/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220526.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 99

                            Headlines

ALACRITY SOLUTIONS: Smith Files Suit in D. Delaware
ALDER PROTECTION: Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Ennis Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 5 Deadline
AMERICAN FLOOR: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Paguada Suit
ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Martinez, et al., Seek to Certify Four Classes

ANGIES LIST: Pro Water's Application to Seal Tossed as Moot
APHRIA INC: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
APHRIA INC: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Securities Suit
APP OF NEW MEXICO: Appeals Remand Order in Lax Case
APPLE INC: Aug. 4 Final iCloud Settlement Approval Hearing Set

ARQIT QUANTUM: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 5 Deadline
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Kot Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AURORA, CO: May 31 Extension to File Class Cert Replies Sought
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Hearthstone Card Packs

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Dixey Suit
CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: Hernandez FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CITATION COLLECTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 29

COACHELLA VALLEY: Wu Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
COHNREZNICK LLP: Settlement Class in James Gets Provisional Status
CREDIT SUISSE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
CVS HEALTH: Order on Pretrial & Trial Deadlines Entered in Mier
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Zorgani Suit Granted in Part

ENERGY GROUP: Arbitrage Fund, et al., Seek Class Certification
FCA US: Kheel Suit Removed to C.D. California
FEIN & SUCH: Settlement Class in Perez Suit Gets Certification
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 11 Deadline
FIRST WESTERN: Extension of Time to Depose Experts Sought

FOREST RIVER: Court Amends Phase I Class Certification in Truitt
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Sets Pretrial Schedule in Chapman Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 3
GOLDMAN SACHS: Krueger Appeals Denial of Bid in Consolidated Case
GUYANA: Earns US$719 Million From Oil Sector in March Quarter

HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Murphy Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
ILUKA RESOURCES: Lockton Attorney Discusses Insurance Suit Ruling
INSIGHT VENTURE: $6.16M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Colacurcio Suit
INTUIT INC: $141-MM Turbotax Class Action Settlement Discussed
KING FEATURES: Case Management Plan Approved in Weekes Class Suit

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Suber Bid for Class Status Due Jan. 27, 2023
LILIUM NV: Kuznicki Law Reminds of June 17 Deadline
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Sheets Appeals Final Judgment in Warranty Suit
MASTERCARD INC: Loses to Bid to Challenge Expanded Collective Suit
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Court Enters Pretrial Order in Bodor Class Suit

MDL 3010: Confidentiality Order Entered in Google Antitrust Suit
MEDICAL SECURITY: Michigan Urgent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
META PLATFORMS: Removes Facebook, Instagram Avatars Amid Suits
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Wood Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit
MONDELEZ INT'L: Huang Appeals Attorneys' Fees Ruling in McMorrow

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NATERA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATERA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of $6-Bil. Class Action Suit
NELNET INC: Johansson, et al., Lose Bid to Amend "IDR" Complaint

NESTLE PURINA: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Salinas Suit
OCALA, FL: Plaintiffs' Firm Entitled to $6MM Fees in Fire Fee Suit
ONTARIO: Police Service Officer Testifies in Grievance Hearing
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Alvarado
OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Brunick

PACIFIC FERTILITY: Cal. App. Affirms Good Faith Settlement Ruling
PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Price-Rigging Suits in Various Courts
PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Securities Suit in NJ Over Merger Deal
QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES: CAT Certifies Sixth Opt-Out Collective Suit
REALOGY BROKERAGE: Summary Judgment Bids in Bumpus TCPA Suit Denied

SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Third Securities Class Action in Utah
SOLARA MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $9.76-MM
STATE FARM: Wins Motion for Summary Judgment v. Ngethpharat
STEWARD HEALTH: Parties Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule
STOCKX INC: Faces Valiente Suit Over Sale of Counterfeit Products

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Appeals Judgment in Saucillo Suit
TIKTOK INC: Class Seeks Approval of $92M Settlement in Privacy Suit
TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Loses Class Certification Bid
TRANS UNION LLC: CFPB, FTC File Amicus Brief in FCRA Class Action
UNIFIN INC: Trial & Pre-trial Scheduling Order Entered in Savir

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 12 Deadline
VOLUME SERVICES: Settlement Class in Jeffries Initially Certified
VOYAGER DIGITAL: Cassidy Suit Seeks Class Certification
WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 26
[*] Chamberlains Discuss Australia's Historic Sexual Abuse Claims

[*] Class Actions Against FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10%, Research Shows
[*] Survey Shows Labor, Employment Class Actions Up 25.6% in 2021

                            *********

ALACRITY SOLUTIONS: Smith Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alacrity Solutions
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Aldreamer Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alacrity Solutions
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00655-UNA (D. Del., May 18, 2022).

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

Alacrity Solutions Group LLC -- https://www.alacritysolutions.com/
-- provides insurance-adjustment management and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          DELEEUW LAW LLC
          1301 Walnut Green Road
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Phone: (302) 274-2180
          Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com


ALDER PROTECTION: Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Ennis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE
JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM
CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE
McCARTNEY, an individual; and DOES I-X, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-512 CW (D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division,
grants in part the Plaintiffs' Second Short-Form Discovery Motion
to Compel Discovery Responses.

I. Background

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended
Collective/Class Action Complaint against the Defendants. After
which, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and on Feb. 5,
2021, the Court entered an order denying the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' class and collective action claims.

Shortly thereafter, on Feb. 8, 2021, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' first Motion to Compel Discovery.
The current dispute arises out of that order. The Plaintiffs allege
the Defendants have yet to provide adequate responses to certain
requests. Both parties also seek attorney fees pertaining to the
instant motion.

II. Analysis

Before turning to the Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Pead addresses the
Plaintiffs' "Supplemental Submission in Support" of its Second
Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel. He finds that the Plaintiffs
filed their "Supplemental Memorandum" without seeking Court
permission to do so. The Memorandum violates the Local Rules
regarding discovery disputes. Accordingly, Judge Pead declines to
consider it. He now turns to the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs
seek adequate responses for the following requests for production
(RFP): 13, 17, 19, 20 and 33.

A. RFP 13

RFP 13 seeks "records and communications pertaining to audits
performed by Poston, Denney & Killpack, PLLC" [PDK], related to
sales representative compensation." The Plaintiffs reviewed the
Defendants' supplemental responses regarding these materials and
finding them insufficient, subpoenaed PDK directly. PDK agreed to
produce responsive documents for Defendants to review for
privilege, but the documents have not been produced.

In reply, the Defendants note they already produced all responsive
documents in their custody and control. They have also made
multiple requests to PDK to produce documents for a privilege
review prior to providing them to the Plaintiffs. Apparently, on
Feb. 17, 2022, "for the first time the Defendants received
responsive documents from PDK." The Defendants now intend to review
and produce responsive documents as soon as possible.

Judge Pead finds no basis to grant the Plaintiffs' motion as to RFP
13. Based on the parties' representations, he finds that PDK was
somewhat slow in producing documents for a privilege review, but
that is now taking place. He, however, does order the Defendants to
complete any review and produce responsive documents within 30 days
from the date of his Order.

B. RFP 17

In its February 2021 order, the Court ordered the Defendants to
respond fully to this request. RFP 17 pertains to social media
materials. The Plaintiffs argue "social media materials still have
not been produced even though the Defendants have admitted they
have Facebook and Instagram accounts." In response, the Defendants
aver that they "produced all content from Alder's Facebook and
Instagram pages, including over 9,000 pages of content."

It is unclear from this response whether the Defendants have
produced social media materials from the other Defendants. Thus, to
the extent such materials have not been provided, Judge Dustin
ordered the Defendants to produce such materials within 30 days
from the date of his Order.

C. RFP 19

This request pertains to recruiting materials. It states: "Please
produce copies of all advertising, marketing, and recruiting
materials used by Defendants since July 1, 2013, including but not
limited to brochures, posters, billboard content, recruiting
communications, online advertisement content, and video and audio
recordings." The Court overruled the Defendants' objection to this
request and found "recruiting materials are relevant to Plaintiffs'
fraud claim."

The Plaintiffs assert the Defendants have "not produced a single
recruiting presentation or brochure and only a couple of flyers."
In response, the Defendants state they have already produced the
recruiting materials they have been able to locate and they will
continue to supplement their production if additional documents are
found.

This is concerning to the Court because it appears based on the
record before it, that the Defendants may have taken a rather
casual approach in the search and production of recruiting
materials. Judge Pead therefore orders the Defendants to conduct a
thorough search for responsive materials. He says, any materials
are to be produced within 30 days from the date of his Order. In
addition, the Defendants are ordered to provide by this same date,
an affidavit outlining the search methods and efforts utilized to
find responsive materials. This is to include who conducted the
searches and an overview of how the searches were conducted.

D. RFP 20

This request seeks communications between Defendants and sales
representatives. Once again, the Court previously ordered the
Defendants to "respond fully" to this request. The Defendants note
their search for responsive materials is ongoing and they will
produce additional documents if any are found.

In similar fashion to RFP 19, Judge Pead orders the Defendants to
provide an affidavit within 30 days from the date of his Order,
outlining the search methods, efforts utilized to find materials,
who conducted the searches, and how the searches were conducted.

E. RFP 33

In RFP 33 Plaintiffs request that the Defendants: Please produce
all communications to, from and/or between Defendants or any of
their agents, employees, independent contractors, or other
representatives related to or concerning the allegations at issue
in the Second Amended Complaint, including but not limited to text
messages, emails, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages.

The Plaintiffs argue the Defendants have not been willing to meet
and confer regarding this request, instead, asserting that it is
overbroad and unduly burdensome. In contrast, the Defendants
respond that they are "happy to meet with Plaintiffs regarding RFP
33."

Judge Pead orders the parties to meet and confer regarding this
RFP. He notes that as currently written, the RFP is overbroad
because it fails to limit the timeframe for searches. Moreover, in
narrowing this RFP, the Plaintiffs are directed to the principles
found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that states the rules
"should be construed, administered, and employed by the Court and
the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding." Discovery requests
that do not comply with the intent of Rule 1 create delay and
unreasonable expenses of time, energy, and money. The Plaintiffs'
motion as to RFP 33 is denied to allow a meaningful meet and confer
by the parties and an opportunity for the Plaintiff to
appropriately narrow the request.

III. Order

Judge Pead orders the Defendants to complete any review and produce
responsive documents to RFP 13, 17, and 19. He orders them to file
an affidavit as outlined regarding searches for materials
responding to RFP 19 and 20.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding RFP 33 and the
Plaintiffs are ordered to narrow the request.

Finally, the parties request for attorney fees is denied because
Judge Pead grants in part and denies in part the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8uhr8t from
Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Amazon.com, Inc.
("Amazon" or the "Company") of a class action securities lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of Amazon investors has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired
certain Amazon.com, Inc. securities between February 1, 2019 and
April 5, 2022. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27446&wire=5

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

Amazon.com, Inc. NEWS - AMZN NEWS

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Amazon
during the relevant timeframe, you have until July 5, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27446&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.

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

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

AMERICAN FLOOR: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Paguada Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILENIA PAGUADA, and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. American Floor Mats,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01830-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a
civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows:

  -- All fact discovery shall be               Aug. 30, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production           June 1, 2022
     of documents to be served by:

  -- Depositions to be completed:              Aug. 30, 2022

  -- Requests to Admit to be                   June 1, 2022
     served no later than:

  -- All expert discovery shall be             Oct. 20, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- Next Case Management Conference           Sept. 14, 2022
     is scheduled for:

American Floor Mats provides online supply of matting products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wIi8VX at no extra charge.[CC]

ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Martinez, et al., Seek to Certify Four Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN MARTINEZ and PAUL
ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, v.
ANDERSON COUNTY; KARINA GARCIA, in her official apacity as ANDERSON
COUNTY BOND SUPERVISION OFFICER, Case No. 6:22-cv-00171-JCB-KNM
(E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying four separate classes.

The Plaintiffs expect significant overlap between members of the
four proposed classes, but separate certification is appropriate
given the differences between the claims made by each class and the
forms of relief sought.

   1. Main Damages Class

      "All persons who are or have been on pre-trial bond
      supervision in Anderson County and charged bond
      supervision and/or urinalysis fees."

   2. Indigent Damages Subclass

      "All indigent persons who are or have been on pre-trial
      bond supervision in Anderson County and charged bond
      supervision and/or urinalysis fees."

   3. Main Injunctive Class

      "All persons who are or will be on pre-trial bond
      supervision in Anderson County and charged bond
      supervision and/or urinalysis fees."

   4. Indigent Injunctive Subclass

      "All persons who are or have been on pre-trial bond
      supervision in Anderson County and charged bond
      supervision and/or urinalysis fees."

The Main Damages Class and the Indigent Damages Subclass are
together referred to as the "Damages Classes." The Main Injunctive
Class and the Indigent Injunctive Subclass are together referred to
as the "Injunctive Classes."

The Plaintiffs bring eight legal claims. The Main Damages Class
seeks damages under Counts One, Two, Three, and Seven. The Indigent
Damages Class seeks damages under Counts Four, Five, and Six. The
Main Injunctive Class seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under
Counts One, Two, Three, Seven, and Eight. The Indigent Injunctive
Class seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under Counts Four,
Five, and Six.

The Named Plaintiffs are appropriate representatives for all four
classes. Both Named Plaintiffs can adequately represent the Main
Damages Class because they have been charged pre-trial fees by the
Bond Office without a conviction and seek damages in the form of
returned fees. Because they are indigent, the Named Plaintiffs are
also appropriate representatives of the Indigent Damages Subclass.


The Named Plaintiffs are appropriate representatives for the Main
Injunctive Class because they are currently under supervision of
the Bond Office and seek injunctive and declaratory relief against
Defendants' unlawful practices. Being indigent, the Named
Plaintiffs also appropriately represent the Indigent Injunctive
Subclass.

This case challenges Anderson County’s collection of pre-trial
fees from individuals not convicted of any crime. As standard
operating procedure, Defendant Garcia collects $50 per month in
bond supervision fees on behalf of Anderson County from arrestees
released on bail before trial -- without considering ability to pay
or offering a waiver for individuals unable to pay. Defendant
Garcia also charges urinalysis fees without considering ability to
pay and employs questionnaires that violates individuals’ privacy
rights.

On behalf of all others subjected to bond supervision in Anderson
County, the Plaintiffs Cristian Martinez and Paul Estrada seek
class certification to challenge bond fees, urinalysis fees, and
use of the questionnaires. Because these pre-trial fees are charged
uniformly as a matter of county policy, common -- not individual --
issues of fact and law, as well as evidence and relief, abound.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 4, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wAQKZW at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Natasha Baker, Esq.
          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th St. NW, Suite 602
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: nbaker@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

               - and -

          Charles W. Nichols, Esq.
          Donald J. Larkin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES W. NICHOLS, P.C.
          617 E. Lacy St.
          Palestine, TX 75801
          Telephone: (903) 729-5104
          Facsimile: (903) 729-0347
          E-mail: cnichols@charleswnicholslaw.com
                  donald@charleswnicholslaw.com

ANGIES LIST: Pro Water's Application to Seal Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pro Water Solutions, Inc.
v. Angies List, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-08704-ODW-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order denying
as moot plaintiff's application to seal and granting defendants'
application to seal.

  -- Plaintiff's Application

     The Plaintiff filed an Application to file documents under
     seal in connection with its pending Motion for Class
     Certification. The Defendants respond by indicating that
     they do not contend that the subject documents should be
     filed under seal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Application
     to Seal is denied as moot, with the unredacted materials in
     remaining part of the unsealed record of the case.

  -- Defendants' Application

     The Defendant filed an Application to file documents under
     seal in connection with its opposition to class
     certification. The application is unopposed. The sealed
     materials comprise data relating to the amount and type of
     "contacts" received by Angi coupon advertisers. Defendants
     submit this material to help demonstrate that (1) coupon
     advertisers benefitted generally from Angi's business
     practices and (2) the frequency with which various coupon
     advertisers received contacts varies widely. Thus, they
     argue, a class member "would have to show that class
     member's particular purported devaluation outweighed what
     appear to be significant overall growth opportunities and
     enhanced ROI for coupon advertisers generally."

Prowaters is the water service provider of the Golden Horizon
Community, an 86-Hectare Integrated Lifestyle Development.

Angie's List provides Internet information and content.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NrCHv3 at no extra charge.[CC]


APHRIA INC: Court Certifies Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APHRIA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11376-GBD-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge George B.
Daniels entered an order:

   1. certifying the action to proceed as a class action
      pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class consisting of:

      "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Aphria securities on domestic exchanges or in
      domestic transactions between July 17, 2018 and April 12,
      2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby;"

      Excluded from the Class are: Aphria, Vic Neufeld, Carl
      Merton, Cole Cacciavillani, John Cervini, Andrew
      DeFrancesco, and SOL Global Investments Corp.
      (Defendants"); and Defendants' immediate family members,
      any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director or
      other individual or entity in which any Defendant has a
      controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated
      with any Defendant, and the legal representatives, agents,
      affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of
      any such excluded party. Also excluded from the Class is
      any Class Member who timely and validly requested
      exclusion;"

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff Shawn P. Cunix and Plaintiff
      Elizabeth Alexander as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel to the
      Class Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

Aphria, headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, is an international
producer and distributor of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
The company operates through retail and wholesale channels in
Canada and internationally.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39LPt9m at no extra charge.[CC]

APHRIA INC: Seeks to Vacate Class Cert. Order in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE APHRIA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11376-GBD-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants Aphria
Inc., Vic Neufeld, and Carl Merton ask the Court to vacate its
order granting class certification because their Opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion is not yet due.

Pursuant to Section 5 of the Joint Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and
Proposed Case Management Plan, so-ordered by the Court on November
8, 2021, the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify the Class is not due until May 31, 2022.

The Defendants have received document discovery from Plaintiffs,
and will take depositions relating to class certification over the
next few weeks prior to the Opposition deadline. Plaintiffs do not
oppose the requested relief on the basis that the parties agreed,
and the Court so-ordered, that Defendants' deadline to oppose the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is May 31, 2022.

Aphria headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, is an international
producer and distributor of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
The company operates through retail and wholesale channels in
Canada and internationally.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a4FUSU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alex Spiro, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL TRIAL LAWYERS | NEW YORK
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-1601
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com

APP OF NEW MEXICO: Appeals Remand Order in Lax Case
---------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lovelace Health System, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Brian Lax, Tracy Buron
Hahnlein, Werner Hahnlein, Jeremy Hader, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. APP of New Mexico ED,
PLLC formerly known as: AlignMD of New Mexico, PLLC, Lovelace
Health System, LLC, Case No. 1:20-CV-00264-SCY-JFR, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico-Albuquerque.

This case arises from alleged over-billing practices by Lovelace
Health System, LLC and APP of New Mexico ED, PLLC. The Plaintiffs
are former patients who sought treatment at a Lovelace facility and
allege they were overbilled by APP, a company that provides
emergency room physician and nurse practitioner staffing for
Lovelace facilities.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Lovelace and
APP in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court on February
11, 2020. On March 23, 2020, Defendant APP removed the action to
federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The Plaintiffs argue that the case should be remanded to state
court because Defendants have failed to establish that greater than
$5,000,000 is in controversy and because, even if it were, the
"local controversy exception" mandates that this lawsuit remain in
state court.

On October 5, 2020, Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough granted
Plaintiffs' request for limited discovery and took Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand under advisement.

On March 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough granted the Amended
Motion to Remand. The Defendants subsequently filed a motion to
stay the Court's remand order on March 21, 2022.

On April 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough granted Defendants'
Motion to Stay the Remand Order pending the Tenth Circuit's
resolution of Defendants' petitions for permission to appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as Lax, et al. v. Lovelace Health
System, Case No. 22-2058, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 10, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance were due on May 24, 2022 for Lovelace Health System,
LLC; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on May 24, 2022 for Tracy
Buron-Hahnlein, Jeremy Hader, Werner Hahnlein and Brian Lax.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants LOVELACE HEALTH SYSTEM, LLC and APP OF NEW
MEXICO ED, PLLC, FKA Alignmd of New Mexico, PLLC are represented
by:

          Jeremy Michael Bylund, Esq.
          Nicholas Mecsas-Faxon, Esq.
          Amy R. Upshaw, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 626-5455

               - and -

          Robert E. Hanson, Esq.
          Charles Robert Peifer, Esq.
          PEIFER, HANSON, MULLINS & BAKER
          P.O. Box 25245
          Albuquerque, NM 87125
          Telephone: (505) 247-4800
          E-mail: rhanson@peiferlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Alvarez, Esq.
          Brett M. Cornwell, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4545
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 754-8755
          E-mail: frank.alvarez@qpwblaw.com
                  brett.cornwell@qpwblaw.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN LAX, TRACY BURON-HAHNLEIN, WERNER
HAHNLEIN, and JEREMY HADER, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
          Nicholas Hagen Mattison, Esq.
          FEFERMAN & WARREN
          300 Central Avenue, SW, Suite 2000W
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 243-7773
          E-mail: rfeferman@msn.com

               - and -

          David C. Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. KRAMER
          P.O. Box 4662
          Albuquerque, NM 87196
          Telephone: (505) 545-8105
          E-mail: david.c.kramer@swcp.com

APPLE INC: Aug. 4 Final iCloud Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNET reports that Apple is required to pay a total of $14.8 million
to certain customers as part of a settlement of a class-action
lawsuit. This means that if you paid for an iCloud Plus
subscription between some specific dates in 2015 and 2016, Apple
might owe you money.

The lawsuit alleged that Apple stored iCloud subscribers' data on
third-party servers without informing them. The free version of
Apple iCloud comes with 5GB of storage, but additional space
requires a paid iCloud Plus subscription. Plaintiffs in Williams v.
Apple alleged that Apple made no mention of outside servers in its
marketing materials or terms and conditions. (The current iCloud
customer agreement does refer to third-party servers.)

Though Apple did not admit to wrongdoing, the company agreed to the
settlement in January. A final approval hearing is slated for Aug.
4, but a May 23 deadline to ask to be excluded from the settlement
-- and to retain your right to sue Apple -- is quickly
approaching.

Here's what you need to know about the Apple iCloud settlement,
including how to know if you're eligible, how you'll be paid and
how much you can expect to receive.

What was Apple accused of?
Plaintiffs in Williams v. Apple allege the company failed to store
customer data on its own servers. Instead, according to court
filings, the company distributed data among third-party cloud
services like Amazon Web Services, Google and Microsoft's Azure
platform -- a violation of Apple's own iCloud contract.

The plaintiffs claim Apple "lacked the necessary infrastructure" to
run iCloud and misrepresented the nature of its service, "merely
reselling cloud storage space on cloud facilities of other
entities."

Customers wouldn't have paid for a subscription if they knew Apple
wasn't providing storage directly, they claim, or they would have
expected to pay a lot less. The alleged misrepresentation allowed
Apple "to charge a premium for its iCloud service because
subscribers placed a value on having the 'Apple' brand as the
provider of the storage service," according to the suit.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Who is eligible to be part of the iCloud settlement?
The settlement includes US residents who paid for an iCloud Plus
subscription any time between Sept. 16, 2015, and Jan. 31, 2016,
and had a US mailing address associated with their account.

How do I find out if I qualify?
You don't have to do anything, really. As long as the email you
used to sign up for iCloud Plus storage is still active, you should
receive a notification that you are an eligible recipient, or
"class member."

How much can I receive in the settlement?
The exact amount of individual payments depends on how much storage
you paid for, how long you had your subscription and the total
number of people participating in the claim.

Don't expect to retire on the payout, though: Between 2015 and
2016, an iCloud subscription ranged from 99 cents for 50GB of cloud
space to 200GB for $2.99 to $9.99 for 1TB of space.

In 2018, CNBC reported that there were 170 million paid iCloud Plus
subscribers globally, so individual payouts could amount to a few
dollars.

How will I be paid if I qualify?
Class members will receive payment automatically. If you still have
a monthly iCloud Plus subscription, your payment will appear as a
credit on your Apple account.

If you no longer have a monthly iCloud subscription you will
receive a physical check in the mail. Class members can also
request their payment through an electronic transfer directly into
their bank account.

When is the deadline to opt out?
If you want to retain the right to be part of another lawsuit
against Apple over its iCloud Plus subscription service, you have
until Monday, May 23, to ask to be excluded from the class
settlement.

But If you do, you give up the right to get a payment if this
settlement is approved.

You can also object to the settlement by writing to the court by
Monday. If the settlement is approved by the court, you may still
be able to receive a class payment.

In other settlement-related news, you can find out if you qualify
for Intuit's $141 TurboTax settlement, get details on student loan
company Navient's $1.86B settlement and learn more about the $58
million settlement reached with Plaid, a service connecting
consumers' bank accounts to apps such as Venmo, Betterment,
Robinhood and Acorn.

First published on May 10, 2022 at 9:47 a.m. PT. [GN]

ARQIT QUANTUM: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on May 18 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Arqit Quantum, Inc. ("Arqit" or the "Company"). The class action is
on behalf of shareholders who purchased Arqit securities between
September 7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). To serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
move the Court no later than July 5, 2022.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a substantial
loss and are interested in learning more about being a lead
plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by
email or phone at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone
number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/arqit-class-action-complaint-filed-submit-your-arqq-losses-to-johnson-fistel-s

There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
and in the Proxy Statement issued in connection to the Merger made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread
adoption of new protocols and standards of for telecommunications;
(2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of
Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (3)
the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather,
providing grants to Arqit; (4) Arqit had little more than an
early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the
Merger; 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.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Arqit class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Arqit class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Kot Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as Gregorz Kot,
Agnieszka Warchol, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of
New Hyde Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New
Hyde Park, Respondents, Case No. 606570/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., May 18, 2022).

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

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

The Petitioners are represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
          132 SPRUCE STREET
          CEDARHURST, NY 11516


AURORA, CO: May 31 Extension to File Class Cert Replies Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY MINTER, et al., on
behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF
AURORA, COLORADO, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02172-RMR-NYW (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion For extension of time to file replies in support of
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, by 21 days, up to
and including May 31, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' filed their motion for class certification on March
3, 2022. After securing extensions of time from the Court, the
Defendants filed their Responses to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on April 25, 2022.

By operation of the rule, the Plaintiffs' replies in support of
their Motion for Class Certification are due on or before May 9,
2022.

The Plaintiffs require an additional 21 days to complete and file
their replies in support of their Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs require an additional 21 days to complete and file
their replies due to Defendants' extensive briefing in this matter.
Plaintiffs are required to prepare and file their replies to two
separate responses to the Motion for Class Certification that total
close to 60 pages.

The City of Aurora is a home rule municipality located in Arapahoe,
Adams, and Douglas counties, Colorado.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yRjWNy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andy McNulty, Esq.
          Mari Newman, Esq.
          KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
          1543 Champa St., Ste. 400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 571-1000
          Facsimile: (303) 571-1001
          E-mail: mnewman@kln-law.com
                  amcnulty@kln-lw.com

AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 17
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AXSM) between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 12, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Axsome class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2221 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Axsome's chemistry, manufacturing, and control ("CMC")
practices were deficient with respect to AXS-07 and its
manufacturing process; (2) as a result, Axsome was unlikely to
submit the AXS-07 New Drug Application ("NDA") on its initially
represented timeline; (3) the foregoing CMC issues remained
unresolved at the time that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") reviewed the AXS-07 NDA; (4) accordingly, the FDA was
unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA; (5) as a result of all the
foregoing, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's regulatory and commercial
prospects; and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Axsome class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2221 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over Hearthstone Card Packs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Carpenter, writing for Polygon, reports that earlier this
year, Hearthstone developer Blizzard Entertainment won its fight to
keep its Overwatch loot box lawsuit out of court, forcing the
matter intro arbitration. Months later, another parent -- on behalf
of a minor -- is looking to sue the company, this time regarding
Hearthstone card packs.

According to court documents, Nathan Harris, from Arizona, and his
lawyers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in California court
in early May on behalf of his child, suggesting that Hearthstone's
card pack system deceives players, particularly minors, into making
a non-refundable purchase. In the complaint, Harris' lawyer says
the minor spent more than $300 playing Hearthstone from 2019 to
2021, using her father's linked credit and debit cards without
permission. The lawyer argues that the minor didn't know the odds
of getting good cards, and didn't know she couldn't get a refund.
Apparently, she "almost never received any valuable cards,"
according to the lawsuit.

Card packs in Hearthstone function a lot like loot boxes, which
have repeatedly been litigated in court and by the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission. Hearthstone players are able to play the game for
free, but have the option of buying card packs to obtain new cards
-- hopefully powerful or rare cards.

Harris' lawyer suggests minors have the right to "disaffirm
contracts," i.e., get out of them or get a refund, under California
Family Code. The complaint also takes issue with Blizzard
Entertainment not disclosing odds for these packs, as well as its
failure to implement "parental control features," and the right for
minors and their parents to get a refund. Harris and his lawyer are
asking to court to award the case class-action status, meaning it
could include any minors who've ever purchased a Hearthstone card
pack with real money. That'd be "hundreds, if not thousands," of
people, according to the complaint.

Blizzard responded to the complaint on May 17 with a filing of its
own, seeking to move the case from the California State Superior
Court in Orange County to the United States District Court in
California's central district, which it says has jurisdiction. To
argue that case, Blizzard's lawyers revealed that Hearthstone has
made more than $1 billion in revenue since it launched in 2014. It
said this, of course, to demonstrate that Hearthstone has a huge
player base, and that there's no way to known whether minors have
made purchases with or without parental consent. Though Blizzard
disputes the complaint, it suggests the damages in a proposed class
action would exceed $5 million -- a fact it needed to prove to get
the case moved to the new court.

Blizzard's previous loot box lawsuit -- the Overwatch one --
ultimately ended in its favor, successfully moving the case to
arbitration, arguing that the minor in question had repeatedly
agreed to arbitration per Overwatch's user agreements. The
Hearthstone lawsuit argues that those agreements aren't valid when
they're agreed to by minors. Epic Games settled a similar lawsuit
in 2021, after it was sued over its "loot llamas" that contained
randomized items. Any Fortnite player that purchased a loot llama
before the system was removed got 1,000 V-Bucks. Rocket League
players, too, were awarded 1,000 credits to anyone who purchased
loot boxes in that game, too. (Epic Games has owned Rocket League
developer Psyonix since 2019.) Epic Games entirely removed
blind-draw loot boxes from Fortnite in 2019. The settlement also
included $26.4 million for refunds for minors -- available in $50
cash or 13,500 V-Bucks.

Neither Activision Blizzard nor Harris' lawyer have responded to
Polygon's request for comment. [GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Dixey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER DIXEY v. B.P. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-4320 (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP American
Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s motion for summary judgment and
dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint.

I. Background

The case arises from Plaintiff Dixey's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she assisted in the cleanup of
the Deepwater Horizon spill. Dixey asserts that, as part of this
work, she was exposed to harmful chemicals, including crude oil,
oil-dispersing chemicals, and decontaminants. She asserts that this
exposure has resulted in "dizziness, nausea, headaches, sinus
problems, eye irritation, rashes, skin lesions and various
pulmonary issues." Dixey additionally asserts that as a result of
the exposure she was "seriously injured" and has lost her ability
to work.

Ms. Dixey's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. It was
severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who
either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Dixey is a
plaintiff who opted out of the settlement.

After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to the
Court. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order that
established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to the defense
counsel by no later than April 1, 2022.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that, because
the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, she is
unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff has not
filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants, as
a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. The Defendants contend
that the Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants
was the legal cause of her alleged injuries, and thus that she
cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against the
Defendants.

In a toxic torts case, "scientific knowledge of the harmful level
of exposure to a chemical, plus knowledge that the plaintiff was
exposed to such quantities, are minimal facts necessary to sustain
the plaintiffs' burden." And in cases, like the present one, where
"the conclusion regarding medical causation is not one within
common knowledge, expert medical testimony is required to prove
causation."

In the present case, Judge Vance finds that there is no indication
that the Plaintiff has retained an expert to provide testimony at
trial to establish causation. Nor is there an indication that she
will present expert testimony from her treating physician. The
Plaintiff did not make any expert disclosures by the Court-ordered
deadline, nor did she move for an extension. Without medical expert
testimony, Judge Vance holds taht the Plaintiff is unable to carry
her burden on causation. Because the Plaintiff cannot prove a
necessary element of her claims against the Defendants, her claims
must be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vance grants the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ynkrw4ky from Leagle.com.


CARVANA CO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Simms, writing for WBALTV, reports that a Harford County man
bought a car online from Carvana, but the sweet deal turned sour
when he couldn't get the car registered in Maryland.

A tow truck repossessed Jo Riedel's SUV. He expected it to happen
after he told the car dealer, "I'm not going to make any more
payments on this vehicle."

Riedel, of Aberdeen, said he couldn't legally drive his 2017
Mitsubishi Outlander because it was never properly registered.

"It's been a full year of just needless headache and feeling of
being ripped off and extra stress on our family that we don't
need," Riedel said.

He bought the car from Carvana, the company with the giant car
vending machines. The company's ads attract customers looking for
an innovative online way to purchase vehicles.

"The buying process seemed a lot more streamlined. So, I was
actually optimistic at that point," Riedel said.

But when the car arrived, he noticed something odd.

"I did notice that the temporary tags from the dealership said
'Carvana,' but they were from Georgia, which I found a bit
interesting because I live in Maryland," Riedel said.

When the 30-day tag expired, Riedel said Carvana sent him another
30-day tag, which also expired.

"When I started complaining about not getting the tags after 90
days, they said that there was something wrong with the initial
paperwork," Riedel said.

He said he sent new paperwork but still never got a title,
registration or permanent license plates.

"I really was reluctant to drive it without legal tags because I
know that you get pulled over," Riedel said.

Riedel said it got to the point he would only drive to take his
three young children to school.

"I basically, you know, was taking, like, back roads where I didn't
think the police would be. I felt like a moonshiner in the
Appalachians, you know? Just, like, sneaking around, sort of 'Dukes
of Hazzard' like," Riedel said.

He did get stopped, and Cecil County sheriff's deputies gave him a
ticket.

"I was pulled over twice, and one time, he's like, 'You can't drive
the car illegally," Riedel said.

Class-action suit filed in Pennsylvania
Attorney Phillip Robinson said hundreds of others complain about
similar experiences.

"He didn't buy the car in Georgia -- he doesn't live in Georgia --
but they're sending him temporary tags from Georgia. That doesn't
sound correct to me," Robinson said.

Robinson is one of the lawyers representing Carvana customers east
of the Mississippi River in a class-action suit filed in
Pennsylvania. He said the potential class includes Maryland
residents who bought cars from Carvana since Nov. 5, 2019.

"We have a lot of people struggling right now. They do not need
this hassle that they went and bought a car, they expected to get
their permanent tags in 30 days, but they didn't," Robinson said.

The lawsuit alleges violations under Pennsylvania's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming Carvana vehicles are
arriving with temporary tags from other states.

The lawsuit states: "Carvana's failure to timely register the cars
as it promised and received money to do -- sometimes for a period
exceeding two years -- causes consumers to be questioned and
sometimes arrested by law enforcement while driving the temporarily
registered cars."

Complaints cite title, registration problems
By law, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration told the 11 News
I-Team, the agency can't disclose how many Carvana complaints it
has received. The Maryland Attorney General's Office received 20
complaints over the last two years, about half of which are about
title and registration problems.

The 11 News I-Team also discovered Carvana settled two
administrative complaints brought by the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in 2021 for a total of $14,000
over alleged delays of over a month in transferring titles to
consumers. Also, Carvana entered a settlement over similar issues
that temporarily suspended it from operating a dealership in
Raleigh, North Carolina, for six months.

"We don't think it's right (Carvana) should keep the money for
services it didn't perform," Robinson said.

The lawsuit also calls for punitive damages.

The 11 News I-Team reached out to Carvana and its legal team for
comment but did not hear back.

Carvana denies liability in court filings
In court filings, Carvana "denies any and all liability and
contends that plaintiffs' allegations are entirely without merit."

Robinson said the suit is filed in Pennsylvania because he doesn't
think Carvana's arbitration clause is enforceable there. Carvana is
fighting that and wants the class action dismissed. A hearing is
scheduled for June 7 (updated).

In a new development, the state of Illinois confirmed it recently
suspended Carvana's dealership license for misuse of issuing
out-of-state temporary registration permits and failing to transfer
titles. A state official told the 11 News I-Team the suspension
will remain until the issues are resolved.

For Riedel, walking is now his main mode of transportation.

"I'm walking about three miles a day," Riedel said.

Once this dispute is settled, Riedel said he hopes to buy another
car -- not online, but from a more traditional dealer. [GN]

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that a recent Sixth Circuit
decision caught my eye because it addressed an important issue on
which I have not seen any other appellate decisions (and none were
cited in the opinion). The plaintiff argued that the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) should be interpreted as overriding the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), effectively precluding the enforcement of
class action waiver provisions in consumer contracts. The Sixth
Circuit rejected the argument, finding no clear congressional
intent to displace the FAA.

In Adell v. Cellco Partnership, No. 21-3570, 2022 WL 1487765 (6th
Cir. May 11, 2022), the plaintiff brought a putative class action
involving a Verizon Wireless mobile phone contract, claiming that a
monthly administrative charge of about $1 was not permitted by the
contract. The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which
the district court granted. The arbitrator ruled for the defendant,
the district court confirmed the award, and the plaintiff
appealed.

The plaintiff argued that "CAFA guaranteed her right to federal
adjudication of her claim," asserting support for this position in
the statutorily-expressed purpose of CAFA and its legislative
history. She also argued that Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.
Ct. 1612 (2018), which held that the National Labor Relations Act
did not displace the FAA in the employment context, supported her
position.

The Sixth Circuit rejected the argument, noting that courts
construing two statutes should give effect to both when possible.
Construing one statute as displacing another is generally
appropriate only if there is "clear and manifest congressional
intention" to do so. The Sixth Circuit explained that "CAFA
undoubtedly discusses class actions, but it neither mentions
arbitration nor offers the 'clear and manifest congressional
intention' signaling FAA displacement." While CAFA's "findings and
purposes" "express the importance of class action lawsuits . . .
[t]hese are not clear statements displacing the FAA." The court
also found no support for the plaintiff's position in CAFA's
legislative history. [GN]

CHRISTENSEN BROTHERS: Hernandez FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Severo John Hernandez, Umeet Nand, Kristofer
Barr, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Christensen Brothers General Engineering, Inc., Caleb Christensen,
Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2107947 was removed from the
San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on May 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-AB-SP to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Christensen Brothers General Engineering, Inc. is a construction
company based in Apple Valley, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Johnson Brown, Esq.
          Ethan Capell Surls, Esq.
          STANSBURY BROWN LAW
          2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Boulevard
          Venice, CA 90291
          Phone: (323) 207-5925
          Email: dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com
                 esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Sam K. Kim, Esq.
          Yoonis J. Han, Esq.
          VERUM LAW GROUP APC
          841 Apollo Street Suite 340
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Phone: (424) 320-2000
          Fax: (424) 221-5010
          Email: skim@verumlg.com
                 yhan@verumlg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John T. Egley, Esq.
          Christopher C. Scheithauer, Esq.
          CALL AND JENSEN PC
          610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 717-3000
          Fax: (949) 717-3100
          Email: jegley@calljensen.com
                 cscheithauer@calljensen.com


CITATION COLLECTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due July 29
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN NAYA v. CITATION
COLLECTION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-21255-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an amended order setting
trial and pre-trial schedule, requiring mediation, and referring
certain matters to Magistrate Judge, as follows:

  -- The parties shall select a mediator         May 25, 2022
     in accordance with Local Rule 16.2;
     schedule a time, date, and place for
     mediation; and jointly file a
     proposed order scheduling mediation
     in the form specified on the Court's
     website, http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov.

  -- All motions to amend pleadings or         June 15, 2022
     join parties are filed:

  -- Parties exchange expert witness           June 29, 2022
     summaries or reports on issues of
     class certification:

  -- Parties exchange rebuttal expert          July 13, 2022
     witness summaries or reports on
     issues of class certification:

  -- Deadline for completing class             July 20, 2022
     certification discovery:

  -- Plaintiff files motion for class          July 29, 2022
     certification:

  -- Parties exchange expert witness           August 15, 2022
     summaries or reports:

  -- Parties exchange rebuttal expert          August 29, 2022
     witness summaries or reports.
  -- All discovery, including expert          September 12, 2022
     discovery, is completed:

  -- Parties must have completed              September 20, 2022
     mediation and filed a mediation
     report:

  -- All pre-trial motions and Daubert        September 27, 2022
     motions (which include motions
     to strike experts) are filed:

Citation Collection is a collection agency located in Indianapolis,
Indiana.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G9Tv7E at no extra charge.[CC]

COACHELLA VALLEY: Wu Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUN WU, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUIXUE SHI, aka
SERENA SHI, an individual, COACHELLA VALLEY HOTEL, LLC a California
limited liability company, HYDE MORGAN DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-11799-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3):

   1. certifying the claims for relief to proceed to trial as a
      class action and appointing him to serve as a Class
      Representative of the following class:

      "All persons who invested in the "Palm Springs Luxury
      Hotel Investment Project" by way of a Resort Condominium
      Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Purchase Agreement");"

      Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendants, their
      affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, board members,
      directors, officers, and/or employees; the Court and its
      staff; and any investor in the Coachella. The foregoing
      exclusionary language does not apply to any person who
      signed a "Termination Agreement" offered by Defendants to
      cancel their investment in the Project; and

   2. appointing Jeffrey L. Fazio of DeHeng Law Office PC to
      serve as Class Counsel  pursuant to Rule 23(g) and to
      direct notice to members of the Class pursuant to Rule
      23(c).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wArOl5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Andre Y. Bates, Esq.
          Yi Yao, Esq.
          DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC
          7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208
          Pleasanton, CA 94588
          Telephone: (925) 399-5856
          Facsimile: (925) 397-1976
          E-mail: aybates@dehengsv.com
                  yyao@dehengsv.com

COHNREZNICK LLP: Settlement Class in James Gets Provisional Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVONNA JAMES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Cohnreznick LLP, Case No. 1:21-cv-06544-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of the following:

  1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only

     For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Federal Rule
     of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court
     provisionally certifies a Settlement Class in this matter
     defined as follows:

     "All natural persons residing in the United States who were
     notified by CohnReznick on behalf of Genesis of the Data
     Incident."

     The Settlement Class includes approximately 2,219 people.
     The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) CohnReznick
     and its officers and directors; (i) CohnReznick and its
     officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members
     who timely and validly request exclusion from the
     Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the
     fairness of this settlement; and (iv) any other Person
     found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty
     under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or
     abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data
     Incident or who pleads nolo contendre to any such charge.

     Moreover, for settlement purposes only and pursuant to
     Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and (e), the Court
     provisionally certifies a California Settlement Subclass in
     this matter defined as follows: All members of the
     Settlement Class who reside in the State of California. The
     Settlement Class and California Settlement Subclass are not
     co-extensive; i.e., the California Settlement Subclass
     represents a portion of the Settlement Class.


  2. Settlement Class Representative and Settlement Class
     Counsel

     Davonna James is hereby provisionally designated and
     appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. The
     Court provisionally finds that the Settlement Class
     Representative is similarly situated to absent Class
     Members and therefore typical of the Class and that she
     will be an adequate Settlement Class Representative.

  3. Preliminary Settlement Approval.

     Upon preliminary review, the Court concludes and finds that
     the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
     to warrant providing Notice of the Settlement to the
     Settlement Class and accordingly is preliminarily approved.

  4. Administration

     The Court appoints Postlethwaite & Netterville (P&N) as
     the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class
     notice and claims administration and to fulfill the duties
     of the Settlement Administrator set forth in the Settlement
     Agreement. CohnReznick shall pay all costs and expenses
     associated with providing notice to Settlement Class
     Members including, but not limited to, the Settlement
     Administrator's fees, as well as the costs associated with
     administration of the Settlement.

  5. Claims Referee.
  
     The Court appoints Rodney A. Max as Claims Referee.

  6. Notice to the Class

     The proposed Notice Program set forth in the Settlement
     Agreement, and the Claim Form, Short-Form Notice, and Long-
     Form Notice.

  7. Exclusion from Class

     Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from
     the Settlement Class must mail a written notification of
     the intent to exclude himself or herself from the
     Settlement Class to the Settlement Administrator at the
     address provided in the Notice, postmarked no later than 60
     Days from the date of this Order. The written notification
     must include the individual’s full name, address, and
     telephone number; an unequivocal statement that he or she
     wants to be excluded from the Settlement Class; and the
     original signature of the individual or a person previously
     authorized by law, to act on behalf of the individual with
     respect to the claims asserted in this Action.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQo7BP at no extra charge.[CC]

CREDIT SUISSE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 19 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between March 19, 2021 and March 25, 2022.

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

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Credit Suisse Group Ag
includes allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Credit
Suisse had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse's
practice of lending money to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and
international sanctions created a significant risk of violating
rules pertaining to those sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to an increased risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iv) the
Securitization Deal, in which Credit Suisse sold off $80 million
worth of risk related to a $2 billion portfolio of loans backed by
assets owned by certain of the bank's ultra-high net worth clients,
concerned loans that Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs
previously sanctioned by the U.S.; (v) the purpose of the
Securitization Deal was to offload the risks associated with these
loans and mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely
to be implemented by Western nations in response to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse's request that
non-participating investors destroy documents related to the
Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the Company's
noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in its lending
practices; (vii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and significant
reputational harm; and (viii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

DEADLINE: June 28, 2022

Aggrieved Credit Suisse Group Ag investors only have until June 28,
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

URL: http://wongesq.com[GN]

CVS HEALTH: Order on Pretrial & Trial Deadlines Entered in Mier
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MIER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH,
Rhode Island corporation and CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island
corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS (CS),  the Hon. Judge
David O. Carter entered an order on the Parties' stipulation
regarding request to vacate pretrial and trial deadlines as
follows:

   1) All pretrial deadlines and the trial date are vacated
      pending resolution of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification and for Appointment of Class Counsel,
      Defendants' pending Motions to Exclude, and Defendants'
      Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Partial
      Summary Judgment;

   2) Within 14 days after the Court issues an order deciding
      Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification and
      Defendants' pending Motions to Exclude, Defendants shall
      file a revised summary judgment motion or, alternatively,
      inform Plaintiff's counsel and the Court that Defendants
      do not intend to pursue a revised summary judgment motion;
      and

   3) Within 10 days after the Court issues an order deciding
      Defendants' summary judgment motion, or 10 days after
      Defendants inform Plaintiff's counsel and the Court that
      Defendants do not intend to pursue a revised summary
      judgment motion, the Parties shall meet and confer
      regarding the scheduling order and submit a joint status
      report proposing new pretrial and trial dates, if any.

CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS
Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy
benefits manager; and Aetna, a health insurance provider, among
many other brands.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38J5c8X at no extra charge.[CC]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Dismiss Zorgani Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOHAMED MEDHI ZORGANI and SOUKAINA LAASIRI, Plaintiffs
v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendant, Civ. Action No. 17-2360
(EGS) (D.D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia:

    (i) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Partial
        Motion to Dismiss; and

   (ii) denies the Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary
        Judgment.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Zorgani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Ms. Laasiri bring the action against Defendants
District of Columbia; Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"); former
Director of DMV Lucinda Babers in her individual capacity; and
employees of the District and DMV John and Jane Does 1-9. The
Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants due to the allegedly
wrongful suspension of Mr. Zorgani's license.

The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on April 24, 2019,
containing the following Counts: (1) Count I for negligence against
the District, Ms. Babers in her individual capacity, and Jane and
John Doe DMV employees; (2) Count II for violation of statute
against the District, Ms. Babers in her individual capacity, and
Jane and John Doe DMV employees; (3) Count III for violation of
Section 1983: (a) against Ms. Babers in her individual capacity and
against individual Jane and John Doe employees; (b)
failure-to-train claim against the District; and (c)
policy-or-custom claim against the District; and (4) loss of
consortium.

Pending before the Court is Defendants the District and former DMV
Director Babers' Partial Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion for
Summary Judgment. They move to dismiss: (1) all claims against the
DMV; (2) negligence and Section 1983 claims against Ms. Babers; (3)
Mr. Zorgani's and Ms. Laasiri's loss of consortium claim; and (4)
the Section 1983 failure-to-train claim against the District. The
Defendants seek summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' Section 1983
policy-or-custom claim against the District. They also argue that
the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action claims.

II. Analysis

A. Defendant DMV is dismissed as Non Sui Juris

The Defendants seek dismissal of the DMV as non sui juris,
explaining that the DMV is a non-suable agency and the Plaintiffs
agree to the dismissal. Accordingly, Judge Sullivan dismissed the
DMV as a party to the action. The Clerk of Court is directed to
dismiss the DMV from the case.

B. The Section 1983 and Negligence Claims Against Ms. Babers in Her
Individual Capacity Are Outside of the Statue of Limitations

Judge Sullivan grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to the
claims against Ms. Babers in her individual capacity. The
Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against Ms. Babers accrued by Nov.
8, 2014, the day Mr. Zorgani was arrested and informed that his
license had been suspended. The statute of limitations on those
claims ran three years later, on Nov. 8, 2017. Thus, the statute of
limitations expired nearly a year and a half before the Plaintiffs
named Ms. Babers in her individual capacity in the Amended
Complaint filed on April 24, 2019.

The Amended Complaint contains no allegations regarding Ms. Babers'
role with respect to the automated suspension policy becoming a
matter of public knowledge in the summer of 2018. Nor do the
documents necessarily incorporated into the Amended Complaint and
attached to Plaintiffs' opposition briefing support their argument
that they learned of her role in the automated suspension policy in
the summer of 2018. Because the Plaintiffs failed to allege the
date upon which they claim that their claim against Ms. Babers
accrued, the Defendants are entitled to prevail on their statute of
limitations argument based on "the face of the Plaintiff's
complaint."

Judge Sullivan also finds that the Plaintiffs' negligence claim
against Ms. Babers also accrued by Nov. 8, 2014. While Mr. Zorgani
might not have known the precise mechanism by which the DMV had
wrongfully suspended his license, he clearly had "some evidence" of
the tortious acts that caused his injury. A simple review of the
D.C. Code would have revealed Ms. Babers' possible role in this
suspension; indeed, each count in the Plaintiffs' original
Complaint refers to these regulations.

Last, Judge Sullivan finds that the Amended Complaint does not
relate back to the original Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
The Plaintiffs do not argue that the failure to name Ms. Babers was
a "slip of the pen." Furthermore, Ms. Babers cannot be held to have
known/should have known that she would be added as a named
defendant in her individual capacity in view of the fact that the
original Complaint contains allegations about the Director and
employees of the DMV but did not name her individually.

C. Plaintiffs' Section 1983 Claims

The Plaintiffs sue Defendants on two Section 1983 theories. First,
they allege that the Defendants failed to train employees at the
DMV to take certain actions, such as providing additional notice,
when suspending driver's licenses in cases where those drivers paid
their tickets and late fines after the 60-day window had expired.
Second, they allege that the Defendants have a policy or custom of
automatically suspending driver's licenses after 60 days,
regardless of late payments and without any notice of opportunity
to be heard.

The Defendants move to dismiss the failure-to-train claim and move
for summary judgment on the policy or custom claim.

Judge Sullivan grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
failure-to-train claim and denies their Motion for Summary Judgment
as to the Plaintiffs' policy-or-custom claim. He opines that (i)
the Plaintiffs have stated a claim for a predicate constitutional
violation; (ii) the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that the
District was "Deliberately indifferent"; (iii) the Defendants are
not entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
policy-or-custom claim; (iv) the Plaintiffs have adequately stated
a claim for loss of consortium by Ms. Laasiri; (v) it is premature
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' class action claims; and (vi) the
Plaintiffs' generic "Violation of Statute" claim does not establish
a cause of action.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sullivan grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and denies the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Pending the Court's
determination on the supplementary briefing on the violation of
statue claim, the following claims may proceed: (1) negligence
claim against the District; (2) policy-or-custom Section 1983 claim
against the District; and (3) loss of consortium claim by Ms.
Laasiri. An appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3hw5zt2f from Leagle.com.


ENERGY GROUP: Arbitrage Fund, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the complaint re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Securities Class
Action, Case No. 1:20-cv-00275-MN-JLH (D. Del.), the Lead
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g):

      "all persons and entities who held Class A common stock of
      Pattern Energy Group Inc. as of the January 31, 2020
      record date for the merger with Canada Pension Plan
      Investment Board ("Merger") and were entitled to vote on
      the Merger, excluding the Defendants, their immediate
      families and trusts and investment vehicles operated by
      them or for their benefit, and excluding Riverstone
      Holdings LLC and its affiliates, CBRE Caledon Capital
      Management and its affiliates, the Public Sector Pension
      Investment Board and its affiliates and any person or
      entity that received a legal or beneficial ownership
      interest in the surviving new entity that emerged from the
      Merger;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing their Lead Counsel Entwistle & Cappucci LLP as
      Class Counsel and Farnan LLP as Liaison Counsel for the
      Class.

The Lead Plaintiffs include The Arbitrage Fund; Water Island Merger
Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Fund, LP; Morningstar
Alternatives Fund a series of Morningstar Funds Trust; Litman
Gregory Masters Alternative Strategies Fund; Columbia Multi-Manager
Alternative Strategies Fund; Water Island Diversified Event-Driven
Fund; Water Island LevArb Fund, LP; and Water Island Long/Short
Fund.

Pattern Energy is an American company that develops, owns and
operates utility scale wind and solar power facilities in the
United States, Canada, and Japan. It is headquartered in San
Francisco, California with an operations center in Houston, Texas.

A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LBRstS at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
                  bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          500 W. 2 nd Street, Suite 1900
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 710-5960
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Vincent R. Cappuccim, Esq.
          Arthur V. Nealon, Esq.
          Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Beemer, Esq.
          Jessica A. Margulis, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
                  anealon@entwistle-law.com
                  bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com
                  jbeemer@entwistle-law.com
                  jmargulis@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  kpachman@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500
          Facsimile: (646) 851-0076
          E-mail: ckupka@fksfirm.com

FCA US: Kheel Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alan Kheel, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 22STCV12935 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03376 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Account
Receivable.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 282-2500
          Fax: (310) 282-2501
          Email: kriccomini@thompsoncoburn.com


FEIN & SUCH: Settlement Class in Perez Suit Gets Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOCELYN PEREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN &
SHEPARD, P.C.; THE ACCOUNTS RETRIEVABLE SYSTEM INC. d/b/a ARS, LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. e 2:20-cv-03809-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Andre M. Espinosa entered a conditional order as follows:

  -- Certification of a Settlement Class

     CLASS A - All New Jersey consumers who FEIN SUCH LAW
               collected or attempted to collect a debt from,
               which was owned by ARS.

     CLASS B - All New Jersey consumers who were sent initial
               letters and/or notices from FEIN SUCH LAW in an
               attempt to collect on a judgment where interest,
               costs and/or fees were still accruing on the
               judgment, but the initial letters and/or notices
               failed to advise that the balance was subject to
               increase.

  -- Conditional Approval

     The Court conditionally approves the Settlement Agreement
     dated Mar. 21, 2022 and subject to any objections that may
     be presented to the Court prior to the Settlement Hearing,
     finds that the terms and conditions of the Settlement
     Agreement are fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best
     interests of the Class.

  -- Class Notice

     The Court approves of the form and content of the initial
     Notice.

  -- Fairness Hearing

     A Fairness Hearing will be held at the United States
     District Court, District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King
     Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom MLK
     2D, New Jersey 07102, on September 15, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.

  -- Exclusion from the Class

     Any Class Member may seek to be excluded from the
     Settlement.

  -- Deadline for Opt-Outs

     To be legally effective, all requests for exclusion, must
     be post-marked on or before 90 days after the date of this
     Condition Order, or August 3, 2022.

  -- Deadline for Objections

     Class Member Objections must be delivered to Class Counsel
     and Defendants' Counsel and filed with the Court on or
     before September 1 2022. Objections not filed and served in
     a timely manner shall be deemed waived.

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard is a law firm that provides legal
services in New Jersey and New York.

Accounts Retrievable Systems is a New York judgment collection,
commercial collections and consumer recovery serving clients
worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wC1asf at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 11 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on May 19 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against First High-School Education Group Co., Ltd.
("First High-School" or the "Company") (NYSE: FHS) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired First High-School securities pursuant to the Company's
March 12, 2021 IPO, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 11, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

First High-School Education provides tutoring services and operates
private high schools in Western China. In the week immediately
prior to the IPO -- from March 4, 2021 through
March 11, 2021 -- China held its annual "Two Sessions"
parliamentary meetings, where the two main political bodies of
China meet, discuss, and reveal plans for China's policies
involving the economy, military, trade, diplomacy, education, the
environment, and other issues. Unbeknownst to investors until after
the IPO, Chinese government leaders in attendance at the Two
Sessions meetings had proposed -- and ultimately adopted --
stringent regulations governing the educational industry with
material adverse repercussions for First High-School Education's
business, operations, and financial prospects.

Specifically, the First High-School Education class action lawsuit
alleges that the IPO's Registration Statement made inaccurate
statements of material fact because defendants failed to disclose
the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO:
(i) that the new rules, regulations, and policies to be implemented
by the Chinese government following the Two Sessions parliamentary
meetings were far more severe than represented to investors and
posed a material adverse threat to First High-School Education and
its business; (ii) that contemplated Chinese regulations and rules
regarding private education were leading to a slowdown of
government approval to open new educational facilities which would
have a negative effect on First High-School Education's enrollment
and growth; and (iii) that, as a result, the Registration
Statement's representations regarding First High-School Education's
historical financial and operational metrics and purported market
opportunities did not accurately reflect the actual business,
operations, and financial results and trajectory of First
High-School Education at the time of the IPO, and were materially
false and misleading and lacked a factual basis.

Soon after the IPO, media reports stated that attendees of the Two
Sessions conference had proposed stricter regulations to rein in
the for-profit education industry, such as regulations aimed at
enhancing teacher quality, limiting fee scams, reducing market
abuse, and reducing the stress that for-profit educational
companies had placed on students in the Chinese educational
system.

On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed that the impending
government crackdown on for-profit educational companies in China
would be much more drastic and far reaching than previously
publicly known. Sources stated that anticipated rules would include
measures such as banning on-campus tutoring classes, prohibiting
tutoring services during weekend hours, and the imposition of
industry-wide fee limitations.

Then, on May 14, 2021, China's state council announced rules that
it would further tighten regulations on compulsory education and
training institutions. According to an article on fitchratings.com
titled "Legal Changes in Private Education in China: Rising Risks
for K-12 Education Companies; Higher-Education Providers Benefit,"
the new rules "aim to prohibit profit-making in compulsory
education," and "expose K-12 school operators to heightened
regulatory risks and their revenue growth may slow . . . until they
obtain more clarity on how the changes will be implemented."
Thereafter, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of
its education sector, banning companies that teach the school
curriculum from making profits, raising capital, or going public.
These drastic measures effectively ended any potential growth in
the for-profit tutoring sector in China.

Two months later, on September 28, 2021, First High-School
Education revealed that its first half of 2021 revenue was RMB231.9
million, a year-over-year increase of only 24.8%, a steep drop from
the 30.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the first nine months
of 2020, and the 32.5% year-over-year revenue increase for the full
year 2020. The following month, on October 13, 2021, First
High-School Education issued a release announcing that its CFO,
defendant Lidong Zhu, had resigned as CFO. And on December 16,
2021, First High-School Education announced that it had dismissed
its auditor KPMG Huazhen LLP.

On April 5, 2022, First High-School Education announced that it had
received a letter from the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") stating
that it was in non-compliance with the NYSE's listing requirements
because its total market capitalization and stockholders' equity
had fallen below compliance standards. The following week, on April
13, 2022, First High-School Education announced that its total
revenues for 2021 were just RMB400.2 million, representing a
substantial deceleration in the second half of the year. The
release also stated that First High-School Education's total
student enrollment had remained almost unchanged at 21,247 students
at year's end, representing a paltry 3% increase year-over-year,
and that First High-School Education's gross profit had declined
18.1% during the year.

Finally, on May 3, 2022, First High-School Education filed a notice
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it would not
be able to timely file its annual report on Form NT 20-F.

By May 10, 2022, First High-School Education ADSs closed below $1
per ADS -- more than 90% below the price at which First High-School
Education ADSs were sold to the investing public a little more than
one year previously. At the time of the filing of this complaint,
the price of First High-School Education ADSs has remained
significantly below the IPO price.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired First High-School 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 Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

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

FIRST WESTERN: Extension of Time to Depose Experts Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE AARON H. FLECK
REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara
G. Fleck, THE BARBARA G. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its
Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, AARON FLECK, and
BARBARA G. FLECK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FIRST WESTERN TRUST BANK, CHARLES BANTIS, and ANDREW
GODFREY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs
and Defendants move to extend the deadline to depose class
certification experts from May 4, 2022 to June 15, 2022.

The Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on March 16, 2021. The
Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court on April 16, 2021.

On June 3, 2021, the Court entered the original Scheduling Order.
On February 17, 2022, the Court entered an Amended Scheduling
Order, which extended prior deadlines by approximately 60 days.

The Parties have completed fact discovery relating to class
certification and merits of the underlying matter but not class
merits discovery. The Parties have also completed the disclosures
of expert reports and rebuttal expert reports relating to class
certification.

The current deadline for the deposition of class certification
experts is May 4, 2022.

The Parties have been unable to schedule the three anticipated
expert depositions to date due to scheduling conflicts of the
experts and counsel, as well as a death in the family of one
counsel which made counsel unavailable for a period of time.

The Parties would like to extend the deadline to depose class
certification experts by six weeks until June 15, 2022 to ensure
that the Parties have sufficient time to conduct the three
anticipated expert depositions.

A copy of the Parties's motion dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sN6d6C at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard B. Podoll, Esq.
          Robert A. Kitsmiller, Esq.
          Jacqueline E.M. Hill, Esq.
          Laura Knopp, Esq.
          PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C.
          5619 DTC Pkwy, Suite 1100
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 866-4000
          E-mail :rich@podoll.net
                  bob@podoll.net
                  jacqui@podoll.net
                  laura@podoll.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy R. Beyer, Esq.
          Adam B. Stern, Esq.
          Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-7000
          E-mail: tim.beyer@bclplaw.com
                  adam.stern@bclplaw.com

FOREST RIVER: Court Amends Phase I Class Certification in Truitt
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY TRUITT, LANCE
KUYKENDALL, CARLTON WHITMIRE, DAVID TRUPP, KEVIN HERINCKX, and FRED
SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00964-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Michael G. Gotsch,
Sr. entered an order granting the parties joint request, filed on
April 29, 2022, to extend schedule:

The Court's scheduling order as to Phase I Class Certification is
amended as follows:

                  Event                       Deadline

  -- Amend Pleadings or Add               September 26, 2022
     New Parties:

  -- Non-Expert Depositions and           September 26, 2022
     Written Discovery:

  -- Plaintiffs' Expert Reports           November 28, 2022

  -- Discovery-related Non-               November 28, 2022
     Dispositive Motions

  -- Defendant's Expert Reports:          December 27, 2022

  -- Precertification Discovery           January 26, 2023
     Deadline:

  -- Class Certification Opening          February 27, 2023
     Brief:

  -- Class Certification Opposition       March 28, 2023
     Brief:

  -- Class Certification Reply            April 27, 2023
     Brief:

Forest River is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles,
cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.

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

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Sets Pretrial Schedule in Chapman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK D. CHAPMAN, ET AL.,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich),
the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an ORDER setting pretrial
schedule following consolidation.

Judge Berg said, "Having considered the stipulated proposal to
extend the briefing schedule for class certification and Daubert
motions in this case, the Court finds that the grounds set out
therein justify the proposed changes, except for the deadlines
regarding Plaintiff's potential motions to exclude GM's expert
opinions and testimony. If Plaintiff chooses to file such
motion(s), they will be due by June 15. GM will have 30 days to
file any response(s) and Plaintiff will have 20 days to file any
replies. All other dates will be extended as the Parties propose."

On March 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class
Counsel. In accordance with the Court's scheduling order, GM's
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and GM's
expert disclosures and reports are due on May 4, 2022, and
Plaintiffs' Reply to their Motion for Class Certification, rebuttal
expert disclosures and reports, and any opposition to GM's motions
to exclude are due on June 15, 2022.

GM intends to move to exclude the opinions and testimony of
Plaintiffs' experts simultaneously with its Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs' expert Edward M. Stockton was not available for
deposition until April 27, 2022. The Parties did not receive a copy
of the final transcript of Mr. Stockton's deposition until the
evening of May 2, 2022.

On May 2 and 3, 2022, counsel met and conferred about the need for
additional time for GM to prepare its Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, expert disclosures and reports, and
motions to exclude the opinions and testimony Plaintiffs' experts,
to afford GM and its experts sufficient time to review and address
Mr. Stockton's deposition testimony.

The Parties agree that GM shall have an additional two days, until
May 6, 2022, to file its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, expert disclosures and reports, and any motions to
exclude the opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs' experts.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wB8JiR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Andrew Parker Felix, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 244-3204
          E-mail: Andrew@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Rachel P. Raphael, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          E-mail: KSooy@crowell.com
                  ARoss@crowell.com
                  RRaphael@crowell.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Lamb, Esq.
          Adam M. Wenner, Esq.
          HONIGMAN LLP
          2290 First National Building
          660 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48226-3506
          Telephone: (313) 465-7000
          Facsimile: (313) 465-7405
          E-mail: jlamb@honigman.com
                  awenner@honigman.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATT GOLDSTEIN, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01778-LL-AHG
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Godard entered a scheduling
order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion
deadline, as follows:

   1. Any motion to join other parties shall be filed by June 1,
      2022. Per the parties' agreement, this deadline applies
      only to amendments to join other parties. Any other
      amendments to the pleadings will be governed by Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure

   2. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class
      discovery must be completed by September 2, 2022.
      "Completed" means that all discovery requests governed by
      Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
      discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be propounded
      sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so
      that they may be completed by that date, taking into
      account the time permitted in the Rules for service,
      notice, and responses. If any discovery disputes arise,
      counsel must meet and confer promptly and in good faith in
      compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a).

   3. The Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification
      by October 3, 2022. Parties intending to file a motion
      shall not contact Judge Lopez's chambers for a motion
      hearing date. The parties should review Judge Lopez’s
      Chambers Rules for Civil Cases for the additional
      requirements for noticed motions before Judge Lopez.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan,
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38aU7NK at no extra charge.[CC]

GOLDMAN SACHS: Krueger Appeals Denial of Bid in Consolidated Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Michael Krueger filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Michael Merson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. and
MORGAN STANLEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-08752, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

The lawsuit arises from the unlawful use of material non-public
information by Defendants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who
collectively avoided billions in losses by selling shares of
Tencent Music Entertainment Group, a leading online music and audio
entertainment platform in China, to Plaintiff and other
unsuspecting and unwitting public shareholders, after
confidentiality learning that Archegos Capital Management, a family
office with $10 billion under management, failed (or was likely to
fail) to meet a margin call, requiring it to liquidate its position
in the Company. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all those
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tencent shares
contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful trades from March 22,
2021 through and including March 29, 2021, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendants sold a large number of Tencent shares during the
week of March 22, 2021, while in possession of material, non-
public information. According to subsequent media reports,
Defendants unloaded large block trades consisting of shares of
Archegos' doomed bets, including billions worth of Tencent
securities, late Thursday, March 25, 2021, before the Archegos
story reached the public, sending Tencent's stock into a complete
tailspin. The Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing,
that they were prohibited from trading based on this confidential
market-moving information, but traded anyway, disposing to
Plaintiff and other members of the Class their Tencent stock before
the news about Archegos was announced and Tencent's shares
plummeted. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged
from Defendants' violations of U.S. securities laws, says the
complaint.

The Court had ordered all prospective leads in this litigation to
submit papers in support of their candidacy by March 30, 2022. The
Court has received timely unopposed motions in six of seven
coordinated actions, along with two dueling, timely motions in Case
No. 21-cv-08752 (the "Tencent Action"). Seven motions -- including
the six unopposed motions, and one of the two motions in the
Tencent Action -- are filed on behalf of the same consortium of
plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs Group"), a group that includes the
movants claiming the largest loss in six of the seven Coordinated
Actions, and the movant claiming the second largest loss in the
Tencent Action. These motions propose a unified, detailed,
consensus structure to govern all of the Coordinated Actions. The
sole opposing motion is filed on behalf of the movant claiming the
largest loss in the Tencent Action, Michael Krueger.

On April 12, 2022, the Court GRANTED the Plaintiffs Group's motions
and DENIED the Krueger motion.

Mr. Krueger is seeking a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Michael Krueger, Case No.
22-1067, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on May 11, 2022.[BN]

Movant-Petitioner Michael Krueger is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290

Plaintiff-Respondent Michael Merson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444

Defendants-Respondents Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley
are represented by:

          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006

               - and -

          Charles Duggan, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4785

GUYANA: Earns US$719 Million From Oil Sector in March Quarter
-------------------------------------------------------------
RJR News reports that Guyana received payments of more than
US$719.5 million from the oil sector between January and March 31.

According to a government statement, $638.2 million was received as
profit from the sale of crude, while royalty accounts for the
remaining US$81.005 million, the report notes.


HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Murphy Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HAMMOND MURPHY, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE
HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00204-RAL (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   A. Certifying the class for settlement purposes and
      appointing Anthony Hammond Murphy as class representatives
      and Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel;

   B. Preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the
      proposed settlement agreement;

   C. Approving the notice and notice plan, including by
      setting:

      (1) A date 21 days after the Court grants preliminary
          approval as the deadline for Defendant to publish
          notice of the settlement;

      (2) A date 45 days after the Notice Deadline for Plaintiff
          to move for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

      (3) A date 60 days after the Notice Deadline for
          submission of any objections to the Proposed
          Settlement Agreement;

      (4) A date 90 days after the Notice Deadline for a
          fairness and final approval hearing, or as soon
          thereafter as the Court may set the hearing.

On July 28, 2021, the Plaintiff initiated this action for
declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendant, asserting
Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate
policies and practices reasonably calculated to cause its Digital
Properties, including its website --
located at https://thehundreds.com/ -- and its mobile application
to be fully accessible to blind individuals, in violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its implementing
regulations (ADA).

After engaging in good faith negotiations, the parties reached a
settlement and executed a proposed settlement agreement. The
agreement resolves this action and defines the settlement class as
follows:

   "All Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen
   reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who
   have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
   attempting to access, or who may access, attempt to access,
   or be  deterred from attempting to access The Hundreds is
   Huge, Inc.'s Digital Properties including its Website at
   https://www.thehundreds.com and/or Mobile App from the
   United States."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 5, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pxl1QC at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Lawrence H. Fisher, Esq.
          One Oxford Center
          301 Grant Street, Suite 4300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 577-4040
          E-mail: lawfirst@lawrencefisher.com4

ILUKA RESOURCES: Lockton Attorney Discusses Insurance Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Harding, Esq. -- George.Harding@lockton.com -- of Lockton,
disclosed that as of 2022, only three shareholder class actions
have led to a court adjudication: TTPT Patrol Ltd v Myer Holdings
Ltd; Crowley v Worley Limited; and Bonham v Iluka Resources
Limited. In this paper, we aim to explore in more detail the Bonham
v Iluka Resources Ltd case. It was the compelling defence presented
by globally respected law firm Clyde & Co (opens a new window),
that resulted in favor of the defendant.

Historically, Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policies have
felt the strenuous demands of class actions, with defendants and
insurers alike favouring settlements over a resolution through the
courts. Consequently, insurers across the market raised premiums
substantially as loss ratios in this class of insurance became
unsustainable.

The case: Iluka Resources Limited (Iluka) is an Australian mining
company that globally provides mineral sand materials and is the
largest global provider of zircon and titanium dioxide products. It
was alleged that Iluka engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct
after investors purchased shares in Iluka pursuant to
representations made in their quarterly report and supporting
announcements, including the key publication titled "The Key
Physical & Financial Parameters" (KPFP).

Specifically, the plaintiff alleged reliance "KPFP" publication of
8th May 2012, in the purchased shares in Iluka. Importantly, the
"KPFP", contained a disclaimer titled "Disclaimer-Forward Looking
Statements" that advised the publication must not be used or
referred to as a price forecast or for guidance. The publication
was not intended to be a precise predictor of the supply and demand
dynamics or future performance.

"These forward-looking statements are not guarantees or predictions
of future performance and involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond the
company's control" - Iluka KPFP, * May 2012 Update

On 9th July 2012, Iluka published an updated forecast noting
significantly lower sales than previously estimated and a weakening
economic outlook, prompting a sharp 24% fall in the share price.

Justice Jagot of the Federal Court ruled that Iluka had not
breached any of their obligations under the respective Acts and
remained compliant with their duties to shareholders. Despite the
fall in share price, Justice Jagot, favourably addressed the effort
of Iluka's personnel, to keep their shareholders up to date with
information, with no reluctance despite the negative news.
Furthermore, the information and forecasting that was published in
the quarterly report and the KPFP where not beyond Iluka's
capabilities based on their previous capacity.

Impact: The Bonham v Iluka Resources Limited case is significant
within the legal space because it's not only the third ruling on a
class action case, but it also exposes certain risks associated
with pursuing class action claims to trial. With only three
judgements, there is little precedent to review and establish a
viable defence. Nonetheless, the case has created future
opportunities for both the prosecution and defence when navigating
the procedure of a class action.

It is important to consider the role of disclaimers within the
Iluka case and the significate impact it had on the judgement.
Ensuring that disclaimers are correctly applied, forms part of the
Iluka's corporate governance practices. This practice ensures that
the published information is presented as informative rather than
predictive.

In brief: Resolutions to maintain corporate governance protocols,
specifically for publications are strongly encouraged not only to
ensure that they are reflective of current legislation and align
with legislative duties, but also to ensure they contain the
relevant "terms and conditions" that protect against
misunderstandings or misinterpretations of information.

Moreover, having expertly skilled personnel working within the
company is not only an asset to reaching output goals but ensuring
that any information provided is by industry professionals. It is
important to note that, having industry professionals, inclusive of
the board members, composing the KPFP, reassured Justice Jagot that
Iluka's intentions were to keep their shareholders aware of the
most recent and accurate information possible. This encourages
companies to upskill their personnel and invest in new talent for
the future.

Overall, the Bonham v Iluka Resources Limited judgement arguably
encourages businesses to defend their position against a class
action rather than seeking a quick settlement, therefore avoiding a
large claim. [GN]

INSIGHT VENTURE: $6.16M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Colacurcio Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK COLACURCIO, MARIS and DAVID HANSON, and JAMES
McMURCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiffs v. INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII, L.P., a
Cayman Islands limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS
(CAYMAN) VII, L.P., a Cayman Islands limited partnership; INSIGHT
VENTURE PARTNERS VII (CO-INVESTORS), L.P., a Cayman Islands limited
partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS (DELAWARE) VII, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS COINVESTMENT
FUND II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE
ASSOCIATES VII, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT
VENTURE ASSOCIATES VII, LTD., a Cayman Islands limited company;
INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES COINVESTMENT II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; INSIGHT HOLDING GROUP, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and RYAN HINKLE, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01856-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington grants
the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
and for Issuance of Service Awards.

On Dec. 17, 2021, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, in which the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
Settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class; preliminarily certified the Settlement Class;
designated named Plaintiffs James McMurchie, David Hanson and Maris
Hanson as Settlement Class Representatives and Tousley Brain
Stephens PLLC and McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helgren PLLC as Class
Counsel; appointed a Settlement Administrator; approved the forms
and methods of disseminating information about the Settlement.

Judge Martinez held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion on May 11,
2022, after notice to the Class. He has fully considered the
Motion, the declarations and submissions in support, and all papers
filed or submitted to the Court in connection with the proceedings
in the action. Now, with good cause appearing therefore, awards the
Class Counsel (i) $6,157,000 as an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees and (ii) $355,120.76 as an award of reasonable costs and
expenses to be paid in accordance with the Settlement. He grants
the Class Counsel discretion to allocate the attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses among all the Plaintiffs' counsel. This award
of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and any interest earned
thereon, will be paid in accordance with the Settlement.

Judge Martinez also grants the Class Counsel's requested Service
Awards of $10,000 to James McMurchie and $10,000 to David and Maris
Hanson. and these Service Awards will be paid in accordance with
the Settlement.

Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court reserves
continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters related to
the administration and consummation of the terms of the Order.

The Court will enter a judgment consistent with the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckrc74v from Leagle.com.

TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Kim D. Stephens --
kstephens@tousley.com -- Jason T. Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com
-- Cecily C. Jordan -- cjordan@tousley.com -- Kaleigh N. Powell, in
Seattle, Washington.

McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC, Avi J. Lipman --
alipman@mcnaul.com -- Malaika M. Eaton -- meaton@mcnaul.com --
Ai-Li Chiong-Martinson -- achiongmartinson@mcnaul.com -- Michael P.
Hatley -- mhatley@mcnaul.com -- in Seattle, Washington.


INTUIT INC: $141-MM Turbotax Class Action Settlement Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In this issue, ClassAction.org is taking a look at the recent $141
million settlement between Intuit (the company behind TurboTax) and
the attorneys general of all 50 states. The settlement resolves
claims that millions of taxpayers were tricked into paying for
TurboTax when they didn't need to. From there, we'll touch on the
allegedly illegal biometric collection practices of Snapchat, a
lawsuit filed against Walgreens over Marlboro Menthol cigarettes,
and a case filed over the ingredients in certain Ricola cough
drops. We have new and expiring settlements down below as well.
Keep reading for the latest.

- Ty Armstrong, Writer/Community Manager

What You Need to Know About the TurboTax Settlement
With tax season wrapped up for the year, an investigation into
TurboTax is also concluding. On May 4, it was announced that Intuit
had agreed with the attorneys general of all 50 states to pay $141
million for allegedly tricking millions of taxpayers into paying to
file their taxes when they were eligible to do so for free.
Intuit's agreement with the attorneys general will provide direct
payments of roughly $30 to nearly 4.4 million consumers for each
year that they were told they had to pay for TurboTax's services
even though they were eligible to file their taxes for free.
There's nothing you need to do to get a payment from the
settlement; payments will automatically be sent to those covered.
Intuit has been asked to provide records of its customers' names
and addresses so those covered by the settlement can be contacted.
You should expect to receive an email and mailed notice with
information about the settlement, and reminders to cash your check
after it's been issued.

Snapchat's Collection of Facial Features, Voices Sparks Lawsuit
The company behind Snapchat, a social media app that allows users
to communicate through short videos and images called "snaps," is
the latest to be hit with a lawsuit over the collection of
biometric data. According to the proposed class action, Snapchat
collects, stores and shares Illinois users' unique facial features
and voices without first providing required disclosures on how the
information will be used and for how long. The company also fails
to obtain a written release authorizing the collection of users'
private information as required by the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, the suit alleges. As with the bulk of
these types of cases, the suit looks to cover Illinois residents
specifically, as the state's law is the only one so far that allows
private citizens to sue for alleged biometric infractions. Want
more? Our write-up of the case can be found on this page.

Class Action Settlements:
Can You File a Claim?
Latest Class Action Settlements
Our settlements page is always being updated. Have you checked to
see if you're covered by any open settlements? You can also check
out the latest settlements as they happen by following us on
Twitter.

Latest Settlements

Capital One Data Breach
If your information was accessed in the 2019 Capital One data
breach, you may be included in this settlement.

ParTech Fingerprint Scans
This settlement includes those who scanned their finger on a
scanner attached to a point-of-sale system issued to their employer
by ParTech between March 21, 2014 and March 3, 2022.

Sole Fitness Treadmills
If you owned a Sole treadmill in Ohio or Minnesota between August
30, 2015 and February 21, 2022 or in the rest of the United States
between December 2, 2017 and February 21, 2022, you may be covered
by this settlement.

Ending Soon

Pacific Market Research Data Breach (May 24)
Molekule Air Purifier (May 31)
Old Navy Sale Prices (May 31) [GN]

KING FEATURES: Case Management Plan Approved in Weekes Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WEEKES,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KING FEATURES SYNDICATE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10584-PGG-OTW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Greenfield entered an order on
Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case Management Plan as follows:

  -- All fact discovery must be            July 15, 2022
     completed by:

  -- Expert discovery shall be             Sept. 5, 2022
     completed by:

  -- Any class certification motion        August 16, 2022
     will be filed by:

The Plaintiff brings this class-action against Defendant on both an
individual basis and on behalf of a nationwide class against
Defendant for its violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Specifically, the Defendant allegedly failed to design the website
that it owns and operates, comicskingdom.com to be equally
accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted
individuals. The Defendant's website offers an array of goods
and services that consumers can purchase online, including
merchandise related to comics.

The Defendant's website also provides information about itself and
the products and services it sells. The Plaintiff is legally blind
and uses a screen-reader. The Defendant's website is not properly
designed and operated to be read by screen-reading software.
Because of this, the Plaintiff encountered multiple barriers that
denied the Plaintiff access to the website equal to the access
sighted individuals enjoy. The Plaintiff could not, for example,
learn about the goods and services offered for purchase on the
Defendant's website.

King Features is a content distribution, consumer product licensing
and print syndication company owned by Hearst Communications that
distributes about 150 comic strips, newspaper columns, editorial
cartoons, puzzles, and games to nearly 5,000 newspapers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3z8eExB at no extra charge.[CC]

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Suber Bid for Class Status Due Jan. 27, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Suber et al v. Liberty
Mutual Insurance Group, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Mutual Insurance, Case
No. 2:21-cv-04750-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin
McHugh entered an order that:

   1. Any motions to join a party or amend the pleadings shall
      be due by May 20, 2022.

   2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
      due by January 27, 2023, and Plaintiffs must disclose any
      expert report related to class certification that day.

   3. The Plaintiffs shall make their class experts available
      for deposition before March 10, 2023.

   4. The Defendants' response to the motion for class
      certification shall be due by April 21, 2023, and
      Defendants must disclose any expert report related to
      class certification that day.

   5. The Defendants shall make their class experts available
      for deposition before June 2, 2023.

   6. The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class
      certification shall be due by June 23, 2023, and
      Plaintiffs must disclose any rebuttal expert report that
      day.

   7. The Plaintiffs shall make their class rebuttal experts
      available for deposition before July 21, 2023.

   8. The parties are to meet and confer regarding the remaining
      schedule after the Court rules on the class certification
      motion.

Liberty Mutual is an American diversified global insurer and the
sixth-largest property and casualty insurer in the United States.

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

LILIUM NV: Kuznicki Law Reminds of June 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp.
(NasdaqGS: LILM) (NasdaqGS: LILMW) (NasdaqGS: QELL) (NasdaqGS:
QELLU) (NasdaqGS: QELLW), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until June 17, 2022 to file
lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action
lawsuit.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-lilm/https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nyse-hmlp/,
by calling toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email
(dk@kclasslaw.com).

Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Kuznicki Law PLLC
Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]

LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Sheets Appeals Final Judgment in Warranty Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kristie Sheets filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Kristie Sheets, et al., Plaintiffs
v. Lipper Components, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01683-KJM-EFB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.

According to the complaint, on June 29, 2017, Plaintiff Kristie
Sheets purchased a new 2018 Forest River Surveyor 27 towable
recreational vehicle from DeMartini RV Sales in Grass 28 Valley,
California. At the time of purchase, Sheets and DeMartini RV Sales
signed the Retail Sales Installment Contract containing an
arbitration clause. Approximately two years after purchasing the
vehicle, plaintiff was driving when an odd smell began to emanate
from her car. By the time she arrived at her destination, she
discovered the "shackle had broken off the frame." She contacted
both defendants "on three to four occasions to complain" of the
defect and request compensation for her car's lost value. The
Defendants repeatedly denied the existence of the defect and
informed her there was no warranty for her damages, says the suit.

On July 10, 2020, Sheets filed a putative class action in Nevada
County Superior Court against DeMartini RV Sales, Lippert
Components and Forest River alleging violations of the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California's Unfair Competition
Law. In addition, Sheets alleged a breach of implied warranty of
merchantability against DeMartini RV Sales only.

On August 21, 2020, Lippert Components removed the action to this
court. Forest River and DeMartini RV Sales joined the removal on
September 1, 2020.

On September 25, 2020, Sheets filed the operative complaint and
voluntarily dismissed all claims and causes of action against
DeMartini RV Sales without prejudice.

On October 9, 2020, the Defendants filed a MOTION to COMPEL
Arbitration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) and and to Eliminate Nationwide Class.

On October 25, 2021, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller
entered an order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and granting the motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiff
leave to amend her CLRA and UCL claims, and include her class
allegations in any amendment.

On April 28, 2022, the Plaintiff sought and obtained a final
judgment pursuant to the Court's Oct. 22, 2021 order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. In her final
judgment, Judge Mueller held that all of the individual claims and
allegations brought by Kristie Sheets are dismissed with prejudice
and all of the claims and allegations of the putative class members
are dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed, she opined.

The Plaintiff is now taking an appeal from Judge Mueller's final
judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Kristie Sheets v. Lippert
Components, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-15703, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 10, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Kristie Sheets Mediation Questionnaire was due on
May 17, 2022;

   -- Appellant Kristie Sheets opening brief is due on July 11,
2022;

   -- Appellees Forest River, Inc. and Lippert Components, Inc.
answering brief is due on August 11, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTIE SHEETS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD, PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD, PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 E Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: mir@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          David Christopher Wright, Esq.
          McCUNE & WRIGHT, LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com

Defendants-Appellees LIPPERT COMPONENTS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and FOREST RIVER, INC., an Indiana Corporation, are
represented by:

          Eric S. Fisher, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          3475 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 264-4045
          E-mail: efisher@btlaw.com

               - and -

          John Robert Maley, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          11 S. Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231-7464

               - and -

          Joseph Wahl, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          2029 Century Park, E, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3741

               - and -

          Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq.
          Adam W. Hofmann, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          E-mail: lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Matthew Joseph Peck, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT, LLP
          1676 N California Boulevard, Suite 620
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (415) 995-5080
          E-mail: mpeck@hansonbridgett.com

MASTERCARD INC: Loses to Bid to Challenge Expanded Collective Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Martelli, writing for Law360, reports that a competition
tribunal has refused to let Mastercard challenge a decision that
added three million people no longer alive into a GBP14 billion
($17.3 billion) collective action against the credit card giant
over interchagnge fees. [GN]

MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Court Enters Pretrial Order in Bodor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIMARIA BODOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MAXIMUS FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:19-cv-05787-JMG (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an pretrial order as
follows:

   1. Phase 1B discovery shall be concluded     May 31, 2022
      no later than:

   2. Motions for Class Certification shall     June 30, 2022
      be filed no later than:

   3. The response to such motions shall be     August 1, 2022
      filed no later than:

   4. Any reply brief may be filed within 14 days of the
      response.

Maximus provides health and human care services.

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


MDL 3010: Confidentiality Order Entered in Google Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issues a Confidentiality Order in the case, In
re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., Civil Action No.
21-MD-3010 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).

In the interests of: (i) ensuring efficient and prompt resolution
of these Actions; (ii) discovery by the Parties litigating these
Actions; and (iii) protecting certain information from improper
disclosure or use, Judge Castel enters the following
Confidentiality Order. The Order supersedes all protective orders
or confidentiality orders previously entered in any of the
Actions.

"Confidential Information" or "Confidential" means information
(regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or
tangible things that constitute a trade secret or other non-public
confidential financial, technical, research, sales, marketing,
development, or commercial information and that have been so
designated, or any Document, transcript, or other material
containing such information that has not been published or
otherwise made publicly available.

In addition, a Designating Party may designate as Confidential any
information or items made publicly available in violation of a
court order to keep such information confidential, that the
Designating Party believes should receive Confidential treatment,
Confidential Information includes (i) information copied or
extracted, summarized or compiled from Confidential information,
and (ii) testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or
their Counsel that reveal Confidential Information.

"Highly Confidential Information" or "Highly Confidential," will
only include information that, if disclosed publicly or to a Party,
is likely to cause the Producing Party material and significant
competitive or commercial harm, and that has been so designated.
Subject to the foregoing, Highly Confidential Information may
include trade secrets.

Within five business days of the Court's entry of the Order, each
Party will send by email, facsimile, or overnight delivery a copy
of this Order to any Non-Party Protected Person (or, if represented
by counsel, the Non-Party Protected Person's counsel) that provided
Investigation Materials to that Party.

If the Non-Party or Party fails to object or seek a protective
order from the Court within 14 days of receiving the notice and
accompanying information, the Non-Party or Party's highly
Confidential Information or Confidential Information responsive to
the discovery request may be produced. If the Non-Party or Party
timely seeks a protective order, its Highly Confidential
Information or Confidential Information will not be produced before
a determination by the Court. Absent an order to the contrary, the
Non-Party or Party will bear the burden and expense of seeking
protection in the Court of its Highly Confidential Information or
Confidential Information.

Unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure will not change the
confidential status of any disclosed material or waive the
Producing Party's right to maintain the disclosed material as
containing Confidential Information, Highly Confidential
Information, or Highly Confidential - Source Code.

The Order is without prejudice to any Protected Person's right to
assert that any Investigation Materials or Litigation Materials are
subject to any applicable claim of privilege or protection,
including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and
the work-product doctrine, and it is without prejudice to any
Party's right to contest such a claim of privilege or protection.

Any Party who objects to any confidentiality designation, or part
thereof, may, until 30 days before the trial of its Action, provide
a written notice to the Protected Person who made such designation
and to all Parties stating with particularity the grounds for the
objection. All materials objected to will continue to be treated as
Confidential Information, Highly Confidential Information, or
Highly Confidential - Source Code pending resolution of the
dispute.

Within 10 days of the Objecting Party's written notice, the
Objecting Party and the Designating Party will attempt to confer to
discuss their respective positions. If the Objecting Party and
Designating Party cannot reach an agreement on the objection within
10 days of the Objecting Party's written notice (or another
deadline agreed to by the Objecting Party and the Designating
Party), the Objecting Party may raise the dispute to the Court by
filing a letter motion and/or motion in accordance with the
applicable rules and/or the Court's Individual Practices.

Unless otherwise provided for in the Order, all Highly Confidential
Information and Confidential Information produced by a Party or a
Non-Party in any of the Actions will be used solely for the conduct
of these Actions and will not be used by a Party, Non-Party, or any
Person subject to the Order. Such Highly Confidential and
Confidential Information may only be disclosed under the conditions
described in the Order.

The Order will be binding on the Parties to the Actions, their
attorneys, and their successors, personal representatives,
administrators, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, divisions,
affiliates, employees, agents, retained consultants and experts,
and any persons or organizations over which they have direct
control, and any Non-Party, to the extent such Non-Party has agreed
to be bound by the Order.

All persons subject to the Order are reminded that it may be
enforced by the Court's full powers of criminal and civil
contempt.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Confidentiality Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n977mak from Leagle.com.


MEDICAL SECURITY: Michigan Urgent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed the case,
MICHIGAN URGENT CARE & PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, P.C., Plaintiff v.
MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC D/B/A SCRIPTSAVE AND WELLRX, and
JOHN DOES, 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-10353-TGB-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), with prejudice and without further costs.

The lawsuit is dismissed in accordance with the Opinion and Order
issued granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/47s4zkzr from Leagle.com.


META PLATFORMS: Removes Facebook, Instagram Avatars Amid Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune's Talia Soglin and Associated Press report that
Meta, the social media company formerly known as Facebook, removed
some of its augmented reality effects and applications, such as
avatars and filters, from Facebook and Instagram in Illinois.

The decision also affects Meta's Messenger and Messenger Kids apps
as well as Portal, its family of smart video-calling devices. The
company, which was embroiled in privacy litigation in Illinois for
years over its facial tagging feature, also pulled the features in
Texas.

A Meta spokesperson said the augmented reality technology is not
facial recognition, but the company was "taking this step to
prevent meritless and distracting litigation under laws in these
two states based on a mischaracterization of how our features
work."

The company plans to reintroduce the augmented reality features on
an opt-in basis. A Meta spokesperson did not offer a timeline for
when the features would become available again, saying the new
opt-in experiences would roll out "soon."

"We remain committed to delivering AR experiences that people love,
and that a diverse roster of creators use to grow their businesses,
without needless friction or confusion," the company said in a
statement.

Here's what to know about augmented reality and biometric privacy
law.

Why are only Illinois and Texas affected?
Illinois has what is considered the strictest biometric privacy law
in the U.S. Passed in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act requires prior notification and consent for a private
entity to gather and keep an individual's biometric information.

In Illinois, private citizens can and do sue companies for
allegedly breaking the law. Facebook recently paid out a $650
million class-action settlement over its facial tagging feature.
Checks for $397 went out to class members earlier this month.

And last month, Google reached a $100 million class-action
settlement in a lawsuit that alleged its Google Photos app ran
afoul of the state's law because it sorted faces by similarity
without consent. The company did not admit wrongdoing in the
settlement, and a final approval hearing is scheduled for
September.

"Hundreds and hundreds" of lawsuits under the privacy act have been
filed in Illinois, said Matthew Kugler, an associate professor at
Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law whose research
includes biometric privacy issues.

Texas also has a biometric privacy law, which is not as strict as
Illinois' in part because only the state's attorney general can sue
companies for alleged violations, Kugler said. The Texas law also
doesn't require as rigorous affirmative consent as the Illinois
law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Meta under the law in
February over its use of facial recognition technology.

Though some states regulate biometric privacy through their data
breach laws, Kugler said, "Illinois and Texas are really in a class
by themselves."

I just got a Facebook class-action settlement check. Is this
related?
If you're one of the 1.6 million Illinois Facebook users who filed
a claim in the company's recent class-action suit over facial
tagging, you may be wondering if Meta is trying to avoid a similar
lawsuit down the line over its filters and other AR features.

"Last time Facebook was sued because it was analyzing your photos
to identify the people in them," Kugler said. "Now, Facebook is
concerned it would be sued for analyzing a live video image,
figuring out where your facial features are and changing them by
putting a pair of sunglasses on you."

The same legal standard, Illinois' strict biometric privacy law, is
at play here. But whether or not the company's use of AR features
runs afoul of Illinois' biometric privacy law is unclear, Kugler
said.

If Meta says its AR features are not facial recognition, why remove
them?
Meta appears to be operating under an abundance of caution. The
company made a "sensible" decision to pull the features, Kugler
said.

"They're being careful," he said. "If sued on this, they might very
well win. There are lots of good reasons why they should win, but
they also might not, and it would take years."

Why did Meta pull its AR features now?
The first wave of lawsuits under Illinois' biometric privacy law
tended to focus on fingerprint scanner and photo tagging
technology, Kugler said.

"Now that those wells are running dry, people are looking in other
places for this kind of violation," he said, including within the
realm of augmented reality.

The day after Meta pulled some of its AR features in Illinois and
Texas, Snap Inc., Snapchat's parent company, was sued in federal
court under Illinois' biometric privacy act over its use of
filters.

Also facial recognition startup Clearview AI agreed to a settlement
in another biometric privacy lawsuit brought by the American Civil
Liberties Union and other groups. Under the settlement, which still
must be approved by a federal judge, the company would be
permanently banned from selling access to its face database to
private companies in the U.S. Clearview did not admit wrongdoing in
the case. [GN]

MIKE BLOOMBERG: Wood Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Donna Wood, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DONNA WOOD, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIKE
BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-2489-LTS-GWG, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

In the action, Plaintiffs Donna Wood, Caelan Doherty, Max
Goldstein, Bridget Logan, James Kyle Newman, Zia Oram, Alan
Robinson, and Alexandra Marie Wheatley-Diaz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the collective and
putative class action against Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. (the
"Campaign"), asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and also asserting
claims for fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel.

Michael Bloomberg announced his candidacy for President of the
United States on Nov. 24, 2019. In January 2020, the Campaign,
began hiring Field Organizers and other employees to assist in its
efforts to promote Mr. Bloomberg's candidacy and secure the
Democratic Presidential nomination. Because Mr. Bloomberg was a
late entry into the Presidential race, the Campaign knew that it
would be difficult to hire sufficient staff within the time
necessary in order to prepare for the Democratic primary.

The Plaintiffs are former Campaign Field Organizers ("FOs") who
accepted employment with the Campaign between January and February
2020, foregoing alternative employment and/or educational
opportunities. At the initiation of their employment, each
Plaintiff signed an offer letter stipulating the terms of their
employment. The offer letters included the amount of compensation,
and timetable for payment, that the individuals would receive as
employees of the Campaign, confirmed eligibility for the Campaign's
employee benefit plans, and specified that the Campaign would
reimburse certain out-of-pocket relocation expenses. Each offer
letter contains the electronic signature of the employee and date
signed.

On March 4, 2020, Mr. Bloomberg withdrew from the 2020 Presidential
race. Beginning on March 9, 2020, the Campaign terminated the
Plaintiffs' employment. The Plaintiffs allege that their
terminations breached the Campaign's promise of continued
employment, pay, and benefits through November 2020. They allege
that they were damaged "by losing their jobs with the Campaign,
losing their income, and losing their healthcare and other
benefits" in addition to "leaving their prior jobs" in order to
work for the Campaign.

Based on the Campaign's alleged failure to pay overtime
compensation, to which the Plaintiffs allege they were entitled
under the FLSA, and the alleged harms stemming from their
terminations in March 2020, the Plaintiffs bring the action on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, asserting
claims under the FLSA and for fraudulent inducement and promissory
estoppel. The Plaintiffs seeks declaratory and monetary relief,
including unpaid overtime pay and compensatory and punitive
damages.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 12, 2022, Judge
Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

On April 28, 2022, Jugde Swain entered final judgment pursuant to
Rule 54(b) in favor of Defendant on Counts 16 and 17 of the Second
Amended Complaint, which were dismissed with prejudice in the
Court's March 25, 2022, Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The Plaintiffs are now taking an appeal from the Court's ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020,
Inc., Case No. 22-1023, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 9, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert Cordova, Jr., Individually; Frida
Michelle Naranjo, Individually; Robin Ceppos, Individually; Brandi
Harris, Individually; Josh Fredrickson, Individually; James Kyle
Newman, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated;
Madison Oliver Mays, Individually; Jonathan Barrio; Jesse Weinberg,
Individually; Audra Tellez, Individually; Alec Silvester,
Individually; Nathaniel Robert Groh, Individually; Christine Doczy,
Individually; Zia Oram, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated; Elliot Tricotti, Individually; Maria Gonzalez,
Individually; Josephine Olinger; Peter Kamara; Patrick McHugh,
Individually; Ilse Mendez Fraga; Caelan Doherty, individually and
on behalf all others similarly situated; Daniel Smith,
Individually; Carlos Torres, Individually; Anoosh Yaraghchian,
Individually; Jason Finkelstein, Individually; Max Goldstein,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated; Mack
Kennedy, Individually; Chris Soth, Individually; Jane Conrad,
Individually; Joseph Nestor, Individually; Lakisha Watson-Moore;
Theresa Edwards, Individually; Melinda Cirilo, Individually; Rachel
Douglas, Individually; Cochiese Bowers, Individually; Alan
Robinson, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated;
Bridget Logan, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated; Garrett Beckenbaugh; Luke Nicholas, Individually; Desmond
Batts; Jesus Zamora, individually; Miles Ceplecha; Eliza Fink,
Individually; Paul Monterosso, Individually; Cheryl Baldwin,
Individually; Clem Wright, Individually; Alexandra Marie
Wheatley-Diaz, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated; Rey Murphy, Individually; and Donna Wood, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com  

Defendant-Appellee Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is represented by:

          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3410
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com

MONDELEZ INT'L: Huang Appeals Attorneys' Fees Ruling in McMorrow
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector SHIYANG HUANG filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled PATRICK McMORROW, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-02327-BAS-JLB, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

The named Plaintiffs bring the putative class action lawsuit
against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant breached
warranties and violated other California and New York consumer
protection laws related to the Defendant's products. Their claims
arise from their purchases of the belVita branded breakfast
products. The Products include the following in various flavors:
belVita "Crunchy" Biscuits, belVita "Soft Baked" Biscuits, belVita
"Bites," and belVita "Sandwiches."

The Plaintiffs allege that they believed the advertisements
regarding the health and wellness qualities of the Products. They
claim that the Defendant's belVita branded breakfast products are
designed to appeal to health conscious consumers and that such
advertising is deceptive and misleading because these products
contain "high levels of added sugar," which they argue is
unhealthy.

On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs initiated the action and filed
their First Amended Complaint on Sept. 7, 2017. In the FAC, the
Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200, et seq., ("UCL"), the California False
Advertising Act Section 17500 ("FAL"), and California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (4) violations of New York's
Unfair and Deceptive Business Acts Law and False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiffs sought to represent a multi-state class consisting
of all consumers who purchased the Products in California and New
York. They sought monetary and injunctive relief.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 26, 2022, the
Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement and their Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service
Awards. The Order also cited that Class Member Shiyuang Huang's
objection to Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees was overruled.

Objector Shiyang Huang is now seeking a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as PATRICK MCMORROW; MARCO OHLIN;
MELODY DIGREGORIO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. SHIYANG
HUANG, Objector-Appellant v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-55475, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 11, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 10, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be filed by July 11, 2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on August 15, 2022;

   -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on September 15, 2022; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 17
disclosed that purchasers of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net
Element, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) securities between June 15, 2020 and
April 6, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
July 5, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Schaub v.
Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., No. 22-cv-03026.
Commenced on May 5, 2022 in the Central District of California, the
Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit charges Mullen Automotive
and certain of its top executive officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A similar lawsuit, Gru v. Mullen
Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc., No. 22-cv-00976, is also
pending in the Central District of California.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-Mullen-Automotive-Inc-fka-Net-Element-Inc-Class-Action-Lawsuit-MULN,join.html

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 Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than July 5, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Mullen Automotive purports to be an electronic
vehicle ("EV") manufacturer. On November 5, 2021, Mullen
Technologies, Inc. underwent a merger with and into Net Element,
Inc. and changed its name to Mullen Automotive, Inc. In announcing
its merger, Mullen Automotive represented that it "expect[ed] to
launch the Dragonfly K50, a luxury sports car, in the first half of
2021 through ICI (Independent Commercial Importers)." Prior to the
merger, Mullen Automotive's shares traded under the ticker symbol
NETE.

The Mullen Automotive class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Mullen Automotive overstated its ability and timeline
regarding production; (ii) Mullen Automotive overstated its deals
with business partners, including Qiantu Motor; (iii) Mullen
Automotive overstated its battery technology and capabilities; (iv)
Mullen Automotive overstated its ability to sell its branded
products; (v) Net Element did not conduct proper due diligence into
Mullen Technologies; (vi) the Dragonfly K50 was not (solely)
delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (vii) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 6, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research released a
report entitled "Mullen Automotive: Yet Another Fast Talking EV
Hustle." The Hindenburg Research report stated, among other things,
that: (i) "Mullen [Automotive] claims its former pizza car
manufacturing facility in Mississippi is stocked with
state-of-the-art equipment and machinery, but photos and video of
the facility show it has limited equipment" and that although
Mullen Automotive's "website features one photo of advanced
manufacturing equipment," an online search shows that "it was a
stock photo which appears to have been purchased from Adobe stock
images"; (ii) "[i]n 2019, the Mullen DragonFly was revealed as a
supercar built by Chinese manufacturer Qiantu Motors and was meant
to be rebranded and sold by Mullen [Automotive] starting in 2020,"
but "[f]ollowing the reveal, Mullen [Automotive] immediately
defaulted on its payment obligations to Qiantu, leading to
termination of the agreement in October 2019" and yet Mullen
Automotive "continued to market the vehicle as its own"; (iii)
"[d]espite only spending ~$3 million in R&D in 2021, Mullen
[Automotive] claims its solid-state battery technology is on track
for commercialization in 18 to 24 months, putting it [a]head of
every major technology and automaker in the industry who have
collectively invested billions on solving the problem," leading
Hindenburg Research to conclude that "[w]e think Mullen
[Automotive] has severely and repeatedly misled investors on its
claimed battery technology"; and (iv) "[g]iven that Mullen
[Automotive] has no apparent [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]
certificates, no apparent [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards]
testing and no apparent adequately staffed factory, we estimate
that [Mullen Automotive] is years away from ever delivering a
vehicle should it actually take genuine steps to do so." On this
news, Mullen Automotive's stock price fell by approximately 10%,
damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Mullen
Automotive securities during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Mullen Automotive 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 Mullen
Automotive class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Mullen Automotive class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Mullen Automotive 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 the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

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]

NATERA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA),
Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS), Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD), and
Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA)

Class Period: February 26, 2020 - April 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022

Natera, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in
Austin, Texas, offers genetic testing in the areas of women's
health, oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company
produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test ("NIPT") called
"Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure
called "Prospera." Natera's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "NTRA."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Panorama was reliable, that Prospera was more
accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's growth was driven
by its superior technology and customer experience.

However, investors began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022,
when The New York Times published a detailed report calling into
question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by
Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. Among other things,
The New York Times reported that Natera's positive results for
several genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of
the time.

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per
share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of
$93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share
on January 4, 2022.

Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for
Accountability -- a nonprofit watchdog group -- filed a complaint
with the SEC requesting an investigation as to whether "Natera
repeatedly claimed - in marketing materials and earnings calls -
that [its] tests are much more reliable than it appears they really
are."

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per
share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January
14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.

Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued
an investigative report (the "Hindenburg Report") alleging, among
other things, that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by
deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance
companies and expectant mothers."

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$28.65 per share, or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per
share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on
March 9, 2022.

On March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had intentionally and
willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to
market Prospera in violation of the federal Lanham Act, the
Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware common law.
Among other things, the jury found that Natera's marketing falsely
claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney
transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx"). Ultimately,
the jury awarded CareDx $44.9 million in monetary damages.

On this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share,
or approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share
on March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022.


On April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") issued a safety communication "to educate patients and
health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use of
[NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements about NIPTs'
reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with sound
scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases where a
screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory
diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy." The FDA
suggested that patients discuss benefits and risks with a
healthcare provider before deciding to undergo NIPT or making any
pregnancy-related decisions on the basis of NIPT results. In
addition, the FDA advised health care providers that they should
not rely on NIPT results alone to diagnose chromosomal
abnormalities or disorders.

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of
$39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on
April 20, 2022.

This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) Panorama was not
reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2)
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.

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

For more information on the Natera class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NTRA

Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS)

Class Period: March 19, 2021 - March 25, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2022

Credit Suisse, together with its subsidiaries, provides various
financial services in Switzerland, Europe, the Middle East, Africa,
the Americas, and Asia Pacific. The Company offers private banking
and wealth management solutions, including advisory, investment,
financial planning, succession planning, and trust services, and
financing and lending, and multi-shore platform solutions.

Credit Suisse has a history of business dealings with Russian
oligarchs, or ultra-high net worth business leaders possessing
significant political influence. For example, an article published
by Financial Times on February 7, 2022, entitled "Credit Suisse
securitizes yacht loans to oligarchs and tycoons", cited a recent
investor presentation for a synthetic securitization deal, in which
Credit Suisse sold off $80 million worth of risk related to a $2
billion portfolio of loans backed by assets owned by certain of the
bank's ultra-high net worth clients (the "Securitization Deal"),
which disclosed that, in 2017 and 2018, Credit Suisse experienced
12 defaults on yacht and aircraft loans, a third of which were
related to U.S. sanctions against Russian oligarchs. Press reports
at the time indicated that Russian billionaires Oleg Deripaska,
Arkady Rotenberg, and Boris Rotenberg had to terminate private jet
leases with Credit Suisse in those years.

Beginning in or around October 2021, Russia commenced a major
military build-up near the Russo-Ukrainian border, in apparent
preparation for an invasion of Ukraine. Although the Russian
government repeatedly denied it had plans to invade or attack
Ukraine, the U.S. later released intelligence of Russian invasion
plans, including satellite photographs showing Russian troops and
equipment near the Russo-Ukrainian border.

In November 2021, as Russia's military buildup on the
Russo-Ukrainian border continued, the Company entered the
Securitization Deal.

Just months later, on February 24, 2022, Russian military forces
invaded Ukraine. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion,
Western governments including, among others, the U.S., Canada, and
the European Union, imposed significant sanctions on Russia. The
sanctions included, inter alia, measures targeting Russia's
ultrawealthy oligarchs by denying them access to the global
financial system and by, in some cases, authorizing the seizure of
certain of their high-value assets located outside of Russia.

Barely a week after the commencement of the Russian invasion and
the retaliatory sanctions imposed by Western nations, news outlets
reported that Credit Suisse had requested non-participating
investors who received information about the Company's loan
portfolio to destroy and permanently erase any confidential
information that Credit Suisse provided to them regarding the
Securitization Deal.

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) Credit Suisse had deficient
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) Credit Suisse's practice of lending money
to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and international sanctions
created a significant risk of violating rules pertaining to those
sanctions and future sanctions; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to an increased risk of heightened regulatory
scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (iv) the Securitization Deal
concerned loans that Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs
previously sanctioned by the U.S.; (v) the purpose of the
Securitization Deal was to offload the risks associated with these
loans and mitigate the impact on Credit Suisse of sanctions likely
to be implemented by Western nations in response to Russia's
invasion of Ukraine; (vi) Credit Suisse's request that
non-participating investors destroy documents related to the
Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the Company's
noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in its lending
practices; (vii) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to
subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and significant
reputational harm; and (viii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 28, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Oversight and Reform sent Credit Suisse a letter asking the Company
to turn over information and documents about a portfolio of loans
backed by yachts and private jets owned by clients, potentially
including sanctioned Russian individuals. In the letter, House
Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney and Rep. Stephen Lynch, chair of
the Subcommittee on National Security, questioned Credit Suisse's
request that hedge funds and other non-participating investors
"destroy documents" related to yachts and private jets owned by the
bank's clients. "Given the timing of this request and its subject
matter," the House Democrats wrote, "Credit Suisse's action raises
significant concerns that it may be concealing information" about
whether participants in the deal may be "evading sanctions" imposed
by the West after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

On this news, Credit Suisse's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
2.58%, to close at $7.94 per share on March 28, 2022.

For more information on the Credit Suisse class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CS

Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD)

Class Period: Pursuant to the Jul 28, 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 1, 2022

Riskified operates a risk management platform that utilizes machine
learning to protect its merchant-clients from fraud. On July 1,
2021, Riskified filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") a registration statement on Form F-1 for the
IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on
July 28, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). The Registration
Statement was used to sell to the investing public 20.125 million
Riskified Class A ordinary shares at $21 per share, generating over
$422 million in gross proceeds.

The Riskified class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's
Registration Statement made inaccurate statements of material fact
because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that
existed at the time of the IPO: (i) as Riskified expanded its user
base, the quality of Riskified's machine learning platform had
deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the
Registration Statement), because of, among other things,
inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with onboarding new
merchants and entering new geographies and industries; (ii)
Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with
relatively high rates of fraud - including partnerships with
cryptocurrency and remittance business - in which Riskified had
limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted
the effectiveness of Riskified's machine learning platform; (iii)
as a result, Riskified was suffering from materially higher
chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed gross profits and
gross profit margins during its third fiscal quarter of 2021; and
(iv) thus, the Registration Statement's representations regarding
Riskified's historical financial and operational metrics and
purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the
actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory
of Riskified prior to and at the time of the IPO, and were
materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis.

On September 9, 2021, during a conference call to discuss
Riskified's financial results for the second quarter ended June 30,
2021, Riskified's CFO, defendant Aglika Dotcheva, stated that
Riskified tended "to experience higher chargebacks when we enter a
new industry."

Then, on November 16, 2021, Riskified announced its third quarter
ended September 30, 2021 results, revealing that Riskified's
revenue growth had declined to 26% year-over-year, Riskified's
Gross Merchandise Value ("GMV") growth had declined to 28%
year-over-year, Riskified's gross profits had increased only 10%
year-over-year, Riskified's gross profit margins had plummeted to
just 46% during the quarter, and Riskified's gross profit fell
sequentially to $24.3 million. Further, Riskified's cost of revenue
had jumped to $28.3 million in the third quarter of 2021, primarily
as a result of a sharp increase in chargeback expenses. During the
earnings call, defendant Dotcheva blamed Riskified's growing
merchant base as a primary cause of increased chargebacks.

Finally, on February 23, 2022, Riskified announced its fourth
quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 results, disclosing that
Riskified's revenue growth and GMV growth had continued to
decelerate, Riskified's gross profit growth remained muted, and
Riskified's cost of revenue had continued to climb. Riskified also
revealed that it expected to generate only between $254 million and
$257 million in 2022 revenues (which would represent only 11.5%
year-over-year growth) and an adjusted 2022 earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of between negative
$69 million and $66 million (which would more than triple the
losses suffered by Riskified in 2021), indicating that the adverse
business trends being suffered by Riskified were in fact
accelerating. During the earnings call the same day, defendant
Dotcheva stated that the year-over-year decline in gross profit
margin experienced "was driven primarily by [Riskified's] expansion
into new industries and regions, increase of the tickets in travel
industry as a percentage of total billings as well as the
onboarding of new merchants.

At the time of the filing of the complaint, Riskified Class A
shares traded below $6 per share, more than 70% below the IPO
price.

For more information on the Riskified class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RSKD

Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX)

Class Period: October 19, 2021 - April 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 5, 2022

On January 20, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported that
it "slightly over-forecasted paid net adds in Q4," adding 8.3
million subscribers compared to the 8.5 million forecast. The
Company also stated that, despite "healthy" retention and
engagement, it only expected to add 2.5 million net subscribers
during first quarter 2022, below the 4.0 million net adds in the
prior year period.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $110.75, or 21.7%, to
close at $397.50 per share on January 21, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Then, on April 19, 2022, after the market closed, Netflix reported
that it lost 200,000 subscribers during the first quarter of 2022,
compared to prior guidance expecting the Company to add 2.5 million
net subscribers. The Company cited the slowing revenue growth to
four factors, including account sharing with an estimated 100
million additional households and competition with other streaming
services.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $122.42, or over 35%,
to close at $226.19 per share on April 20, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Netflix was exhibiting slower acquisition
growth due to, among other things, account sharing by customers and
increased competition from other streaming services; (2) that the
Company was experiencing difficulties retaining customers; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was losing
subscribers on a net basis; (4) that, as a result, the Company's
financial results were being adversely affected; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

For more information on the Netflix class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NFLX

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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


NATERA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on May 18 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

NTRA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/natera-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1
ARQQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1
UPST Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1

* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

Natera, Inc.

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.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/natera-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (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.

Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.

This lawsuit is 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.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 5, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) Arqit's proposed encryption
technology would require widespread adoption of new protocols and
standards for telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity
officials questioned the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption
technology in a meeting in 2020; (3) the British government was not
an Arqit customer but, rather, providing grants to Arqit; (4) Arqit
had little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption
system at the time of the Merger; 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.

Upstart, Inc.

UPST Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2021
- May 9, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/upstart-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=27432&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Upstart,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Upstart's AI model could not
adequately account for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates
that impact the market-clearing price for loans; (2) as a result,
Upstart was experiencing a negative impact on its conversion rate;
(3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its
balance sheet to fund loans; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Seeks Dismissal of $6-Bil. Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that The NFL and
the New York Giants and Jets say the class action lawsuit that asks
for $6 billion because they play in New Jersey is "frivolous" and
should subject the lawyer to sanctions.

The statements come in the likely final brief for a federal judge
to consider before deciding on the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The NFL, Giants, Jets and New Meadowlands Stadium Company filed
their reply on May 16, eight days after attorney Evan Spencer
submitted his opposition to their motion to dismiss.

"Plaintiffs' opposition merely confirms the amended complaint's
claims are frivolous and sanctionable," the NFL defendants say.

"The opposition fails to address almost all the dismissal arguments
raised in the motion – instead it anecdotally vents about the
time and costs of traveling to games (which any fan would incur no
matter where the teams play), and the appropriateness of the
Meadowlands in New Jersey as a site for any stadium because of its
purported use as a site for waste disposal years ago."

The case alleges the NFL, Giants, Jets and Meadowlands Stadium
Company use the New York brand to attract fans, then force them to
drive all the way to New Jersey to watch games.

"(T)he truth is that even if MetLife stadium is 'only' seven miles
away from Manhattan, fans do not fly like the crows (or swim like
the fishes), and this allegedly seven-mile metropolitan ride took
Plaintiffs four hours roundtrip, by public and private transport,"
Spencer wrote in his opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Spencer's lawsuit claims the defendants knew the importance of
keeping the New York market loyal to the Giants and Jets after they
moved to a stadium in New Jersey decades ago. It says they
"artificially increased the revenue and value" of the franchises by
using the "New York' brand.

No reasonable consumer would believe the teams play anywhere other
than East Rutherford, N.J., the NFL's reply says.

"Courts routinely dismiss false advertising and deceptive practices
claims on the pleadings under these circumstances," it adds.
"Plaintiffs' arguments, to the contrary, ask the court to analyze
Plaintiffs' claims from the perspective of the least sophisticated
consumer.

"But that is precisely what the case law says this court cannot
do."

Class members have suffered damages by needing to secure "expensive
and time-consuming transportation" from NYC to East Rutherford for
games, the suit claims. Class members pay $16 in tolls and $40 to
park, the suit says, while ride-sharing companies charge $400 or
more.

There is also emotional and psychological damage caused by the New
York brand, the suit says.

"Sports fandom is linked to higher levels of well-being and general
happiness with one's social life as well as lower levels of
loneliness and alienation," the suit says.

"Plaintiff and the class of Giants and Jets fans lost their
connection with the teams when they relocated to New Jersey and
maintain minimal sports identification with the Giants and Jets due
to their stadium being located in New Jersey.

"As Giants and Jets fans, Plaintiff and the class are insulted,
ridiculed, harassed, tormented and bullied by NFL fans around the
United States due to the affiliation of the Giants and Jets with
the State of New York rather than their true home, New Jersey."

The lawsuit makes claims for false advertising, deceptive
practices, civil racketeering, unjust enrichment and conspiracy.
Its goals are:

-- An order requiring the Giants or Jets to find a spot in New York
in which to play in 2025, when their MetLife contracts or up;

-- An order requiring them to change their names to "New Jersey"
while they play home games there;

-- Monetary damages of $2 billion and additional punitive damages
of $4 billion, with a minimum of $50 per class member; and

-- Attorneys fees.

The Giants/Jets case isn't Spencer's first big swing in court. He
sought $1.5 billion in a 2013 lawsuit against Match.com,
IAC/InteractiveCorp and People Media.

The suit claimed those defendants were illegally using class
members' photographs in "hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent
profiles posted on several of the 25 dating sites owned and
operated by the defendants."

The defendants knowingly conspired with criminals in internet cafes
in Nigeria, Ghana and Russia who created the fake profiles, the
suit claimed.

Ultimately, New York federal judge Jesse Furman threw the case out,
brought by a company called Meltech that owned the rights to images
of model and adult film actress Melissa Harrington, also known as
Melissa Midwest and Melissa Lincoln. [GN]

NELNET INC: Johansson, et al., Lose Bid to Amend "IDR" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JOHANSSON, on
behalf of themselves and the Class Members described herein; JON
PEARCE, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members described
herein; and LINDA STANLEY, on behalf of themselves and the Class, v
NELNET, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; NELNET SERVICING, LLC, a
Nebraska limited liability company; and NELNET DIVERSIFIED
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company, Case No.
4:20-cv-03069-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R. Zwart
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint.

The Court said, "Even assuming the above evidence was not known to
Plaintiffs, or that it wasn't sufficiently developed to include in
the initial Complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to show any effort to
obtain the information prior to the October deadline. Had they
uncertain as to any of the cited evidence, they could have pursued
those allegations in the normal course of discovery. In its motion
before the court, the Plaintiffs do not address why they did not
serve the necessary discovery before the motion to amend deadline.
Instead, Plaintiffs argue that their diligence since the Pruett
deposition warrants leave to amend. However, the focus under Rule
16(b) is on the diligence with which the moving party complies with
the scheduling order. As Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause
pursuant to Rule 16(b), the court need not consider whether
Defendants would be prejudiced by the amendment."

The Plaintiffs are borrowers of loans owned by the federal
Department of Education. Nelnet administer, service, and collect on
the loans. The plaintiffs allege Defendants, as federal loan
servicers, are responsible for administering federal income-driven
repayment (IDR) plans.

Borrowers who cannot afford to repay their loans pursuant to the
standard repayment plan may enroll in IDR plans based on their
gross income and family size. IDR plans are renewed annually. The
Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants improperly canceled or
failed to renew their IDR plans and enrolled Plaintiffs in
unnecessary and costly forbearances.

The Plaintiffs allege that such actions caused borrowers to incur
improper fees and/or caused unpaid accrued interest to be
"capitalized" or added to the borrower's principal loan balance.

The complaint generally alleges that Nelnet improperly cancelled or
failed to renew IDR plans, delayed renewal or enrollment, and
improperly placed borrowers in hardship forbearances. In the
original complaint, the proposed classes align with the claims
pled, including: (1) the breach of contract class, (2) the
negligent misrepresentation class, (3) the Illinois class, and (4)
the Colorado class. The Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint does
not add additional claims, but rather expands the theories of
recovery within previously alleged claims. In doing so, Plaintiffs
significantly redefine the putative classes.

The proposed amended complaint redefines the classes as: (1) the
improper hardship forbearance class, (2) the overlapping
forbearance class, (3) the misrepresentation of renewal deadline
class, and (4) the email notice of renewal class. Each of the four
proposed classes have an Illinois and Colorado subclass.

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

NESTLE PURINA: Initial Scheduling Order Entered in Salinas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMANUEL SALINAS, on
behalf of himself and the Class members, v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE
COMPANY; NESTLE USA, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01140-JLT-BAK (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered a preliminary
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Initial disclosures shall be            May 30, 2022
     exchanged no later than:

  -- All stipulated amendments or            August 12, 2022
     motions to amend shall be
     filed by:

  -- Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff:            January 27, 2023

  -- Class Certification Motion              March 1, 2023
     Filing Deadline:

  -- Class Certification Opposition:         May 5, 2023

  -- Class Certification Reply:              July 14, 2023

  -- Class Certification Motion Hearing:     August 3, 2023

Nestle Purina Petcare, or simply Purina, is an American subsidiary
of Nestle, based in St. Louis, Missouri. It produces and markets
pet food, treats and cat litter. Some of its pet food brands
include Purina Pro Plan, Purina Dog Chow, Friskies, Beneful and
Purina One.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aflUx8 at no extra charge.[CC]


OCALA, FL: Plaintiffs' Firm Entitled to $6MM Fees in Fire Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin L. Miller, writing for Ocala Star-Banner, reports that a
judge has ruled that the law firm representing plaintiffs in the
class-action lawsuit against the City of Ocala for the illegal
collection of a fire fee is entitled to more than $6 million in
compensation for its work.

Circuit Judge Robert Hodges, in a 22-page order dated May 16,
states that within 10 days of his order, "The City shall disburse
the sum of $6,561,911.70 to Bowen/Schroth from the $79,282,909.44
Common Fund to pay $6,393,188.37 in attorney's fees to Class
Counsel, reimburse Class Counsel for $68,723.33 in non-taxable
costs, and to pay each Class Representative $50,000."

Hodges said that the city "shall retain $100,000 in the Common Fund
for Class Counsel's fees, costs and expenses incurred after
November 1, 2021, to be disbursed after motion and hearing in the
Court's discretion."

Details about the payment
Class members (those who paid the fire fee) will receive their
funds from the remaining $72,620,997.74 from the common fund within
60 days of Hodges' order.

If, for example, a class member paid $1,000 in illegal taxes, then
the "class member would receive a refund check of $915.97,"
according to the judge's ruling.

Before mailing the check, "the City shall verify each class
member's current mailing address" through several means such as the
U.S. Postal Service, Experian, Xverify and other resources, the
judge said.

The refund check will be valid for 180 days from the date it was
issued. Any checks not cashed within the time allotted will be
void.

Hiring a claims administrator
The order mentions that if a class member's address cannot be
verified by the city, then the city will use a claims
administration process. At the May 17 Ocala City Council meeting,
council members voted 5-0 to hire a claims administration for up to
$200,000 to do that job.

Any class member with "an undeliverable address" can claim his or
her refund in writing by filing a claim form through regular or
electronic mail. The claim period will begin on July 1, 2022 and
end July 1, 2023.

During the claim period, the city will put a link called "City
Utility Customer Refund Information" on its website, ocalafl.org.
The link will be in English and Spanish and will provide
information about the court-ordered refund, how to make a claim,
and the claim form itself.

The order states that any refunds left with the city after the
expiration claim period of July 1, 2023, will go to a second
distribution to class members who have already cashed their checks
as part of the first distribution. The second distribution will
occur within 60 days from the time of the claim's expiration,
meaning after July 1, 2023.

Any refunds remaining with the city after April 30, 2024, will got
to the city's general fund for fire services.

"This court retains jurisdiction to oversee and manage all aspects
of this class action case," Hodges wrote.

How it got to this point
Between 2006 and 2010, the City of Ocala enacted several ordinances
that established, repealed and later re-established a fire fee. The
goal was to offset a portion of the general operating costs for the
city's fire service, according to a summary included in the judge's
order.

In September 2013, Bowen/Schroth was hired to challenge the
legality of that fee. It took several years, but the plaintiffs
eventually prevailed, and in October the court ordered the city to
pay the $79,282,909.44.

The order states that the law firm worked thousands of hours on the
case and, had it not won, it would not have been paid any money.

The litigation was complex and historic; it was the first appellate
case to analyze a local government user fee as a funding mechanism
for public safety fire services, according to the court order. The
order also states that no Florida appellate court had declared a
user fee for public fire safety services to be an unlawful tax.

Schroth is recognized as one of two Florida lawyers who's certified
as an expert in city, county, and local government law and business
litigation and has class action and appellate experience, the order
states.

To repay the fee, city officials have decided to take $20 million
from its general fund reserves and the remaining $60 million from a
bank loan. City residents now pay a new fire tax to help support
fire services. [GN]

ONTARIO: Police Service Officer Testifies in Grievance Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hala Ghonaim, writing for CBC News, reports that after a
three-month break, an arbitration hearing against the Waterloo
Regional Police Service (WRPS) picked back up with a central
witness testimony on May 17.

Police officer Angie Rivers, who has been on sick leave since 2015,
alleges she was harassed by various employees and sexually harassed
by a sergeant, with no adequate action from her employer to protect
her.

In 2017, Rivers co-filed a class action lawsuit against the police
service and Waterloo Regional Police Association alleging she was
subjected to discrimination because of her gender, on-the-job
sexual harassment and abuse. A judge ruled that these issues raised
were best addressed by a human rights tribunal or labour
arbitrator.

Now, through the grievance hearing, the Waterloo Regional Police
Association is seeking a declaration that states the police service
violated Rivers' right to be free from discrimination and
harassment on the basis of her gender and that she was subjected to
a "poisoned" work environment. It's also seeking undisclosed
damages and compensation.

On May 17, Rivers testified that a higher ranking colleague made
sexual advances through phone messages, and that she felt unsafe
while on duty due to an unsupportive work environment.

Rivers' testimony began in early February. Later that month,
arbitrator Sheri Price ruled in favour of a WRPS court order to
prevent the police association from pursuing some of its
allegations on the grounds they relate to post-grievance events and
disciplinary measures that go beyond the scope of the current
grievance, court documents show.

Sexualized messages
On May 17, screenshots of phone messages were revealed in the
hearing. The messages were from 2013 and were between Rivers and
Sgt. Nathan Cardoza, a colleague and mentor at the time. Sgt.
Cardoza was among others named in a class action lawsuit co-filed
by Rivers in 2017.

Rivers said the relationship was platonic and professional, but
alleged eventually Cardoza began to cross the line.

She detailed one such occasion, on May 31, 2013. Rivers testified
she was working an overnight patrol shift, while Cardoza was in
Ottawa for additional training.

Rivers said Cardoza messaged her early that morning about a rumour
going around that she was in a sexual relationship with another
colleague.

In the exchange, Cardoza said he was "insulted," suggesting Rivers'
could've been in a sexual relationship with him instead, said
Rivers.

"I felt absolutely disgusted that he couldn't see the professional
side in me. I felt that I was demeaned. I'm just a sexual target,"
Rivers said in her testimony.

The messages showed Cardoza said he was "naked and drunk," asked
Rivers to play "truth or dare," and for a photo of herself.

Rivers said she attempted to switch the topic back to the rumour or
work to avoid the conversation from getting too personal.

Rivers said she reached out to Cardoza at a later date to get more
details about the rumour, with the goal of filing a formal
complaint about the rumour. Rivers said Cardoza advised her not to
say anything because it would backfire.

Toxic work environment
Rivers also testified that a couple of her colleagues were
unsupportive while on duty.

She said there were several times when she would communicate with
dispatch, hoping a colleague would volunteer to back her up, but
that didn't happen.

"I recall feeling unsafe and like I'm on my own," she testified.

Rivers said soon after, a female colleague, who she had a good
working relationship with, told her a colleague who wouldn't back
her up had called Rivers' a "bitch" and that he wouldn't help her
if she needed back up.

Rivers' decided to make a formal complaint with the help of the
female colleague, but said the consequences didn't go far enough.
She said two of her colleagues were given verbal warnings and one
was moved to another unit.[GN]

OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Alvarado
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarado v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 6:20-cv-01114 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in the Maney
class action:

   -- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
      in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
      were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
      incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
      with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
      February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
      diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
      entered ODOC custody);  and

   -- the Wrongful Death Class.

However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.

This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]

OREGON: Two Classes Certified in Maney, Stay Lifted in Brunick
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brunick v. Brown et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00265 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman
entered an order certifying two classes of plaintiffs in the Maney
class action:

   -- the Damages Class, which includes all adults incarcerated
      in Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) facilities who
      were incarcerated on or after February 1, 2020, and while
      incarcerated, tested positive or were otherwise diagnosed
      with COVID-19 (and if they became incarcerated after
      February 1, 2020, tested positive or were otherwise
      diagnosed with COVID-19 at least 14 days after they
      entered ODOC custody);  and

   -- the Wrongful Death Class.

However, the defendants in the Maney case are seeking to appeal the
Court's class certification opinion. In light of the further delay,
the Court lifts the stay of this action. The Court invites Maney
class counsel to appear in this case with Plaintiff's consent. The
parties shall submit a joint proposed case management schedule by
June 3, 2022, Judge Beckerman says.

This case was stayed pending resolution of a class certification
motion in a related case (Maney, et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB).

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]

PACIFIC FERTILITY: Cal. App. Affirms Good Faith Settlement Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PACIFIC FERTILITY CASES, Case No. A164472 (Cal. App.),
the Court of Appeals of California for the First District, Division
One, affirms the trial court's good faith settlement determination
and dismisses Chart Inc.'s appeal.

I. Introduction

When one of multiple tortfeasor defendants intends to settle a case
before it is resolved against all defendants, the tortfeasor may
petition the trial court for a determination that the settlement
was made in good faith. If the court makes such a determination,
the other defendants are barred from obtaining contribution or
indemnification from the settling tortfeasor based on the parties'
comparative negligence or fault. The court's good faith
determination is reviewable by writ of mandate.

In the present case, the Court of Appeals considers whether such a
determination is also reviewable in an appeal brought by a
nonsettling defendant. Respondents Pacific MSO, LLC (Pacific MSO),
Prelude Fertility, Inc., Pacific Fertility Center (PFC), Dr. Joseph
Conaghan, and individual PFC physicians -- a group of Defendants
that settled the claims against them (Settling Defendants) -- argue
that it is not. Appellant Chart, a nonsettling defendant, argues
that it is.

II. Background

These coordinated proceedings arose following the failure in 2018
of a cryogenic storage tank, which was manufactured by Chart and
used by PFC, a San Francisco fertility clinic, to store patients'
reproductive material. During the failure, the tank's nitrogen
levels dropped, causing the temperature to rise and potentially
endangering the eggs and embryos stored inside. PFC patients and
others affected by the tank's failure sought recourse, resulting in
hundreds of claims in federal and state courts and arbitration
proceedings.

A putative class action was first filed in federal court against
PFC, Prelude, Pacific MSO, and Chart. As a result of motions to
compel arbitration, and an ensuing appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, claims against Chart proceeded in federal court
while claims against the remaining defendants proceeded in
arbitration. The district court, however, denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. As a result, nearly 150 individual
lawsuits against Chart were pending in federal court.

The first federal bellwether trial was conducted in mid-2021,
resulting in a jury verdict against Chart. The jury found that the
cryogenic storage tank had a manufacturing defect and failed to
perform as safely as expected. It also concluded that the tank's
design was a substantial factor in causing harm to the Plaintiffs.
The jury apportioned 90 percent of the liability to Chart and 10
percent to PFC.

In the meantime, claimants not involved in the federal litigation
filed 60 individual lawsuits in California state courts against
PFC, Pacific MSO, Prelude, and Chart, and those lawsuits were
coordinated into these proceedings. Arbitration was compelled for
claims against PFC but not the other defendants. All told,
approximately 260 claims were pending in arbitration proceedings.

After 18 months of settlement negotiations and mediation, extensive
written discovery, depositions, laboratory inspections, tests on
the failed cryogenic storage tank, and additional trials in federal
court, the Settling Defendants reached an agreement to resolve the
claims against them in all courts and arbitration proceedings. The
agreement was expressly conditioned on final court approval of the
settlement's good faith.

The Settling Defendants moved for a good faith settlement
determination under section 877.6, and the trial court granted the
motion in November 2021. The court also stated that it was
dismissing with prejudice "all existing cross-complaints" for
equitable indemnity or contribution against the Settling
Defendants.

In December 2021, Chart filed a petition for writ of mandate in the
Court of Appeals to challenge the trial court's good faith
settlement determination. The following month, the Court of Appeals
denied the petition. In April 2022, the state Supreme Court denied
Chart's petition for review of the Court of Appeals' denial of the
writ petition.

Meanwhile, on Jan. 21, 2022, two days after we denied its writ
petition, Chart filed a notice of appeal from the order determining
the settlement was in good faith. The Settling Defendants then
moved to dismiss the appeal.

III. Discussion

In arguing that the appeal must be dismissed, the Settling
Defendants cite this division's conclusion that "the determination
of the good faith of a settlement may only be reviewed by a timely
petition for writ of mandate." And they point to subsequent
appellate decisions agreeing with that conclusion.

Chart, in contrast, cites cases holding that, while a good faith
settlement determination may be reviewed by writ of mandate in
accordance with section 877.6, subdivision (e), it may also be
reviewed in an appeal from a final judgment. With these conflicting
decisions in mind, the Court of Appeals carefully reexamines
section 877.6, ultimately reaffirming the conclusion it reached in
Housing Group, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 552.

A. The Statutory Language Is Ambiguous

In support of their varying positions, the parties make several
arguments based on the statute's language. Chart contends that
section 877.6 does not expressly preclude appellate review and
states only that a writ petition "may" be filed, making such review
optional rather than mandatory. In contrast, the Settling
Defendants contend that because subdivision (e) of section 877.6
mentions no type of review except review by writ of mandate and
sets forth a specific procedure with short deadlines, the statute
evinces an intent to supplant other forms of review.

The Court of Appeals holds that none of these contentions are
entirely convincing. It concludes that the absence of express
language in section 877.6 making a writ of mandate the exclusive
means for securing appellate review of a trial court's good faith
settlement determination is not conclusive with respect to the
Legislature's intent on this point. Similarly, while section 877.6,
when read as a whole, supports the conclusion the writ remedy
provided is exclusive, the statute is not definitive. Since the
statutory language provides no clear guidance on the issue, section
877.6 is ambiguous with respect to the availability of review by
appeal from a subsequent judgment. The Court of Appeals thus looks
to the legislative history and underlying purposes of the statute
to aid it in discerning the Legislature's intent.

B. Purposes and Legislative History of Assembly Bill No. 232

The policies underlying the discharge of a good faith settling
tortfeasor under section 877 include the promotion of settlement of
disputes and the finality of such settlements." However, "where
review of a settlement must await conclusion of the entire case,
the intended finality is absent and promotion of settlement
obviously thwarted." Recognizing this problem, the Legislature
added subdivision (e) to section 877.6 in 1984. The amendment
provided "that any party aggrieved by such determination may file a
petition for review of the determination by writ of mandate, as
specified."

In the Court of Appeals' view, both the legislative history of
Assembly Bill 232 and the underlying purposes of the legislation
point to a construction of section 877.6, subdivision (e) that
would make the filing of a petition for writ of mandate the
exclusive means for obtaining appellate review of a trial court's
good faith settlement determination. And, as it previously
discussed, such a construction is supported, if not mandated, by
the statutory language. Indeed, several courts have reached the
same conclusion.

C. Maryland Casualty and Its Progeny

In the present case, the author of Assembly Bill 232 may have
realized the State Bar was correct that the proposed statutory writ
procedure should be exclusive, and he may therefore have decided
against including a discussion of postjudgment appeal in the
arguments put forth for the bill. Or the author may have initially
excluded the nonappealability provision for tactical reasons that
were no longer relevant.

The Court of Appeals will never know. What it does know is that the
legislative history of Assembly Bill 232 does not mention
postjudgment appeal as an alternative to the writ procedure the
bill creates. Instead, the history repeatedly stresses that
"appellate review delayed until after the judgment thwarts the
policy of the law to encourage settlement." Moreover, the obvious
impracticality of requiring a settling defendant to continue to
monitor or participate in further litigation, including a trial,
based on a concern that the good faith of its settlement might be
overturned on appeal from a later judgment, makes any other
construction of section 877.6 antithetical to the legislation's
purpose of providing swift and final settlements.

The Court of Appeals therefore concludes that the statutory writ of
mandate procedure set forth in subdivision (e) of section 877.6 is
the sole means of obtaining appellate review of the good faith
determination.

D. Appellate Review of Good Faith

Finally, the Court of Appeals takes a moment to address Chart's
concern that it has not received effective appellate review of the
good faith determination because its writ petition was denied
summarily. It holds that, although appellate courts may decide writ
petitions summarily -- i.e., without issuing an alternative writ or
order to show cause, without oral argument, and without issuing a
full written opinion -- when a writ petition constitutes the
exclusive means of obtaining appellate review of an order, "an
appellate court must judge the petition on its procedural and
substantive merits, and a summary denial of the petition is
necessarily on the merits." Chart can rest assured that the Court
of Appeals carefully considered its writ petition and denied it on
its substantive merits.

IV. Disposition

The appeal is dismissed. The Respondents are awarded their costs on
appeal.

Margulies, J. and Banke, J., concurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4t9ue5nw from Leagle.com.

Horvitz & Levy, Julian W. Park, Frederic D. Cohen --
fcohen@horvitzlevy.com -- Stephen E. Norris --
snorris@horvitzlevy.com; Swanson Martin & Bell, John J. Duffy,
Kevin Ringel; Zenere Cowden & Stoddard, Marc G. Cowden and Adam M.
Stoddard for Defendant and Appellant Chart Inc.

Galloway, Lucchese, Everson & Picchi, Joseph S. Picchi --
jpicchi@glattys.com -- Sukhwinder K. Bajwa -- sbajwa@glattys.com --
and Aaron T. Schultz -- schultz@glattys.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents Pacific Fertility Center, Carl Herbert, Eldon Schriock,
Philip Chenette, Carolyn Givens, Liyun Li and Isabelle Ryan.

Morrison & Foerster, Erin M. Bosman -- EBosman@mofo.com -- Julie Y.
Park -- juliepark@mofo.com -- William F. Tarantino
--wtarantino@mofo.com -- and James R. Sigel for Defendants and
Respondents Pacific MSO, LLC, Prelude Fertility, Inc. and Joseph
Conaghan.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Price-Rigging Suits in Various Courts
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
period ended April 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that the company was named as a
co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers in a number of class actions alleging single-product
conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs and/or
allocate customers for those products starting, in some instances,
as early as June 2013.

The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct purchasers, end payers and indirect resellers. The products
in question are "Clobetasol" gel, "Desonide," and "Econazole." The
court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are
proceeding in discovery. The Clobetasol cases have been designated
to proceed on a more expedited schedule than the other cases. That
schedule culminates with summary judgment motions due to be filed
no later than November 16, 2023.

Perrigo Company PLC is a pharmaceutical based in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Faces Securities Suit in NJ Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
period ended April 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2022, that it is facing a securities case
filed in May 18, 2016 against Perrigo and its former CEO, Joseph
Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned "Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al."

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) and Rule 10b5) and 14(e) against both defendants and
20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the
allegations concerned the actions taken by the company and the
former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by
Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015.
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate
disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the
acquisition of Omega Pharma Invest N.V. in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

Perrigo Company PLC is a pharmaceutical based in Dublin, Ireland.


QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES: CAT Certifies Sixth Opt-Out Collective Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Rafferty, writing for Global Competition Review, reports
that the UK's Competition Appeals Tribunal has certified its sixth
opt-out collective action, allowing a claim for over GBP480 million
to proceed against Qualcomm that alleges millions of consumers
overpaid for mobile phones because of the chipmaker's alleged abuse
of dominance. [GN]



REALOGY BROKERAGE: Summary Judgment Bids in Bumpus TCPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH BUMPUS, et al., individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. REALOGY BROKERAGE
GROUP LLC, (F/K/A NRT LLC), et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-03309-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denies all
motions for summary judgment.

In this class action, named Plaintiffs Sarah Bumpus, Micheline
Peker, and Cheryl Rowan, have alleged claims against Defendant
Realogy under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
Court certified three classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs ask for summary judgment in their favor. Realogy
asks the same for itself. Judge Donato denies all of the summary
judgment motions. He says, the reason for the denial is
straightforward. As the parties' own motion papers amply
demonstrate, the case is replete with disputes of material fact
that a jury will be required to resolve.

Each party filed hundreds of pages in briefing, declarations, and
exhibits with their motions. While volume alone is not necessarily
fatal to a summary judgment motion, these filings reflect an almost
total disagreement between the parties about the facts of the case.
To take a few representative examples, the parties offer
conflicting evidence about Realogy's vicarious liability for
Coldwell Banker Agents' calls by apparent agency or ratification,
and Realogy's consent and safe harbor defenses under the TCPA.
These are just the tip of the factual iceberg that make judgment
for either side without a trial impossible.

For Realogy's suggestion that Plaintiffs Peker and Rowan lack
standing, Judge Donato finds that the Court has already determined
the Plaintiffs are not required to remember a call from an agent to
have a TCPA claim. For Plaintiff Bumpus, the record demonstrates a
genuine dispute of material fact about the calls made to Bumpus,
and whether Bumpus had an established business relationship with
NRT West. For Bumpus' standing to pursue injunctive relief, the
Plaintiffs have raised a genuine factual dispute about Realogy's
policy practices and whether those policies are adequately enforced
to prevent further violations. This enough for an injunction
request to go forward.

In addition, Judge Donato holds that Realogy's suggestion that
Peker's and Rowan's claims are barred because they were called on
their cell phones rather than on a residential line is form over
substance. The TCPA prohibits making calls using artificial or
prerecorded voices to cellular telephone numbers, and to
residential telephone lines. The Plaintiffs have indicated that
they inadvertently omitted a reference to the cell phone provision
for Peker and Rowan, and have proposed to amend the complaint to
fix that. This is in effect a scrivener's error.

There is no question that Peker and Rowan have pursued their claims
on the basis of the cell phone provision, and Reaology cannot say
that it is in any way surprised or disadvantaged by the drafting
omission. Consequently, the operative complaint is deemed to allege
a claim for Peker and Rowan under Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conform the complaint is
terminated.

For the Daubert challenges to the expert reports of Anya
Verkhovskaya and Margaret Daley, Judge Donato rules that the Court
did not rely on either report for the present Order. They will be
addressed in a separate order. The hearing on the Daubert motions
set for May 12, 2022, is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yrrb5nn2 from Leagle.com.


SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Third Securities Class Action in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Poritz, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that creators of
the SafeMoon crypto-token are facing a third class action complaint
alleging they defrauded investors by artificially inflating the
price of the tokens through false statements about the digital
asset's financial safety.

SafeMoon LLC also illegally sold the tokens by failing to register
them as securities with the US Securities and Exchange Commission,
according to the complaint filed on May 17 in the US District Court
for the District of Utah.

SafeMoon, its corporate leaders, and celebrities who promoted the
digital currency are facing two other class action securities fraud
suits filed earlier this year in Los Angeles federal court.

Token holders "lost hundreds of millions of dollars" after online
commentators revealed that SafeMoon's founders had falsely stated
that the asset was more safe because transaction fees would be
locked away into "liquidity pools" for four years.

In fact, the founders had the ability to draw funds from the
liquidity pools, the complaint alleged, which undermined SafeMoon's
statements that liquidity pools support the "price floor of the
token."

The price of SafeMoon tokens dropped by more than 70% after the
publication of a blog post last April revealing that the liquidity
pools weren't locked.

The SafeMoon tokens, which is derived from the phrase "Safe To The
Moon," were first sold in March 2021 and increased in price by over
21,000% within a month. SafeMoon first minted one quadrillion
tokens, the complaint said.

The tokens are designed to artificially increase in value, the
complaint said. Each token transaction came with a 10% tax designed
to encourage "long-term holding" of the tokens. Half of that tax is
transferred to liquidity pools and the other half is redistributed
back to token holders.

Part of the redistribution goes to "burned" tokens that are
automatically taken out of circulation with the intention of
deceasing supply to increase price, the complaint alleged.

Investors also lost money when SafeMoon's founders created a second
version of the token in December 2021 and imposed a 100% tax on all
transactions that use the original version of the token, the
complaint alleged.

"SafeMoon did not take steps to ensure that investors who attempted
to transact with" the original token wouldn't lose their entire
investment, the complaint said. It didn't post any warnings other
than an announcement on Twitter about the changes.

Celebrities such as Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, boxer and
entertainer Jake Paul, and rapper Lil Yatchy heavily promoted the
tokens on social media after they were first sold. The complaint
said that SafeMoon tokens have no real world utility, and unlike
other crypto-assets, half of all tokens "are owned by SafeMoon
itself."

SafeMoon tokens also qualify as a security and its creators
violated the Securities Act by failing to register with the SEC,
the complaint said, citing the agency's 2019 framework on digital
assets and securities transactions.

Causes of Action: Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act,
Section 15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5,
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act For Violation of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5.

Relief: Damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Response: SafeMoon didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Attorneys: Hatch Law Group PC, Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
and Roche Freedman LLP represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Rackauckas v. SafeMoon US, D. Utah, No. 2:22-cv-00332,
5/17/22. [GN]

SOLARA MEDICAL: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $9.76-MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Solara Medical Supplies has agreed
to a $9.76 million class action settlement benefiting employees
whose personal information may have been compromised during a 2019
data breach.

The class includes anyone residing in the United States or its
territories and who was notified by Solara in November 2019 of the
data breach that occurred between April 2 and June 20, 2019.

Solara Medical Supplies provides products and services to help
people manage their diabetes, including glucose monitors and
insulin pumps, according to the company's website.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit claimed Solara Medical
Supplies is responsible for the breach and accused the company of
negligence and breach of contract, among other things.

While Solara denies any wrongdoing, it has agreed to resolve the
claims with a settlement.

The proposed settlement provides cash payments as well as
injunctive relief to class members.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a cash fund of $5.06
million will be created to pay costs associated with the
administration of the settlement, attorneys' fees and payments to
class members.

Class members who file a valid claim will be eligible to receive
payments of $100 each. This amount may be adjusted up or down.

In addition to the cash payments, Solara Medical Supplies also has
also committed to improving its security with the goal of avoiding
any other such breaches in the future. These commitments relate to
systems for detecting suspicious activity, authenticating users,
and more.

A plaintiff's expert has valued these commitments at more than $4.7
million over a period of five years.

A final hearing in the Solara Medical Supplies data breach
settlement is scheduled to take place Sept. 12, 2022.

The deadline to request to be excluded from or to object to the
settlement is Aug. 22, 2022.

The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 8, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The class includes anyone residing in the United States or its
territories and who was notified by Solara in November 2019 of the
data breach that occurred between April 2 and June 20, 2019.

Potential Award
$100. This amount may be adjusted up or down.

Proof of Purchase
Claim ID and PIN Code

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/08/2022

Case Name
In re Solara Medical Supplies Data Breach Litigation, Case No.
3:19-cv-02284-H-KSC, in the U.S. District Court Southern District
of California

Final Hearing
09/12/2022

Settlement Website
SolaraMedicalSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Solara Data Breach Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 43277
Providence, RI 02940-3277
info@SolaraMedicalSettlement.com
800-241-6672

Class Counsel
Stuart a Davidson
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

William B Federman
A Brooke Murphy
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD

Defense Counsel
Heidi S Inman
Jon P Kardassakis
Danielle E Stierna
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP [GN]

STATE FARM: Wins Motion for Summary Judgment v. Ngethpharat
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANYSA NGETHPHARAT,
individually, and JAMES KELLEY, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00454-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Marsha J. Pechman entered an order:

   1. granting State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as
      moot.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence
that they received less than ACV and therefore have failed to
provide evidence of injury or standing. The Court therefore enters
summary judgment in State Farm's favor as to the individual claims
and vacates the certification orders. To this end it grants the
Motion to decertify. The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this
order to all counsel.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's methodology for
determining the actual cash value (ACV) of an insured's total loss
vehicle. Plaintiffs Anysa Ngethpharat and James Kelley attack State
Farm's practice of applying a "typical negotiation discount" to the
comparable cars used to determine the ACV of an insured's total
loss vehicle.

The Plaintiff Faysal Jama attacks State Farm's practice of applying
a "typical negotiation discount" and condition deductions to the
comparable cars used to determine the ACV of an insured's total
loss vehicle. These deductions appear in reports prepared by a
third-party Audatex, which are referred to as "Autosource Reports."
Through these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs variously pursue the
following claims: breach of contract, violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and bad faith.

State Farm is a large group of mutual insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

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

STEWARD HEALTH: Parties Submit Proposed Class Cert Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIAMS AND AMY
JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC; AND MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENTS OF AMERICA, Case No. 5:20-cv-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D.
Tex.), the Parties submit to the Court their proposed docket
control order for purposes of class certification as follows:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file        August 12, 2022
     Motion for Class Certification
     and designate expert witnesses
     on which Plaintiffs rely in
     support of class certification:

  -- Deadline to complete depositions       September 14, 2022
     of Plaintiffs' class certification
     experts:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to file        October 14, 2022
     their opposition to Plaintiffs'
     Motion for Class Certification
     and designate expert witnesses
     on which Defendants rely in
     opposing class certification:

  -- Deadline to complete depositions       November 14, 2022
     of Defendants' class certification
     experts:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file         November 30, 2022
     reply in support of Motion
     for Class Certification:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to file        January 13, 2023
     surreply in opposition to
     Plaintiffs' Motion for
     Class Certification:

On April 26, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the Parties'
joint motion for entry of amended class certification docket
control order. Since the filing of the order, this matter has been
set for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
for May 31, 2022. As the desire for the settlement conference is an
attempt to evaluate the possibility of amicable resolution in lieu
of proceeding with costly discovery, and due to the timing of the
settlement conference at the end of May, the Parties jointly
request an extension of all pending deadlines based upon the date
of the settlement conference.

Steward Health is a physician-owned private for-profit health care
network in the United States and attends to 2.2 million people
during more than twelve million physician and hospital visits
annually.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PzvlaQ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Wyly, Esq.
          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
                  srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Ryan Lutz, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
                  rlutz@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

The attorneys for Defendant Steward Health Care System, LLC, are:

          Kelly Tidwell, Esq.
          Geoffrey Culbertson, Esq.
          PATTON, TIDWELL
          & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2800 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 792-7080
          Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
          E-mail: kbt@texarkanalaw.com
                  gpc@texarkanalaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Yoxall, Esq.
          Matthew H. Davis, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: tyoxall@lockelord.com
                  mdavis@lockelord.com


The Attorneys for defendant Medical Reimbursement of America, are:

          Jonathan C. LaMendola, Esq.
          COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 220-5204
          Facsimile: (214) 220-5254
          E-mail: jlamendola@cobbmartinez.com

               - and -

          R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 271-5766
          E-mail: thad.behrens@shearman.com

STOCKX INC: Faces Valiente Suit Over Sale of Counterfeit Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. StockX, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-21489-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2022) is a class action
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud
Acts, breaches of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, and unjust enrichment.

StockX, Inc. operates an online secondary marketplace which sells
(1) luxury items including collectible sneakers, electronics,
handbags, and other collectibles where it purports to assure buyers
and sellers that all items sold through its platform are authentic
and (2) non-fungible tokens (NFTs) corresponding to tangible
physical goods.

According to the complaint, StockX receives fees from each
transaction in return for assuring buyers and sellers that items
sold through its platform are "100% authentic." However, credible
reports indicate that a significant percentage of the items sold
through StockX are not "100% Verified Authentic," but counterfeit.
Beyond the sale of allegedly non-authentic items, Defendant
recently began selling StockX Vault NFTs, linked to corresponding
physical pairs of collectible sneakers held in its facilities, says
the suit.

The products are allegedly sold for a price premium compared to
other similar products, higher prices than they would otherwise be
sold for, absent the misleading representations and omissions about
the platform's ability to independently verify the items it sold
and the value of the NFTs. Had Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known the truth, they would not have bought the products
or would have paid less for them, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Will Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4326
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Peck Appeals Judgment in Saucillo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Lawrence Peck filed an appeal from a court judgment
entered in the lawsuit styled GILBERT SAUCILLO and JAMES R.
RUDSELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellees; JOHN BURNELL and JACK POLLOCK, Plaintiffs;
LAWRENCE PECK, Objector-Appellant v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
OF ARIZONA, LLC, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee; and
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED and DOES, Defendants,
Case No. 5:10-cv-00809-VAP-OP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Riverside).

In February 2010, Burnell filed a class action against Swift in
California state court alleging various wage and hour violations
pursuant to California law. In June 2010, Swift removed the case to
federal court. Burnell then amended the complaint in October 2010,
adding Pollock as a named plaintiff. The amended complaint asserted
both an independent cause of action pursuant to Section 2802 and a
PAGA cause of action. Pollock subsequently withdrew as a named
plaintiff, and Burnell then filed another amended complaint, this
time adding Saucillo as a named plaintiff. In 2016, the district
court denied a motion by Burnell and Saucillo for class
certification.

Upon the instruction of the district court, the Plaintiffs filed a
new, consolidated complaint in June 2019. In the consolidated
complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Swift violated Section 2802.
They also asserted a PAGA cause of action that "incorporated each
and every one of the allegations contained in the preceding
paragraphs of the consolidated Complaint." Subsequently, the
parties reached an agreement and submitted a copy of the settlement
agreement to the LWDA, in accordance with PAGA. The LWDA did not
object to the settlement.

Lawrence Peck and Sadashiv Mares, two Swift drivers, objected to
the proposed settlement. Both Peck and Mares had filed their own
suits against Swift. Peck filed a PAGA complaint in California
state court, while Mares filed a class action. Peck objected to the
PAGA portion of the settlement, while Mares argued that the
monetary award for the class claims was not fair and reasonable.

Despite these objections, the district court overruled both sets of
objections and granted final approval to the settlement agreement
in January 2020. The district court then evaluated the agreement
pursuant to the eight-factor test in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150
F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

The district court rejected the objections raised by Peck and
Mares. It granted final approval to the settlement agreement for
both the class claims and the PAGA claim, though the court reduced
the attorneys' fees.

On April 28, 2022, Judge Virginia A. Phillips issued an order
holding that in accordance with the Court's April 28, 2022, order
granting final approval of the Parties' class action settlement,
judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Swift Transportation
Company of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company.
Plaintiffs and the certified class, except those members who timely
and validly requested exclusion, will take nothing from Defendants
except in accordance with the approved settlement and the Court's
April 28, 2022, order.

Mr. Peck seeks a review of the judgment entered by the Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence Peck, et al. v. Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55468,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed
on May 10, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Lawrence Peck Mediation Questionnaire was due on
May 17, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 10, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on July 11, 2022;

   -- Appellant Lawrence Peck opening brief is due on August 15,
2022;

   -- Appellees James R. Rudsell, Gilbert Saucillo and Swift
Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC answering brief is due on
September 15, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Objector-Appellant LAWRENCE PECK is represented by:

          Neal Jordan Fialkow, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NEAL FIALKOW
          215 N. Marengo Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101

Plaintiffs-Appellees GILBERT SAUCILLO and JAMES R. RUDSELL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER, PLLC
          2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850 N
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741

               - and -

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200

               - and -

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301

Defendant-Appellee SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC, an
Arizona corporation is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          John Ellis, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182

               - and -

          Robert Mussig, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          333 S Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780

TIKTOK INC: Class Seeks Approval of $92M Settlement in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Bott, writing for Law360, reports that class counsel urged
an Illinois federal judge on May 18 to give his final blessing to a
"tremendous" $92 million settlement resolving biometric and other
data privacy claims against TikTok and its parent company over
continued objections to the fairness and value of the deal. [GN]

TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS: Daniels Loses Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL DANIELS, ON BEHALF
OF HIMSELF AND A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND LETICIA
ANDERSON, v. TRADITIONAL LOGISTICS AND CARTAGE, LLC, A KENTUCKY
LIABILITY COMPANY; et al, Case No. 4:20-cv-00869-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Hom Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "On the record before the Court at this juncture,
the proposed classes cannot be certified. The Plaintiff Anderson is
unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
classes because she failed to timely file an administrative charge
upon which the members of the class can piggy-back to satisfy their
own charge obligation."

Mr. Daniels filed his Complaint on October 28, 2020 alleging that
TLC, RCS, and Valiant unlawfully discriminated against him in
violation of 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e, et seq. and 42 U.S.C.
section 1981 when they failed to promote or failed to upgrade him
from a casual driver to a Full-Time Driver.

On July 23, 2021, the Plaintiff Daniels filed a motion for leave to
file an Amended Complaint to add Leticia Anderson as a second named
plaintiff in this case. After Defendants did not respond to Mr.
Daniels' motion to file an Amended Complaint by the deadline to do
so, on August 18, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff Daniels' motion
to amend the complaint as unopposed.

The Plaintiffs Samuel Daniels and Leticia Anderson filed their
Amended Complaint on August 18, 2021. In their Amended Complaint,
the Plaintiffs seek relief individually and on behalf of two
classes which they allege are "similarly situated" in that they are
black employees who were passed over for the opportunity to become
Full-Time Drivers in favor of other non-black employees.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim Defendants (1) chose not to
promote or upgrade Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to the
Full-Time Driver position, (2) failed to utilize a documented
system or standard for selecting which casual drivers to hire as
Full-Time Drivers, and (3) failed to utilize an application system
for casual drivers to apply to become Full-Time Drivers.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes:

   "(1) All Black/African-American Casual Drivers who were
   employed by Defendant TLC at its Kansas City, Missouri
   facility between May 2018 and the present; and (2) All
   Black/African-American Casual Drivers who were employed by
   Defendant TLC at its Kansas City Missouri facility between
   May 2019 and the present."

After Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, on August 30, 2021,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff
Anderson’s Counts I, II, V, and VI (Title VII race discrimination
claims) in the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, because she failed to exhaust administrative
remedies as she had not filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the Missouri Human Rights
Commission.

The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 12,
2021, finding an EEOC investigation into race discrimination
reasonably could be expected to result from Plaintiff Daniels’
timely filed amended charge and that Defendants were on adequate
notice of a race discrimination claim from Daniels’ amended
charge, and therefore Plaintiff Anderson could rely on Plaintiff
Daniels’ timely filed EEOC charge to exhaust administrative
remedies as to her claims.

The  Defendants contest Plaintiff's proposed adverse action classes
as to numerosity, commonality, predominance, typicality, adequacy
of party plaintiff, and superiority. Additionally, following
Plaintiff Daniels’ withdrawal as class representative, Defendant
argues Plaintiffs have not shown Plaintiff Anderson is an adequate
class representative individually, no authority supports
substituting a non-filing class representative under these
circumstances, and Defendants are prejudiced by substitution of
class representation at this late stage. Because the Court finds
the issues of adequacy of representation and the filing requirement
dispositive, Defendants' additional arguments are not addressed.

Traditional Logistics and Cartage, LLC provides Management, IT
System Support, and Loss Prevention Services.


A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 5, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wC0naL at no
extra charge.[CC]

TRANS UNION LLC: CFPB, FTC File Amicus Brief in FCRA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR, reports that On May 5, 2022, the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) -- two U.S. government agencies that enforce the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) -- filed an amicus brief
in a class action lawsuit that argued the FCRA does not distinguish
between "factual" and "legal" accuracy.

In the case of Sessa v. Trans Union, LLC, a consumer sued
TransUnion, one of three nationwide credit reporting companies, for
allegedly violating the FCRA after reporting on a consumer's credit
report that she owed nearly $20,000 on a car lease that she
actually did not owe under the plain terms of her lease.

The FCRA imposes various requirements that consumer reporting
agencies (CRAs) must follow when they compile and disseminate
consumer reports about individuals. Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA
requires CRAs to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy" of consumer reports.

The plaintiff consumer claimed that defendant TransUnion violated
the FCRA by failing to have reasonable procedures to assure the
information on her report was accurate. However, TransUnion argued
that it could not be responsible for failing to do its duty under
the FCRA because the error was "legal" rather than "factual."

A U.S. district court dismissed the complaint. "The district court
held that the information in a consumer report is accurate (and
therefore plaintiff did not show this element of section 1681e(b)
liability) so long as any inaccuracies can be characterized as
'legal' rather than 'factual' in nature," the amicus brief noted.

"The district court adopted an exceedingly narrow view of what
constitutes an inaccuracy for purposes of the FCRA. Specifically,
it held 'that accuracy with respect to FCRA claims applies to
factual but not legal accuracy.' The factual/legal distinction
undergirding the district court's holding finds no support in the
text of the statute."

The brief filed by the CFPB and FTC pointed out that the "FCRA does
not contain an exception for 'legal' inaccuracies. Rather, the FCRA
commands credit reporting companies to 'follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,'" according to a
CFPB blog about accuracy obligations in consumer reports.

"While TransUnion argues that the inaccuracy on the consumer's
credit report was based on a legal dispute, the error was simple
and straightforward: TransUnion reported that the consumer owed
money that she clearly did not," the blog stated. The case is
currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The FCRA 15 U.S.C Sec. 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to
promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies, and to
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports. [GN]

UNIFIN INC: Trial & Pre-trial Scheduling Order Entered in Savir
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EYAL SAVIR, v. UNIFIN,
INC.; et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-20798-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order setting trial and
pre-trial schedule, requiring mediation, and referring certain
matters to Magistrate Judge as follows:

-- The parties shall select a mediator        May 26, 2022
    in accordance with Local Rule 16.2;
    schedule a time, date, and place for
    mediation; and jointly file a
    proposed order scheduling mediation:

-- All motions to amend pleadings or          June 16, 2022
    join parties are filed.

-- Parties exchange expert witness            July 11, 2022
    summaries or reports on issues of
    class certification:

-- Parties exchange rebuttal expert           July 25, 2022
    witness summaries or reports on
    issues of class certification:

-- Deadline for completing class              August 8, 2022
    certification discovery:

-- Plaintiff files motion for class           August 18, 2022
    certification:

-- Parties exchange expert witness            October 17, 2022
    summaries or reports:

-- Parties exchange rebuttal expert           October 31, 2022
    witness summaries or reports:

-- All discovery, including expert            November 14, 2022
    discovery, is completed:

-- Parties must have completed                November 21, 2022
    mediation and filed a mediation
    report:

-- All pre-trial motions and                 November 29, 2022
    Daubert motions (which include
    motions to strike experts)
    are filed:

-- Parties must file and submit              December 27, 2022
    joint pre-trial stipulation,
    proposed jury instructions and
    verdict form, or proposed
    findings of fact and conclusions
    of law, as applicable, and motions
    in limine (other than
    Daubert motions):

Unifin is a full-service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management
firm licensed and bonded internationally.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PA1wqu at no extra charge.[CC]

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 12, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) securities between November 9, 2021 and
May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Upstart investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/upstart-holdings-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On May 9, 2022, after the market closed, Upstart announced its
first quarter 2022 financial results in a press release. Therein,
the Company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of
approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During
the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer
cited "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies [as]
putting downward pressure on conversion."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to
close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account for
macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 12,
2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

VOLUME SERVICES: Settlement Class in Jeffries Initially Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIS JEFFRIES v. VOLUME
SERVICES AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01788-CKK (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and statement of
points of law and authority in support thereof.

The Court further ordered, that:

   1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
      lawsuit, the parties, and all members of the Settlement
      Class.

   2. The Court otherwise grants preliminary approval of the
      proposed settlement as outlined in the proposed Class
      Action Settlement and Release Agreement. The Court
      preliminarily finds that the terms of the proposed
      settlement are fair, adequate, and reasonable and comply
      with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   3. The Court orders that the following settlement class is
      preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only:

      "All individuals to whom, on September 5, 2015,
      Centerplate provided an electronically printed receipt at
      the point of sale or transaction at the D.C. Convention
      Center, on which receipt Defendant Volume Services
      America, Inc. printed the expiration date and/or more than
      the last five digits of the individual's credit card or
      debit card."

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are all employees of
      the Defendant or its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates,
      all of Plaintiff's attorneys and employees of Plaintiff's
      attorneys, any judicial officer, or their immediate
      family, to which this case is or has been assigned, and
      persons who validly opt out of the Settlement.

   4. The Court finds that, for the purposes of the Settlement,
      the above-defined Settlement Class meets all of the
      requirements for class certification.

   5. The Court appoints Plaintiff as the Class Representative
      for the Settlement Class.

   6. The Court appoints counsel Chant Yedalian and counsel
      Brian Herrington as Class Counsel for the Settlement
      class.

   7. The Court approves the proposed manner of the notice of
      settlement set forth in the Agreement.

   8. The Court further finds the notice fully and accurately
      informs Settlement Class members of all material elements
      of the lawsuit and proposed class action Settlement, of
      each member's right to be excluded therefrom, and each
      member's right and opportunity to object to the proposed
      class action Settlement and be heard at the fairness
      (final approval) hearing.

   9. Settlement Class members will have until 90 calendar days
      after the notice is first provided to exclude themselves
      from the Settlement.

  10. Any Settlement Class member, on their own or through an
      attorney hired at their own expense, may object to the
      terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel's motion for an
      award of attorney's fees and costs, and/or the Class
      Representative's motion for service award.

  11. Class Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
      costs and the Class Representative's motion for service
      award will be filed with the Court and posted on the
      Settlement Website no later than 30 calendar days before
      the final fairness hearing scheduled by the Court.

Volume Services provides commercial services. The Company offers
food, beverage, merchandise, facility design, and management
services.

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

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Cassidy Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK CASSIDY, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. VOYAGER DIGITAL LTD, and
VOYAGER DIGITAL LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-24441-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Proposed Liability Issue Classes;

   2. appointing Plaintiff to serve as Class Representative for
      the Proposed Liability Issue Classes; and

   3. appointing The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, and Grossman Roth
      Yaffa Cohen, P.A., to serve as Class Counsel for the
      Proposed Liability Issue Classes.

The Plaintiff in this class action asserts state and federal claims
against Voyager for the offer and sale of unregistered securities,
in the form of the Voyager Earn Program Account, which has recently
been the subject of great scrutiny by numerous state and regulatory
entities.

Voyager is a publicly traded cryptocurrency platform in the United
States founded in 2018.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 4, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wxudNf at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com
                  barbara@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          Rachel W. Furst, Esq.
          Ryan J. Yaffa, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd Ste 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com
                  rwf@grossmanroth.com
                  rjy@grossmanroth.com

WELLS FARGO: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 26
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAHIRA ABDUR-RAHMAN, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00207-RJC (W.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge entered a pretrial order and case management plan as
follows:

  -- Discovery Completion:       January 9, 2023

  -- Expert Reports:             November 14, 2022 (plaintiff)

                                 December 12, 2022 (defendant)

  -- Mediation:                  TBD

  -- Class Certification         September 26, 2022
     Motion:

  -- Defendant’s Response:       October 10, 2022

  -- Dispositive Motions:        February 6, 2023

  -- Oral Argument on MSJs:      On or before March 20, 2023

  -- Jury Trial:                 May 1, 2023

Wells Fargo operates as a bank.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LB1hse at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Chamberlains Discuss Australia's Historic Sexual Abuse Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chamberlain disclosed that recently, there has been increased
discussion about the role class actions might play in historic
sexual abuse claims. In particular, the settlement of the class
action against the Retta Dixon home in the Northern Territory in
2017 has demonstrated that it is possible for defendants like the
Commonwealth to settle claims as a group in this way. While there
are many benefits of class actions, there are many disadvantages to
pursuing historic sexual abuse claims by way of a class action that
must be carefully considered.

What are class actions?

Class actions are claims by seven or more people who have been
impacted by a common issue. Where a wrongdoing affects many people,
the claims can be brought together in a single action against a
defendant. As a result, class actions provide an efficient means
for large groups of people to access justice, particularly so where
people may have not pursued their claims otherwise. Whilst class
actions have clear benefits in some cases by streamlining the legal
process, they are not the most appropriate legal mechanism for
historic sexual abuse matters.

What are the risks of class actions in historic sexual abuse
matters?

First, class actions for historic sexual abuse matters will almost
always result in a significantly lower quantum of damages for abuse
survivors than an individual action. By having a single decision
that determines the outcome for every person in the action, damages
are not considered on an individual level, resulting in abuse
survivors receiving a much lower sum of money than they are
entitled to. So, to the extent that you want to maximise your
financial recovery, you should re-consider joining a class action
and opt for an individual action instead. Whilst no amount of money
can erase the pain caused by the abuse, compensation is an
important step in allowing you to access the care and support
services you need.

Secondly, members of a class action are generally not involved in
instructing lawyers and making decisions about how the case
proceeds. They also generally have no input in settlement. Bringing
a historic sexual abuse claim is a very big step for any abuse
survivor, and it is essential that survivors are given
individualised support and advice throughout their journey. After
all, bringing a historic sexual abuse claim is as much about being
heard and gaining a sense of individualised justice and closure as
it is about receiving adequate compensation. This type of
personalised support can only be achieved in an individual claim.

What is the best route for an abuse survivor?

If you or a loved one has been the victim of sexual abuse, the best
thing you can do is to contact our experienced lawyers about
commencing an individual claim. It is important to be aware of the
various risks associated with class actions in historic sexual
abuse claims when considering your options. At Chamberlains, we
strive to obtain the best possible outcome for you and your loved
ones by providing individualised support and advice. [GN]

[*] Class Actions Against FTSE 100 Cos. Up 10%, Research Shows
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Edwards, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
companies trading on the UK's main stock exchange saw a 10% rise in
class action lawsuits in the 12 months to September last year,
according to new research from Thomson Reuters.

FTSE 100 companies faced 170 class action suits, up from 155 in the
previous 12-month period, with banks and other financial services
companies accounting for 42% of the total. While more than
two-thirds of suits (67%) originated in the US, the research shows
there is an increasing threat to companies in the UK. Some nine of
the class actions were launched in the UK courts, with the
expansion of so-called 'opt-out' class actions signalling more UK
cases could be on the horizon, the report stated.

Warsha Kalé, a senior legal editor at Thomson Reuters' Practical
Law, said: "The uptick in class action cases should be a cause for
concern amongst corporates. Involvement in this type of litigation
can cost businesses enormous sums of money, not to mention serious
reputational damage."

She added: "The global nature of FTSE 100 companies puts them at an
increased risk of becoming embroiled in complex and costly disputes
that could drag on for years. Given developments in UK competition
law in recent years, many expect to see a greater number of claims
being brought before the English courts."

Roughly 47% of all class actions reported by FTSE 100 companies
were in relation to claims for breaches of competition law. Product
liability cases accounted for 30% of the class actions. In addition
to the US and the UK, FTSE 100 class actions also originated in
Brazil, Venezuela and Israel.

Litigation funders are particularly attracted to the potentially
large pay-outs up for grabs in a successful class action, the
report noted.

"Whilst this type of litigation has traditionally been most common
in the US, recent legal developments mean that it is now easier to
bring class actions concerning breaches of competition law in the
UK," Thomson Reuters said.

Outside of the FTSE 100, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is
currently leading a £2.3bn class action against social media giant
Facebook over unfair trading terms and prices for 44 million users
in the UK. [GN]

[*] Survey Shows Labor, Employment Class Actions Up 25.6% in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Gooley, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the number of labor and employment class actions
increased last year as aggressive regulatory action and an increase
in workplace safety claims, including claims related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, fueled a rise in collective claims, including
"follow-on" class actions, according to the 2022 Carlton Fields
Class Action Survey.

An Increase From Last Year
In 2020, labor and employment class actions comprised 22.5% of all
class actions managed by companies participating in our survey. In
2021, they rose just over 3 percentage points to 25.6%. Labor and
employment class actions remain the largest category of class
actions. In 2020, labor and employment actions were just ahead of
consumer fraud class actions, but between the increase in labor and
employment class actions and a decrease in consumer fraud class
actions, labor and employment class actions now hold a more
significant lead as the largest type of class action. Companies
continue to report labor and employment class actions as one of the
most concerning and costly categories of class claims. In addition
to the costs directly associated with such claims (including
defense and settlement costs), companies also report concern over
indirect costs such as negative publicity and reputational harm.

What's Behind This Increase?
Several factors likely contributed to the increase in labor and
employment class actions. The pandemic very likely played a role,
as many companies saw class actions related to workplace safety and
vaccine issues. Wage and hour claims were also on the rise,
potentially because of economic conditions including inflation and
an employee-friendly job market, which may have made more employees
more confident in acting on grievances about their pay.

The Silver Lining
There is, however, at least some good news. Some companies are
reporting success in avoiding labor and employment class actions.
In addition to resolving class actions and other disputes,
businesses are also being proactive in taking corrective action and
implementing policies and procedures to avoid class claims. Several
businesses also continue to use arbitration clauses with class
action waivers, but such waivers have faced increased scrutiny as
of late.

The Road Ahead
Companies expect labor and employment class actions to remain one
of, if not the largest, category of class action claims. Spending
and risk associated with these class claims are similarly expected
to remain high. A number of factors will influence these claims in
the coming year:

Increased Regulatory Action:
It seems likely that we can expect the increase in regulatory
actions, which can create follow-on class actions, to continue.
At the federal level, for example, the coming months are expected
to be very active for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).

Beginning in July, the EEOC will have a majority of its
commissioners appointed by Democrats for the first time during the
Biden administration.

Commentators speculate that the EEOC will use this new majority to
enact significant changes at the EEOC, which will likely lead to
new rules, additional enforcement, and, in all likelihood,
follow-on class claims.

The Economy (Including the Unemployment Rate):
While not exactly a science, intuition suggests that employees who
are confident in their ability to find work elsewhere are more
likely to challenge the pay and other practices of their employers
by, among other things, asserting class claims.
When combined with beliefs that pay raises are not keeping pace
with inflation and the cost of living, circumstances are ripe for
more wage and hour claims.

Of course, that can change quickly, particularly with warning signs
about the economy already emerging and the stock market in a
significant dip.

Politics:
Increased political activism associated with employee rights may
also lead to an increase in claims, as employees try to flex
newfound muscle.

The media has closely followed unionization efforts at major
companies, for example, and this coverage may encourage employees
to exercise legal rights such as attempting to bring class or
collective actions over pay.

COVID-19:
With any luck, the pandemic will finally wind down or, at the very
least, will not require new actions that could result in new claims
like vaccine mandates did.

That could decrease new claims, but that remains to be seen.
Whatever the future holds, it seems very likely that labor and
employment class actions will remain a major source of class action
litigation this year and for the foreseeable future.

Wage and hour claims in particular may be poised for a significant
increase.

For more information on labor and employment and other class
actions, visit https://classactionsurvey.com to obtain a copy of
Carlton Fields' 11th Annual Class Action Survey.

The Carlton Fields Class Action Survey summarizes recent
developments and details best practices in class action management.
This year's survey is based on interviews with general counsel and
senior legal officers at more than 400 major corporations in more
than 25 industries. The data collected presents a snapshot of the
ways in which leading corporate legal departments identify,
measure, and manage class action risk. [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 ***