/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 27, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 100

                            Headlines

5332 INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Alvarez Suit Claims
ACTION URGENT: Caraska Sues Over Illegal Payroll Policies
AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces Suit Over Mismanagement of Retirement Fund
ALASKA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Morgan Sues Over Mislabeled Analgesic Drugs

ALDER PROTECTION: Court Wants More Discovery Briefing in Ennis Suit
AMWASTE LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Hoppers’ OT, Sambo Suit Claims
ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Court Authorizes Sex Abuse Class-Action
ASHLEY HEALTH: Bogan Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 12 Deadline

BARRICK GOLD: Matney Appeals ERISA Case Dismissal to 10th Cir.
BENEFITS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Consultants' Wages, Bittner Says
BHG BOYNTON: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Giraldo Suit Claims
BLUJAY SOLUTIONS: Tooker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BONDED FILTER: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians’ OT, Geeo Claims

BONDI SANDS: Faces U.S. Suit Over Alleged "Greenwashed" Sunscreens
BROOK MEAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges
CALIFORNIA: Governor Fends Off Class Action Over COVID Lockdown
CALIFORNIA: Lifeguards Sue Over Unfair Union Membership
CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Faces Baccari Suit Over Unsolicited Calls

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Arbitration Order in Adell Class Suit Affirmed
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Credit Card Suit Reaches $84-M Class Settlement
CENTRAL PERK: Everto Files Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
CEPHALON INC: Boardman Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Opioid
CEREBRAL INC: Walton FTSA and TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

CHENEY BROS: Faces Harding Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CITICOURIERS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Conley Claims
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Marshall Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
COMMUNITY BANK: Overdraft Fees at Issue in Class Action Lawsuit
CONSERVATORY OF PIANO: Underpays Piano Instructors, Frazee Claims

COOK COUNTY, IL: Discusses Appeal Ruling in Levin Insurance Suit
CVS HEALTH: Sanitizers Can't Kill 99.99% of Germs, Catholdi Claims
DAMAC PROPERTIES: To Buy Florida Condo Collapsed Site for $120M
EPOCH LLC: Matias-Rossello Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
FINGER LICK'N: Ballard Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages

FIRST WESTERN: Deadline to Depose Experts Extended to June 15
FORD MOTOR: $931K Award of Atty. Fees & Costs in Bowser Suit Upheld
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Armas Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
GAMESTOP INC: Faces Mack Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
GOODWIN INSURANCE: Knoche Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads

GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Ruling in Best Carpet Suit to 9th Cir.
GURKIN FAMILY: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HEALTH CANADA: Court Certified Breach Class Action Lawsuit
HIBU PLC: Levien Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
HUMBL LLC: Scott+Scott Files Class Suit Over Securities Violations

INSIGHT VENTURE: Class Settlement in Colacurcio Suit Wins Final Nod
INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Kemp Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Greenbrier Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Calhoun County Says
KEYSTONE CREDIT: Barclift Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sterken Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices
KYMA HUDSON: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suit In S.D. New York
LILIUM NV: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of June 17 Deadline
LPF RE MANAGER: Denial of Gasca's Intervention in Jauregui Upheld
M3K LLC: Reed Balks at Unreimbursed Drivers' Expenses, Unpaid Wages

MAC HAIK: Stantorf Sues Over Deliverymen's Unpaid OT Wages
MAMA'S BOY: Powers Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
MCKESSON CORP: McLaughlin Appeals TCPA Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
MDL 2879: Accenture Appeals Ruling Data Security Breach Suit
MEDICAL SECURITY: Michigan Urgent's Class Settlement Gets Final OK

MILLIMAN INC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Healy FCRA Suit
MINOR LEAGUE: Settles Lawsuit Over Minimum Wage Laws Violations
MIXTILES USA: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NAVY FEDERAL: Fails to Inform Customers Over Unreimbursed Losses
NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Darias Says

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Dalton Sues Over ESOP Participants' Losses
OKTA INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
OMV MEDICAL: Fraser Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Chehebar Suit Over Drop in Share Price
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 18 Deadline

PEGASYSTEMS INC: Fort Police Sues Over Drop in Share Price
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 18 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: McKinnon Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
PG GOLF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Suit Says
PIZZA KITCHEN: Faces Suit Over Failure to Secure Workers' Info

PRINCE GEORGE'S HOSPITAL: Patients' Class Suit Bid Returns to Trial
PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Powers Suit
RED CRAB: Negron Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages & OT
REGIONAL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Personal Caregivers, Johnson Says

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Cadeau Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Under Probe Over Securities Violations
SOFT-LITE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCall Suit Alleges
SONIC CORP: Settles Credit Union Class Action Suit for $5.73M
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Marcus Files Securities Suit Over Frontier Merger

STARTEK USA: Colorado Court Stays Discovery in Harris Class Suit
STICKER MULE: Valiente FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SUNFLOWER BANK: McCollam Appeals Overdraft Fees Suit Dismissal
SUPER CARE INC: Cottrell Files Suit in C.D. California
TARGET CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit Over iTunes Gift Cards

TEXAS: Inmate Brownlee Appeals Dismissal of Case v. MTC, et al.
THOMAS PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Security Guards’ OT, Gurley Claims
TSCHETTER SULZER: Court Denies Bid to Stay Warden FDCPA Suit
UNION PACIFIC: W.D. Texas Denies Bid to Dismiss Smithson Suit
UNION SECURITY: Faces Batista Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

UNITED STATES: OPM Appeals Court Orders in Retired Nurses' Case
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Ward Suit Over Share Price Drop
WAKE PIZZA: Southerland Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Affirms April 14 Order in Baxley v. Jividen
ZOOM VIDEO: Cohen Appeals Final Approval of Privacy Suit Settlement

ZOOM VIDEO: Rodgers Appeals Final Approval of Privacy Suit Deal
[*] Baker & Hostetler Issues Insurance Class Action Update

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 133 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Several Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 1,000 Pending Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 30,312 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Has 17,220 Claims Pending at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Product Liability Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Reports $57MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Faces Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 26,760 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Product Liability Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,584 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Faces 256 PI Lawsuits


                            *********

5332 INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Alvarez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ; and SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 5332, INC.;
HASSAM SALOUS; MOHAMMED SALOUS; WASEEM SALOUS; and BASSAM SALOUS,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00329-FJG (W.D. Mo., May 19, 2022)
seeks to recover proper minimum wages, proper overtime
compensation, earned customer gratuities.

Plaintiffs Alvarez and Shahandeh were employed as servers for
Defendants.

5332, INC. operated a restaurants under the brand names
International House of Pancakes ("IHOP"). IHOP is a breakfast
restaurant and serves breakfast to its customers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          Email: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Barry R. Grissom, Esq.
          GRISSOM & MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 460
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 336-1213
          Facsimile: (816) 384-1623
          Email: barry@grissommiller.com

ACTION URGENT: Caraska Sues Over Illegal Payroll Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Kate Caraska and Bryce Rosellini, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated v. ACTION URGENT CARE, INC., AND DOES 1
THROUGH 50, Case No. 22CV397776 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
May 9, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the Defendants'
illegal payroll policies and practices in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Orders.

The Defendant failed to provide required meal periods; failed to
provide required rest periods; failed to pay overtime wages; failed
to pay minimum wages; failed to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees; failed to maintain required records; failed to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failed to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of
duties; and provided unfair and unlawful business practices, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of California and former
non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

ACTION URGENT CARE, INC. is a California corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip E. Carey, Esq.
          PHILIP E. CAREY, A LAW CORPORATION
          2100 Northrop Ave., Suite 900
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 564-0706
          Facsimile: (916) 564-6455


AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces Suit Over Mismanagement of Retirement Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REV. A. OFFORD CARMICHAEL, JR.; and REV. DIANE CONLEY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs v. REV. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS; AFRICAN METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH; AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH MINISTERIAL
RETIREMENT ANNUITY PLAN; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00386 (M.D., N.C., May 19, 2022) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the loss of assets and
other mismanagement of AMEC Pension Fund (the "Fund") is a direct
and proximate result of the Defendants' failure to fulfill their
duties to the Plaintiff and the putative class.

Tens of millions of dollars of the Plaintiffs' retirement funds
have been disastrously put into speculative and unsafe investments,
and even what was invested in safer investment vehicles generated
returns that were woefully below the industry standard. These
breaches of fiduciary duty harmed the Plaintiff and the putative
class, says the suit.

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH usually called the AME Church or
AME, is a predominantly African-American Methodist denomination.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
          Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Esq.
          BLUE LLP
          205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 833-1931
          Facsimile: (919) 833-8009

ALASKA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new federal class-action lawsuit filed against Alaska's Office of
Children's Services asserts that the state is failing children in
foster care. Lawyers for the 13 child plaintiffs claim the state
has known about widespread foster care problems for years, but
hasn't addressed them.

In the 90-page complaint filed, they say problems include high
caseloads for caseworkers and high turnover among those workers,
plus few adequate foster homes and a lack of adequate support for
placing foster children with family members.

The group of attorneys representing the plaintiffs include A Better
Childhood, a New York-based advocacy nonprofit focused on foster
care. The group has filed a number of class action lawsuits in
other states such as Oklahoma, West Virginia and Indiana.

Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of A Better Childhood,
said Alaska isn't the worst state when it comes to meeting federal
requirements, but it's far from the best.

"Alaska is fifth-worst in returning kids to their family homes and
seventh-worst in the country on the frequency with which children
are visited, which is a federal mandate," Lowry said.

The state Department of Health and Social Services and OCS are
listed as defendants in the complaint.

Officials with the state agencies said that they hadn't been served
with the complaint yet, and couldn't comment on the case. In a
statement, they said, "what we can say is that the State takes its
obligations for reunification of families, foster care, and the
health and welfare of all Alaskan children very seriously."

READ MORE: The COVID-19 pandemic is leaving more children in
Alaska's foster care system without a stable home

The complaint says the problems in the state's foster care system
are widespread.

It says the system is causing particular harm to Alaska Native
children, who make up roughly two-thirds of all Alaska children in
foster care, despite being a little over a fourth of the state's
population. Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, child
welfare agencies are federally compelled to work as hard as
possible to house Native foster children with their families, or
with their tribes.

The complaint details numerous stories from the plaintiffs,
including five Alaska Native siblings who hadn't been placed in
homes that complied with ICWA, a boy with ADHD who had been moved
to seven different homes since April of last year and a 16-year-old
girl who reported she was sexually assaulted at a mental health
treatment facility she was placed at hundreds of miles from her
home.

The complaint also says the state isn't doing enough to address
foster children who have disabilities.

Lowry said another issue is that sometimes when kids are placed
with family members, the families aren't licensed by the state as
official foster parents, so they don't receive the funding and
support that comes with that licensing.

"And the children either struggle alone without adequate money
available for their food and clothing and other activities," Lowry
said, "or the foster parents basically break under the pressure and
the kids get moved out and moved to another placement, and another
replacement, and another placement."

Lowry said the plaintiffs hope their lawsuit results in the
Superior Court ordering the state to take a number of actions,
including reducing caseloads for foster care workers. Currently,
those workers sometimes are trying manage case numbers that total
three times the national average. Turnover among staff is roughly
60 percent.

"So there's a lot that has to be done with regard to caseloads, and
the state has to develop more and better foster homes," Lowry said.
"At the same time, the state needs to provide services so that kids
can return home more quickly, or if that's not appropriate or safe,
so the kids can be adopted, either by relatives if possible or
other people as well."

There are roughly 3,000 children in the foster care system in
Alaska.[GN]

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Morgan Sues Over Mislabeled Analgesic Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; SAFEWAY, INC.;
BETTER LIVING BRANDS, LLC; and LNK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02948 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2022) is a class action
lawsuit against the Defendants for cheating customers by uniformly
advertising, marketing, and selling generic versions of certain
over-the-counter drugs, including analgesic or pain-relieving
medicines using acetaminophen under the brand name "Signature Care"
(the "Class Rapid Release Gelcaps" or "Products").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Rapid
Release Claims concerning the Products are false, misleading, and
deceptive to consumers, who reasonably understand such claims to
mean that the Products work faster for consumers than non-rapid
release products with the same active ingredients and of the same
dosage. However, despite what the Defendants' marketing and
labeling would have consumers believe, the Class Rapid Release
Gelcaps do not provide faster pain relief than their non-rapid
release counterparts, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class and Subclass would
not have purchased the Class Rapid Release Gelcaps had Defendants
disclosed accurate information about the products and not misled
them into believing that the Class Rapid Release Gelcaps would
provide faster relief than other, cheaper acetaminophen products,
such as the traditional Signature Care non-rapid release
acetaminophen sold in caplet and tablet form, the suit added.

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. retails food and drugs products. The
Company distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, medicines,
and other related goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jvenditti@bursor.com

ALDER PROTECTION: Court Wants More Discovery Briefing 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), Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division,
orders further briefing on some of the requested discovery and
denies other requests.

I. Background

Before the court is the Plaintiffs' Third Short-Form Discovery
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses.

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 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
Plaintiffs point to this order in part asserting the Defendants
have not fully complied with it. Both parties also seek attorney
fees pertaining to the instant motion.

II. Analysis

The Plaintiffs move to compel responses to certain interrogatories
(ROG) and requests for production (RFP) from the third and fourth
set of discovery requests. The Court's prior order regarding the
Plaintiffs' Second Short Form Discovery Motion addresses alleged
failures by the Defendants to comply with the court's Feb. 5, 2021
order. The Court therefore does not address those allegations and
instead focuses on the discovery requests at issue in the
Plaintiffs' Third Motion.

A. ROG 20 and RFP 48

Interrogatory 20 states: "Identify all residual sales
representatives having a positive balance on their Invested Capital
Report at the time they left Alder (for former representatives) or
currently (for current representatives)." RFP 48 from the fourth
set of discovery requests provides: "Please produce any and all
evidence Defendants intend to use at trial to establish that Jake
Dahl, Bobby Shane, Ben Quinn, Ryan Davis, Ryan Anderson, or any
other current or former sales representative has achieved a
positive book of business."

In response to these discovery requests, the Defendants provide
"Alder does not maintain a list of which former representatives had
a positive balance at the time they terminated their relationship
with Alder." They provide a chart of former sales representatives
and a list of current sales representatives that "have a positive
balance on their books of business." In reply to the Plaintiffs'
motion, Defendants assert they have produced "nearly 250,000 pages
of documents" along with spreadsheet data.

Judge Pead finds the Defendants' response to ROG 20 adequate and
finds RFP 48 premature and disingenuous. He says, there is no
requirement to provide pretrial disclosures at this time under the
operative scheduling order. In fact, the matter has yet to reach
the summary judgment stage. It is these type of overreaching
premature discovery requests that create delay and waste the
resources of both the court and the parties. The Plaintiffs' motion
is denied as to both ROG 20 and RFP 48.

B. RFP 43

This request seeks production of a "screen shot or printout of the
information sales representatives have been able to access through
Alder's intra-company website since February 2021." During a March
10th meet and confer between the parties, the Defendants' counsel
"agreed to at least produce screenshots from DOMO/Genesis showing
the relevant residual information." In response to the Plaintiffs'
motion, the Defendants state that they "have produced, and are in
the process of gathering additional, relevant screenshots form
DOMO."

Based on the representations by the parties, this production
appears to be "in process." Unfortunately this is an all too common
theme in civil discovery disputes. One party is a little slow in
production, while another party lacks patience for a thorough
response to a discovery request. Judge Pead holds that the parties
are strongly encouraged to use their best efforts to resolve
disputes such as the one surrounding this RFP. The Plaintiffs'
motion as to this request is denied given this lack of cooperation
and how quickly the motion was filed following the meet and confer.
The Defendants are ordered to comply with their agreement within 30
days from the date of the Order.

C. RFP 45

RFP 45 states: "Produce tax returns and annual balance sheets,
profit/loss statements, and cash flow statements for each of the
previous fiscal years for all entities shown on the organizational
chart produced by the Defendants on or about Oct. 18, 2021." The
Plaintiffs assert these items are highly relevant to their
allegations. In contrast, the Defendants argue these documents will
not show whether sales representatives own interest in accounts or
the revenue allegedly owned to them and whether any revenue has
been misapplied.

Judge Pead finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to make the
required showing for the production of these materials. Candidly,
such a showing is fairly hard to make within the confines of the
short form motion briefing limits. Judge Pead orders further
briefing on these discovery requests. The briefing is to
specifically address the case law set forth, and any other relevant
case law from the Tenth Circuit pertaining to these request,
including the burden Plaintiffs face in obtaining this requested
discovery.

The following schedule and page limitations apply: The Plaintiffs
are to file a brief of no more than 10 pages or 3100 words on or
before May 20, 2022; the Defendants are to file an opposition of no
more than 10 pages or 3100 words by June 3, 2022; and the
Plaintiffs may file a 5 page reply or 1550 words by June 10, 2022.

The parties are to follow Local Rule 7-1(5) in regard to sections
that are applicable to the page or word limits and certification
requirements. Once the briefing is complete the court will make a
ruling on the requested discovery.

D. ROGs 24-28; RFP 46, 47

A review of the ROGs and RFPs at issue here indicate the Plaintiffs
are seeking, inter alia, the "structure of any actual or proposed
transaction involving Skybell", the timeframe for a transaction,
how the equity may be purchased or transferred, the impact on
future cash flows, copies of "all communications, disclosures, due
diligence materials and other documents related to the Skybell
transaction that identify" the current litigation, and "all term
sheets, letters of intent, agreements, and other documents that
identify or describe any actual or proposed transaction involving
Skybell and the Defendants."

The Defendants resist any line of discovery regarding the
negotiations with Skybell. The discovery is not relevant to any
alleged fraudulent statements about third-party acquisitions and
Plaintiffs fail to explain any connection. Further, the Defendants
allege the Plaintiffs are attempting to disrupt a possible
transaction by interfering with the parties' confidential
negotiations. On top of these concerns, the Defendants point out
that the Plaintiffs are employed by Vivint, a direct competitor of
Alder, and their counsel in the case is also outside legal counsel
for Vivint.

Judge Pead agrees with the Defendants. As noted in their
objections, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs have not provided
services to Alder for several years. And, the contracts between the
Plaintiffs and Alder were allegedly based on being actively engaged
in providing services to Alder.Thus, there is no need for this
information regarding negotiations that appear to be ongoing
concerning a possible acquisition. Even setting those reasons
aside, the information sought involves confidential and proprietary
business information. Requesting information that identify or
describe any actual or proposed transaction involving Skybell" fits
squarely within that type of information. Although relevance is
broadly construed at this stage, it is not without limits as the
court noted previously. On the record before it, Judge Pead is not
persuaded that this line of discovery is relevant to the instant
proceedings. Thus, the motion is denied as to these RFPs and ROGs
and he upholds the Defendants' objections.

E. RFP 49

In RFP 49, the Plaintiffs request that the Defendants: "Please
produce documents and records sufficient to show all amounts paid
to sales representatives through S-corporations or other means not
reflected on 1099 or W2 forms." They argue the "Defendants have
refused to produce responsive documents and information." After
setting forth overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant
objections, the Defendants state that to the extent they can
identify responsive documents they will be produced at a
"convenient time and place." In opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion Defendants further note they "are in the process of
searching for and producing the requested information for the
relevant time period."

Judge Pead holds that once again this dispute is one that requires
more effort by the parties to resolve. Th Plaintiffs' blatant
assertion that the Defendants have refused to produce responsive
documents and information is undermined by the Defendants'
responses in the record. A meaningful meet and confer, along with
patience by the Plaintiffs and diligence by Defendants, could have
resolved this dispute. Judge Pead finds no basis to grant the
Plaintiffs' motion as to this request given this lack of
cooperation. However, the Defendants are ordered to provide the
requested information within 30 das from the date of the order.

F. Attorney Fees

Both parties seek attorney fees. Judge Pead notes that the conduct
of the parties, i.e. other circumstances, makes an award of
expenses to either party unjust.

III. Order

Based upon the foregoing, Judge Pead (i) denies the Plaintiffs'
motion as to ROG 20 and FRP 48; (ii) denies the Plaintiffs' motion
as to RFP 43, however, the Defendants are to comply with their meet
and confer obligations within 30 days from the date of the Order;
(iii) orders the parties to provide further briefing as set forth
concerning RFP 45; (iv) denies the Plaintiffs' motion as to ROGs
24-28 and RFPs 46-47; (v) denies the Plaintiffs' motion as to RFP
49, however, the Defendants are to complete their searching for and
producing relevant items within 30 days from the date of the Order;
and (vi) denies the respective parties' requests for attorney
fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc43ujjb from
Leagle.com.


AMWASTE LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Hoppers’ OT, Sambo Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THOMAS SAMBO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMWASTE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00647-RDP (N.D. Ala., May 19, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff as a collective action against the Defendant to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a Hopper, claims
that the Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to properly
compensate him and other similarly situated Hoppers for all hours
worked. Allegedly, the Defendant automatically deduct a 30-minute
meal-period from their daily time worked although they worked
off-the-clock through their respective meal-period breaks. As a
result, despite they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendant failed to properly calculate their overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
says the suit.

AmWaste, LLC is a full-service solid waste company providing waste
collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial,
industrial, and residential customers across the states of Alabama,
Georgia and Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Tel: (205) 523-0463
          Fax: (205) 344-6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

                - and –

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361) 452-1279
          Fax: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Court Authorizes Sex Abuse Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reports that a judge is authorizing a class-action
lawsuit against the Catholic archdiocese of Quebec brought by
victims of alleged sexual abuse.

The class action was filed in 2020 and covers alleged sexual
assaults committed from 1940 to the present day.

Montreal law firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee, which is representing the
plaintiffs, says the lawsuit is the first class action targeting
all the members of a specific archdiocese who allegedly committed
sexual assault.

The class action covers anyone who was sexually assaulted -
including heirs of victims - by clergy or lay personnel who were
under the responsibility of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of
Quebec or the Roman Catholic archbishop of Quebec.

The Quebec archdiocese covers a region that includes the greater
Quebec City area and neighbouring Chaudiere-Appalaches, Charlevoix
and Beauce regions.

Arsenault Dufresne Wee welcomed the ruling in a statement and said
that more than 88 alleged victims have come forward.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Bernard Godbout heard arguments in
April and authorized the lawsuit in a written ruling issued.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 20, 2022.
[GN]

ASHLEY HEALTH: Bogan Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Health, LLC.
The case is styled as Rockell Bogan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ashley Health, LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-05096-TLB (W.D. Ark., May 19, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

Ashley Rehabilitation & Health Care Center --
https://www.ashleyhealth.com/ -- is a Short-term Rehabilitation and
Living Center in Rogers, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 904-1649
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXSM) securities
between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until July 12, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., No. 22-cv-03925
(S.D.N.Y.). The Axsome class action lawsuit charges Axsome and
certain of its top executive officers with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-axsome-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-axsm,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.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Axsome is developing, among other product
candidates, AXS-07, a novel, oral, rapidly absorbed,
multi-mechanistic, and investigational medicine for the acute
treatment of migraine. Axsome consistently touted AXS-07's
regulatory and commercial prospects in anticipation of Axsome's
submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") for AXS-07 for the acute treatment of
migraine (the "AXS-07 NDA") based on the drug's positive results in
two Phase 3 trials. However, as the Axsome class action lawsuit
alleges, Axsome's preparation and eventual submission of the AXS-07
NDA was plagued with chemistry, manufacturing, and control ("CMC")
issues.

Specifically, the Axsome class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Axsome's CMC practices
were deficient with respect to AXS-07 and its manufacturing
process; (ii) as a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07
NDA on its initially represented timeline; (iii) the foregoing CMC
issues remained unresolved at the time that the FDA reviewed the
AXS-07 NDA; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the
AXS-07 NDA; (v) thus, Axsome had overstated AXS-07's regulatory and
commercial prospects; and (vi) consequently, Axsome's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Axsome
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. 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.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller 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 is one of the largest
plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm'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: [GN]

BARRICK GOLD: Matney Appeals ERISA Case Dismissal to 10th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs COLE MATNEY, et al., appeal the dismissal of their
lawsuit entitled Cole Matney and Paul Watts, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA,
INC., BARRICK U.S. SUBSIDIARIES BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-00275-TC, in the United States District
Court for the District of Utah - Salt Lake City.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 6, 2020, the
complaint is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 alleging that the Defendants breached their duties as
fiduciaries of the Barrick Retirement Plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost;
and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or similar investment options with lower
costs and/or better performance histories.

At all times during the Class Period (April 24, 2014, through the
date of judgment), the Plan had at least half a billion dollars in
assets under management. At the end of 2017 and 2018, the Plan had
over $619 million and $560 million, respectively, in assets under
management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's
fiduciaries. The Plan's assets under management qualify it as a
large plan in the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among
the largest plans in the United States. As a large plan, the Plan
had substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses
that were charged against participants' investments.

The Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses
or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment
option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent,
according to the complaint. To make matters worse, the Defendants
failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the
mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider collective
trusts, commingled accounts, or separate accounts as alternatives
to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the
ERISA, says the complaint. Their actions were contrary to actions
of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants
millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert
claims against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries.

On April 21, 2022, Judge Tena Campbell signed an Order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, with
prejudice. Judgment was also entered the following day in favor of
the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Matney, et al. v. Barrick Gold
of North America, et al., Case No. 22-4045, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 20, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance are due on June 3, 2022 for Cole Matney and Paul Watts;
and

   -- Notice of appearance is also due on June 3, 2022 for Barrick
Gold of North America, Barrick U.S. Subsidiaries Benefits
Committee, and Board of Directors of Barrick Gold of North
America.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants COLE MATNEY and PAUL WATTS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101

               - and -

          David K. Isom, Esq.
          ISOM LAW FIRM
          299 South Main Street, Suite 1300
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 209-7400

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101

Defendants-Appellees BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF BARRICK GOLD OF NORTH AMERICA, and BARRICK U.S.
SUBSIDIARIES BENEFITS COMMITTEE are represented by:

          Grace S. Pusavat, Esq.
          Stephen Q. Wood, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
          2755 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 430
          Salt Lake City, UT 84121  

               - and -

          John B. Quinn, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 624-7707

               - and -

          Kaitlin P. Sheehan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606  

BENEFITS SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Consultants' Wages, Bittner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HOLLY BITTNER, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENEFITS SOLUTIONS GROUP, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00066-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 20, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay compensable time
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a solutions consultant
under what it called an independent contractor - Soliciting Agent's
Contract in or about June 2021 until the date of her resignation in
November 2021.

Under the terms of the independent contractor agreement, the
Plaintiff was supposed to be paid commission for the closures by
the insurance agents. However, the Plaintiff has never received any
payment throughout her employment with the Defendant. In addition,
the Plaintiff was also misclassified by the Defendant as
independent contractor. Although the Plaintiff was required to work
40 hours per week, to attend mandatory meetings and be on call
during weekends and evenings, the Defendant denied her of any
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half time her
regular rate of pay for all hours she worked in excess of 40, says
the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been unjustly
enriched by keeping funds which are the property of the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Solutions Consultants.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Solutions
Consultants, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover all
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and attorney fees, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

Benefits Solutions Group, PLLC is an insurance brokerage and
consulting firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
          Lauren E. Berger, Esq.
          BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
          411 Main Street
          Evansville, IN 47708
          Tel: (812) 424-1000
          Fax: (812) 424-1005
          E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com
                  lberger@bdlegal.com

BHG BOYNTON: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Giraldo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA GIRALDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. BHG BOYNTON BEACH LLC d/b/a THE POKE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-007248 (Fla. Cir., Broward
Cty., May 18, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unsolicited calls.

BHG BOYNTON BEACH LLC d/b/a THE POKE COMPANY offers fresh and
healthy Poke bowls, and other food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeremy Dover, Esq.
         DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
         1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (866) 954-6673
         Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
         Email:PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com


BLUJAY SOLUTIONS: Tooker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD TOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUJAY SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00455 (W.D. Mich., May 20, 2022) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Logistics
Coordinator in its Holland, Michigan office from approximately July
2018 to February 2021.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Logistics Coordinators as
exempt from federal overtime laws. The Defendant allegedly suffered
and permitted them to work more than 40 hours per week. However,
the Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, or preserve adequate
or accurate records of all of the hours the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Logistics Coordinators worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigations costs and attorneys’
fees, and other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just.

BluJay Solutions Inc. is a cloud-based logistics software company
that provides supply chain software and services to retailers,
distributors, freight forwarders, manufacturers, and logistics
service providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 South Eight Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com
                  ccoleman@nka.com

BONDED FILTER: Fails to Properly Pay Technicians’ OT, Geeo Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL GEEO, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONDED FILTER CO., LLC, d/b/a BFC
SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00359 (M.D. Tenn., May 17,
2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
technician from approximately October 202 through February 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to keep record of
all the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated technicians' hours
worked. Although they routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
week as part of their regular job duties, the Defendant did not pay
them proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court determines to
be appropriate.

Bonded Filter Co., LLC is a company classified as a commercial HVAC
maintenance company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

                - and –

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

BONDI SANDS: Faces U.S. Suit Over Alleged "Greenwashed" Sunscreens
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Houston at smh.com.au reports that a popular Australian
sun-care and cosmetics business named after the nation's most
famous beach has been hit with a class action in the United States
over claims its sunscreens are harmful to the environment, despite
its claims to be "reef friendly".

Bondi Sands, founded a decade ago in Melbourne, has been accused in
court documents of "greenwashing" its sunscreens by falsely
marketing them to US consumers as safe to the environment.

The class action complaint filed in the US District Court in
northern California claims that Bondi Sands' US operation has
"reaped millions of dollars through this fraudulent scheme based on
a calculated business decision to put profits over people and the
environment".

The company, which is based in Melbourne and has its products
stocked in 22,000 stores worldwide, is accused of mislabelling
several sunscreen products available in the US to gain an advantage
over competitors and charge a premium to consumers.

The case is one of several class actions launched by the same lead
plaintiff against other sunscreen manufacturers, including Banana
Boat and Edgewell Personal Care Brands, which are also accused of
misleading consumers and damaging the environment.

Asked about the allegations, Bondi Sands said it was proud of its
products and the transparency of their descriptions.

"Our sunscreen products are made in Australia and are compliant
with TGA regulations, which are the strongest SPF guidelines in the
world, and are compliant with strict EU and FDA laws," the company
said in a statement.

But after questions from The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on
Bondi Sands made significant changes to its website regarding its
definition of "reef friendly".

The allegations made in legal documents filed in San Francisco are
at odds with Bondi Sands' carefully cultivated image that taps into
Australia's laid-back beach culture and love of the ocean.

The company's website spruiks its eco-friendly credentials,
including its "always-on attitude towards positive environmental
impacts, with sustainable choices at the forefront of everything we
do".

Bondi Sands says on its website that its sun-care range is
formulated to be reef-friendly to protect oceans and waterways.

"Our entire sun-care range is free of the two ingredients that are
harmful towards our reefs, oxybenzone and octinoxate, and we will
continue to evolve our product formulations with direction of both
local and international authorities," the website said.

However, the class action complaint alleges that Bondi Sands'
products include other harmful ingredients that can potentially
endanger coral reefs and marine life, including avobenzone,
homosalate, octisalate and octocrylene.

The class action cites research or advice from several US
institutions, including the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory,
the National Ocean Service, and the Hawaii Centre for Biological
Diversity.

In 2018, Hawaii was the first state in the US and first
jurisdiction in the world to ban oxybenzone and octinoxate from
sunscreen on the grounds they were harmful to coral reefs and could
cause coral bleaching.

But last year, the Hawaii State Legislature also introduced laws
banning the sale of sunscreens that contain avobenzone and
octocrylene that come into effect in 2023.

In its statement, Bondi Sands said its sunscreen formulations were
completely free of oxybenzone and octinoxate, and it was compliant
with all state and federal regulations in the US.

"Bondi Sands has a proud history of championing the environment,
and we will continue to evolve our product formulations based on
guidance from both local and international authorities," it said.

The company was founded by entrepreneurs Shaun Wilson and Blair
James, who first met at a Port Melbourne tanning salon. Wilson and
James are not a party to the US legal action.

Last year the pair rejected offers of more than $320 million to
acquire the business, which has experienced rapid growth.

"We wish to thank all parties that have shown interest in Bondi
Sands, however, the focus is on our company's intensive growth
strategy, which ensures there is more of this journey to play out,"
Wilson told The Australian Financial Review in September. [GN]

BROOK MEAT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA MORENO; and LAURA NAJERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOK MEAT & PRODUCE CORP.
d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS; 207 MEAT CORP. d/b/a SUPER ASSOCIATED
d/b/a SHOP FAIR WAREHOUSE; A&A MEAT & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a SUPER
GIGANTE FOODS; KING POLO, INC. d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS; C. R.
MEAT & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS; KING MEAT CORP.
d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS; BEACH CHANNEL MEAT & PRODUCE CORP.
d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS; CORNAGA 1801 MEAT CORP. d/b/a SHOP
FAIR SUPERMARKETS; 1331 MEAT & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a SHOP FAIR
SUPERMARKETS; ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, and ARIEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04070 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Moreno was employed by the Defendants as salad preparer.
Plaintiff Najera was employed as staff.

BROOK MEAT & PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a SHOP FAIR SUPERMARKETS own and
operate multiple supermarkets throughout New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CK Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Tel: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181

CALIFORNIA: Governor Fends Off Class Action Over COVID Lockdown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher at Legal Newsline reports that California restaurants
and gyms lost their effort to pursue a class action against Gov.
Gavin Newsome over his stringent Covid-19 lockdown measures, as a
state appeals court rejected arguments the orders violated
administrative procedure law or represented an unconstitutional
taking of their property.

"While we sympathize with the position some owners find themselves
in and the significant financial losses they allege," the Fourth
District Court of Appeal ruled in a May 13 decision, "a
mandated-but-temporary business closure to deal with a public
health emergency is not sufficiently akin to a governmental
appropriation of private property for a public use so as to require
compensation."

Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency in California on
March 4, 2020. Two weeks later he issued Executive Order N-33-20,
or the "stay-at- home order," closing gyms and prohibiting
restaurants from providing indoor or outdoor dining.

Restaurants and gyms in San Diego County didn't start to open until
May, then after another covid surge in July officials banned indoor
dining again in San Diego and 28 other counties. Another executive
order in August set up a color-coded alert system to dictate when
and how restaurants could offer indoor dining. It was rescinded in
June 2021.

In April 2021, 640 Tenth, a San Diego restaurant company, and two
fitness gyms filed a proposed class action against Newsome and
other officials on behalf of California businesses affected by the
lockdown. A trial court dismissed the case, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed, in an opinion by Judge William Dato.

Under the Emergency Act, the court ruled, the governor has complete
control over all agencies of the state government and can suspend
any state law or regulation including the APA. The plaintiffs
argued Newsome didn't explicitly say he was suspending the APA but
the appeals court said his executive order effectively did so by
giving state public health authorities the power to enact whatever
rules they believed necessary. The order went on to say nothing
related to those rules would be subject to the APA.

While the APA includes a provision for emergency rulemaking that
citizens can challenge, that was superseded by the governor's
declaration of a statewide emergency, the court said.

The plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment takings arguments suffered a
similar fate. First, the plaintiffs faced "a virtual torrent" of
California federal district court decisions rejecting similar
claims, the court said. Supreme Court decisions also have
restricted regulatory takings claims to "significant" economic
losses, generally believed to be at least 85% of a business's
value. Here, the plaintiffs could only speculate as to their losses
if the lockdown orders remained in place.

Under another approach, the court said, the Supreme Court balances
the cost of a regulation against an individual business against the
social benefits and possible benefits to the business itself. Fewer
patients sick with covid might mean more restaurant customers
later, the court said. And temporary shutdowns aren't typically a
taking, the court said, citing a Third Circuit case in which a flea
market was ordered closed for five months while it could be cleared
of live munitions left over from its previous use as an army base.

Finally, the court rejected "commandeering" arguments, citing
similar decisions in courts around the country. [GN]

CALIFORNIA: Lifeguards Sue Over Unfair Union Membership
-------------------------------------------------------
Sara Cardines at latimes.com reports that state-employed lifeguards
are suing their union, claiming the organization is compelling
employees to remain members and pay dues against their wishes, and
continuing to press for a class-action lawsuit, even after recently
losing a federal appeal.

More than 20 named plaintiffs employed by the California Department
of Parks and Recreation -- including lifeguards at Huntington,
Bolsa Chica, Crystal Cove and San Clemente state beaches -- contend
they were deceived and coerced into joining the union, denied fair
representation and shut down when they tried to resign.

In a January 2020 complaint filed with the U.S. District Court
against the California State Law Enforcement Assn. (CSLEA) and
State Controller Betty Yee, attorneys maintain workers were denied
their 1st Amendment right to withdraw from the union and not have
dues taken out of their paychecks.

"Just as it is unconstitutional for the state to require employees
to fund the Democratic party, it's unconstitutional for the state
to require employees to pay union dues against their will," said
William Messenger, an attorney with the nonprofit National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation who is working on the pro bono case.

Messenger cited the 2018 Supreme Court case Janus vs. the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in which
justices ruled 5-4 that union payments or fees could not be
deducted from the wages of non-members without their affirmative
consent.

The lawsuit describes how employees were historically offered union
membership applications without knowing they could opt out of
representation. They were told even those who didn't sign the
agreements would have to pay an "agency" or "fair share" fee as
non-members, so many signed on.

Jennifer Marshall, a seasonal lifeguard II at Huntington State
Beach since 2011, remembers learning about CSLEA when she first
arrived on the job at 19. She recalled going along with the crowd
as people signed agreements.

"They really pushed us to sign up for the union without a lot of
information behind it," the Huntington Beach resident, now 30,
said. "It was kind of a
sign-the-papers-and-we'll-talk-about-it-later kind of thing."

In the years that followed, Marshall didn't have many encounters
with the union, despite having $50 regularly taken out of her
paycheck. She wondered what she was paying for.

"It just wasn't clear to me," she said.

In 2019, CSLEA and the state added a "maintenance of membership"
clause into a memorandum of understanding amending their collective
bargaining agreement. It stipulated employees covered by the new
four-year contract would be required to remain dues-paying members
for the duration.

A provision indicated employees wishing to withdraw from the union
could do so within the 30-day period before the contract's
expiration in July 2023. Membership applications were updated to
read: "Per the Unit 7 contract and State law, there are limitations
on the time period in which an employee can withdraw as a member."

That same summer, Marshall and several others learned they'd had
the right to opt out and sent certified resignation letters in
September but were told they'd already missed the 30-day window
under the old contract and would have to wait until June 2023.

Messenger said lifeguards were neither provided copies of the new
contract, nor informed of the resignation guidelines. He believes
the maintenance of membership agreement is just as unconstitutional
as charging fees to non-members.

"You literally have to kick the ball through the uprights of this
30-day escape period," he said. "This is effectively a restriction
of when employees can exercise their rights under [the 2018 Janus
ruling]."

CSLEA did not respond to multiple requests for an interview or to
provide a comment for this story.

The lifeguards' complaint was heard by U.S. District Court Judge
Dana M. Sabraw, who ruled in September 2020 to dismiss the case on
the grounds that the Janus ruling applies only to employees who've
declined union membership.

"Janus is inapplicable to [the] plaintiff' situation, because
plaintiffs are union members," Sabraw wrote. "By signing CSLEA
membership applications, they affirmatively consented to union
membership, including limitations on withdrawal and dues
reductions."

Workers appealed the matter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and
were disappointed when an April 28 opinion by a three-judge panel
upheld Sabraw's ruling.

"The lifeguards do not argue that union membership was a
requirement of employment and agree that they voluntarily chose to
join the union," they wrote. "The district court correctly
concluded that the holding in Janus applied to nonunion members
only, and because the lifeguards are union members, Janus is
inapplicable here."

Dissatisfied, attorneys filed a petition to have the matter heard
"en banc," before a fuller panel of 9th Circuit judges. Messenger
said he and lead attorney Mariah Gondiero are prepared to take the
case to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

"The constitutionality of restricting when people can exercise
their rights is a big deal," he said. "That's why these types of
cases matter." [GN]

CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION: Faces Baccari Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BACCARI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARGUARD ADMINISTRATION, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01952 (E.D. Penn., May 18, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, in an attempt to promote its vehicle
warranty services, the Defendant sent pre-recorded telemarketing
calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (856) 625-XXXX
on September 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 28, 2021. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the National Do
Not Call Registry for at least a year prior to September 2021. To
learn the Defendant's identity, the Plaintiff responded to the
pre-recorded message during the September 28, 2021 and engaged the
telemarketer, who sent a proposed service contract from the
Defendant. In addition, the Defendant derived a benefit from its
interaction with the Plaintiff by the issuance of a policy, the
suit says.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed
in the form of invasion of privacy, annoyance, waste of time, the
use of their cell phone battery, and the intrusion on their
cellular telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate
communications, added the suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the
Defendant's vendors from calling telephone numbers advertising
their services to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry
or to any cellular telephone numbers using a prerecorded voice in
the future. The Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CarGuard Administration, Inc. offers vehicle warranty services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
          BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          403 S. Allen St., Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Tel: (814) 234-2626
          E-mail: jjackson@bower-law.com

                - and –

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Tel: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Arbitration Order in Adell Class Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LORRAINE ADELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP, doing business as Verizon Wireless,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-3570 (6th Cir.), Judge Jane B.
Stranch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms
the district court's March 2019 opinion and order compelling
arbitration and the opinion and order denying Adell's motion to
vacate the arbitration award.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Adell challenges the district court's decision compelling
her to arbitrate her claims against Cellco Partnership based on an
arbitration clause in her Customer Agreement with Verizon Wireless.
Adell asserts that the waiver of her Article III right to bring her
state-law claims through diversity jurisdiction in federal court
was not voluntary and that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
overrides the Federal Arbitration Act with respect to the
arbitration of class action claims. The district court rejected
these arguments in granting Verizon's motion to compel arbitration,
granting Verizon's request to confirm the arbitration award, and
rejecting Adell's motion to vacate the arbitration reward.

II. Background

Ms. Adell became a Verizon Wireless customer in September 2015.
When signing up for Verizon service, Adell accepted Verizon's
Customer Agreement, which included a statement agreeing that both
parties would resolve disputes exclusively through arbitration or
in small-claims court. In March 2018, she sued Verizon in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Ms. Adell alleged that, in October 2005, Verizon introduced a
monthly administrative charge on wireless customers for each line.
This charge was, at some point, as much as $1.23 per line monthly.
In 2010, the charge was $0.92 per line and generated approximately
$84 million in revenue per month. According to Adell, Verizon first
noted the administrative charge in its November 2006 Customer
Agreement, explaining that the company "may also include Federal
Universal Service, Regulatory and Administrative Charges, and may
also include other charges related to our governmental costs."
Adell alleged that these charges must be put toward governmental
costs. However, "Verizon has used the Administrative Charge as a
discretionary pass-through of Verizon's general costs," such as the
cost of building cell sites. The complaint asserted that using the
costs in this way allows Verizon to increase the monthly rate for
service without disclosure to its customers, breaching Verizon's
contracts with Ohio and nationwide customers.

Ms. Adell sought to challenge the charge both individually and
through a class action on behalf of two classes. The first class
would include "all Verizon wireless telephone customers." Adell
brought a declaratory judgment on behalf of this class, seeking a
declaration that the arbitration clause in the Customer Agreement
was, as applied to state-law claims against Verizon for breach of
contract under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), not
voluntary or enforceable. This class also sought a declaration that
the agreements to arbitrate state-law claims that CAFA allows the
Plaintiffs to bring in federal courts through diversity
jurisdiction "are not enforceable because of the 'inherent
conflict' between arbitration under the FAA and CAFA's express
purposes as stated by Congress." The second class included "all
Verizon wireless telephone customers whose wireless phones have an
Ohio area code." Adell sought damages for breach of contract based
on Verizon's imposition of the administrative charge.

In June 2018, Adell moved for partial summary judgment on her
individual claims for declaratory judgment, including her arguments
that the waiver of her right to bring a case in an Article III
court against Verizon was not voluntary, conflicted with CAFA, and
was therefore not enforceable. Later in June, Verizon moved the
district court to compel Adell's state-law claims to arbitration
and to stay the case until the end of the arbitration process. In
March 2019, the district court granted Verizon's motion to compel
arbitration, denied Adell's motion for partial summary judgment,
and stayed the case pending the completion of arbitration.

Ms. Adell and Verizon arbitrated their dispute through the American
Arbitration Association. They agreed to a summary disposition based
on pre-hearing motions on Adell's breach of contract claim. On Aug.
22, 2020, the arbitrator concluded, based on Ohio law, that "the
Agreement in its entirety does not appear to require that
Administrative Charges be related to government costs and cannot be
said to be ambiguous as it relates to administrative charges."
Therefore, Adell's claim for breach based on Verizon's imposition
of administrative charges unrelated to government costs failed. The
arbitrator denied Adell's claims for breach of contract, specific
performance, and partial summary disposition, and granted Verizon's
motion for summary adjudication. The arbitrator ordered the parties
to pay $1,900.00 in administrative fees and expenses to the
American Arbitration Association and $2,500 as compensation to the
arbitrator.

After the district court confirmed the arbitration award and denied
Adell's motion to vacate that award, Adell brought the appeal. She
challenges both the district court's March 2019 opinion and order
compelling arbitration and the opinion and order denying her motion
to vacate the arbitration award.

III. Analysis

Ms. Adell signed the Arbitration Agreement as part of her Customer
Agreement with Verizon. The parties do not dispute that Adell's
Customer Agreement with Verizon from September 2015 includes an
arbitration clause that covers Adell's breach of contract claim.
Adell also concedes that the clause requires the bilateral, rather
than class, arbitration of disputes and limits her to individual
relief in that process. The disagreement lies with whether this
clause is enforceable under federal law.

Arbitration agreements fall under the ambit of the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), which provides than an arbitration clause in
"a transaction involving commerce will be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract." The FAA evinces "a liberal
federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." As arbitration
agreements are contracts, "courts must 'rigorously enforce'
arbitration agreements according to their terms." If a court is
"satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration is not
in issue, the court will make an order directing the parties to
proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the
agreement."

A. Voluntariness Under the Federal Arbitration Act

Ms. Adell's first challenge to the enforceability of the
arbitration clause in the Customer Agreement is that she did not
consent to the arbitration of her claims. She contends that, on the
issue of consent, we have used a "'knowing and voluntary' standard
in the context of FAA arbitration, but not in connection with
Article III." She relies on the decision in Wellness International
Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665 (2015), which concluded that
the "knowing and voluntary" consent of parties to a bankruptcy
court's adjudication of claims that are otherwise within the
jurisdiction of an Article III court does not offend constitutional
principles.

Ms. Adell argues that the Court should "extend" this standard to
assessing whether she consented to the waiver of her right to
Article III adjudication. She then asserts that the application of
this standard shows "that Verizon's adhesive denial of the right to
refuse non-Article III arbitration by Adell and still receive her
equipment and services from Verizon is not 'voluntary' under the
Constitution, and that the waiver of her Article III rights is
unenforceable."

Judge Stranch opines that nothing in the record supports Adell's
claim that her consent to the Customer Agreement was not knowing
and voluntary. Wellness International, moreover, did not disrupt
the firmly established rule that consent is a prerequisite to the
enforcement of arbitration agreements. Beyond her general arguments
against the arbitration clause, Adell does not offer any example of
how the Customer Agreement is substantively unconscionable.
Instead, she focuses on the fact that she could not receive Verizon
services and equipment without waiving her personal Article III
rights.

Ms. Adell does argue in her reply that the three other major
carriers include similar arbitration clauses in their customer
agreements, but that alleged fact does not negate the voluntariness
of her decision to contract for cell-phone service with Verizon.
Although Verizon undoubtedly has greater economic power than Adell,
she has not offered the proof necessary to show that the Customer
Agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable,
especially given that she has offered no evidence that Verizon was
her only option for cell-phone service. Without more, Judge Stranch
must find Adell's arbitration agreement with Verizon enforceable.

B. The Class Action Fairness Act

Ms. Adell further argues that her agreement to bilateral
arbitration in the Verizon Customer Agreement is unenforceable
because CAFA conflicts with and displaces the FAA with respect to
class action claims like hers. According to Adell, Congress' grant
of jurisdiction to the federal courts over smaller class action
lawsuits in CAFA guaranteed her right to federal adjudication of
her claim. She points to the statutory language on Congress's
purpose in enacting CAFA, the legislative history, and the
statutory text granting federal courts jurisdiction over class
action lawsuits such as hers. She asserts that even applying the
Supreme Court's instructions in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138
S.Ct. 1612 (2018), for evaluating possible displacement of the FAA,
CAFA clearly displaces the FAA.

In Epic Systems Corp., the Supreme Court considered whether the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) overrode the enforceability of
arbitration clauses in employment agreements. The Supreme Court
concluded that the NLRA, although creating rights to unionization,
collective bargaining, and union bargaining to prohibit
arbitration, did not show a clear congressional intent to displace
the FAA. Ultimately, "the absence of any specific statutory
discussion of arbitration or class actions is an important and
telling clue that Congress has not displaced the Arbitration Act."

Judge Stranch finds that Adell has not pointed to evidence that
could overcome the high barrier for displacement of the FAA, and no
other argument she makes in support of her reading requires a
different outcome. CAFA undoubtedly discusses class actions, but it
neither mentions arbitration nor offers the "clear and manifest
congressional intention" signaling FAA displacement. Ultimately,
the jurisdictional changes wrought through CAFA do not show an
obvious conflict with the FAA that would make Adell's arbitration
agreement with Verizon unenforceable. The Court can, and the
district court did, give effect to both. The district court had
jurisdiction over Adell's case through CAFA and exercised that
jurisdiction when compelling arbitration and enforcing the
arbitration award.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Stranch rejects Adell's
challenges to the enforceability of her arbitration agreement with
Verizon and affirms the district court's judgments.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n6pdph2 from Leagle.com.


CENTRAL PAYMENT: Credit Card Suit Reaches $84-M Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Payment Co. has agreed to an $84 million settlement
resolving claims it misrepresented and improperly added fees for
its card-processing services.

The class is made up of current and former Central Payment
customers who, between Jan. 1, 2010, and Oct. 31, 2020, were
assessed the TSSNF and PCI noncompliance fees; had their
contractual credit card discount rates increased above their
contractual rate by the company; and for whom the company shifted
their credit card transactions from lower-cost rate tiers to
higher-cost tiers.

Central Payment Co., based in California, provides services related
to transaction processing, and also offers ATMs, software, and
other related products, according to Bloomberg.

Plaintiffs claim the company misrepresented the fees it charged for
card-processing and improperly added and inflated fees, according
to the settlement website.

While the company denies any wrongdoing, it has agreed to the
settlement to resolve the claims made in the class action lawsuit.

The $84 million settlement fund will be used to pay costs such as
attorneys' fees, as well as cash payments to class members.

Class members who had one or more payment card processing accounts
with or through the company as of March 9, 2022, are considered
"Current Customers;" any class member who does not qualify as a
Current Customer is considered a "Former Customer."

Current Customers will automatically receive their payment, while
Former Customers will need to file a claim form in order to benefit
from the settlement.

After the administrator receives all Former Customers' claims, they
will total class member payments, administration costs, any taxes
paid, attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards for the
class representatives.

If the total comes to less than $84 million but more than $58.8
million, Central Payment will retain the difference between the
total and the $84 million.

If the total comes to less than $58.8 million, Current and Former
Customers who filed a valid claim will share an additional payment
of the difference between the total and $58.8 million, to be made
at the same time as the other cash payments.

When payments are ready, the administrator will email class members
with the option to receive their payment via Venmo or Paypal.
Anyone for whom the settlement administrator does not have an email
address or who does not select an electronic payment method within
seven days of receiving their email will receive a physical check
at the mailing address on record.

Class members should have received an email or postcard notice
regarding the settlement; however, anyone who did not receive a
notice but believes they belong to the class may contact the
settlement administrator.

A final approval hearing in the Central Payment fees settlement
will take place July 25, 2022.

The deadline for class members to opt out of or object to the
settlement is June 7, 2022.

The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 6, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The class is made up of current and former Central Payment
customers who, between Jan. 1, 2010, and Oct. 31, 2020, were
assessed the TSSNF and PCI noncompliance fees; had their
contractual credit card discount rates increased above their
contractual rate by the company; and for whom the company shifted
their credit card transactions from lower-cost rate tiers to
higher-cost tiers.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

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
08/06/2022

Case Name
Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC, et al. v. Central Payment Co.,
LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00310-JFB-CPZ, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska

Final Hearing
07/25/2022

Settlement Website
CentralPaymentClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
Central Payment Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 5747
Portland, OR 97228-5747
855-654-0931

Class Counsel
Tyler Hudson Esq
Eric Barton Esq
Melody Dickson Esq
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP

E Adam Webb Esq
Matthew C Klase, Esq.
WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC

Defense Counsel
Jonathan R Chally Esq
COUNCILL GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC

David L Balser Esq
Brandon R Keel Esq
KING & SPALDING LLP [GN]

CENTRAL PERK: Everto Files Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOLGAR ATADULFO EVERTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL PERK CAFÉ LLC and MICHAEL
HIRSCH, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02908
(E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants to recover damages for its alleged egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as customer service
personnel, dishwasher and food preparer while performing related
miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from in or around July 2007
until in or around April 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly required by
the Defendants to work approximately 90 hours or more each week.
However, the Plaintiff only received a flat weekly rate despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek. Throughout his
employment with the Defendants, the Defendants allegedly failed to
pay him the legally prescribed minimum wage for his hour worked,
and failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him
spread of hours pay and/or an extra hour at the legally prescribed
minimum wage for each day worked over 10 hours. Moreover, the
Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements, and willfully failed to provide him
with a written notice and with any wage statements upon each
payment of his wages, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, and
spread of hours pay, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and
proper.

Central Perk Café LLC is a restaurant owned by Michael Hirsch.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591

CEPHALON INC: Boardman Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Opioid
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BOARDMAN LOCAL SCHOOLS; and BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF LIBERTY LOCAL SCHOOLS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CEPHALON, INC.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.;
ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTH-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a/ JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, INC.; ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a/ WATSON PHARMA, INC.;
KVK-TECH, INC.; VIATRIS, INC. f/k/a MYLAN N.V.; ASSERTIO HOLDINGS,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
MCKESSON CORPORATION; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS INDIANA L.L.C.;
CVS RX SERVICES, INC.; CVS TN DISTRIBUTION, LLC; CVS PHARMACY,
INC.; OMNICARE DISTRIBUTION CENTER LLC; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE,
INC. a/k/a WALGREEN CO.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO. INC.; WALMART INC.
f/k/a WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; WSE
MANAGEMENT, LLC; WSE INVESTMENT, LLC; WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC.;
RITE AID CORPORATION; RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP.; RITE AID OF MARYLAND,
INC.; JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER d/b/a RITE AID MID-ATLANTIC CUSTOMER
SUPPORT CENTER, INC.; ECKERD CORPORATION d/b/a RITE AID LIVERPOOL
DISTRIBUTION CENTER; THE KROGER CO.; and GIANT EAGLE, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-op-45023-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May 19, 2022)

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that because of the
Defendants' horrific wrongdoing, which created the worst man-made
epidemic in history, births of children with prenatal opioid
exposure have increased exponentially since the onslaught of the
opioid epidemic, and they show no signs of slowing down. As a
result, public schools will be saddled with the extra costs of
education of children with prenatal opioid exposure and postnatal
opioid exposure for years to come, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class bear the steadily rising
costs of providing special education and related services to
children who were exposed to opioid use in utero, making them more
than twice as likely to exhibit learning and developmental
disabilities than children who were not, and to children damaged by
living in households afflicted by opioids or to children addicted
to opioids themselves, the suit added.

CEPHALON INC. provides biopharmaceutical products. The Company
develops and markets medicines for the treatment of nervous system
disorders, cancer, and pain management. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter G. Tsarnas
          Marc P. Gertz, Esq.
          GERTZ & ROSEN, LTD
          11 South Forge Street
          Akron, OH 44304
          Telephone: (330) 376-8336
          Email: mpgertz@gertzrosen.com
                 ptsarnas@gertzrosen.com

               - and -

          Wayne Hogan, Esq.
          Leslie A. Goller, Esq.
          TERRELL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A.
          233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 722-2228
          Email: hogan@terrellhogan.com
                 lgoller@terrellhogan.com

               - and -

          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          Joshua Karsh, Esq.
          C. Ezra Bronstein, Esq.
          Autumn Clarke, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          2000 K Street NW, Suite 325
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Email: cmehri@findjustice.com
                 jkarsh@findjustice.com
                 ebronstein@findjustice.com
                 aclarke@findjustice.com

               - and -

          Neil Henrichsen, Esq.
          HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          655 15th Street, N.W. Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 423-3649
          Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com

CEREBRAL INC: Walton FTSA and TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID WALTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CEREBRAL, INC., Case No.
2022-007176-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21544-JAL to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
making telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers without prior express written consent in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Cerebral, Inc. is a mental health telemedicine company
headquartered in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Nury Siekkinen, Esq.
         ZWILLGEN PLLC
         1900 M Street NW, Suite 250
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 296-3585
         Facsimile: (202) 706-5298
         E-mail: nury@zwillgen.com

CHENEY BROS: Faces Harding Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HARDING, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHENEY BROS., INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00322-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 19, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
intentional and willful violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Selector from in or
around June 2018.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked hours
over 40 in a workweek throughout his employment with the Defendant.
However, the Defendant did not properly pay his overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
suit.

As a result of the Defendant's violations, the Plaintiff has
suffered damages by being denied overtime wages in accordance with
Section 207 and Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Thus, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, as well as
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and litigation costs and expenses, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper, the suit added.

Cheney Bros. Inc. is a consumer food product supplier. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Tel: (727) 220-4000
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
                  cgray@fgbolaw.com

CITICOURIERS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Conley Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CONLEY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. CITICOURIERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
WORLDPAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01638 (S.D. Tex., May
20, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver
from March 2019 until December 19, 2021.

Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendants did not pay him an overtime premium at the federally
mandated overtime rate for any of the hours he worked over 40 in a
workweek. Instead, the Plaintiff was paid a set day rate for all
the hours that he worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages at the
applicable rate, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,
litigation costs and attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.

Worldpac, Inc. is a company that provides automobile parts to auto
mechanics and utilizes subcontracted companies like Citicouriers to
deliver those parts to their customer repair facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Tel: (713) 868-3388
          Fax: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Marshall Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAITUM MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. f/k/a COCA-COLA BOTTLING
CO. CONSOLIDATED, Case No. 3:22cv-00214 (W.D.N.C., May 13, 2022) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by Coca-Cola Consolidated to Plaintiff and other
non-overtime-exempt workers, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Coca-Cola Consolidated's decision to make
its own non-exempt employees workers bear the economic burden for
the hack.

According to the complaint, Coca-Cola Consolidated's timekeeping
and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021,
like many other companies across the United States. That hack led
to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Coca-Cola
Consolidated's organization.

As a result, Coca-Cola Consolidated's workers who were not exempt
from overtime under federal and state law were not paid for all
hours worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on
time, if at all, for all overtime hours worked after the onset of
the Kronos hack, says the complaint.

Mr. Marshall worked for Coca-Cola Consolidated from October 2017 to
March 2022.

Coca-Cola Consolidated is the largest Coca-Cola bottler in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Adam A. Smith, Esq.
          RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, LLP
          PO Box 11050
          Goldsboro, NC 27532
          Telephone: (919) 778-9700
          Facsimile: (919) 432-1751
          E-mail: AAS@justicecounts.com

COMMUNITY BANK: Overdraft Fees at Issue in Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at legalnewsline.com reports that Community Bank faces
a lawsuit over its "unfair and unconscionable" overdraft fees.

Plaintiff Frankie Lipsett filed the lawsuit May 13 in New York
federal court against Banco Popular North America, complaining his
checking account contract stipulates overdraft fees will only be
charged on transactions on which there are insufficient funds to
cover but customers have still been taken for millions of dollars.

"Here is how it works," the lawsuit says. "At the moment debit card
transactions are authorized on an account with positive funds to
cover the transaction, Banco Popular immediately reduces
accountholders' checking accounts for the amount of the purchase,
sets aside funds in a checking account to cover that transaction,
and as a result, the accountholder's displayed 'available balance'
reflects that subtracted amount.

"As a result, customers' accounts will always have sufficient
available funds to cover these transactions because Banco Popular
has already sequestered these funds for payment.

"However, Banco Popular still assesses crippling OD Fees on many of
these transactions and mispresents its practices in its Account
Documents."

Reese LLP and Kaliel Gold are the firms representing the plaintiff.
[GN]

CONSERVATORY OF PIANO: Underpays Piano Instructors, Frazee Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE FRAZEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSERVATORY OF PIANO, INC., and PENNY L.
POPPER, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02198-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May
17, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an instructor in 2017
and was initially paid $500.00 per week.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff's pay had
increased marginally to $528.00 per week by January 1, 2020, it was
less than the minimum pay requirement for salaried employees.
Despite generally working Monday through Saturday for an average of
45 to 50 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated piano instructors their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week, says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated piano
instructors, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Conservatory of Piano, Inc. operates a piano school. Penny L.
Popper is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Tel: (216) 291-4744
          Fax: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Discusses Appeal Ruling in Levin Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at cookcountyrecord.com reports that a state appeals
panel told a retired Cook County employee she can't lead a class
action over being denied the right to purchase health insurance
through the county's retiree plan.

In October 2016, the Retirement Board of the County Employees' and
Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Cook County told Lori Levin
she couldn't buy into its retiree plan because her last employer
was the state, not the county. Cook County Judge Raymond Mitchell
affirmed the board's decision, which Levin challenged before the
First District Appellate Court.

The appeals panel determined the pension board exceeded its
authority by implementing a last-employer rule and remanded her
complaint with directions for an order granting Levin's request.
The board appealed that ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court, which
dismissed the appeal in July 2020. Later that month the board
granted Levin's request for health insurance and gave her $63,984,
"representing the calculated share of costs subsidized by the fund
retroactive to the date she originally applied."

In August 2020, Levin asked the circuit court to certify a class of
annuitants, notify them of their ability to buy insurance and award
her damages and legal fees of almost $533,000.

Judge Mitchell granted the board's motion to strike Levin's class
request and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Levin again
appealed to the First District, arguing Mitchell erred because the
Supreme Court and appellate panel opinions revested him with
jurisdiction until the case concludes, even though the appeals
panel remanded to the pension board.

Justice Sheldon Harris wrote the opinion on that appeal, issued May
20; Justices Daniel Pierce and Mary Mikva concurred.

"Our mandate in the initial appeal reversed the board's decision
and remanded the case to the board with a direction to enter an
order granting Levin insurance coverage under the Fund," Harris
wrote. "While our mandate was filed in the circuit court, we did
not remand the case to that court or direct it to do anything.
Moreover, in reversing the board's decision, we implicitly reversed
the court's affirmance of the board's decision."

The panel said the Supreme Court's order effectively affirmed its
reversal of the orders from the pension board and from Judge
Mitchell, and further clarified the orders of both bodies reversed
Mitchell's decision without sending it back to him, thus he could
not be revested with jurisdiction.

Unlike other instances in which a circuit court has been given
jurisdiction through a remand or reversal process, the panel said,
"our decision was a final disposition of Levin's substantive
rights, finding her entitled to insurance coverage under the Fund
and remanding to the board for the ministerial entry of an order to
that effect."

Had the appeals panel sent the case back to the pension board for
additional fact finding or a decision that might require additional
circuit court review, the panel explained, Levin might have a
winning argument. That's what happened in a 2009 Illinois Third
District Appellate Court opinion in Jelinek v. Retirement Board of
Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund.

"The Jelinek court explained that the 'finality of an order which
remands an action to the agency turns on the substance of the
instructions,' " Harris wrote.

The panel affirmed Mitchell's ruling, ending Levin's litigation.

Levin was represented by attorneys Clinton A. Krislov and
Christopher M. Hack, of the firm of Krislov & Associates, of
Chicago.

Representing the pension board were Mary Patricia Burns, Vincent D.
Pinelli and Sarah A. Boeckman, of Burke Burns & Pinelli, of
Chicago. [GN]

CVS HEALTH: Sanitizers Can't Kill 99.99% of Germs, Catholdi Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARYSUSAN CATHOLDI-JANKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-06227-EAW
(W.D.N.Y., May 18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for violation of the New York General Business Law, fraud, and
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
CVS' Advanced Formula Hand Sanitizer with Aloe Vera and all similar
CVS-brand hand sanitizers. The hand sanitizer's representation that
it can kill 99.99% of germs is false because it is scientifically
proven that alcohol-based hand-sanitizer does not kill many types
of germs. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive and misleading
practices, the Plaintiff and Class members were induced to purchase
hand sanitizers which do not perform as advertised, the suit
asserts.

CVS Health Corporation is an American healthcare company, with its
headquarters in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a retail pharmacy chain owned by CVS Health
Corporation, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
         Robert Dart, Esq.
         Jonas Mann, Esq.
         Carolin Shining, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com

                  - and –

         Daniel A. Schlanger
         SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
         80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 500-6114
         Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
         E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net

DAMAC PROPERTIES: To Buy Florida Condo Collapsed Site for $120M
---------------------------------------------------------------
apnews.com reports that a billionaire developer from Dubai is set
to purchase the site of a South Florida condominium that collapsed
last June, killing 98 people, for $120 million after no other bids
were submitted by deadline for auction.

Michael Fay, of Avison Young, said hundreds of potential buyers had
shown interest in the property, but none were ultimately prepared
to match the strong initial bid of Hussain Sajwani, of DAMAC
Properties. Avison Young is the commercial real estate firm that
was appointed to market the land as part of a class-action
lawsuit.

The auction for the 1.8-acre (0.72-hectare) parcel in Surfside was
scheduled. Earlier this month, families of the victims reached a
$997 million settlement with local officials, the developers of an
adjacent building and others whom they hold responsible for the
collapse of the 40-year-old, 12-story beachside building during the
early hours of June 24.

Most of the Champlain Towers South collapsed suddenly about 1:20
a.m. last June 24 as most of its residents slept. Only three people
survived the initial collapse. No other survivors were found
despite the around-the-clock efforts of rescuers who dug through a
40-foot (12-meter) pile of rubble for two weeks. Another three
dozen people were in the portion of the building that remained
standing.

The condominium's residents and visitors formed a melting pot:
Orthodox Jews, Latin Americans, Israelis, Europeans and snowbirds
from the Northeast.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is investigating
the cause of the collapse, a process that is expected to take
years.[GN]

EPOCH LLC: Matias-Rossello Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KEVIN OMAR MATIAS-ROSSELLO filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN OMAR MATIAS-ROSSELLO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
EPOCH LLC; FOT INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A/ DOMINO'S PIZZA; AND CLUTCH
CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01307-SCC-BJM, in the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, San Juan.

Plaintiff Kevin Omar Matias-Rossello filed this putative collective
and class action suit against Epoch, FOT and Clutch for alleged
violations to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and unjust
enrichment under Puerto Rico law. At the time of the filing of the
suit, the Plaintiff was employed by FOT and worked in several of
its Domino's Pizza stores as a delivery driver.

Counts I and II of the Complaint allege that Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff and those current and former similarly situated
employees the minimum hourly wage set forth in 29 U.S.C. section
206(a) of the FLSA. In Count I, the Plaintiff argues that given his
status as a "tipped employee," if Defendants were going to benefit
from the tip credit exception, they had to have notified him of
this. But since no notification was received regarding the taking
of a tip credit, the Defendants had to ensure that Plaintiff was
paid the minimum wage required by the FLSA, which, Plaintiff
alleges, they ultimately did not do.

Count II alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA's anti-kickback
regulation codified at 29 C.F.R. section 531.35 because they failed
to adequately reimburse him for expenses related to the use of his
personal vehicle during his delivery runs such that Defendants
were, in essence, offsetting their business costs onto its
employees.

Defendant FOT filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to
dismiss.

On April 27, 2022, the Court entered an order dismissing:

-- with prejudice Counts I and II of the Complaint as
    to Plaintiff Matias-Rossello;

-- without prejudice Count III of the Complaint as to
    Plaintiff Matias-Rossello;

-- with prejudice all claims against Epoch as to
    Plaintiff Matias-Rossello;

-- without prejudice all claims against Clutch; and

-- without prejudice all collective action and class
    action claims of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Matias-Rossello v. Epoch LLC, et
al., Case No. 22-1381, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, filed on May 12, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KEVIN OMAR MATIAS-ROSSELLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Keith L. Altman, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW, PLLC
          26700 Lahser Rd, Ste 401
          Southfield, MI 48033
          Telephone: (516) 456-5885

               - and -

          Francisco E. Colon-Ramirez, Esq.
          COLON RAMIREZ LLC
          PO Box 361920
          San Juan, PR 00936-1920
          Telephone: (888) 760-1077
          E-mail: fecolon@colonramirez.com  

Defendants-Appellees EPOCH LLC, FOT INVESTMENTS LLC, d/b/a Domino's
Pizza, and CLUTCH CONSULTING LLC are represented by:

          Reynaldo A. Quintana-Latorre, Esq.
          BAERGA & QUINTANA
          416 Ponce de Leon Ave
          Union Plaza Bldg, Ste 810
          San Juan, PR 00918-3426
          Telephone: (787) 753-7455

               - and -

          Harold D. Vicente-Colon, Esq.
          Harold D. Vicente-Gonzalez, Esq.
          VICENTE & CUEBAS
          PO Box 11609
          San Juan, PR 00910-1609
          Telephone: (787) 751-8000
          E-mail: hdvc@vclawpr.com
                  hvicente@vc-law.net

FINGER LICK'N: Ballard Sues Over Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHECKEITA BALLARD, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINGER LICK'N CRAB, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00216 (E.D. Tex., May 20, 2022) brings
this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a server from
approximately August 2020 to January 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant required the tipped
employees, including her and other similarly situated servers, to
share a portion of their tips with employees of the restaurant that
cannot legally be included in a tip pool. Also, the Defendant
allegedly utilizes the tip credit to pay her and other similarly
situated servers. Instead of paying them the normal hourly minimum
wage of $7.25 per hour, the Defendant paid them a direct wage of
$2.13 per hour. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated servers were paid below the federally mandated minimum
wage, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has failed to inform her
and other similarly situated servers:

     -- of its intent to rely on the tip credit to meet its minimum
wage obligations;

     -- of the cash wage it was to pay the tipped employees;

     -- that all tips received by the employee must be retained by
the employee, except for tips contributed to a valid tip pool
limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips;

     -- that the tip credit shall not apply to any employee who has
not been informed by the employer of the provisions for a tip
credit;

     -- that the tip credit may be taken only as to the amount the
server actually receives; and

     -- that the employer may not retain any of the server's tips
for any other purpose.

Finger Lick'n Crab, LLC operates a seafood restaurant in Beaumont,
Texas under the trade name "Rock'n Crab Seafood Boil and Bar."
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: (281) 885-8630
          Fax: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

                - and –

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: (281) 885-8844
          Fax: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

FIRST WESTERN: Deadline to Depose Experts Extended to June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge
Gordon P. Gallagher entered an order extending deadline to depose
class certification experts from May 4, 2022, to June 15, 2022.

First Western specializes in private and commercial banking, along
with wealth planning, trust and investment management services.

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

FORD MOTOR: $931K Award of Atty. Fees & Costs in Bowser Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH BOWSER, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. E073609 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District,
Division Two, affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding Bowsers
$836,528.12 in attorney fees and $94,264.99 in costs.

I. Background

Husband Ralph Bowser and wife Heidi Bowser bought a 2006 Ford F-250
Super Duty truck, with a 6.0-liter diesel engine (6.0L engine).
Previously, they had owned a 2004 model of the same truck; that
turned out to be a lemon. The dealership, however, assured them
that Ford had "fixed" the problems. After the purchase, the truck
-- and especially the engine -- required repair after repair. Until
the engine warmed up, the truck was sluggish and would not
accelerate; as a result, in two separate incidents, first Mr.
Bowser and then Ms. Bowser were nearly rear-ended. The truck
stalled twice on the freeway and once in an intersection. The
alternator had to be replaced four times. After the truck had about
100,000 miles on it, the Bowsers largely stopped driving it; it
mostly sat in their driveway.

The Bowsers' expert testified that, in his opinion, the 6.0L engine
had defective fuel delivery and air management systems. Stuck or
mistimed fuel injectors caused incomplete combustion. Unburned
hydrocarbons built up on and eventually clogged up other components
of the engine, including the turbocharger and the exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) valve. This resulted in stalling, poor
acceleration, and part failures.

Over Ford's objections, the Bowsers introduced a number of internal
Ford emails and presentations. These showed that Ford was aware
that certain parts of the 6.0L engine, including fuel injectors,
turbochargers, and EGR valves, were failing at excessive rates, and
that Ford was struggling to find the root cause of some of these
failures. Some of the emails said that this information should be
kept secret.

The Bowsers sued Ford, asserting causes of action under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, Section 1790 et seq.
[Song-Beverly or Song-Beverly Act]) and for common-law fraud. Ford
conceded liability under the Song-Beverly Act. A jury found for the
Bowsers on all causes of action. It awarded compensatory damages
($42,310.17 under the Song-Beverly Act; $43,084.68 for fraud),
$84,620.34 as a statutory penalty under the Song-Beverly Act, and
$253,861.02 in punitive damages. The Bowsers elected to recover
compensatory damages under the Song-Beverly Act rather than for
fraud. The trial court awarded them $836,528.12 in attorney fees
plus $94,264.99 in costs.

Ford appeals. It contends that:

     (1) The trial court erred by admitting the internal Ford
documents, because they were inadmissible hearsay.

     (2) The trial court erred by admitting depositions of four
Ford employees taken in a previous class action, because they were
inadmissible hearsay.

     (3) The amount of the jury's award of damages on the fraud
claims is not supported by the evidence.

     (4) The compensatory damages awards on the Song-Beverly claim
and on the fraud claims are inconsistent.

     (5) The Bowsers cannot elect to recover compensatory damages
under the Song-Beverly Act yet still recover punitive damages for
fraud.

     (6) The Bowsers cannot recover both a statutory penalty and
punitive damages.

II. Discussion

A. The Internal Ford Documents

Ford contends that the trial court erred by admitting certain
internal Ford emails and other internal Ford documents --
specifically, Exhibits 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 54, 55, 61, 62,
63, 64, 65, 160, 162, 188, 189, and 198 (documents) -- because they
were inadmissible hearsay.

The Court of Appeals opines that (i) the record therefore fails to
eliminate the possibility that the deposition of Eric Kalis, a Ford
custodian of records, provided an adequate foundation for the
admission of the documents; (ii) the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting Exhibits 39, 41, 45, 47, 48, 54, 61, 62,
63, 64, 65, 162, 188, and 189; and (iii) Exhibits 42, 43, 45, 160,
and 198 were not admissible as authorized admissions.

B. The Depositions of Ford Employees as Hearsay

Ford contends that the trial court erred by admitting depositions
of four current and former Ford employees that had been taken in
the class action.

The Court of Appeals concludes that (i) the depositions were not
taken in an action "between the same parties" as the action, so
they were not admissible under section 2025.620(g); and (ii) given
the risk that these particular witnesses would be unavailable to
Ford at trial, plus the likely benefit to Ford of any favorable
testimony by them, the trial court could reasonably conclude that
Ford had a similar interest and motive to cross-examine them as it
did at trial.

C. Evidence Supporting the Damages Awards on the Fraud Claims

Ford contends that the amount of the jury's award of damages on the
fraud claims is not supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeals opines that it cannot uphold the award of
$43,084.68 in damages on the theory that it represents "additional
damages" within the meaning of Civil Code section 3343, subdivision
(a). That does not mean, however, that it cannot uphold it at all.
It finds that the actual value that a defrauded buyer received is
not measured by market value at the time of purchase.

In December 2005, a Ford F-250 Super Duty truck with a 6.0L engine
could be put to the same "uses and purposes" as any new pickup
truck. Moreover, in December 2005, actual buyers were willing to
pay the full retail price for such a truck. The jury therefore
concluded that the purchase price of the truck was its fair market
value. However, the jury also concluded that, as of December 2005
-- if "all pertinent facts" were known, including the "subsequent
circumstance" that the truck broke down frighteningly and
unpredictably and eventually became undrivable -- the truck was
worthless. If the jury had been properly instructed, it would have
found that the fair market value at the time of purchase was zero.
Because it was not properly instructed, it made essentially the
same finding the only way it could: It found that the Bowsers
reasonably spent $43,084.68 in reliance on the false
representations and otherwise would have spent zero.

The special verdicts, as thus construed, are consistent with the
law, consistent with the instructions, and consistent with each
other.

D. Inconsistent Compensatory Damages Awards

Ford contends that the compensatory damages awards on the fraud
claims and on the Song-Beverly claim are inconsistent. It
characterizes the $1,282.42 awarded as incidental damages under the
Song-Beverly Act as "reliance damages."

Reliance, however, was not required -- only causation, the Court of
Appeals holds. Ford also notes that in closing argument, the
Bowsers' counsel asked the jury to award the costs of repair on
both the fraud claims and Song-Beverly claim. The mere fact that
they were asking for repair costs on the fraud cause of action does
not establish that those costs were, in fact, incurred in reliance
on the fraud. The jury could reasonably find otherwise.

E. "Mixing and Matching" Elements of Damages

Ford contends that the Bowsers cannot elect to recover compensatory
damages under the Song-Beverly Act, yet still recover punitive
damages for fraud. Ford raised this contention below in its motion
for JNOV. It argues that the Bowsers made an "election of
remedies."

The Court of Appeals concludes that the Bowsers are entitled to
compensatory damages (and attorney fees) under the Song-Beverly Act
as well as punitive damages for fraud. Among other things, it finds
that the Plaintiff had no incentive to try to combine compensatory
damages on the antitrust claim with punitive damages on the
state-law claim.

F. Recovery of Both a Statutory Penalty and Punitive Damages

Ford contends that the Bowsers cannot recover both a statutory
penalty under the Song-Beverly Act and punitive damages on their
fraud claims.

The Court of Appeals holds that (i) the Song-Beverly Act expressly
provides that "the remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative
and will not be construed as restricting any remedy that is
otherwise available, so, it affirmatively manifests a legislative
intent not to supplant punitive damages; (ii) Ford's liability
under the Song-Beverly Act -- including its liability for a civil
penalty -- was based on its acts after the sale; and (iii) Anderson
v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 946 is dispositive of
Ford's present contention. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals
concludes that the statutory penalty and the punitive damages did
not punish the same conduct.

III. Conclusion

The judgment is affirmed. The Bowsers are awarded costs on appeal
against Ford.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p84bxf5 from Leagle.com.

Lewis Brisbois and Paul Efstratis --
Paul.Efstratis@lewisbrisbois.com; and Jones Day, Nathaniel P.
Garrett -- ngarrett@jonesday.com --  David J. Feder --
dfeder@jonesday.com --  Margaret A. Maloy -- mmaloy@jonesday.com --
and Emily F. Knox -- egoldbergknox@jonesday.com -- for the
Defendant and Appellant.

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner -- hal@rbblawgroup.com --
and Arlyn L. Escalante -- arlyn@rbblawgroup.com; Knight Law Group,
Roger R. Kirnos -- rogerk@knightlaw.com -- and Scot D. Wilson --
Info@KnightLaw.com; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Cynthia E.
Tobisman -- ctobisman@gmsr.com -- for the Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Faces Armas Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAIDEL MORENO ARMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-60913 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2022) is
brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising
from the Defendant's unsolicited calls that caused Plaintiff and
Class members to suffer harm, including statutory damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and
violation of their statutory privacy rights.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant calls consumers and
markets its goods and/or services even after they have requested
that Defendant stop doing so. He seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct and for statutory damages on behalf of
himself and the Class members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender based in Boca
Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael Hindi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 Tower, 110 SE 6th St #1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301   
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

GAMESTOP INC: Faces Mack Suit Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TREVON MACK, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAMESTOP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02921 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
paid manual laborer from in or around 2016 until in or around
2020.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of failure to pay him and other
similarly situated manual laborers on a timely basis as required by
NYLL. Instead of paying them on a weekly basis, the Defendant paid
them on a bi-weekly basis, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking to
recover damages from the Defendant for himself and all other
similarly situated manual laborers, and an additional liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem appropriate.

Gamestop, Inc. sells videogame and entertainment software. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550

GOODWIN INSURANCE: Knoche Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN KNOCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOODWIN INSURANCE ADVISORS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 22-002388-CI (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir. Ct., May 19, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

To promote its services, the Defendant allegedly engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumer without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff
asserts that he received the Defendant's telephonic sales calls on
his cellular telephone number ending in 1589 on or about March 11,
2022. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant has used an
automated system in sending its telephonic sales calls although he
never provided his express written consent to receive such
telephonic sales calls utilizing an automated system.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls,
the Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of inconvenience,
invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. Thus, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
telephonic sales calls made without express written consent, as
well as statutory damages and other relief as the Court deems
necessary, added the suit.

Goodwin Insurance Advisors LLC provides health, life, and group
insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOOGLE LLC: Appeals Ruling in Best Carpet Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Google LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled BEST CARPET VALUES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v.
GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-04700-EJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.

Plaintiffs Best Carpet Values, Inc. and Thomas D. Rutledge are
owners of active U.S.-based websites. Best Carpet owns
bestcarpetvalue.com and Rutledge owns thomasrutledgelaw.com. The
Plaintiffs allege that "by rights of ownership -- and under the
First Amendment -- website owners are entitled to control the
content and information displayed on their websites' web pages,
including any advertisements, without interference." Internet users
can reach a website by entering the website's domain name into an
internet "browser" program such as Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox
or Microsoft Edge.

The Plaintiffs note that Google, among other things, (1) makes and
controls Android mobile phone software, including the Android
operating system, which allows users to wirelessly access the
internet; (2) owns and operates the world's most used internet
browser, Google Chrome, and the world's most-used internet search
engine, google.com; and (3) owns the world's largest internet
advertising network, offering products
serving every aspect of that industry, including Google Ads (for
clients advertising on Google's search results pages), AdSense
(matching buyers and sellers of display advertising on websites),
and AdX (for buyers and sellers of premium, high-end website
display ads).

Android phone users can search the internet by either (1) opening a
browser, such as Chrome, by clicking the Chrome icon on one of
their Android home screens; or (2) using Google's Search App, which
is incorporated into nearly every Android phone.

The Plaintiffs relate that "most websites retrieved via Search App,
when activated by an Android user's touching and toggling of their
phone's screen, had Google's ads superimposed on their homepages or
other 'landing' pages.'" Once a user engaged Best Carpet's website
by toggling its homepage, Google's Search App activated and
superimposed Google's leaderboard ad on top of Best Carpet's
website. The two half-page banner ads were for Best Carpet's direct
competitors. Technically, the superimposed "banner" ads appeared on
the copy of Best Carpet's website that was reproduced on the user's
screen. Best Carpet considers that copy its property. Each banner
ad contained a link that, if clicked, redirected the users from
Best Carpet's homepage to its competitor's web page.

The Plaintiffs, hence, initiated a putative class action asserting
that Google's ads intruded on website owners' limited space and
created distractions that undermined every web page's central
purpose; Google "compelled" business owners in nearly every
conceivable industry to advertise for others, including
competitors; and Google obtained an estimated $2 billion of
non-consensual free advertising.

The Plaintiffs assert claims against Google for implied-in-law
contract and unjust enrichment; trespass to chattels; and unfair
and unlawful conduct in violation of California Business and
Profession Code Section 17200. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Android Search App violates Section 17200 of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), which prohibits business practices that
are "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent." Plaintiffs bring their claim
under only the first two prongs: unlawful and unfair. As to the
unlawful business practices prong, Plaintiffs allege that
"Defendant plac[ed] nonconsensual advertisements on Plaintiffs' . .
.  websites without compensation in violation of the common law
doctrines of implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment, and by
trespassing on Plaintiffs' . . . websites in violation of the
common law prohibition against trespass to chattels." As to the
unfair business practices prong, Plaintiffs allege that Google's
conduct is "immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous,
unconscionable and substantially injurious to Plaintiffs."
Plaintiffs also allege that Google's conduct is contrary to public
policy as well as the common law, and the harm it caused (and
threatens to continue to cause) outweighs its utility, if any.

Google moved to dismiss the complaint without leave to amend.

On September 24, 2021, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, granted in part and
denied in part Google's motion to dismiss the complaint without
leave to amend.
Judge Davila ruled that Google's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to
the UCL claim under the unfair prong and DENIED in all other
respects. The UCL claim under the unfair prong was dismissed
without leave to amend.

The appellate case is captioned as Best Carpet Values, Inc., et al
v. Google LLC, Case No. 22-80042, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner GOOGLE LLC is represented by:

          Dale Bish, Esq.
          Dylan Byrd, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 849-3467
          E-mail: dbish@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Paul Harold, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1700 K Street, NW, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-8929

               - and -

          Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq.
          Ali Reza Rabbani, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          633 W 5th Street, Suite 1550
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 210-2900  
          E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com  

Plaintiffs-Respondents BEST CARPET VALUES, INC. and THOMAS D.
RUTLEDGE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM, APC
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348-4938
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          ALEXANDER H. SCHMIDT, ESQ.
          5 Professional Circle, Suite 204
          Colts Neck, NJ 07722
          Telephone: (732) 226-0004
          E-mail: alex@alexschmidt.law

GURKIN FAMILY: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANGEL GARCIA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. THE GURKIN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-21575-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff as a collective action against the Defendant to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly-paid maintenance employee and handyman from
September 20, 2020 to March 11, 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, the Defendant did not pay him for an average of 5
overtime hours per week. The Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of
5 days per week, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday to Friday. After
4:00 PM, he received emergency calls for repair services at the
Defendant's properties. However, the Defendant did not compensate
him for that on call work he performed. The Defendant has willfully
failed to pay him overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours her worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Gurkin Family Limited Partnership is a property management
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HEALTH CANADA: Court Certified Breach Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court of Canada has authorized a class action against
Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of the following Group:

All persons who were sent a letter from Health Canada in November
2013 that had the phrase Marihuana Medical Access Program on the
envelope.

The action alleges, among other things, that Health Canada breached
the privacy of members of the Marihuana Medical Access Program when
it sent the approximately 40,000 letters to participants in the
Marihuana Medical Access Program in November 2013, in envelopes
referring explicitly to the "Marihuana Medical Access Program" or
"Programme d'accès à la marihuana a des fins médicales".

The plaintiffs are asking the Court to order Health Canada to pay
compensation to affected individuals for, among other things, the
alleged breach of privacy. Health Canada denies that it did
anything wrong.

If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.

If you do not wish to participate in the class action, you must opt
out by sending an opt-out request to Trilogy Class Action Services
by July 21, 2022. If you opt out, the results of the lawsuit will
not apply to you and you will not be entitled to receive any money
through the lawsuit.

The notice of certification, opt-out procedure, and other important
information about the class action is available here:
www.medicalmarihuanaprivacyclassactioncanada.ca.[GN]

HIBU PLC: Levien Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS LEVIEN filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled THOMAS LEVIEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JAMES WESTHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, v. HIBU PLC, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 21-1459.

Response is due on June 17, 2022.

Mr. Levien, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in the case titled THOMAS LEVIEN, INDVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JAMES WESTHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants v. HIBU PLC;
HIBU GROUP LIMITED; HIBU (UK) LIMITED, YH LIMITED; HIBU INC; HIBU
(USA) LLC; HIBU HOLDINGS (USA) INC.; HIBU OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.;
ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK; ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL WIGLEY;
ELIZABETH GRACE CHAMBERS; JOHN BERNARD COGHLAN; TOBY RUFUS COPPEL;
CARLOS ESPINOSA DE LOS MONTEROS; ESTATE OF KATHLEEN FLAHERTY;
RICHARD HOOPER; ANTONY JEFFREY BATES, Appellees, Case No. 20-2731.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of the Shareholder Plaintiffs' putative class action.

The questions presented are: 1) As a matter of law, is a proposed
alternative forum adequate and/or available if its statute of
limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims has expired? 2)
May a district court disregard the burden of proof in a forum non
conveniens analysis by dismissing on a ground never raised or
argued by the defendants, and doing so without any supporting
evidence of record? 3) In an action involving both American and
foreign plaintiffs, is a court analyzing the issue required to give
great deference to the plaintiffs' choice of an American federal
forum? and 4) If a district court determines a forum non conveniens
dismissal is appropriate, in an action where jurisdiction is
lacking in the new forum, or the applicable statute of limitations
has expired there, must the court condition the dismissal on the
defendants' agreement not to assert those defenses?

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 17, 2021, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal on forum
non conveniens grounds.

Circuit Judge Theodore Alexander McKee, writing for the Panel,
noted that when considering a motion to dismiss on forum non
conveniens grounds, a district court must first determine whether
an adequate alternative forum can entertain the case, citing Windt
v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183, 189-90 (3d Cir.
2008).

If an adequate alternative forum exists, the district court must
then determine the appropriate amount of deference to be given the
plaintiff's choice of forum. Next, the district court must balance
the relevant public and private interests. If, after balancing
these interests, the district court determines that trial in
plaintiff's chosen forum would result in oppression or vexation to
the defendant out of all proportion to the plaintiff's convenience,
the district court may, in its discretion, dismiss the case on
forum non conveniens grounds.

The Plaintiffs claim the District Court abused its discretion by
ignoring that their claims are time-barred in England and by
concluding that the strong showing of convenience favoring an
English forum outweighs the deference due their choice of forum.

The Court of Appeals' scope of review of a district court's forum
non conveniens determination is quite constrained, Judge McKee
notes. The district court may be reversed only when there has been
a clear abuse of discretion. Where the district court has
considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and
where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision
deserves substantial deference.

Judge McKee found that the District Court properly noted that the
Plaintiffs made a strategic decision to delay filing their claims
in the Eastern District until the very day their claims were
time-barred in England. The District Court correctly relied upon
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) in explaining
that there is no valid reason to ignore precedent and require the
Defendants to defend in this Court.

The District Court properly exercised its discretion in ruling
that, the Plaintiffs should not be allowed to assert the
unavailability of an alternative forum when they deliberately
allowed any deadline for filing claims in the alternative forum to
pass, Judge McKee opined.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-PetitionersThomas Levien, et al., are
represented by:

          Clifford E. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES & ASSOCIATES
          The Widener Bldg., 5th floor
          1339 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 246-2200
          E-mail: chaines@haines-law.com

HUMBL LLC: Scott+Scott Files Class Suit Over Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announces that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants HUMBL LLC
(OTC:HMBL) ("HUMBL" or the "Company"), its Chief Executive Officer,
Brian Foote, its Chief Financial Officer, Jeffrey Hinshaw, and its
Capital Markets Advisor, George Sharp (together with HUMBL, the
"Defendants").

The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and captioned Pasquinelli et al. v.
Humbl, LLC et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01527, asserts claims under
§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Sections 5 and 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act"), on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock (sold under the ticker symbol "HMBL" on
various OTC exchanges) and/or the Company's unregistered digital
asset (sold as "BLOCKS Exchange Traded Index ("ETXs") on various
cryptocurrency exchanges) from November 1, 2020 through May 19,
2022 inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby.
The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is July 19, 2022.

If you purchased Humbl common stock or BLOCKs ETX digital assets
between November 1, 2020 and May 19, 2022, inclusive, and have
suffered significant losses, realized or unrealized, you are
encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Sean Masson (212)
519-0522, or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com, for more
information.

Humbl is a mobile financial services company that offers investors
various financial products associated with "Web 3" technology and
decentralized finance.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's growth prospects, technological advancements,
international partnerships, and financial benefits for Humbl common
stock and digital asset investors, as well as using selectively
timed announcements to keep Humbl stock price high so that Company
insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially created
volume. The complaint also alleges that Defendants violated
provisions of the Securities Act by selling its unregistered
securities (BLOCK ETX digital assets) to investors.

On April 25, 2022, the price of the Humbl common stock hit a low of
$0.11 per share, down from a price high of $6.84 during the Class
Period, which it has not been able to recover. Likewise, the price
of BLOCK ETX has dropped over 87% from its height during the Class
Period and has not recovered.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline

The lead plaintiff deadline in this action is July 19, 2022. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than July 19, 2022. Any member of the proposed class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or
may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.


If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Plaintiff's counsel, Sean Masson of Scott+Scott, at (212) 519-0522
or via email at smasson@scott-scott.com.

                            About Scott+Scott

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States, and is actively litigating several cryptocurrency
cases. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals,
and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London,
Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Ohio, and Virginia. [GN]

INSIGHT VENTURE: Class Settlement in Colacurcio Suit Wins Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington enters Final Approval Order and
Judgment 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.).

The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. All capitalized terms
not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

On Dec. 17, 2021, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval, in which it preliminarily approved the proposed
Settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class; preliminarily certified the Settlement Class;
designated Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel; appointed a
Settlement Administrator; approved the forms and methods of
disseminating information about the Settlement and found them to
constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
constitute due and sufficient notice of the matters set forth in
the notices to all persons entitled to receive such notices, and
fully satisfy the requirements of due process, Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715, and all
other applicable laws and rules; established procedures for the
Class Members to opt out of or object to the Settlement, attorney's
fees, and service awards; established deadlines for the filing of a
motion for final approval of the Settlement and motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards; and scheduled a Final
Approval Hearing for May 11, 2022 during which the Court would
determine whether the Settlement should be finally approved and
judgment entered thereon.

On Jan. 14, 2022, pursuant to the notice requirements set forth in
the Settlement and Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Class
was apprised of the nature and pendency of the Litigation, the
terms of the Settlement, and their rights to request exclusion,
object, and/or appear at the Final Approval Hearing.

On March 25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Final Approval
of the Class Action Settlement and along with supporting
declarations and exhibits; and the Class Counsel filed their Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses and
accompanying declarations from counsel of record in the Litigation
setting forth their time and expenses and related exhibits.

On May 11, 2022, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing. Having
fully considered and reviewed the proposed Settlement, together
with its exhibits, and based upon the relevant papers and all prior
proceedings in the matter, Judge Martinez determines that the
proposed Settlement satisfies the criteria for final approval, the
proposed Settlement Class is certified, and the Notice Program is
approved. Accordingly, good cause appearing in the record, the
Plaintiffs' Motion is granted.

Judge Martinez grants full and final approval of the Settlement, as
reflected in the Settlement Agreement. The Parties are directed to
effectuate the Settlement in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. The Judgment incorporates and makes a part
hereof the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Martinez also finds that two Settlement Class Members
submitted Exclusion Letters. Those persons (listed on Exhibit C to
the Declaration of Cudworth) are excluded from the Class and are
not bound by the Settlement or any of the terms or provisions
contained therein.

For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and
Judgment, Judge Martinez finally certifies the following Settlement
Class: All individuals and entities who sold stock in Smartsheet,
Inc. in connection with the tender offer for stock of Smartsheet,
Inc. dated June 2, 2017. This Settlement Class is certified for
purposes of settlement only.

Judge Martinez further grants final approval to the appointment
of(i) Named Plaintiffs James McMurchie, David Hanson and Maris
Hanson as the Settlement Class Representatives pursuant to Rule
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
Counsel from the firms Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and McNaul Ebel
Nawrot & Helgren PLLC as the Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g); and (iii) Jason T. Dennett of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC
as the Lead Class Counsel.

The Settlement Administrator's fees, as well as all other costs and
expenses associated with Notice and Administration, are approved,
and will continue to be paid as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the action is
dismissed with prejudice on the merits, without costs or attorneys'
fees to any Party except as provided under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, this Final Approval Order and Judgment, and
the Court's concurrent Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Issuance of Service
Awards.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order and
Judgment for purposes of appeal, the Court retains continuing and
exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters relating to
the Settlement.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of the Final Approval
Order and Judgment will be forever binding on the Defendants,
Plaintiffs, and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as
their respective successors and assigns.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Final Approval &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3p9vr5kz from
Leagle.com.

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


INSURANCE SUPERMARKET: Kemp Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLA KEMP, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INSURANCE SUPERMARKET INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-21529-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 17, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent at least two
pre-recorded calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
XXX-606-2220 on February 21, 2022 and April 30, 2022. The Defendant
allegedly engages in using pre-recorded telemarketing calls to
market its services. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have been harmed
as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded calls
because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and
harassed, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking an injunctive relief
prohibiting the Defendant from calling telephone numbers
advertising their goods or services using a pre-recorded message in
the future. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Insurance Supermarket Inc. offers insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Tel: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Greenbrier Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENBRIER COUNTY SCHOOLS, GREENBRIER COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02933 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Greenbrier County Schools is a school district with its
administrative offices located at 653 Church Street, Lewisburg,
West Virginia.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
         THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
         716 Lee St. E.
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 344-9322
         E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Calhoun County Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, CALHOUN COUNTY, STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02931 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
the West Virginia Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Calhoun County Board of Education (CCBOE) is a school district with
its administrative offices located at 1516 540 Alan B. Mollohan
Drive, Mt. Zion, West Virginia.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.
         THE WEBB LAW CENTRE, PLLC
         716 Lee St. E.
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Telephone: (304) 344-9322
         E-mail: Rusty@RustyWebb.com

KEYSTONE CREDIT: Barclift Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Paulette Barclift filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PAULETTE BARCLIFT, on behalf of
Herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE CREDIT
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-04335, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Ms. Barclift brought suit against Keystone under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA). She claimed that Keystone
violated the FDCPA when, in order to send her a collection letter
regarding a personal debt, it shared her personal information with
RevSpring Inc., a mailing vendor.

The Court determined that even though Barclift alleged that
Keystone violated the FDCPA, she had not alleged that Keystone's
violation caused her a concrete injury. As a result, Barclift
lacked standing. The Court, therefore, dismissed her original
complaint without prejudice because, without standing, the Court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim.

Ms. Barclift then filed an amended complaint, and Keystone filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28, 2022, Judge
Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint with prejudice.

The Plaintiff is taking an appeal from Judge Leeson's ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Paulette Barclift v. Keystone
Credit Services LLC, Case No. 22-1925, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 13, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAULETTE BARCLIFT, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Eric Landes, Esq.
          LANDES LAW LLC
          419 Oaktree Court
          Sanatoga, PA 19464
          Telephone: (610) 334-1463
          E-mail: eric.landes@landeslaw.us

Defendant-Appellee KEYSTONE CREDIT SERVICES LLC is represented by:

          Lee J. Janiczek, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
          550 East Swedesford Road, Suite 270
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (215) 977-4075
          E-mail: lee.janiczek@lewisbrisbois.com  

               - and -

          Cheneise Wright, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 700
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 985-6000
          E-mail: cheneise.wright@lewisbrisbois.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Sterken Sues Over Defective CPAP Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA STERKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH
AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01395 (E.D. La., May 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranties, breach of the
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Louisiana
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and punitive damages.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices for sleep and home
respiratory care, which contain polyester-based polyurethane sound
abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants recalled CPAP and
BiLevel PAP devices containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined
that (a) the PE-PUR Foam was at risk for degradation into particles
that may enter the devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by
users, and (b) the PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during
operation health risks associated to the devices. As a result of
the health risks associated with the continued use of these
devices, the Plaintiff has suffered physical, emotional, and
financial injuries, including lung cancer, the suit alleges.

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

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

Philips Holding USA Inc. is a holding company with its principal
place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andrew J. Geiger, Esq.
         Allan Berger, Esq.
         ALLAN BERGER & ASSOCIATES
         4173 Canal Street
         New Orleans, LA 70119
         Telephone: (504) 526-2222
         Facsimile: (504) 483-8130
         E-mail: ageiger@bergerlawnola.com

KYMA HUDSON: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Mera filed a class action complaint in the Southern District
of New York against four LLCs and two individuals, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor
Laws and New York Human Rights Laws.

According to the complaint, KYMA Hudson LLC, KYM NYC LLC, Old
Northern Boulevard Restaurant LLC and 217 W85 LLC (corporate
defendants) are four Greek taverna-inspired restaurants in New York
City that are owned and operated by Merkourios Angeliades and Steve
Tenedios (individual defendants). Additionally, the complaint
states that the individual defendants operate the four restaurants
as a single, integrated enterprise.

The complaint states that Danilo Mera is a resident of Essex
County, New Jersey and a former employee of the defendants. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants had a common practice of
having employees perform work at any of the four corporate
defendant's locations on an as-needed basis.

The complaint alleges that the defendants routinely violated wage
and hour requirements under the FLSA and NYLL. Specifically, the
complaint states that the plaintiffs were not properly paid for
their overtime hours worked, were not provided or compensated for
meals breaks, deprived of gratuities through an invalid "tip pool"
and paid below minimum wage at an invalid "tip credit" minimum wage
due to the "tip pool." Further, the complaint states that the
defendants failed to provide proper wage statements and notices in
compliance with NYLL.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the defendants created a
hostile work environment due to the defendants' discriminatory
practices in violation of New York Human Rights Laws. The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants generally do not hire members of the
LGBTQ community due to their sexual orientation. Mera states that
he is a homosexual male, and while working for the defendants, he
suffered a barrage of discriminatory slurs and abuse because of his
sexual orientation that led to his constructive termination.

Accordingly, the plaintiff brought the present class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the FLSA, NYLL, New York State's Human
Rights Law and New York City's Human Rights Law and seeks class
certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, an award of
unpaid wages, back pay compensatory and punitive damages, statutory
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and
costs. The plaintiffs are represented by the Lee Litigation Group,
PLLC.[GN]

LILIUM NV: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of June 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until June 17, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Lilium
N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition Corp. (NasdaqGS: LILM, LILMW, QELL,
QELLU, QELLW), if they purchased the Company's securities between
March 30, 2021 and March 14, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

Get Help

Lilium investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-lilm/ or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

                     About the Lawsuit

Lilium and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On March 14, 2022, market analyst Iceberg Research issued a report
on the Company's electric vertical take-off and landing production
aircraft, Lilium Jet, highlighting numerous significant problems in
design, capability and testing performance as well as other supply
and company-wide issues.

On this news, shares of Lilium fell $1.25 per share, or 34%, to
close at $2.44 per share on March 14, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The case is Gnanaraj v. Lilium N.V., et al., No. 22-cv-2564.

                     About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.[GN]

LPF RE MANAGER: Denial of Gasca's Intervention in Jauregui Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Eight, affirms the trial court's denial of Sandra Gasca's
motion to intervene in the case, MARTIN JAUREGUI, Plaintiff and
Respondent v. LPF RE MANAGER, LLC, Defendant and Respondent; SANDRA
GASCA, Movant and Appellant, Case No. B311570 (Cal. App.).

I. Background

Martin Jauregui filed a wage and hour class action and Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit against LPF based on
an off-the-clock security check allegedly imposed by LPF on all
workers at LPF's premises. Gasca, who later filed a wage and hour
class action and PAGA lawsuit against LPF and labor contractor
Valley Harvest based on the same security check required at the LPF
worksite, appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to
intervene in Jauregui's action.

Mr. Jauregui is a former employee of LPF at its cannabis
manufacturing and distribution facilities in Greenfield,
California. In October 2019, Jauregui filed a class action lawsuit
in the Los Angeles Superior Court against LPF RE Manager and Doe
defendants, alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
wages and overtime, meal-period and rest-break liability, other
violations of the Labor Code, and unfair business practices in
violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The basis for the causes of action was LPF's alleged practice of
requiring all employees to undergo extensive security screening
procedures upon arrival and departure for which they were not
compensated. As a result of the lengthy screening procedures,
breaks and meal periods were not extended, overtime and double time
were not correctly calculated, wages owed were not properly paid,
and time-keeping records were not properly maintained. In February
2020, Jauregui added a PAGA claim in his first amended complaint.

Mr. Jauregui defined the class as "All individuals employed by
Defendants at any time during the period of four (4) years prior to
the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as determined by
the Court ('the Class Period'), and who have been employed as
non-exempt, hourly employees at Defendants' facilities within the
State of California."

In June 2020, the parties attended mediation and agreed to settle
the action. The settlement agreement negotiated by the parties
resolved the claims of LPF employees directly hired by LPF as well
as those who were staffed at LPF by Valley Harvest, a labor
contractor. In October 2020, Jauregui moved for preliminary
approval of the class action and PAGA settlement.

According to her first amended complaint, Gasca was a non-exempt
employee of Valley Harvest, a staffing company that provides
employees to industrial, food processing, and agricultural
businesses. Gasca worked at the LPF Greenfield facility. In
February 2020, she filed a class action wage and hour and PAGA
complaint in Monterey Superior Court against LPF, Valley Harvest,
and others.

The allegations of the Gasca action were similar to those in the
Jauregui case: Dailing to properly compensate employees for their
time spent lining up to be searched during their meal periods and
rest periods, before clocking in for work and after clocking out at
work at the Greenfield site. She alleged employees were not
compensated for all hours worked at the appropriate pay rate, not
provided full rest and meal breaks, not given accurate wage
statements, and subjected to inaccurate time-keeping records. In
the first amended complaint filed in April 2020, she alleged LPF
was "liable for all workers supplied to it by Defendant Vally
Harvest" under Labor Code section 2810.3.

Ms. Gasca sought to represent the following class: "All non-exempt
workers employed by Valley Harvest, LLC at any LPF facility, at any
time between four years prior to the filing of the original
complaint in this action and the final disposition of this
action."

On Nov. 4, 2020, Gasca moved to intervene in the Jauregui action
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivisions
(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2). She alleged that Jauregui, as an LPF
employee, did not adequately represent her interests or those of
the class she sought to represent, Valley Harvest employees staffed
at the LPF facility. Gasca also contended Jauregui was unable to
litigate the PAGA claim against Valley Harvest because he was not a
Valley Harvest employee. The parties in the Jauregui case opposed
the motion to intervene.

The trial court denied the motion to intervene. Gasca appeals.

II. Discussion

A. Denial of Mandatory Intervention

It is uncontested that the first prong of the mandatory
intervention test is met here: As a former employee of Valley
Harvest whose claims of labor law violations would be released by
the settlement agreement as drafted, Gasca has an interest in the
pending action. Gasca, however, did not demonstrate that her
ability to protect her interests may be impaired or impeded by the
disposition of the pending case, nor did she show that Jauregui is
not adequately protecting her interests.

Contrary to Gasca's contentions, Jauregui has identified, and can
adequately represent, a class that includes those working at LPF
whether they were direct hires or supplied by a labor contractor.
Gasca's interests are directly aligned with Jauregui's: both allege
LPF required them to pass through a mandatory off-the-clock
security check whenever they entered or exited the facility,
required them to otherwise work off-the-clock, and made them take
non-compliant meal and rest breaks. There is no indication direct
hire employees were differently situated from contract employees in
terms of these challenged workplace practices. Moreover, Gasca
retains the right to object to the class settlement's fairness or
to opt out of the class settlement and retain her individual
claims.

Ms. Gasca also argues the court erred as a matter of fact and law
when it concluded Jauregui had brought and could settle her PAGA
claim as a Valley Harvest employee, because Jauregui, never having
been a Valley Harvest employee, did not give and could not have
given PAGA notice to Valley Harvest. However, Gasca and Jauregui's
claims originate in LPF's control of working conditions, wages, and
hours of the workers at its facility and its requirement that
workers undergo off-the-clock security screenings, work
off-the-clock, and take meal and rest breaks that did not comply
with legal requirements. Because the claims Gasca has alleged
involve the same primary rights at issue in this action, Jauregui
is authorized, by virtue of his exhaustion of administrative
remedies, to settle PAGA claims as to LPF employees whether they
were staffed by a labor contractor or directly hired by LPF.

Ms. Gasca also argues Jauregui cannot adequately represent her
interests because he did not make all the arguments she would make
as an intervener. But, she provides no citation to evidence in the
record to support her claim of a disparity in arbitration
agreements. Given that arbitration agreements as to both LPF and
Valley Harvest were considered in the potential liability analysis,
and that Gasca has offered no support for the conclusory contention
that more arbitration agreements were signed with LPF than Valley
Harvest, Gasca's argument is insufficient to demonstrate that her
interests are not aligned with or are not represented by Jauregui.
The trial court did not err when it found that Gasca failed to
establish Jauregui cannot adequately protect her interests or the
disposition of the pending case impairs or impedes her interests.

B. Denial of Permissive Intervention

The Court of Appeals cannot conclude the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied Gasca's motion to intervene because the
court could reasonably conclude her reasons for intervention were
outweighed by the reasons supporting the denial of intervention.
Gasca did not show intervention was necessary to protect her
interests or those of the workers she claimed to represent. auregui
was able to represent her interests adequately, and if Gasca
disagreed, she could opt out of the class settlement and pursue her
personal claims independently. Moreover, LPF's precarious financial
state meant that establishing a separate class of LPF employees
staffed by Valley Harvest was unlikely to benefit those employees.

On the other hand, permitting intervention would clearly have
impaired the interests of the parties to this action. At a minimum,
permitting intervention at this point would have delayed payments
to the settlement class and the final resolution of the issues for
the parties. At worst, intervention could have defeated the
settlement the parties had worked toward for many months. The trial
court reasonably concluded permissive intervention was not
appropriate under these circumstances.

III. Disposition

The order denying intervention is affirmed. The Respondents will
recover their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3z8jyj76 from Leagle.com.

Mallison & Martinez, Stan S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com --
Hector R. Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- and Heather M.
Hamilton -- hhamilton@themmlawfirm.com -- for the Movant and
Appellant.

David Yeremian & Associates, David Yeremian --
david@yeremianlaw.com -- and Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin@yeremianlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent Martin
Jauregui.

Fenton & Keller and Elizabeth R. Leitzinger --
eleitzinger@fentonkeller.com -- for Defendant and Respondent LPF RE
Manager.


M3K LLC: Reed Balks at Unreimbursed Drivers' Expenses, Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER REED, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. M3K, LLC and DOMINIC PITARRO,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00175 (E.D. Tenn., May
18, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action
against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver
from approximately January 2019 to May 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay
for safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering
pizza and other food items. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated delivery drivers have incurred automobile
expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for the
primary benefit of the Defendants. However, the Defendants have
employed a reimbursement policy which reimburses its drivers below
the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.
Allegedly, the Defendants' systemic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a “kickback” to Defendants to
such an extent that its drivers' net wages are diminished beneath
the federal minimum wage requirements, the suit says.

M3K, LLC operates Domino's franchise stores. Dominic Pitarro is the
owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

MAC HAIK: Stantorf Sues Over Deliverymen's Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STANTORF III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAC HAIK FORD, LTD; HENNA CHEVROLET, LP;
CHIEFTON ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A RELIABLE LOGISTICS SERVICES, AND
JAMIE SHELTON, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00470
(W.D. Tex., May 13, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly pay Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime premiums for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed jointly by Defendants to deliver Ford
automobile parts to collision centers and mechanic shops in and
around Austin, San Marcos and Kyle, Texas.

The Corporate Defendants are American car dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          700 West Summit Dr.
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com  

MAMA'S BOY: Powers Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN POWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAMA'S BOY BURGERS, LLC, and MICHAEL KOEGEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00502-MAD-ML (N.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022)
is a class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law arising from the Defendants' unlawful
labor practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the federal and
state laws by retaining and/or misappropriating a portion of the
tips of Plaintiff and persons similarly situated; failing to give
Plaintiff notices providing information regarding their employment
and rate or manner of pay; failing to give Plaintiff statements
with every payment of wages; discriminating and/or retaliating
against Plaintiff because she filed a complaint under the FLSA and
NYLL; and failing to pay applicable wage rate for at least three
hours for one shift, or the number of hours in the regularly
scheduled shift, whichever is less.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a restaurant server
from August 2020 until May 7, 2022.

Mama's Boy Burgers, LLC is a restaurant with a principal place of
business in the County of Greene, State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret McIntyre, Esq.
          195 Montague Street, 14th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 227-9987
          E-mail: mem596@icloud.com

MCKESSON CORP: McLaughlin Appeals TCPA Suit Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TRUE HEALTH
CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., Plaintiffs v. McKESSON CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland.

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

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

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

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court
concluded that Defendants violated the TCPA by sending 12
unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Plaintiffs but did not
violate the TCPA willfully or knowingly. The Court held that the
Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that McKesson Corporation or MTI willfully or knowingly violated
the TCPA by sending the faxes to them. The court awarded True
Health damages of $500 and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates,
Inc., damages of $6,000.

Plaintiff McLaughlin seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as True Health Chiropractic, Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-15732, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May
13, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on May 20, 2022;

   -- First cross appeal brief is due on August 17, 2022 for
McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc.;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal is due on September 16, 2022 for
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. and True Health
Chiropractic, Inc.;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal is due on October 17, 2022 for
McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc.; and

   -- Optional cross appeal reply brief is due within 21 days of
service of third brief on cross appeal.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC.,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, is represented by:

          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

               - and -

          Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
          Dustin Schubert, Esq.
          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220


Defendants-Appellees MCKESSON CORPORATION and MCKESSON
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. are represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          Bonnie Lau, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000

               - and -

          Joseph R. Palmore, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2100 L Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500

MDL 2879: Accenture Appeals Ruling Data Security Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ACCENTURE LLP filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No.
8:19-md-02879-PWG, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

The case involves consolidated class action claims filed by
consumers against Marriott and Accenture related to a data breach
of the Marriott-owned Starwood Hotels and Resorts, Inc. It is part
of the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Grimm
concerning the data breach. The Consumer Plaintiffs and Defendants
Marriott and Accenture selected 10 "bellwether" claims to test the
sufficiency of the pleadings, which include tort, contract, and
statutory claims under the laws of various states. Following the
resolution of the Defendants' motions to dismiss, nine bellwether
claims remain.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who provided their personally
identifiable information to Marriott to stay at a Starwood property
or use Starwood's services before the data breach. They allege that
Marriott and Accenture are liable for the data breach under
theories of tort, contract, and breach of statutory duties. The
gravamen of these allegations is that Marriott and Accenture failed
to take reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiffs' personal
information against the foreseeable risk of a cyberattack and, in
the case of Marriott, contrary to its express privacy statements
and statutory duties.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify classes for monetary damages,
liability issues, and injunctive relief under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4), and 23(b)(2), respectively.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2022, Judge
Paul W. Grimm granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify classes for monetary damages, liability issues,
and injunctive relief. Judge Grimm acknowledged that the Court is
one of the first to certify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) classes involving individual consumers complaining of a
data breach. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule
23 requirements as to several classes.

Accenture is now seeking a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 22-181, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on
May 17, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner ACCENTURE LLP is represented by:

          Devin S. Anderson, Esq.
          Emily M. Long, Esq.
          Erin Elizabeth Murphy, Esq.
          Craig Primis, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000

Plaintiffs-Respondents HOWARD WILLIAM MYONES, PWG 18-3691, et al.,
are represented by

          Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290

               - and -

          Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, PA
          6404 Ivy Lane
          Greenbelt, MD 20770-0000
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200

               - and -

          James Patrick Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA
          1 South Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          10 North Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (404) 953-9138

               - and -

          David Bruce Poole, Esq.
          POOLE LAW GROUP
          29 West Franklin Street
          Hagerstown, MD 21740
          Telephone: (301) 790-3600

               - and -

          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD PC
          15910 Ventura Boulevard
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333

MEDICAL SECURITY: Michigan Urgent's Class Settlement Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In 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.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, grants final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement.

On Dec. 22, 2021, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement between the Plaintiff, on its own behalf
and on behalf of the Settlement Class, and Defendant Medical
Security Card Company, LLC d/b/a Script Save and WellRx ("MSCC") as
memorialized in the Settlement Agreement. On April 25, 2022, the
Court held a final fairness hearing.

Having considered the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement and all other evidence submitted, and good cause
having been shown, Judge Berg grants final approval of the
Settlement Agreement. The Parties and their counsel will implement
and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and
provisions. All members of the Settlement Class are bound by the
Order finally approving the Settlement.

On Dec. 22, 2021, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Court entered an order entitled, "Order
Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement and Class Notice."
The following Settlement Class is now certified for purposes of
settlement pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3): " All persons and
entities who were subscribers to fax numbers that were sent faxes
by or on behalf of Medical Security Card Company, LLC on or about
October 3, 2019, promoting the commercial availability or quality
of its goods or services for which it/they did not obtain prior
consent and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in
47 U.S.C. Section 227."

Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., is designated as
the representative of the Settlement Class.

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark and Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner and Goodwin, LLC and Adam G. Taub of Adam G. Taub and
Associates Consumer Law Group PLC are appointed as the Class
Counsel.

No member of the Settlement Class has filed an objection to the
settlement and no requests for exclusion have been submitted on
behalf of any entity or fax number.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendant will provide a total of $2.35 million to create a
Settlement Fund, less any costs advanced for notice and
administrative expenses pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. No
portion of the Settlement Fund will revert to the Defendant.

As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, each member of the class
who has submitted a timely and otherwise valid claim will be
entitled to a pro rata share of amounts remaining in the Settlement
Fund subsequent to deductions for costs of notice and
administration expenses; attorneys' fees; and class representative
award to Michigan Urgent & Primary Care Physicians, P.C., The
Settlement Administrator will cause delivery of payments to class
members. As agreed between the Parties, checks issued to the class
members will be void 60 days after issuance. Any money remaining
from checks issued but not cashed will be distributed as a cy pres
award to the Michigan State Bar Foundation Access to Justice
Campaign.

All claims or causes of action of any kind by the Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class Members who have not timely opted out or otherwise
excluded themselves from the Settlement Class are forever barred
and released pursuant to the terms of the releases set forth in
Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement.

The lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and all
the members of the Settlement Class and without fees or costs
except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Berg has considered the Class Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees. He awards the Class Counsel the sum of $761,640 as
an award of attorneys' fees to be paid from the Settlement Fund. He
also awards the Class Counsel's request for an incentive award to
the class representative and awards $6,500 to Michigan Urgent &
Primary Care Physicians, P.C.

The Parties to the Settlement Agreement will carry out their
respective obligations thereunder.

The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this action,
Plaintiff, all members of the Settlement Class, and the Defendant
to determine all matters relating in any way to the Final Approval
Order and Judgment, the Preliminary Approval Order, or the
Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, their
administration, implementation, interpretation, or enforcement.

Without further approval from the Court, the Parties may agree to
and adopt such amendments, modifications, and expansions of the
Settlement Agreement and its implementing documents as (1) will be
consistent in all material respects with the Order and Judgment, or
(2) do not limit the rights of the Settlement Class Members.

The Settlement Class Administrator will distribute the Net
Settlement Fund to the Settlement Class Members in accordance with
the provisions of the Order and the Parties' Settlement Agreement,
within 30 days following the Effective Date as more fully set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.

Within 30 days of the last date by which all distributions are made
to the Settlement Class Members, inclusive of any second
distribution payment to the Class Members provided for in the
Settlement Agreement, if needed, the Class Counsel will file a
notice with the Court affirming that the Settlement Fund was paid
out as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

Any amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund after all
distributions are made, inclusive of any second distribution
payment to the Class Members provided for in Settlement Agreement,
if needed, are to be paid as a cy pres award to the Michigan State
Bar Foundation Access to Justice Campaign.

Judge Berg finds that there is no just reason to delay the
enforcement of or appeal from the Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8ryev7 from Leagle.com.


MILLIMAN INC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Healy FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milliman, Inc. filed an appeal from a summary judgment ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLIMAN, INC.,
d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Defendant, Case No. C20-1473-JCC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

Mr. Healy filed this putative class action lawsuit alleging that
the Defendant is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) who violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, in particular, 15 U.S.C. Sections
1681e(b), 1681i(a), 1681i(f), and 1681g(a)(2). His theory of
liability is that the Defendant, which sells reports containing
consumers' medical histories to insurers, fails to utilize
reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of those reports.

In Mr. Healy's particular case, the Defendant allegedly erroneously
reported Mr. Healy's medical history to a prospective insurer,
failed to timely reinvestigate its errors and to respond to Mr.
Healy's requests for information regarding their source, and the
errors resulted in Mr. Healy's application for insurance being
denied. Mr. Healy also alleges that his experience with the
Defendant is not unique.

The Defendant previously moved for summary judgment on all of Mr.
Healy's claims, which the Court denied. Following class discovery
and the exchange of expert reports, the Defendant again moved for
summary judgment. This time, it argued, among other things, that
neither Mr. Healy nor the unnamed class members have the requisite
standing to bring FCRA claims, as recently articulated by the U.S.
Supreme Court.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 26, 2022, Judge
John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (i) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's second motion for summary judgment; and (ii) granted
the parties' motions to seal.

Judge Coughenour held that, "Mr. Healy has not properly supported
his standing for a Section 1681g(a)(2) claim. To withstand summary
judgment, Mr. Healy must present some evidence demonstrating a
concrete and particularized harm flowing from this failure. He
presents none. Instead, he contends, without evidentiary support,
that because he did not have the sources of Defendant's medical
reporting, he was "unable to quickly identify the records that led
to his denial" or to "quickly and efficiently verify that the
information had been corrected at the source." This may be true,
but without evidentiary support, it is no more than theoretical
harm, which is insufficient to establish standing."

The Defendant seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as James Healy v. Milliman, Inc.,
Case No. 22-80043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner MILLIMAN, INC., DBA Intelliscript, is
represented by:

          Daniel A. Brown, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 628-6600
          E-mail: dbrown@williamskastner.com  

Plaintiff-Respondent JAMES HEALY, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS AND MAILMAN PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -
        
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

MINOR LEAGUE: Settles Lawsuit Over Minimum Wage Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
angelsnation.com reports that three Minor League Baseball players
filed a class-action lawsuit against Major League Baseball on Feb.
7, 2014, claiming the league violated state and federal minimum
wage laws.

A trial was scheduled to begin on June 1 in a U.S. District Court
in San Francisco, Calif. Lawyers representing MLB argued that Minor
League players do not deserve to be paid during Spring Training.

It was widely believed a trial would be damaging to the league, but
one is no longer necessary as MLB and the Minor League players
reached a preliminary settlement in the class action lawsuit, per
Even Drellich of The Athletic:

"We are pleased to report that the parties have reached a
settlement in principle in this over 8-year-old case, subject to
court approval," counsel for the players said in a statement. "We
look forward to filing preliminary approval papers with the court
and cannot comment further until then."

A spokesperson for MLB declined comment.

Terms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed in filings
submitted in the case, but one report suggested the sides were
discussing a possible payment in the $200 million range in recent
weeks.

The plaintiffs have requested until July 11 to file the approval
papers.

MLB and Minor League players have long been at odds over pay and
benefits, but recently more pushback has been coming against the
league and there has been increasing support from MLB players.

Additionally, in December 2021, a lawsuit was filed against the
league, with MLB commissioner Rob Manfred named as a defendant,
over the league's antitrust exemption.

The basis of the lawsuit brought forth by the Weil, Gotshal &
Manges firm on behalf of plaintiffs Staten Island Yankees, Tri-City
Valley Cats, Salem-Keizer Volcanoes and Norwich Sea Unicorns stems
from MLB taking control of Minor League teams and it resulting in
contraction.

An advocacy group for Minor League players has also called on MLB
to improve its housing plan.

Minor League Baseball players take step toward forming union
Minor League players typically aren't paid during Spring Training,
but many around the sport are looking to change that. More than
1,000 Minor League players signed a petition asking MLB to
compensate them for their work in Spring Training.

MLB has argued in the past that Minor League players are seasonable
employees, making them exempt from minimum wage laws. However, a
federal ruling in March stated that Minor Leaguers are year-round
employees and should be paid accordingly.

Several Minor Leaguers who spoke on the condition of anonymity said
the petition is a step toward unionizing.[GN]

MIXTILES USA: Faces Brown Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Mixtiles USA, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03942-JPC (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website - https://www.easyplant.com/ - to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Mixtiles USA provides to the public a website known as
Easyplant.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view the various
types of plants for home and office potted in self-watering pots.
Consumers across the United States use Defendant's website to
purchase various types of indoor plants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NAVY FEDERAL: Fails to Inform Customers Over Unreimbursed Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Navy Federal
Credit Union fails to properly inform its account holders that they
will not be reimbursed for any financial losses caused by fraud on
Zelle, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Wilkins claims Navy Federal misrepresents the
safety of using Zelle for making money transfers.

"(Navy Federal) misrepresents and omits a key fact about the
service that is unknown to accountholders: that there is virtually
no recourse for consumers to recoup losses due to fraud," the Navy
Federal class action states.

Wilkins claims Navy Federal "prominently touts" that Zelle is a
"secure, free and convenient way to make money transfers." Despite
these representations, Wilkins argues there is no recourse for
individuals who fall victim to fraud on Zelle, including ways to
recoup financial losses on account of it.

Navy Federal Class Action Alleges Credit Union Has 'Secret Policy'
Not To Reimburse
Navy Federal also "misrepresents and omits the truth" about its
"secret policy" not to reimburse its account holders for losses
caused by fraud on Zelle even in the event that they are reported
in a timely fashion, the Navy Federal class action alleges.

"NFCU was required not to misrepresent the unique and dangerous
features of the Zelle service in its marketing about it and in
contractual representations. But it failed to do so," the Navy
Federal class action states.

Wilkins claims the alleged misrepresentations by Navy Federal led
account holders like herself to sign up for the Zelle service
"without the benefit of accurate information regarding that
service."

"Such users never would have signed up for Zelle in the first place
if they had known the extreme risks of signing up for and using the
service," the Navy Federal class action states.

Wilkins claims Navy Federal is guilty of breach of contract,
including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

She wants to represent a nationwide class and New Jersey subclass
of individuals with a Navy Federal account who signed up for
service with Zelle and were not reimbursed for losses caused by
fraud. She also demands a jury trial and requests declaratory
relief along with punitive, exemplary, actual and/or compensatory
damages for herself and all class members.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., wrote
a letter to the owner of Zelle last month to warn it about the
"widespread" fraud on the platform.

Have you not been reimbursed after suffering financial losses due
to fraud on Zelle? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Rachel Edelsberg of Dapeer Law,
P.A; Scott Edelsberg and Christopher Gold of Edelsberg Law, PA; and
Andrew J. Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A.

The Navy Federal Zelle Fraud Class Action Lawsuit is Wilkins v.
Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:22-cv-02916, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN]

NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Darias Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA DARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01240 (D. Col., May 18, 2022) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
failures to provide any COBRA notification deprived the Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons the opportunity to make an informed
decision about the healthcare options for themselves and their
families.

NORTHWOOD HOSPITALITY LLC is engaged in operating public hotels and
motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
                 medelson@edelson-law.com

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Dalton Sues Over ESOP Participants' Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR DALTON and ANTHONY SAMANO, as participants in and on behalf
of the O.C. Communications Employee Partnership Program Plan and
Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FORREST C. FREEMAN (aka CRAIG FREEMAN); ALERUS
FINANCIAL, N.A.; CARLA FREEMAN; LARRY L. WRAY; REGINAL D. WRIGHT;
RICK WYLIE; DON YEE; JOHN DOES 1-50; O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and
TAK COMMUNICATIONS CA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-at-00497
(E.D. Cal., May 18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of co-fiduciary duty, and
failure to provide required information requested by plan
participant in writing in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to prudently and
loyally fulfill their fiduciary duties to the employee stock
ownership plan (ESOP) when they approved the sale of O.C.
Communications, Inc.'s (OCC) assets to TAK Communication CA, Inc.
under an asset purchase agreement because the proceeds were less
than the fair market value of OCC's assets. As fiduciaries of the
ESOP, the fiduciary Defendants knew or should have known that the
sale of OCC's assets to TAK was not fair to the ESOP from a
financial point of view, and had ERISA fiduciary duties to act in
the ESOP's interest and to protect the ESOP's interest, including
the sale of OCC's assets, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the
Plaintiffs and other Plan participants suffered losses, the suit
added.

Alerus Financial, N.A. is a federally chartered national
association, headquartered in Grand Forks, North Dakota.

O.C. Communications, Inc. is a telecommunication services provider,
with its principal place of business in California.

TAK Communications CA, Inc. is a cable company, with its principal
place of business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
         Jason H. Kim, Esq.
         James A. Bloom, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                 jkim@schneiderwallace.com
                 jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

OKTA INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Okta, Inc. ("Okta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OKTA) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
docketed under 22-cv-02990, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired otherwise Okta securities between March 5, 2021
and March 22, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Okta
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 19, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and
medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government
agencies in the United States and internationally. The Company
offers a variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following
its completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Auth0"), on May 3, 2021, Okta began providing additional Auth0
products related to cybersecurity and login solutions.

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) Okta had inadequate
cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were
vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a
data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected
hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose
and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and
reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted
screenshots on their Telegram, a cloud-based instant-messaging
service, channel showing what they claimed was Okta's internal
company environment. Thereafter, on March 22, 2022, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Todd McKinnon ("McKinnon"),
posted a statement on his Twitter account, disclosing that, "[i]n
late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt to compromise the
account of a third party customer support engineer working for one
of our subprocessors" (emphasis added); that "[t]he matter was
investigated and contained by the subprocessor"; that "[w]e believe
the screenshots shared online are connected to this January event";
and that, "[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is no
evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity detected
in January."

On this news, Okta's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to
close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022.

Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement
on Okta's website, the Company's Chief Security Officer, Defendant
David Bradbury ("Bradbury"), disclosed, inter alia, that "[a]fter a
thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have concluded that a
small percentage of customers - approximately 2.5% - have
potentially been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or
acted upon."

Following Okta's updated statement, multiple news outlets reported
that hundreds of the Company's clients were potentially affected by
the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN
published an article entitled "Okta concedes hundreds of clients
could be affected by breach[,]" noting that, despite the Company's
statement that "a small percentage of customers - approximately
2.5% - have potentially been impacted[,]" the Company "has over
15,000 customers, according to its website." That same day, Reuters
and others published similar reports.

Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from "strong buy"
to "market perform," noting, among other things, that "[w]hile
partners were willing to trust Okta's track record, the handling of
its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns."

Following Okta's after-market update and Raymond James downgrade,
the Company's stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to
close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.

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

OMV MEDICAL: Fraser Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DALEEN FRASER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. OMV MEDICAL, INC. and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2022-00005400-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on May 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00713-L-MSB to the proceeding.

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

OMV Medical, Inc. is a provider of medical staffing and management
services based in Maryland. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David Reis, Esq.
         Matthew Diton, Esq.
         Ashley N. Gomez, Esq.
         ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
         Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
         Telephone: (415) 471-3100
         Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
         E-mail: david.reis@arnoldporter.com
                 matthew.diton@arnoldporter.com
                 ashley.gomez@arnoldporter.com

OSCAR HEALTH: Faces Chehebar Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED CHEHEBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSCAR HEALTH, INC.; MARIO SCHLOSSER;
SIDDHARTHA SANKARAN; ARI FISCHEL; JEFFERY H. BOYD; JOEL CUTLER;
JOSHUA KUSHNER; TERI LIST, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS, JR.; DAVID PLOUFFE,
ELBERT O. ROBINSON, JR.; and VANESSA A. WITTMAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-04103 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Oscar Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
March 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"),
pursuing claims against under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statement filed by the Defendants was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing
growing COVID-19 testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was
experiencing growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be
negatively impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment
Data Validation ("RADV") result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that
Oscar was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP
membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

By the commencement of this action, Oscar Health stock has traded
as low as $5.47 per share, a nearly 86% decline from the $39 per
share IPO price.

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

OSCAR HEALTH, INC. operates as a health insurance company. The
Company offers technology platform which uses personalized data to
drive real-time actionable insights and recommendations, such as
guiding members to the right doctor and hospital. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, N.Y. 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          Email: peretz@bgandg.com

PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the common stock of Pegasystems Inc. ("Pegasystems" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PEGA) between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pegasystems develops customer relationship management ("CRM")
software, which has a very competitive market. Pegasystems
repeatedly stated that the "market for our offerings is intensely
competitive, rapidly changing, and highly fragmented" and that
Pegasystems was subject to "significant competition" from other
technology vendors. In addition, the Company assured investors that
it had internally developed its products. Pegasystems also stated
that the Company faced a risk that competitors may "appropriate our
intellectual property."

Plaintiff alleges that unbeknownst to investors, however,
Pegasystems' products and, thus, the revenue generated from those
products were, in large part, the result of theft of trade secrets
from one of the Company's competitors. On May 29, 2020, Pegasystems
was sued by one of its principal competitors, Appian Corporation
("Appian") in Virginia circuit court for stealing its trade secrets
and violating the commonwealth's computer crime law (the "Appian
Litigation"). The lawsuit alleged that Pegasystems retained an
employee of a government contractor from 2012 to 2014 to secretly
access and learn about Appian's software and pass the information
on to Pegasystems in order to improve the Company's products and
better train its sales force.

Plaintiff alleges that in violation of SEC reporting requirements,
for nearly two full years, Pegasystems never publicly disclosed
Appian's lawsuit in its SEC filings. Pegasystems did not even
disclose the existence of this lawsuit until it filed its 2021
Annual Report on February 16, 2022 - i.e., just one month before a
jury trial was scheduled to begin on March 21, 2022.

After the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, Pegasystems revealed
that the Virginia circuit court jury awarded Appian more than $2
billion for Pegasystems' trade secret misappropriation. On this
news, the price of Pegasystems common stock fell almost 21% to
close at $52.25 per share on May 10, 2022. According to press
reports, during the seven-week trial, the jury was presented with
substantial evidence supporting Appian's claims, including videos,
emails, and text messages, and evidence that Alan Trefler
("Trefler"), Pegasystems' Founder and Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), personally attended a meeting with the "spy" and received
Appian trade secrets supplied by the "spy." During the trial, CEO
Trefler admitted that it was "inappropriate" for Pegasystems to
have hired the contractor and that the Pegasystems employees who
gained access to Appian trial software "shouldn't have done it."
The jury found that Pegasystems engaged in "willful and malicious"
misappropriation of Appian's trade secrets.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period, including by
failing to disclose that: (1) Pegasystems had misappropriated trade
secrets to better compete against Appian, a principal competitor;
(2) Defendants' product development and associated success was, in
significant part, not the result of its own research and product
testing but rather the result of corporate espionage and trade
secret theft; and (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal
Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out
through, the personal involvement of the Company's CEO.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 18, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

PEGASYSTEMS INC: Fort Police Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE; and FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEGASYSTEMS INC.; ALAN TREFLER; and KENNETH
STILLWELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00578 (E.D., Va., May 19,
2022) is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased Pegasystems common stock between May 29, 2020 and May 9,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Pegasystems and
certain of its officers (collectively, "Defendants") seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports made by the
Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commission were
materially false and misleading and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pegasystems had engaged in
corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to better
compete against Appian Corporation, a principal competitor; (2) the
Defendants' product development and associated success was, in
significant part, not the result of its own research and product
testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade
secret theft; (3) the Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal
Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out
through, the personal involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the
Company's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with
the Company's written Code of Conduct, including its express
prohibition on "stealing" confidential information from a
competitor and "misrepresenting your identity in hopes of obtaining
confidential information"; (5) the Company was "unable to
reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Pegasystems's
business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential
damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made, says
the suit.

Pegasystems's stock price dropped from $65.93 per share on May 9,
2022, to a close of $52.25 per share on May 10, 2022, a one-day
decline of 21% that wiped out over $1 billion in market
capitalization. As the market continued to digest the verdict,
Pegasystems's stock price dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per
share the following day, representing a two-day decline of 27%.

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock when the truth emerged, Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and recoverable
damages under the federal securities laws, the suit added.

Pegasystems Inc. develops customer relationship management
software. The Company automates customer interactions across
transaction-intensive enterprises. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
         Tara Zurawski, Esq.
         HAUSFELD LLP
         888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 540-7200
         Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
         Email: wkelley@hausfeld.com
                tzurawski@hausfeld.com

              - and –

         Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
         KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
         7080 NW 4th Street
         Plantation, FL 33317
         Telephone: (954) 916-1202
         Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
         Email: bob@robertdklausner.com

              - and -

         Maya Saxena, Esq.
         Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
         SAXENA WHITE P.A.
         7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
         Boca Raton, FL 33434
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
         Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                lhooker@saxenawhite.com

              - and -

         Steven B. Singer, Esq.
         Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
         SAXENA WHITE P.A.
         10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Telephone: (914) 437-8551
         Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
         Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
                ravan@saxenawhite.com

PEGASYSTEMS INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Pegasystems, Inc. ("Pegasystems" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PEGA) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of investors who
purchased Pegasystems stock between May 29, 2020 and May 9, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had engaged in corporate espionage and
misappropriation of trade secrets to better compete against Appian;
(2) Defendants' product development and associated success was, in
significant part, not the result of its own research and product
testing but rather the result of such corporate espionage and trade
secret theft; (3) Defendants had engaged in a scheme to steal
Appian trade secrets, which was not only known to, but carried out
through the personal involvement of the Company's CEO; (4) the
Company's CEO and other officers and employees did not comply with
the Company's written Code of Conduct; (5) the Company was "unable
to reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and
potential damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when
made.

The truth regarding the Company's fraudulent conduct was revealed
after the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when the Company
issued a press release announcing that the jury in the Appian
Litigation had awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA's
misappropriation of trade secrets. In response to this news, PEGA's
stock price fell 21%, from a closing price of $65.93 per share on
May 9, 2022, to a closing price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the
market continued to digest the verdict, the Company's stock price
dropped another 8% to close at $48.07 per share the following day.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Pegasystems
should contact the Firm prior to the July 18, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: McKinnon Labor Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MITCHELL MCKINNON, TIMOTHY VAN NORTWICK, BRENT
BRICE, ZACHERY RIZZO, JOSHUA REYES, ONIKA JACK, HERBERT HERNANDEZ,
NICHOLAUS JAMES, LACRETIA DAVIS, and SALVADOR PULIDO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PELOTON
INTERACTIVE, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV12828,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03368 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Business and Professions
Code, and the California WARN Act including failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime,
failure to maintain accurate records, failure to pay all wages when
due, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse work expenses, failure to timely pay wages upon
termination, and unfair business practices.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. is an American exercise equipment and
media company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Megan Cooney, Esq.
         Lauren M. Fischer, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive
         Irvine, CA 92612-4412
         Telephone: (949) 451-3800
         Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
         E-mail: mcooney@gibsondunn.com
                 lfischer@gibsondunn.com

PG GOLF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Abreu Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PG GOLF LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03944-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, Lostgolfballs.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

PG Golf LLC provides golf balls. The Company offers, recovers,
processes, and markets pre-owned, used, and recycled golf balls, as
well as sells t-shirts, gloves, grips, and shag bags.
Lostgolfballs.com serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                  jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                  wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

PIZZA KITCHEN: Faces Suit Over Failure to Secure Workers' Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement resolving claims that California Pizza
Kitchen Inc. failed to safeguard workers' data from a breach is
inadequate, a duo of employees is arguing in California federal
court.

Valid California subclass members under the current deal would
receive $100 each and would be eligible for credit monitoring
services, according to the terms of the proposed settlement.

That's a "rotten deal" for the workers because of the potential for
high statutory damages and the reversionary nature of the
settlement, objectors Aviva Kirsten and Jeremy Pittman argued in an
opposition motion filed in the U.S. District Court [GN]



PRINCE GEORGE'S HOSPITAL: Patients' Class Suit Bid Returns to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
thedailyrecord.com reports that a potential class-action lawsuit by
hundreds of women seen by a man who posed as an
obstetrician-gynecologist in Cheverly may return to trial court
after the U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal
from the agency that they allege negligently certified him as a
medical school graduate.

The Pennsylvania-based Educational Commission for Foreign Medical
Graduates had urged the high court to deem class certification
impermissible in the case.

In their failed bid for Supreme Court review, ECFMG's attorneys
said a class action cannot be brought because each woman's claim
that the agency's alleged negligence in certifying "Dr. John Akoda"
caused her particular emotional distress "predominates" the group's
common legal question of whether ECFMG breached a duty of care to
them.

The women's attorneys countered that the decision on class
certification has not been made final by the trial court, so
Supreme Court review would be inappropriate.

The justices denied review without comment. The case was docketed
at the Supreme Court as Educational Commission for Foreign Medical
Graduates v. Monique Russell et al., No. 21-948.

"The denial of certiorari (review) leaves in place a robust
consensus among the circuits (adopted by the 3rd Circuit, in this
case) around the 'broad view' of issue class certification," the
women's lead Supreme Court attorney, Patrick A. Thronson, said in a
statement referring to the federal circuit courts of appeal.

"This view holds that when discrete issues, rather than whole
claims, are proposed for class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) need only be satisfied within those issues, rather than
for the claim as a whole," added Thronson, of  Janet, Janet & Suggs
LLC in Baltimore. "The 'broad view' promotes access to justice and
provides judges and litigants a valuable case management tool to
resolve complex cases. In achieving this result, these courageous
plaintiffs have already made a valuable contribution to our civil
justice system."

ECFMG's lead Supreme Court attorney, William R. Peterson, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on the case. Peterson
is with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in Houston.

The women's attorneys are seeking class certification for their
claim that ECFMG negligently certified that "Akoda" had graduated
from a foreign medical school when in fact he had not.

That certification enabled Akoda - whose real name is Oluwafemi
Charles Igberase - to get a job at Prince George's Hospital Center,
where he served as an OB-GYN between 2011 and his termination by
the facility in 2016 upon discovery of his ruse, the women claim.

The women also sued the hospital in 2017 in Prince George's County
Circuit Court, but that claim was dismissed "without prejudice,"
which enables them to refile later. The hospital - later acquired
by the University of Maryland Medical System - has denied the
allegations of negligence.

Counsel for the women said they are currently focused on the claim
against ECFMG, which they allege negligently investigated and
certified Igberase as eligible to enter a medical residency in the
United States despite the Nigerian national's use of fraudulent
papers regarding his identity and physician qualifications.

The women claim ECFMG's negligence caused them emotional distress
when they later learned from a federal investigation that "Dr.
Akoda" - who had touched intimate areas during examinations and in
many cases delivered their babies - was not a doctor.

The investigation revealed the doctor's true identity and that he
had used stolen Social Security numbers to advance his medical
career and obtain professional certifications. Igberase pleaded
guilty in November 2016 to a federal charge of misusing a Social
Security number to fraudulently obtain a medical license in
Maryland.

He was sentenced to six months in prison and three years of
supervised release, which included six months of home detention.

The Maryland State Board of Physicians revoked his medical license
in July 2017.

The threshold issue in the claim against ECFMG, which has denied
the allegations of negligence, is whether it owes a duty of care to
the patients of a doctor it certifies. If a duty is established,
the next issue is whether ECFMG breached that duty.

If the duty was breached, a court then determines if the women were
injured by the doctor and, if so, what their financial compensation
should be.

So far in the litigation, the U.S. District Court for Eastern
Pennsylvania granted class-action status for the women on whether
ECFMG owed and breached a duty of care to the women. If so, the
women could then proceed individually with their claims for
compensation for emotional distress, the district court held.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the proposition
that the duty element could be bifurcated from the liability issues
when certifying a class. However, the 3rd Circuit remanded the case
to the district court to give further consideration to whether
bifurcation is appropriate in this case.

At that point, ECFMG petitioned the Supreme Court for review.[GN]

PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Files Appeal in Texas Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------
An appellate case has been filed by Progressive County Mutual
Insurance Company on May 16, 2022, with the Texas Court of Appeals,
Third Court of Appeals. The case is captioned Progressive County
Mutual Insurance Company v. Brian Koetter, and Elyssa Parven,
Individually, and on behalf of themselves and for all others
similarly situated, Case No. 03-22-00275-CV.

The case is classified as a class action.

The docketing statement in the case was due May 26, 2022.

Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company is an insurance company
in Houston, Texas.[BN]

Appellant Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          Julia Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA  30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4636
          E-mail: zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com

Appellee Brian Koetter, and Elyssa Parven, Individually, and on
behalf of themselves and for all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Paul Sims Colley Jr., Esq.
          Jarrett Stone, Esq.
          COLLEY FIRM PC
          15511 W Highway 71, Suite 110-142
          Austin, TX 78738
          Telephone:  (512) 477-2001

RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE: Appeals Remand Ruling in Powers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Receivable Performance Management, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE POWERS, Plaintiff
v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-12125-TSH, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.

Ms. Powers alleges that she incurred a debt, and that RPM attempted
to collect the debt by calling her cellular telephone "at an
excessive and harassing rate." She alleges that RPM violated
Massachusetts law, which prohibits a creditor from "[i]nitiating a
communication" with a debtor "in excess of two" times in a
seven-day period. Powers sought to represent a class of
Massachusetts consumers who, within four years prior to the filing
of this action, "received in excess of two telephone calls
regarding a debt from RPM within a seven-day period."

In October 2018, RPM removed the case to federal court, invoking
federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Concluding
that Powers' individual claim did not exceed $75,000, the Court
granted Powers' motion to remand.

In December 2021, RPM again removed the case to federal court, this
time invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

On February 18, 2022, Powers again moved to remand, contending that
RPM has failed to show by a reasonable probability that the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.

On March 4, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file an
amended notice of removal.

On May 3, 2022, District Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an Order
granting Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court and denied
Defendant's motion.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Powers v. Receivable Performance
Management, LLC, Case No. 22-8011, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on may 13, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner RECEIVABLE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC is
represented by:

          Thomas Blatchley, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          95 Glastonbury Blvd, Ste 206
          Glastonbury, CT 06033
          Telephone: (860) 494-7525
          E-mail: tblatchley@grsm.com

               - and -

          Shaun Loughlin, Esq.
          Benjamin O'Grady, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          21 Custom House St., 5th Flr
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (857) 504-2017
          E-mail: sloughlin@grsm.com
                  
Plaintiff-Respondent STEPHANIE POWERS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Stephen Taylor, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW LLC
          43 Danbury Rd
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

RED CRAB: Negron Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages & OT
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KRYSTAL NEGRON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RED CRAB FL LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, RED CRAB JENSEN LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
ZHUANGHUA LIN, and DEIRDRA HESTER, individuals, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-14179-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May
19, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal pay practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about
November 2022 through May 12, 2022 as a server at the Defendants'
Red Crab Juicy Seafood and Bar Restaurants located in Port St.
Lucie and Jensen Beach, Florida.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required her and other
similarly situated servers to attend bi-weekly mandatory deep
cleaning meetings wherein they are required to thoroughly clean all
areas of the restaurant that last approximately 2 hours. Instead of
paying them the full minimum wage, the Defendants paid them the tip
credit wage only, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorney's fee,
and other relief as is just.

The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants. The Individual
Defendants are co-owners and co-operators of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Ave., Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Tel: (954) 617-6017
          Fax: (954) 617-6018
          E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com

REGIONAL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Personal Caregivers, Johnson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONAL HEALTHCARE-LAKE CHARLES LLC d/b/a
AT HOME COMPASSIONATE CARE and WENDY HARPER, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01342 (W.D. La., May 18, 2022) brings this complaint as a
collective action against the Defendants for its alleged illegal
policy or practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a personal
caregiver in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants employed a policy and/or
practice of not properly paying their employees for all of the
regular time and overtime they worked each week at the proper rate.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, the
Defendants did not pay him and other similarly situated personal
caregivers overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the suit alleges.

On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated personal
caregivers, the Plaintiff seeks the full amount of their unpaid
wages and unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be allowed by law.

Regional Healthcare-Lake Charles LLC d/b/a At Home Compassionate
Care provides home healthcare services. Wendy Harper is a
member-manager of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Megan Roper, Esq.
          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKMAN PLLC
          Four Oaks Place
          1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 425-7100
          Fax: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: mroper@bchlaw.com
                  rcowan@bchlaw.com

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Cadeau Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE NICOLE DAYANA CADEAU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-21543 (S.D. Fla., May 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telephonic calls to
the Plaintiff's and Class members' telephone numbers to promote its
goods and services without obtaining their prior express written
consent. The Defendant's unsolicited telephonic calls have caused
the Plaintiff and Class members harm, including violations of their
statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of their privacy, says the suit.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. is an American public furniture and electronics
rent-to-own company based in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                  - and –

         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Under Probe Over Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating
ServiceSource International, Inc. (SREV), relating to its proposed
acquisition by Concentrix Corp. Under the terms of the agreement,
SREV shareholders will receive $1.50 in cash per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/servicesource-international-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

               About Monteverde & Associates

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

SOFT-LITE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McCall Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMIE McCALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOFT-LITE L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00816 (N.D., Ohio, May 18, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff McCall was employed by the Defendant as machine
operator.

SOFT-LITE L.L.C. manufactures the replacement windows and sliding
patio doors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          Email: alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

SONIC CORP: Settles Credit Union Class Action Suit for $5.73M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Strozniak at cutimes.com reports that after nearly three
years of highly-contested court battles and arduous marathon
negotiations, Sonic has agreed to pay $5.73 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit for one of the largest payment card data
breaches in 2017 that affected at least 4,000 credit unions and
banks and more than five million customers.

In March 2019, the class-action claim against Sonic Corp. was
brought by the $9.3 billion American Airlines Federal Credit Union
in Fort Worth, Texas, the $1.8 billion Arkansas Federal Credit
Union in Little Rock and the $7.9 billion Redstone Federal Credit
Union in Huntsville, Ala. The credit unions alleged that Sonic's
security deficiencies enabled hackers to breach and install
card-scaping malware on point-of-sale systems at more than 700
Sonic franchised drive-ins across the nation. The hackers stole
payment card data and posted five million payment cards for sale on
the dark web, according to court documents.
Following three days of marathon negotiations in January and
February, the credit unions and Sonic arrived at a tentative
agreement on Feb. 2. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge James S.
Gwin in Cleveland granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement agreement.

Sonic has agreed to pay $3 million to fund claims that are filed by
credit unions and banks, which breaks down to $1 for each payment
card reissued by the affected financial institutions and $1.50 for
each payment card experiencing fraud within four weeks of the
breach, according to the proposed settlement document.

The drive-in fast-food chain also has agreed to pay $500,000 for
settlement administration costs and a $10,000 service award for
each credit union. In addition, Sonic will pay $2.2 million in
attorneys' fees and expenses.

"At this stage, the settlement agreement seems arguably fair,
reasonable and adequate," Judge Gwin wrote in his ruling. "Granting
preliminary approval does not create a commitment to grant final
approval. The court will take all evidence into account, including
any objections, before making a financial approval decision after
the hearing."

That hearing is scheduled for Oct. 6 in Cleveland. If the
settlement is granted final approval, credit unions and banks will
be notified and can then file a claim. To receive a claim payment,
credit unions and banks must complete a claim form and either
provide basic data regarding the timing of its reissued and fraud
cards, or the total amount of reissued and fraud cards along with
an explanation of how the financial institutions calculated the
numbers, according to court documents. Sonic will have the right to
audit any claim and will pay for those costs.

"It was a hard-fought case, but we're pretty proud of the outcome
of the settlement," Charles H. Van Horn in Atlanta said, who is one
of the lawyers representing Redstone.

In support of the settlement's preliminary approval, the three
credit unions said continuing the litigation posed significant
risks for the class action suit.

"This complex case has been heavily litigated for three years and,
at the time of settlement, significant motions were pending that
may have significantly impacted the issues and extent of damages in
this case," the credit unions wrote in court documents. "Plaintiffs
have obtained numerous successes and contend they maintain a high
chance of success at trial, especially as to Sonic's liability for
the Data Breach and resulting harm. However, Sonic's challenges to
damages and liability and threaten to undermine Plaintiffs' claims
entirely or reduce the amount of damages."

The credit unions also noted that Sonic levied an aggressive
defense at every stage in this case. Compared to the risks of
continued litigation in which credit unions and banks may receive
nothing, the settlement allows for recovery of some losses through
a claims-made process, the credit unions said. [GN]

SPIRIT AIRLINES: Marcus Files Securities Suit Over Frontier Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MARCUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., EDWARD M. CHRISTIE,
III, CARLTON D. DONAWAY, MARK B. DUNKERLEY, H. MCINTYRE GARDNER,
ROBERT D. JOHNSON, BARCLAY G. JONES III, CHRISTINE P. RICHARDS,
MYRNA M. SOTO, and DAWN M. ZIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03911
(S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2022) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and the Class against Spirit Airlines and the
members of the Company's Board for violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9.

The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the solicitation of
Spirit's public shareholders to vote in favor of a merger pursuant
to which Spirit will survive as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Frontier Group Holdings, Inc., in exchange for payment by Frontier
to Spirit Shareholders of (i) $2.13 per share in cash, and (ii)
1.9126 shares of Frontier common stock.

On May 11, 2022, Defendants authorized the filing of a false and
misleading definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9, with the aim of soliciting Spirit Shareholders to vote
for the Merger and certain related proposals, says the complaint.

The Proxy allegedly contains material misrepresentations and
omissions, including but not limited to failing to disclose (i)
that the principal negotiators of the Merger on the Spirit side --
as well as a majority of the Spirit Board -- had served alongside
William A. Franke, the managing partner of Indigo Partners LLC,
when he was chairman of the Spirit Board, and Indigo was one of
Spirit's largest shareholders; and (ii) a material lending
relationship between Frontier and the Board's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant from taking any further
steps to consummate the Merger and schedule the Shareholder Vote,
until such violations are cured. Alternatively, if the Merger is
consummated, Plaintiff reserves the right to recover damages
suffered by himself and similarly-situated investors as a result of
such violations, the suit added.

Spirit Airlines, Inc. is a major American ultra-low-cost carrier
headquartered in Miramar, Florida, in the Miami metropolitan area.
Spirit operates scheduled flights throughout the United States and
in the Caribbean and Latin America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

STARTEK USA: Colorado Court Stays Discovery in Harris Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAKAYLA HARRIS, COLLEEN LEWIN, TIFFANY WILLIAMS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. STARTEK USA, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No.
22-cv-00437-RM-NYW (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the
Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on
Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification.

I. Background

On Feb. 18, 2022, Plaintiffs Makayla Harris, Colleen Lewin, and
Tiffany Williams initiated the putative collective and class action
against their former employer, Startek. They allege that the
Defendant has committed willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as violations of numerous state
wage laws.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to
compensate its employees for all work performed, including
compensable work tasks that occur before and after the employees'
scheduled shifts. The Defendant filed an Answer to the Plaintiffs'
Complaint on March 18, 2022.

On April 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Collective Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to
Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The Motion for Conditional Certification has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for recommendation.

On April 28, 2022, the Court convened for a Scheduling Conference,
which was converted to a Status Conference upon the Parties'
representation that they intended to file a motion to stay
discovery in the case pending resolution of the Motion for
Conditional Certification. The Court ordered the Parties to file a
joint motion no later than May 12, 2022. The instant Motion to Stay
followed, which was accompanied by a Memorandum in Support.

Judge Wang considers the Parties' request to stay discovery in the
case.

II. Analysis

In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court weighs
interests such as whether defendants are likely to prevail in the
civil action; whether defendants will suffer irreparable harm;
whether the stay will cause substantial harm to other parties to
the proceeding; and the public interests at stake. The court may
also consider the plaintiff's interests in proceeding expeditiously
with the civil action and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff
of a delay, the burden on the defendants, and the convenience to
the court (the "String Cheese factors"), citing String Cheese
Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006
WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30, 2006).

The Parties seek to stay discovery in the instant action pending
resolution of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification.
First, they assert that it is appropriate for the initial "notice
stage" determination in a collective action -- i.e., the
determination as to whether the Plaintiffs are similarly
situated—to occur prior to discovery. And for this reason, the
Parties maintain that the String Cheese factors weigh in favor of
their requested stay.

A. Conditional Certification

Before turning to the String Cheese factors, Judge Wang finds it
appropriate to first frame the Parties' request within the context
of the putative collective action. The Tenth Circuit has approved a
two-step approach to determine whether plaintiffs in a collective
action have met this burden, citing Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap.
Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1102 (10th Cir. 2001). First, during the
"notice stage," the court makes an initial determination on a
case-by-case basis to determine whether the plaintiffs are
similarly situated. The second step in this determination occurs at
the conclusion of or after discovery. With this framework in mind,
Judge Wang considers the String Cheese factors.

B. The String Cheese Factors

Judge Wang concludes that (i) a stay of discovery will not harm the
Plaintiffs' interests; (ii) the significant resources that
Defendant may be required to expend in discovery prior to the
determination of the Motion for Conditional Certification could
prove unnecessary depending on the resolution of that Motion; (iii)
judicial resources would best be conserved by staying discovery
until the Motion for Conditional Certification is resolved; and
(iv) while the public has a "strong interest in general regarding
the prompt and efficient handling of all litigation," "avoiding
wasteful efforts by the court and the litigants serves that
purpose."

Upon consideration of the String Cheese factors, Judge Wang
concludes that a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the
Motion for Conditional Certification is appropriate. The Motion to
Stay is therefore granted. Discovery in the matter is stayed
pending the final resolution of the Motion for Conditional
Certification by the presiding judge.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wang grants the Joint Motion
to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery
Motion for Conditional Certification. All discovery in the matter
is stayed pending final resolution of the pending Motion for
Conditional Certification. Within seven days of the final
disposition of the pending Motion for Conditional Certification,
the Parties will jointly contact Judge Wang's chambers to set a
Scheduling Conference in the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/6xcw3x3z from Leagle.com.


STICKER MULE: Valiente FTSA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HERIBERTO VALIENTE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STICKER MULE, LLC, Case No.
2022-005737-CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21541 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
making telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers without prior express written consent in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Sticker Mule, LLC is a provider of custom printed stickers,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

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

SUNFLOWER BANK: McCollam Appeals Overdraft Fees Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KAREN MCCOLLAM is taking an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Karen McCollam, Plaintiff, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Sunflower
Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01484, in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado-Denver.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, filed on
June 2, 2021, seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory
relief from Sunflower Bank for the assessment and collection
"overdraft fees" on accounts that were never actually overdrawn,
for breach of contract and for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

McCollam claims that the checking account contract documents
discussing overdraft fees promise that WesBanco will only charge OD
Fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover
them as stipulated in Sunflower's adhesion contract.

On September 24, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Court granted on April
15, 2022, through an Order entered by Judge William J. Martinez.

The appellate case is captioned as McCollam v. Sunflower Bank,
N.A., Case No. 22-1155, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 17, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement and transcript order form are due on May
31, 2022 for Karen McCollam; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on May 31, 2022 for Karen
McCollam and Sunflower Bank, NA.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KAREN MCCOLLAM, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street Northwest 4th floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

Defendant-Appellee SUNFLOWER BANK, N.A. is represented by:

          Ashley Taylor Brines, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788-4520
          E-mail: ashley.brines@katten.com  

               - and -

          Douglas W. Brown, Esq.
          David C. Walker, Esq.
          BROWN DUNNING WALKER
          2000 South Colorado Boulevard
          Tower Two, Suite 700
          Denver, CO 80222
          Telephone: (303) 329-3363
          E-mail: dbrown@bbdfirm.com
                  dwalker@bdwf-firm.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Demko, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN
          350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          E-mail: andrew.demko@katten.com

SUPER CARE INC: Cottrell Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Care, Inc. The
case is styled as Harmon Cottrell, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Super Care, Inc. d/b/a SuperCare
Health, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00835 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2022).

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

Super Care, Inc. doing business as SuperCare Health --
https://supercarehealth.com/ -- is the leading respiratory care
provider in the Western U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Taylor Gershman, Esq.
          LEBE LAW APLC
          777 South Alameda Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Phone: (213) 358-7046
          Email: zachary@lebelaw.com


TARGET CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit Over iTunes Gift Cards
----------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that Target Corp. largely lost its bid to
dismiss a would-be nationwide class action alleging that it
knowingly sold Apple iTunes gift cards that were vulnerable to
third-party theft, after the District of Minnesota said many of its
arguments were premature.

Judge Donovan W. Frank of the US District Court for the District of
Minnesota partly granted Target's motion to dismiss with respect to
a single count under Georgia's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act. He limited any potential relief under that claim to attorneys'
fees and costs, but he declined to toss any of their other claims.
[GN]

TEXAS: Inmate Brownlee Appeals Dismissal of Case v. MTC, et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aaron Brownlee filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled as Aaron Brownlee, Rogelio Regalado,
Clifford Morgan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Management and Training Corporation, Grady Wallace, in
his official and personal capacity, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Case No. 4:20-cv-01352-P, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth.

In this case, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
inmate/plaintiff Aaron Brownlee asserts claims against the
Management and Training Corporation, the operator of the TDCJ
Lindsey State Jail, and Senior Warden Grady Wallace.

The Court previously dismissed Brownlee's claims against TDCJ, his
claims for denial of access to courts, and any claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 based upon any alleged negligence. Brownlee's
surviving claims against MTC and Wallace include that they failed
to protect him from cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in
violation of the Eight Amendment by: (i) transferring COVID
19-positive inmates from TDCJ’s Middleton Unit in November 2020
to the John R. Lindsey State Jail and housing them in the general
population without following the requisite 14-day quarantine
period; (ii) failing to enforce social distancing among the
inmates, thereby subjecting him to risks associated with Covid-19,
which he contends he contracted as a result; and (iii) failing to
maintain proper levels of staffing, thereby contributing to a lack
of security for the inmate population.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
& Order and Final Judgment dated April 20, 2022, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, such that all his
remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The appellate case is captioned as Brownlee v. Management and
Training Corporation, Case No. 22-10482, in the US Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 16, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Aaron Brownlee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Management and Training Corporation and Grady
Wallace, In His Official and Personal Capacity, are represented
by:

          Allison R. Edwards, Esq.
          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
           DICKER, L.L.P.
          909 Fannin Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 353-2041

THOMAS PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Security Guards’ OT, Gurley Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA GURLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THOMAS PROTECTIVE SERVICE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02010-SDG (N.D. Ga., May 19, 2022) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a security guard in
approximately December 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that although she and other similarly situated
security guards routinely worked over 40 hours per workweek, the
Defendant did not properly pay them overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated security
guards, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.

Thomas Protective Service, Inc. provides security services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Lampros, Esq.
          Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq.
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Tel: (404) 876-8100
          Fax: (404) 876-3477
          E-mail: andrew@hallandlampros.com

TSCHETTER SULZER: Court Denies Bid to Stay Warden FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWNTE WARDEN, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TSCHETTER SULZER, P.C.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00271-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.),
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado denies the Defendant's Motion to Stay.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action against a law firm,
Tschetter. Tschetter represents Colorado landlords in eviction
cases. Suit is brought by Plaintiff Warden seeking statutory
damages for alleged serial violations by Tschetter of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.

Currently before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Stay, which
seeks to stay discovery and further proceedings in the case pending
a resolution by Judge William J. Martinez of the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Motion to Stay was
referred to Judge Neureiter by Judge Martinez on April 28, 2022.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was
filed on March 17, 2022 and is fully briefed.

The Plaintiff alleges that Tschetter uses false representations or
deceptive means by, among other things, misrepresenting the facts
surrounding "Stipulation of Judgment" documents that it proposes to
tenants who are subject to eviction. She further alleges that
Tschetter is a "Debt Collector" within the meaning of the FDCPA,
and therefore the firm is prohibited from employing false,
deceptive or misleading means or engaging in unfair practices when
collecting a debt.

Per the Complaint, Tschetter advertises itself as "Colorado's
Leading Landlord Advocacy Firm," that it is "#1 in Colorado
Evictions," and that it has an "intimate understanding of the
rental housing industry" and an "efficient approach to the eviction
process to process evictions quickly and effectively." Tschetter
"guarantees eviction cases are collection cases from day one." It
is alleged that Tschetter includes the following disclaimer in the
eviction-collection lawsuits filed on behalf of its landlord
clients, ""This is a communication from a debt collector and this
is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be
used for that purpose."

In terms of alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff asserts that
Tschetter uses a form stipulation document that instills in tenants
the mistaken belief that if they enter into the Stipulation, they
will be able to occupy their homes or apartments longer than they
would if they contested the eviction action. The Plaintiff alleges
that Tschetter conceals from to-be-evicted tenants that it takes
additional time for successful landlords to secure eviction dates
from the county sheriff, and that the tenants would likely be able
to stay in the rentals for longer than the ten days provided for in
the proposed Stipulation.

The Complaint further alleges that Defendant Tschetter misleads the
tenants it is trying to evict by promising to vacate the judgment
for possession and to dismiss the action if they surrender
possession and return all keys by a date certain. Instead,
Tschetter routinely fails to vacate judgments for tenants who move
out in accordance with the Stipulation. It is specifically alleged
that the Plaintiff, Ms. Warden, signed the Stipulation, vacated the
home where she was a tenant in compliance with the Stipulation, but
then Tschetter and its client never vacated the judgment of
possession or dismissed the eviction collection action as promised.
Ms. Warden then had a subsequent rental application denied because
of the tenant screening check showing the judgment for possession
and writ of restitution against her remained active and of record.

Ms. Warden brings her FDCPA claim on her own behalf and on behalf
of a class of "all present and former Tenants: (1) of residential
rental properties located in Colorado, (2) whose landlords or
property managers engaged Tschetter to facilitate allegedly overdue
rent collection through the initiation of eviction collection
lawsuits, (3) where Tschetter presented a consumer tenant with its
form Stipulation."

II. Arguments & Analysis

A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

Tschetter has moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim based on one simple argument. It
asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to allege any FDCPA
violations because none of Tschetter's alleged conduct is alleged
to have been made "in connection with the collection of a 'debt.'"
The Stipulation, which is the alleged source of the
misrepresentations and unfair practices, does not, according to
Tschetter, involve the payment of any obligation, but only involves
the time-period for moving out of the rented premises and vacating
a judgment for possession. It insists that because the Stipulation
complained of does not seek payment for back rent, the FDCPA does
not apply.

Tschetter cites in support a decision by Judge John Kane of this
District dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a FDCPA case against a
landlord's attorney, Cook v. Hamrick, 278 F.Supp.2d 1202 (D. Colo.
2003). In Cook, Judge Kane held that a demand for attorneys' fees
in a landlord's eviction complaint did not constitute a
communication regarding a "debt" for purposes of the FDCPA and the
attorney was not a "debt collector" under that statute.

B. Defendant's Motion to Stay

Defendant Tschetter moves to stay discovery in the case pending a
decision on the motion to dismiss. It argues that the Plaintiff's
interest in proceeding expeditiously is not great and she will not
be substantially prejudiced by the requested stay. By contrast, the
Defendant would be unduly burdened by having to proceed with
discovery in thie class action case, especially since discovery
would likely relate to all putative class members. Such expensive
discovery could ultimately prove useless and a waste of the
parties' time and resources. Tschetter cites a decision by
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty, Schmaltz v. Smithkline Beecham
Corp., Civ. No. 08-cv-0119-WDM-WEH, 2008 WL 3845260 (D. Colo. Aug.
15, 2008), where discovery was stayed on class claims pending
determination on motion to dismiss due to "significant burden of
discovery attendant with a putative class action." Notably, in that
case, Judge Hegarty did allow discovery on individual claims to
proceed.

Tshcetter also argues that staying discovery would allow the Court
to avoid unnecessary case management disputes where the case may
ultimately be dismissed. The interests of third parties would be
potentially adversely affected if the case proceeds to discovery,
in part because discovery relating to non-party putative class
members about their respective eviction proceedings could implicate
privacy interests.

Finally, as to the interests of the public, Tschetter argues that
the public's only interest in the case is its efficient and just
resolution, and it is not in the public's interest to struggle over
the substance of claims while a dispositive motion is pending.

C. Analysis

Judge Neureiter explains that when considering a stay of discovery,
the Court has considered the following factors: (1) the plaintiff's
interests in proceeding expeditiously with the civil action and the
potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; (2) the burden on the
defendants; (3) the convenience to the Court; (4) the interests of
persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public
interest, citing String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc.,
No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. March 30,
2006.

Applying the String Cheese factors, Judge Neureiter finds that the
Plaintiff does have a strong interest in proceeding promptly with
this case. This is not only an individual claim, but also a
putative class action. The allegation is that hundreds, maybe
thousands, of tenants were misled into signing a stipulation with
the promise that the judgments against them would be vacated, when
in fact they are not vacated, leaving credit records in disarray.
Unduly delaying resolution of this dispute would not be fair to
Plaintiff or the putative class members. It is also represented
that various online forms used by Tschetter are being changed or
modified. So, it is in the Plaintiff's interest to start the
discovery process so that all relevant documents are available to
be collected.

As to the burden on the Defendant of proceeding with discovery,
Judge Neureiter notes that the Defendants are always burdened when
they are sued, and the ordinary burdens associated with litigating
a case do not constitute undue burdens. But it is true that a class
action case involves more discovery than a typical one-plaintiff
lawsuit. "Class actions, such as the purported class claims
asserted here, may be time consuming." Judge Neureter finds that in
light of the class action nature of the case, this factor does
weigh slightly in favor of a stay of discovery.

As to the convenience of the Court, Judge Neureiter finds this
factor militates against a stay of discovery. Having cases sit in
limbo, without any progress, while a dispositive motion takes
months to be decided, is not in the Court's interest. The potential
for discovery disputes or the need to resolve complex case
management issues does not overpower the court's "strong interest
in ensuring the speedy resolution of the cases before it."

As to the public interest, while the public may have an interest in
the conservation of finite judicial resources, the public also has
a "strong interest regarding the prompt and efficient handling of
all litigation." He is not persuaded that the public interest
favors a stay of discovery and concludes that this factor is
neutral.

And finally, in the issue of the preliminary peek, Judge Neureiter
has reviewed Tschetter's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's
response. The motion is coherent and makes non-frivolous arguments
that Tschetter law firm is not a debt collector within the meaning
of the FDCPA statute and that the supposedly misleading Stipulation
it sends to tenants does not relate to a debt and therefore is not
covered by the FDCPA. Tschetter may well succeed in this argument
before Judge Martinez.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff, in her Response to the Motion to
Dismiss, explains that because the eviction action also involved a
claim for money damages for unpaid rent, the disputed Stipulation
cannot be deemed to apply only to the question of possession.

Overall, Judge Neureiter's preliminary peek at the dismissal
briefing has revealed that both sides have coherent arguments.
Without infringing on Judge Martinez's territory, he cannot
conclude that Tschetter has made the requisite showing that the
motion is clearly and convincingly meritorious. This additional
factor thus weighs against a stay.

III. Conclusion

After considering all the String Cheese factors and taking a
preliminary peek at the motion to dismiss, Judge Neureiter
concludes it is in the interest of justice to deny the Defendant's
Motion to Stay. The Court will issue a Scheduling Order in due
course, based on the proposed order the Parties previously
submitted. The Parties' Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures will be due in
seven days.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8jr3ay9 from Leagle.com.


UNION PACIFIC: W.D. Texas Denies Bid to Dismiss Smithson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMY J. SMITHSON, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. SA-21-CV-01225-XR (W.D. Tex.), Judge
Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

I. Background

Plaintiff Smithson brings an employment-discrimination action
against Defendant Union Pacific, alleging disability discrimination
based on disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to
accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Specifically, Smithson alleges that Union Pacific discriminated
against him and failed to accommodate his color-vision deficiency
when it removed him from service as a conductor on March 7, 2018.
Smithson was removed from service after he failed the Ishihara
color-vision test during his required Federal Railroad
Administration ("FRA") conductor certification, which required him
to undergo Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty evaluation during the
fitness-for-duty evaluation, Smithson failed a color-vision field
test known as the Light Cannon Test. This led to Union Pacific
assigning him permanent work restrictions that prevented him from
working as a conductor.

After his March 2018 removal from service, Smithson eventually
returned to work in Union Pacific's mechanical department in
January 2019. However, on July 10, 2019, Smithson was furloughed
when his position in the mechanical department was abolished.
Smithson remains a Union Pacific employee on unpaid medical leave.

On Feb. 19, 2016, several Union Pacific employees who had also been
removed from service following a fitness-for-duty evaluation filed
a Complaint against Union Pacific, alleging that certain components
of Union Pacific's fitness-for-duty program violated the ADA and
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. -- Harris v. Union
Pac. R.R. Co., No. 8:16-CV-381 (D. Neb.). The Harris Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint asserted disparate treatment and disparate
impact claims on a class-wide basis. The Harris Complaint asserted
failure to accommodate claims as well, but only on behalf of the
named plaintiffs. Smithson alleges that he was a putative class
member in the Harris case.

On Aug. 17, 2018, the Harris Plaintiffs moved for class
certification, but only as to their disparate treatment claim. The
District of Nebraska certified the Harris class.

Meanwhile, on March 9, 2020, Smithson filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). In his charge, Smithson asserts that Union Pacific
discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by placing
him under medical restriction: "Union Pacific refused to
accommodate the restrictions that it imposed on me. As a result,
Union Pacific would not allow me to return to my job. Union Pacific
refused to return me to work until or about January 2019, when I
returned to Union Pacific to work in the mechanical department."
The charge makes no mention of his furlough on July 10, 2019.

Shortly after Smithson filed his charge, on March 24, 2020, the
Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's certification of the
Harris class. The EEOC subsequently issued Smithson a right-to-sue
notice on Oct. 25, 2021. Smithson filed his Complaint in the Court
on Dec. 13, 2021.

Union Pacific moves to dismiss Smithson's disparate-impact and
failure-to-accommodate claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure
12(b)(6). They argue that the applicable limitations periods as to
those claims have expired. Smithson opposes dismissal, arguing that
the limitations period was tolled by the Harris class action.

II. Analysis

Union Pacific moves to dismiss Smithson's disparate-impact and
failure-to-accommodate claims, arguing that they are time-barred.
Specifically, Union Pacific argues that because the Harris
Plaintiffs did not move for certification as to their
disparate-impact claim, any applicable tolling of the statute of
limitations ended on Aug. 17, 2018, the date the Harris Plaintiffs
moved for certification. Second, Union Pacific contends that
Smithson's failure-to-accommodate claim is time-barred because he
has failed to plead or exhaust any discrete acts occurring less
than 300 days before his EEOC charge was filed.

A. Tolling ceased as to Smithson's disparate-impact claim when the
Harris Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Mr. Smithson asserts that the Harris class action tolled the
limitations period as to both his disparate-impact and
disparate-treatment claims. The timely filing of a class action
tolls the running of the applicable statute of limitations for
putative class members' claims until a court's ruling on whether to
certify the class, citing Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538, 560-61 (1974). In American Pipe, the Court reasoned that
tolling should apply in such circumstances as it furthers the
purpose of class actions under Rule 23 -- to promote efficiency and
economy of litigation -- without defeating the purpose of the
statute of limitations -- ensuring the defendant fairness by
putting her on notice of the claims against her and barring a
plaintiff who has slept on her rights.

Judge Rodriguez agrees with Union Pacific and concludes that
American Pipe tolling ended for Smithson when the Harris Plaintiffs
voluntarily abandoned the class-wide disparate-impact claim at the
certification stage. Thus, there was no reason for Smithson to
presume that because his disparate-treatment claim was still
pending in Harris, his disparate-impact claim was being preserved
by that action.

Moreover, Judge Rodriguez finds that the rationale of American Pipe
does not support tolling Smithson's disparate impact claim after
Aug. 17, 2018, the date that the Harris Plaintiffs moved for class
certification and abandoned the class-wide disparate-impact claim.
He concludes that American Pipe tolling ceased as to Smithson's
disparate impact claim when the Harris Plaintiffs voluntarily
abandoned their class-wide disparate-impact claim in their motion
for class certification.

Even assuming American Pipe tolling does not require complete
identity of the class claims and the subsequent individual claims,
Judge Rodriguez would nonetheless conclude that Smithson's
disparate-impact claim is time-barred. Smithson's disparate-impact
claim requires him to prove wrongful conduct that is distinct from
the showing he must make to support his disparate-treatment claim.
As such, the Harris class-wide disparate-treatment claim could not
have provided Union Pacific fair notice of Smithson's
disparate-impact claim, and American Pipe tolling did not extend
after the Harris Plaintiffs abandoned the class-wide
disparate-impact claim.

B. Smithson's failure-to-accommodate claim is time-barred.

Mr. Smithson also alleges that Union Pacific failed to accommodate
him when it removed him from service in March 2018. He asserts that
the March 2020 charge is timely as to his failure-to-accommodate
claim because, since his July 10, 2019, furlough, Union Pacific has
"utterly failed in its continuing obligation to engage in the
interactive process with the Plaintiff."

Judge Rodriguez holds that Smithson's removal from service in March
2018 occurred more than 300 days before Smithson ultimately filed
his EEOC charge; therefore, Smithson's failure to accommodate claim
is time-barred. Smithson also complains that Union Pacific keeping
in place the medical restrictions it imposed on him in March 2018
failed to accommodate his alleged disability. However, this is not
a discrete act that would extend the filing period. Thus,
Smithson's failure-to-accommodate claim is time-barred and must be
dismissed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Union Pacific's motion to
dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff's disparate-treatment claim
remains pending.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc574ukb from Leagle.com.


UNION SECURITY: Faces Batista Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, FIDEL BATISTA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. UNION SECURITY SAFETY, CORP, JOSE A. VEGA, and REYNIER
VEGA CONDE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21518-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., May 17, 2021) alleges the Defendants of willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly-paid security guard approximately from April 15,
2018 to April 20, 2022.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint asserting claim that the Defendant denied him of his
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay. Despite regularly working
more than 40 hours per week, specifically from 6:00 AM to 10:30 PM
from Monday to Sunday, the Defendant paid him at his regular rate
only for all hours worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages for every hour over
40 that he has worked while employed with the Defendants, as well
as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation
costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

Union Security Safety, Corp. provides security services to
businesses, residential communities, institutions, construction
sites, & etc. The Individual Defendants are the owners/officers and
managers of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITED STATES: OPM Appeals Court Orders in Retired Nurses' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management
has filed an appeal from court rulings entered in the lawsuit
styled SYLVIA WIGTON, AUDREY L. GORGONZOLA, GAIL G. HUDSON, GATHRYN
DAANE, DOLORES VASSALLUZZO, MARY JANE THOMAS and THOMAS C. MARCIN,
on behalf of themselves and other individuals, Plaintiffs v. JOHN
BERRY, Director of the United States Office of Personnel
Management, Defendant, Case No. 2:10-cv-01768-MRH, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sylvia Wigton,
79, of Butler, and Gail G. Hudson, 73, of West Grove, Chester
County, filed a lawsuit along with Audrey L. Gorgonzola, 75, of
Boise, Idaho, Kathryn Daane, 75, of Sturgis, S.D., and Dolores
Vassalluzzo, 69, of Oceanside, Calif.

The Veteran Affairs started offering an incentive in the 1950s that
gave part-time nurses credit for full-time work on their pensions,
the lawsuit says. The agency needed the incentive to get enough
skilled nurses willing to work part-time hours on irregular
schedules so that veterans hospitals around the country could
maintain full nursing staffs.

When the nurses retired, however, the Office of Personnel
Management refused to give them full-time credit for the years they
worked part-time, the Plaintiffs assert.

A federal administrative law judge in 2008 upheld a claim by 160
retired VA nurses and the agency recalculated those retirees'
benefits as well as another 215 who hired lawyers to press their
claims, but it has made no attempt to identify and recalculate the
benefits for other retired VA nurses and has ignored claims some
retirees filed on their own behalf without a lawyer, notes the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiff's Class Action seeks a court order requiring the
agency to identify and recalculate the benefits for each retired VA
nurse that was promised the incentive.

The Defendant now seeks a review of Court rulings including, among
others, an ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART its Motion to
Dismiss, and an Order DENYING its Motion for Summary Judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Sylvia Wigton, et al v. Director
United States Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 22-1942, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on
May 17, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTOR UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT is represented by:

          Amber Richer, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 514-3489

Plaintiffs-Appellees SYLVIA WIGTON, AUDREY GORGONZOLA, GAIL G.
HUDSON, KATHRYN DAANE, DOLORES VASSALLUZZO, and THOMAS C. MARCIN,
on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Jonathan K. Cohn, Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          John E. Stember, Esq.  
          STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING
          425 First Avenue, 7th Floor
          The Hartley Rose Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1445
          E-mail: jcohn@stembercohn.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stembercohn.com
                  jstember@stembercohn.com

               - and -

          Emily E. Town, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS
          1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 232-0404
          E-mail: etown@stembercohn.com  

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Ward Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN P. WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC., DAVE GIROUARD, and
SANJAY DATTA, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02856 (N.D. Cal., May 13,
2022) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities
between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive, pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Upstart is a cloud-based artificial intelligence lending platform.
The Company claims that "AI lending enables a superior loan product
with improved economics that can be shared between consumers and
lenders." Moreover, Upstart "leverage[s] the power of AI to more
accurately quantify the true risk of a loan." The Company
recognizes revenue primarily from fees paid by banks.

Throughout the Class Period, notes the complaint, Defendants
allegedly 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 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.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to
close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022, says the suit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

WAKE PIZZA: Southerland Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SOUTHERLAND, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. WAKE PIZZA, LLC and GALE EBERT,
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00196-M (E.D.N.C., May 17, 2022)
brings this complaint as a collective action complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery driver at
the Defendants' Domino's store located in Raleigh, NC from
approximately February 2022 to April 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants required him and other
similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay for safe,
legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering pizza and
other food items. As a result, the Plaintiff and other delivery
drivers have incurred expenses while delivery pizza and other food
items for the primary benefit of the Defendant. However, the
Defendants have employed a reimbursement policy that reimburses
delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate
and/or much less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers'
automobiles expenses, says the suit.

Allegedly, the Defendants' systemic failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback" to the Defendants to
such extent that its drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the
federal minimum wage requirements, the suit added.

Wake Pizza, LLC operates numeorus Domino's franchise stores. Gale
Ebert owns and manages the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
          115 Elk Avenue
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Tel: (803) 328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasontaylor.com

WEST VIRGINIA: Court Affirms April 14 Order in Baxley v. Jividen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN BAXLEY, JR., EARL EDMONDSON, JOSHUA HALL, DONNA
WELLS-WRIGHT, HEATHER REED, and DANNY SPIKER, JR., on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:18-1526 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Robert C. Chambers
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division, denies Defendant Betsy Jividen's
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order Entered on April 14,
2022, and affirms Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn's Order.

I. Background

The action is a certified class action on behalf of all
incarcerated people in West Virginia jails, regarding the
Defendant's alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs and failure to provide adequate mental and medical health
care during incarceration. Defendant contracts with PrimeCare
Medical, Inc. to provide medical care for inmates housed at nine of
their ten jails, and with Wexford Medical, Inc. at one of the
jails.

As the Court noted in its last order on objections, the case has
been rife with contentious discovery issues from its inception.
Relevant now are the contents of the Plaintiffs' multiple discovery
requests and subsequent motions to compel. Discovery began in the
case in October 2019, when the Plaintiffs served their first set of
discovery requests. Because the Plaintiffs found the Defendant's
responses inadequate and parties could not resolve the matter, on
Dec. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their First Motion to Compel.
They additionally filed a second discovery request, to which the
Defendant responded and later filed supplemental documents.

On Feb. 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs deposed the corporate
representative of PrimeCare; this deposition revealed the existence
of multiple documents that Defendant had withheld from production.
A few days later, they filed their Second Motion to Compel, seeking
a variety of documents Defendant had not produced, including those
exchanged between itself and both medical contractors.

Magistrate Judge Eifert, after a hearing and briefing on the issue,
granted, in part, the first and second motions to compel,
addressing a selection of items raised in the motion, but not
specifically addressing the internal audits and other information
from medical contractors.

The next month, in March 2020, the Plaintiffs served their Third
Set of Combined Discovery Requests, to which the Defendant
responded. These discovery requests asked the Defendant to "please
produce all policies and procedures regarding quality assurance of
medical and mental health care for inmates in West Virginia
regional jails from Jan. 1, 2018, to the present." The Parties
discussed deficiencies in the requests and production; when
Defendant failed to resolve those issues by fully supplementing
responsive documents, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Motion to
Compel on June 24, 2020. This Motion again specifically referred to
the requested documentation "provided to the Defendant by their
medical contractors, including internal audits."

On July 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn held an informal
telephonic conference on these pending motions, during which the
Court ordered parties and PrimeCare to confer regarding documents.
But, because several items remained in dispute, on July 27, 2020,
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn granted the Plaintiffs' Second and Third
Motion to Compel Discovery, specifically as to those "outstanding
issues that concern the Identified Requests for Production, for
documents pertaining to patient health records, audits and reviews,
personnel files and staff evaluations concerning patient care
related to the Northern Regional Jail, where the Defendant West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation's medical
contractor is Wexford Health Systems as well as those inmate
records that pertain to the named Plaintiffs involving disciplinary
and use of force reports."

The Defendant objected to this order, arguing that it was erroneous
to grant the Second Motion to Compel because the requests within it
related only to PrimeCare documents, not Wexford documents, and
that all issues on the Second Motion were resolved. As the Court
noted then, "based on both the Second Motion to Compel and the
reproduced requests for discovery, it is clear that RFP 3-5 relate
to the number of inmates who received medical or mental health
treatment and the prescription of medication to inmates within West
Virginia Regional Jails and are not specifically limited to either
of WVDCR's contractors."

When PrimeCare and the Defendant again failed to provide documents
they had agreed to produce prior to Aug. 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs
followed up regarding the outstanding information. When additional
conferral between parties failed to result in the production of
these documents, the Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Motion to
Compel. After briefing and a hearing in which the parties
represented to the Court that they had agreed to resolve the
outstanding matters by entry of a protective order, the Court
ordered that the documents be produced within two weeks of the
entry of the new protective order.

Again, the Defendant and PrimeCare failed to produce the complete
set of documents. In February 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
to Enforce the Court's Previous Orders, a Fifth Motion to Compel
Defendant to Comply with her Discovery Obligations, and a Third
Motion to Compel PrimeCare to Respond to the Previously Served
Subpoena. In that Motion, the Plaintiffs again referred to their
previous request for "documentation provided to the Defendants by
their medical contractors. Specifically, they noted that the
Defendant had failed to provide responsive unredacted mortality
reviews, but also reserved their right to file an additional motion
on other outstanding items.

Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn held an informal conference with
parties, after which he ordered that the Plaintiffs file a
supplemental pleading outlining all outstanding discovery items and
that the Defendant produce in camera all outstanding items
identified, without redactions. The Plaintiffs filed a supplemental
response, specifically seeking COVID-19 related information and
supplemented CQI audits.

After a hearing on the Motion to Compel and Enforce Court Orders,
Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn found that the Defendant had failed to
sufficiently respond or supplement very long-standing production
requests. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a
detailed list of outstanding discovery requests, ordered the
Defendant to produce outstanding items, and to update the Court
regarding the progress of this.

The Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Remaining Outstanding Discovery
Items and included the COVID audits. On April 1, the Defendant
provided written responses to the Plaintiffs' Statement, where she
admitted that certain requested documents had been destroyed and/or
not maintained during this litigation and stated that COVID audits
were not identified until 2022.

On April 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Court Orders, Compel Defendant to
Produce Discovery and Third Motion to Compel PrimeCare to Produce
Documents. In doing so, the Magistrate Judge specifically noted
that numerous discovery items had been outstanding for over two
years and found that the "Defendant's discovery abuses "shocked the
conscience." The Defendant objected to this Order. The Plaintiffs
responded on May 3, 2022. The Defendant replied on May 4, 2022.

II. Analysis

A. Discovery Findings

The Defendant first contends that Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's
April 14, 2022 Order is erroneous because his prior orders (and the
Plaintiffs' prior motions to compel) did not explicitly discuss
COVID audit documents, which it contends is the only outstanding
discovery item under the Third Request for Production.

Judge Chambers opines that Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Order,
never, at any point, refers to the missing COVID audit documents as
the sole basis for his decision, and Dthe efendant does not dispute
that there remain outstanding documents from the Fourth and Fifth
Requests for Production -- which were served almost a full year
ago. Importantly then, any of these multiple missing items provided
the basis for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's findings that the
Defendant has failed to comply with discovery; thereby continuing a
pattern that began over two years ago and justifying his findings
regarding the Defendant's failure to comply with discovery that has
been documented over the course of the litigation.

B. Bad Faith

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
"developed a four-part test for a district court to use when
determining what sanctions to impose" under Rule 37(b), citing Belk
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 348 (4th Cir.
2001). The court should consider: (1) whether the noncomplying
party acted in bad faith; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by
the other party or parties as a result of the failure to comply;
(3) the need to deter the demonstrated noncompliance; and (4) the
efficacy of a less drastic sanction.

Insofar as the Defendant contends that the Order is erroneous
because she has not committed discovery abuses nor acted in bad
faith, Judge Chambers holds that she is similarly incorrect. The
record is replete with motions to compel, unsatisfactory responses
to requests for production, and disputed discovery matters where
multiple magistrate judges were forced to order the Defendant's
compliance. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Order reflects an obvious
dissatisfaction with the number of times he has had to require
Defendant to produce crucial documents over the past two years.
Moreover, the failure to produce such crucial documents creates
prejudice for the Plaintiffs, where they have not had the
opportunity to ask about them at deposition or (in some instances)
even review them before an upcoming trial.

Given the long, tortured history of discovery disputes, wherein the
Defendant has regularly been on the losing end, Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn applied the correct standard in the context of discovery
that has been ongoing for years. Moreover, the sanction is modest
in amount and is easily avoidable if Defendant were to simply
comply with the discovery orders. Therefore, his finding of
discovery abuse and sanctions is not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. Given that these disputes are occurring on the eve of
trial, it is all the more important that discovery issues are
resolved timely.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chambers denies the Objection and
affirms Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Order. He directs the Clerk to
send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j9h7zuy from
Leagle.com.


ZOOM VIDEO: Cohen Appeals Final Approval of Privacy Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors C. JUDITH COHEN filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-02155-LB, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint is a consumer-privacy class action filed on March 30,
2020 against Zoom Video Communications. The Plaintiffs allege that
Zoom improperly shared their data through third-party software from
companies such as Facebook and Google, claimed to have end-to-end
encryption when it did not, and failed to prevent "Zoombombing"
(disruptions of Zoom meetings by third-party actors).

The parties settled the case, and the court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Plaintiffs
moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney's fees,
expenses, and service payments

The Court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2022. The Court
entered an Order finding the settlement fair, adequate, and
reasonable and approved the final settlement, including the fees,
costs, and service payments.
There were approximately 150 million Settlement Class Members. The
Settlement Administrator received 2,242 requests for exclusion.

Nine objections to the settlement were filed with the court. One of
the objections was from Judith Cohen, a mental-health counselor.
Ms. Cohen argued for a subclass for those who used Zoom "as part of
a business that was legally or contractually required to maintain
client confidentiality as part of the services the business
provided." However, the Court held that some objectors lack
standing to object or submitted untimely objections, and the others
put forward unavailing arguments.

Ms. Cohen now seeks a review of the Court's April 21, 2022 Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Caitlin Brice, et al v. Zoom
Video Communications, Inc., Case No. 22-15772, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 20, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant C. Judith Cohen Mediation Questionnaire is due
today, May 27, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by June 21, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on July 20, 2022;

   -- Appellant C. Judith Cohen opening brief is due on August 26,
2022;

   -- Appellees Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Angela Doyle,
Isabelle Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann, Peter Hirshberg, Therese
Jimenez, Lisa T. Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran
Church, Stacey Simins and Zoom Video Communications, Inc. answering
brief is due on September 26, 2022; and

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

Objector-Appellant C. JUDITH COHEN is represented by:

          Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603

               - and -

          John Giust, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN GIUST
          9625 Black Mountain Road, Suite 205
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 993-1656   

Plaintiffs-Appellees CAITLIN BRICE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          Christopher Stiner, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111

               - and -

          Mark Cotton Molumphy, Esq.
          Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000

Defendant-Appellee ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, is represented by:

          Kathleen R. Hartnett, Esq.
          Benjamin Kleine, Esq.
          Joseph Mornin, Esq.
          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          Kelsey Rose Spector, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
          Telephone: (415) 693-2071

ZOOM VIDEO: Rodgers Appeals Final Approval of Privacy Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors SAMMY RODGERS and ALVERY NEACE filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 20-cv-02155-LB,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint is a consumer-privacy class action filed on March 30,
2020 against Zoom Video Communications. The Plaintiffs allege that
Zoom improperly shared their data through third-party software from
companies such as Facebook and Google, claimed to have end-to-end
encryption when it did not, and failed to prevent "Zoombombing"
(disruptions of Zoom meetings by third-party actors).

The parties settled the case, and the court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Plaintiffs
moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney's fees,
expenses, and service payments

The Court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2022. The Court
finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable and approves
the final settlement, including the fees, costs, and service
payments.

There were approximately 150 million Settlement Class Members. The
Settlement Administrator received 2,242 requests for exclusion.
Nine objections to the settlement were filed with the court. Two of
the nine objections were from Sammy Rodgers and Alvery Neace.

The Court held that the objections from Sammy Rodgers and Alvery
Neace were untimely because they were filed after the Objection and
Exclusion Deadline of March 5, 2022. Also, these objectors lack
standing to object because they did not provide "an explanation of
the basis upon which [they] claim[] to be a Settlement Class
Member," as required by the Settlement Agreement and the Court's
preliminary-approval order, ruled that Court.

The Objectors now seek a review of the Court's order.

The appellate case is captioned as CAITLIN BRICE; HEDDI N. CUNDLE;
ANGELA DOYLE; ISABELLE GMEREK; KRISTEN HARTMANN; PETER HIRSHBERG;
THERESE JIMENEZ; LISA T. JOHNSTON; OAK LIFE CHURCH; SAINT PAULUS
LUTHERAN CHURCH; STACEY SIMINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAMMY RODGERS;
ALVERY NEACE, Objectors-Appellants, v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
22-15764, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 19, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 26, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered on June 21, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be filed on July 20, 2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on August 26, 2022;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on September 26, 2022; and

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

[*] Baker & Hostetler Issues Insurance Class Action Update
----------------------------------------------------------
Baker & Hostetler LLP disclosed that in May 2022, the Class Action
team releases its Insurance Quarterly Report covering the fourth
quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022. Included in the
report are updates and analyses about property and casualty class
action lawsuits, which are keeping courts and lawyers very busy,
class action certification decisions in total loss valuation cases,
and various types of class actions regarding personal injury
protection, storage fees and medical billing, among other things.

The report is available at:
https://www.bakerlaw.com/webfiles/Class%20Action%20Defense%20-%20Quarterly%20Insurance%20Report%20-%202022_p01.pdf
[GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 133 Pending Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., was a named defendant of 133
asbestos cases pending, as of March 31, 2022, in lawsuits alleging
personal injury or death and seeking various monetary damages due
to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in
manufacturing operations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The majority of cases are pending in Illinois
state courts.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
March 31, 2022, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lHJgxY


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Several Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/39N9dt6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Still Defends Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is a party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable. Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted. Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability.

"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these
cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding
of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement. Third-party
claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and
may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.

"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against
the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted
number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments
and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates
develop."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GdTGyx

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in
several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by
installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that
contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not
manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage
to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from
the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather
than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur
significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that
would be material to its consolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3sU6SmT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., from time to time, along with numerous
others, is named as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not
expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to
have a material adverse effect on their financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Gj70SA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 1,000 Pending Lawsuits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, at March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, has
been assigned to approximately 1,000 lawsuits pending against EID
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos
docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal
court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually
set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the
U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at
sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases
involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members
of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege
personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products.

"At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, Chemours had an accrual
of $33 related to these matters."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wJU3Ou


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 30,312 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of March 31, 2022, was a defendant in cases filed in
numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of the 30,312 pending claims as of March 31,
2022, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which
approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over
15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the three months ended March
31, 2022 and 2021 totaled $13.0 million and $9.1 million,
respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and
defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the
tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some
fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement
amounts are not made until all releases and other required
documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both
settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due
to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer
to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain
reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement
and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the
three months ended March 31, 2022 and, 2021 totaled $7.5 million
and $10.8 million, respectively.

"Cumulatively through March 31, 2022, we have resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 144,000 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is
approximately $730 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $5,100. The average settlement cost
per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020
and 2019 was $18,800, $13,900, and $15,800, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wJ6cTH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.

"During the three months ended March 31, 2022 the Company incurred
expenses (net of insurance) of approximately $1.8 million, compared
to $2.7 million for the same period in 2021 to defend, resolve or
otherwise dispose of outstanding claims, including legal and other
related expenses.

"The Company had cash inflows (outflows) (net of insurance and/or
indemnity) to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding
claims, including legal and other related expenses of approximately
$5.8 million and $(2.4) million during the three months ended March
31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

"Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing
claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities,
in whole or in part.

"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts. Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos claims,
however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including the
timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle. Additionally, the continued viability of carriers may also
impact the amount of probable insurance recoveries. We believe that
these uncertainties could have a material adverse impact on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows, though we currently believe the likelihood is remote.
Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers that,
if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3sS4vRs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Has 17,220 Claims Pending at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, at March 31, 2022, was a defendant of
approximately 17,220 pending asbestos personal injury actions,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of those actions, approximately 16,590 were
filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County),
approximately 120 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court
Counties and approximately 510 were filed in courts located in
other states.

"The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

"At March 31, 2022 approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in New
York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive
Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and
future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate
that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical
impairment. The remaining approximately 40 cases in New York County
are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for
plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical
impairment.

"The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At March 31, 2022 the Company has
obtained dismissal in approximately 28,380 cases by stipulation or
summary judgment prior to trial."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3am5ByD



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Product Liability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries,
along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in
personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos
containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "These cases have typically involved product
liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture,
sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained
asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components.

"The Company estimates the asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs on a discounted basis.
In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable.

"The Company's estimate of the liability and corresponding
insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs
is based on the Company's historical claim experience, and
estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future
claims that may be filed and is discounted to present value from
2068 (which is the Company's reasonable best estimate of the
actuarially determined time period through which asbestos-related
claims will be paid by Company affiliates). Asbestos-related
defense costs are included in the asbestos liability. The Company's
legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates.
The Company considers various trends and developments in evaluating
the period of time (the look-back period) over which historical
claim and settlement experience is used to estimate and value
claims reasonably projected to be paid through 2068. At least
annually, the Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated
liability for pending and future claims and defense costs by
evaluating actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and
dismissed, and amounts paid in settlements. In addition to claims
and settlement experience, the Company considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in
legislation, the legal environment, and the Company's defense
strategy. The Company also evaluates the recoverability of its
insurance receivable on an annual basis. The Company evaluates all
of these factors and determines whether a change in the estimate of
its liability for pending and future claims and defense costs or
insurance receivable is warranted."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wJxicd



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

"In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner
of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the
plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by
the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured
with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur
any material liability with respect to these claims.

"The Company has product liability insurance with self-insurance
retention that range from $50 to $500.  

"On May 5, 2011, Company entered into two separate settlement
agreements with two plaintiffs. As of March 31, 2022, the Company
has a remaining obligation under the agreements to pay the
plaintiffs $950 without interest in 10 annual installments of $95
on or before May 22 of each year. The Company has recorded a
liability for the net present value of the liability. The
difference between the net present value and the total payment will
be charged to interest expense over the payment period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PG0fOF



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Reports $57MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., has recognized a liability for pending and future
claims over the next 37 years of $57 million as of March 31, 2022,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Rockwell.

"The company engaged a third-party advisor with extensive
experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to conduct a
study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2021.
Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data and
experience for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the
assumptions used to estimate the liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Gh90KI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Faces Asbestos-Related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant
in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the
operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to
those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed
to retain responsibility for all pending, threatened and future
proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the
operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the
closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses with
respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of March 26,
2022, the Company has made provision for environmental liabilities
with respect to certain sites where hazardous substances or other
contaminants are or may be located. For these liabilities, the
Company's estimated range of reasonably possible losses was
approximately $15 million to $25 million. The Company regularly
monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As additional
information becomes known, these estimates may change, however, the
Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained
proceedings are material to the Company’s financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lBPMGq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 26,760 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global, as of March 31, 2022, has approximately 26,760
asbestos claims pending, as compared with approximately 27,770 as
of December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in
groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and
the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation
from period to period. We do not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. During the first quarter of 2022, we received
approximately 750 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 1,760 claims. We report claims as closed when
we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court
or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the
material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the
seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the
quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our
total costs for the years 2021 and 2020 for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were
approximately $63 million and $35 million, respectively. Our costs
for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict future
asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact the
estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others, the
number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims.
We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. We believe that our accrual
and insurance are sufficient to cover our asbestos liabilities. Our
liability estimate is based upon many factors, including the number
of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims, as well as
consultation with a third party firm on trends that may impact our
future asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wHWktl

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Product Liability Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of their products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Currently there are a few thousand claimants
in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show
that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we
have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity
of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation
make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of
asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility
of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these
uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos
claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, or results of
operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In
connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims, and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances,
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GcpjZv


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc. has been named defendant along with
numerous industrial companies in asbestos-related litigation claims
in certain U.S. states, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

"To date, no significant resources have been required by Roper to
respond to asbestos claims. In the first quarter of 2022, Roper
completed a transaction in which it transferred the remainder of
our exposure for asbestos claims to a third party. In connection
with this transaction, Roper incurred a one-time charge of $4.1,
which is recorded as a component of "Other income (expense), net"
within the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3ticesv



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Defends 1,584 Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at March 31, 2022, has reported
1,584 outstanding cases for which they may be responsible for any
related liabilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation in the accompanying statement of operations.
When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.  Since inception in September 2001
through March 31, 2022, the amounts paid for settled claims and
awards of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were
approximately $59.2 million.  We do not have insurance coverage for
the indemnity and defense costs associated with the claims we
face.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims.  As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary.  The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values.  Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an actuarial study
was performed as of August 31, 2021.  The results of the August 31,
2021 study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages,
excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance
carriers, ranging from $60.9 million to $100.2 million for the
period through 2065.  The change from the updated prior year study,
which was in December of 2020, was a $2.1 million decrease for the
low end of the range, and a $1.1 million increase for the high end
of the range.  The change in the estimated undiscounted liability
from the updated prior year study at both the low end and the high
end of the range reflects our actual experience, our historical
data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur
in the future.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2021 actuarial study, in
September 2021 we increased our asbestos liability to $60.9
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of $5.3 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and
reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the August 31, 2021 study, to range from $49.4 million to $99.3
million for the period through 2065.  Total operating cash outflows
related to discontinued operations, which include settlements,
awards of asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes,
were $5 million and $3.3 million for the three months ended March
31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary. Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required. We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3LIFXRI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean's Subsidiary Faces 256 PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 256
lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs, as of March 31,
2022, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries was named as a
defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers,
and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos. For many of these lawsuits, we have
not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to
determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against
the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of
their alleged injuries.  The operating assets of the subsidiary
were sold in 1989.  In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain
insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that
provide the subsidiary with cash.  An earlier settlement in
September 2018 provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity
that begins making payments in 2024.  Together with a coverage in
place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage
issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient
resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future
lawsuits of a similar nature."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wOZfzl


                            *********

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 ***