports that Hyundai has
filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that alleges
anti-lock braking system (ABS) module recalls were issued too late
and won't fix the problems.

According to the Hyundai class action lawsuit, multiple models are
at risk of fires if the modules corrode from moisture.

The modules have electrical current running through them even when
the vehicles are shut off, but electrical short circuits can
allegedly set these vehicles ablaze.

2007-2010 Hyundai Elantra
2009-2011 Hyundai Elantra Touring
2007-2008 Hyundai Entourage
2007 Hyundai Santa Fe
2006-2011 Hyundai Azera
2006 Hyundai Sonata
2006-2010 Kia Sedona
2007-2009 Kia Sorento
2008-2009 Kia Sportage

The plaintiffs assert Hyundai and Kia ABS module recalls in 2016,
2018 and 2020 weren't good enough.

The lawsuit alleges that even if Hyundai's recall repairs do help
to prevent ABS module problems while the vehicles are turned off,
the recalls allegedly don't prevent fires from occuring while the
vehicles are running.

Hyundai's Motion to Dismiss the ABS Module Lawsuit
In its motion to dismiss the ABS class action lawsuit, Hyundai
argues the claims are barred by the statute of limitations and
because the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the claims.

Hyundai also says the claims are barred because any losses claimed
by the plaintiffs were not caused by Hyundai's statements or
omissions. Additionally, the claims are allegedly barred because
any alleged injury is too speculative.

The automaker told the judge the lawsuit cannot be maintained as a
class action because the proposed classes fail to meet federal
requirements.

All the claims are also allegedly barred because the plaintiffs
consented to all of Hyundai's actions and conduct, and "because any
loss or injury claimed to be suffered by Plaintiffs, if any,
resulted from the misuse, negligence, omissions, lack of diligence,
and/or fault of Plaintiffs."

Breach of implied warranty claims are allegedly barred because the
plaintiffs didn't provide Hyundai with the opportunity to fix the
alleged problems. The plaintiffs also allegedly failed to provide
Hyundai with timely notice of a breach of warranty.

The plaintiffs also allegedly didn't suffer a "cognizable injury"
if the vehicles didn't have any ABS module problems.

The Hyundai ABS module lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California: Zakikhani, et al., v.
Hyundai Motor Company, et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lenze Lawyers, PLC, and Fegan
Scott LLC. [GN]

INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. ("Innovative
Industrial Properties") (NYSE: IIPR) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between
May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Innovative Industrial
Properties, contact us about potential recovery by using the link
below. There is no cost or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/innovative-industrial-properties-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26540&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Innovative Industrial
Properties includes allegations that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Innovative Industrial Properties' focus is to be a cannabis
company lender rather than a REIT; (2) that the true values of the
Company's properties are significantly lower than Innovative
Industrial Properties represents; (3) there are existential issues
in its top customers; (4) as a result, its top customers may not be
able to continue making payments to Innovative Industrial
Properties and the Company would face significant issues replacing
these customers; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: June 24, 2022

Aggrieved Innovative Industrial Properties investors only have
until June 24, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

IONQ INC: Bragar Eagel Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against IonQ,
Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ, IONQ+) on behalf of
IonQ stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether IonQ has
violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other
unlawful business practices.

On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a 183-page short report
regarding IonQ's management, operations, and business. The Scorpion
Capital report stated that "We conducted 25 research interviews
including 7 former employees and executives; 11 leading quantum
computing experts including seminal names in the field, some who
have published papers with IonQ's founders and are intimately
familiar with its technology; and 5 of its key "customers" and
partners. We believe our research represents the most in-depth due
diligence to date on IonQ, leading us to conclude it is just
another VC-backed SPAC scam."

Following this news, IonQ's stock closed down 9.03%, to close at
$7.15 per share on May 3, 2022.

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

IRONNET INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 1 disclosed
that purchasers of IronNet, Inc. (NYSE: IRNT) securities between
September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until June 21, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in Grad v. IronNet, Inc., No. 22-cv-00449 (E.D. Va.). The
IronNet class action lawsuit charges IronNet and certain of its top
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the IronNet class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the IronNet class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 21,
2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: IronNet designs and develops solutions for
cyberattacks. On August 27, 2021, IronNet became a publicly traded
company via a merger with LGL Systems Acquisition Corp., a blank
check company otherwise known as a special purpose acquisition
vehicle ("SPAC"). On August 10, 2021, in anticipation of the merger
vote, IronNet updated its financial forecasts "[d]ue to shifts in
the anticipated closing of several new customer contracts." It
forecasted fiscal year 2022 ("FY 2022") (ended January 31, 2022)
revenues of $43 million to $45 million and annual recurring revenue
("ARR") of $75 million, among other things.

The IronNet class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
IronNet had materially overstated its business and financial
prospects; (ii) IronNet was unable to predict the timing of
significant customer opportunities which constituted a substantial
portion of its publicly issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (iii)
IronNet had not established effective disclosure controls and
procedures to reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely,
accurate, complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (iv) as a
result, IronNet's public statements were materially false,
misleading, and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all
relevant times.

On December 15, 2021, IronNet issued a press release entitled
"IronNet Reports Third Quarter Fiscal 2022 Financial Results," in
which it slashed IronNet's FY 2022 guidance, which had been
repeated shortly before the merger vote and which was reaffirmed
just months earlier. On the analyst and investor call later that
same day, IronNet's co-CEO, defendant William E. Welch, announced
that IronNet had fired its Chief Revenue Officer. On the call,
defendants also admitted that, despite having first publicly issued
IronNet's FY 2022 guidance in March 2021, they did not have any
confidence as to when substantial revenues underlying the guidance
would actually come in. On this news, IronNet's stock price fell by
approximately 31%, damaging investors.

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

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased IronNet
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the IronNet class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the IronNet class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the IronNet class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the IronNet class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:
          Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
          655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
          J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
          jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

ISRAEL: Settles Class Action Over Pension Tax Payments
------------------------------------------------------
Ela Levy-Weinrib, writing for Globes, reports that in the
settlement of a class action, the Israel Tax Authority has admitted
unlawfully taxing tax-exempt pension payments.

The Israel Tax Authority has admitted that it unlawfully collected
tax from tax-exempt pension payments received by pensioners between
2012 and 2019, and it is now obliged to return the money to them.
The illegally collected sums amount to tens of millions of shekels
annually.

The Tax Authority's unlawful conduct was exposed in a lawsuit, and
a request that the suit should be recognized as a class action,
filed by Shabtai Shabtai, a retired person who receives a pension,
through Adv. Adi Leibowitz. The claim stated that the Tax Authority
unlawfully instructed entities making pension payments - employers,
provident funds, and others - not to award the tax exemption for a
qualifying pension to anyone who had not presented approval in
advance from the tax inspector, despite the fact that there was no
real justification for this requirement, and despite the fact that
the law stated that tax should not be deducted at source from an
exempt pension.

In a ruling giving court approval to a settlement in which the Tax
Authority admitted having collected tax unlawfully, Central
District Court judge Avi Gorman said, "Income determined by the
legislator to be exempt from tax must not be taxed. The recognition
of property rights makes it obligatory to terat exempt income
carefully, and not set up obstacles to the exemption that are
unnecessary and unjustified. Even a paternalistic concern to ensure
that the taxpayer is aware of all his rights cannot justify
taxation of exempt income."

The court made a NIS 100,000 award to the bringer of the class
action, and awarded costs of NIS 1 million plus VAT to his
counsel.

The claim concerned amendment 190 to the Income Tax Ordinance,
which is mainly to do with expanding tax benefits given under
section 9a of the ordinance when pension savings are withdrawn by
taxpayers who have reached retirement age. In amendment 190, the
legislator considerably enlarged the exemption given to a
qualifying pension, with the aim of securing pensioners' rights in
a reality in which life expectancy is rising and pension savings
accumulated during a person's working life need to finance a longer
period of retirement. As a result of the unjustified requirements
imposed by the Tax Authority, however, a substantial portion of
tax-exempt pensions, amounting to tens of millions of shekels, did
not end up in the hands of the pensioners, but was instead paid to
the Tax Authority as income tax.

Following the lawsuit, the Tax Authority changed its instructions
and told all pension payers to give the exemption without the need
for approval from the tax inspector, but on the basis of the
pensioner's signature on a short declaration only. The Tax
Authority thus accepted Shabtai Shabtai's claim.

According to the findings presented by the two sides, there are
about 10,000 pensioners who, as a result of the Tax Authority's
original instructions, had the tax-exempt element of their pensions
taxed at source.

In the request for approval of the settlement presented by the Tax
Authority and Shabtai Shabtai, the amount of the tax rebate due to
pensioners for the two years preceding the filing of the lawsuit,
2016-2017, is NIS 45.9 million. The amount unlawfully collected in
2018-2019 is estimated at a further NIS 80 million. [GN]

JERRY INSURANCE: Hooper FTSA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHANNON HOOPER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. JERRY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., Case No.
22-CA-2971, was removed from the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in
and for Orange County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on May 6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-00849-CEM-GJK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged transmission of text
messages and/or phone calls to the Plaintiff's and Class members'
cellular phones without their consent in violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

Jerry Insurance Agency, Inc. is an insurance agency doing business
in Florida. [BN]

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

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Edley Sues Over Concealment, Evidence Spoliation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL EDLEY and ROGER EDLEY, individually, as personal
representatives of the Estate of Laszlo "Louis" Edley, deceased on
behalf of said Estate, and as representative of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHN/JANE DOE ATTORNEYS
1-1000, and JOHN/JANE DOE J&J CORPORATE MEMBERS 1-1000, Defendants,
Case No. MID-L-002204-22 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Middlesex Cty., May 9,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent
concealment and spoliation, fraud and deceit, and fraud upon
courts.

The case arises from the Defendants' continued engagement in a
uniform and persistent pattern and practice of evidence spoliation
by altering test reports, withholding test reports, hiding test
reports and backup data/materials, devising and then employing test
methods designed to avoid or conceal detection of asbestos in talc
ore or talc products, failing to preserve evidence, and otherwise
withholding, concealing and/or destroying material evidence
relating to the Plaintiffs' decedent's and the Class members'
underlying asbestos injury claims. As a result of the Defendants'
deliberate withholding, destruction, and/or concealment of
documents and evidence relating to Class members' underlying
lawsuits' asbestos claims, and/or the false and misleading
statements thereafter that no such documents or evidence existed,
the Plaintiffs and Class members were hampered and impaired in the
prosecution of their cases.

Johnson & Johnson is a healthcare company, headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
         Michael Coren, Esq.
         Dennis M. Geier, Esq.
         Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
         Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
         Justin I. Placitella, Esq.
         COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
         127 Maple Avenue
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 747-9003
         E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com
                 mcoren@cprlaw.com
                 dgeier@cprlaw.com
                 epasternack@cprlaw.com
                 jmplacitella@cprlaw.com
                 justinplacitella@cprlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: HealthyLiving Suit Removed to D. Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHEMICAL TOXIN WORKING GROUP INC., D/B/A
HEALTHYLIVING FOUNDATION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC., Case No. 2022 CA 001655 B, was removed from the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on May 6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Columbia assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-01259 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false and misleading
advertising of certain products in violation of the D.C. Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.

Chemical Toxin Working Group Inc., doing business as HealthyLivinG
Foundation, is a public-interest organization based in Beverly
Hills, California.

Johnson & Johnson is a healthcare company, headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a company that engages in the
research and development of products based in New Jersey. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Anthony T. Pierce, Esq.
         Miranda A. Dore, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         2001 K Street, NW
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 887-400
         E-mail: apierce@akingump.com
                 mdore@akingump.com

                 - and –

         Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
         Andrew D. Cohen, Esq.
         PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
         1133 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10036-6710
         Telephone: (212) 336-2000
         E-mail: sazalesin@pbwt.com
                 acohen@pbwt.com

KAISER ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Woodruff Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WOODRUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00333 (M.D. Tenn., May 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its 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 Indiana Minimum Wage Law, and the Indiana Wage
Payment Statute.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee
in Indiana since April 2021.

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation is an American aluminum producer,
headquartered in Lake Forest, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
         E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

                  - and –

         R. Burke Keaty, II, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN – NASHVILLE, PLLC
         801 Broadway, Suite 105
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 514-4205
         E-mail: bkeaty@forthepeople.com

                  - and –

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

L&L SUPPLIES: Hua Jing Go Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Receptionists
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUA JING GAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L&L SUPPLIES, INC., YOUPENG LI, and SUSAN
LIANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03722 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers appropriate minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Hua Jing Gao was employed by the Defendants as a receptionist from
approximately January 2018 through February 2022.

L&L Supplies, Inc. is a supplier of stone materials for residential
and commercial purposes, with a principal place of business at 149
East Broadway, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David Stein, Esq.
         STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 308-3444
         E-mail: dstein@steinllp.com

                 - and –

         Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
         39 East Broadway, Suite 306
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: (212) 349-6099
         E-mail: vswlaw@gmail.com

LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Bid for Class Decertification in Vasquez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion for Decertification with respect to the
Plaintiffs' "on-call" break claim.

I. Introduction

The class action lawsuit, brought before the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), involves an employment dispute between
the Plaintiff class representatives Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke
and Defendants Leprino Foods Co. and Leprino Foods Dairy Products
Co. (collectively, "Leprino" or "Defendants"). On March 30, 2020,
the Court certified the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants
required their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call" during their
meal and rest breaks in violation of California law. Before the
Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for
Decertification with respect to the Plaintiffs' "on-call" break
claim.

II. Background

Leprino manufactures and processes cheese and dairy ingredients at
its Lemoore West facility with a workforce of approximately 1,000
employees. The facility operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Product "quality" is listed as one of Leprino's core values, and
Leprino reminds its employees of the importance of "quality" during
meetings and with visuals, including a painting of the word
"quality" on the steps at the entrance of the Lemoore West
facility. On each workday a general practice of employees is to
follow a policy of "producing products against a schedule" for
Leprino's customers. Leprino trains its employees to "over
communicate" with each other to prevent problems before they occur,
carry out "all written and/or verbal directions and instructions,"
and avoid "unnecessary delay of production or operation of
equipment." "Insubordination or refusal to follow Supervisor's
instructions" is "prohibited conduct" subject to the employee being
"warned, counseled, or disciplined, up to and including
termination."

Leprino has a written "meal break" policy in its employee handbook
which, from May 1, 2013 to Oct. 16, 2017, stated in part "Employees
are required to take a 30 minute unpaid duty-free meal break prior
to the end of the 5th hour of work. During a meal break, employees
are relieved of all duties and are free to leave the facility." As
of Oct. 16, 2017, Leprino's written meal break policy states in
part "Employees who work more than five hours in a day are provided
a 30 minute unpaid, uninterrupted, duty-free meal prior to the end
of the 5th hour of work. During a meal break, employees are
relieved of all duties and are free to leave the facility."

As for rest breaks, Leprino's employee handbook from May 1, 2013 to
March 14, 2017 stated in part "Employees will be provided with one
(1) 15-minute paid rest break when they work between 3 1/2 and 6
hours, and a second 15-minute paid rest break when they work
between 6 and 10 hours, and a third 15 minute paid rest break when
they work between 10 and 14 hours." From March 14, 2017 to Oct. 16,
2017, the employee handbook extended the length of rest breaks to
twenty minutes. As of Oct. 16, 2017, Leprino's written rest break
policy states in part "The Company authorizes and permits employees
working at least 3 1/2 hours in a day to take a 20-minute, off-duty
paid rest period for each four hours worked or major fraction
thereof. Employees will be provided with one 20-minute paid rest
break when they work between 3 1/2 and 6 hours, and a second
20-minute paid rest break when they work between 6 and 10 hours,
and a third 20-minute paid rest break when they work between 10 and
14 hours."

Since at least 2013, Leprino posted a memorandum near its time
clocks which stated in part "Employees are required to take a
30-minute unpaid duty-free meal break prior to the end of the 5th
hour of work." It also posted a sign next to the time clocks that
read: "EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE A 30 MINUTE LUNCH BREAK
RELIEVED OF ALL DUTY." In January 2019, Leprino added a sign next
to the time clocks stating in part "Employees are expected to take
a 30 minute lunch break relieved of all duty. Any employee unable
to take a full 30 minute duty free meal break because they are
required to come back to work early must notify their supervisor
immediately. Employees are not required to have their 2-way radio
on during meal or rest breaks."

Leprino does not expressly require all hourly employees to take
their meal or rest breaks in break rooms. Some hourly employees
have taken breaks outside on the patio, outside in the smoking
area, or in their cars in the parking lot. Additionally, some
employees have taken their meal breaks away from the facility.
According to a survey by the Plaintiffs' expert Jeffrey S.
Petersen, when class members were asked whether they leave the
building for their entire meal breaks, 16.3% answered "always" or
"most of the time," 20.7% answered "occasionally," and 63% answered
"rarely" or "never." When asked whether they leave the building for
their entire rest breaks, 9.8% answered "always" or "most of the
time," 6.9% answered "occasionally," and 82.5% answered "rarely" or
"never." For some positions during meal and rest breaks, Leprino
provides "break relief," which is designed to have other employees
come in to take over the duties of those on break until they
return.

Many class members during their breaks received direct
communications from supervisors, group leaders, and those providing
break relief. According to several class members, the
communications included inquiries related to work or commands to
return to work to address urgent issues.

The Plaintiffs' third amended complaint pleads eight causes of
action against Leprino in a class representative capacity. On March
31, 2020, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' "on-call" break claim
that the Defendants required their non-exempt workers to remain
"on-call" during meal and rest breaks in violation of California
law. The Court further certified the Plaintiffs' claim for
"off-the-clock" work and derivative claims because they are
premised on the Plaintiffs' "on-call" break claim.

III. Discussion

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

The Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' "on-call" break claim fails
as a matter of law because all class members were not on call
during all of their breaks. According to them, Leprino did not have
written or de facto policies and practices that required class
members to be reachable and "at the ready" to supervisors during
meal and rest breaks. Additionally, the Defendants argue that even
if all class members were deemed to be "on call" during their
breaks, the Plaintiffs' claim still fails as a matter of law
because they were not all sufficiently subject to their control
during their break times. Defendants contend that during meal and
rest breaks, the class members were free to engage in personal
activities free of geographical restrictions and were rarely or
never contacted by supervisors about work.

The Plaintiffs contend that there are triable issues of material
fact regarding the Defendants' policies and practices and how they
relate to breaks. Specifically, they contend that the Defendants'
non-stop operations, emphasis on quality, production goals, written
requirements to be responsive to supervisors at all times, and
threats of discipline do and reasonably relate to breaks. The
Plaintiffs also argue that the Defendants failed to prove that
class members were allowed to use breaks for their own purposes
because triable issues of material fact still exist as to whether
the Defendants discouraged class members from leaving during breaks
and whether the Defendants required them to be able to respond if
they temporarily left the plant.

After drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Judge Ishii holds that there are genuine issues of
material fact with respect to the Plaintiffs' on-call break claim.
While there is no dispute over the Defendants' written meal and
rest break policies, genuine issues of material fact exist as to
whether the class members were nevertheless required to remain
"on-call" during their breaks.

In conclusion, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, "a
reasonable fact finder could find for either party" with respect to
numerous factual disputes, thereby making it inappropriate for the
Court to enter judgment as a matter of law on summary judgment.
Thus, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment will be denied.

B. Motion for Decertification

The Defendants argue that decertification is necessary because
determining whether all the class members' breaks were compensable
work time will require the fact-finder to delve into individualized
issues that predominate over common questions for Plaintiffs'
on-call break claim. Specifically, they assert that to determine
liability, the fact finder would need to conduct "individual
mini-trials" to determine each class member's individualized
interpretation of their general policies and practices and whether
each class member actually experienced meal and rest break
violations. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs failed to
provide common proof that the Defendants, via the common policies
and practices alleged, compelled all class members to remain at the
ready and capable of being summoned to action during their breaks.

The Plaintiffs contend that the class should not be decertified
because the elements of Rule 23 are still satisfied. According to
them, the Defendants' contention regarding the predominance of
individualized issues is erroneous because the fact finder need not
determine how each class member "personally felt about Leprino's
uniform policies." Instead, the ultimate question for purposes
liability is whether the Defendants had an "unofficial policy of
not providing breaks or created an atmosphere of discouraging class
members from taking breaks." The Plaintiffs argue that Defendants
had such an unofficial policy and atmosphere and, therefore, the
remaining question is simply one of damages, which alone does not
warrant decertification.

Judge Ishii holds that the commonality and predominance requirement
of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied because common issues still
predominate over individualized issues. He says, the additional
evidence submitted to the Court after the original class
certification date include the Plaintiffs' expert survey and a
declaration from Steve Schmidt, Leprino's Senior Director of
Production Human Resources & Safety.

With respect to Plaintiffs' expert survey, Judge Ishii finds that
its results are consistent with the Plaintiffs' previously
submitted declarations and deposition documents indicating that
class members were "regularly contacted during their breaks about
work-related matters, be it via radio, intercom, breakroom phone,
or in person." With respect to the declaration of Steve Schmidt, it
does not demonstrate that certification is inappropriate. With
respect to Schmidt's declaration regarding records of documented
discipline, the statement does not affirmatively demonstrate that
the Defendants lacked a common policy requiring class members to
respond to work-related matters during their breaks. Furthermore,
the Plaintiffs' expert survey and the Schmidt Declaration do not
indicate that the fact-finder will be required to conduct
individual mini-trials to determine whether Leprino is liable for
the alleged meal and rest break violations.

In sum, Judge Ishii concludes that the commonality and predominance
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion for decertification will be denied.

C. Stay

Judge Ishii will exercise discretion and sua sponte stay the case
pending the decision of the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v.
Spectrum Security Services, Inc., Cal. S. Ct. Docket No. S258966.
In Naranjo, the California Supreme Court granted review of two
issues that bear upon the present case. The causes of the parties
were argued and submitted to the California Supreme Court on March
1, 2022.

The first issue is whether a violation of Labor Code section 226.7,
which requires payment of premium wages for meal and rest period
violations, gives rise to claims under Labor Code sections 203 and
226 when the employer does not include the premium wages in the
employee's wage statements but does include the wages earned for
meal breaks. This issue bears upon the Plaintiffs' "on-call" break
claim and derivative claims because, like the plaintiff in Naranjo,
the Plaintiffs allege that Leprino is liable for penalty pay under
Labor Code section 203 for failing to pay class members all the
wages due to them upon the end of their employment.

The second issue in Naranjo examines the applicable prejudgment
interest rate for unpaid premium wages owed under Labor Code
section 226.7. This issue bears upon the Plaintiffs' case against
Leprino because Plaintiffs also seek interest for unpaid premium
wages owed under Labor Code Section 226.7.

Given that the California Supreme Court's decision on the merits is
forthcoming, Judge Ishii will exercise discretion and stay the case
pending the California Supreme Court's decision.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment and decertification. The case is stayed pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in Naranjo. All currently set
dates and deadlines, including the June 7, 2022 trial date, are
vacated. The parties are directed to file a joint status report
within 21 days of resolution of Naranjo by the California Supreme
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2vymuzbm from Leagle.com.


LILIUM NV: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp. ("Lilium N.V.
f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp.") (NASDAQ: LILM) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between
March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell
Acquisition Corp., contact us about potential recovery by using the
link below. There is no cost or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/lilium-n-v-f-k-a-qell-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=26536&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell
Acquisition Corp. includes allegations that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lilium materially overstates the design and
capabilities of the Lilium Jet, an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing aircraft for use in a new type of high-speed
air transport system for people and goods; (2) Lilium materially
overstates the likelihood for the Lilium Jet's timely
certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its ability to obtain or
create the necessary batteries for the Lilium Jet; (4) the special
purpose acquisition company merger would not and did not generate
enough cash to commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell
Acquisition Corp. did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
its merger with Lilium GmbH; and (6) as a result, Defendants'
public statements and statements to journalists were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: June 17, 2022

Aggrieved Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp. investors only
have until June 17, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

LIVE NATION: Scott Among Defendants in Astroworld Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Nolasco, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that Travis
Scott faces a class-action lawsuit. While Scott has offered to pay
for the funerals of the victims who were lost, several families
have declined the offer.

A total of 10 people were killed in a crowd rush at last year's
Astroworld Festival tragedy in Houston.

In March, Scott announced the launch of Project HEAL, a $5 million
initiative that includes funding for an effort to address safety
challenges for festivals and large-scale events. Houston police and
federal officials have been investigating whether Scott, concert
promoter Live Nation and others had put in place sufficient safety
measures.

"My team and I created Project HEAL to take much needed action
towards supporting real solutions that make all events the safest
spaces they can possibly be. I will always honor the victims of the
Astroworld tragedy who remain in my heart forever," Scott wrote on
Instagram.

Those who died at the concert ranged in age from 9 to 27. Roughly
300 people were injured and treated on site, and 25 were taken to
hospitals. Those killed died from compression asphyxia. [GN]

LTL MANAGEMENT: Court Enjoins Securities Suit Trial in SDCERA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LTL Management, LLC, Debtor. LTL Management, LLC,
Chapter 11, Plaintiff v. San Diego County Employees Retirement
Association, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Defendants, Case No. 21-30589 (MBK), Adv. Pro. No.
22-01073 (MBK) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael B. Kaplan of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued a Memorandum
Opinion:

   a. granting the Debtor's Motion for an Order:

      (I) Preliminarily Enjoining the Prosecution of the
          Securities Class Action; and

     (II) Granting a Temporary Restraining Order Pending a Final
          Hearing; and

   b. resolving the adversary proceeding in favor of the Debtor
      without prejudice.

I. Background

The matter comes before the Court by way the Debtor's bankruptcy
case (Case No. 21-30589) and subsequent adversary proceeding (Adv.
Pro. No. 22-01073) and the Motion. The Court has fully considered
the submissions of the parties and the arguments set forth on the
record at a hearing held on April 12, 2022.

On Oct. 14, 2021, LTL filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11
relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
North Carolina. LTL is an indirect subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson
("J&J") and traces its roots back to Johnson & Johnson Baby
Products, Company, a New Jersey company incorporated in 1970 as a
wholly owned subsidiary of J&J. In relevant part, as the result of
intercompany transactions, one of J&J's corporate subsidiaries,
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. ("Old JJCI") assumed responsibility
for all claims alleging that J&J's talc-containing products caused
ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

On Oct. 12, 2021, Old JJCI engaged in a series of transactions (the
"2021 Corporate Restructuring") through which it ceased to exist
and two new companies, LTL and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
("New JJCI"), were formed. The alleged purpose of this
restructuring was to "globally resolve talc-related claims through
a chapter 11 reorganization without subjecting the entire Old JJCI
enterprise to a bankruptcy proceeding." As a result of the
restructuring, LTL assumed responsibility for all of Old JJCI's
talc-related liabilities. Through the restructuring, LTL also
received Old JJCI's rights under a funding agreement. Under the
Funding Agreement, J&J and New JJCI are obligated to pay, inter
alia, "any and all costs and expenses" LTL incurs during its
bankruptcy case, "including the costs of administering the
Bankruptcy Case" to the extent necessary.

LTL filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 in the Western District
of North Carolina on Oct. 14, 2021. One week later, the Debtor
initiated an adversary proceeding (the "Talc Adversary
Proceeding"), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against
plaintiffs who had filed federal and state actions against the
Debtor's affiliates and other entities for talc-related claims. By
way of the Talc Adversary Proceeding, the Debtor sought an order
declaring that the automatic stay applies to those actions against
nondebtors or, in the alternative, to enjoin such actions and grant
a temporary restraining order pending a final hearing. The Debtor
simultaneously filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction
enjoining the prosecution of actions outside of the chapter 11 case
on account of the same talc claims that exist against the Debtor in
the chapter 11 case.

Ultimately, the case was transferred to the District of New Jersey,
and the Debtor supplemented its initial brief and amended and
restated its arguments in support of the relief sought to reflect
Third Circuit precedent. Several interested parties opposed the
motion. Additionally, two separate parties filed motions to dismiss
the underlying bankruptcy, alleging it had been filed in bad
faith.

The Court heard arguments on the motion for preliminary injunction
in the Talc Adversary Proceeding contemporaneously with arguments
on pending motions to dismiss the bankruptcy during evidentiary
hearings held on Feb. 14-18, 2022. Shortly thereafter, on Feb. 25,
2022, the Court denied the motions to dismiss in the underlying
bankruptcy case and granted the motion for preliminary injunction
in the Talc Adversary Proceeding.

The Debtor then commenced the instant adversary proceeding (the
"Adversary Proceeding") on March 7, 2022 against San Diego County
Employees Retirement Association ("SDCERA"). Simultaneously
therewith, the Debtor filed the Motion requesting injunctive
relief. The Adversary Proceeding and Motion seek to enjoin the
continued prosecution of a securities action (the "Securities
Action") pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against certain non-debtor individuals and affiliates of the
Debtor. The defendants in the Adversary Proceeding are members of a
putative plaintiff class in the Securities Action consisting of
individuals who purchased J&J stock during the period from Feb. 22,
2013, through Dec. 13, 2018 (the "Securities Claimants").

SDCERA is the lead plaintiff for that putative plaintiff class. The
Debtor argues that the claims asserted in the Securities Action
overlap with issues at the heart of the claims being resolved in
the bankruptcy proceeding (the "Talc Claims"). Accordingly, the
Debtor asserts that continuation of the Securities Action will
impair its ability to resolve the Talc Claims in the chapter 11
bankruptcy case.

The Securities Claimants oppose the Motion and posit that the
Debtor relies on a single basis for its motion: "record taint." The
Securities Claimants assert that there exists no precedent for an
injunction premised solely on the possibility of record taint.
Moreover, the Securities Claimants contend that continued
litigation does not pose a risk of record taint and that the Debtor
has not met its burden of demonstrating that an injunction is
warranted.

II. Discussion

A. The Securities Action

After filing for bankruptcy, the Debtor did not immediately request
to halt the Securities Action. Instead, the parties proceeded with
discovery for approximately five months before the Debtor filed the
instant Adversary Proceeding. Since the date the bankruptcy
petition was filed, the Securities Claimants have conducted more
than 20 depositions in the Securities Actions. According to the
Securities Claimants, "there is little fact discovery left to
conduct in the Securities Action." The counsel for the Securities
Claimants represented during the hearing on April 12, 2022 that the
remaining discovery will be comprised mostly of expert discovery
and dispositive motion practice.

B. Authority and Standard for Extension of Stay to Nondebtors

Judge Kaplan discussed its authority to stay litigation against
nondebtor third parties in its Opinion granting a preliminary
injunction in the Talc Adversary Proceeding. Judge Kaplan will not
repeat that lengthy discussion and, instead, incorporates it by
reference. In sum, he concludes that Section 362(a), Section
105(a), or a court's inherent powers can each serve as independent
bases for extension of a stay to nondebtor third parties.
Nevertheless, because certain courts in this circuit still view the
source of authority to extend the automatic stay as an open-ended
question, he will utilize the same three-step inquiry outlined in
its prior decision to address the instant Motion.

Namely, a bankruptcy court's extension of a stay to a nondebtor
third party is appropriate where: (1) the bankruptcy court has
jurisdiction to issue the injunction; (2) the stay is properly
extended to the nondebtor(s) under Section 362(a); and (3) an
injunction under Section 105(a) is warranted.

Judge Kaplan concludes that "unusual circumstances" are present
warranting an extension of the automatic stay to the Protected
Parties under Section 362(a)(3). To the extent Section 362(a) does
not serve as an independent basis for extension of the stay to
nondebtor parties, he determines that a preliminary injunction
under Section 105(a) extending the automatic stay is appropriate.
Judge Kaplan, thus, grants the Debtor's Motion and resolves the
instant adversary proceeding in the Debtor's favor. However, as
with the resolution of the Talc Adversary Proceeding, he concludes
that taking measures in smaller steps is prudent. He will revisit
continuation of the automatic stay on June 29, 2022, which is the
date the Court intends to revisit the preliminary injunction in the
Talc Adversary Proceeding.

III. Conclusion

Judge Kaplan grants the Debtor's Motion and resolves the adversary
proceeding in favor of the Debtor without prejudice to revisiting
the continuation of the preliminary injunction at a later date as
discussed.

The Debtor is directed to submit a proposed form of Order
consistent with Judge Kaplan's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u4p47yy from Leagle.com.


MANDIANT INC: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, White Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANDIANT, INC., ENRIQUE SALEM, KEVIN MANDIA,
KIMBERLY ALEXY, SARA C. ANDREWS, RONALD E.F. CODD, ARTHUR W.
COVIELLO, JR., ADRIAN MCDERMOTT, VIRAL PATEL, and ROBERT SWITZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00515 (E.D. Va., May 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of
a materially false and misleading definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
to convince Mandiant's public stockholders to vote in favor of a
merger transaction between the company and Google LLC.
Specifically, the proxy statement fails to disclose: (i) all
interests of Mandiant directors and officers in the merger that
differ from or are in addition to the interests of Mandiant's
public stockholders, (ii) whether or not there were any discussions
between Google and Kevin Mandia, Mandiant's chief executive officer
(CEO), generally concerning the prospect of post-merger employment
prior to approval of the material terms of the merger by the board,
and (iii) the role of Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, financial advisor on
the merger, as one of the lead joint bookrunners for a $10 billion
convertible note offering by Alphabet Inc. in August 2020 on which
Goldman Sachs earned approximately $7.25 million.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with
the stockholder vote on June 3, 2022 until such material disclosure
violations are cured to enable Mandiant's stockholders to cast
informed votes with respect to the merger.

Mandiant, Inc. is a provider of intelligence-based cybersecurity
solutions and services, with its principal executive offices
located at 11951 Freedom Drive, 6th Floor, Reston, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Alexander P. Faig, Esq.
         Samuel C. Moore, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL C. MOORE, PLLC
         526 King St., Suite 506
         Alexandria, VA 22314
         Telephone: (703) 535-7809
         Facsimile: (571) 223-5234
         E-mail: scmoore@scmoorelaw.com
                 afaig@scmoorelaw.com

                 - and –

         Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
         WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
         25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
         Monsey, NY 10952
         Telephone: (845) 290-6818
         Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
         E-mail: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Moledina Sues Over Illegal Conversations' Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FAISAL MOLEDINA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:22-cv-03059 (C.D. Cal., May 6, 2022) is a class action
for damages and injunctive relief against the defendant Marriott
International, for the Defendant's unauthorized and illegal
recordings of conversations with the Plaintiff without any
notification or warning to Plaintiff or Class Members, causing
Plaintiff and Class Members damages and invasion of their privacy,
in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

On April 14, 2022, at approximately 9:40 p.m. PST, Plaintiff called
Le Meridien Dallas, The Stoneleigh's telephone number,
214-871-7111, using his cordless telephone. The Defendant owns and
operates the Hotel, as well as the Hotel's phone number,
214-871-7111.

Having dialed the Hotel's phone number, Plaintiff was presented
with several call options. After listening to the Hotel's call
options, Plaintiff pressed "1" to make reservations at the Hotel.
At no point during the call to the Hotel's phone number was there
any form of recording disclosure nor any beeping sounds to indicate
to Plaintiff that he was being recorded by Defendant, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiff was eventually connected with one of Defendant's live
agents to make his hotel reservation. The Plaintiff told
Defendant's live agent that he wanted to know whether it was less
expensive for him to reserve a room with the Hotel directly than it
was to reserve a room online through a third-party website.

In response to Plaintiff's inquiry, the Defendant's agent indicated
that Defendant had a price-match guarantee in case Plaintiff was
able to find better rates for his reservation through a third-party
website. Not wanting to risk denial of a price-match, Plaintiff
asked the agent whether the call was being recorded.

In response, Defendant's agent attempted to evade Plaintiff's
question, which prompted the Plaintiff to ask a second time whether
Plaintiff was being recorded. In response, the Defendant's agent
again evaded Plaintiff's question, and thus the Plaintiff asked a
third and final time whether Plaintiff was being recorded. Finally,
after Plaintiff's third attempt at determining whether his call was
being recorded, Defendant's agent responded by saying, "yes, this
call is being recorded," the suit adds.

The Plaintiff is a member of and seeks to represent a "Class"
consisting of and as follows:

    "All persons in California whose inbound and outbound cordless
     and/or cellular telephone conversation(s) were audio recorded

     by the Defendant and/or its employees and/or agent/s within
     one year prior to the filing of this action.

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, any entity or
     division in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and
     their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and

     successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and
     the Judge's staff; and (3) those persons who have suffered
     personal injuries as a result of the facts alleged.[BN]

Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential, and
timeshare properties. It is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  jason@kazlg.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Brown Seeks Blind's Online Store Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03764 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.westinstore.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alt-text on graphics, (b) inaccessible drop-down menus, (c)
lack of navigation links, (d) lack of adequate prompting and
labeling, (e) denial of keyboard access for some elements on the
website, and (f) requirement to make purchases exclusively with the
mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Marriott International, Inc. is an online retail company doing
business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Mars Khaimov, Esq.
         MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
         108-26 64th Avenue, Second Floor
         Forest Hills, NY 11375
         Telephone: (929) 324-0717
         Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
         E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

MATCHABAR INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MatchaBar, Inc. The
case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MatchaBar, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03611 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

MatchaBar -- https://www.matchabar.co/ -- is a family-owned
business run by two brothers committed to going above and beyond to
bring the world a quality matcha product.[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


MAURICE BADLER: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maurice Badler Fine
Jewelry, Ltd. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Maurice Badler
Fine Jewelry, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-03777 (S.D.N.Y., May 9,
2022).

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

Maurice Badler -- https://www.badler.com/ -- specializes in fine
custom designed and contemporary designer jewelry.[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


MEDSCAN LABORATORY: Ristine Files Suit in D. North Dakota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medscan Laboratory,
Inc. The case is styled as Jill Ristine, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Medscan Laboratory, Inc. doing business as:
Adaptive Health Integrations, Case No. 1:22-cv-00079-CRH (D.N.D.,
May 6, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

MedScan Laboratory -- https://www.medscanlab.com/ -- is a
family-owned, clinical testing laboratory that offers medical
testing services for health care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          McLain J. Schneider, Esq.
          Scott A. Haider, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER, SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER
          815 3rd Ave. S.
          Fargo, ND 58103
          Phone: (701) 235-4481
          Email: mac@schneiderlawfirm.com
                 scott@schneiderlawfirm.com


MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS: Faces Rodwell FLSA Suit in W.D.N.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTRONE RODWELL and SHIKEERA PAYNE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCHANDISING
SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. and DOLGENCORP, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00208 (W.D.N.C., May 10, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated traveling merchandisers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

Plaintiffs Rodwell and Payne worked for the Defendants as traveling
merchandisers from approximately April 2021 to June 2021 and from
approximately March 4, 2021 to June 15, 2021, respectively.

Merchandising Solutions Group, Inc. is a company that provides
merchandising services, headquartered in North Wilkesboro, North
Carolina.

Dolgencorp, LLC is an operator of merchandise stores, headquartered
in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

                  - and –

         Bert J. Miano, Esq.
         MIANO LAW PC
         3116 Weddington Road, Suite 900-1049
         Matthews, NC 28105-9407
         Telephone: (704) 275-7199
         Facsimile: (704) 630-7199
         E-mail: bmiano@mianolaw.com

MERCURY AIR: Fierro PAGA Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOE FIERRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCURY AIR CARGO, LLC and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV15099 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for unpaid wages and penalties pursuant to California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee since approximately November 15, 2017.

Mercury Air Cargo, LLC is a freight forwarding service company in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
         Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
         Milan Moore, Esq.
         LIDMAN LAW, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 322-4772
         Facsimile: (424) 322-4775
         E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com
                 enguyen@lidmanlaw.com
                 mmoore@lidmanlaw.com

                 - and –

         Paul K. Haines, Esq.
         HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
         2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
         El Segundo, CA 90245
         Telephone: (424) 292-2350
         Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
         E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

MI CASA: Faces Pardini Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEXANDER PARDINI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MI CASA SU CASA, LLC, an
Arizona Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00796-MTL (D. Ariz., May 10, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay
overtime wages and to calculate overtime based on employees'
regular rates in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arizona Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly paid
employee from June 2021 to January 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not properly compensate
him despite normally working more than 40 hours in a week.
Specifically, the Defendant paid him at the same hourly rate of $15
per hour for all 105.10 hours worked for the bi-monthly pay period
ending May 30, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
failed to compute his overtime rate based on all remuneration paid
to him at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all hours he worked as required by the FLSA.

ON behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages in an
amount equal to one and one-half times their regular rates of pay,
plus liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rates, and other relief
as may be necessary and appropriate.

Mi Casa Su Casa, LLC provides residential care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
          RANDALL LAW PLLC
          4742 N 24th Street, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Tel: (602) 328-0262
          E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com


MISAHARA JEWELRY: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Misahara Jewelry,
LLC. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Misahara Jewelry, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03778 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022).

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

Misahara Jewelry -- https://misahara.com/ -- offers handcrafted
fine jewelry in New York City.[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


NATERA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Teixeira, writing for Reuters, reports that law firm
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP on May 1 said it had filed a
securities class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical company
Natera Inc on behalf of shareholders, according to a statement.

The law firm said the main justification for the lawsuit filed in
the U.S. district court of the Western district of Texas was that
Natera, which specializes in genetic testing and diagnostics,
provided information about the efficacy of its tests that have not
proved accurate.

"Natera said that its tests are much more reliable than it appears
they really are," Kessler Topaz said in the statement.

Natera, based in Austin, Texas, did not return a request for
comment on May 1. [GN]

NATERA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Attention Natera, Inc. ("Natera") (NASDAQ: NTRA) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit is on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Natera common stock between February 26, 2020,
and April 19, 2022, inclusive.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Natera, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/natera-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26541&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Natera includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's non-invasive prenatal test, Panorama, was not reliable
and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) the Company's
screening test for kidney transplant failure, Prospera, did not
have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a
result of defendants' false and misleading claims about Natera's
technology, the Company was exposed to substantial legal and
regulatory risks; (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and
billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: June 27, 2022

Aggrieved Natera investors only have until June 27, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT: Browne Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lesroy E. Browne, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust a/k/a
National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust I; National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2003-1; National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2004-1; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2;
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1; National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2005-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2005-3; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1; National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2; National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2006-3; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-4;
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1; National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2007-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2007-3; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4; Wilmington
Trust Company As Trustee For National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust; U.S. Bank, N.A. in its role as special servicer for the
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust; Transworld Systems, Inc.;
John Does 1 to 15; a class of Defendants similarly situated to the
Defendant, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust, Case No.
HUD-L-001598 was removed from the Hudson County, New Jersey, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 9, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02713 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust is the household name
for 15 trusts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher B. Fontenelli, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          44 Whippany Road, Suite 280
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Phone: (973) 520-2301
          Email: cfontenelli@lockelord.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Zaimi Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christina Zaimi, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, Case
No. 22STCV01421 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02972 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., originally Neiman-Marcus --
https://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/ -- is an American chain of
luxury department stores owned by the Neiman Marcus Group,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: amortimer@huntonAK.com


NELSON LEWIS: Preece Sues Over Bore Crew Workers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY PREECE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NELSON LEWIS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00445 (W.D. Tex., May 10, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated bore crew and pipe crew workers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Preece was employed by the Defendant as a bore crew worker and
dump truck driver from approximately March 2020 until approximately
September 2021.

Nelson Lewis, Inc. is a construction company, with its principal
office in Marble Falls, Burnet County, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Aaron Johnson, Esq.
         FAIR LABOR LAW
         314 E. Highland Mall Blvd., Ste. 401
         Austin, TX 78752
         Telephone: (512) 277-3505
         Facsimile: (512) 277-3254
         E-mail: ajohnson@fairlaborlaw.com

NESTLE PURINA: Court Dismisses in Part Barker's 1st Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE BARKER, on behalf of herself and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01075-MTS (E.D. Mo.), Judge Matthew T.
Schelp of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

I. Background

Defendant Nestle manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pet
foods. Relevant to this suit are two varieties of dog food they
sell, Purina Pro Plan Adult Sensitive Skin & Stomach Salmon & Rice
Formula and Purina Pro Plan Adult Sensitive Skin & Stomach Lamb &
Oat Meal Formula. It represents that these two products contain no
corn, wheat, or soy. The Plaintiff alleges that she paid a premium
for these two products purportedly free of corn, wheat, and soy
based on that representation. But she alleges that, in reality,
both Pro Plan formulas "contain significant amounts of wheat."

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action asserting five
counts: Breach of Express Warranty (Count I); Breach of Implied
Warranty of Merchantability (Count II); Unjust Enrichment (Count
III); Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") (Count IV); and
Georgia Fair Business Practices Act ("GFBPA") (Count V).

In the instant Motion, the Defendant seeks to dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in its entirety for numerous
reasons. Having subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the action
under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Court considers each of
the Defendant's arguments.

II. Discussion

a. Standing

The Defendant first asserts that the Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue her claims because she has not alleged a particularized,
concrete injury, which would mean the action is not a case or
controversy within the Court's power to hear.

Judge Schelp holds that the Plaintiff has alleged that dog food she
purchased contained significant amounts of wheat, contrary to the
packaging's claims. Thus, her allegations do establish that "all or
even most" of these products she purchased contained misrepresented
ingredients. At this stage, those allegations were sufficient to
allege an injury in fact. Therefore, the Plaintiff has established
her standing to bring the action at this stage.

b. Deception and Injury

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff failed to state a
claim because she failed plausibly to allege that it engages in a
deceptive act or unfair practice and failed plausibly to allege
injury or damage. As recited, however, the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, subject to the provisions in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11(b), repeatedly alleges that the Defendant's Pro
Plan products at issue contain significant amounts of wheat though
it markets and labels them as having no wheat. At this stage of the
litigation, the Plaintiff has the benefit of having her properly
pleaded allegations taken as true, and the Plaintiff plausibly has
alleged deception and injury. Consequently, the Defendant's Motion
to dismiss on this ground will be denied.

c. Propriety of the MMPA Claim

Next, the Defendant argues that the First Amended Complaint fails
to allege a violation of the MMPA because the Plaintiff does not
allege an unlawful practice in connection with a sale or
advertisement of any merchandise in or from Missouri. The
Plaintiff, a resident and citizen of Georgia, "encountered the
allegedly misleading advertising, purchased the product, and
ultimately was disappointed with it," all in her home state of
Georgia. The Plaintiff argues that the MMPA applies because the
"Defendant was founded and headquartered in Missouri, where it
designs, manufactures, distributes, labels, advertises, and sells"
the products at issue.

But, Judge Schelp holds that it is "not enough" when the "design of
the advertisement" is the "only relevant action taking place in
Missouri." Every part of the challenged transactions took place"
outside Missouri. There are no more facts alleged regarding the
sale of the Defendant's Pro Plan dog food to a party outside
Missouri than were present in the sale of Emerson's vacuum cleaner
to a party outside Missouri.

d. Standing for Injunctive Relief

Next, the Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff lacks standing to
seek injunctive relief because she is now aware of the Defendant's
alleged deception and plausibly has not alleged a likelihood of
future injury. Standing to seek injunctive relief "requires a
showing that the plaintiff faces a threat of ongoing or future
harm." The Plaintiff argues that her lone allegation that "she
would consider buying" the Pro Plan products at issue if they
"actually contained" no wheat provides her standing to seek
injunctive relief.

But, Judge Schelp concludes that her "some day" intention to
"consider buying" again the products at issue is not enough. The
Plaintiff is the master of her complaint, yet she did not allege
she would buy or even that she desired to buy the product again,
which is, if anything, the bare minimum. Even when drawing all
reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, the appropriate review
at this stage, the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek injunctive
relief based on her allegations in the First Amended Complaint.
Thus,Judge Schelp will dismiss all the Plaintiff's claims for
injunctive relief.

e. Breach of Warranty

The Plaintiff seems to agree that Georgia law applies to her claims
for breach of warranty in the case. But the parties disagree on how
Georgia law applies to the facts alleged. The Defendant argues that
the Plaintiff's express and implied warranty claims fail as a
matter of law because the Plaintiff lacks privity with Defendant.

Judge Schelp concludes that the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient
facts to state a claim for breach of express and implied warranty
under Georgia law at this early stage. The Plaintiff's breach of
express warranty (Count I) and breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count II) survive.

f. Unjust Enrichment

Like her breach of warranty claims, the Plaintiff does not discuss
what jurisdiction's substantive law applies to her claim for unjust
enrichment. Nor did the Plaintiff meaningfully respond to the
Defendant's argument that Georgia's substantive law applies to this
claim. Rather, the Plaintiff cited to what "courts in this district
routinely find" regarding unjust enrichment. But what courts in
this District do is of little help if the courts are applying the
substantive law of a different jurisdiction than the substantive
law at issue in the case.

Given that the Plaintiff is a citizen of Georgia and purchased the
products at issue in Georgia, the Defendant's unanswered argument
that Georgia has the most significant relationship, and that its
substantive law therefore applies to the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claims, is well taken. The Plaintiff failed to respond
to the Defendant's argument that Georgia law forecloses her unjust
enrichment claim because she did not confer a direct benefit on the
Defendant. With no argument from the Plaintiff to the contrary,
Judge Schelp will dismiss her unjust enrichment claim, Count III.

g. GFBPA Class

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff cannot assert GFBPA
claims on behalf of a Georgia class because the GFBPA prohibits
individual litigants from bringing suit "in a representative
capacity." Though Georgia's statute seemingly prohibits a GFBPA
claim from being brought in a representative capacity, Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 allows members of a class to sue "as
representative parties on behalf of all members." The question then
is which provision is displaced in the case, the statute that would
prohibit it or the Federal Rule that would allow it, and the answer
is not patently clear.

Because some of the Plaintiff's other class claims survive the
Motion to Dismiss and will proceed, and the Plaintiff's individual
claim under the GFBPA also will survive, Judge Schelp will leave
the resolution of this conflicted issue for another day when the
parties can provide focused briefing on this issue.

h. Nationwide Class Allegations

Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot assert
claims on behalf of a nationwide class, and, therefore, the Court
should strike the First Amended Complaint's nationwide class
allegations.

Judge Schelp says the Defendant makes a compelling argument that
nationwide class certification on any of the Plaintiff's claims
would be impossible because she could not prove predominance given
that an individualized choice of law analysis would need to be
applied to each individual plaintiff's claim. That is, each
Plaintiff's claim in the action would need to be analyzed under
Missouri's choice of law analysis. Applying Missouri's choice of
law rules to each Plaintiff's claims would lead to many different
states' substantive law applying to the underlying claims. These
substantive laws vary from state to state.

Nevertheless, the oft-repeated maxim regarding striking a party's
pleading is true; it "is an extreme and disfavored measure." So,
while he has "serious doubts," to put it lightly, that Plaintiff
will be able to satisfy the predominance requirement of a
nationwide class, Judge Schelp also is hesitant to strike the
nationwide class allegations at this the earliest possible stage.
He finds that the decision as to the survival of the nationwide
class allegations in the case should be made after allowing the
Plaintiff to conduct some discovery or on motion to the Court
wherein the parties can provide additional briefing to explain
whether the prerequisites of Rule 23 can be satisfied.

Given the severity of striking class allegations at this early
stage of the litigation, Judge Schelp -- out of caution -- will
decline to strike the nationwide class allegations at this time.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained, Judge Schelp grants the Defendant's
Motion and dismiss the unjust enrichment claim (Count III) and the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim (Count IV). Further, he
grants the Defendant's Motion and dismisses all the Plaintiff's
claims for injunctive relief. He denies the Motion in all other
respects. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted
in part and denied in part consistent with the Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ud4zvvs from Leagle.com.


NEW HARVEST COFFEE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Harvest Coffee
Roasters, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Harvest Coffee
Roasters, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03616 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

New Harvest Coffee Roasters -- https://newharvestcoffee.com/ -- is
a specialty coffee roasters located in Rhode Island.[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


NHS MANAGEMENT: Griggs Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NHS Management LLC.
The case is styled as Shymikka Griggs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NHS Management LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00565-RDP (N.D. Ala., May 4, 2022).

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

NHS Management, LLC -- https://www.nhsmanagement.com/ -- provides
administrative and consulting services for individual facilities
and companies across the southeast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 326-3336
          Email: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


NOSWEAT PERFORMANCE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NoSweat Performance,
Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NoSweat Performance, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03603 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

NoSweat -- https://nosweatco.com/ -- is a disposable performance
liner that sticks on the inside of any hat, helmet or hard hat and
soaks up sweat.[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


NYS OFFICE OF INFORMATION: Stiegman Appeals Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Stiegman v. New York State
Office of Information Technology Services, Case No. 19-cv-18, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Syracuse).

The case, filed on January 4, 2019, is about an alleged unlawful
conspiracy involving a New York State agency, and other
accomplices, which have attempted to deprive a discrete and insular
minority, a class of older individuals with a disability, of
protected rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Federal
law.

The named Plaintiff, Mr. Stiegman, the proposed class
representative, is a former New York State employee, who was
allegedly discriminated and retaliated against due to his age and
disability, which included a personal history of cancer.  On
several occasions, Mr. Stiegman alleges he was denied reasonable
accommodations, development opportunities, timely and fair
evaluations, and subsequently, was retaliated against for invoking
his Constitutional and federally protected rights.

On February 4, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss case
which the Court granted on March 31, 2022, through a Decision and
Order entered by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Decision and Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Stiegman v. New York State
Office of Information Technology Services, Case No. 22-960, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on
April 29, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman, individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman, Esq.
          P.O. Box 13031
          Prescott, AZ 86304
          Telephone: (518) 302-1322

Defendant-Appellee New York State Office of Information Technology
Services, is represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005

ORANSI LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oransi LLC. The case
is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Oransi LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03678
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Oransi -- https://oransi.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer of air
filtration and ventilation products.[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


OTTE MANHATTAN: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otte Manhattan, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Otte Manhattan, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02608 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Otte -- https://otteny.com/ -- is a boutique shopping experience
for women with distinct taste in understated luxury and
contemporary design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARACHUTE HOME: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parachute Home, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Parachute Home, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03710 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Parachute Home -- https://www.parachutehome.com/ -- engages in the
production of modern bedding and bath essentials for a more
comfortable home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Class Action Suit Filed After Data Hack
---------------------------------------------------------------
kymkemp.com reports that a damning class action lawsuit filed just
alleges the personal medical information of 850,000 northern
California residents has been hacked by a dark web ransomware
service (AKA the Hive) recently from the files of Partnership
Healthplan California (PHC) - putting up for grabs social security
numbers, bank accounts, names, addresses, emails, and sensitive
medical information of the victims.

According to the class action civil complaint filed by Whatley
Kallas, LLP and local firm Janssen Malloy LLP* of Humboldt County
(in concert with other firms) on behalf of the public and an
anonymous plaintiff, Partnership Healthplan California (PHC) acted
in violation of the law on several counts, ultimately losing the
private personal data of its members recently to a ransomware
attack.

The numerous alleged violations of law by PHC include the
California Consumer Privacy Act, as well as violating California's
Constitutional guarantees for consumers, specifically in regard to
violations of guaranteed rights to privacy when it comes to medical
records, under Article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution,
which guarantees consumers their right to privacy.

The complaint filed locally in the Superior Court of Humboldt
County states early on in the pleading the various ways in which
the defendant - Partnership Health Plan California - is culpable,
reading in part, "Since Medical Information encompasses such
personal and revealing information, it is highly valued as a
gateway to medical identity theft and more general identity theft.
Medical Information has been found to command up to $1,000 per
individual record on the dark web."

PHC provides health care services to roughly 850,000 people in
Northern California counties, including Humboldt, Mendocino, Del
Norte, Trinity, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Modoc, Napa, Shasta, Siskiyou,
Solano, and Yolo. All of these members are currently at risk of
having identity theft occur as a result of this ransomware security
breach by Hive.

According to the complaint filed by Megan Yarnall of Janssen
Malloy, LLP in Eureka, this data included their patients' names,
addresses, and social security numbers. The class action suit
arises out of a verified breach of protected health information and
personal data of Californians. On March 29, 2022, the Hive
ransomware group - posted a message on its HiveLeaks dark website
declaring the group had access to the personal private information
of approximately 850,000 patients of healthcare coverage provider
Partnership Healthplan of California ("PHC") totaling about 400
gigabytes of data.

"Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the
cost of litigating their claims to be prohibitive and may have no
effective and complete remedy and may not even learn of the
wrongful conduct at issue." - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
JURY TRIAL filed May 5, 2022

The complaint asserts, "Thus, organizations such as Defendants who
are entrusted with this most sensitive and valuable data have a
non-delegable duty to take particularly special care to maintain
up-to-date information security practices and keep apprised of
industry-related threats as they arise. The threat from the Hive
group of a ransomware attack was reasonably foreseeable to
Defendants, as health care companies had been warned for almost a
year of the potential for such an attack on their computer
systems."

California has laws that specifically protect personal information
of consumers and particularly those enrolled in receiving medical
care, taking into account the sensitive nature and potentially
debilitating consequences of a breach of personal medical
information which could lead to delay of care for an individual
resulting in catastrophic consequences of identity theft of
personal medical information.

Having provided references for these assertions within the written
complaint, the class action suit details 5 causes for action, each
spelled out for the fact finder's consideration - in this case, the
fact finder would be a jury, as demanded by the lawsuit.

The lawsuit states on behalf of the anonymous victim and all other
known and forthcoming individuals affected that, "Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated enrollees in PHC's programs face a
long-term battle against identity theft if their full names, Social
Security Numbers, dates of birth, addresses, health information,
and other contact information were contained in this unauthorized
access and exfiltration." The Partnership Healthplan California is
also bound by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act ("HIPAA")which safeguards electronically stored personal health
information.

The complaint further counts a violation against "the duties
applicable to them under the Federal Trade Commission Act" alleging
the healthcare group engaged in "unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce."

The lawsuit then explains that the company's "failure to maintain
reasonable and appropriate data security for consumers' sensitive
personal information" would be an "unfair practice" and as such, is
in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

According to the FBI, this particular group was on the radar, and
had even been flagged as dangerous in the summer of 2021. A notice
issued by the FBI reads, "After compromising a victim network, Hive
ransomware actors exfiltrate data and encrypt files on the network.
The actors leave a ransom note in each affected directory within a
victim's system, which provides instructions on how to purchase the
decryption software. The ransom note also threatens to leak
exfiltrated victim data on the Tor site, "HiveLeaks.""

What is this Hive, you may be asking. . . . Well, it can be made up
of anyone who has subscribed to the ransomware for hire as a
service (RaaS). According to a Cybersecurity firm called Varonis,
RaaS is a service provided by ransomware creators, offered on a
"subscription-based model that enables users to use ransomware
tools to execute attacks." As explained by Varonis, this model of
distribution of cyber security breaches are providing
"out-of-the-box ransomware tools to subscribers who pay to be an
affiliate of the program. . . . are paying for the ongoing use of
malicious software." The cybersecurity firm also warns that the
theft is likely profitable for those participating, noting that
"RaaS enables malicious attacks with lucrative rewards to be
collected effortlessly, even by users with no prior knowledge or
experience in the field."

Partnership Healthplan of California's website has been restored,
and includes the following press release regarding "Website
Restoration" noted on April 15th, 2022:

As of April 15, 2022, Partnership HealthPlan of California has
successfully restored its website functionality. We apologize for
the recent service disruption and appreciate the patience and
understanding of our partners and providers as we worked to safely
restore systems.

We have taken all recommended measures offered by our cybersecurity
partners to ensure these systems are safe and available to resume
normal business operations.

The safe restoration of systems follows the detection of anomalous
activity within areas of the organization's network. Our
investigation into the incident continues with the assistance of
third-party forensics specialists. We will continue to respond to
the situation appropriately and responsibly, as necessary.

Indeed, the legal complaint alleges that money is potentially being
made at the expense of hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting rural
Californians who have yet to be notified at all of the breach into
their most sensitive personal details. Due to the extent of the
security breach and the nature of the information stolen, the fact
that PHC was warned against this exact type of ransomware scam
previously, and the legal obligation of PHC under California law -
the civil lawsuit seeks hefty compensation on behalf of the public.


Not only does the requested relief in the lawsuit include that the
company must correct its refusal or inability to communicate
details regarding such violations to its members immediately, as
well as to correct lapses in security functions, but it also seeks
attorney's fees and costs associated with filing the suit, with
interest.

According to a press release issued late Friday May 6th by Janssen
Malloy LLP, "When compared to the data reported by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights
during the last 2 years, this would be the second largest health
plan data breach in the United States during that time."

The press release encourages local victims of the data breach to
reach out. "If you are a patient of PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN OF
CALIFORNIA and are concerned about this breach of your personal
data and what your options are, contact Janssen Malloy LLP by
calling toll-free 888-JANSSEN (1-888-526-7736) or (707) 445-2071."


*Please note that the Janssen Malloy law firm is an advertiser on
this site and also provides personal legal services for Kym Kemp,
this website's owner. [GN]

PENNSYLVANIA: Court Sustains Prelim. Objections in Chester Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Chester Upland School District and Chichester School
District, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Petitioners v. Michael Rossi, in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County,
Pennsylvania, et al., Respondents, Case No. 133 M.D. 2021 (Pa.
Cmmw.), Judge Patricia A. McCullough of the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania sustained the Respondents' preliminary objections in
the matter, and dismissed without prejudice the Amended Petition
for Review.

The other Respondents are Cathy J. Fetter, in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, and Jonathan K. DelCollo in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County,
Pennsylvania, and Robin G. Patton in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County,
Pennsylvania, and Dawn Close in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County,
Pennsylvania and Judith Reiss in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, and Kelly Ferrari in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County,
Pennsylvania, and Lisa Crynock in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County,
Pennsylvania, and Mary Grace Olay in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cameron County,
Pennsylvania, and Kayla M. Semmel in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County,
Pennsylvania, and Jeremy S. Breon in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County,
Pennsylvania, and Debbie Bookman in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania, and Jeffrey Hines in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County,
Pennsylvania, and Brian K. Spencer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County,
Pennsylvania, and Cynthia A. Love in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County,
Pennsylvania, and Barbara N. Silvetti in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County,
Pennsylvania, and Emmy Arnett in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County,
Pennsylvania, and Dale E. Sabadish in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and Mary J. Walk in the official capacity as the
Director of Office of Judicial Support of the Court of Common Pleas
of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and Nina Capuzzi Frankhouser in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, and Dawn M. Millin in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Forest County, Pennsylvania, and Timothy Sponseller in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and Patty Fix in the official
capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Fulton
County, Pennsylvania, and Susan K. White in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County,
Pennsylvania, and Kay Coons in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania, and Randy Degenkolb in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, and Tonya S. Geist in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County,
Pennsylvania, and Lori A. Ferry in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata County,
Pennsylvania, and Mauri B. Kelly in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County,
Pennsylvania, and Jim Haddock in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania, and Thomas D. Heap in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County,
Pennsylvania, and Laura Isadore in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County,
Pennsylvania, and Tammy Stuck in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County,
Pennsylvania, and George Warden in the official capacity as The
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County,
Pennsylvania, and Susan N. Kauwell in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Montour County,
Pennsylvania, and Holly Ruggiero in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County,
Pennsylvania, and Jamie Saleski in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and Zoe Burd in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Perry County,
Pennsylvania, and Denise Fitzpatrick in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,
Pennsylvania, and Bridget Miller in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County,
Pennsylvania, and Stephanie Wolf in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County,
Pennsylvania, and Angie G. Svonavec in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, Somerset County,
Pennsylvania, and Kellie Carpenter in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Sullivan County,
Pennsylvania, and Marie Seymour in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Tioga County,
Pennsylvania, and Diane Miller in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Union County,
Pennsylvania, and Paula M. Palmer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County,
Pennsylvania, and Jen Phillips in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County,
Pennsylvania, and Laura Hough in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County,
Pennsylvania, and Edward Sandercock in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County,
Pennsylvania, and Christina O'Brien in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, and Cindy Adams in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County,
Pennsylvania, and Allison Blew in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of York County,
Pennsylvania.

I. Introduction

On April 26, 2021, Chester Upland School District and Chichester
School District (Petitioners) initiated the putative class action
under Rules 1701-1717 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
on behalf of themselves and all political subdivisions similarly
situated by filing a petition for review1 against the Director of
the Office of Judicial Support (OJS) of the County of Delaware and
52 prothonotaries of courts of common pleas in counties of the
second class A, the third through eighth classes, and home rule
counties, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages for allegedly overcharging court fees in excess of the
limitations contained in what is commonly referred to as the
Prothonotary Fee Act, 42 P.S. Sections 21071,3 210754 (for third
through eighth class counties and home rule counties) and 42 P.S.
Sections 21161,5 211656 (for second class A counties).

Presently before the Court are preliminary objections (POs) filed
by Respondents Prothonotaries of Beaver, Bedford, Berks, Blair,
Bradford, Bucks, Butler, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Clarion,
Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford, Cumberland, Fayette,
Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson,
Juniata, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, McKean, Mifflin, Monroe,
Montour, Northampton, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Schuylkill,
Snyder, Sullivan, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne,
Westmoreland, Wyoming and York Counties.

II. Background

The Petitioners are two political subdivisions located in Delaware
County. They seek to represent a proposed class of all political
subdivisions, as defined by 101 Pa. Code Section 23.226 ("school
districts, municipalities, and counties, as applicable"),
throughout the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which have in
the preceding four years filed a document in any of the
Respondents' Courts of Common Pleas and which were charged fees "in
excess of the statutorily set fees." There are in excess of 3,000
members in the proposed class definition.

Each of the parties constituting a Respondent is a Prothonotary, or
counterpart, of a home rule county or county of the second class A
or of the third to eighth class.

The Petitioners assert that:

     66. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law relating to a county of Class
2 A through Class 8, the maximum fee to be charged to the
Commonwealth or a political subdivision for any one of the services
provided herein will be $10. 42 P.S. Section 21075; 42 P.S. Section
21165.

     67. Upon information and belief, during the period of time
from the respective effective dates of 42 P.S. Section 21075
(during 1982) and 42 P.S. Section 21165 (during 1986), as
applicable, up to the date of the filing of the Petition, each of
the Respondents has overcharged one or more of the Petitioners, in
violation of the foregoing statutory limitation.

     68. The Petitioners allege that each Respondent has
overcharged a Petitioner and/or Petitioners for court services in
excess of the statutory limitation and instead charged the
Petitioner(s) the same amount it charged to a party which is not a
political subdivision.

The Petitioners allege that they personally were charged
unauthorized and excessive court fees by Delaware County's OJS in
violation of the $10 maximums set forth in section 5 of the
Prothonotary Fee Act and section 5 of the 1986 Act. They do not
allege specifically that either of them has paid a court fee to any
County's prothonotary other than to Delaware County's OJS. They
aver that they require discovery in order to ascertain the factual
details about which of the Respondents overcharged which of the
Petitioners, and the factual details of the parties, dates, and
amounts of all instances of an overcharge.

In Count I, the Petitioners request the entry of a declaratory
judgment that Respondents have violated the Prothonotary Fee Act
and the 1986 Act by overcharging the putative class members for
court fees and should be compelled to issue refunds.

In Count II, the Petitioners allege that, during the four-year
period prior to the date of filing of their Amended Petition, all
the Respondents have been unjustly enriched by receiving fees that
are "more than the statutorily limited court fees."

The Petitioners further request class certification, issuance of an
injunction limiting all the Respondents from collecting fees, an
award of counsel fees and costs, and an award of money damages as
reimbursement for excessive fees.

On Aug. 10, 2021, the Respondents filed joint POs, challenging the
legal sufficiency of the Amended Petition. In their first PO,
Respondents demurrer to Count I (declaratory relief) and Count II
(unjust enrichment) on the ground that the allegations set forth in
the Amended Petition are insufficient to establish entitlement to
relief because, effective Jan. 20, 1999, prothonotaries were
permitted to increase filing fees charged to political subdivisions
notwithstanding the prior $10 cap. Section 1.1 of the Prothonotary
Fee Act, added by the Act of Dec. 21, 1998, P.L. 1271, 42 P.S.
Section 21071.1(a).

In their second PO, the Respondents demurrer to Count I
(declaratory relief) and Count II (unjust enrichment) on the ground
that the Amended Petition is devoid of any factual assertions that
would permit the inference that any Respondent has received court
fees in excess of the fees authorized. In their third PO, the
Respondents argue that the Petitioners lack standing to assert
their claims against any Respondent except the Delaware County OJS
because they have not specifically alleged that they have been
overcharged by any other Respondent. In their fourth PO, the
Respondents argue that the Petitioners' claims are barred by the
doctrines of sovereign, governmental, and quasi-judicial immunity.
In their fifth PO, the Respondents argue that Petitioners have no
legal basis to demand counsel fees.

III. Analysis

A. Standing

The Petitioners purport to bring a class action on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of 3,000 other political
subdivisions which may have paid unauthorized and excessive court
fees to 52 prothonotaries. Under Nye v. Erie Insurance Exchange,
470 A.2d 98, 100 (Pa. 1983), Judge McCullough opines that the
Petitioners lack standing to maintain an action against any
Respondents other than the Delaware County OJS because Petitioners
fail to allege that they have been aggrieved by the conduct of
those other Respondents.

The Petitioners do not allege any facts or evidence to suggest that
either of them ever has been charged any court fees -- whether
"unauthorized and excessive" or otherwise -- by any Respondent
other than the Respondent from Delaware County. They only aver
that, as political subdivisions located in Delaware County, they
were charged unauthorized and excessive court fees by the Delaware
County OJS. For Petitioners to maintain their action against all
the Respondents, they must allege that they have been aggrieved by
each Respondent, which they fail to do.

Accordingly, pursuant to Nye, the Petitioners lack standing to
maintain the action against any Respondent other than Delaware
County's OJS. The Amended Petition is dismissed as to all
Respondents except the Delaware County OJS.

B. Failure to State Claim for Declaratory Relief

Having dismissed the Amended Petition against all the Respondents
except the Delaware County OJS, the next issue the Court must
address is whether the Petitioners fail to state a claim against
the Delaware County OJS for declaratory relief.

The Petitioners in Count I allege that based "upon information and
belief," the Delaware County OJS has overcharged political
subdivisions in Delaware County court fees that exceed the $10
maximum set forth in section 5 (for third through eighth class
counties and home rule counties) of the Prothonotary Fee Act. They
seek a judicial determination pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments
Act11 that the Delaware County OJS overcharged them for court fees
and should be compelled to issue refunds.

In their POs, the Respondents argue that these averments are
insufficient to establish the entitlement to declaratory relief
because charging a political subdivision a court fee in excess of
the $10 maximum in section 5 does not per se constitute a violation
of the statute. They point out that the Prothonotary Fee Act was
amended in 1998 to add section 1.1, 42 P.S. Section 21071.1, titled
"Increasing Existing Fees," which authorizes prothonotaries to
increase any existing fee or charge.

Judge McCullough finds that the Amended Petition is too uncertain
and contingent to entitle the Petitioners to the requested
declaratory relief. Even if ahe assumes, as alleged, that the
Delaware County OJS charged Petitioners court fees in excess of
$10, she could not, based on that lone allegation, declare that
this conduct violated the Prothonotary Fee Act.

The Petitioners do not dispute that the Prothonotary Fee Act was
amended to allow prothonotaries to increase any fee or charge, and
they do not appear to dispute that this includes the prior $10
maximums applicable to political subdivisions. In fact, they
concede that "some of the Respondents may have been able to charge
more than the so-called '$10 Cap'" and that "discovery will be
required to ascertain which of the Respondents may have been
entitled to charge more." They also do not ask the Court to declare
their rights under the amended fee increase provisions. Rather, it
is clear from the Amended Petition that the Petitioners are only
challenging court fees to the extent that they were in excess of
the $10 cap in 42 P.S. Section 21075 -- without regard to the fee
increase amendment. At most, the Petitioners have alleged that
Delaware County's OJS may have (they are not entirely certain and
need discovery to confirm) charged them court fees that were more
than $10 and concede that the fee increase provisions allow
prothonotaries to charge more than $10.

Judge McCullough opines that the overriding speculative nature of
the allegations in the Amended Petition renders the requested
declarations inappropriate as it is far from clear that grant of
the requested declaratory relief would be "of practical help in
ending the controversy." For these reasons, the Petitioners'
factual allegations are legally insufficient to support this claim
for declaratory relief. Hence, the Respondents' preliminary
objection to this Count is sustained.

C. Failure to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

The Petitioners allege in Count II that the Delaware County OJS has
been unjustly enriched by receiving court fees from the Petitioners
that are "more than the statutorily limited court fees." The
Respondents argue that the Petitioners' claim for unjust enrichment
is insupportable as a matter of law because the Petitioners have
pled no facts to support that assertion. In that regard,
Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state and Rule 1019(a) provides
that "the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is
based will be stated in a concise and summary form."

Judge McCullough holds that because the Petitioners have not
alleged facts suggesting that the Respondents received a benefit
from Petitioners and that it would be inequitable for the
Respondents to retain such benefit, she must sustain this PO and
dismiss Count II. She finds that the Amended Petition falls short
of pleading the necessary facts to sustain a cause of action for
unjust enrichment. First, the Petitioners do not describe any
instances where the Delaware County OJS overcharged any Petitioner
for a court fee. They further fail to allege any plausible benefit
that the Delaware County OJS "unjustly" received as a result of
charging Petitioners a court fee in excess of $10. Moreover, based
on the allegations, it is apparent that the Petitioners themselves
do not even know for certain that violations have actually occurred
and are using the lawsuit as the means to discover if and when the
overcharges actually occurred.

IV. Conclusion & Order

In sum, the POs in the nature of a demurrer filed by the
Respondents are sustained and the Petitioners' Amended Petition in
the Court's original jurisdiction is dismissed without prejudice.

President Judge Cohn Jubelirer, Judge Fizzano Cannon and Judge
Wallace did not participate in the decision for the case.

Accordingly, Judge McCullough sustained the preliminary objections
in the matter of the Respondents, and dismissed without prejudice
the Amended Petition for Review.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2jp4kjrm from Leagle.com.


PERFECT BAR: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a new class
action lawsuit says Perfect-brand snacks aren't living up to their
name when it comes to measuring protein.

Plaintiffs Mehva Roffman and Lisa Chong sued Perfect Bar LLC on
April 22 in California federal court through lawyers at Gutride
Safier. The suit alleges fraud, false advertising and violation of
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Perfect snacks have their protein content put on the front of
their packaging, but the case finds fault with the calculation
because the main protein source is nuts.

The suit says nuts at low-quality protein and that only 40% to 50%
of it can be used to support human need.

So a snack that purports to have 15 grams of protein really only
has about 7.5 for humans, the suit claims.

"Defendant's advertising and labeling of the Products as containing
and providing specific amounts of protein per serving is unlawful,
misleading, and intended to induce consumers to purchase the
Products at a premium price, while ultimately failing to meet
consumer expectations," the suit says. [GN]

PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on
behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03634
(S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. --
https://www.pnc.com/en/about-pnc.html -- is an American bank
holding company and financial services corporation based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAIN ALBANY: Faces Xue Fang Huang Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
XUE FANG HUANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAIN ALBANY LLC, FRANK LEE, JOHN DOE and
JANE DOE # 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00482-BKS-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to
timely pay wages, and failure to provide wage notice and wage
statements.

Ms. Huang was employed at the Defendants' restaurant from
approximately May 2016 to July 2018 as a dishwasher then from
October 2018 until October 19, 2021 as a kitchen helper.

Rain Albany LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, with a
principal place of business at 259 Lark Street, Albany, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jin Huang, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JIN HUANG
         36-09 Main Street, Suite 10A
         Flushing, NY 11354
         Telephone: (718) 321-2911
         E-mail: jhlawoffices@gmail.com

RALPHS GROCERY: Johnson BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAETEAN JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY d/b/a FOOD 4
LESS MIDWEST and THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2022CH02683, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 6,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02409 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting,
capturing, storing, obtaining, using, and/or disseminating their
employees' fingerprints without: (a) informing them of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were
collected and stored; (b) making publicly available a retention
schedule and policy for destroying their fingerprints; and (c)
obtaining a written release in which they authorized the Defendants
to collect, capture, store, and/or use their fingerprints.

Ralphs Grocery Company, doing business as Food 4 Less Midwest, is
an American supermarket chain in Southern California.

The Kroger Co. is an American retail company that operates
supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United
States, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Diane Webster, Esq.
         Peter E. Pederson, Esq.
         Joseph D. Kern, Esq.
         HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
         151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 704-3000
         Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
         E-mail: dwebster@hinshawlaw.com
                 ppederson@hinshawlaw.com
                 jkern@hinshawlaw.com

RICHLAND COUNTY, OH: Attorney Appointed for Opioid Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
mansfieldnewsjournal.com reports the Richland County commissioners
took the first steps to allow the county to accept opioid lawsuit
settlement funds whenever the state makes them available. The board
voted to approve an intergovernmental service agreement to
participate in the One Ohio Recovery Foundation and named local
attorney Jeff Heck to a regional foundation board that will help
develop policy and oversee distribution of the money.

Last year the State of Ohio approved a settlement of a nationwide
class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors that officials contended helped create an opioid
crisis. The settlement included a large payment to help states deal
with the results of the crisis.

County Business Manager Andrew Keller told commissioners that
"upwards" of $5 billion dollars has been allocated to Ohio, to be
administered by the One Ohio Recovery Foundation Board, which will
have representatives from 19 regions. Region 19 includes Richland,
Ashland, Wayne, Lorain, Erie, Huron and Medina counties.

Keller said the Region 19 board will meet to pick a representative
to the foundation board, which will hold its first meeting May 16.
He said it's important for Richland County to have a representative
on the regional board.

"There's a lot of money at stake here that is earmarked towards
combating addiction and also helping pay for costs associated with
fighting the drug problem," Keller said. "In Richland County, we
certainly believe law enforcement should be a critical part of
funding because law enforcement have been and continue to be on the
front lines of the drug problem."

Funding allocation yet to be decided
Keller said it is expected that the $5 billion will be distributed
across the state over 20 years with a uniform methodology that
still needs to be determined. While a majority of the money will be
run through the One Ohio Foundation, he said some will be allocated
directly to each individual county and will be more flexible to use
because local officials will have more control.

Keller did not have any information on how much money Richland
County could receive from the opioid settlement. However, a
representative of Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office told the
board in February that the county could receive up to $1.5
million.

The representative said funds could be used for first responders
and criminal justice professionals for cross agency/department
collaboration and other public safety expenditures relating to the
opioid epidemic that address both community statewide supply and
demand reduction strategies, including criminal interdiction
efforts. They also could be used to train public safety officials
and responders in safe-handling practices and precautions when
dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.

Vero said Heck was chosen to be the county's Region 19
representative because he is active in the community in the areas
of mental health and mental illness and some of the opioid
settlement funding is expected to be directed toward substance
abuse. He also noted that Heck's background as a lawyer will be
valuable in dealing with the "complexities" of forming regions and
uses for the funds.

Heck and his wife are involved with 33 Forever Inc., a nonprofit
organization founded by family and friends of his daughter, who
lost a battle with depression in 2019.

In other business, commissioners accepted a $112,400 opioid Fresh
Start emergency grant from Area 10 of the Ohio Office of Workforce
Development that will allow Catalyst Life Services to provide
training, temporary jobs and other services for people suffering
from the effects of opioid abuse. They also gave the county
Department of Job and Family Services and the Youth and Family
Council the authority to receive $266,373 from the Ohio Department
of Developmental Disabilities to provide assessments and early
intervention services for children birth to age 3 to help in their
development.[GN]

RIPPLE FOODS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ripple Foods, PBC.
The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ripple Foods, PBC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03688 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Ripple Foods -- https://www.ripplefoods.com/ -- offers a nutritious
& delicious milk alternative that is 100% dairy-free, vegan, nut-,
lactose- & gluten-free.[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


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Faces Wilkins FLSA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00798 (C.D. Cal., May 10,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages and failure to provide bona fide meal periods in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt nurse in
California.

County of Riverside is a public entity in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
         Matthew B. Perez, Esq.
         LYON LEGAL, P.C.
         2698 Junipero Ave., Suite 201A
         Signal Hill, CA 90755
         Telephone: (562) 216-7382
         Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
         E-mail: d.lyon@lyon-legal.com
                 m.perez@lyon-legal.com

RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Wins Bid to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KUTZBACK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RIVIANA FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02025-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Jon P. McCalla entered an order granting unopposed
motion to conditionally certify collective action.

The Defendant is directed to produce a list of all members of the
Putative Class by providing a list of their names, last known
addresses, social security numbers if necessary, dates of
employment, cell phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic
and importable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel) by May 6, 2022. The
Plaintiff's counsel is authorized to send the Court-approved notice
and reminder notice of this action to the putative class members
via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text message, and Defendant must post the
notice in a conspicuous location in its Tennessee facilities, the
Court says.

Riviana is a processor, marketer, and distributor of branded and
private label rice products.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/396Kqjy at no extra charge.[CC]

RODD & GUNN USA: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rodd & Gunn USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Rodd & Gunn USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02615 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Rodd & Gunn -- https://www.roddandgunn.com/ -- offers a timeless
range of smart & casual men's clothing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROGER CLEVELAND: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roger Cleveland Golf
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roger Cleveland Golf
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03682 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Cleveland Golf -- https://www.clevelandgolf.com/ -- is a premier
manufacturer of men's golf clubs, equipment and accessories.[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


ROKIT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guffey Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JACK GUFFEY; and JEFFREY MOORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROKIT INC.; ROKIT DRINKS
LLC; ROKIT IMPORTS INC.; ROKIT DRINKS IMPORTS INC.; ROKIT DRINKS
RESOURCES INC.; ROKIT DISTILLERY INC.; DANIEL LEWIS; JONATHAN
KENDRICK; DEAN BECKER; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22STCV15379 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 9, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as sales
representative.

ROKIT INC. is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and
distributing alcoholic beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          Alicja A. Urtnowski, Esq.
          Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP
          3258 Fourth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321
          Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
          Email: cclark@clarklawyers.com
                 aurtnowski@clarklawyers.com
                 dberry@clarklawyers.com

ROWDY BEVERAGE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Beverage, Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rowdy Beverage, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03606 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Rowdy -- https://rowdyenergy.com/ -- is a clean energy drink with
caffeine naturally derived from green tea.[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


RUST-OLEUM CORP: Faces Class Suit Over RainBrella False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that most of
a RainBrella glass treatment class action lawsuit has been
dismissed after a customer claimed statements about RainBrella on
the packaging were false.

RainBrella is a glass treatment sold by Rust-Oleum in a box
containing two saturated cloth wipes to repel rain, mud and dirt.

In a separate July 2017 action, Illinois Tool Works (ITW), which
manufactures a similar water repellent product called Rain-X, filed
a lawsuit against Rust-Oleum alleging RainBrella's representations
were false and misleading.

After a six-day jury trial in 2018, the jury found Rust-Oleum was
liable for false advertising based on the claim that RainBrella
"Lasts 2X Longer" than the leading competitor and liable for
misleading advertising based on the claim RainBrella "Lasts Over
100 Car Washes."

While the Fifth Circuit upheld the jury's verdict relating to the
"Lasts 2X Longer" representations, the court reversed the verdict
relating to the "Lasts Over 100 Car Washes" representation, holding
there was no evidence to support a finding of materiality.

The trial court then issued a judgment to stop Rust-Oleum from
using the claim "Lasts 2X Longer" and making representations as to
RainBrella's performance as compared to Rain-X.

Wisconsin plaintiff Shaquavia Harris sued Rust-Oleum Corporation
alleging she fell for advertising that said the glass treatment
"Lasts 2X Longer" than a leading competitor and "Lasts Over 100 Car
Washes."

The plaintiff and her husband regularly purchased RainBrella for
years and applied it to their vehicles, typically paying about
$7.99 per box.

According to Harris, even though she continued to purchase and use
the product for years, she never would have purchased RainBrella
had she known the statements about RainBrella on the packaging were
false.

Motion to Dismiss the RainBrella Lawsuit
Rust-Oleum filed its motion to dismiss and succeeded in getting all
the claims dismissed except one count.

The plaintiff alleged an unjust enrichment claim against
Rust-Oleum, but the company argued the plaintiff didn't purchase
RainBrella direct from Rust-Oleum and instead bought it from
retailers.

According to the judge, Wisconsin law is strict about the first
element of an unjust enrichment claim as it requires, "[t]he
conferral of the benefit must be directly from the plaintiff to the
defendant and not, for instance, a third-party retailer."

Therefore, Judge Andrea R. Wood dismissed the claim because Harris
alleges she purchased RainBrella from third-party retailers but not
from Rust-Oleum.

Rust-Oleum also said the plaintiff couldn't proceed with her
nationwide class action lawsuit because it would involve unjust
enrichment claims of all 50 states. The judge agreed and said
applying laws of all 50 states is "unmanageable on a class-wide
basis because those states' laws conflict in material ways."

Additionally, the judge ruled the one named plaintiff (Harris) is
an inadequate class action representative.

The judge also dismissed a declaratory judgment claim that
RainBrella is defective because the plaintiff has no basis to seek
declaratory relief pursuant to federal rules for a nationwide class
of customers.

Judge Wood further dismissed a claim for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability because "Wisconsin has always required privity
of contract in an action for a breach of implied warranty."

"For consumer transactions, privity exists only between the buyer
and immediate seller --accordingly, there can be no claim for an
implied warranty of merchantability between a manufacturer and
consumer without a direct sale." -- Judge Wood

The only claim allowed to proceed is a Deceptive Trade Practices
Act claim because the judge found dismissal at this point would be
"premature."

The RainBrella glass treatment class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division: Shaquavia Harris, v. Rust-Oleum Corporation.

The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Williams
Dirks Dameron LLC, and The Goss Law Firm, P.C. [GN]

SAINT NINE AMERICA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Nine America,
Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Saint Nine America, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03686 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Saint Nine America, Inc. -- https://saintnineamerica.com/ -- is a
golf shop in Santa Fe Springs, California.[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


SCRAPPY THOMAS: Underpays Scrap Metal Workers, Medders Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger L. Medders and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Scrappy Thomas, Inc. and Brian T. Lewis, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01015 (M.D. Fla., May 1, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time scrap metal worker, recycling, and cleaning employee from
October 1, 2018 to December 22, 2021, or more than 3 years. On
December 22, 2021, Plaintiff left her position after suffering
retaliatory treatment because her husband filed an FLSA action
against Defendants on October 20, 2021.

Scrappy Thomas is a scrap metal recycling company based in
Mulberry, 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

SD BIOSENSOR: Cenci Sues Over Sale of Unapproved COVID-19 Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CENCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SD BIOSENSOR USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02613-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business
Law, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty.

The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution,
and sale of the SDB Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Home Test that has not
been authorized, cleared, or approved for distribution in the U.S.
by the Food & Drug Administration. The Defendant failed to disclose
or inform the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that its
COVID-19 tests were not authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA
for distribution or use in the U.S. Had the Plaintiff and Class
members known the truth, they would not have purchased or used the
products at all or would have paid significantly less for the
products.

SD Biosensor USA, Inc. is a diagnostic solutions company, with its
principal place of business at 30 Corporate Park, Suite 315,
Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
         Max S. Roberts, Esq.
         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com

SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Herrera Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DENNIS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT LLC and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV09377, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May
6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03082 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 unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure
to provide required meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair and unlawful business
practices.

Signature Flight Support LLC is an aviation services company based
in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David L. Cheng, Esq.
         Jennifer S. McGeorge, Esq.
         Justin L. Clark, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com
                 jmcgeorge@fordharrison.com
                 jclark@fordharrison.com

SMITH JEWELERS: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smith Jewelers, Inc.
The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Smith Jewelers, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03582 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2022).

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

Smith Jewelers -- https://www.smithjewelersny.com/ -- is your
trusted local jewelry store in Oyster Bay, New York.[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


SPRING FOOTWEAR: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spring Footwear Corp.
The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Spring Footwear Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-03675 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Spring Footwear Corp. -- https://www.springfootwear.com/ --
provides footware products. The Company engages in the wholesale
distribution of shoes and other footwear products for men and
women.[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


SPUN BAMBOO: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spun Bamboo, LLC. The
case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Spun Bamboo, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03613 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Spun Bamboo -- https://www.bambooclothes.com/ -- is the original
and still the best source for bamboo clothing, bamboo socks and
bamboo accessories.[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


STATE FARM: District of Arizona Certifies Class in McClure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Earl L. McClure, Plaintiff v. State Farm Life
Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-01389-PHX-SMB (D.
Ariz.), Judge Susan M. Brnovich granted McClure's Motion for Class
Certification and denied State Farm's Motion to Exclude Declaration
and Testimony of Scott J. Witt.

I. Background

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against State Farm on behalf of
himself and a proposed class in relation to a $100,000 life
insurance policy he bought from State Farm in February 1997. His
lawsuit challenges State Farm's interpretation and implementation
of its form universal life insurance policy: "Form 94030." State
Farm sold the Policy in Arizona from 1994 to 2004. Unlike a term
life insurance policy, which includes only a death benefit, the
Policy includes an account value which operates like a savings
account. Premiums are deposited into the Account Value and
accumulate interest at a fixed rate. Under the Policy, State Farm
deducts specific charges from the Account Value each month. Among
these are (1) a cost of insurance charge ("COI Charge"), (2)
charges for any riders, and (3) a $5 expense charge.

The Policy states that State Farm may calculate the COI Charge
rates for each policy year "based on the Insured's age on the
policy anniversary, sex, and applicable rate class," and that such
rates can be adjusted for projected changes in mortality." The
Plaintiff alleges that this Policy language expressly lists the
exclusive factors that State Farm is permitted to use to determine
the monthly COI Charge. He alleges that after developing pricing
mortality rates using only the listed factors, "State Farm
increased those rates with undisclosed profit and expense loads."
Due to these loads, the Plaintiff argues that the COI Charge rates
implemented by State Farm "were on average more than double the
rates determined using only the listed, contractual mortality
factors." He contends that "because these Policy overcharges result
from State Farm's uniform administration of the Policy, all policy
owners are subject to the same set of loaded COI rates."

The Plaintiff brings two claims for breach of contract. Count I is
a breach of contract claim for State Farm's alleged overcharging
related to the COI Charge due to unauthorized expense loads. Count
II is a breach of contract claim alleging that State Farm
impermissibly deducts expenses from policyholders in amounts in
excess of the fixed expense charges authorized by the Policy. The
Plaintiff's Complaint also alleges a claim for a conversion (Count
III), and a claim for declaratory relief (Count IV).

The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify the following class: "All
persons identified in State Farm's policy owner data produced to
the Plaintiff's Counsel as an owner or former owner of a Form 94030
universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm in the State
of Arizona who was subject to at least one monthly deduction."

Oral argument was held before the Court on April 7, 2022. State
Farm also filed a Motion to Exclude Declaration and Testimony of
Scott J. Witt, to which the Plaintiff responded, and State Farm
replied.

II. Discussion

A. Class Certification

Class actions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
which permits certification only if: (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

The court must also find that at least one of the following three
conditions is satisfied: (1) the prosecution of separate actions
would create a risk of: (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications,
or (b) individual adjudications dispositive of the interests of
other members not a party to those adjudications; (2) the party
opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class; or (3) questions of law or fact common to
the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.

The plaintiffs seeking class certification must show that they have
met the requirements of the four subsections in Rule 23(a) and at
least one subsection in Rule 23(b).

The Plaintiff argues that the proposed class meets the requirements
of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). He also
argues that his claim for a declaratory judgment meets the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). State Farm first argues that
Plaintiff's proposed class cannot be certified because Plaintiff's
reading of the Policy language is implausible and does not support
his breach of contract theory.

Judge Brnovich finds that (i) because the Plaintiff's proposed
class contains over 13,500 policyholders, the numerosity
requirement is easily satisfied; (ii) the Plaintiff has satisfied
the commonality requirement because each claim is based on a form
contract and a uniform course of conduct towards each policyholder
by State Farm; (iii) despite State Farm's arguments to the
contrary, the Plaintiff has shown that his claims and defenses are
typical of those of the class; and (iv) the Plaintiff has satisfied
the adequacy of representation requirement.

Judge Brnovich further finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have met the
predominance requirement in the case regarding their breach of
contract claims; (ii) State Farm's statute of limitations defense
does not preclude a finding that the Plaintiff has shown
predominance; (iii) the Plaintiff's damages model satisfies the
predominance requirements; and (iv) because the recoveries of each
individual class member will be relatively small, a class action is
superior to other methods of adjudication.

The Plaintiff also argues that his claim for declaratory judgment
(Count IV) satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2)
permits class certification where "the party opposing the class has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."

The Court has found that the terms of the Policy are the same for
each prospective class member. Therefore, because the terms of the
Policy are the same for each prospective class member, the
interpretation will result in a declaratory judgment applicable to
all class members. Thus, a claim for declaratory judgment satisfies
Rule 23(b)(2).

State Farm also argues that the Plaintiff's conversion claim (Count
III) cannot be certified. It first argues that the Plaintiff cannot
repackage a breach of contract claim as a conversion claim. Second,
State Farm argues that "the same issues that preclude class
certification for Counts I and II would bar certification for his
conversion claim, because the Plaintiff relies on the same
arguments and damages models for certification on Count III."
Third, it contends that it is entitled to introduce evidence that a
particular class member was aware of and consented to the
challenged conduct. All three of State Farm's arguments regarding
the Plaintiff's conversion claim must be rejected.

State Farm's first argument is a merits argument that is better
suited for a dispositive motion, Judge Brnovich finds. Therefore,
she declines to rule on this issue at this time as it has little
bearing on class certification issues. She rejects State Farm's
second argument for the same reasons that she rejected its
arguments regarding the Plaintiff's breach of contract claims.
Third, State Farm argues that it will need to present evidence that
individual consumers consented to State Farm's practices, which
defeats certification, but points to no evidence that indicates
policy owners were aware of or consented to State Farm's
potentially improper expense loads. Accordingly, Judge Brnovich
will certify the Plaintiff's conversion claim for the same reasons
that it certified Plaintiff's breach of contract claims.

B. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Expert

The expert in question, Scott Witt, is noticed as an actuarial
expert to opine about COI Charge rates. State Farm asks the Court
to preclude the expert claiming the opinions are not admissible
under Rule 702 and Daubert. State Farm does not argue that Mr. Witt
is unqualified or not an expert in this field, but argues, instead,
that his opinions as an expert are not relevant or reliable.

Judge Brnovich holds that by partitioning the different parts of
the COI Charge rates, Mr. Witt is able to pull out the expense
portion to identify expenses that should not have been charged to
the insureds according to Plaintiff's theory on Count II. His
calculations fit the theory for Count II. And because of the issue
regarding the unpooled duration as a basis for the mortality
tables, this does not affect the Court's decision that Mr. Witt's
methodology is reliable.

Additionally, Judge Brnovich the Plaintiff has established that Mr.
Witt's opinions are relevant and reliable. Accordingly, State
Farm's motion to exclude his testimony will be denied. Finally,
State Farm has not shown any unconstrained manipulation of
mortality data to support its argument that the opinions would
mislead the jury. Hence, the opinions of Mr. Witt should not be
precluded under Rule 403.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Brnovich granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Judge Brnovich certified a class consisting of "all persons
identified in State Farm's policy owner data produced to the
Plaintiff's Counsel as an owner or former owner of a Form 94030
universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm in the State
of Arizona who was subject to at least one monthly deduction."

Judge Brnovich denied the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Declaration
and Testimony of Scott J. Witt.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/h95yysa2 from Leagle.com.


STELLATO ENTERPRISES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stellato Enterprises
Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Stellato Enterprises Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03624 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Stellato Enterprises Inc. is located in Joliet, Illinois and is
part of the Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industry.[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


SULPHUR SPRINGS: Underpays Occupational Therapists, Fetters Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALYSSA FETTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03077 (C.D.
Cal., May 6, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its
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 registered occupational
therapist from approximately May 2019 to approximately August
2021.

Sulphur Springs Union School District is a school district in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Rob Hennig, Esq.
         Brandon Ruiz, Esq.
         Adrian Hernandez, Esq.
         HENNIG KRAMER RUIZ & SINGH, LLP
         3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 310-8301
         Facsimile: (213) 310-8302

SUN VALLEY: Cross-Complaint v. Pineda, Becerra, Brower & Su Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LETICIA PINEDA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P.,
Defendant. SUN VALLEY PACKING, L.P., Cross-Claimant v. XAVIER
BECERRA, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the
State of California, et al., Cross-Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00169-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
motion to dismiss filed by Cross-Defendant Leticia Pineda and the
motion to dismiss filed by Cross-Defendants Xavier Becerra, Lilia
Garcia Brower, and Julia A. Su, on Aug. 4, 2020, in which they seek
dismissal of cross-claimant Sun Valle's cross-complaint for
injunctive and declaratory relief.

I. Background

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Pineda initiated the putative class
action in Fresno County Superior Court against Defendant and
Cross-Claimant Sun Valley alleging various wage, hour, and other
labor-related claims under the California Labor Code, as well as a
representative action claim for civil penalties under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

On Jan. 31, 2020, Sun Valley timely removed this action to this
federal court and filed a cross-complaint against the Plaintiff
"for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the
unconstitutionality of PAGA." On March 4, 2020, it filed an amended
cross-complaint seeking the same relief but naming three state
officials and one state agency as additional cross-defendants:
Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of
the State of California; Lilia Garcia Brower, in her official
capacity as the Labor Commissioner of the State of California;
Julia A. Su, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; and the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA").

The crux of Sun Valley's claims is that "employee
plaintiff-contingency fee trial attorneys" have figured out how to
use PAGA to their own personal benefit and are unfairly harming
employers in the process. Sun Valley requests that the Court orders
the state "to enforce California laws itself" instead of
"transferring and/or granting the state's power to enforce
California law over to private Plaintiffs" because "their attorneys
operate for their own personal gain with inherent and existing
conflicts of interest seeking only to generate personal wealth
acquired in pursuing unconstitutional PAGA claims that result in
insignificant and reduced benefit to the State of California."

In its amended cross-complaint, Sun Valley alleges the following
six causes of action against all Cross-Defendants: (1) a claim
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 predicated on alleged deprivation of
procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal
protection rights in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as deprivation of the
Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive fines; (2) a claim
that PAGA violates the procedural due process guarantee of the
California Constitution; (3) a claim that PAGA violates the
substantive due process guarantee of the California Constitution;
(4) a claim that PAGA violates the equal protection guarantee of
the California Constitution; (5) a claim that PAGA violates the
California Constitution's prohibition on excessive fines; and (6) a
claim that PAGA violates the California Constitution's separation
of powers doctrine.

In short, Sun Valley requests that the Court issues an order
declaring that PAGA is unconstitutional and unenforceable and issue
an injunction enjoining the Cross-Defendants from suing upon,
implementing, or enforcing PAGA, including enjoining the Plaintiff
and any other aggrieved employee from maintaining a PAGA claim
against Sun Valley in the action and any other action.

On Aug. 4, 2020, Cross-Defendant Pineda filed the pending motion to
dismiss Sun Valley's claims against her, arguing that she is not a
proper party to Sun Valley's declaratory relief action because "Sun
Valley has not and cannot show that she acted under color of state
law by filing her PAGA claim," and Sun Valley's request that "this
federal court hold that a California state statute is
unconstitutional has nothing to do with her."

Also on Aug. 4, 2020, Cross-Defendants Becerra, Brower, and Su
(collectively, the "State Cross-Defendants") filed the other
pending motion to dismiss Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint,
arguing that the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to
entertain Sun Valley's declaratory action "because the declaratory
judgment remedy is neither useful nor appropriate under the
circumstances of the case."

On Sept. 1, 2020, Sun Valley filed oppositions to the
Cross-Defendants' pending motions to dismiss. On Sept. 15, 2020,
the Cross- Defendants filed their replies thereto.

II. Analysis

A. Cross-Defendant Pineda's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

In her motion to dismiss, the Cross-Defendant Pineda argues that
Sun Valley's crossclaims against her should be dismissed under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because "all of the
constitutional challenges raised by Sun Valley require state
action." She contends that Sun Valley has not and cannot state a
cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against her, a
private litigant, because she was not a "state actor" and was not
"acting under color of state law," a necessary element for a
Section 1983 claim. Pineda also contends that Sun Valley has not
and cannot state any of its claims under the California
Constitution against her because those claims similarly require
state action to be cognizable. In short, Pineda argues that "the
mere filing of a PAGA action does not convert an aggrieved employee
into a state actor, such that the employee may then be sued by its
employer for claims against the State."

In its opposition, Sun Valley counters that it has sufficiently
alleged that the Plaintiff was acting under color of state law. It
contends that the California Supreme Court has "consistently and
conclusively determined that in an employee's PAGA claim (such as
Pineda's) the employee acts as an agent and proxy for the state
agency and therefore, constitutes a 'Person Acting Under the Color
of State Law' that constitutes 'State Action.'"

Judge Drozd concludes that Sun Valley has failed to state any
cognizable claims against Pineda because it has not sufficiently
alleged "state action," a requisite element for Sun Valley's
claims. Thus, he will grant Pineda's motion to dismiss, without
leave to amend. Although Sun Valley requests that the Court grants
leave to amend, Sun Valley does not proffer any allegations that it
could include in any further amended cross-complaint. Moreover,
granting leave to amend would be futile because the deficiency in
failing to allege "state action" by Pineda cannot be cured by
allegations of additional facts.

B. State Cross-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

1. Propriety of the State Cross-Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

As a preliminary matter, Judge Drozd first addresses Sun Valley's
two arguments regarding the propriety of the State
Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss. In its opposition, Sun Valley
argues that the State Cross-Defendants' motion should be submitted
to arbitration because Sun Valley's motion to compel individual
arbitration of Plaintiff Pineda's claims remains pending before the
Court. However, Sun Valley does not cite any legal authority to
support this argument, particularly where none of the State
Cross-Defendants entered into any arbitration agreement with Sun
Valley. Moreover, in moving to compel arbitration of Plaintiff
Pineda's claims, Sun Valley did not seek to compel arbitration of
its amended cross-complaint, as brought against Pineda or the State
Cross-Defendants. Thus, Sun Valley's argument that the State
Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss should be submitted to
arbitration is unpersuasive and lacks merit.

Sun Valley also stresses that the State Cross-Defendants' motion is
"not based on any ground listed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)," and appears to critique the pending motion to dismiss for
not invoking Rule 12 or its enumerated grounds for dismissal.
However, the State Cross-Defendants did not need to invoke Rule 12
in order to raise their request that the Court declines to
entertain Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint. The State
Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss is not procedurally improper.

Accordingly, Judge Drozd addresses the merits of the State
Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint, which asserts only a declaratory relief claim,
specifically seeking a court order declaring that PAGA is
unconstitutional and unenforceable.

2. Legal Standard

Prudential guidance for retention of the district court's authority
is found in Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Company of America, 316
U.S. 491 (1942), and its progeny." The Brillhart factors "remain
the philosophic touchstone for the district court" and provide that
the court should: "avoid duplicative litigation"; "discourage
litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum
shopping"; and "avoid needless determination of state law issues."
Other considerations include: "whether the declaratory action will
settle all aspects of the controversy; whether the declaratory
action will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal
relations at issue; whether the declaratory action is being sought
merely for the purposes of procedural fencing or to obtain a 'res
judicata' advantage; or whether the use of a declaratory action
will result in entanglement between the federal and state court
systems." Essentially, the district court "must balance concerns of
judicial administration, comity, and fairness to the litigants."

3. Whether the Court Should Entertain Sun Valley's Amended
Cross-Complaint

Judge Drozd considers each of the Brillhart and other factors, and
determines, in his discretion, whether to entertain or dismiss Sun
Valley's amended cross-complaint for declaratory relief.

a. Avoid Duplicative Litigation

As to the first Brillhart factor, the State Cross-Defendants
emphasize that Sun Valley's amended "cross-complaint is virtually
identical to a lawsuit filed in state court in 2018 challenging the
facial constitutionality of PAGA" -- California Business &
Industrial Alliance v. Becerra, No. 30-2018-01035180-CV-JR-CXC,
(Orange County Sup. Ct.) (hereinafter, "CBIA") -- in which the
state court "rejected each of the claims pled in that case on the
merits."

In its opposition, rather than address whether the CBIA action is
duplicative as the state cross-defendants assert, Sun Valley
contends only that the CBIA action is not a "parallel state
proceeding" because that action involved different legal issues and
neither Sun Valley nor plaintiff Pineda were parties to that
action.

Judge Drozd finds that declining to entertain Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint would avoid duplicative litigation, and thus
consideration of this factor weighs in favor of granting the State
Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss.

b. Discourage Forum Shopping

As to the second Brillhart factor, the State Cross-Defendants argue
that Sun Valley's cross-complaint "is a transparent effort at forum
shopping." In its opposition, Sun Valley does not dispute that it
intentionally sought a federal forum for its challenge to PAGA,
though it contends that its "federal court filing was made not as a
matter of forum shopping but because the federal court is the best
unbiased forum for the determination of federal constitutional
rights and privileges.

Judge Drozd finds that declining to entertain Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint would discourage forum shopping, and thus
consideration of this factor weighs in favor of granting the state
cross-defendants' motion to dismiss. The timing of Sun Valley's
removal and cross-complaint coupled with the Orange County Superior
Court's rulings in CBIA certainly suggest a degree of forum
shopping by Sun Valley.

c. Avoid Needless Determination of State Law

As to the final Brillhart factor, the State Cross-Defendants argue
that entertaining Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint would
require needless determination of "numerous complicated issues of
state law," since more than half of Sun Valley's claims allege
violations of the California Constitution and all of its claims
"hinge on allegations about the nuances of California courts'
application of PAGA and the actions of parties not before the Court
in prosecuting and litigating PAGA cases in California courts
statewide."

In its opposition, Sun Valley disagrees with the State
Cross-Defendants' framing of this factor as relating to the
"complicated" nature of PAGA and instead emphasizes its own,
contrary view of this factor's focus: The "substantial need to
resolve the constitutional issues of PAGA," which according to Sun
Valley, does not require interpretation of PAGA's provisions.

Judge Drozd finds that consideration of this factor also weighs in
favor of granting the State Cross-Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Although he recognizes that Sun Valley brings claims arising under
both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, he
agrees that the inclusion of some federal claims is not dispositive
on the question of whether a federal court should entertain the
declaratory relief action. He is persuaded that adjudicating Sun
Valley's amended cross-complaint would involve at least some
needless determination of state law. Moreover, a declaratory action
need not be wholly based on state law for a district court to
appropriately decline to exercise jurisdiction.

d. Other Considerations

Having concluded that consideration of the Brillhart factors weigh
in favor of declining to entertain Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint for declaratory relief, Judge Drozd briefly
addresses a few other relevant factors, which further support his
conclusion in this regard.

Having considered the Brillhart factors and other considerations,
and balancing concerns of judicial administration, comity, and
fairness to the litigants, he concludes that he should exercise its
discretion and decline to entertain Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint.

Accordingly, he grants the State Cross-Defendants' motion to
dismiss Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint.

III. Conclusion

For all of the reasons he set forth, Judge Drozd granted (i)
Pineda's motion to dismiss Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint
without leave to amend; (ii) the State Cross-Defendants' requests
for judicial notice; (iii) the State Cross-Defendants' motion to
dismiss Sun Valley's amended cross-complaint. Sun Valley's amended
cross-complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect
that the Cross-Claimant and Cross-Defendants have been terminated
from the action as follows:

     a. Sun Valley is terminated as a cross-claimant from the
action, but Sun Valley remains as a named Defendant in the action;

     b. Cross-Defendant Leticia Pineda is terminated as a
Cross-Defendant from the action, but Plaintiff Pineda remains as a
named Plaintiff in the action;

     c. Cross-Defendant Becerra is terminated as a named
Cross-Defendant in the action;

     d. Cross-Defendant Brower is terminated as a named
Cross-Defendant in the action;

     e. Cross-Defendant Su is terminated as a named Cross-Defendant
in the action; and

     f. Cross-Defendant California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency is terminated as a named Cross-Defendant in the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrjexbv2 from Leagle.com.


SUPERIOR HOTEL: Faces Davis FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
KRISTY DAVIS and KRISTY ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERIOR HOTEL PROPERTIES,
INC. and SUPERIOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02079-PKH (W.D. Ark., May 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Superior Hotel Properties, Inc. is a hotel management company based
in Arkansas.

Superior Hotel Management, Inc. is a hotel management company based
in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Christopher Hooks, Esq.
         ROBERTSON, BEASLEY, SHIPLEY & ROBINSON, PLLC
         315 N. 7th Street
         Fort Smith, AR 72901
         Telephone: (870) 674-7342
         E-mail: chooks@rbsr-attorneys.com

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Gender Pay Inequity Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Orange reports that female faculty members at Syracuse
University received notice from the Kings County Supreme Court over
both email and mail in April that a class action lawsuit regarding
gender pay inequity had been settled by the university.

The lawsuit was settled in October 2021. According to a copy of the
settlement agreement obtained by The Daily Orange, the total
settlement fund for the lawsuit was $3,713,000.

The court will hold a fairness hearing to determine whether or not
to approve the settlement on Aug. 10, before which members of the
class need to opt in, opt out or object to the amount.

"It's amazing they settled at all, but the settlement is
insulting," said Deborah Pellow, who worked for 45 years as a
professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
before retiring in May 2021. "I know, from my own experience –
the inequity – and it's astounding." Pellow was not one of the
five named plaintiffs.

In 2017, the SU University Senate's Faculty Salary Review Committee
released a report that revealed salaries for female faculty members
were generally lower than for their male colleagues.

The gap was especially noticeable in non-tenure positions. Female
professors made 77% of what their male counterparts made, on
average, while female associate and assistant professors made 83%
of what their male counterparts made.

Denise Heckman, an associate professor in the College of Visual and
Performing Arts' School of Design, said the disparity has stuck
with her, and the settlement won't solve the issue.

"It's always on your shoulders . . . this is my life. And when I
retire, I'm not going to have the same money that someone else had
just because they're a male," Heckman said. "You can't really sweep
something like that under the rug."

The court agreed to allocate $3 million for full-time tenured or
tenure-track professors and associate professors, $340,000 for
full-time tenured or tenure-track assistant professors and $300,000
for non-tenure track professors and associate professors. The court
allocated the remaining $73,000 for non-tenure track assistant
professors.

Salaries of staff members at SU were not mentioned in the report or
the class action.

One third of the settlement will go toward attorney's fees,
according to the agreement. In the class action, the law firm
Outten & Golden represented the plaintiffs, five of whom were
named.

All female professors, assistant professors and associate
professors employed by SU between Jan. 8, 2014, through Oct. 1,
2021, may be entitled to be part of the settlement.

In September 2018, almost eight months after the report,
then-Provost Michele Wheatly said during a University Senate
meeting that the university had eliminated the faculty gender pay
gap by investing $1.8 million in salary adjustments. But, while
Wheatly said administrators and the deans of each college worked
together to allocate the funds, some senators said at the time that
some deans didn't properly do so.

Sarah Scalese, SU's senior associate vice president for
communications, said in an email statement to The Daily Orange that
the size of the adjustments was determined by the Office of Faculty
Affairs, not by the deans. The deans did inform the faculty of the
Office of Faculty Affairs' adjustments, Scalese said.

"It's quite simple. It wasn't fixed," Pellow said. "It depended on
the deans of the colleges . . . the deans are the ones who are
responsible for the inequities to begin with."

Despite agreeing to the settlement, SU did not acknowledge any
wrongdoing and denies the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the
agreement reads.

Heckman was not a named plaintiff in the class action but received
the settlement notice. She said the amount of the settlement was
too low to properly address the discrepancy in pay. Though she
expected it, the amount was still difficult to stomach.

"I was kind of bracing for it . . . but it's still hard to read
that," Heckman said. "But, in another way, I feel really good
because we need to do this. We needed to win something like that to
make a point."

Diane Grimes, an associate professor of communication and
rhetorical studies in VPA, said her reaction to the settlement
agreement was complicated.

"It doesn't make us whole," Grimes said. "Going forward, we keep
organizing, we keep talking to each other, we keep trying to think
about ways that we can persuade the university to do better."

Tula Goenka, a television, radio and film professor in the Newhouse
School of Public Communications, was one of the five lead
plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. She was relieved that a settlement
was reached but said faculty and the university need to move
forward to next steps.

"This is not the end of the process," Goenka said. "It's only the
middle, and there's a lot to be done to make sure that we don't
fall into the patterns of the past."

Shobha Bhatia, a civil and environmental engineering professor,
said, while she's happy that a settlement was offered, SU needs to
establish the proper structures to ensure it's working towards
equity.

"It was moving in a positive direction," Bhatia said. "The goal is
to have a system in place so that we are moving in a direction
where people are paid a fair amount of compensation for the work."

Heckman said female faculty should push for change rather than be
satisfied by just the settlement.

"What I think we should do now . . . is get together and hold their
feet to the fire and say, 'We know that this did not make up for
what we lost,'" she said. "We know that, so don't even claim that,
but fix it going forward." [GN]

TALBOTS INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Talbots, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Talbots, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02637 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Talbots -- http://www.talbots.com/-- is an American specialty
retailer and direct marketer of women's clothing, shoes and fashion
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TASTES ON THE FLY: Chowdhury Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABUL CHOWDHURY; RASEL AHMED; and JAHANGIR AHMED, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TASTES ON
THE FLY NEW YORK, LLC; and FLIGHT CENTER HOTEL LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02682 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2022) seek to recover all
tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs.

TASTES ON THE FLY NEW YORK, LLC is a specialty restaurant operator.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550

TECHNIQUE GOLF: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Technique Golf,
L.L.C. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Technique Golf, L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03685 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Technique Golf -- http://www.superstrokeusa.com/-- is located in
Wixom, Michigan and is part of the Other Miscellaneous
Manufacturing Industry.[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


TEKSYSTEMS INC: Avery Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BO AVERY, PHOEBE RODGERS, KRISTY CAMILLERI, and
JILL UNVERFERTH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. CGC-22-597900, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on May 6, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02733 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 unpaid overtime; failure to timely pay wages upon
termination; failure to provide and maintain timely, accurate,
itemized wage statements; meal break violations; rest break
violations; unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive business practices;
and civil penalties.

TEKsystems, Inc. is an information technology (IT) service
management company headquartered in Hanover, Maryland. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andrew L. Scroggins, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
         Chicago, IL 60606-6448
         Telephone: (312) 460-5000
         Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
         E-mail: ascroggins@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Brian P. Long, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, California 90017-5793
         Telephone: (213) 270-9600
         Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
         E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com

TESLA INC: Talley Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEMETRICE TALLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS, INC.,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STVC06572, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 9, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03125 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 wages including overtime; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to
pay timely wages; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; and
unfair business practices.

Tesla, Inc., doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc., is an American
automotive and clean energy company based in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brian D. Berry, Esq.
         Andrea Fellion, Esq.
         Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                 andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com
                 kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com

THATS EPIC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thats Epic! LLC. The
case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Thats Epic! LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03617-JPC (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

That's Epic -- https://thatsepicstuff.com/ -- products use natural
ingredients designed to nourish, replenish, and cleanse.[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



TIMILON CORPORATION: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timilon Corporation.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Timilon Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-03679 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Timilon Corporation -- https://timilon.com/ -- is an innovative and
rapidly growing company, focused on the development and
commercialization of proprietary nano-chemistry technologies and
materials.[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


TOUR EDGE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tour Edge Golf
Manufacturing, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Tour Edge Golf Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03684
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Tour Edge Golf -- https://www.touredge.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and distributor of golf clubs under the brand names Tour Edge and
Exotics.[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


TRUEACCORD CORP: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Nathan Spira, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-02593 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt
collection agency that is reinventing the collections
experience.[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


TWITTER INC: Former Pres. Donald Trump's Censorship Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taiyler Simone Mitchell at businessinsider.com reports that a judge
dismissed a lawsuit in which former president Donald Trump
attempted to reclaim his access to Twitter after being barred from
the platform the day after the January 6 insurrection.

Twitter said in a statement it "permanently suspended" Trump's
account on January 7, 2021, "due to the risk of further incitement
of violence."

Trump's complaint, filed in July 2021, alleged that the social
media company "engaged in impermissible censorship" and thus rose
"beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor."

San Francisco federal district court James Donato argued that the
"complaint does not plausibly allege that Twitter acted as a
government entity when it closed plaintiffs' accounts."

"Much of what plaintiffs challenge fits within the normal
boundaries of a congressional investigation, as opposed to threats
of punitive state action," the order read.

Trump and the other plaintiffs have until May 26 to amend their
complaint though "further opportunities to amend are not likely to
be granted."

Trump has since created his own Twitter alternative called Truth
Social which launched in February. [GN]

TWITTER INC: Orlando Police Balks Over Musk's Proposed Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO POLICE PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of TWITTER, INC., v. TWITTER, INC.,
PARAG AGRAWAL, MIMI ALEMAYEHOU, JACK DORSEY, EGON DURBAN, MARTHA
LANE FOX, OMID KORDESTANI, FEI-FEI LI, PATRICK PICHETTE, DAVID
ROSENBLATT, BRET TAYLOR, ROBERT ZOELLICK, and ELON MUSK, Case No.
2022-0396 (Del. Ch., May 6, 2022) is a class action for declaratory
judgment that Musk is an "interested stockholder" within the
meaning of Section 203 and that the Proposed Takeover may not
lawfully close within three years of the time that Musk became an
"interested stockholder," unless the Proposed Takeover is approved
by the affirmative vote of at least 66 and 2/3 % of Twitter's
outstanding voting stock not "owned" by Musk within the meaning of
Section 203; and (ii) to hold the members of the Board accountable
for their failure to properly condition the Proposed Takeover on
the 66 and 2/3% vote required by Section 203.

On April 25, 2022, Twitter entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger to be acquired by an entity wholly-owned by Elon Musk in
exchange for $54.20 per share in an all-cash deal valued at
approximately $44 billion, subject to approval by a simple majority
of Twitter's outstanding voting stock. Because Musk was an
"interested stockholder" under 8 Del. C. section 203 ("Section
203") before the Merger Agreement was approved by Twitter's board
of directors (the "Board"), however, the Proposed Takeover may not
lawfully close until 2025 absent approval by the affirmative vote
of 66 and 2/3 % of Twitter's voting stock not "owned" by Musk
within the meaning of Section 203.

Musk began acquiring Twitter shares in January 2022 and owned
approximately 9.6% of Twitter's outstanding voting stock when the
Board approved the Proposed Takeover. In connection with his
efforts to acquire Twitter, Musk also had an "agreement,
arrangement or understanding" within the meaning of Section 203
with at least two other significant beneficial owners of Twitter's
outstanding voting stock: (i) Morgan Stanley, which beneficially
owns approximately 8.8% of Twitter's outstanding voting stock and
serves as Musk's financial adviser and primary financier in
connection with the Proposed Takeover; and (ii) Twitter co-founder,
former CEO, and director Jack Dorsey ("Dorsey"), who beneficially
owns approximately 2.4% of Twitter's outstanding voting stock,
encouraged Musk to take Twitter private through the Proposed
Takeover, and appears likely to receive equity in the newly-private
Company following the Proposed Takeover should it close, says the
suit.

Additionally, according to public reporting, it appears likely Musk
also had and has additional AAUs with other significant holders of
Twitter common stock whose support for the Proposed Takeover Musk
secured prior to the Twitter Board's approval of the deal.

The Merger Agreement, however, incorrectly states that in the three
years prior to its execution Musk was not an "‘interested
stockholder' (as defined in Section 203 of the DGCL) of the
Company"; and (ii) the Proposed Takeover may lawfully close this
year provided that it is approved by the "affirmative vote of a
majority of the outstanding shares of Company Common Stock entitled
to vote," including such stock owned by Musk.

The Plaintiff seeks a prompt trial to ensure the vote of Twitter
stockholders on the Proposed Takeover is properly informed
concerning the applicability of Section 203 and its implications
for the Proposed Takeover and the interests of Twitter's public
stockholders in connection therewith.

The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a beneficial
owner of Twitter common stock.

Twitter is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California. Twitter has a single class of voting common stock,
which trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
TWTR. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Wales, Esq.
          Adam Warden, Esq.
          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Tayler D. Bolton, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank St., 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          (302) 485-0483
          E-mail: tcurry@saxenawhite.com
                  tbolton@saxenawhite.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER &
          TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

UNDER ARMOUR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardenas Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL, INC.; UNDER ARMOUR,
INC.; UNDER ARMOUR RETAIL OF CALIFORNIA, LLC; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00647-RBM-BLM (S.D.
Cal., May 9, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to include all required forms of remuneration in the
"regular rate" of pay used to lawfully calculate and pay certain
wages and premiums to employees under state and federal employment
laws, among other issues such as Defendants' untimely payment of
vacation wages, waiting time penalties, and wage statement
violations

Plaintiff Cardenas was employed by the Defendants as staff.

UNDER ARMOUR, INC. develops, markets, and distributes branded
performance products for men, women, and youth. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
          Elida M. Espinoza, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 693-7727
          Fax: (619) 350-6855
          Email: lauren@ferrarovega.com
                 nick@ferrarovega.com

UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Medrano v. Prisons Bureau
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA MEDRANO, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 20-1245C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Stephen S.
Schwartz of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs -- current and former employees of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons at various federal correctional facilities
throughout the United States -- seek overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and premium pay under the
Federal Employees Pay Act ("FEPA"), plus related forms of relief,
for allegedly compensable pre- and post-shift activities.

In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs request backpay and
liquidated damages under FLSA, as well as interest on their backpay
under the Back Pay Act, premium pay under FEPA, 5 U.S.C. Section
5545, attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiffs are current or former correctional workers at
federal prisons throughout the United States. They allege that
their "primary job duty was to manage and oversee the inmate
population at the prison centers, to ensure safety at the prisons,
and to maintain security at the prisons." To perform that duty, the
Plaintiffs allege that they "searched for contraband and provided
security, counted, fed, and supervised detainees and inmates."

The Plaintiffs' workdays are organized into 8-hour shifts at
assigned duty posts. They allege that "because the scheduled shift
is for 8 hours, the Defendant only pays for 8 hours even if the
correctional officer performs work lasting longer than 8 hours."
The Plaintiffs allege that various pre- and post-shift activities
are unpaid.

The pre- and post-shift activities at issue include (1) pre-shift
security screening, (2) gathering and donning equipment, (3)
walking to the assigned post and completing a pre-shift briefing
with the outgoing officer(s), and (4) completing a post-shift
briefing with the oncoming officer(s) and walking from the post to
return equipment at the end of the day.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition.

II. Discussion

A. Jurisdiction

The Plaintiffs' claims for uncompensated work time arise under
FLSA, which is a money-mandating source of law. Because they are
government employees seeking backpay and related relief under FLSA,
Judge Schwartz holds that they have standing to raise those
claims.

The Plaintiffs appear to claim that the challenged pay practices
were in effect through the date the Amended Complaint was filed.
Some of the Plaintiffs were allegedly employed by the Defendant
when the Amended Complaint was filed, and so have claims that
accrued within the statute of limitations. Judge Schwartz holds
that at least some of the Plaintiffs' claims therefore appear to be
timely.

B. Merits

1. Plaintiffs' "Principal Activities"

The Plaintiffs, again, are entitled to compensation for their work,
a term that includes the principal activities they are "employed to
perform," plus "all activities which are an 'integral and
indispensable part of the principal activities.'" The first step is
to define Plaintiffs' principal activities, as set out in
Plaintiffs' factual allegations.

Judge Schwartz finds that their principal activity is "to manage
and oversee the inmate population at the prison centers, to ensure
safety at the prisons, and to maintain security at the prisons."
They allege that they "were responsible for the custody and
discipline of inmates and detainees held" at the facilities. The
Plaintiffs also allege that they have other duties such as
"searching for contraband and counting, feeding, and supervising
detainees," "remaining vigilant at all times, observing and
correcting inmate behavior, responding to any security breaches,
and identifying any safety issues."

Therefore, Judge Schwartz holds that that the Plaintiffs' principal
activity involves those responsibilities is a factual allegation
entitled to the presumption of truth.

2. FLSA Claim

Given that the Amended Complaint adequately defines the Plaintiffs'
principal activities, the next question is whether it permits a
reasonable inference that the allegedly uncompensated functions at
issue are part of those activities and more than de minimis.

First, Judge Schwartz opines that there are no facts consistent
with the pleadings that the Plaintiffs might adduce to show that
undergoing screening is part of their productive work, or that
screening itself is integral and indispensable to that work. Even
if the Plaintiffs proved that excluding contraband is essential to
prison administration and that they cannot do their jobs if
contraband were inside, the case would end up right back where it
is, asking whether time spent in screenings is integral and
indispensable to the Plaintiffs' work -- a legal question which
must be answered in the negative.

Second, the Plaintiffs allege that their equipment includes
"radios, handcuffs, pepper sprays, and keys," and that donning the
equipment is necessary for their work. The materials the Plaintiffs
mention might plausibly be specialized rather than generic, and so
time spent donning them may be compensable. There is no way to
resolve that question on the pleadings, which must be interpreted
in the Plaintiffs' favor. Whatever the exact standard might be for
determining the compensability of time spent donning different
kinds of equipment, applying it will require facts.

Third, Judge Schwartz finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged that obtaining information during the security briefing is
integral and indispensable to their principal activities. The
remaining questions can await development on the merits.

Lastly, Judge Schwartz holds that (i) the Court lacks authority to
issue declaratory judgments under the Declaratory Judgment Act, so
any claims or requests for relief the Plaintiffs seek under that
statute must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC
12(b)(1); and (ii) he deems the Defendant's present argument
against the Back Pay Act ("BPA") claims abandoned for present
purposes. If the availability, nature, or measure of compensation
under the BPA becomes relevant at a later stage of the case, the
parties may reopen the issue.

III. Conclusion

Judge Schwartz concludes that although some aspects of the Amended
Complaint fail as a matter of law -- in particular, the Plaintiffs'
claims involving time spent in pre-shift security screenings and
certain claims over which this Court lacks jurisdiction -- he says
the remainder sets out well-pleaded facts sufficient to state
claims upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, he granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the
Plaintiffs' claims (1) related to the Plaintiffs' security and
health screenings, and (2) arising under the Declaratory Judgment
Act. He denied in all other respects.

In their Response, the Plaintiffs request leave to amend their
pleadings in the event that Judge Schwartz grants any part of the
Defendant's Motion. Because the parties have agreed that "there are
no legal or factual questions" in the case that distinguish it from
Alkire v. United States, No. 20-1654C, 2022 WL 575626 (Fed. Cl.
Feb. 25, 2022), it is not clear if the Plaintiffs still wish to
amend. Leave to amend is therefore denied without prejudice.

The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report proposing
further proceedings no later than May 31, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fzbcps6h from Leagle.com.

Don J. Foty -- dfoty@hftrialfirm.com -- Hodges & Foty, LLP, in
Houston, Texas, for the Plaintiffs. With him on briefs were David
W. Hodges, Hodges & Foty LLP, in Houston, Texas, and Anthony J.
Lazzaro -- contactus@lazzarolawfirm.com -- The Lazzaro Law Firm,
LLC, in Moreland Hills, Ohio.

David M. Kerr, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C.,
for Defendant United States. With him on briefs were Brian M.
Boynton Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman,
Jr., Director, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, Reginald T.
Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, in Washington,
D.C., as well as John T. LeMaster Senior Counsel, Staff Training
Academy, in Glynco, Georgia.


URBN US RETAIL: Dawkins Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELBERT DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URBN US RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02629-HG (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.freepeople.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent; (b) fail
to add a label element or title attribute for each field; (c)
contain the same title elements; and (d) contain a host of broken
links.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Urbn US Retail, LLC is an online retail company doing business in
New York. [BN]

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
         E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

VEON LTD: Rosen Law Named Lead Counsel in Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VEON LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 15
Civ. 8672 (ALC) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied Stan Sinitsa's motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
motion for appointment of Lead Counsel; and granted Boris Lvov's
motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of
Lead Counsel.

I. Overview

Judge Wang's opinion considers two competing Motions for
Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in a securities fraud class action
brought on behalf of certain shareholders of VimpelCom. VimpelCom,
a large telecommunications company with business all over the
world, paid millions of dollars in bribes to the eldest daughter of
Uzbekistan's president in order to receive favorable treatment in
the country. The subsequent disclosure of these payments, as well
as disclosures concerning criminal investigations into the company,
caused a drop in its stock price and concomitant losses for its
shareholders, leading to the putative class action.

The two competing Motions for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff are
brought by Lvov and a group of Plaintiffs comprised of Sherman
Steele, Leonard Karpwich, and Stan Sinitsa ("SKS"). Both movants
propose to replace prior Lead Plaintiff Westway, which has been
dismissed from the action for lack of standing. Lvov originally
sought and was denied Lead Plaintiff status in 2015, and has been
participating in the litigation since that time. SKS became parties
to the litigation more recently, by being added as Named Plaintiffs
in the Second Amended Complaint filed on April 14, 2020.

II. Background and Procedural History

The securities class action was brought on behalf of individuals
who purchased VEON shares between June 30, 2011 and Nov. 3, 2015,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.2. The SAC alleges that during the relevant class period, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, failed to disclose
adverse material facts about VEON's business, operations, and
prospects, and that the disclosure of these acts and omissions
caused a precipitous decline in VEON's stock price.

The Defendant's wrongful conduct during the relevant period gave
rise to investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and the United States Department of Justice ("USDOJ").
During the pendency of the action, VEON entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement ("DPA") with the USDOJ, pursuant to which
VEON pleaded guilty to a two-count criminal information charging
the company with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books
and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977
("FCPA").

That DPA describes in detail the facts in the criminal information
against VEON. In the DPA, VEON admits that between 2005 and 2012,
VEON made or attempted to make millions of dollars in bribes to
Gulnara Karimova, the eldest daughter of Uzbekistan's President, in
an effort to receive favorable treatment in Uzbekistan. Between
March 12, 2014, and Nov. 3, 2015, several events related to this
misconduct caused the price of VEON's American Depository Receipts
to decline: (1) on March 12, 2014, VEON made the first of several
disclosures concerning investigations into the company by both the
SEC and the USDOJ; (2) on Aug. 13, 2015 it was reported that United
States authorities had asked their European counterparts to seize
approximately $1 billion in assets from various companies,
including VEON, that were implicated in a wide-ranging criminal
probe of corruption for paying millions of dollars in bribes to
Karimova; and (3) VEON announced it had reserved $900 million for
litigation costs.

The instant action was first filed on Nov. 4, 2015 by Charles
Kux-Kardos against VEON and several individual defendants
(Jean-Yves Charlier, Jo Lunder, Alexander Izosimov, Andrew Mark
Davies, and Cornelis Hendrik van Dalen, the "Individual
Defendants") who had served either as Chief Executive Officer or
CFO of the company. As required by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Kux-Kardos' counsel issued notice on
Nov. 4, 2015, inviting any member of the purported class to move to
serve as lead plaintiff. Purported class members then had 60 days
within which to "move to serve as lead plaintiff." Several putative
class members responded to the notice and moved to be appointed
lead plaintiff, including Plaintiff Westway Alliance Corp. and
then-plaintiff group, Boris Lvov and Richard McColloch. Named
Plaintiffs Sherman Steele, Leonard Karpwich, and Stan Sinitsa did
not file motions to be appointed lead plaintiff, or otherwise
appear, during the 60 day period, either individually or as a
group.

On April 27, 2016, Judge Andrew Carter consolidated this action
with another one pending before the Court (No. 15 Civ. 09492),
appointed Westway as Lead Plaintiff, and approved Westway's choice
of counsel. On May 6, 2016, Lvov and McColloch filed a motion for
reconsideration of the appointment of Westway as Lead Plaintiff,
arguing that Westway had not suffered any recoverable losses
because it had impermissibly calculated its losses based on stock
price declines during intraday trading, rather than prices at
closing. Judge Carter denied their motion, reasoning, inter alia,
that courts have frequently allowed cases to proceed based on
intraday price fluctuations, and questions concerning the proper
way to measure price drop and whether causation exists are factual
inquiries that should not be determined on the pleadings.

After consolidating the case and appointing Westway as the Lead
Plaintiff, Westway filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of
individuals who purchased VEON securities between Dec. 4, 2010 and
Nov. 3, 2015. VEON then moved to dismiss for failure to state a
cause of action under Rule 10b-5. On Sept. 19, 2017, Judge Carter
granted the motion in part and denied in part, ruling that the
Amended Complaint did not sufficiently allege loss causation for
any individual who both purchased and sold their shares before
March 12, 2014, the day of the first partial disclosure. On May 17,
2019, VEON then filed a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
arguing that the September 2017 Order altered the class period to
those investors who purchased VEON shares between June 30, 2011 and
Nov. 3, 2015, and who held those shares until at least March 12,
2014. This altered class period would completely exclude Lead
Plaintiff Westway, who purchased all of its shares before June 30,
2011. Consequently, on May 21, 2019, Lvov sought permission to file
a motion to intervene and substitute himself as Lead Plaintiff,
arguing that Westway was no longer a class member and therefore
lacked standing to serve as Lead Plaintiff.

Before Judge Carter could rule on Lvov's request to intervene,
Westway and VEON finished briefing on the Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, and they informed the Court that "the parties [VEON
and Westway] are engaging in mediation on Nov. 18, 2019 with Robert
Meyer at JAMS." In response, Lvov asked the Court stay any
mediation until the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings or Lvov's Motion to Intervene had been decided.

On Nov. 14, 2019, Westway revealed their efforts to moot Lvov's
standing concern by bringing two shareholders who purchased their
shares after the June 2011 statement into the litigation. Lvov
argued that Westway should not be able to cure their complete lack
of standing by adding additional Named Plaintiffs who did have
standing. Lvov proposed acting as co-lead Plaintiff as part of the
upcoming mediation, a suggestion that Judge Carter denied. Judge
Carter allowed Westway's two new shareholders to participate in the
mediation, which failed to result in a settlement.

By written Order on March 31, 2020, Judge Carter denied without
prejudice VEON's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and allowed
Westway to amend its complaint. Westway then filed the Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC") on April 14, 2020, naming Sherman Steele,
Leonard Karpwich, and Stan Sinitsa as additional plaintiffs.

VEON then moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On March
11, 2021 the Court dismissed Westway, reasoning that there was no
live controversy between Westway and VEON. In light of Westway's
dismissal, the Court also re-opened the Lead Plaintiff appointment
process, and explicitly allowed SKS to move for appointment as Lead
Plaintiffs, which the group did on April 8, 2021. In response, Lvov
again filed a motion to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. Defendant VEON
weighed in on these competing motions by alerting the Court that it
believes SKS would be subject to unique statute of limitations and
statute of repose defenses.

III. Analysis

A. The Presumption in Favor of SKS's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
Has Been Successfully Rebutted by Lvov

SKS and Lvov have both filed timely motions. Judge Wang opines that
while SKS has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
by the class, SKS (unlike Lvov) does not satisfy the requirements
of FRCP Rule 23. Specifically, SKS will be unable to adequately
represent the class because SKS's class claims are barred by the
statute of limitations. Therefore, while Lvov's financial interest
is smaller than SKS', he is the moving plaintiff who can most
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Judge Wang finds that SKS' class capacity claims have not been
tolled, and that they would be subject to the unique defense that
their claims are barred by the PSLRA's two-year statute of
limitations. She says, while equitable tolling in the class action
context allows for the filing of individual claims after the
expiration of the statute of limitations, it does not toll class
claims, regardless of whether those class claims are brought in
subsequent class actions or when a new plaintiff attempts to join
an existing class action.

Given the successful rebuttal of the presumption in favor of SKS,
and Judge Wang concludes that Lvov is the most adequate lead
plaintiff.

B. Lvov satisfies the requirements of the PSLRA.

As Judge Wang discussed, Lvov has the second largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class, and his Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is timely. To fulfill the final
requirement for appointment as lead plaintiff under the PSLRA, he
must show that he "satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure Rule 23." "At the lead plaintiff stage of
litigation, the party moving for lead plaintiff of the consolidated
action need only make a preliminary showing that it satisfies the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23."

Judge Wang concludes that Lvov has made a sufficient preliminary
showing of these requirements. First, Lvov satisfies the typicality
requirement because his claims "arise from the same course of
events" and make "similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's
liability" as other putative class members. Second, Lvov satisfies
the adequacy requirement because "his interests are aligned with
that of the putative class, and he has retained competent and
experienced counsel." Third, he has selected Rosen Law as Lead
Counsel. As ascertained by Rosen Law's resume and their
representation of Mr. Lvov to date, Lvov's chosen counsel is
qualified to litigate the action. Accordingly, Judge Wang approves
the selection of Rosen Law as Lead Counsel.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wang denied SKS' motions for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff and motion for appointment of Lead
Counsel, and granted Lvov's motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and for appointment of Lead Counsel.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 173
and ECF 176.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fwn8dzyc from Leagle.com.


VES GROUP: Underpays Quality Analysts, Grant Class Action Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GRANT on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. VES GROUP, INC. and MAXIMUS, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-01465 (S.D. Tex. May 6, 2022) alleges that Defendants
required the Plaintiff Grant to work more than 40 hours a week as a
quality analyst but did not pay him the proper amount of overtime.

The Defendants accomplished this underpayment by failing to include
a series of non-discretionary bonus payments in Plaintiff's regular
rate when they calculated the amount overtime he was due.

The Defendants' conduct allegedly violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., which mandates that
non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and other hourly
workers, be compensated at one and one-half times their actual
regular rate for each hour worked over 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff brings a collective action to recover unpaid overtime
compensation owed to him individually and on behalf of all current
and former quality analysts who performed work for the Defendants
during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint up
to the date the Court authorizes notice.

VES Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc. Maximus
acquired Defendant VES Group, Inc. in approximately May of 2021.

VES Group. is a contractor for the Veterans Administration. One of
Defendants' principal lines of business is the review of benefit
claims veterans file with the VA. To perform this work, the
Defendants hire quality analysts, such as Plaintiff Grant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Neuman, Esq.
          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
                  BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

VICTORY PROFESSIONAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory Professional
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Victory
Professional Products, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03681 (S.D.N.Y., May
6, 2022).

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

Victory Professional Products, Inc. --
http://www.victorykoredry.com/-- is located in Huntington Beach,
California and is part of the Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing
Industry.[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


VOLVIK USA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volvik USA Inc. The
case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volvik USA Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03683 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Volvik -- https://volvik.com/ -- has risen to be one of the most
innovative and trusted golf ball manufacturers in the world.[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

WASHINGTON: Judge Dismisses Long-Term Cares Act Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Liz J. Deckman, Esq., and Kira J. Johal, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that Seyfarth Synopsis: A
federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit that challenged
the Washington Long-Term Cares Act ("Cares Act"), ruling that
because the Cares Act is not established or maintained by an
employer and/or employee organization, it is not an employee
benefit plan and therefore not governed or preempted by ERISA. The
Court also held that the premiums assessed by the Cares Act
constitute a state tax. As such, only state courts, not U.S.
federal courts, have jurisdiction to rule on the Cares Act.

Background
As we discussed in our prior blog post and legal update, the
Washington Cares Act passed in 2019 and was set to begin collecting
payroll taxes from Washington employees in January 2022 to help pay
for the long-term care ("LTC") expenses of the State's residents.
However, Governor Inslee announced in December 2021 that the State
would pause collection of the tax from employers until lawmakers
reassessed revisions to the program.

Latest Developments
On April 25, 2022, Judge Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington dismissed a class action lawsuit
that challenged the Cares Act, holding that the Court does not have
jurisdiction for two reasons: (1) the Cares Act is not governed or
preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended ("ERISA") and thus ERISA does not confer
jurisdiction on the federal courts; and (2) the Cares Act's premium
constitutes a tax, and the Tax Injunction Act drastically limits
federal district court jurisdiction to interfere with local
concerns as to the collection of taxes. As a result, the Court
dismissed the action as any legal challenges to the Cares Act must
be brought in state court.

Not Pre-Empted by ERISA

In its opinion, the Court noted that ERISA applies to employee
benefit plans that are established or maintained by an employer
and/or employee organization. The Court determined that the Cares
Act was a creation of the Washington legislature, which is neither
an employer or an employee organization as defined by ERISA;
therefore, the Cares Act is not an ERISA-covered employee benefit
plan.

In so doing, the Court rejected plaintiffs' assertion that the
State acted as an employer when it passed the Cares Act. This was
because the Cares Act assesses a premium on all covered employees
in the State, not just those employed by the State. Consequently,
the Court determined that the State acted as a sovereign when it
adopted the Cares Act, unlike when it adopts employee health or
pension benefit plans that extend or accrue benefits only to
individuals while they are employed by the State.

Cares Act's Premiums Constitute a Tax

The State's motion to dismiss the lawsuit argued that the Cares
Act's premiums were a tax imposed on employees' wages and thus, the
federal court lacks jurisdiction as state tax challenges must be
brought in state courts. To determine whether the Cares Act's
premiums are a tax or insurance premium, the court reviewed three
factors set forth in prior case law:

1. The entity imposing the premium assessment was the State
legislature (not an administrative agency), making it more likely
to be a tax;
2. The parties required to pay the premium assessment include a
large group of people, and the broader the group affected, the more
likely it is to be a tax; and
3. The ultimate use of the premium assessment is to directly
benefit all members of the public who paid premiums for the
requisite period and meet the criteria for receiving LTC services.
Therefore, the Cares Act provides a general benefit to the public,
making it more likely to be a tax, even if the amounts collected
under it are segregated in special funds.

The Court agreed with the defendants that the Cares Act is
analogous to the unemployment insurance scheme, payments which are
undisputedly taxes. Therefore, the federal Court lacked
jurisdiction pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act, under which state
courts have exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to state taxes.

Takeaways for Employers
The ruling in Pacific Bells LLC et al. v. Inslee et al.
demonstrates that despite the challenges to the Cares Act in
federal court, further challenges may very well be made in state
court. During oral arguments, plaintiffs sought a ruling from the
Court that the Cares Act premiums constitute an income tax that is
barred by the Washington State Constitution. The Court noted that
such arguments should be litigated within the State's
administrative and/or judicial system.

Seyfarth will continue to monitor and report on developments with
respect to the Cares Act. For additional guidance, please contact
the authors of this legal update or your attorney for more
information. [GN]

WATA INC: Knight Suit Alleges Video Game Market Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, and JASON DOHSE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WATA, INC.
and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00967
(C.D. Cal., May 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for false advertising, intentional misrepresentation,
nondisclosure, and violations of the RICO, Unfair Competition Law,
and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have allegedly engaged
in a pattern of racketeering activity in order to manipulate the
retro video game market. The Defendants have also committed or
aided and abetted in the commission of thousands of acts of
racketeering activity by accepting payment for video game grading
services which were based on false representations of turnaround
times, nondisclosure of material facts, and charging consumers for
grading services based on artificially inflated valuation of video
games. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have suffered damages as they paid money for
services they did not timely receive.

Wata, Inc. is a video game grading company, headquartered in
Denver, Colorado.

Collectors Universe, Inc. is the parent company of Wata, Inc., with
its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Janeen Carlberg, Esq.
         Lizeth Perales, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JANEEN CARLBERG
         1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106
         Santa Ana, CA 92706
         Telephone: (714) 665-1900
         E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com
                 info@oceralaw.com

WEC ENERGY: Munt et al. File Suit Over Insurance Plan Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MUNT, GLORIA J. HARMON, and SANDRA M. WINGERS,
individually and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of the WEC Energy Group Employee Retirement Savings
Plan, Plaintiffs v. WEC ENERGY GROUP, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
WEC ENERGY GROUP, INC., CURT S. CULVER, DANNY L. CUNNINGHAM,
WILLIAM M. FARROW III, CRISTY GARCIA-THOMAS, MARIA C. GREEN, GALE
E. KLAPPA, THOMAS K. LANE, SCOTT J. LAUBER, ULICE PAYNE JR., MARY
ELLEN STANEK, and GLEN E. TELLOCK, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00555-NJ (E.D. Wis., May 10, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty of prudence with respect to the Plan Participants,

     -- by failing to ensure that the Plan's recordkeeping fees
were objectively reasonable, defray reasonable expenses of
administering the Plan, and act with the care, skill, diligence,
and prudence required by ERISA;

     -- by failing to engage in a prudent process for monitoring
the Plan's investments and removing imprudent ones within a
reasonable period;

     -- by failing to employ a prudent process by failing to
evaluate the cost of the Plan’s managed account provider
critically or objectively in comparison to other managed account
options, or in comparison to less costly target-date funds; and

     -- by failing to monitor those individuals responsible for
Plan recordkeeping fees to ensure that they were adequately
performing their fiduciary obligations.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties
of prudence, the Plaintiffs and Plan participants suffered millions
of dollars in objectively unreasonable and unnecessary monetary
losses.

WEC Energy Group, Inc. provides energy services to more than 4.6
million customers in Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota.
The Individual Defendants are board of directors of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 Executive Dr., Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Tel: (262) 780-1953
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com

WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a federal judge dismissed
class-action claims that Wells Fargo & Co, the fourth-largest U.S.
bank, misled or defrauded shareholders about its commercial loans.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said
shareholders failed to adequately allege that Wells Fargo
unjustifiably inflated the quality of its loans, understated loss
reserves or misstated its lending practices.

Shareholders claimed to have lost billions of dollars in Wells
Fargo stock as the San Francisco-based bank in 2020 gradually
revealed the "previously unknown level of risk" in its commercial
loans.

The proposed class covers shareholders in the three years ending
Oct. 13, 2020, a period when Wells Fargo's share price fell 54%.

But the judge concluded that Wells Fargo had underwriting standards
that "proved largely accurate or conservative, not inflationary,"
and did not mislead shareholders about the size of loans relative
to the value of borrowers' businesses.

Because he found no false or misleading statements, Alsup did not
address whether Wells Fargo intended to defraud anyone.

He said the shareholders, led by the Employees' Retirement System
of the State of Hawaii, could file an amended complaint to address
deficiencies in their case.

Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to
requests for comment. Wells Fargo and its lawyers did not
immediately respond to similar requests.

Since 2018, Wells Fargo has operated under consent orders from the
Federal Reserve and two other U.S. financial regulators to improve
governance and oversight. The Fed also capped the bank's assets at
$1.95 trillion.

The bank has faced much criticism over its practices since 2016,
including for opening accounts without customer permission and
charging borrowers for auto insurance they did not need.

The case is Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii v.
Wells Fargo & Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, No. 20-07674. [GN]

WHITE WATER GEAR: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Water Gear Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. White Water Gear Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03604 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

White Water Gear Inc. -- https://www.utahwhitewatergear.com/ -- is
Salt Lake City's raft shop of choice for whitewater gear.[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


WONOLO INC: Turner Challenges Criminal History Screening Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEIANDRE TURNER and JACQUELINE RAMOS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. WONOLO, INC., Case No. 513282/2022
(N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., May 6, 2022) challenges the criminal
history screening policies and practices used by Wonolo when
denying employment to otherwise qualified applicants, like the
Plaintiffs, throughout New York City and State.

Under the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State
Human Rights Law, an employer cannot deny employment to individuals
with criminal convictions unless it performs a thorough and
individualized analysis of specific "Article 23-A" factors. These
factors, derived from Article 23-A of the New York State Correction
Law ("Correction Law"), include the following: the specific duties
and responsibilities necessarily related to the employment sought;
the bearing, if any, the criminal offense for which the applicant
was previously convicted will have on the applicant's fitness or
ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities; the
time which has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal
offense; the age of the applicant at the time of occurrence of the
criminal offense; the seriousness of the offense; and any
information produced by the applicant, or produced on his or her
behalf, in regard to rehabilitation and good conduct.

After carefully considering these and other factors, an employer
may only deny employment on the basis of criminal convictions where
it determines that the applicant: (a) poses an unreasonable risk to
the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the public; or (b)
possesses convictions that are directly related to the applicant's
ability to perform the job. As alleged, the Defendant's criminal
history screen fails to sufficiently consider the Article 23-A
factors, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs have criminal convictions. The Plaintiffs each
sought work with Defendant and were denied jobs by Defendant
because of their criminal histories.

Wonolo is a staffing company that connects workers to jobs
primarily in warehouses, food services, and manufacturing through a
mobile application.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
          Ossai Miazad, Esq.
          Jennifer Davidson, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: om@outtengolden. com
                  cmcnernev@outtengolden. com
                  jdavidson@outtengolden. com

               - and -

          Michael C. Pope, Esq.
          Shomari Ward, Esq.
          YOUTH REPRESENT
          11 Park Place, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 759-8080
          Facsimile: (646) 759-8082
          E-mail: mpope@vouthrepresent.org
                  sward@vouthrepresent.org

WOOJER USA: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woojer USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Woojer USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03614-CM (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Woojer -- https://www.woojer.com/ -- is an evolutionary experience
that catapults music, gaming, VR and films to another dimension
Forget about just hearing sound.[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


ZERO FRICTION: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zero Friction LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zero Friction LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03658 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Zero Friction -- https://zerofriction.com/ -- offers high quality,
performance golf products with innovative technological
advancements.[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



[*] Wilson Elser Attorneys Discuss Rulings in BIPA Class Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Duffy, Esq., and Michael J. O'Malley, Esq., of Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, report that two recent rulings in the Northern
District of Illinois have provided insurers a new, viable path to
avoid defense obligations for the explosion of lawsuits brought by
insureds' employees under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA). The decisions held the Access or Disclosure
Exclusion, which is commonly found in general liability policies,
unambiguously barred coverage for BIPA claims. See American Family
Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Carnagio Enters., Case No 20-c-3665 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 30, 2022); Thermoflex Waukegan, LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo
Ins. USA, Inc., Case No. 21-c-788 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022).

The rulings by the Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S.D.J. (N.D. Ill.) departed
from recent decisions within the District that held the exclusion
did not unambiguously exclude coverage. See Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Caremel, Inc., Case No. 20-c-637, 2022 WL 79868 at 3 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 7, 2022); Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Thermoflex Waukegan,
LLC, Case No. 20-cv-05980, 2022 WL 602537 at 6-7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 1,
2022); Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Highland Baking
Company, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-04997 (N.D. Ill. March 29, 2022).

Background
Enacted in 2008, BIPA regulates the collection, use and storage of
biometric data such as fingerprints. In sum, BIPA requires private
entities to (1) obtain informed, written consent from individuals
prior to collecting their biometric information and (2) develop a
written, publicly available policy on retention and destruction of
such information. BIPA creates a private right of action and
provides potential recovery for actual damages or statutory
liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and
$5,000 for each reckless or intentional violation, plus attorneys'
fees and costs and injunctive relief.

BIPA-related litigation has grown exponentially since 2015, with
the majority of cases being putative class action lawsuits based on
employers requiring employees to scan their fingerprints to clock
in and out of work. This increased litigation has, in turn, spurred
insurance coverage litigation for such claims. The published
decisions concerning coverage for BIPA claims have focused on
whether any exclusions bar coverage, with most of the decisions
finding various exclusions do not unambiguously exclude coverage.

Access or Disclosure Exclusion Opinions
Judge Lee's opinions with respect to the Access or Disclosure
Exclusion may provide the best opportunity for insurers to avoid
defense obligations for BIPA claims because he found the exclusion
to be clear and unambiguous and he highlighted the faulty reasoning
in prior decisions that found the exclusion did not unambiguously
exclude coverage.

The Access or Disclosure Exclusion at issue in Carnagio and Mitsui
Sumitomo states:

This insurance does not apply to … "personal and advertising
injury" arising out of … any access to or disclosure of any
person's or organization's confidential or personal information,
including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer
lists, financial information, credit card information, health
information or any other type of nonpublic information.

Addressing the Caremel and Thermoflex Waukegan opinions head on,
Judge Lee found the prior decisions in the Northern District of
Illinois were wrong to limit the scope of the exclusion by using
the interpretative canons ejusdem generis (of the same kind) and
noscitur a sociis, a broader variation of ejusdem generis, for
three reasons:

   -- First, ejusdem generis does not apply when the language is
unambiguous. Here, Judge Lee found the exclusion to be unequivocal,
clear and unambiguous.
   -- Second, when examples are introduced by the word "including,"
the list that follows is not exhaustive. As such, Judge Lee found
the examples of the types of information covered by the exclusion
do not limit the scope of the preceding clause, which states
coverage is not afforded for "'personal and advertising injury'
arising out of … any access to or disclosure of any person's or
organization's confidential or personal information."
   -- Third, ejusdem generis does not apply when the listed items
are not sufficiently similar to belong to one identifiable class.
The examples in the Access or Disclosure Exclusion, which include
everything from publicly available patent information to private
credit card information, have no readily identifiable common
thread. As a result, ejusdem generis is inapplicable.

Judge Lee also held that even if he were to use the broader
interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis, the only resemblance among
the listed examples is that they are categories of information
individuals and companies have a heightened interest in keeping
from third parties or the public. Biometric data, Judge Lee held,
certainly falls within that category.

Summary
Judge Lee's decisions are significant because they represent the
most extensive analysis of the Access or Disclosure Exclusion
within the BIPA context to date. Judge Lee's opinions also explain
why prior decisions within the District provide an incomplete
analysis and how the reasoning in those opinions was faulty.
Although, technically, three out of the five published decisions
addressing the Access or Disclosure Exclusion found the exclusion
does not unambiguously exclude coverage for BIPA claims, the
Highland Baking case merely adopted the Thermoflex Waukegan
decision and did not provide an independent analysis.

Moreover, the Caremel court's discussion of the Access or
Disclosure Exclusion was brief, focused more specifically on the
exclusion's "health information" language, and is judicial dicta.
Judge Lee's decisions are more reasoned and undoubtedly will
establish a road map for insurers when this issue reaches the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.                             

Until then, the new split within the Northern District of Illinois
clearly demonstrates there is a bona fide coverage dispute
concerning coverage for BIPA claims that likely will protect
insurers from bad faith claims under 215 ILCS 5/155. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***