---

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

              Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 107

                            Headlines

183 FOOD: Hurtado Seeks Final Approval of FLSA Class Settlement
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Hogue Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Hart Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
8X8 INC: Settlement of Rivas Labor Suit in the Works

A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
A-1 COLLECTION: Wins Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Fullmer Suit
AETNA LIFE: Court OKs Wolff's Bid for Class Certification
AETNA LIFE: M.D. Pennsylvania Certifies Class in Wolff Suit
ALL HOURS: Has Until June 14 to File Class Cert. Response

ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ARTISAN TROPIC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: Default Judgment Issued in PacificSource Suit
AUNTIE ANNE'S: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AVIOR AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Vacates Award of Costs in Cavalieri Suit

AZ METRO: Dismissal of Moreno Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages Upheld
BEACH BOYS: Conrey Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
BELSON OUTDOORS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEST BUY HEALTH: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG EASY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Reset to June 17

BRAD'S RAW CHIPS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROWN COUNTY SENIOR: Weaver Seeks to Certify Collective Action
BROWNIE BAKER: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUGABOO NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHILE COLONIAL: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Class
COLAVITA USA: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLORADO CORING: Snider Files Bid for FLSA Class Certification
COLORADO TB: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONAGRA BRANDS: Dismissal of NEI Pension Fund's Claims Affirmed

CONCERNED DENTAL CARE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lead Roles Appointed in Hoang Securities Suit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Bonner Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CORIZON HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Discovery Due August 9
CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Cert Stage Scheduling Order Entered
CROW VOTE: Wards Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass
CURVY SENSE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DAVID SHINN: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Response Tossed

DEAD ZERO: Faces Jones Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DIGITAL RISK: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 30, 2023
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Time to Oppose to Class Cert. Bid Extended
ENZO OLIVE OIL: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd

FEDEX FREIGHT: Court Enters Judgment on Counts 5, 6 in Leonard Suit
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Fisher Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FIRST WESTERN: Fleck Revocable Trust Seeks to Certify Class
FLORIDA: Jacksonville City Seeks to Strike Crosby's Four Filings

GENERAL MILLS: Hunt Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
GERVASI VINEYARD: Dewitt Seeks Conditional Cert. of Class Action
GODADDY.COM LLC: Objector Class Deal Approval in Drazen Suit Denied
GONE BANANAS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOD TASTE: Samanc et al. File Suit Over Unlawful Tip Pooling

GOOGLE INC: Carr, et al., Seek Class Status in Antitrust Litigation
GOOGLE LLC: Developer Plaintiffs Seek Initial OK of Settlement
GORDON AYLWORTH: MacCartney's Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
GRANITE SERVICES: Amended Sched Order Entered in Rodriguez
HALAL GUYS: Hegazy, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action

HERB PHARM: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Abrego Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
INTERCOMSONLINE.COM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Yurevich Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Cascade School Claims

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Goldendale Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Sequim School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Hillsdale Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Kennewick Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wash.
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use to Youth, Hawthorn Alleges

JUUL LABS: Sultan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
KARAMD INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEY FOOD STORES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LLOYD JAMES AUSTIN: Spence Files Suit in N.D. Texas
LOS ANGELES, CA: Black Lives Matter, et al., Seek Class Status

M.A.C. COSMETICS: Revised Settlement Agreement in Johnson OK'd
MACERICH COMPANY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MAGIC SEASONING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARHABA INTERNATIONAL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

NEW HAMPSHIRE DOC: Baran Loses Bid for Class Certification
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Deadlines
NIKE INC: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Lohr Consumer Suit
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Bennett's Bid for Class Certification Nixed

NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: S.D. New York Dismisses Amended Aponte Suit
NORTHERN NATURAL: De Leon's Bid for Distribution of Notice Tossed
NOVO NORDISK: Briefing Deadlines Modified in Insulin Pricing Suit
OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
OPTAVIA LLC: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

OREGON: Wins Summary Judgment; Moret v. Brown and ODOC Dismissed
OS4LABOR LLC: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PARKASH 1630: Diaz Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Suit Filed in N.D. California
PEDERSON NATURAL: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PHL VARIABLE: Seeks Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines
PMG OPCO-GUEST: Davis Bill of Rights Suit Goes to W.D. Louisiana
PNC FINANCIAL: Case Management Order Entered in Johnson Suit
PREMIER NUTRITION: Must Include Testimony of Custodians in Montera
PUSHPAY USA: Initial OK of Class Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice

PYRAMID FLOWERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
QIHOO 360: New York Court Stays All Discovery in Altimeo Class Suit
RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
REAL ESTATE HEAVEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Whittaker TCPA Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

RIVERLANDS HOME: Broden Bill of Rights Suit Removed to E.D. La.
ROBERT ROTHSCHILD FARM: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Seeks June 7 Continuance of Class Cert. Bid
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Awarded $85K in Costs in Kirola ADA Class Suit
SCOTT OCEL: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Reisdorf Claims

SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Ledesma Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SHEN BEAUTY: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sanchez Suit
SOOJIAN INCORPORATED: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes PAGA Suit Goes to C.D. California
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Narrows Class Definitions in Cody Suit

ST. MARY PARISH, LA: Protective Order in Boudreaux Partly Sustained
STATE FARM: Court Refuses to Stay Schwartz and Palmer Class Suits
SUMMIT SAFETY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUN GROVE FOODS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNBELT RENTALS: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers

TA OPERATING: Taylor Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
TD BANK: $5.5MM in Attorneys' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Perks Suit
TIFFANY & BOSCO: Thomas Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Murphy
TRUE MADE FOODS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

U.S. BANCORP: S.D. Texas Dismisses Claims in Morris Class Suit
UNITED COLLECTION: Pratt Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Seeks Issuance of Notice to Employees
UNITED STAFFING: Filipino Nurses Get Class Status in Magtoles
UNITED STATES: Bid to Appoint Counsel in Schubert v. Strange Denied

UNITED STATES: Fredrich Files Suit in U.S. Fed. Cl.
VIVID SEATS: Dennard Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALDEN FARMS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Bid to Amend Droesch Suit to Correct Omission Granted
ZENDESK INC: Roe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.


                            *********

183 FOOD: Hurtado Seeks Final Approval of FLSA Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE HURTADO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly-situated, v. 183 FOOD MARKET
CORP. d/b/a FOOD UNIVERSE, and 2358 FOOD CORP., and ROBERTO
ESPINAL, individually, and 183 MEAT CORP., and 2358 MEAT CORP., and
SERGIO FERNANDEZ, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-07988-KPF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

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

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

   3. Awarding Service Awards to Named Plaintiff and Opt-in
      Plaintiff in the total amount of $15,000.00, for their
      work provided to secure the result on behalf of the Class
      Members;

   4. Awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $247,500.00, for
      legal services performed in prosecuting and settling the
      claims in this action, to Stevenson Marino LLP as Class
      Counsel;

   5. Awarding $6,471.41 for costs and out-of-pocket expenses to
      Class Counsel;

   6. Awarding $13,500.00 for claims administration fees and
      costs to Arden Claims Service LLC, the court-appointed
      Claims Administrator in this matter;

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

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

Food Universe is full service supermarket.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x6Xs93
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Hogue Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HOGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01701-RMG
(D.S.C., May 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Hart Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01706-RMG (D.S.C., May 31, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

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

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment, added the suit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01700-RMG
(D.S.C., May 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

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

8X8 INC: Settlement of Rivas Labor Suit in the Works
----------------------------------------------------
8x8, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the year ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 27, 2022, that a settlement is in progress with regards to a
class action filed in September 21, 2020 by Denise Rivas.

Rivas filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency providing notice of her intent to bring a
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim, on behalf of the
company's non-exempt employees based in California, for alleged
California wage and hour practices violations.

In September 25, 2020, she filed a separate class action complaint
in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company in which
she alleges 10 causes of action, on behalf of herself and all of
the company's non-exempt employees based in California for the last
four years, related to violations of California state wage and hour
practices and the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. The class
complaint was served in September 29, 2020. In October 28, 2020,
the company filed a general denial of all claims and asserted
various affirmative defenses.

In October 29, 2020, the company removed the matter to Federal
Court. In December 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a companion PAGA
lawsuit complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the
company, in which she alleges six violations of California state
wage and hour practices for all of the Company's current and former
non-exempt employees based in California from September 16, 2019 to
the present. The PAGA Complaint was served on the Company on
December 11, 2020.

In January 26, 2021, the company filed a general denial of all
claims and asserted various affirmative defenses to the PAGA
Complaint. Both actions were scheduled for a joint mediation in
September 2021, and discovery was stayed in both actions pending
completion of the mediation. A joint mediation for both actions was
held in September 2021 and the parties reached a preliminary
settlement of all claims, which was finalized on November 23, 2021.
The parties have remanded the Class Complaint matter to Santa Clara
County Superior Court in order to consolidate the matter with PAGA
Complaint matter for court approval and administration of the
settlement.

Plaintiff has filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement on May 17, 2022, in advance of the parties' hearing
before the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

8x8 provides real-time business analytics and intelligence, giving
its customers unique insights across all interactions and channels
on its platform so they can support distributed and agile workplace
models while delighting their end-customers and accelerating their
business with more than 2.5 million paid business users.


A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, SEAN
MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, v. A-1
COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying the Utah Class and the FDCPA Subclass;

   2. certifying the Plaintiffs McIntyre and Provo as class
      representatives; and

   3. certifying Daniel Baczynski and Troy Walker as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that resolving the case and claims as a
class therefore promotes judicial economy by avoiding repetitious
cases to try the same issues and to hold the Defendants accountable
under a remedial consumer protection act. Given that an analysis of
Defendants' debt collection practices is done on an objective basis
and the same straight forward legal analysis will apply to all
class members, it is appropriate to certify one class and one
subclass under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 consisting of the following
persons:

  -- 1. Utah Class:

        (a) all individuals;

        (b) against whom Defendants;

        (c) filed a debt collection lawsuit;

        (d) in the State of Utah;

        (e) where, as part of the lawsuit, Defendants publicly
            disclosed the debtor's social security number or
            protected health information; and

        (f) where the disclosure was made between December 2,
            2016, to the present.

  -- 2. FDCPA Subclass:

        (a) all individuals;

        (b) against whom Defendants;

        (c) filed a debt collection lawsuit;

        (d) in the State of Utah;

        (e) in connection with a “debt” as defined by 15
U.S.C.
            section 1692a(5);

        (f) where, as part of the lawsuit, Defendants publicly
            disclosed the debtor's social security number or
            protected health information; and

        (g) where the disclosure was made between December 2,
            2019, to the present.

A-1 Collection and Moab Valley Healthcare, Inc. (MVHI) published
Utahans' private information onto the state court's publicly
accessible website. They did so (needlessly) so they could collect
on past due debts. The Defendants disregarded court and statutory
safeguards to protect Plaintiffs' social security number and
private medical records, putting Plaintiffs at risk for identity
theft so they could save pennies on compliance.

The Defendants' practices represent an invasion of privacy,
negligence, and violations of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act
(UCSPA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Plaintiffs McIntyre and Provo 1 now move to certify the case as a
class action for the benefit of the roughly 50 Utahans who suffered
identical harm.

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court certify the class and subclass as
to liability only at this time, reserving whether the damages
should be decided at a class level or individual level for later
proceedings after the parties have completed merit discovery.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tCI8QD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M. Baczynski, Esq.
          BACZYNSKI LAW, PLLC
          12339 S. 800 E., Ste 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (708) 715-2234
          E-mail: dan@bskilaw.com

A-1 COLLECTION: Wins Bids for Judgment on Pleadings in Fullmer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Nuffer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah grants the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings
in the lawsuit captioned JOHN FULLMER, JOSH BURT, SEAN McINTYRE,
SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A-1
COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah).

The case arises from the Defendants alleged improper disclosure of
the Plaintiffs' confidential personal and protected health
information in state court debt collection proceedings. The
Plaintiffs assert (among other causes of action) a class claim for
actual or statutory damages under the Utah Consumer Sales Practice
Act ("UCSPA"). The Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings
regarding this class claim ("Defendants' Motions") on the ground
that the claim, as alleged, is precluded by the UCSPA.
Discussion

A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
is evaluated under the same standard as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

I. The UCSPA permits class claims for damages only under limited
circumstances

The Plaintiffs argue that their UCSPA class claim for damages is
not precluded or limited by the UCSPA because the UCSPA is
preempted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs
argue that their class claim for damages falls within UCSPA
subsection (4)(a) because the Defendants violated a rule of the
Utah's Division of Consumer Protection. The Plaintiffs also argue
that consideration of damages should be deferred until a class
certification motion is filed.

II. UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) are not preempted by Rule 23

In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
Justice Stevens, whose concurring opinion is controlling in the
Tenth Circuit, framed a two-part analysis to determine when the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preempt state law. First, courts
must decide whether there is a "direct collision" between the
federal rule and the state law. A direct collision occurs when "the
scope of the federal rule is 'sufficiently broad' to 'control the
issue' before the court, 'thereby leaving no room for the
operation' of seemingly conflicting state law." "'If the state and
federal rules "can exist side by side, each controlling its own
intended sphere of coverage," there is no conflict.'"

If there is no direct conflict or collision, courts must look to
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins to determine whether the state law is
substantive or procedural--if the state law is procedural, then
federal law will preempt; if substantive, then there is no federal
preemption. But if a direct conflict exists, courts must move to
second step of the Shady Grove analysis. Under the second step,
preemption occurs when the federal rule "'represents a valid
exercise' of 'rulemaking authority under the Rules Enabling Act.'"
However, the federal rule must not "abridge, enlarge, or modify a
substantive right." A federal rule should not displace any state
law that is "so intertwined with a state right or remedy that it
functions to define the scope of the state-created right."

A. There is no direct conflict between UCSPA subsections (2) and
(4)(a) and Rule 23

Judge Nuffer finds that there is no direct conflict between UCSPA
subsections (2) and (4)(a) and Rule 23. The language in Rule 23
states that "[o]ne or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties" if certain requirements are met. UCSPA
subsection (4)(a) does not preclude class actions, but rather
provides substantive requirements for maintaining a class claim for
actual damages.

The same logic applies to UCSPA subsection (2), Judge Nuffer holds.
Unlike the statute analyzed in Shady Grove, UCSPA subsection (2)
does not bar all class actions. Rather, subsection (2) creates a
cause of action for actual or statutory damages while
simultaneously limiting the scope of that claim.

UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) and Rule 23 are capable of
coexisting, each controlling its intended sphere, Judge Nuffer
explains, among other things,.

B. UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) are substantive laws

Despite no direct conflict existing between UCSPA subsections (2)
and (4)(a) and Rule 23, an Erie analysis must be conducted to
determine the preemption question, Judge Nuffer notes. Under Erie,
federal courts apply substantive state law and federal procedural
law.

The Plaintiffs read UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) separately and
in isolation to argue that each is procedural. The Plaintiffs argue
that the subsections do not alter the burdens, defenses, or
limitations otherwise available to the parties but rather only
require that such actions be litigated individually rather than
together.

Judge Nuffer holds that the Plaintiffs' reading ignores basic
standards of statutory construction and misconstrues the
subsections' plain language.

The Plaintiffs rely heavily on the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in
Lisk v. Number One Wood Preserving, LLC, and the District of Utah
case Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc. In Lisk, the Eleventh Circuit
held that Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which barred
class actions, was preempted by Rule 23. The decision in Lisk has
been rejected by many courts, with most courts outside of that
circuit implicitly or explicitly disagreeing with its
interpretation of Shady Grove and its determination that there was
'no meaningful distinction' between CPLR Section 901 and the
Alabama class action bar.

Judge Nuffer finds that Lisk is not persuasive. UCSPA subsections
(2) and (4)(a) are clearly distinguishable from the Alabama
statute, which was a bar on all private individual class actions,
placing it in direct conflict with Rule 23. UCSPA subsections (2)
and (4)(a) do not bar all private class actions, they limit the
availability class claims for damages to certain factual
circumstances, Judge Nuffer points out, among other things.

Because Rule 23 does not preempt, Judge Nuffer holds that the
language of UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) control whether the
Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible class claim for damages. Thus,
to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Plaintiffs'
Complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to plausibly
meet the elements of a class claim for damages under UCSPA
subsection (4)(a).

III. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege a class claim for
damages under the UCSPA

The Plaintiffs argue that their Complaint contains sufficient
allegations to maintain a class action under UCSPA subsection
(4)(a). The Plaintiffs argue that, by disclosing medical
information without their express permission, the Defendants
impermissibly amended the parties' contracts.

However, Judge Nuffer points out, the Plaintiffs' Complaint does
not allege facts suggesting that the Defendant's conduct amended
the parties' contracts or constituted a violation of Rule 152-11-5.
And the Plaintiffs' reference to such an amendment and violation of
the Rule appears only in the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants'
Motions. This appears to be nothing more than a last-ditch attempt
to avoid dismissal of the UCSPA class claim for damages by making
the Complaint a moving target. The effort fails, Judge Nuffer
holds.

The contracts between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants state that
all other disclosures of medical information will only be made with
written permission. The alleged unauthorized disclosure of medical
information may amount to a breach of the contracts, but such
disclosure, alone, is insufficient to allow for reasonable
inference that the Defendants impermissibly amended the parties'
contracts, Judge Nuffer finds.

Judge Nuffer also finds that the Plaintiffs allege no facts to
plausibly suggest that the Defendants sought to and did
impermissibly amend the contracts in violation of Utah's Division
of Consumer Protection Rule 152-11-5. And the Plaintiffs point to
no allegations within the Complaint that would otherwise meet the
elements for a class claim for damages under UCSPA subsection
(4)(a).

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege sufficient
facts to support a plausible class claim for damages under UCSPA
subsection (4)(a).

IV. Consideration of damages will not be delayed

Finally, the Plaintiffs cite several non-binding authorities to
argue that the consideration of damages should be delayed until a
class certification motion is filed. However, in the District of
Utah case Johnson v. Blendtec, which analyzed UCSPA subsection
(4)(a), Judge Parrish expressly rejected this argument, Judge
Nuffer states.

Because the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the
substantive requirements for stating a class claim for damages
under UCSPA subsection (4)(a), there is no reason to delay
consideration of the lack of damages.

Conclusion

Ultimately, because there is no direct conflict with Rule 23 and
UCSPA subsections (2) and (4)(a) are substantive, there is no
federal preemption. And because the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to
allege sufficient facts to meet the required elements of a class
claim for damages under UCSPA subsection (4)(a), judgment on the
pleadings is appropriate. The Defendants' Motions are granted.

Order

Judge Nuffer ordered that the Defendants' Motions are granted. The
Plaintiffs' class claim for actual and statutory damages under the
UCSPA is dismissed without prejudice. The Order does not affect the
Plaintiffs' class claim seeking injunction under the UCSPA.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
May 16, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/323be4s2 from
Leagle.com.


AETNA LIFE: Court OKs Wolff's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE WOLFF, individually
and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v.
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01596-MWB (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann entered an order granting
Wolff's motion for class certification.

The Court concludes that Wolff has also established that class
certification is superior to other available methods to adjudicate
the issue.

In 2020, Joanne Wolff, on behalf of herself on all similarly
situated individuals, filed a second amended complaint against
Aetna raising claims for: a violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), breaches of fiduciary
duties, conversion, money had and received, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
theft by deception, attempted theft, a violation of Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and a violation
of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.

Wolff avers that she was previously insured for long-term
disability benefits under the terms of a group plan (the "Plan")
issued by Aetna through Bank of America Corporation -- Wolff's
employer. In September 2015, Wolff was temporarily disabled as a
result of a motor vehicle accident that caused Wolff injuries.
Wolff submitted a claim to Aetna under the Plan and received
long-term disability benefits exceeding $50,000.

Wolff contends that certification is appropriate because Aetna
engaged in a common course of conduct by seeking reimbursement from
individuals who had plans similar to Wolff's—in that said plans
did not permit reimbursement for personal injury recoveries -- but
Aetna nevertheless pursued reimbursement from those individuals.
Wolff further asserts that the remainder of the requirements for
class certification are met and, therefore, the class should be
certified.

Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other
plans.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m6PcRb
at no extra charge.[CC]


AETNA LIFE: M.D. Pennsylvania Certifies Class in Wolff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOANNE WOLFF, individually and on behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-01596 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania grants Wolff's Motion for Class Certification in
accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion.

The matter will be maintained as a class action in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following class
of Plaintiffs: All persons who were injured and received long-term
disability benefits from the Defendants as a result of an injury
causing event and as against whom the Defendant sought or recovered
reimbursement of long-term disability benefits it had paid to
insured from the insureds' tort recoveries and who suffered harm
and damages which include, by way of exemplification and not in
limitation, the loss of use of money, the loss of interest on
money, the loss of possession of their funds, the loss of enjoyment
of their funds, their losses in having to free their funds from
defendants' encumbrances and payment of money from their tort
recoveries to the defendant as a result of defendants' wrongful
reimbursement demands and actions based on a violation of the
policy.

The class claims consist of violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.

Judge Brann appoints Plaintiff Joanne Wolff is certified as the
class representative, and Charles Kannebecker, Esquire of Weinstein
Schneider Kannebecker & Lokuta as the class counsel.

The Plaintiffs will submit to the Court a proposed form of notice
to the class by June 20, 2022.

The Defendant will produce to the Plaintiff a class list with the
last known address of each class member by June 27, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/m6jsapzk from Leagle.com.


ALL HOURS: Has Until June 14 to File Class Cert. Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL ADLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALL HOURS
PLUMBING DRAIN CLEANING 24-7-365 LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP
(D. Utah), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead entered an
order that T5HE defendant All Hours Plumbing Drain Cleaning
24-7-365 has up to and including June 14, 2022 to file a response
to plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

All Hours is located in Salt Lake City, Utah. The company primarily
operates in the Plumbing Contractors business.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xaiG6X at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON LAW OFFICE
          www.morrisonlegal.blogspot.com
          231 Old Bernal Ave Ste 2A
          Pleasanton, CA 94566-7010
          Telephone: (925) 399-1856
          Facsimile: (925) 860-2743
          E-mail: matthewmorrisonlegal@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert H. Scott, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Salt Lake City
          Telephone: (801) 907 6900
          E-mail: robert.scott@akerman.com

ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Animal Care Equipment
& Services LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Animal Care
Equipment & Services LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04410 (S.D.N.Y., May 27,
2022).

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

Animal Care Equipment & Services -- https://animal-care.com/ -- is
the world's premier supplier of specialist animal handling and
capture equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARTISAN TROPIC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artisan Tropic, LLC.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Artisan Tropic, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04430 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Artisan Tropic -- https://artisantropic.com/ -- is a family
business with a passion for making the best Plantain & Cassava
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: Default Judgment Issued in PacificSource Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana, Butte Division, issued a default judgment
against the Defendant in the lawsuit captioned PACIFICSOURCE HEALTH
PLANS, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. CV-21-064-BU-BMM (D. Mont.).

Background

Plaintiff PacificSource Health Plans seeks a declaratory judgment
against its insurer, Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. ("ASIC") that
ASIC has a duty to indemnify PacificSource for notice costs and
damages incurred in a class action covered by ASIC's policy of
insurance. The summons and complaint in this action were served
upon Defendant ASIC's registered agent on Nov. 22, 2021, with an
affidavit of service filed that same day.

ASIC failed to appear or answer. On Dec. 30, 2021, PacificSource
moved for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk properly entered default on
Dec. 30, 2021. PacificSource filed the motion for default judgment
on May 4, 2022, and served ASIC's registered agent on May 10, 2022.
ASIC has not appeared in the intervening months.

Default Judgment

Whether to enter default judgment is a decision entrusted to the
discretion of the district court, Judge Morris notes, citing
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McLain, 2021 WL 647141, *1 (D.
Mont. Jan. 6, 2021).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a district court
considering whether default judgment is appropriate should consider
the following factors: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the
plaintiff; (2) the merits of the claims; (3) the sufficiency of the
complaint; (4) the amount of money at stake; (5) the possibility of
factual disputes; (6) whether default is due to excusable neglect;
and (7) the policy favoring decisions on the merits (State Farm
Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Croft, 2020 WL 1974373, at *1 (D. Mont.
April 24, 2020) citing Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th
Cir. 1986)). In considering these factors, the court accepts the
factual allegations in the complaint as true.

Judge Morris finds that the first factor, the possibility of
prejudice to the Plaintiff, weighs in favor of granting default
judgment. Because ASIC has not answered the complaint, the court's
failure to grant default judgment will leave the Plaintiff without
a remedy.

The second and third factors inquire into the merits of the claim
and the sufficiency of the Complaint, both of which support
entering default judgment, Judge Morris holds. The Complaint is
sufficient on its face. The Complaint meets the requirements of
Rule 8's pleading standards and establishes this Court's
jurisdiction based on diversity.

The allegations of the Complaint, taken as true, state a
meritorious claim for a declaration of coverage, Judge Morris
notes. During the policy period, PacificSource notified ASIC of a
class action filed by Jacklin Gardner captioned Gardner v.
PacificSource Health Plans, No. DV 17-274B, Montana Eighteenth
Judicial District Court, Gallatin County ("the Gardner Action").

ASIC acknowledged receipt of the notice of the Gardner Action on
Sept. 20, 2017. ASIC agreed that the Gardner Action "appears to
qualify as a Claim made during the Policy Period against
PacificSource for an act committed during the performance of a
Managed Care Activity" and agreed to defend PacificSource in the
Montana lawsuit pursuant to a reservation of rights. ASIC did not
reserve its rights as to the nature or definition of "Claim
Expenses."

Throughout the Gardner Action, PacificSource and defense counsel
Robert Lukes kept ASIC advised of settlement negotiations and
litigation developments. On Oct. 19, 2020, Mr. Lukes advised ASIC
that as part of the litigation process, notices would be sent by a
third-party administrator to approximately 130,000 potential class
members, at an estimated cost of $177,000 to $227,000.

On Jan. 27, 2021, ASIC for the first time asserted that expenses
related to notices in the class action would not be considered
"Claim Expenses" by ASIC, and denied coverage for the expense of
notifying potential claimants in the class action. On March 9,
2021, ASIC again denied coverage for upcoming notice expenses.

The Policy provides that ASIC will pay Claims Expenses that
PacificSource is legally obligated to pay as a result of a Claim.

Judge Morris notes that the three stated policy exceptions to the
definition of "Claims Expenses" do not include notice expenses
incurred in a class action. The Policy's definition of "Claims
Expenses" clearly encompasses the costs incurred in providing
notice to class members as required by the litigation. Because the
costs of providing notice are imposed upon PacificSource to
investigate and defend the Gardner Class Action, the notice
expenses fall squarely within the Policy's definition of "Claims
Expenses." The notice costs are "necessary legal expenses in the
investigation or defense of" the Gardner Class Action. Moreover,
the Gardner's and the class attorney fees constitute "Claim
Expenses" or "Damages" and are covered by the Policy.

Under Montana law, any and all limitations on coverage must be
construed in favor of the insured, Judge Morris states, citing
Winter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 MT 168, paragraph
13, 375 Mont. 351, 328 P.3d 665. The notice expenses are covered by
the Policy as "Claims Expenses," and PacificSource is entitled to
coverage for the notification costs, Judge Morris holds. Similarly,
an award of attorney fees to the class is covered by the policy.
The merits of the claim and the sufficiency of the complaint weigh
in favor of entry of default judgment.

The fourth factor considers the amount of money at stake weighed
against the culpability of the Defendant's conduct. The notice
costs at issue in this suit are estimated at $177,000 to $227,000.
PacificSource also seeks reimbursement of attorney fees incurred in
recovering these policy proceeds. The amount at issue is within the
policy limits and is an amount that ASIC is contractually obligated
to pay. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of entry of default
judgment, Judge Morris holds.

The fifth and sixth factors -- possible factual disputes and
excusable neglect -- also favor entering default judgment. Because
ASIC did not answer the complaint, no facts are in dispute, Judge
Morris finds. Moreover, this dispute involves a question of policy
interpretation, which is a question of law for the court to decide.
The complaint was served over six months ago. It is unlikely that
the neglect is excusable.

The final factor, the policy favoring a decision on the merits,
generally weighs against entering default judgment, Judge Morris
notes. ASIC's failure to answer makes any other disposition
impractical. Having weighed each of the factors, the Court finds
that default judgment is appropriate.

Attorney Fees

The Complaint asserts that PacificSource is entitled to recover its
attorney fees incurred in this action pursuant to Montana's
insurance exception and the supplemental relief afforded in
declaratory actions. The Montana Supreme Court recognizes two
exceptions to that rule that apply here -- the insurance exception
and the declaratory judgment exception.

The Montana Supreme Court has long recognized an insurance
exception to the American Rule, Judge Morris says. That exception
entitles a first-party insured to recover attorney fees "whenever
an insurer forces its insured to assume the burden of litigation to
obtain what the insured is entitled to under an insurance
contract." Montana law also allows an award of fees in declaratory
actions as supplemental relief when the court, in its discretion,
deems such an award "necessary or proper."

Both exceptions to the American Rule apply here, Judge Morris
holds. ASIC accepted defense of the claim pursuant to a reservation
of rights that did not include any reservation regarding claims
expenses. Nevertheless, ASIC refused to pay notice expenses
incurred in the class action. PacificSource was forced to assume
the burden of litigation to obtain the insurance coverage provided
by ASIC. An award of fees is necessary and proper to ensure the
full benefit of the insurance coverage to PacificSource.

Order

Judge Morris ruled that PacificSource's motion for default judgment
is granted.

Default judgment is entered in favor of PacificSource and against
Defendant ASIC on PacificSource's claim for declaratory relief as
follows:

   -- ASIC owes a duty to indemnify PacificSource for costs and
      expenses incurred by PacificSource in providing notices to
      approximately 130,000 potential class members through a
      third-party administrator;

   -- ASIC owes a duty to indemnify PacificSource for Gardner's
      and the class's attorney fees; and

   -- PacificSource is entitled to an award of attorney's fees
      reasonably incurred in bearing the burden of litigating
      this coverage dispute.

PacificSource will notify the Court within 21 days of entry of this
Order as to whether a hearing is necessary to establish the amount
of insurance proceeds to be paid by ASIC and the amount of
reasonable attorney fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvuwyy3x from Leagle.com.


AUNTIE ANNE'S: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auntie Anne's
Franchisor SPV, LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Auntie
Anne's Franchisor SPV, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03146 (E.D.N.Y., May
27, 2022).

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

Auntie Anne's -- https://auntieannesfranchising.com/ -- is known
for hand-baked pretzels to be enjoyed with a refreshing
lemonade.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVIOR AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Vacates Award of Costs in Cavalieri Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., a Venezuelan company,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-11468 (11th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacates the
district court's award of costs in favor of the Airline.

Roberto Cavalieri and Sergio Enrique Isea, the named Plaintiffs in
a putative federal class action lawsuit against Avior Airlines
C.A., a Venezuelan airline, appeal the district court's
post-judgment award of costs to the Airline and its denial of their
subsequent motion for reconsideration. Recently, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of their second
amended complaint in a separate appeal, see Cavalieri v. Avior
Airlines C.A., 25 F.4th 843, 854 (11th Cir. 2022) (per curiam), and
lifted a stay the Court of Appeals had entered while that appeal
was pending.

Plaintiffs Cavalieri and Isea have not yet filed an initial brief,
but they now move for summary reversal of the district court's
award of costs to the Airline and for a stay of the briefing
schedule, arguing that their position is clearly correct as a
matter of law because, in light of the foregoing, the Airline is no
longer a "prevailing party" entitled to costs under Rule 54 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Airline has not responded to,
or opposed, this motion.

According to the Court of Appeals, summary disposition is
appropriate, in part, where "the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no
substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is
more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous," citing
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969).

The Court of Appeals reviews de novo whether a litigant is a
"prevailing party" for purposes of the award of costs in a civil
action.

Here, summary reversal is appropriate, according to the Court of
Appeals. Because of its decision in the other appeal by Cavalieri
and Isea, and the fact that the district court proceedings remain
ongoing on remand, the Airline is no longer a "prevailing party"
entitled to recover costs under Rule 54.

Thus, given the limited scope of Cavalieri and Isea's appeal, their
position is clearly correct as a matter of law, no substantial
question exists as to the outcome of the case in that respect, and
the Court of Appeals grants their motion for summary reversal of
the costs award and denies as moot their motion to stay the
briefing schedule.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacates the district court's award
of costs in favor of the Airline.

Reversed and vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Disposition dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7aa5hf from Leagle.com.


AZ METRO: Dismissal of Moreno Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESLIE MORENO, ETC., Appellant v. AZ METRO
DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Respondent, 2019-10224, Index No. 506437/19
(N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, Second Department, affirms the order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

In the putative class action, inter alia, to recover unpaid
overtime wages, the Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme
Court, Kings County (Dawn Jimenez-Salta, J.), dated July 31, 2019.
The order granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint.

From August 2016 through March 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by
the Defendant, which operates a beverage distribution business. On
March 25, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action
seeking, inter alia, to recover unpaid overtime wages. The
Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the
complaint. By order dated July 31, 2019, the Supreme Court granted
the Defendant's motion. The Plaintiff appeals.

the Appellate Division finds that in support of its motion, the
Defendant submitted, inter alia, a "new hire form," signed by the
Plaintiff, that set forth her salary as $500 weekly, and a notice,
also signed by the Plaintiff, notifying her of her salary and rate
of commission and that she was "currently exempt from overtime
under the Outside Sales Exemption." The Defendant also submitted
the Plaintiff's earnings records for August 2016 through March
2019, which reflected earnings consistent with this pay structure.
The Appellate Division holds that the Defendant's documentary
evidence conclusively established that the Plaintiff was employed
as an outside salesperson.

Moreover, although section 142-2.2 of the Administrative Code
provides that employees subject to the exemptions of section 13 of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 are entitled to overtime pay
at a rate of one and one-half times the basic minimum hourly rate,
the Legislature has specifically excluded outside salespersons from
the definition of "employee" in the Minimum Wage Act. Thus,
contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, as an outside salesperson,
the Appellate Division holds that she was not entitled to overtime
pay at a rate of one and one-half times the basic minimum hourly
rate.

The Plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concludes that the Supreme
Court properly granted the Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint. It affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8dhffh from Leagle.com.

Abdul K. Hassan Law Group, PLLC, in Queens Village, New York
(abdul@abdulhassan.com), for the Appellant.

Westermann Sheehy Keenan Samaan & Aydelott, LLP, in White Plains,
New York (Christopher P. Keenan -- cpkeenan(a)westerlaw.com -- of
counsel), for the Respondent.


BEACH BOYS: Conrey Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONREY v. BEACH BOYS OF
FT. LAUDERDALE, LLC et al., Case No. 0:22-cv-60843-MGC (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 216(b):

   1. conditionally certifying this proposed FLSA collective
      action;

   2. directing Beach Boys of Ft. Lauderdale, LLC and Krikor
      Kevorkian to produce a computer readable data file
      containing the names, last known mailing addresses, Social
      Security numbers (for those notices returned
      undeliverable), for all members of each Collective;

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all members of each
      Collective by U.S. Mail, email, text message, and a
      reminder notice during the opt-in period.

The Defendants operate a restaurant and bar on Fort Lauderdale
Beach. During the past 3 years the Defendants have employed dozens
of hard-working Servers and Bartenders who perform substantially
similar duties and tasks that are instrumental to the success of
the restaurant. These Servers and Bartenders, however, have been
denied applicable federal overtime wages. Defendants have also
pilfered and retained a portion of the tips earned by the Servers
and Bartenders each shift they worked within the past 3 years.

The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover the overtime wages and tips that were unlawfully taken from
himself and other similarly situated Servers and Bartenders.
Plaintiff, himself, worked for the Defendants as both a Server and
Bartender and performed substantially the same duties regardless of
his job title. Plaintiff alleges that Servers and Bartenders in the
restaurant work in excess 40 hours per week but are not compensated
the applicable overtime wages. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all
unliquidated damages, unlawfully taken tips, and liquidated damages
based on willful violations of the FLSA.

On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff, Conrey, and Opt-In Plaintiffs Jessie
Cabuang, and Macarena Vargas each filed their Consent to Sue under
the FLSA. On May 16, 2022, Marvin Mann filed his Consent to Sue
under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs now move this Court to conditionally
certify the following collectives of similarly situated Servers and
Bartenders:

  -- Tip Collective:

     All Servers and Bartenders who worked for Defendants in
     Fort Lauderdale, Florida, during the three years preceding
     this lawsuit who were required to surrender any portion of
     their tips to Defendants.

  -- Overtime Collective:

     "All Servers and Bartenders who worked for Defendants in
     Fort Lauderdale, Florida, during the three years preceding
     this lawsuit who were required to work in excess of 40
     hours in a workweek and were not compensated the applicable
     federal overtime wages.

The Plaintiff, Conrey, worked for Defendants from late February /
early March 2021 through May 2022. Conrey's duties and
responsibilities as a Server and Bartender were substantially the
same in that he would serve customers food and drinks in the
restaurant and/or bar area and regularly engage with customers to
enhance their overall experience.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFATfW
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Daivd Nudel, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10 th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  catherine@USAEmploymentLawyers.com

BELSON OUTDOORS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belson Outdoors, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Belson Outdoors, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04425 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2022).

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

Belson Outdoors -- https://www.belson.com/ -- sells numerous
categories of quality indoor and outdoor equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST BUY HEALTH: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Health, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04438 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Best Buy Health -- https://healthcare.bestbuy.com/ -- uses
tech-enabled human interactions to transform the home into a site
of care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BIG EASY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Reset to June 17
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOE VEGA RAMOS; ANA KAREN
VALENZUELA SOTO; JOSE ADRIAN LEYVA; and ANA KAREN QUIROZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BIG
EASY FOODS OF LOUISIANA, L.L.C., and MELCHOR MAYA SOTO, Case No.
2:17-cv-01298-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Court entered an order that
the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for certification of a
Rule 23 class is reset to June 17, 2022.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aj0miX at no extra charge.[CC]

BRAD'S RAW CHIPS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brad's Raw Chips,
LLC. The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brad's Raw Chips, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04432 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Brad's Raw Foods -- https://bradsplantbased.com/ -- offers a range
of raw veggie chips, leafy kale, and other healthy food
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BROWN COUNTY SENIOR: Weaver Seeks to Certify Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE WEAVER, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BROWN COUNTY
SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00070-TSB (S.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying a collective action consisting of:

   "All present and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant
   who performed home care and/or related services at the
   Defendant's residential care facilities during the period of
   three years preceding the commencement of this action
   [February 8, 2019] to the present."

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the Defendant's failure to pay her,
and all other similarly situated plaintiffs, overtime compensation
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Irrefutably,
according to its own records, Defendant engaged in a practice of
failing to pay overtime compensation as prescribed by the FLSA by
failing to calculate and pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek at a rate
of one and one half times their hourly, home health care employees'
regular rates of pay.

The Plaintiff Weaver worked for BCSCC from April 2014 to January
2022.She worked as an hourly home health aide for BCSCC.

The Defendant operates a home health agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x7cXyT
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

BROWNIE BAKER: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Brownie Baker,
Inc. The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Brownie Baker, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04437 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

The Brownie Baker -- https://browniebaker.com/ -- is a wholesale
manufacturer, specializing in the distribution of prepackaged
pastries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUGABOO NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bugaboo North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bugaboo North America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04411 (S.D.N.Y., May
27, 2022).

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

Bugaboo -- https://www.bugaboo.com/ -- offers products including
strollers, car seats and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHILE COLONIAL: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chile Colonial, LLC.
The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Chile Colonial, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04412 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Chile Colonial -- https://chilecrunch.com/ -- offers Chile Crunch
which is made from a savory blend of roasted chiles, garlic, onion,
herbs, and spices that are sautéed in canola oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Saroza Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CLIENT SERVICES,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-03429-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement class and related relief.

Client Services, Inc also known as CSI is a debt collection
agency.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 31, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/393HFQn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          ATTORNEY AT LAW
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300

The Defendant is represented by::

          Daniel JT McKenna, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP

COLAVITA USA: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colavita USA, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Colavita USA, L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-04433 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Colavita -- https://www.colavita.com/ -- is an Italian company best
known for its olive oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLORADO CORING: Snider Files Bid for FLSA Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS SNIDER, on behalf
of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown, v. COLORADO CORING & CUTTING, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
AND RICK GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01289-RMR-SKC (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff files a motion for stage-one conditional
certification of collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and motion for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23.

On behalf of himself and all other past and present employees of
the Defendants, the Plaintiff has filed his claim for unpaid wages
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. section 201 et. seq. (FLSA) and supplemental state wage and
hour claims under Colorado law.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the FLSA and Colorado Overtime
and Minimum Pay Standards Order, for the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime and other owed wages.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of a collective action for his
FLSA claims and for the pendant state claims arising unpaid
overtime wages.

Concrete Coring has been providing concrete core drilling, saw
cutting, grinding, grooving and joint sealing services since 1968.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aq8MVN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80237

COLORADO TB: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado TB, LLC. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Colorado TB, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04416 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Colorado TB is a Limited Liability Company located in Denver,
Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONAGRA BRANDS: Dismissal of NEI Pension Fund's Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1155 (7th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal of all class claims.

Conagra Brands acquired Pinnacle Foods in 2018 for about $11
billion in stock and cash. When Pinnacle's sales later fell, and
the stock price of the combined firms also fell, several pension
funds filed this suit as a class action under the Securities Act of
1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Claims under the Exchange
Act depend on Section 10(b) of that statute, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and the SEC's Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, and
so are subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA or 1995 Act), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The district court dismissed all of the class's claims on the
pleadings (West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra
Brands, Inc., 495 F.Supp.3d 622 (N.D. Ill. 2020)). The change of
caption since that decision reflects the designation of National
Elevator Industry Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff. The court
concluded that the claims under the Exchange Act failed for
multiple reasons, including the court's characterization of many
contested statements as puffery and others as projections within
the 1995 Act's safe harbor.

The judge added that the complaint did not meet the PSLRA's
requirement that intent to defraud be shown to be at least as
likely as honest error. As the judge observed, the individual
defendants were buying Pinnacle (and Conagra) stock at the same
time as they were making the contested statements, which implies
that they expected the merged firms to flourish. That is
inconsistent with an intent to deceive. (That the purchases were
small in relation to the $11 billion transaction does not matter;
the complaint's allegations do not plausibly imply that the
defendants were willing to accept losses on their personal
investments to set up a smokescreen for fraud.)

Finally, the judge observed that all of the concrete statements
made in connection with the merger were true. For example, while
the Defendants stated that they expected Pinnacle to continue rapid
growth and "serve as a catalyst to accelerate value creation for
shareholders" (at once a projection and puffery), they disclosed
that Pinnacle's net sales in 2017 of $3.144 billion were only $17
million higher than its net sales in 2016, a growth rate close to
one-half of one percent.

The Plaintiffs' reply brief in the Court of Appeals contends that
statements about two of Pinnacle's brands (as opposed to its
overall revenues) were factually false. But this argument was not
made in its opening brief; it has been forfeited.

The Plaintiffs have abandoned on appeal all claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the claims subject to the
PSLRA. Although they contest almost every aspect of the district
court's decision, the Court of Appeals concludes that they have not
put a dent in it. The decline in Pinnacle's 2018 sales, compared
with its 2017 sales, was a business problem, not a securities
problem.

Substantially for the reasons given by the district court, the
judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8rfyea from Leagle.com.


CONCERNED DENTAL CARE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concerned Dental
Care, P.C. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Concerned Dental Care,
P.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-03152 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Concerned Dental Care -- https://concerneddentalcare.com/ -- are
dental professionals whose mission is to provide patients with
gentle, caring, quality dentistry at affordable prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lead Roles Appointed in Hoang Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled YEN HOANG, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03930-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
issued an order:

   (1) granting the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and
       lead counsel brought by Xiaoquan Yang and Alexander De
       Block ("Yang & De Block"); and

   (2) denying the motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and
       lead counsel brought by Joel Newman and Anand Chetram
       ("Newman & Chetram").

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman appoints Yang & De Block as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs and approves Yang & De Block's selection of
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as
Co-Lead Counsel.

Background

The consolidated putative class action for alleged violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") is brought against
Defendant ContextLogic, Inc. ("ContextLogic" or "the Company"),
Company officers and directors, and underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO").

ContextLogic is a mobile ecommerce company that operates the Wish
platform, which connects consumers with merchants. The Company
completed its IPO on Dec. 16, 2020, selling 46 million shares of
Class A common stock at $24 per share. On Jan. 14, 2021, an article
published on Investorplace.com stated that the Company was
suffering from slowing growth and fulfillment issues. The Company's
share price fell nearly 11.7%, closing at $24.84 per share on Jan.
15, 2021.

On March 8, 2021, the Company announced its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2020 financial results, disclosing among other things
that in the fourth quarter of 2020 its monthly active users
("MAUs") declined 10% from the fourth quarter of the prior year.
The Company's share price fell 10% on that news, closing at $15.94
per share on March 8, 2021. On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic announced
that its MAUs declined another 7% in the first quarter of 2021. The
Company's share price fell 29% on that news, closing at $8.11 per
share on May 13, 2021.

Four putative class actions were filed against ContextLogic and
related defendants in this District: (1) Boehning v. ContextLogic
Inc. et al., No. 21-cv-03671; (2) Hoang v. ContextLogic, Inc., et
al., No. 21-cv-03930; (3) Asmat v. ContextLogic, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-05015; and (4) Lam v. ContextLogic, Inc., et al., No.
21-cv-05411. Those actions asserted claims under the Securities Act
on behalf of investors who purchased ContextLogic securities
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's IPO, and claims under the Exchange
Act on behalf of investors who purchased ContextLogic securities
between Dec. 16, 2020, and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), notice of the
first-filed Boehning action was published on May 17, 2021. Eight
movants filed lead plaintiff motions in the Boehning action. Before
completion of briefing, named plaintiff Jarrett Boehning
voluntarily dismissed Boehning. The lead plaintiff movants
continued briefing their motions based on their view that Jerrett
Boehning's voluntary dismissal was effective only as to his own
claims and that the district court would appoint a lead plaintiff
to represent the entire putative class. However, the Boehning court
terminated all pending motions in August 2021, commenting that the
motions could be refiled in one of the open cases. The Boehning
court terminated without comment a subsequent administrative motion
to relate Hoang, Asmat, and Lam to Boehning and to rule on the lead
plaintiff motions.

In August 2021, the three remaining actions -- Hoang, Asmat, and
Lam -- were related and assigned to a single judge. Yang & De Block
thereafter filed a motion in Hoang seeking consolidation of the
three actions, appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and approval of
co-lead counsel. After that motion was filed, the district judge
who related the cases filed an order of recusal. The cases were
reassigned to the judge who presided over the original Boehning
action, but that judge also filed an order of recusal. Hoang,
Asmat, and Lam eventually were reassigned to Judge Freeman in
December 2021.

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Court inquired whether Yang & De Block had
given notice of their motion filed in Hoang to all parties in the
related Asmat and Lam actions. Yang & De Block indicated that they
gave notice of their motion to the plaintiffs in Asmat and Lam only
after the Court's inquiry. On Jan. 18, 2022, Newman & Chetram filed
a motion for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs and approval of
co-lead counsel, stating that previously they had been unaware of
the motion filed by Yang & De Block in Hoang. To ensure that all
interested parties received notice of both motions, the Court
ordered that the motions be filed in Asmat and Lam at least
thirty-five days prior to the March 3, 2022 hearing on the motions.
No other putative class members filed motions or responded to the
pending motions.

The Court heard argument on both motions on March 3, 2022. On March
4, 2022, the Court granted the portion of the Yang & De Block
motion requesting consolidation of Hoang, Asmat, and Lam. The Court
directed that all future filings be made only in Hoang and that
Asmat and Lam be closed. The Court advised that the competing lead
plaintiff motions would be addressed in a separate order.

Discussion

In evaluating the lead plaintiff motions brought by Yang & De Block
on the one hand, and Newman & Chetram on the other, the Court
follows the three-step process provided in the PSLRA and summarized
in In re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729 (9th Cir. 2002).

A. Notice

At the first step, the Court must confirm that the PSLRA's notice
requirement was met. A notice was published in Business Wire on May
17, 2021, announcing the pendency of the first-filed Boehning
action.

Judge Freeman notes that the notice contained all required
information, including a description of the claims made and the
proposed class period. The notice advised that any putative class
member could seek appointment as lead plaintiff. In response, eight
timely motions for lead plaintiff were filed in Boehning, including
separate motions by Yang, De Block, Newman, and Chetram.

Based on this record, the Court finds that the PSLRA's notice
requirement was satisfied.

B. Presumptive Lead Plaintiff

At the second step, the Court must identify the presumptive lead
plaintiff by determining (a) which of the two sets of movants have
the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class,
and (b) whether the movants with the largest financial interest
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

1. Largest Financial Interest

District courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider the
four "Lax" factors, first articulated in the Lax v. First Merchants
Acceptance Corp., 1997 WL 461036 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1997), to
determine which plaintiff has the greatest financial interest.

Predictably, Judge Freeman observes, the competing movants have
different views of how these factors cut in this case. As an
initial matter, Newman & Chetram request that the Court consider
only losses under the Exchange Act, and disregard all losses under
the Securities Act, when determining which movants have the
greatest financial interest. The reason for this request is
apparent when the Court looks at the parties' claimed losses.

While the losses claimed by the competing movants are fairly close
under the Exchange Act, the losses claimed by Yang & De Block under
the Securities Act far exceed those claimed by Newman and Chetram,
Judge Freeman finds. Thus, Newman & Chetram's only realistic chance
at being deemed the movants with the greatest financial interest is
to persuade the Court to ignore the Securities Act losses.

Newman & Chetram contend that "Exchange Act losses are a better
measure of financial interest in this litigation than Securities
Act losses," because the number of class members seeking recovery
under the Exchange Act will be much greater than the number of
class members seeking recovery under the Securities Act. Based on
that argument, Newman & Chetram request that only Exchange Act
losses be considered in the determination of greatest financial
interest, and that the substantial loss of $516,859.43 claimed by
Yang & De Block under the Securities Act be disregarded.

Judge Freeman holds that the authorities cited by Newman & Chetram
do not support their proposed approach.

Nothing in this record suggests that Yang & De Block would not
represent the interests of class members asserting claims under the
Exchange Act, particularly as Yang & De Block claim hundreds of
thousands of dollars of Exchange Act losses, Judge Freeman states.

The Court, therefore, denies Newman & Chetram's request to limit
the calculation of greatest financial interest to claims under the
Exchange Act. The Court will apply the Lax factors based on
consideration of the movants' total claimed losses under both the
Exchange Act and the Securities Act. The Court notes that only Yang
& De Block have addressed the first three Lax factors -- the number
of shares purchased, the number of net shares purchased, and the
total net funds expended. Those figures were provided in Yang & De
Block's reply brief.

a. Lax Factor 1 -- Number of Shares Purchased

The first Lax factor requires the Court to consider the number of
shares purchased during the class period. Yang & De Block purchases
106,771 shares, while Newman & Chetram purchases 119,315 shares.
This factor slightly favors Newman & Chetram.

b. Lax Factor 2 -- Number of Net Shares Purchased

The second Lax factor requires the Court to consider the number of
net shares purchased during the class period. Yang & De Block
purchased 96,771 net shares, while Newman & Chetram purchased
37,598 net shares. This factor favors Yang & De Block.

c. Lax Factor 3 -- Total Net Funds Expended

The third Lax factor requires the Court to consider the total net
funds expended during the class period. Yang & De Block expended
$1,481,811.57 during the class period, while Newman & Chetram
expended $727,821.29 during the class period. This factor favors
Yang & De Block.

d. Lax Factor 4 -- Approximate Losses

The fourth Lax factor requires the Court to consider the
approximate losses suffered by the movants during the class period.
As noted, this factor is given the greatest weight. District courts
within the Ninth Circuit use a variety of accounting methods to
calculate losses in lead plaintiff motions.

Methods for calculating actual economic losses suffered include the
first-in-first-out ("FIFO") method and the last-in-first-out
("LIFO") method, Judge Freeman explains, citing Schueneman v. Arena
Pharms., Inc., No. 10cv1959 BTM (BLM), 2011 WL 3475380, at *3 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 8, 2011).

The parties' moving papers do not state expressly which methodology
was used to arrive at their figures, but based on their subsequent
briefs and the arguments presented at the hearing, it is clear that
the LIFO method was used, Judge Freeman notes. Newman & Chetram do
not address losses under the Securities Act, and they do not
challenge the loss amounts offered by Yang & De Block.

At the hearing, counsel for Newman & Chetram argued that use of the
Dura-adjusted LIFO method is not appropriate in this case (Dura
Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005)). Counsel pointed out
that this case is distinguishable from other cases in which the
Dura-adjusted LIFO method has been used, because this case involves
three corrective disclosures rather than a single corrective
disclosure. Based on Yang & De Block's explanation that they
excluded only those shares purchased and sold before any corrective
disclosure, it appears that the Dura-adjusted LIFO method properly
may be used in this case. Under that method, Yang & De Block
clearly have the greater approximately losses.

The Court concludes that Yang & De Block have the greater
approximate losses under either the LIFO method or the
Dura-adjusted LIFO method.

e. Weighing the Lax Factors

Weighing the Lax factors, the Court finds that Yang & De Block have
the greatest financial interest. While the first factor slightly
favors Newman & Chetram, all of the other factors favor Yang & De
Block, including the fourth and most important factor.

2. Rule 23(a) Requirements

The Court next considers whether Yang & De Block have made a prima
facie showing that they satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements of
typicality and adequacy.

a. Adequacy

To determine Yang and De Block's adequacy, the Court must resolve
two questions: (1) whether Yang & De Block and their counsel have
any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) whether
Yang & De Block and their counsel will prosecute the action
vigorously on behalf of the putative class.

Judge Freeman finds that the record does not reflect any conflicts
of interest. Moreover, given that Yang & De Block and their counsel
got this case moving again after it stagnated following termination
of Boehning, and the Court is satisfied that Yang & De Block and
their counsel will prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of
the putative class. The Court also notes that Yang & De Block have
filed a joint declaration committing to fulfill their obligations
as co-lead plaintiffs if they are selected.

b. Typicality

The Court finds that the claims of Yang & De Block under the
Exchange Act and Securities Act are typical of those of the
putative class.

3. Yang & De Block are the Presumptive Lead Plaintiffs

Based on the above, the Court finds that Yang & De Block are the
presumptive lead plaintiffs.

C. Opportunity to Rebut

In order to rebut this presumption, Newman & Chetram must present
proof that Yang & De Block "will not fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class" or are "subject to unique defenses that
render [them] incapable of adequately representing the class."

Judge Freeman notes that no such proof has been presented. Newman &
Chetram urge the Court to reject the joint declaration offered by
Yang & De Block because it was not filed with their moving papers,
and suggest that Yang & De Block acted improperly when they filed
their renewed lead plaintiff motion only in the Hoang action
without giving notice to other class members. The Court will not
reject the declaration, and nothing in the record shows that Yang &
De Block had any improper intent when the filed their renewed lead
plaintiff motion in Hoang.

The Court finds that Newman & Chetram have not presented the type
of proof necessary to rebut the presumption.

Accordingly, Yang & De Block's motion for appointment as co-lead
plaintiffs is granted and Newman & Chetram's competing motion is
denied.

D. Lead Counsel

If the lead plaintiff has made a reasonable choice of counsel, the
district court should generally defer to that choice, Judge Freeman
notes.

Yang & De Block have selected Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and The
Rosen Law Firm P.A. to act as co-lead counsel. The Court has
reviewed the firms' resumes, and is satisfied that Yang & De Block
have made a reasonable choice of counsel.

The Court approves Yang & De Block's selection of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as co-lead counsel.

Order

Yang & De Block's motion for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs is
granted, and Yang & De Block are appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
this case.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and The Rosen Law Firm P.A. are
appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in this case.

Newman & Chetram's motion is denied.

This order terminates ECF 27, 50.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48wmc6td from Leagle.com.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Bonner Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Fairry Bonner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John and
Jane Does 1-25, Case No. ESX-L-002525-22 was removed from the
Superior Court Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on May 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03235 to the
proceeding.

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

Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one
of America's leading collections agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Phone: (908) 237-1660
          Fax: (908) 237-1663
          Email: aeasley@sessions-law.biz



CORIZON HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE MORRELLI, et al., v.
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01395-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order that the class certification motion
filing deadline, currently set for July 1, 2022, shall be extended
to September 16, 2022.

On May 25, 2022, the parties attended an informal status conference
via videoconference before the Court to discuss the class
certification motion filing deadline, currently set for July 1, 19
2022.

Daniel Kopfman appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Barbara Blackburn
and Wesley Stockard appeared on behalf of Defendant. At the
conference, the parties informed the Court of the status of this
matter and requested additional time to file the class
certification motion. The Court finds good cause to grant the
requested modification.

Corizon, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical Services,
Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately held prison
healthcare contractor in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NeouBU at no extra charge.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No.
2:22-cv-01922-GEKP (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant to enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation of
its places of public accommodation--all benefits it affords
nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation
and stigma among these Americans that Title III was meant to
redress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a business that owns and operated physical
locations offering Food Marker, Wine and Beer Supplier, Pharmacy
and Healthcare, along with Home Delivery, related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Discovery Due August 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE HALE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, L.P., Case No. 4:21-cv-00877-SDJ (E.D. Tex.),
the Court entered an amended preliminary scheduling order

  -- Deadline for class certification          Aug. 9, 2022
     discovery:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file           Aug. 16, 2022
     any class certification motion(s):

  -- Deadline for Defendants to file           Oct. 17, 2022
     a response to Plaintiffs' class
     certification motion(s):

  -- Hearing on class certification:           Nov. 7, 2022

Credit Management is operating as a debt collection company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3auHwWh at no extra charge.[CC]


CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Class Cert Stage Scheduling Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD COE, et al.,
Individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC. and YOUNG
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-02047-TC-ADM (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered a class certification
stage scheduling order as follows:

  -- Jointly proposed protective order,        June 24, 2022
     ESI protocol, and property inspection
     protocol:

  -- Comparative fault identification:         July 18, 2022

  -- Motions to amend:                         August 1, 2022

  -- Physical and mental examinations          August 5, 2022
     requested by:

  -- Jointly filed mediation notice:           August 26, 2022

  -- Experts disclosed by plaintiff:           Sept. 16, 2022

  -- Physical and mental examinations          Oct. 7, 2022
     completed by:

  -- Class certification discovery             Nov. 22, 2022
     completed:

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zdmZQz at no extra charge.[CC]

CROW VOTE: Wards Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET WARD and LISA
WARD, v. CROW VOTE LLC, DARRIN AUSTIN, EDWARD MATNEY, Case No.
8:21-cv-01110-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23, certifying class and subclass:

  -- Main Class comprising:

     "All persons residing in the United States who, on or after
     February 16, 2021, paid for votes for contestants
     participating in the Favorite Chef contest;"

  -- California subclass comprised of:

     "All persons residing in California who, on or after
     February 16, 2021, paid for votes for contestants
     participating in the Favorite Chef contest."

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendants Crow Vote
LLC, Darrin Austin and Edward Matney. The Defendants are alleged to
have repeatedly violated provisions of the federal RICO Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The Defendants operated the "Favorite Chef" contest, which was
conducted online between February 16, 2021 and April 8, 2021. The
contest was conducted according to a set of rules and terms and
conditions.

Contestants (also called entrants) competed to win a monetary prize
of $50,000 and a magazine feature story about them. The winner was
determined by the number of "votes" from members of the public who
had a valid Facebook account. All of the contestants were divided
into groups (sort of like sports leagues) and the contest period
was divided into phases. For example, in the first phase, the top
15 vote getters of each group would advance to the next round and
everyone else would be eliminated. As each phase was completed, the
number of remaining contestants was reduced until there were four
quarterfinalists and then two semifinalists and then one champion.
In the later phases, voting was reset, meaning that contestants who
might have had 1,000 votes in prior phases will start back at zero
votes; thus, they would need to recruit new votes to have 20 any
hope of advancing further.

In discovery, Defendants produced aggregate information about the
classes as well as a spreadsheet identifying a sample of 9,648
class members (some people from California but most from other
states). Defendants stated that about 1,430,000 individuals cast
votes in the Favorite Chef contest; about 110,000 individuals paid
to cast votes, while about 1.32 million individuals cast free
votes. Defendants also reported the total number of votes cast (as
opposed to the total number of voters). Approximately 9.6 million
paid votes were cast and approximately 3.9 million free votes were
cast in the Favorite Chef contest for a total of 13.5 million
votes. In other words, about 8% of the voters (110,000) cast about
71% of the votes (9.6 million). The aggregate amount paid by the
110,000 class members was $6.6 million. Defendants’ interrogatory
responses reflect that only about $180,000 of the $6.6 million in
paid votes was refunded or charged back by the consumer. That is an
average of $60 per class member.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aI3gOE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Wilens, Esq.
          Macy Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd Ste 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone: (714) 854-7205
          Facsimile: (714) 854-7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org
                  macy@lakeshorelaw.org

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          2 Venture, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: 949-240-8595
          Facsimile: 949-377-3272
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

CURVY SENSE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curvy Sense, Inc. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Curvy Sense, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04384 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Curvy Sense -- https://curvysense.com/ -- is an American clothing
brand, founded in Los Angeles, California by people who know and
wear plus-size fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DAVID SHINN: Bid to Extend Time to File Class Cert Response Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Earl F. Crago v. David
Shinn, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00423-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge James A. Soto entered an order that:

  (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of Count Two is
      denied.

  (2) Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response
      to Motion Certifying Case as a Class Action is denied as
      moot.

  (3) The Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
      Preliminary Injunction is denied without prejudice.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38EUFvk at no extra charge.[CC]

DEAD ZERO: Faces Jones Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID JONES, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DEAD ZERO SHOOTING
LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, d/b/a DEAD ZERO
SHOOTING PARK; DEAD ZERO, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company,
d/b/a DEAD ZERO SHOOTING PARK; JUSTIN DAVID WHALEY; SCOTT VICTOR;
and RUSSEL THEURER, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00022 (E.D. Tenn.,
June 1, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged improper
compensation of their employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as the Grounds
Supervisor for Dead Zero Shooting Park, asserts claim that the
although he routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, the
Defendants routinely failed to pay him the mandated overtime rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of $15.00 per hour for
all hours worked over 40 in each workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other
similarly situated employees to recover all unpaid overtime wages
from the Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses incurred in this cause, and other relief that the
Court may deem just and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate a shooting facility. Justin David
Whaley is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporate
Defendants. Scott Victor is the General Manager of the Corporate
Defendants. Russel Theurer is the Operations Manager of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre S. Greppin, Esq.
          MOORE, RADER, FITZPATRICK & YORK, P.C.
          46 North Jefferson Avenue
          Cookeville, TN 38501
          Tel: (931) 526-3311
          Fax: (931) 526-3092
          E-mail: andre@moorerader.com

DIGITAL RISK: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 30, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKIE AGUILAR, et al., v.
DIGITAL RISK MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00354-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an
order granting the stipulation of the parties and setting the
following schedule:

-- Non-expert discovery closes:             Oct. 14, 2022

-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file             Jan. 30, 2023
    Class Certification:

-- Defendants' deadline to file             March 13, 2023
    Opposition to Class Certification:

-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file         March 27, 2023
    reply brief in support of Class
    Certification:

-- Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion            April 17, 2023
    for Class Certification:

-- Initial expert disclosures due:          June 16, 2023

-- Rebuttal expert disclosures due:         July 14, 2023

-- Expert discovery completion date:        August 4, 2023

-- Last day for hearing dispositive         October 16, 2023
    motions:

-- Pre-trial conference:                    December 15, 2023

-- Trial date:                              January 22, 2024

Digital Risk provides mortgage and financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x02C6t at no extra charge.[CC]

DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Time to Oppose to Class Cert. Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf 11 of himself and all others similarly situated; RANDOLPH
GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, a Tennessee limited
liability company; 18 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order granting stipulated request to extend defendant's
deadline to file opposition to plaintiff's motion for class
certification due to medical unavailability of plaintiff's expert
witness for deposition:

  -- Defendant's Deadline to File             June 7, 2022
     Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
     for Class Certification:

  -- The Plaintiff's Deadline to File         June 28, 2022
     Reply to the Defendant's Opposition:

  -- Hearing on Motion for Class              July 11, 2022
     Certification:

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m831is at no extra charge.[CC]

ENZO OLIVE OIL: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enzo Olive Oil Co.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Enzo Olive Oil Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-04436 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Enzo Olive Oil -- http://enzooliveoil.com/-- offers 100% USDA
certified organic, estate grown, certified extra virgin California
Olive Oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Garthwait Bid for Class Status Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY GARTHWAIT, ET
AL., v. EVERSOURCE ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL., Case No.
3:20-cv-00902-JCH (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet C. Hall entered
an order granting in part the motion for class certification as to
a class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan at any time
on or after June 30, 2014, to the present, including any
beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan
at any time during the Class Period.

The class is certified only as to the plaintiffs' claims for
retrospective relief. Insofar as the plaintiffs seek to certify a
class pursuing prospective injunctive relief, their Motion is
denied in part for a lack of standing, unless within 30 days a
member of the proposed class with standing to bring such claims
moves for and is granted leave to intervene.

Further, the court may well create subclasses should conflicts
among the interests of class member arise over the course of this
litigation. The court enters this Ruling with the understanding
that certification may be revisited at the remedial stage if such
concerns become apparent.

The Plaintiffs, who have participated in the Eversource 401(k)
Plan, bring this putative class action against Eversource Energy
Company and other defendants under section 1132(a)(2) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Eversource is a business & residential energy provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFzru5 at no extra charge.[CC]

FEDEX FREIGHT: Court Enters Judgment on Counts 5, 6 in Leonard Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN LEONARD, MEL MENDIETA, on behalf of themselves,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX FREIGHT,
INC. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-00042-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.,
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
grants the request of the Plaintiffs and Defendant FedEx Freight to
enter a judgment on the fifth and sixth causes of action in the
operative Second Amended Complaint, and dismiss with prejudice the
first, second, third and fourth causes of action.

The original Complaint in the action was filed on Dec. 5, 2018, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin and was removed to this Court by FedEx Freight on Jan. 4,
2019.

FedEx Freight moved for partial judgment on the pleadings on
Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth causes of action, retaliation claims
under California Labor Code section 923 and Business & Professions
Code section 17200 et seq., asserting that Plaintiff's claims were
preempted by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") pursuant to
San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.
Ed. 2d 775 (1959). (Dkt. No. 14).

On Sept. 30, 2019, the Court granted FedEx Freight's motion and
issued an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action in
its entirety and the Sixth Cause of action to the extent it was
based on a union retaliation theory. It stated the Plaintiffs "may
(but are not required to) file an amended complaint." Second
Amended Complaint was filed on Oct. 10, 2019.

On May 5, 2021, FedEx Freight again moved to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for retaliation and unfair business practices
asserting that Plaintiff's claims were preempted by the National
Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") pursuant to San Diego Unions. The
Court issued an Order granting FedEx Freight's motion without leave
to amend on April 19, 2022.

FedEx Freight asserted a number of affirmative defenses to the
remaining claims in the Second Amended Complaint, including the
defense that certain putative class members released claims
asserted in the action as part of the settlement of the class
action entitled Theodore Emetoh v. FedEx Freight, Inc., United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case
No. Case No. 4:17-CV-07272-YGR, and as such, their claims are
barred in whole or in part by the Emetoh settlement. In addition,
in January 2021, during the pendency of FedEx Freight's motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
decision in Teamsters v. FMCSA, which holds that California meal
and rest break requirements are preempted by the FMCSA Hours of
Service Rules (HOS rules) as applied to drivers of
property-carrying commercial motor vehicles.

Based on this and the other affirmative defenses asserted by FedEx
Freight, the Plaintiffs agree to voluntarily dismiss their first
through fourth causes of action with prejudice. The Plaintiffs and
the Defendant will each bear their own costs as to the Plaintiffs'
first through fourth causes of action.

To allow the Plaintiffs to appeal the ruling granting the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the
Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth causes of action, the Parties therefore
respectfully request that the Court directs the Clerk of the Court
to enter Judgment and the Judgment be entered in favor of FedEx
Freight and against the Plaintiffs on the Second Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant will each bear their own costs.
They will each bear their own costs as to the Plaintiffs' fifth and
sixth causes of action for purposes of this specific judgment only.
Neither party waives any right to seek costs related to any appeal
or any judgment that may be imposed upon remand relating to the
fifth and sixth causes of action.

The Parties acknowledge that this agreement does not serve to toll
any limitations period related to the Plaintiffs' first through
fourth causes of action. With respect to the Plaintiffs' fifth and
sixth causes of action, Plaintiffs expressly preserve and do not
release any interest or personal stake that they may otherwise have
as putative class representatives in the action, nor do they
release or waive any right that they may have to serve as class
representatives in the action upon any remand by the Court of
Appeal, or to recover damages, penalties, costs, attorneys' fees or
other applicable relief that they may have as a member of any class
that may subsequently be certified in the action. The Parties
retain all appeal and other rights that they may have with respect
to the action.

Judge England grants the Parties' requests and directs the Clerk of
the Court to enter Judgment in favor of the Defendant and against
Plaintiffs Sean Leonard and Mel Mendieta on the Fifth and Sixth
Actions in the second Amended Complaint. The remaining causes of
action are dismissed with prejudice. He instructs the Clerk to
provide notice of entry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
77 (d).

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yw4z6mtk from Leagle.com.

KEITH A. JACOBY -- kjacoby@littler.com -- SHAHRAM SAMIE, Littler
Mendelson, P.C., in Los Angeles, California.

SOPHIA BEHNIA -- scollins@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX
FREIGHT, INC.

SANDRA C. ISOM -- scisom@fedex.com -- FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., in
Memphis, Tennessee.

WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC, Robin G. Workman -- robin@workmanlawpc.com --
in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sean Leonard
and Mel Mendieta on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly
situated.


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Fisher Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
appoints the Plaintiff as lead plaintiff and approves his selection
of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Schiller & Schiller, PLLC, as
liaison counsel in the lawsuit titled JEFFREY D. FISHER,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ROSTISLAV RAYKOV, and
ROBERT ANDRADE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-115 (M.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff Jeffrey Fisher filed this securities class action lawsuit
alleging Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc., Rostislav Raykov, and Robert
Andrade violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and related regulations.

Mr. Fisher sought appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Schiller & Schiller, PLLC, as
liaison counsel for the putative class. The Defendants take no
position on the motion.

I. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 governs
securities class actions and imposes procedural requirements for
the appointment of lead plaintiff.

Mr. Fisher filed suit on Feb. 9, 2022. The same day, Mr. Fisher's
counsel published a notice via GlobeNewsWire informing class
members of their right to file motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff, satisfying the requirement of Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)
of the PSLRA.

On April 11, 2022, 60 days after notice was published, Mr. Fisher
filed this motion to serve as lead plaintiff.

In determining if Mr. Fisher is most capable of leading the class,
the Court must presume that the most adequate plaintiff is the
person who (a) has filed the complaint or made a motion in response
to the notice; (b) has the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class; and (c) otherwise satisfies the requirements
of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

District Judge Catherine C. Eagles finds that Mr. Fisher satisfies
the requirements, and the Court appoints him as lead plaintiff.

II. Appointment of Lead Counsel

Mr. Fisher has selected Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Schiller
& Schiller, PLLC, as liaison counsel.

The Court finds that both firms appear experienced in the area of
securities actions and class action lawsuits. Both firms are
qualified, experienced, and capable of effectively prosecuting this
action on behalf of movant Mr. Fisher and the putative class.

There have been no objections to movant Mr. Fisher's proposed
appointment of lead counsel.

The Court, in its discretion and subject to review when any motion
for class certification is filed, finds reasonable Mr. Fisher's
selection of counsel and finds that both firms are capable of
handling the litigation and representing the class.

Conclusion

Because all requirements have been met and the Court sees no reason
to deny the motion, the Court will grant Mr. Fisher's request to
serve as lead plaintiff and will approve his choice of counsel.

Judge Eagles rules that the Plaintiff's motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel is granted as
follows:

   1. Movant Jeffrey Fisher is appointed as Lead Plaintiff for
      the class in this action;

   2. Pomerantz LLP will serve as Lead Counsel and Schiller &
      Schiller, PLLC as Liaison Counsel in this action;

   3. Lead Counsel will have the following responsibilities and
      duties, to be carried out either personally or through
      counsel whom Lead Counsel will designate:

      (a) to coordinate the briefing and argument of motions;

      (b) to coordinate the conduct of discovery proceedings;

      (c) to coordinate the examination of witnesses in
          depositions;

      (d) to coordinate the selection of counsel to act as a
          spokesperson at pretrial conferences;

      (e) to call meetings of the Plaintiffs' counsel as they
          deem necessary and appropriate from time to time;

      (f) to coordinate all settlement negotiations with counsel
          for the Defendants;

      (g) to coordinate and direct the pretrial discovery
          proceedings and the preparation for trial and the trial
          of this matter and to delegate work responsibilities to
          selected counsel as may be required; and

      (h) to supervise any other matters concerning the
          prosecution, resolution, or settlement of the action;

   4. No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial
      proceedings will be initiated or filed by any plaintiffs
      without the approval of Lead Counsel, so as to prevent
      duplicative pleadings or discovery by the Plaintiffs. No
      settlement negotiations will be conducted without the
      approval of Lead Counsel;

   5. Lead Counsel will have the responsibility of receiving and
      disseminating Court orders and notices;

   6. Lead Counsel will be the contact between the Plaintiffs'
      counsel and will direct and coordinate the activities of
      the Plaintiffs' counsel;

   7. The Defendants will effect service of papers on the
      Plaintiffs by serving a copy of same on Lead Counsel by
      overnight mail service, electronic or hand delivery.
      The Plaintiffs will effect service of papers on the
      Defendants by serving a copy of same on the Defendants'
      counsel by overnight mail service, electronic or hand
      delivery; and

   8. During the pendency of this litigation, or until further
      order of the Court, the parties will take reasonable steps
      to preserve all documents within their possession, custody,
      or control, including computer-generated and stored
      information, and materials such as computerized data and
      electronic mail, containing information which is relevant,
      or which may lead to the discovery of information relevant,
      to the subject matter of the pending litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 9, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5yb74ne6 from
Leagle.com.


FIRST AMERICAN: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First American Title
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Jackie Williams,
and Dawn Durbin, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated v. First American Title Insurance Company, Does 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599875 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., May 27, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

First American Financial Corporation -- https://www.firstam.com/ --
provides comprehensive title insurance protection and professional
settlement services for homebuyers and sellers, real estate agents
and brokers, mortgage lenders, commercial property professionals,
homebuilders and developers, title agencies and legal professionals
close transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste, 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939-1709
          Phone: 415-461-6400
          Fax: 415-461-3900
          Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com


FIRST WESTERN: Fleck Revocable Trust Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE AARON H. FLECK
REVOCABLE TRUST, through its Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and
Barbara G. Fleck, THE BARBARA G. FLECK REVOCABLE TRUST, through its
Trustees, Aaron H. Fleck and Barbara G. Fleck, AARON FLECK, and
BARBARA G. FLECK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FIRST WESTERN TRUST BANK, CHARLES BANTIS, and ANDREW
GODFREY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01073-CMA-GPG (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class on the issue of
whether FWTB's failure to have a tax-loss-harvesting policy was a
breach of fiduciary duty to its beneficiary-accountholders.

The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint them as Class
Representative and appoint their Counsel as Class Counsel.

First Western specializes in private and commercial banking.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MaLtg2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacqueline E.M. Hill, Esq.
          Richard B. Podoll, Esq.
          PODOLL & PODOLL, P.C.
          5619 DTC Pkwy, Ste 1100
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 861-4000
          Facsimile: 303-861-4001
          E-mail: jacqui@podoll.net
                  rich@podoll.net

The Defendants are represented by:

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

FLORIDA: Jacksonville City Seeks to Strike Crosby's Four Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES B.V. CROSBY v. STATE
OF FLORIDA, CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00067-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant City of
Jacksonville asks the Court to enter an order striking four filings
from the Plaintiff, and, all of which were filed after the Court's
May 9, 2022 status conference.

In the alternative, the City responds in opposition to all four
filings. All four filings are frivolous and contain unfounded,
scandalous and inflammatory allegations and should be stricken or
denied, the Defendant contends.

Although the Court held a nearly two-hour status conference and
indicated that the City's pending Motion to Dismiss, which
Plaintiff has responded to twice, needs to be disposed of before
this case moves forward, the Plaintiff chose to file four more
items after the status conference.

The Plaintiff filed: 1) "Request for Certification of
Constitutional Challenges"; 2) "Emergency Demand for
Recusal/Disqualification and Withdraw of Unconstitutional Ruling on
Preliminary Injunction and Withdraw of Ruling to Quash Warrants and
Demand for Three-Judge District Court Due to Prejudice,
Discrimination, Abuse of Discretion, Exceeding Jurisdiction, and
Violation of Oath of Office"; 3) "Notice of Intent to Proceed as a
Class Representative and Request/Demand to Certify as a Class
Action and Request/Demand for Class Counsel"; and, 4) "Demand for
Relief from Judgment not to be Ruled Upon by Corrupt Judges Marcia
Morales Howard or Gerald Bard Tjoflat and to Hold in Abeyance Until
Issues Concerning Corruption Have Been Resolved".

All four of the recent filings are due to be stricken because
Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), because the
filings contain scandalous, impertinent and immaterial allegations,
and because Plaintiff cannot represent a purported class. In the
alternative, Plaintiff's filings are baseless and should be denied,
the Defendant adds.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x6Cbfv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          HeatherAnn M. Solanka, Esq.
          Craig D. Feiser, Esq.
          117 West Duval Street, Suite 480
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 255-5100
          Facsimile: (904) 255-5101
          E-mail: HMSolanka@coj.net
                  CFeiser@coj.net

GENERAL MILLS: Hunt Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Mills Sales,
Inc. The case is styled as Shannon Hunt, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. General Mills Sales, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02835 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

General Mills Sales, Inc. -- https://www.generalmills.com/ --
markets and sells food products. The Company offers cereals,
yogurt, refrigerated dough, and baking products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


GERVASI VINEYARD: Dewitt Seeks Conditional Cert. of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN DEWITT, on behalf
of herself and other similarly situated employees, v. GERVASI
VINEYARD & ITALIAN BISTRO, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00476-BYP (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditionally
certifying the case as a collective action and implementing a
procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NmBrdg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

GODADDY.COM LLC: Objector Class Deal Approval in Drazen Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated Plaintiffs v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant. JASON
BENNETT, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
1:19-00563-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, denies the Unopposed Joint Motion for an Indicative
Ruling Approving Settlement Agreement between Objector and Class
Counsel and Motion to Expedite Briefing and Consideration.

I. Background

On Dec. 23, 2020, the Court entered its Final Judgment and Order
Approving Class Settlement. Objector Juan Pinto appealed to the
Eleventh Circuit. Thereafter, the parties filed a motion indicating
that the "Class Counsel and the Objector (collectively, the
Settling Parties) had reached an agreement to settle the appeal in
exchange for certain consideration."

The Objector Settlement Agreement in sum included a term that Pinto
would dismiss his appeal with prejudice if the Court "entered an
indicative ruling approving the Objector Settlement Agreement; the
Eleventh Circuit remanded the matter to the Court without modifying
the existing Final Order; and, the Court entered a formal order
approving the Objector Settlement Agreement when jurisdiction is
returned." The Objector Settlement Agreement awards Pinto's
attorneys $375,000 (to come from the attorneys' fees awarded to
Class Counsel previously) and a $5,000 incentive award to Pinto.

On April 15, 2021, the parties jointly moved for the Court to enter
an indicative ruling approving the Objector Settlement Agreement
"so that they can ask the Eleventh Circuit to remand for entry of a
formal order by this Court and subsequent dismissal of the appeal
in the Eleventh Circuit."

On April 22, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the motion
for an indicative ruling, but indicating the Court would not be
inclined to grant/approve the settlement upon remand from the
Eleventh Circuit.

The Plaintiffs and Objector have filed a new motion requesting an
indicative ruling that the Court will approve a newly proposed
settlement. The new settlement benefits the class by making
available an additional $20 to each person/entity that has filed a
claim under the current settlement.

In the present motion, the settling parties request, per Rules 62.1
and 23(e)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that: 1)
the Court hold a Rule 23(e)(5)(B) hearing; 2) issue an indicative
ruling approving the Objector Settlement so that they can ask the
Eleventh Circuit to remand for entry of a formal order by this
Court and subsequent dismissal of the appeal in the Eleventh
Circuit which is currently set for oral argument on June 9, 2022;
3) allow for prompt distribution of settlement benefits to the
Class, including what is likely to be at least an additional $20
cash payment per claimant; and 4) expedite briefing in response to
their motion.

In support, the settling parties state: The Class Counsel and
Objector Juan Pinto (the Settling Parties) have reached a new
agreement (the Objector Settlement) in which an additional $1.5
million will be allocated for the benefit of the Settlement Class
Members. These funds will instead be directly distributed to the
Settlement Class Members after payment of administrative costs and
attorneys' fees for Objector's counsel.

The terms of the Objector Settlement, in general, are as follows:
Pinto agrees to dismiss his appeal with prejudice if the Court
enters an indicative ruling approving the Objector Settlement,
including attorneys' fees for Pinto in the amount of $500,000; the
Eleventh Circuit remands the matter to the Court; and the Court
enters a formal order approving the Objector Settlement when
jurisdiction is returned.

II. Discussion

In the motion, the Settling Parties indicate that due to Objector
Pinto's efforts (which they assert will convey a $1.5 million
benefit and substantially improve the benefit provided to
Settlement Class Members), all settlement class members who
submitted approved claims will receive an additional --
hypothetical -- $20 cash compensation and some receiving more than
this. Additionally, the settling parties also seek the recovery and
approval of "reasonable" attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of
$500,000 in fees (33% of the actual cash $1.5 million benefit as
"appropriate") and $4,832.10 in costs.

The fees are described as incurred by attorney Robert Clore of the
Bandas Law Firm -- 493.3 hours at a varying rate of $600 to
$750/hour totaling approximately $293,025; attorney Christopher
Bandas of the Bandas Law Firm - 18 hours at the rate of $700/hour
totaling $12,600; attorney Jeff Dean - 23.1 hours at a rate of
$450/hour totaling $10,395; and attorney Jason Pepe - 115.7 hours
at the rate $600/hour of totaling $69,420. The costs are described
as totaling $4,832.10, incurred in prosecuting Pinto's Objection
and appeal.

III. Conclusion

First, as to that portion of the settling parties' motion seeking a
hearing and expedited briefing, Judge DuBose denies such, as there
is no need for same in this instance. Second, in response to the
settling parties' motion for an indicative ruling, she grants the
same.

Judge DuBose's indicative ruling is that she will not approve the
Objector Settlement Agreement. This is due, in part, to the lack of
support for the attorneys' fees requested (billing records, etc.)
much less establishing such as either "reasonable" and/or
"appropriate" in the case, this District, and/or the Eleventh
Circuit. Moreover, the Court has already ruled on the Objector's
Objections (now pending before the Eleventh Circuit) and concluded
that such were non-meritorious. Non-meritorious advocacy does not
warrant attorneys' fees.

In Judge DuBose's opinion, the objector has filed a frivolous
appeal and is attempting to gain attorneys' fees to settle it.
After the Court rejected the previous attempt to gain attorneys'
fees (due to no benefit to the class), the Objector has returned
with a proposal to add less than one million to the payout to the
claimants (less than 2% of the original class). While the proposal
benefits a very few in the class, it is obviously only an
afterthought as a means to obtain attorneys' fees by the Objector
and certainly did not require the expenditure of time that would
warrant a fee of $500,000. Unless instructed to do otherwise by the
Eleventh Circuit, Judge DuBose will not condone the actions of the
Objector counsel with an award of $500,000.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3drpz9sj from Leagle.com.


GONE BANANAS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gone Bananas
Beachwear. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Gone Bananas
Beachwear, Case No. 1:22-cv-04385 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Gone Bananas Beachwear --  https://gonebananasbeachwear.com/ -- is
San Diego's premier women's swimwear and bathing suit boutique
since 1975.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOD TASTE: Samanc et al. File Suit Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ILEANA SAMANC and JENNIFER INSKIP, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. GOOD TASTE,
INC., GOOD TASTE TWO, INC., GOOD TASTE THREE, INC., COZY CORNER
DINER & PANCAKE HOUSE, INC., Ill. Corporations, IRENE IATRIDES,
PETER IATRIDES, and MICHAEL KIDONAKIS, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02862 (N.D. Ill., May 31, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiffs against the Defendants to recover damages as a result of
their alleged violations of the tip credit provisions and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Plaintiff Samanc has worked for the Defendants as a server, while
Plaintiff Inskip has worked as an hourly wage manager for the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants used a tip credit in
order to redress their minimum wage obligations to them and other
similarly situated restaurant workers which is unlawful. They
allege that the Defendants required them to contribute to an
unlawful tip pool in which proceeds go to the restaurant and not to
their employees that traditionally receive tips. As a result of the
Defendants' unlawful tip pooling, they were paid less than the
required minimum wages and were not fully paid at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a work
week, added the Plaintiffs.

The Corporate Defendants own and operate restaurant businesses at
various locations operating under a common enterprise known as the
Cozy Corner Restaurant and Pancake House. Irene Iatrides and Peter
Iatrides are the owners and managers of the Cozy Corner. Michael
Kidonakis is the General Manager of the Cozy Corner locations.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
          Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
          200 E 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Tel: (312) 861-7087
          E-mail: pcowlin@fishlawfirm.com
                  nbolanos@fishlawfirm.com
                  Jkunze@fishlawfirm.com

GOOGLE INC: Carr, et al., Seek Class Status in Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Play Store Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
Mary Carr, Daniel Egerter, Zack Palmer, Serina Moglia, Matthew
Atkinson, and Alex Iwamoto ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23:

   1. certifying a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class;

   2. certifying a proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class;

   3. appointing them as representatives of the classes; and

   4. appointing Karma M. Giulianelli of Bartlit Beck LLP and
      Hae Sung Nam of Kaplan Fox & Kil-sheimer LLP as Co-Lead
      Class Counsel for the classes.

The Plaintiffs propose that the classes for their Sherman Act
Sections 1 and 2 claims (Counts 1-6) as well as their Cartwright
Act (Counts 7-10) and Unfair Competition (Count 11) claims, be
defined as follows:

  -- RULE 23(b)(3) MULTISTATE DAMAGES CLASS:

     "All persons in the following U.S. states and territories:
     Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,
     Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
     Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
     Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who paid for an
     app through the Google Play Store 1 or paid for in-app
     digital content (including subscriptions or ad-free
     versions of apps) through Google Play Billing on or after
     August 16, 2016, to the present."

  -- RULE 23(b)(2) MULTISTATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS:

     "All persons in the following U.S. states and territories:
     Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine,
     Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
     Wyoming, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
     Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who currently own
     a mobile phone or tablet with an authorized and
     preinstalled version of Google's Android OS capable of
     accessing the Google Play Store."

     Excluded from both Classes are Defendants and their
     officers, directors, employees, and successors; any person
     or entity who has (or had during the class period) a
     controlling interest in any Defendant; any affiliate, legal
     representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant and any
     person acting on behalf of any Defendant; any judicial
     officer presiding over this action and the members of those
     officers' immediate families and judicial staffs; all
     governments and their agencies; and any juror assigned to
     this action.

For years, Google has engaged in exclusionary practices that have
allowed it to obtain a dom inant position in the market for
distributing Android mobile device applications (apps) and to
thwart rival app stores from emerging. Google uses its power to
inflate the prices of Android apps by taking, with limited
exceptions, a 30% slice of every app sale through the Google Play
Store.

Google has also unlawfully extended its monopoly power in the
Android App Distribution Market to the In-App Aftermarket through
its requirement that developers use Google’s billing services for
all in-app sales and its prohibition on steering to alternate
providers—allowing Google to take cut in perpetuity of every
subsequent purchase of digital content in each app.

Internal Google documents reveal that its meteoric rise against
such titans as Amazon,  Samsung, AT&T, T-Mobile, Motorola, and
Verizon was the product of a calculated, multifaceted strategy to
eliminate competition. That strategy included an array of conduct
that courts have long  found to be exclusionary -- bribes,
deception, contractual restrictions, and pretextual technological
barriers -- which secured and maintain the Play Store's
insurmountable lead over potential competitors, the lawsuit
alleges.

The Consumer Plaintiffs purchased apps from the Play Store or made
in-app purchases through Google Play Billing. Consumers paid Google
directly for these purchases, and, accordingly, are direct
purchasers who may sue Google under federal antitrust laws.

Google is an American multinational technology company that focuses
on artificial intelligence, search engine, online advertising,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nvc5tq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq.
          Glen E. Summers, Esq.
          Jameson R. Jones, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK LLP
          1801 Wewatta St., Suite 1200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 592-3100
          Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
          E-mail: karma.giulianelli@bartlitbeck.com
                  glen.summers@bartlitbeck.com
                  jameson.jones@bartlitbeck.com

               - and -

          John Byars, Esq.
          Lee Mason, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK LLP
          54 W. Hubbard St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-4400
          Facsimile: (312) 494-4440
          E-mail: john.byars@bartlitbeck.com
                  lee.mason@bartlitbeck.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
          Carol O'Keefe, Esq.
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com
                  cokeefe@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq.
          James G. Dallal, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Center
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com
                  ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
                  jdallal@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          Aaron L. Schwartz, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7715
          E-mail: hnam@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com
                  aschwartz@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 415-772-4700
          Facsimile: 415-772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  kherkenhoff@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
          Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
          Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
          PRITZKER LEVINE, LLP
          1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 805-8532
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
                  bc@pritzkerlevine.com
                  ccc@pritzkerlevine.com

               - and -

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
          Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
          Blake Yagman, Esq.
          Michael Acciavatti, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          Facsimile: 212-868-1229
          E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                  rwallner@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com
                  byagman@milberg.com
                  macciavatti@milberg.com

GOOGLE LLC: Developer Plaintiffs Seek Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Google Play Store Antitrust
Litigation, Case No.  3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court that:

   1. All class certification deadlines and deadlines for
      Daubert motions for class certification experts as between
      Developer Plaintiffs and Google, in Case No. 3:20-cv-
      05792-JD, shall be held in abeyance pending further order
      of the Court.

   2. Developer Plaintiffs shall file a motion for preliminary
      approval of the settlement as soon as is practicable, but
      on or before June 16, 2022.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
focuses on artificial intelligence, search engine, online
advertising, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, and consumer electronics.

A copy of the Parties motion dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3apsfWH at no extra charge.[CC]

Interim Class Counsel for the Developer Class and Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Pure Sweat Basketball and LittleHoots, LLC, are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

               - and -

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.  
          Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.  
          SPERLING & SLATER, PC

Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel for the Developer Class and Attorneys
for Plaintiffs Peekya App Services, Inc. and Scalisco LLC, are:

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          Katie R. Beran, Esq.
          Scott A. Martin, Esq.
          Irving Scher, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP

Counsel for the Defendants Google LLC et al., are:

          Brian C. Rocca, Esq.
          Sujal J. Shah, Esq.  
          Michelle Park Chiu, Esq.
          Minna L. Naranjo, Esq.  
          Rishi P. Satia, Esq.  
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

               - and -

          Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
          Ian Simmons, Esq.
          Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Esq.
          Stephen J. McIntyre, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP

               - and -

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Kyle W. Mach, Esq.
          Kuruvilla Olasa, Esq.
          Justin P. Raphael, Esq.
          Emily C. Curran-Huberty, Esq.
          Jonathan I. Kravis, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

GORDON AYLWORTH: MacCartney's Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIC MACCARTNEY and LUANNE MUELLER,
individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs v. GORDON,
AYLWORTH, & TAMI, P.C., and VISION INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-568-AR (D. Or.), the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon:

   -- grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
      for Attorney Fees; and

   -- grants the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class
      Action Settlement and Final Judgment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued two Findings and
Recommendations in this case on April 19, 2022. First, Judge
Armistead recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part
the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF 95). Second, Judge
Armistead recommended that the Court grant the Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Judgment (ECF
109). No party has filed an objection.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the Court may "accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." Although review is not
required in the absence of objections, the Act does not preclude
further review by the district judge sua sponte under a de novo or
any other standard.

No party having made objections, the Court follows the
recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Magistrate
Judge Armistead's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on
the face of the record.

District Judge Michael H. Simon states that no such error is
apparent.

Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Armistead's Findings
and Recommendations. The Court grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF 95) and grants the
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Final Judgment (ECF 109).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34hrjt2m from Leagle.com.


GRANITE SERVICES: Amended Sched Order Entered in Rodriguez
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez, Jr. v. Granite
Services International Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02689 (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order amending the
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Deadline for initial discovery           August 2, 2022
     regarding Plaintiffs claims and
     class certification issues:

  -- Deadline for filing any motions          September 6, 2022
     on Rule 23 class certification:

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Granite provides professional engineering services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]


HALAL GUYS: Hegazy, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED HEGAZY, SHRIEF SROR,
RAMIZ SHEHATTA, WALID SOLTAN, AHMED ABOUELKHAIR, and AHMED MONEIM
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
HALAL GUYS, INC., ALL 53 SW INC., NIGHT 53 SE INC., THE HALAL GUYS
FRANCHISE INC., ALTAWHID FOOD SUPPLY INC., AHMED ELSAKA, ABDELBASET
ELSAYED, MOHAMED ABOUELENEIN a/k/a MOHAMMED ABOUELENEIN, AHMED
ABOUELENEIN, and ABDULLAH ABOUELENEIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the action as a representative
      collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. facilitating notice of the collective action to full-time
      non-exempt food server/food vendors who were employed by
      the Defendants to work at their food carts and/or
      restaurant stores in New York City at any time from
      February 12, 2018 to the present ("Covered Employees");

   3. approving the proposed Notice of Lawsuit ("Notice") and
      Consent to Join Lawsuit form;

   4. directing the Defendants to post the Notice and a stack of
      Consent to Join Lawsuit Forms in locations which are
      easily accessible and visible to the Covered Employees at
      each of their New York City worksites for the duration of
      the opt-in period; and

   5. directing the Defendants to produce, within 10 days, a
      computer-readable data file containing the names, last
      known addresses, home and cell phone numbers, social media
      user names, e-mail addresses, and dates and location(s) of
      employment, and position(s) held, of all Covered
      Employees.

The Halal Guys is a halal fast casual restaurant franchise that
began as halal carts on the southeast and southwest corners of 53rd
Street and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan, New York City.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q0j931
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Harrison, Esq.
          Julie Salwen, Esq.
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD.
          110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799-9111
          Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
          E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
                  jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Esq.
          Genaira L. Tyce, Esq.
          Akerman, LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 880-3800

HERB PHARM: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herb Pharm, LLC. The
case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Herb Pharm, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04427 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Herb Pharm -- https://www.herb-pharm.com/ -- has made high-quality
herbal supplements for the whole family since 1979.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: Abrego Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RUTH ABREGO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV08439, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03708 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay all
wages due at termination in violation of California Labor Code.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer
headquartered in Cobb County, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
         Alexandra M. Guerra, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         580 California Street, Suite 1500
         San Francisco, CA 94104-1036
         Telephone: (415) 765-9500
         Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
         E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
                 aguerra@akingump.com

INTERCOMSONLINE.COM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercomsonline.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Intercomsonline.com, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-04386 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

IntercomsOnline.com -- https://www.intercomsonline.com/ -- sells
two-way communication devices like intercoms, two-way radios,
wireless callboxes, and other devices that satisfy communication
needs not met by cell phones.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Yurevich Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID YUREVICH JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC; INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22SRCV07221, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03713 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to
pay timely wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to accurately record and pay sick leave,
failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, wages not timely
paid during employment, and unfair business practices.

Interstate-Rim Management Company, LLC is a hotel management
company based in Texas.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a hotel management company
based in Texas.

Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC is a hotel management firm based in
Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Linda Claxton, Esq.
         Yeva Mikaelyan, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com
                 yeva.mikaelyan@ogletree.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Cascade School Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CASCADE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03161 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cascade School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 330 Evans Street in Leavenworth, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Goldendale Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GOLDENDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03169 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Goldendale School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 604 East Brooks Street in Goldendale,
Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Sequim School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEQUIM SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03165 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Sequim School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 503 North Sequim Avenue in Sequim, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Hillsdale Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HILLSDALE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03159 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Hillsdale Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 30 South Norwood Street in Hillsdale, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Kennewick Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wash.
------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNEWICK SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03168 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Kennewick School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1000 West Fourth Avenue in Kennewick,
Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use to Youth, Hawthorn Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAWTHORN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, 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-03166 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Hawthorn Academy Charter School is a unified school district with
its offices located at 9062 2200 West in West Jordan, Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Sultan School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SULTAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03163 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Sultan School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 514 4th Street in Sultan, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KARAMD INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KaraMD Inc. The case
is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KaraMD Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04428
(S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

KaraMD Inc. -- https://www.karamd.com/ -- offers natural
supplements, formulated by a licensed Medical Doctor, can
contribute to improved well-being and an overall healthier
lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEY FOOD STORES: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Key Food Stores
Co-Operative, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Key Food Stores
Co-Operative, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03145 (E.D.N.Y., May 27,
2022).

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

Key Food Stores Co-Operative -- http://keyfood.com/-- is a
supermarkets company offering grocery, food, consumer goods, and
beverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LLOYD JAMES AUSTIN: Spence Files Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lloyd James Austin,
et al. The case is styled as Bryan P. Spence, Tyler W Stef, Ryan
Corcoran, Mitchell B Pike, Steven R Haynes, Andrew Grieb, Danielle
A Runyan, Christopher M Wu, Alan Sosebee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, in
his official capacity as United States Secretary of Defense; United
States Department of Defense; Frank Kendall, in his official
capacity as United States Secretary of the Air Force; Case No.
4:22-cv-00453-O (N.D. Tex., May 27, 2022).

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

Lloyd James Austin III is an American retired United States Army
four-star general who, since his appointment on January 22, 2021,
has served as the 28th United States secretary of defense.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristina Martinez Squiers, Esq.
          Annika M Boone, Esq.
          Gene C Schaerr, Esq.
          SCHAERR JAFFE LLP
          1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 787-1060
          Fax: (202) 776-0136
          Email: csquiers@schaerr-jaffe.com
                 aboone@schaerr-jaffe.com
                 gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com

               - and -

          David Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          Jeffrey C Mateer, Esq.
          Kelly J Shackelford, Esq.
          Michael Dan Berry, Esq.
          Roger Lucian Byron, Esq.
          FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
          2001 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 1600
          Plano, TX 75075
          Phone: (469) 440-7586
          Email: dhacker@firstliberty.org
                 jmateer@libertyinstitute.org
                 kshackelford@firstliberty.org
                 mberry@firstliberty.org
                 rbyron@firstliberty.org

               - and -

          Jordan E Pratt, Esq.
          FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE
          227 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
          Washington, DC 20003
          Phone: (202) 506-4027
          Fax: (972) 423-6162
          Email: jpratt@firstliberty.org


LOS ANGELES, CA: Black Lives Matter, et al., Seek Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS
ANGELES, ET AL., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., Case No.
2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(b)(1) (or alternatively or
conjunctively 23(c)(4)):

  1. Injunctive relief class (F.R.Civ.P Rule 23(b)(2)).

     -- The proposed Injunctive Relief Class is defined as:

        "All persons who have in the past participated,
        presently are participating, or may in the future
        participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within
        the City of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights
        of free speech, assembly and petition in general, and
        particularly as it relates to protesting police violence
        and discrimination against people of color, especially
        African-Americans. The injunctive relief organizational
        class representatives are Black Lives  Matter Los
        Angeles (BLMLA) and CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community
        Action Network (LA CAN).

        Each Plaintiff is a representative of the injunctive
        relief individual class. The fact that the 23(b)(2)
        class includes members who "in the future may" be
        affected is proper in an injunctive relief class. 1

  2. Damages Classes. (F.R.Civ.P Rule 23(b)(3)).

     -- One or more of the named Plaintiffs bring this action
        individually and on 3 behalf of proposed classes of all
        other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP 4
        Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages classes
        are defined as:

        a. Arrest Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing
           through June 2, 6 2020, all persons present at or
           during the aftermath of protests regarding the
           killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles,
           who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges
           of failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse,
           failure to follow a lawful order of a police officer
           and/or unlawful assembly, and who were held on buses
           and subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing, denied
           access to bathrooms, water and food, 12 held in
           enclosed spaces without ventilation.

           The Class Representatives for this class are Alicia
           Barrera-Trujillo, Krystle Hartsfield, Nelson Lopez,
           Nadia Khan, Devon Young, Linus Shentu, Alexander
           Stamm, Steven Roe, Maia Kazin, and Jonathan Mayorca,
           all of whom fit within the class definition.

        b. Infraction Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and through
           June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the
           aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George
           Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were arrested
           and taken into custody, charged with infractions, and
           not released in the field, as required by Penal Code
           section 853.5.

           The Class Representatives for this class are Jonathan
           Mayorca, Nadia Khan, Nelson Lopez, Alicia Barrera-
           Trujillo, Maia Kazin, and Devon Young, all of whom
           fit within the class definition.

        c. Direct Force Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and
           continuing through 26 June 2, 2020, all persons
           present at or during the aftermath of protests
           regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of
           Los Angeles, who were struck by either "less-lethal
           weapons" (including 37mm and 40 mm projectiles, and
           bean-bag shotguns), batons, or otherwise physically
           struck by an LAPD officer, and who were neither
           violently resisting nor posing an immediate threat of
           violence or physical harm.

           The Class Representatives for the Direct Force class
           are named plaintiffs David Contreras, Tina Crnko,
           Abigail Rodas, Christian Stephen Roe, Shannon Lee
           Moore, Clara Aronovich and Eva Grenier -- all of whom
           were the direct object of police use of force by
           "less lethal" munitions, batons or knock-downs, all
           of whom fit within the class definition.

The injunctive relief claims are aimed at protecting Plaintiffs'
First Amendment right to protest. The LAPD has a long history of
settlements and consent decrees resulting from LAPD's historical
pattern and practice of aggressive and unlawfully shutting down
First Amendment protected protests through failing to provide
proper unlawful assembly notices, failing to provide reasonable
opportunity to disperse, failing to provide directions for
dispersal, unleashing unreasonable and excessive force against
protestors, kettling and detaining or arresting protestors
(including arresting on charges entitling the arrestee to immediate
field release on a promise to appear), engaging in punitive
arrests, holding arrestees on buses without water and bathrooms in
tight handcuffs, and failing to release (or not arresting but only
citing) people entitled to immediate release on their own
recognizance.

The damages class claims here, as the proposed damages class
definitions contained in the Notice of Motion reflect, break into
three groupings. 1) The Arrest 22 Class, who were handcuffed and
held on buses without water and bathroom access 23 for hours; 2)
the Infraction Class, who were arrested when they should have been
released in the field on a promise to appear; and 3) the Direct
Force Class, composed of people who were struck by the improper and
indiscriminate use of batons and "less-lethal" weapons, or forced
to the ground, and who were not violently resisting arrest and did
not present an immediate threat of physical harm.

A copy of the Plaintifsfs motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mb2erq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cynthia Anderson Barker, Esq.
          NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-3246
          Facsimile: (213) 381-3246
          E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Paul Hoffman, Esq.
          Michael D. Seplow, Esq.
          Aidan McGlaze, Esq.
          John C. Washington, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS ,
          HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
          200 Pier Avenue, Suite 226
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile. (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
                  mseplow@sshhzlaw.com
                  amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com
                  jwashington@sshhlaw.com

               - and -

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay Battles, Esq.
          MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          975 E. Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com
                  lbattles@mbllegal.com

               - and -

          Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
          Monique Alarcon, Esq.
          Bijan Esfandiari, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &
          GOLDMAN, P.C.
          10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com

               - and -

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          Katherine Robinson, Esq.
          Weston Rowland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          1158 26th Street, #552
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com
                  klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com
                  rowland.weston@gmail.com

               - and -

          Colleen Flynn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Ángeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile. (213) 252-0091
          E-mail:. cflynnlaw@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Matthew Strugar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 696-2299
          E-mail: matthewstrugar@gmail.com

               - and -

          Denisse Gastelum, Esq.
          GASTELUM LAW, APC
          3767 Worsham Ave.
          Long Beach, CA 90808-1774
          Telephone: (213) 340 6112
          E-mail: dgastelum@gastelumfirm.com

               - and -

          Shakeer Rahman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAKEER RAHMAN
          838 East 6th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 546-9236
          E-mail: shakeerr@cangress.org

               - and -

          Olu Orange, Esq.
          ORANGE LAW OFFICES
          3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2015
          Telephone: (213) 736-9900
          Facsimile: (213) 417-8800
          E-mail: o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

               - and -

          James Do Kim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DO KIM, APLC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251-5440
          Facsimile: (213) 232 4919
          E-mail:  dkim@dkimlaw.com

M.A.C. COSMETICS: Revised Settlement Agreement in Johnson OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STANLEY JOHNSON, et al.,
v. M.A.C. COSMETICS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-09157-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order
granting the revised settlement agreement.

Judge Broderick said, "Having reviewed the revised settlement
agreement, it is clear that it retains the parts of the prior
settlement agreement I found proper and modifies the release of
claims provision. The revised settlement agreement provides that
Plaintiffs release Defendants from "all wage and hour claims
Plaintiffs have or may have," and that "Plaintiffs do not release
any claims except the wage and hour claimed described within this
section of the Agreement." In Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
cases, courts in this District routinely reject release provisions
that 'waive practically any possible claim against the defendants,
including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship
whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues.' Accordingly, I find that the
revised settlement agreement's release of claims is fair and
reasonable, as it constrains its release only to Plaintiffs' wage
and hour claims."

M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. provides personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zelRfo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Jan Marlow, Esq.
          MORITT HOCK & HAMROFF LLP
          Garden City, NY

               - and -

          Salvatore Charles Badala, Esq.
          Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
          Melville, NY

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam Simeon Gross, Esq.
          Wendy J. Mellk, Esq.
          Gregory S Slotnick, Esq.
          Sarah Katherine Hook, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          New York, NY


MACERICH COMPANY: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Macerich Company.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Macerich Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-03148 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Macerich -- http://www.macerich.com/-- is a real estate investment
trust that invests in shopping centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGIC SEASONING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magic Seasoning
Blends, L.L.C. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Magic Seasoning Blends, L.L.C., Case No. 1:22-cv-04426 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 28, 2022).

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

Magic Seasoning Blends -- https://www.magicseasoningblends.com/ --
is a food production company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARHABA INTERNATIONAL: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marhaba
International, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Marhaba
International, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03153 (E.D.N.Y., May 27,
2022).

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

Marhaba International Inc. is located in New York, New York and is
part of the Grocery and Related Product Merchant Wholesalers
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CAROLINA C. ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-002421-22, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Special Civil Part,
Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-03250 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is an American debt buyer and debt
collection company headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
         HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
         800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 471-6200
         Facsimile: (212) 935-1166

NEW HAMPSHIRE DOC: Baran Loses Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Baran, et al., v. New
Hampshire Department of Corrections, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-00044-SM (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Steven J. McAuliffe
entered an order approving the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated May 3, 2022:

  -- The motion for class certification is denied.

  -- The plaintiffs are given thirty days to file an amended
     complaint, signed by each pro se plaintiff who wish to
     remain in the case or by retained counsel, failing which
     the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

  -- "'Only those issues fairly raised by the objections to the
     magistrate's report are subject to review in the district
     court and those not preserved by such objection are
     precluded on appeal.'"

The New Hampshire Department of Corrections is an executive agency
of the U.S. state of New Hampshire; charged with overseeing the
state correctional facilities, supervising probation and parolees,
and serving in an advisory capacity in the prevention of crime and
delinquency.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aiBfx0 at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Briefing Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE PRICE, ET AL.,
v. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
COMMISSIONER, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00025-PB (D.N.H.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Local Rule 7.1:


   1) extending the time for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for
      Class Certification until August 28, 2022; and

   2) allowing the Defendants an extended time, until September
      27, 2022, to file their Objection to Class Certification.

The New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services is a state
agency of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, headquartered in
Concord. Providing services in the areas of mental health,
developmental disability, substance abuse, and public health.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tduDXb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cheryl S. Steinberg, Esq.
          Kay E. Drought, Esq.
          NEW HAMPSHIRE LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          117 N. State Street
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 206-2210
          E-mail: csteinberg@nhla.org
                  kdrought@nhla.org

               - and -

          Kierstan E. Schultz, Esq.
          W. Daniel Deane, Esq.
          Mark Tyler Knights, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm Street, 14th Floor
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 628-4000
          Facsimile: (603) 628-4040
          E-mail: kschultz@nixonpeabody.com
                  ddeane@nixonpeabody.com
                  mknights@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Pamela E. Phelan, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER -- NEW HAMPSHIRE
          64 North Main Street, Suite 2
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 228-0432
          Facsimile: (603) 225-2077
          E-mail: Pamelap@drcnh.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura D. Devine, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Gagnon, Esq.
          N.H. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL BUREAU)
          33 Capitol Street
          Concord, NH 03301-6397
          Telephone: (603) 271-3650
          E-mail: laura.d.devine@doj.nh.gov
                  lawrence.p.gagnon @doj.nh.gov

               - and -

          Philip J. Peisch, Esq.
          Kendra Doty, Esq.
          BROWN & PEISCH PLLC
          1233 20th Street NW, Suite 505
          Washington, DC 20036

NIKE INC: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CAHILL, SARA
JOHNSTON, LINDSAY ELIZABETH, and HEATHER HENDER, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon
Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR (D. Or.), Nike asks the
Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file a
sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Nike can be prepared to file its sur-reply within two weeks of the
Court's order permitting such filing. In the alternative, Nike asks
that the Court strike the new authorities, arguments, and evidence
submitted by Plaintiffs on reply.

Nike is an American multinational corporation that is engaged in
the design, development, manufacturing, and worldwide marketing and
sales of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories, and services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zf50ZU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Prince, Esq.
          Felicia A. Davis, Esq.
          Laura E. Zabele, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: danielprince@paulhastings.com
                  feliciadavis@paulhastings.com
                  laurazabele@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Amy Joseph Pedersen, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 294-9408
          Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
          E-mail: amy.joseph.pedersen@stoel.com

NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Lohr Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN SINDOGI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. C16-1023RSM
(W.D. Wash.).

I. Introduction

The putative class action comes before the Court on Defendants
Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., LTD ("Nissan")'s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Nissan moves to dismiss all of the
Plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law, with particular focus on the
Plaintiffs' CPA claims. The Plaintiffs oppose. The Court has
determined that it can rule without oral argument.

II. BACKGROUND

The case is about exploding panoramic sunroofs. Plaintiff Tamara
Lohr filed her original complaint in state court nearly six years
ago, on May 25, 2016. There were two causes of action under
Washington State's Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, et seq.,
("CPA"). After removal, Nissan filed a Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff
Lohr amended her Complaint ("FAC"). The Amended Complaint added
Plaintiff Ravikiran Sindogi and causes of action for breach of
express warranty, breach of the warranty of merchantability under
RCW 62A, et seq., and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
An Amended Motion to Certify Class remains pending before the
Court.

Plaintiff Lohr leased a new 2015 Nissan Rogue with a panoramic
sunroof on Aug. 22, 2015. On Jan. 13, 2016, her panoramic sunroof
("PSR") "shattered" without warning while she was driving. A Nissan
dealership replaced the sunroof. Plaintiff Sindogi purchased a new
2012 Nissan Murano in February 2013. In April or May of 2016, after
the warranty expired, the panoramic sunroof of his Murano shattered
while driving. Glass from the panoramic sunroof rained down on Mr.
Sindogi, his wife in the passenger seat, and his daughter in the
backseat.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent "[a]ll Washington state residents
who purchased or leased in the State of Washington a model year
2008-2016 Rogue, Maxima, Sentra, Pathfinder or Altima, 2009-2016
Murano, or 2011-2016 Juke with a factory installed panoramic
sunroof."

One issue raised by Nissan is the difference between an external
and internal cause for the shattering events in the Plaintiffs'
vehicles. Plaintiffs plead that the shattering events occurred
without any indication of something falling on the sunroof. The FAC
pleads that the shattering is instead caused by an internal defect,
known to Nissan. Essentially, the Plaintiffs plead that these
panoramic sunroofs use glass that is tempered instead of laminated,
too thin, covered in ceramic paint that weakens the glass, and
attached to the car with too much tension.

Nissan argues in briefing that the Plaintiffs have now abandoned
these theories of what caused the shattering, citing the
Plaintiffs' expert reports and depositions.

Another issue raised by Nissan are the damages suffered by the two
named Plaintiffs, who now argue only that they "were injured at the
point of sale," i.e. they would have paid less if they had known of
the defect. No evidence is submitted as to this injury; instead,
the Plaintiffs say such evidence will come from a forthcoming
survey of the proposed class. The Plaintiffs point to no evidence
of Lohr's or Sindogi's medical or other out-of-pocket expenses.

Plaintiff Lohr's PSR was repaired for free, she had no
out-of-pocket expenses, and she claims no amount for "loss of use"
during the lease. Plaintiff Sindogi pled that he had to pay some
amount of money to repair his sunroof but this is not discussed in
responsive briefing. Plaintiff Sindogi eventually traded in his
vehicle and has conceded in deposition testimony that the trade-in
value was not reduced because of the alleged defect. He did not
tell the buyer about the alleged defect, but testified the value
would have been the same even if he had.

III. Discussion/Analysis

1. Whether CPA Claims are Barred by a "Safe Harbor" Provision

Nissan first argues that the CPA does not apply to actions or
transactions permitted by any regulatory body or officer acting
under statutory authority of this state or of the United States.
The Plaintiffs contend Nissan's PSRs are defective and unsafe
because Nissan uses tempered glass. Because using tempered glass is
expressly permitted by federal safety regulations, neither its use
nor a failure to disclose that use can support a CPA claim.

Nissan points to an automobile glass safety regulation promulgated
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"). In
response, the Plaintiffs say their claim is not that Nissan
violated the CPA by simply using tempered glass, but in how that
glass was applied to the sunroofs as designed for the vehicles in
question.

The Court finds that the "safe harbor" provision cited by Nissan
does not preclude Plaintiffs' more nuanced claim that Nissan
violated the CPA in how the tempered glass was applied to the
vehicles in question. This is not a valid basis for dismissal of
the CPA claim.

2. CPA Claim -- Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice Element

The Plaintiffs claim Nissan acted deceptively by failing to
disclose a defect. This is also the basis for their "unfair act"
claim.

Nissan contends the Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient
showing of an unfair or deceptive act. Nissan tries to pin down
exactly what the Plaintiffs will claim at trial is defective with
the panoramic sunroofs. Nissan states that the Plaintiffs have
conceded PSRs do not shatter spontaneously in the sense the FAC
uses that term, meaning with no external cause. They now say there
must be an external cause: either an impact forceful enough to
cause the glass to shatter immediately, or an impact causing some
lesser damage that may gradually propagate through the glass and
cause it to shatter later.

The Plaintiffs begrudgingly consent to the gist of this
characterization, Judge Martinez notes. Nissan also argues the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Nissan's knowledge of the
defect prior to when they received their vehicles in 2013 and 2015.
In their Response, the Plaintiffs barely address this point.

The Plaintiffs state "there is a genuine issue of fact regarding
whether Nissan knew of the Defect from the first year the PSRs were
offered to consumers." They then state "[t]he evidence shows that
Nissan received complaints relating to the Defect as early as 2008
and was aware of the Defect when it responded to NHTSA's inquiry.
ECF Nos. 108-1, 108-19 through 108-20." Judge Martinez points out
that the Plaintiffs do not elaborate or direct the Court's
attention to any portion of these cited exhibits.

The Court has reviewed these three cited exhibits, the content of
which can be found under seal at Dkts. #90-1, #90-18, and #90-19,
and agrees with Nissan. At best, these exhibits show that there
were other PSR incidents involving vehicles that were manufactured
prior to 2013 or 2015, but not when that incident occurred or what
was reported to Nissan.

Judge Martinez explains that it is not the Court's responsibility
to connect the dots here, or comb through other exhibits attached
to other Motions to make the Plaintiffs' case. The Plaintiffs fail
to make a sufficient showing that Nissan knew of the defect prior
to the leasing and sale of the Plaintiffs' vehicles. The Plaintiffs
have failed to set forth sufficient evidence to support their claim
of an unfair or deceptive act by demonstrating that Nissan knew of
and failed to disclose a potential defect in their panoramic
sunroofs. Dismissal of this claim is, therefore, warranted, Judge
Martinez holds.

3. CPA Claim -- Injury

Nissan also argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate
injury under the CPA.

The Plaintiffs intend to show injury "at the point of sale," Judge
Martinez notes. But the Plaintiffs present no evidence of this
injury. It is for the Plaintiffs to demonstrate at this stage in
litigation that they suffered some damages -- it is circular logic
to say they suffered injury because they overpaid for their
vehicles where the cost failed to include the risk of injury --
that injury being the risk of overpaying. Judge Martinez points out
that the Plaintiffs must demonstrate some injury to bring a CPA
claim.

Bizarrely, the Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence of more
traditional forms of injury, Judge Martinez also finds, among other
things. Judge Martinez notes that there are no medical bills. The
Plaintiffs apparently had no repair expenses, or they were fully
compensated. While it seems as if these incidents should have
caused loss of use or other out-of-pocket expenses, the Court will
not preserve a CPA claim based on its own conjecture.

Given all of these, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have failed to
make a sufficient showing on this element as well, and dismissal is
independently warranted under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986).

4. Remaining Warranty Claims

Nissan moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims, including
their warranty claims.

Judge Martinez finds that Nissan attacks the breach of warranty
claims in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it way. The Plaintiffs do not
address their warranty claims at all and, thus, fail to make a
"sufficient showing" on the essential elements of these claims.
Even if they had, the Court would likely dismiss for lack of
damages given the discussion in this Order. Dismissal is
warranted.

IV. Conclusion

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the
record, the Court finds and orders that the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted. All of Plaintiff Lohr and Plaintiff
Sindogi's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

The Court believes the case cannot proceed given this ruling and
directs the parties to file a joint status report within seven (7)
days as to any remaining issues.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ah6yvfd from Leagle.com.


NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Bennett's Bid for Class Certification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNE BENNETT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, and GERALD MCGHEE, v.
NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order denying
Bennett's motion for class certification.

On balance, the Court finds a class action here would be the
superior method of adjudication. The alternative to class action
would likely result in an abandonment of claims by most class
members since the amount of individual recovery is so small.

This action arises out of an alleged "bait and switch" scheme by
the Defendant. The theory of Bennett's case is that Defendant
promised its customers a specific pay-as-you-go service but failed
to deliver by eventually assessing fees.

The Defendant offers mobile payment solutions that provide
nationwide customers, including individuals, small business owners,
and merchants, "convenient, low cost point of sale credit card
payment processing services, including credit card readers that can
be connected to mobile devices."

Between 2011 and May 2018, the Defendant offered one
"pay-as-you-go" program under two brand names: "PayAnywhere" and
"PhoneSwipe" (the "Service" or, collectively, the "Services").

These two brands were ultimately combined under the "PayAnywhere"
name in May 2018. Both Services were originally sold as a purely no
out-of-pocket or pay-as-you-go offering. To obtain the credit card
processing services, merchants were required to apply on either
payanywhere.com or phoneswipe.com. This application required
prospective merchants, such as Bennett, to agree to either
PhoneSwipe or PayAnywhere's Terms and Conditions of Merchant
Service Agreement.

In May 2011, Bennett signed up for the PhoneSwipe service and a
credit card reader for a small business she and her husband owned
and operated called "Santa Rocks." Before applying for the Service,
Bennett understood there would be no recurring or setup charges,
and that she would only be charged a fee for each transaction
processed using the Service.

Around February 2017, Defendant began charging Bennett monthly
Inactivity Fees, which she did not notice until mid-2018. Upon
noticing the charges, Bennett called Defendant and cancelled her
account. Defendant refunded the last Inactivity Fee it deducted but
has refused to refund any others.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3acLjaF at no extra charge.[CC]

NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: S.D. New York Dismisses Amended Aponte Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled JOSE APONTE II and LISA ROSENBERG,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY, P.C., and ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 21 CV 5883 (VB).

The Defendants moved pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure
to state a claim.

Background

Plaintiffs Jose Aponte II and Lisa Rosenberg bring this putative
class action against Defendants Northeast Radiology, P.C.
("Northeast Radiology"), and Alliance HealthCare Services, Inc.,
alleging the Defendants failed to protect the Plaintiffs'
electronic protected health information ("e-PHI") from unauthorized
disclosure.

The Plaintiffs allege that, as patients of Northeast Radiology,
they provided Northeast Radiology with their names, addresses,
dates of birth, gender, and medical history information. The
Plaintiffs state that unauthorized individuals accessed the
Defendants' computer servers where this information was stored
between April 14, 2019, and Jan. 7, 2020.

The Plaintiffs allege a user, upon connecting to the Defendants'
Picture Archiving and Communications Systems ("PACS"), was
presented with a list of all patient studies and the number of
related images stored on the Defendants' PACS, comprising
approximately 62 million images associated with 300,000 patients.
According to the Plaintiffs, the file names in this list displayed
e-PHI, including patient name, date of birth, patient ID (which the
Plaintiffs allege often corresponds to social security number),
date of examination, and study description, among other
information, such that one accessing the PACS did not need to open
an image file to see a patient's information. According to the
Plaintiffs, defendants' PACS failed to include basic security
features like encryption or passwords, and the list of file names
containing e-PHI could be downloaded and saved.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs allege TechCrunch, an online
newspaper, published an article detailing these security
weaknesses, uncovered through an analysis by independent
cybersecurity researchers.

On March 11, 2020, Northeast Radiology issued a press release
announcing unauthorized individuals gained access to the
Defendants' PACS. According to the Plaintiffs, the release stated
at least twenty-nine patients' information was accessed during the
breach, but the Defendants were unable to determine if other
patients' information on the system was also compromised.

The Plaintiffs allege they face an ongoing imminent risk of
identity theft and fraud because, unlike a credit card, there is no
way to cancel e-PHI. As a result, the Plaintiffs contend they will
need to continuously monitor their accounts, purchase credit and
identity theft monitoring services, and expend additional time and
effort to prevent and mitigate potential future losses.

The Plaintiffs also allege they would not have used the Defendants'
services had they known the Defendants did not employ reasonable
security measures.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs claim they suffered an injury-in-fact
through the Defendants' "intrusion upon their seclusion" because
the Defendants' insufficient security practices made the
Plaintiffs' data available for unauthorized access.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, violation of New
York General Business Law Section 349, and "intrusion upon
seclusion."

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and on other grounds, the Court should resolve the
Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first, Judge Briccetti notes, citing Rhulen
Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir.
1990).

II. Standing

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring
this action.

The Court agrees.

A. Legal Standard

To satisfy the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing, the
plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision
(Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016)).

B. Application

Judge Briccetti finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege an
injury-in-fact sufficient to confer standing.

The Plaintiffs argue they suffered an injury-in-fact in four ways:
(i) the Plaintiffs face a substantial and imminent risk of fraud
and identity theft; (ii) the Plaintiffs will be required to spend
substantial amounts of time monitoring their accounts for identity
theft and fraud; (iii) the Plaintiffs would not have sought the
Defendants' services had they known the nature of the Defendants'
data security practices; and (iv) the Defendants' conduct caused
unauthorized access by third parties that intruded upon the
Plaintiffs' seclusion.

1. Future Risk of Fraud and Identity Theft

Here, Judge Briccetti notes, the Plaintiffs have not alleged third
parties misused or attempted to misuse their data. Moreover,
because the Plaintiffs do not allege they are members of the group
of twenty-nine patients whose information was determinedly
accessed, allegations that their personal information was even
accessed is conjecture, Judge Briccetti holds, citing Allison v.
Aetna, Inc., 2010 WL 3719243, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010).

The Plaintiffs need not wait until they suffer identity theft to
bring their claims. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs' allegations that
an unauthorized user to the Defendants' PACS would have viewed the
Plaintiffs' e-PHI in the list of file names and "it is extremely
likely" that such user would have downloaded a copy are too remote
to establish that the Plaintiffs' risk of future harm from identity
theft is substantial or imminent. Claims of conceivable harm
without factual support are not sufficient, Judge Briccetti points
out.

Moreover, the Court finds that the factors under McMorris v. Carlos
Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021) support a
determination of no injury-in-fact: although the Plaintiffs allege
their data stored on the Defendants' PACS was highly sensitive,
except for the conclusory allegation that the unauthorized users
were "hackers," the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts to support
the notion that the breach was a targeted attempted to perpetuate
identity theft, and the Plaintiffs have not alleged their or any
class members' data has been misused. Accordingly, even under the
McMorris factors, the Plaintiffs' risk of future harm is too
speculative to establish standing.

2. Theft and Fraud Monitoring

The Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are at a substantial
risk of future identity theft, so the time they spent protecting
themselves against this speculative threat cannot create an injury,
Judge Briccetti holds. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' efforts and
expense to monitor their accounts is not a sufficient
injury-in-fact to confer standing.

3. Benefit of the Bargain Injury

The Plaintiffs' claim that they would not have used the Defendants'
services had the Defendants disclosed their insufficient security
practices also does not allege an injury-in-fact, Judge Briccetti
holds. As discussed, the Plaintiffs do not allege any misuse or
attempted misuse of their data resulting from the breach.

4. Intrusion Upon Seclusion

The Plaintiffs' claim that they suffered an injury-in-fact through
the Defendants' intrusion upon their seclusion is also insufficient
to confer standing, Judge Briccetti finds.

5. Statutory Violations

Finally, because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a concrete
injury-in-fact arising from the breach, allegations that the
Defendants' actions violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and
New York and Connecticut state law do not confer standing, Judge
Briccetti points out. Similarly, the Plaintiffs' prayer for
statutory damages in connection with their breach of contract
claims cannot confer standing when the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated concrete harm from the alleged breach.

Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs do not allege that they have
suffered, or will imminently suffer, an injury-in-fact, the
Plaintiffs have not established that they have standing. The Court,
thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and the case
must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1).

Judge Briccetti notes that because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it does not reach the motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.

Conclusion

The motion to dismiss is granted.

The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion and close this
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 16,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a45dkz3 from
Leagle.com.


NORTHERN NATURAL: De Leon's Bid for Distribution of Notice Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE DE LEON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, and GAS GATHERING SPECIALIST,
INC.,Case No. 7:20-cv-00179-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying De Leon's motion for
distribution of notice to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs.

The Court said, "De Leon clearly failed to meet this deadline,
filing his motion eight months later. In his Motion, De Leon states
he has "persistently pursued his claims and that of the putative
class." But fails to provide why he did not file his Motion for
Notice earlier, in compliance with the Court's Preliminary
Discovery Control Plan and Amended Scheduling Order. The Court also
notes De Leon did not ask the Court for an extension of time to
file a Motion for Distribution of Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs. As such, De Leon has not established how he diligently
pursued a collective action, nor has he established why good cause
exists for waiting until approximately two months before the Final
Pretrial Conference to file the motion. The Court agrees with
Northern and Gas Gathering -- De Leon's Motion for Distribution of
Notice to Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs is denied."

Jessie De Leon filed this collective action on July 24, 2020
against Northern Natural alleging that Northern paid him and others
similarly situated a day rate without overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). De Leon alleges
that he worked for Northern as an inspector from July 2017 to April
2018.

On September 29, 2020, De Leon filed a Motion to Certify Class for
Conditional Certification and Court-authorized Notice pursuant to
the Lusardi two-step approach. While Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Notice was pending before the Court,
the Fifth Circuit's decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services
rejected the Lusardi two-step approach, upon which both De Leon's
Motion and Northern's Responses were premised.

Northern Natural Gas Company owns and operates natural gas pipeline
system.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OaMgPF at no extra charge.[CC]

NOVO NORDISK: Briefing Deadlines Modified in Insulin Pricing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES et al v. NOVO
NORDISK INC., et al., (Re Insulin Pricing Litigation), Case No.
2:17-cv-00699-BRM-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon Judge Brian R. Martinotti
entered an order granting modification of briefing deadlines on
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as follows:

                                    Current         Proposed
                                    Deadline        Deadline

-- Defendants oppose class      June 10, 2022    June 30, 2022
    certification and serve
    opposing expert reports.

-- Plaintiffs file reply in     Aug. 12, 2022    Aug. 31, 2022
    support of class
    certification and serve
    rebuttal expert reports.

Novo Nordisk is a global healthcare company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NcltlT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH.LAW
          Three Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry St, 15 th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 757-1100
          Facsimile: (973) 757-1090
          Telephone: (973) 757‐1101
          E-mail: lwalsh@walsh.law

OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN
PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC, an Alaska corporation, and OCEAN
BEAUTY LLC, an Alaska corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00884-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed classes;

      -- Quarantine Class

         "All current or former employees of OBI Seafoods LLC
         and/or Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC who were hired to
         perform fish processing work and, after December 2019,
         were subject to a mandatory quarantine period during
         which they were paid less than the minimum wage rate
         multiplied by eight or more hours for each day spent in
         quarantine."

      -- Delay Class

         "All current or former employees of OBI Seafoods LLC
         and/or Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC who at any time after
         May 2019 were hired to perform fish processing work and
         were paid at greater intervals than biweekly."

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Kenworthey
      Law PLLC to serve as class counsel; and

   4. directing them to submit a proposed notice plan and form
      of notice within a reasonable time.

This is a wage-and-hour case on behalf of fish processing workers.
The workers contend that the seafood companies who employed them
did not pay them the Alaska minimum wage during periods in which
they served COVID-19 quarantine for the companies, and that they
were not paid every two weeks as required by law.

Both claims state violations of the Alaska Wage and Hour Act
(AWHA), which requires the timely payment of at least the minimum
wage for compensable work. The Plaintiffs move for the
certification of two classes: a Quarantine Class of those fish
processors who were not adequately paid for compensable time spent
in quarantine, and a Pay Delay Class of those fish processors who
were not paid every two weeks.

Ocean Beauty is a company that, under various names, has operated
fish processing plants in Alaska since the early 1900s.  OBI is a
company resulting from the merger of Alaska on-shore fish
processing operations between Ocean Beauty and another seafood
company, Icicle Seafoods, in 2020.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 24, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x9o7TS at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          Tamara Kenworthey, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  rtack-hooper@terrellmarshall.com
                  tkenworthey@kenwortheylaw.com

OPTAVIA LLC: Douglass Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPTAVIA LLC, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00594-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

  (A) Certifying the class for settlement purposes and appoint
      Blair Douglass as class representatives and Plaintiff's
      Counsel as Class Counsel;

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

  (C) Approving the notice and notice plan, including by
      setting:

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

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

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

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

After engaging in months of good faith negotiations, the parties
reached a settlement and executed a proposed settlement agreement
on May 25, 2022. 2 The agreement resolves this action and defines
the settlement class as follows:

   "All Blind or Visually Disabled individuals who use screen
   reader auxiliary aids to navigate digital content and who
   have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from
   attempting to access, or who may access, attempt to access,
   or be deterred from attempting to access
   [https://www.optavia.com/] from the United States."

Under the terms of the agreement, the Defendant shall ensure blind
or visually disabled individuals are provided full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations provided by and through the
https://www.optavia.com/, and any website or mobile application
that Defendant develops, starts to operate, or acquires in the
future, and which is publicly available in the United States.

In June 2021, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's online
store located at https://www.optavia.com/.

The Plaintiff could not access Defendant's online store because the
store was not compatible with screen reader auxiliary aids, which
Plaintiff uses to access digital content because he is blind.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PZcare
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

OREGON: Wins Summary Judgment; Moret v. Brown and ODOC Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Michael W. Mosman of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, grants the State
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismisses with
prejudice the lawsuit styled ANDREW GUY MORET, Plaintiff v. KATE
BROWN, Governor, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-01757-MO (D.
Or.).

Background

Plaintiff Andrew Guy Moret initiated this case in February 2020 in
state court as a class action. Among Moret's constitutional claims,
he asserted the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) has a
retaliatory policy of punishing prisoners "if they are found
banding together to create a class action lawsuit." Relatedly,
Moret alleges ODOC employees threatened him with placement in
segregation for filing this case.

The Defendants removed the case and moved for summary judgment.

Judge Mosman granted summary judgment on all of Moret's claims,
with the exception of his retaliation claim. Judge Mosman
subsequently ordered that the case proceed as an individual action
and that Moret file an amended complaint. The State
Defendants--which encompass a hodgepodge of government officials,
employees, and agencies--again move for summary judgment.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, Judge Mosman notes that most of Moret's
claims are procedurally defective. Moret's amended complaint renews
many of the claims the Court has already dismissed from this case
(Claims Two and Thirteen). Judge Mosman dismisses them again. Moret
has also asserted a variety of claims arising from his prosecution
for murder (Claims Three, Four, and Five). Judge Mosman dismisses
those claims, too: this is not a habeas petition, nor may Moret
relitigate his state court claims in federal court.

Judge Mosman notes that other claims are new to this case and
unrelated to the retaliation that Moret alleged in his original
complaint (Claims Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, and Twelve).
Because a supplemental pleading "cannot be used to introduce a
separate, distinct and new cause of action," Judge Mosman dismisses
those claims, as well. Lastly, Judge Mosman declines to consider
the new allegations that Moret raises in his response to the State
Defendants' motion.

Only one of Moret's claims survived the last round of summary
judgment: that he was retaliated against for filing this case. That
claim is contained in Claims One of Moret's amended complaint and
supplemented by part of Claim Ten. Those are the only claims that
remain, Judge Mosman holds.

The State Defendants assert that Moret's retaliation claims should
be dismissed because he did not exhaust his remedies through the
prison's grievance system. In turn, Moret attests, among other
arguments, that the State Defendants were biased against him,
making administrative exhaustion futile. With deference to Moret's
pro se status and solely for the purposes of this motion for
summary judgment, Judge Mosman accepts Moret's allegation that
filing a grievance would have been futile. Accordingly, Judge
Mosman proceeds to the merits of his retaliation claim.

Mr. Moret contends the State Defendants retaliated against him by
placing him in disciplinary segregation and by transferring him
from Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) to Snake River Correctional
Institution (SRCI).

I. Placement in Disciplinary Segregation

For the purposes of this motion, Judge Mosman takes as true that
Moret was told by OSP corrections officers that he would be placed
in segregation for filing this case. Nevertheless, Judge Mosman
finds that Moret has failed to put forward evidence that this
threat had a chilling effect. Instead, he has continued to actively
participate in his cases and file additional grievances through
ODOC. Moreover, Moret makes no contention that the same corrections
officers threatened him again. Nor does the record suggest
corrections officers ever backed this threat up with action--after
Moret filed this case, he stayed out of disciplinary segregation
until after he was transferred.

True, Moret spent time in disciplinary segregation shortly after he
arrived at SRCI. But this was because Moret assaulted another
inmate and brewed alcohol in his cell, Judge Mosman finds. Moret
has put forward no evidence that would create a dispute of fact as
to SRCI's reasons for placing him in disciplinary segregation.

In sum, Judge Mosman finds OSP corrections officers did not chill
Moret's speech by threatening him with placement in segregation.
Judge Mosman also finds that SRCI corrections officers did not
place Moret in disciplinary segregation for retaliatory purposes.
Accordingly, this claim cannot survive summary judgment.

II. Transfer to SRCI

Mr. Moret characterizes his transfer to SRCI as part of a
conspiracy to undermine his ability to litigate and access prison
programming. The State Defendants tell a different story: Moret was
transferred--along with 560 other adults in custody--because his
block needed renovations. Moret claims he has witnesses that can
support his theory, but points to nothing in the record.

Moreover, Judge Mosman finds that no reasonable jury would believe
that the State Defendants orchestrated the transfer of hundreds of
inmates with the sole intention of picking on Moret. This claim
cannot survive summary judgment, either.

Conclusion

For the reasons given, Judge Mosman grants the State Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, this case is dismissed
with prejudice. Moret's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment [ECF
123], Motion for Extension of Time [ECF 126], Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF 129], Motion for Relief [ECF 131], Updated Motion for
Emergency Relief [ECF 134], and Demand for Judgment [ECF 136] are
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated May 9, 2022,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p95mpx2 from Leagle.com.


OS4LABOR LLC: Faces Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OS4LABOR LLC; PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC;
DART WAREHOUSE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV17718 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California
Labor Code, the California's Public Policy, and the California's
Business and Professions Code including sexual harassment,
retaliation, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation,
wrongful termination, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to compensate
for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to pay wages when
employment ends, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
for approximately one week in January 2022.

OS4Labor LLC is a staffing company based in California.

Personnel Staffing Group, LLC is an employment agency doing
business in Los Angeles, California.

Dart Warehouse Corporation is a logistics company doing business in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]

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

PARKASH 1630: Diaz Seeks FLSA Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELFINO ADAN DIAZ, v.
PARKASH 1630, LLC, and VED PARKASH, Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), for the following relief:

  (1) Conditional certification of a Fair Labors Standards
      Act Collective Action;

  (2) Authorization of Notice to all Covered Employees, such
      notice to include a consent form (or opt-in form) as
      authorized by The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);

  (3) Approval of the proposed FLSA notice and consent forms;
      and

  (4) Production of the names, last known mailing addresses,
      e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers, of all
      Covered Employees.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 26,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3anBAyi
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway -- Suit 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

PARTNERSHIP HEALTHPLAN: Suit Filed in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Partnership
HealthPlan of California. The case is styled as John Doe, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of
the general public v. Partnership HealthPlan of California, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03132 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Partnership HealthPlan of California -- http://partnershiphp.org/
-- is an independent, public/private organization serving over
550,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries in 14 northern California
counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Phone: (619) 308-5034
          Fax: (888) 274-1888
          Email: alan@clgca.com


PEDERSON NATURAL: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pederson Natural
Farms Inc. The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pederson Natural
Farms Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04429 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Pederson's Natural Farms -- https://pedersonsfarms.com/ -- is a
distributor and processor of premium all natural food service
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHL VARIABLE: Seeks Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Advance Trust & Life
Escrow Services, LTA v. PHL Variable Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03444-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order extending by five weeks the deadlines for expert
disclosures and briefing class certification to allow time for them
to resolve an unforeseeable disruption to its access to necessary
case materials and work product, as follows:

           Event                 Current          Proposed
                                 Deadline         Deadline

-- Defendant's rebuttal        May 30, 2022     July 5, 2022
   expert disclosures:

-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal        June 27, 2022    Aug. 2, 2022
   expert disclosures:

-- Motion for class            July 8, 2022     Aug. 12, 2022
   certification:

-- Joint letter regarding      July 28, 2022    Sept. 8, 2022
   status of the case:

-- All expert discovery to     July 28, 2022    Sept. 5, 2022
   be completed no later
   than:

-- Post-discovery conference    Aug. 4, 2022    Sept. 15, 2022

-- Opposition to class          Aug. 15, 2022   Sept. 19, 2022
   certification

-- Reply in support of          Sept. 5, 2022   Oct. 24, 2022
   class certification

PHL Variable Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tbFC3o at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Interim Class Counsel, are:

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-789-3100
          Facsimile: 310-789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas F.A. Herrington, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
          E-mail: tom.hetherington@mhllp.com

PMG OPCO-GUEST: Davis Bill of Rights Suit Goes to W.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LINDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PMG OPCO-GUEST HOUSE, L.L.C. d/b/a THE
GUEST HOUSE SKILLED NURSING AND REHABILITATION and PRIORITY
MANAGEMENT GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 636-750-A, was removed from the
1st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Caddo, State of
Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01447 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Louisiana Residents' Bill of Rights and Louisiana Admin Code.

PMG Opco-Guest House, LLC, doing business as The Guest House
Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation, is an operator of a skilled
nursing and rehabilitation facility located in Louisiana.

Priority Management Group, LLC is an operator of skilled nursing
facilities in Louisiana. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq.
         Mary Katherine Price, Esq.
         Richard F. Norem, III, Esq.
         FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC
         105 Yorktown Drive
         Alexandria, LA 71303
         Telephone: (318) 619-7755
         Facsimile: (318) 619-7744
         E-mail: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com
                 kprice@fairclothlaw.com
                 enorem@fairclothlaw.com

PNC FINANCIAL: Case Management Order Entered in Johnson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRENA JOHNSON, BARBARA
DEMPS, JOHN MCCAULEY, v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC INCENTIVE SAVINGS PLAN
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, DOES NO. 1 -10, Case No.
2:20-cv-01493-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell
Wiegand entered a case management order as follows:

  -- The parties shall exchange initial       June 15, 2022
     disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)
     on or before:

  -- The parties shall file any motion to     July 9, 2022
     add new parties on or before:

  -- The parties shall file any motion to     July 9, 2022
     amend the pleadings on or before:

  -- The parties shall file a completed       June 1, 2022
     ADR Stipulation on or before:

  -- The parties shall complete all fact      Feb. 16, 2023
     discovery on or before:

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an American bank holding
company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Its banking subsidiary, PNC Bank, operates in 27
states and the District of Columbia, with 2,629 branches and 9,523
ATMs.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m9TLKo at no extra charge.[CC]

PREMIER NUTRITION: Must Include Testimony of Custodians in Montera
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff v. PREMIER
NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS (N.D.
Cal.), Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied as to the
custodians of records and granted in all other respects the
Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of untimely disclosed
witnesses.

Introduction

In this false advertising class action averring violations of New
York's General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, Defendant Premier
Nutrition Corporation ("Premier") brings a motion to exclude the
testimony of witnesses it says were not timely disclosed. The
witnesses fall into four categories: class representatives in other
lawsuits against Defendant, former spokespersons for Joint Juice, a
previously unnamed member of the class, and various custodians of
records.

Factual Background

The case is one of numerous certified class actions pending before
the Court alleging false advertising and other claims in Defendant
Premier Nutrition's promotion of Joint Juice, a line of joint
health dietary supplements. Each class action concerns a set of
plaintiffs in a different state; this action concerns consumers in
New York. In November 2021, the Court set the case for trial on May
23, 2022, the first of these related cases to proceed to trial.

On April 22, 2022, the Plaintiff served Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a) disclosures on the Defendant, and on April 25,
2022, provided her witness list for trial. The parties dispute
whether they had agreements to make disclosures by other dates and
whether the Plaintiff was required to make disclosures in this case
that she made in other related cases, but the crux of the issue is
that the Defendant believes many of the names on the list were not
previously disclosed.

Specifically, the Defendant argues that the following witnesses
were not timely disclosed: (1) the class representatives in other
Joint Juice lawsuits (Kathleen Sonner, Beverly Avery, Mary Trudeau,
Sandra Dent, Donna Lux, Annette Ravinsky, Edward White, and
Patricia Bland); (2) former spokespersons Joe Montana and Dean
Karnazes; (3) Jon Seiger, a member of the New York class; and (4)
various custodians of records (Benjamin Grimes, Jason Theodosakis,
Chuck Ray, and the custodians of record from Eleven Inc., Rain the
Growth Agency, Known Global LLC, Curion LLC, and SurveyMonkey).
Premier also argues that some of these witnesses are irrelevant and
unduly prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403.

Discussion

A. Class Representatives in Related Lawsuits

Premier seeks to exclude the class representatives in related
lawsuits: Kathleen Sonner, Beverly Avery, Mary Trudeau, Sandra
Dent, Donna Lux, Annette Ravinsky, Edward White, and Patricia
Bland. Premier argues that the Plaintiff both failed to make a
timely disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and that
these witnesses should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence
402 and 403. The Plaintiff provides no authority for her assertion
that Joint Juice purchasers, who are not members of the class, are
relevant, but argues that their testimony is relevant to how a
reasonable consumer would interpret Joint Juice advertising.
Although the label and advertising for Joint Juice was uniform
nationwide, this trial concerns purported violations of New York
law experienced by New York consumers.

Testimony from purchasers from various other states is not
relevant, and the class representatives from other Joint Juice
lawsuits are, therefore, excluded, Judge Seeborg holds.

B. Joe Montana and Dean Karnazes

Joe Montana and Dean Karnazes are celebrity spokespersons
previously employed by Premier to appear in Joint Juice
commercials. Premier argues that the Plaintiff both failed to make
a timely disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and
Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403. Premier argues not just that
Montana and Karnazes should be excluded, but the advertisements
they appeared in should be excluded, as well. The Plaintiff's
arguments on relevance concern the advertisements that Montana and
Karnazes participated in, rather than the testimony they will
provide as witnesses.

The Plaintiff argues that Montana and Karnazes were known to
Premier during the discovery process, and are, thus, exempted from
the supplemental disclosure requirement of Rule 26(e).

Awareness of Montana and Karnazes, however, was only in the context
of the advertisements they appeared in, Judge Seeborg notes. Judge
Seeborg finds that the Plaintiff has not presented any proof that
mention of Montana and Karnazes in depositions or prior stages of
this litigation suggested that either Montana or Karnazes would
have any knowledge relevant to this litigation, other than the fact
of their appearance in an advertisement and the statements they
made in the advertisement.

Further, Judge Seeborg explains, the failure to disclose is not
substantially justified or harmless, as the Plaintiff could have
made the disclosures much earlier, and it is less than three weeks
before trial. The motion is, therefore, granted as to Montana and
Karnazes.

C. Jon Sieger

The Plaintiff does not appear to contest that her disclosure of
Sieger was untimely, and argues the failure to disclose Sieger
earlier is harmless because "Premier has sufficient time to take
his deposition before trial, if necessary."

Judge Seeborg notes that Premier has already had to undertake
unexpected discovery in the months leading up to trial after the
Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint
so that a new named plaintiff, Mary Beth Montera, could lead the
class following credibility concerns with the prior named
plaintiff. Requiring the Defendant to conduct a deposition of a
person, who has never been mentioned in prior discovery with less
than two weeks until trial is not harmless, and therefore Sieger's
testimony is excluded, Judge Seeborg rules.

D. Custodians of Records

As for the records custodians, Judge Seeborg finds that any failure
to disclose is harmless. The Plaintiff states that she only plans
to call these custodians if the Defendant objects to the
admissibility of documents. The documents in question are
documents, which the Defendant has been aware of over the course of
this litigation.

Judge Seeborg holds that the Plaintiff may call these witnesses,
but cannot question them about any subject except those relevant to
establish admissibility of documents.

Should the Defendant believe that questioning from the Plaintiff
goes beyond establishing admissibility of documents, the Defendant
may object at trial, Judge Seeborg says.

Conclusion

The Defendant's motion to exclude witnesses, who were not timely
disclosed, is denied as to the custodians of records and granted in
all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8tenhv from Leagle.com.


PUSHPAY USA: Initial OK of Class Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUDRA BLANKERS and W.B.T.
ARNOLD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
PUSHPAY USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01549-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order denying without prejudice
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
and collective settlement, to the parties renewing the motion after
the proposed Notice of Settlement is revised.

The Court also reminds the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. section
1715, notices of class action settlements must be provided to the
appropriate Federal and State officials. The Court instructs the
parties to submit an amended proposed Notice of Settlement.

Pushpay primarily sells donor and church management systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mc8rTT at no extra charge.[CC]

PYRAMID FLOWERS: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pyramid Flowers, et
al. The case is styled as Concepcion Ramirez, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Pyramid Flowers, Marcos Van
Wingerden, Case No. 56-2022-00565868-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Ventura Cty., May 17, 2022).

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

Pyramid Flowers -- http://pyramidflowers.com/-- is California's
premier flower grower and has been a leading grower and shipper for
over 25 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Cantor, Esq.
          CANTOR LAW
          1112 Montana Ave., Ste. C
          Santa Monica, CA 90403-1667
          Phone: 310-393-6620
          Fax: 310-393-6680
          Email: zachary@cantorlawyers.com

               - and -

          Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
          MESRIANI LAW GROUP
          510 Arizona Ave.
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-1408
          Phone: 310-826-6300
          Fax: 310-820-1258
          Email: rodney@mesriani.com


QIHOO 360: New York Court Stays All Discovery in Altimeo Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants Moving Defendants Qihoo and
Chen's motion to stay all discovery in the case, ALTIMEO ASSET
MANAGEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and ODS CAPITAL LLC, Plaintiffs v. QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY
CO. LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants,
Case No. 19 Civ. 10067 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.).

Before the Court is a letter motion from Moving Defendants Qihoo
and Chen to stay all discovery in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(b)(3)(B). Defendant Zhou, who has not moved to stay
discovery, and has filed the only motion to dismiss currently
pending in the lawsuit, supports the Motion. The Plaintiffs oppose
the Motion.

On Dec. 23, 2019, the Moving Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the operative Amended Complaint ("AC"). On Feb. 21, 2020, that
motion became fully briefed. As of that time, Defendants Zhou and
Qi had not appeared in the action. On Aug. 14, 2020, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss. On Sept. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal. On Dec. 15, 2021, the Second Circuit
vacated the Court's judgment, and remanded for further
proceedings.

On Jan. 14, 2022, the Court held an initial pretrial conference. On
Jan. 20, 2022, the Court approved a revised case management plan
proposed by the Plaintiffs and the Moving Defendants, setting,
inter alia, briefing schedules for the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and the parties' potential motions for summary
judgment, and a discovery schedule accommodating those briefing
schedules.

On Feb. 1, 2022, the Court permitted plaintiffs to serve Defendants
Zhou and Qi by alternative means. On Feb. 3, 2022, Zhou and Qi
appeared in the action. On March 15, 2022, the Moving Defendants
filed an answer to the AC. On April 29, 2022, Zhou filed a motion
to dismiss the AC, arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege scienter, reliance, or loss causation. Qi has not answered
or otherwise responded to the AC.

On May 4, 2022, the Moving Defendants filed the instant motion to
stay discovery under the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(3)(B).
That same day, Zhou, filed a letter supporting the Motion. On May
9, 2022, the Plaintiffs opposed the Motion. On May 11, 2022, the
Moving Defendants filed a reply.

The Plaintiffs argue that the PSLRA is ambiguous as to the
situation presented, where a motion to dismiss by some defendants
(the Moving Defendants) has been decided, but a motion to dismiss
by another Defendant (Zhou) is pending. That is wrong. The
statutory text is crystal clear. In mandatory prose, it provides
that all discovery will be stayed during the pendency of any motion
to dismiss. Such categorical language does not leave room for the
argument that discovery may proceed where some, but not all the
Defendants have moved to dismiss. And "when a statute speaks with
clarity to an issue, judicial inquiry into its meaning, in all but
the most extraordinary circumstances, is finished."

The overwhelming weight of and the most persuasive—case authority
is in accord. Although there is limited case law that has found the
PSLRA textually ambiguous on this point, it is distinctly the
minority reading.

Nor have the Plaintiffs shown a necessity to "preserve evidence or
to prevent undue prejudice to any party." As to the former, the
Plaintiffs do not put forth any argument at all. They do not claim
that relevant discovery is in jeopardy of disappearing during the
stay. As to the latter, the Plaintiffs state only that a discovery
stay would delay progress of this litigation. However, delay in and
of itself is not sufficient to establish undue prejudice, as delay
is simply a part of the process in a securities case. And the
Plaintiffs do not contend that the deferred resolution of the
putative class action under the securities laws would meaningfully
injure any party or absent class member.

Judge Engelmayer accordingly grants the Moving Defendants' Motion
and stays all discovery in the action pending resolution of Zhou's
motion to dismiss. After resolving that motion, the Court will
schedule a new case management conference to set a discovery plan
and briefing schedule. The current case management conference in
the case, scheduled for Aug. 8, 2022, is adjourned.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion
pending at Dkt. 117.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2cfeknxp from Leagle.com.


RANGE RESOURCES: Rupert Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES A. RUPERT, WILLIAM
E. and KAREN A. TRAVIS, and BRYAN MARTIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RANGE RESOURCES --
APPALACHIA, LLC and RANGE RESOURCES CORP, Case No.
2:21-cv-01281-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Patricia L. Dodge
entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is denied without prejudice to renew as appropriate
at a later point in this proceeding after the pleadings have
closed.

Range Resources was founded in 1999. The company's line of business
includes performing geophysical, geological, and other
exploration.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tbQoa0 at no extra charge.[CC]

REAL ESTATE HEAVEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Whittaker TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit titled Brenda Whittaker, Plaintiff v. Real Estate Heaven
International Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-21-08212-PCT-DJH (D. Ariz.).

I. Background

As alleged in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiff
brings the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action
after receiving two sets of text messages from the Defendants in
May 2021 that offered to sell loans. She alleges she never
consented to receive these messages and that her number is listed
in the national Do Not Call Registry.

The Defendants present four arguments in their Motion to Dismiss.
First, the Defendants argue the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over them. Second, they argue this action must be dismissed because
they have provided the Plaintiff with "incontrovertible evidence"
that she consented to the messages. Third, the Defendants seek to
dismiss the action on the grounds that the Plaintiff "fails to
allege she suffered an actual injury from the two purported calls
the Plaintiff alleges she received." Finally, Defendant Stone Sharp
argues he cannot be held personally liable for the Plaintiff's
claims because he is only an employee of Defendant Easy Financial,
LLC.

II. Personal Jurisdiction

The Court first examines its jurisdiction over the parties. There
is no dispute that both Defendants reside in California and that
the Plaintiff resides in Arizona. Because the Defendants have
challenged the Court's jurisdiction, the Plaintiff now bears the
burden of showing the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate.

The Plaintiff argues that the Court may exercise specific
jurisdiction over both Defendants.

The Plaintiffs argue that many courts within the Ninth Circuit have
found the first prong is satisfied for TCPA claims when an
out-of-state defendant directs "telemarketing activities" to
plaintiffs in the forum state (citing Baker v. Caribbean Cruise
Line, Inc., 2014 WL 880634, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2014)).

The Defendants do not comment on these cases and, instead, argue
that the FAC fails to allege that their activities were "targeted"
towards Plaintiff, in Arizona. But this argument is unpersuasive
because the Court can already infer from the FAC that the
Defendants' texts were sent to the Plaintiff, an Arizona resident.
The Court is satisfied with the Plaintiff's showing that the
Defendants have purposely directed business activities to
individuals in Arizona.

Judge Humetewa says that it follows that the Plaintiff's TCPA claim
is one that is directly related to the texts that the Defendants
sent, satisfying the second prong. The Defendants make no counter
argument on this point. And because the Plaintiff has demonstrated
the first two prongs, she has established a presumption that the
exercise of jurisdiction over the Defendants is reasonable, Judge
Humetewa points out. The Defendants make no argument to rebut this
presumption.

Overall, the Court finds it may exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants.

III. Defendants' Evidence of Consent

Next, the Court considers the Defendants' claim that they presented
the Plaintiff with "incontrovertible evidence" that she consented
to receive the texts, and yet the Plaintiff's attorney continues to
pursue this matter.

To the extent the Defendants seek to dismiss this action based upon
such claimed evidence, the Court declines to do so.

At the pleading stage, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require
that a complaint make a short and plain statement showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Here, it is
enough for the Plaintiff to allege that she did not ever consent to
receive text messages from the Defendants, Judge Humetewa states.
The Court must accept this as true. And yet the Defendants,
apparently frustrated that the Plaintiff will not concede their
point, ask the Court to take judicial notice of the fact that she
consented.

Judge Humetewa explains that judicial notice is reserved for facts
that are "generally known" or "can be accurately and readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned," citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Defendants only
support for their assertion that the Plaintiff consented to the
messages is a declaration stating that the Plaintiff signed up to
receive messages on Sept. 25, 2018, when she signed up online to
receive loan information.

Judge Humetewa points out that this fact is not appropriate for
judicial notice because this declaration can be reasonably
questioned. Therefore, the Court declines the Defendants' request
for judicial notice.

The Court notes that counsel for the Plaintiff have filed their FAC
and signed it as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b),
thereby, representing that its claims are "nonfrivolous" and that
its factual contentions have evidentiary support. The Defendants
insist that the Plaintiff's pursuit of this matter constitutes a
breach of counsel's ethical duties and warrants sanctions.

With the limited record before the Court, Judge Humetewa notes that
it is impossible to decide here that sanctions are warranted. The
Defendants may, instead, pursue sanctions as dictated by Rule 11.

IV. Injury in Fact

Next, the Defendants argue the Plaintiff's allegations fail to
establish an injury in fact. The Court rejects this argument. Here,
the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated her rights under
the TCPA as codified in 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5). By alleging
that her statutory rights were violated by the Defendants, the
Plaintiff has certainly demonstrated an injury in fact, Judge
Humetewa holds.

V. Stone's Liability

Finally, Defendant Stone argues he cannot be held liable in a TCPA
action against Easy Financial because he is just an employee. The
argument appears to be that because he is just an employee, and
because corporate officers with even greater authority are not
liable for contracts signed on a company's behalf, he himself
should not be liable for this TCPA action.

The Plaintiff cites to many cases from the Ninth Circuit holding
that direct liability under the TCPA does not depend on one's
status as a corporate officer (or employee) (quoting Golan v.
FreeEats.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 950, 960 (8th Cir. 2019)).

The Plaintiff alleges that it was Stone himself who sent the text
messages, and they argue he is directly liable. Following the
reasoning set out in Golan and by the district court in Thomas v.
Taco Bell Corp., 879 F.Supp.2d 1079, 1084 (C.D. Cal. 2012), aff'd,
582 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2014), the Court finds that under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b), an individual who "initiates" a text message
may be held directly liable. Here, Stone may be held directly
liable.

VI. Conclusion

Having exhausted the Defendants' arguments, the Court will deny the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2djje3jj from Leagle.com.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03151 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Rent-A-Center -- https://www.rentacenter.com/ -- is an American
public furniture and electronics rent-to-own company based in
Plano, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIVERLANDS HOME: Broden Bill of Rights Suit Removed to E.D. La.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SANDTRELL BRODEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RIVERLANDS HOME GROUP, L.L.C. D/B/A
CHATEAU ST. JAMES REHAB AND RETIREMENT and PRIORITY MANAGEMENT
GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 40841-C, was removed from the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01573-WBV-JVM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Louisiana Residents' Bill of Rights and Louisiana Admin Code.

Riverlands Home Group, LLC, doing business as Chateau St. James
Rehab and Retirement, is a provider of skilled nursing facility
based in Louisiana.

Priority Management Group, LLC is an operator of skilled nursing
facilities in Louisiana. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr., Esq.
         Mary Katherine Price, Esq.
         Richard F. Norem, III, Esq.
         FAIRCLOTH MELTON SOBEL & BASH, LLC
         105 Yorktown Drive
         Alexandria, LA 71303
         Telephone: (318) 619-7755
         Facsimile: (318) 619-7744
         E-mail: jfaircloth@fairclothlaw.com
                 kprice@fairclothlaw.com
                 enorem@fairclothlaw.com

ROBERT ROTHSCHILD FARM: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Rothschild
Farm. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert Rothschild Farm,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04415 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Robert Rothschild -- https://www.robertrothschild.com/ -- produces
food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Seeks June 7 Continuance of Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST
ARCHULETA, ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER
NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE
PARTNERS, INC., TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC., LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO COUNTY
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Defendant San Diego County
asks the Court to enter an order extending the briefing schedule
regarding Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and
provisional class certification, by one additional week, continuing
the current Opposition deadline from May 31, 2022, to June 7, 2022

The Defendant says that the additional time is needed for two
reasons: (1) in order for medical and mental health staff to
review, revise and authenticate declarations, and (2) to coordinate
a joint filing with the co-defendants, given this Court’s order
for one joint opposition brief to be filed.

On May 2, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a voluminous motion for
preliminary 10 injunction and provisional class certification (Dkt
119). The Court thereafter issued an order setting the hearing for
June 16, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. and the briefing schedule as follows:
the responses due by May 16, 2022, and replies due by May 23, 2022.


The Defendant County of San Diego filed a request for a 30-day
continuance of the Opposition deadline, and was granted instead 2
weeks.

The medical and mental health departments are currently working
overtime to transition their sub-contractors to Naphcare, Inc.,
which occurs on June 1, 2022, and which entails switching over the
record keeping system, prescriptions, and revamping policies and
procedures. This transitional process already has County medical
and mental health staff working overtime to make the transition
occur smoothly and on time. The current deadline of May 31, 2022
date is not feasible for Defendant County to file its Opposition
papers given the need to coordinate declarations and exhibits with
short-staffed medical and mental health personnel.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/391E98Q at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Susan E. Coleman, Esq.
          BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
          www.bwslaw.com
          444 S Flower St Ste 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
          Telephone: (213) 236-0600
          Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
          E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Awarded $85K in Costs in Kirola ADA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled IVANA KIROLA, on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 07-cv-03685 SBA (N.D.
Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, grants the Defendants' motion to
review costs and awards them costs in the amount of $85,000.

I. Background

Plaintiff Ivana Kirola, a disabled individual residing in San
Francisco, brought the instant class action against the City and
County of San Francisco and related parties ("Defendants"),
alleging discrimination against mobility-impaired persons based on
the failure to eliminate access barriers at the City's libraries,
swimming pools, parks and public rights-of-way. The operative First
Amended Complaint alleged violations of Title II of the Americans
with Disability Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12132;
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section
794; and state civil rights statutes.

Following a bench trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
were issued, and judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants,
see Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 74 F.Supp.3d 1187
(N.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd in part and rev. in part, 860 F.3d 1164
(9th Cir. 2017). The Plaintiff appealed.

On Dec. 10, 2014, the Defendants filed a bill of costs, requesting
that the Clerk tax costs against the Plaintiff in the sum of
$100,684.49. The Plaintiff filed objections to specific costs, as
well as a motion to deny an award of any costs. Thereafter, the
parties filed a Stipulation Re: Costs, wherein they agreed that a
determination of the Defendants' entitlement to costs be deferred
until resolution of the Plaintiff's appeal. They further agreed
that "in the event that costs are ultimately awarded to Defendants,
and any such award is not limited by factors other than those set
forth in Local Rule 54-3 the proper amount of taxable costs, taking
into consideration Plaintiffs' objections to specific items set
forth in the Bill of Costs, is $85,000." This was adopted as a
stipulated order.

Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment in part, reversed the judgment in part, and remanded with
instructions. On March 12, 2021, an order was issued granting the
Defendants' motion for judgment, and judgment was once again
entered in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff has filed a
notice of appeal.

Following entry of judgment, the Defendants filed a renewed bill of
costs, requesting that the Clerk tax costs against the Plaintiff in
the sum of $100,026.16. The Plaintiff filed Objections to the
Defendants' Bill of Costs, wherein she (1) objected to an award of
any costs under the ADA; (2) objected to specific costs; and (3)
urged the Court to deny or defer payment of costs on equitable
grounds. The Defendants filed a response, arguing that: (1) the
parties' 2014 agreement and stipulated order resolves any
objections to specific costs; (2) costs should be awarded under the
ADA because the action is frivolous, or alternatively, costs should
be apportioned and awarded on the remaining claims; and (3) the
Court should not defer ruling on costs.

Thereafter, an Order re Bill of Costs issued, noting that, pursuant
to the local rules, the Clerk will tax costs after considering any
specific objections to an item of costs claimed in the bill. On
motion, the court may then review the clerk's action (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Because the parties' legal arguments were
directed to the Court, rather than the Clerk, they were better
resolved by way of a motion for review of the Clerk's taxation of
costs.

Accordingly, the Clerk was directed to tax costs in accordance with
Civil Local Rule 54-4, and the parties were directed to file "any
motion for review of the same and/or for any other relief sought by
that party related to an award of costs" within 7 days of the
Clerk's notice taxing costs.

The Clerk taxed costs against the Plaintiff in the sum of
$73,296.28. The Clerk disallowed $26,729.88 in costs, including
$13,238.02 sought for Reporters' Transcripts. The Defendants then
filed the instant motion for review of taxation of costs.

II. Legal Standard

District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong notes that Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that unless a federal statute,
these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than
attorneys' fees--should be allowed to the prevailing party.

III. Discussion

The Defendants argue that: (1) the parties' 2014 agreement setting
taxable costs at $85,000 should be enforced; or alternatively, (2)
an additional $13,238.02 in costs for Reporters' Transcripts should
be allowed. The Plaintiff counters that the parties' prior
agreement no longer controls and that the Clerk properly denied
costs for Reporters' Transcripts.

The parties' 2014 agreement was entered as a stipulated order. The
Defendants argue that, pursuant to the stipulated order, they are
entitled to costs in the amount of $85,000, subject to the
Plaintiff's reserved right to challenge a cost award based on
applicable law or factors other than the standards set forth in
Local Rule 54-3. In other words, the stipulated judgment resolves
any specific objections to individual items of costs.

The Plaintiff counters that the parties' 2014 agreement "resolved
the parties' dispute involving an earlier bill of costs based on a
prior judgment in this case that was partly reversed by the Ninth
Circuit." According to the Plaintiff, the 2014 agreement "has
nothing to do with the Bill of Costs at issue here." The Plaintiff
further contends that, by filing the renewed bill of costs, the
Defendants "effectively repudiated the earlier stipulation, or at
least acknowledged its inapplicability." Had the Clerk taxed costs
in the full amount of $100,026.16, the Plaintiff speculates, the
Defendants would have insisted on collecting the full amount. The
Plaintiff argues that using the prior stipulation as a floor but
not a ceiling is gamesmanship that should not be tolerated.

Judge Armstrong finds that the Plaintiff's arguments are
unpersuasive. First, as acknowledged by the Plaintiff, the costs at
issue in 2014 and today are identical. The Defendants have not
sought to recover any costs incurred on remand. Thus, the
stipulated order controls. Although the Ninth Circuit reversed the
prior judgment in part, judgment now has been entered in the
Defendants' favor once again. As the prevailing party, the
Defendants are now entitled to recover costs in accordance with the
stipulated order.

Second, there can be no plausible allegation of gamesmanship
against the Defendants, Judge Armstrong holds. After the entry of
judgment and prior to filing the renewed bill of costs, the
Defendants' counsel sent the Plaintiff's counsel an email seeking
input on how to present the issue of costs to the Court in light of
the parties' 2014 agreement.

Additionally, in their response to the Plaintiff's objections,
filed before the Clerk taxed costs, the Defendants argued that the
City is "entitled to recover its litigation costs in the amount of
$85,000, as the parties agreed in 2014, after judgment was
originally entered in this case." The Defendants, therefore, have
consistently relied on the stipulated order, not just as a "floor"
to their recovery of costs, but as establishing the proper measure
of costs to be awarded. The Plaintiff's assertion otherwise is
disingenuous and disconcerting, Judge Armstrong points out.

In view of this, the Defendants are entitled to recover costs in
the amount of $85,000 as set forth in the stipulated order, Judge
Armstrong holds. Because the stipulated order controls, the
Defendants' alternative argument regarding the allowance of
individual items of costs need not be reached.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Judge Armstrong ordered that the
Defendants' motion to review costs is granted and the Defendants
are awarded costs in the amount of $85,000. This order terminates
Docket No. 789.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p969xc5 from Leagle.com.


SCOTT OCEL: Fails to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses, Reisdorf Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN REISDORF, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. SCOTT OCEL ENTERPRISES, INC., and SCOTT A.
OCEL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00031-RGE-SHL
(S.D. Iowa, May 31, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from approximately July
2011 to December 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Davenport, IA.

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, they have incurred automobile
expenses for the primary benefit of the Defendants. However, the
Defendants failed to adequately reimburse them due to its
reimbursement policy that reimburses below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation
of its drivers' automobile expenses, the Plaintiff added.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' failure to reasonably
approximate the amount of their drivers' automobile expenses
diminished their net wages beneath the federal minimum wage
requirements. In addition, the Defendants systemic failure to
adequately reimburse their delivery drivers constitutes a
"kickback" to the Defendants, says the suit.

The Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and for
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, litigation costs and
attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court deems fair and equitable.

Scott Ocel Enterprises, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza
franchise stores. Scott A. Ocel is the director of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue, First Floor
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Tel: (515) 281-1460
          Fax: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: harleyerbe@erbelaw.com

SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Ledesma Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YVONNE LEDESMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.;
CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, Case
No. 22STCV03360, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00899 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay double
time wages, failure to include all remuneration when calculating
overtime rate of pay, failure to provide meal periods and pay meal
period premium wages, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks
and pay rest break premiums, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to timely pay final wages, and unfair
competition.

Select Employment Services, Inc. is an employment agency, with its
principal place of business in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

Concentra Health Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Select Medical
Corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas.

Select Medical Corporation is a healthcare company, with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. [BN]

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

                  - and –

         Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com

SHEN BEAUTY: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Sanchez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN SANCHEZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SHEN BEAUTY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02317-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

-- Any motion to amend or to join         June 23, 2022
    additional parties shall be
    filed no later than:

-- Initial disclosures pursuant           June 7, 2022
    to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)
    shall be completed no later
    than:

-- All fact discovery shall be            Sept. 21, 2022
    completed no later than:

-- Initial requests for production        June 23, 2021
    of documents shall be served by:

-- Plaintiff shall file a motion          November 21, 2022
    class certification no later than:

Shen Beauty is a luxury beauty supply store.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFQhsK at no extra charge.[CC]

SOOJIAN INCORPORATED: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soojian,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soojian,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-04439 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Soojian, Incorporated doing busiess as At ak-mak Bakeries --
https://akmakbakeries.com/ -- provides peda bread, dernackly bread,
Arabic bread, and Armenian cracker bread.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes PAGA Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LOUIS C. BERREYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2207291, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 31, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03707 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from employment,
failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to pay reporting
time wages, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized
wage statement provisions, failure to provide suitable seating, and
failure to keep accurate records.

Southern California Gas Company is a utility company based in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
         Richard B. Azada, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
         Telephone: (213) 620-1780
         Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
         E-mail: dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
                 razada@sheppardmullin.com

ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Narrows Class Definitions in Cody Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al. v. CITY
OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (c)(1)(C) Proposing Narrower Class
Definitions and Renewing Motion for Class Certification.

The named Plaintiffs Jasmine Borden, Michael Mosley, Diedre
Wortham, Eddie Williams, and Callion Barnes are appointed as Class
Representatives to represent the Narrowed Pretrial Conditions
Class:

   "All persons who were pretrial detainees in MSI between
    November 13, 2012 and July 1, 2018."

The named Plaintiffs Michael Mosley and Eddie Williams are
appointed as Class Representatives to represent the Narrowed
Pretrial Heat Subclass, defined as follows:

   "All pretrial detainees who were detained in dormitories in
   MSI between November 13, 2012 and July 24, 2017 on days where
   the ambient air temperature in St. Louis, Missouri equaled or
   exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit."

The named Plaintiffs James Cody and Callion Barnes are appointed as
Class Representatives to represent the Narrowed Post-Conviction
Conditions Class and Narrowed Post-Conviction Heat Subclass,
defined as follows:

   Narrowed Post-Conviction Conditions Class:

   "All persons who were post-conviction detainees in MSI
   between November 13, 2012 and July 1, 2018."

   Narrowed Post-Conviction Heat Subclass:


   "All post-trial detainees who were detained in dormitories in
   MSI between November 13, 2012 and July 24, 2017 on days where
   the ambient air temperature in St. Louis, Missouri equaled or
   exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit."

The following firm is appointed as Class Counsel:

          Nathaniel Carroll, Esq.
          Matthew Dollan, Esq.
          Brandon Jackson, Esq.
          Blake Strode, Esq.
          Maureen Hanlon, Esq.
          Jacki Langum, Esq.
          John Waldron, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
          St. Louis, MO 63102

               - and -

          Robert J. Alesi, Esq.
          Gail Rodgers, Esq.
          Dennis Kiker, Esq.
          Saher Valiani, Esq.
          Matthew Riley, Esq.
          DLA PIPER
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m9TLKo at no extra charge.[CC]

ST. MARY PARISH, LA: Protective Order in Boudreaux Partly Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert R. Summerhays of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, sustained in
part and overruled in part the Board's Objection to Magistrate's
Ruling in the lawsuit titled CLAUDE BOUDREAUX, ET AL. v. SCHOOL
BOARD OF ST. MARY PARISH, ET AL., Case No. 6:65-CV-11351 (W.D.
La.).

The Ruling granted in part and denied in part the Board's Motion
for Protective Order, seeking a court order limiting the scope of
the matters for examination noticed by the Plaintiffs.

Before the Court is an "Objection to Magistrate's Ruling," filed by
Defendant, the St. Mary Parish School Board. The Plaintiff Class
has filed an Opposition to the Board's Objection, the United States
of America, as amicus curiae, has filed a Position Statement, and
the Board has filed a Reply.

On Jan. 31, 2022, the Board filed a Motion for Protective Order,
seeking a court order limiting the scope of the matters for
examination noticed by the Plaintiffs. On Feb. 9, 2022, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Ruling granting in part and denying in
part the Board's motion.

Background

On Aug. 31, 1965, five African-American students attending public
schools in St. Mary Parish filed suit for injunctive relief against
the St. Mary Parish School Board and its superintendent, alleging
that Defendants were maintaining racially segregated schools in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The suit was brought "as a class suit on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and on behalf of other Black children and their
parents in St. Mary Parish, similarly situated, all of whom are
affected by the policy, practice, custom and usage complained of
herein."

On Oct. 11, 1965, the Court issued the first of several Decrees and
Orders enjoining the Defendants from continuing to operate a
segregated public school system, implementing desegregation plans,
and requiring the Defendants to submit reports regarding these
efforts to the Court two times each year. In April of 1975 the case
was placed on the "inactive docket," but the Board continued filing
reports until December of 1983. Thereafter, all activity ceased
until the Court reopened this matter in 2012.

Once this matter was reopened, the Court formally certified it as a
class action and modified the class definition as follows:

     (1) All Black students currently enrolled or who will in the
     future enroll in schools operated by the St. Mary Parish
     School Board; (2) all Black students who previously attended
     the foregoing schools and would remain eligible to attend
     such schools, but for the fact they were expelled from such
     schools due to discriminatory policies of the St. Mary
     Parish School Board; and (3) the custodial biological or
     custodial adoptive parents of the foregoing students.

The Court additionally ordered the parties to craft a Plan of Work
"designed to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of this
matter." The parties submitted their Plan of Work on Nov. 12, 2019,
and that plan was subsequently adopted by the Court. Since adoption
of the Plan of Work, the parties have worked diligently to move
this litigation forward, although these efforts were delayed by the
COVID-19 pandemic and governmental closure orders.

On May 18, 2021, the Plaintiff Class issued a deposition notice to
the Board, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6), which set out the
matters for examination. On May 25, 2021, the Board responded to
the Plaintiffs, "objecting to and refusing to designate a witness
to testify concerning the vast majority of the Plaintiff Class'
noticed topics." After several more meetings, the exchange of
several rounds of correspondence, and two rounds of revisions to
the Plaintiffs' topics of examination, the parties were able to
resolve some but not all of the School Board's Objections."

On Jan. 31, 2022, the Board filed a Motion for Protective Order,
seeking a court order limiting the scope of the matters for
examination noticed by the Plaintiffs. On Feb. 9, 2022, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Ruling granting in part and denying in
part the Board's motion. Thereafter, the Board filed its Objection
to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling, and the matter is now ripe for
review.

Discussion

A. Whether the Magistrate Judge's Ruling denying the Board's Motion
for Protective Order with regard to "special education" topics was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The Board seeks reversal of the Magistrate Judge's Ruling denying
it a protective order with regard to the topic of special
education, arguing special education is not relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claim that the Board operates its schools in a manner
that violates the rights of Black students under the Equal
Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Magistrate Judge found that "the topic of special education is
relevant to the analysis of the Green factors," in particular to
classroom assignment, and further found "that the School Board has
not shown good cause to limit the discovery," citing Green v. Cty.
Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty., Va., 391 U.S. 430, 437-38 (1968). The
Board objects to these findings.

The Board argues, among other things, that although special
education is relevant in many desegregation cases, it is not
relevant here, because the general operation of the Board's special
education programs, including evaluating students for disabilities,
has never been at issue before in the case. The Board agrees that
classroom assignment is a relevant issue as the Board cannot
intentionally segregate classrooms, and, therefore, it has no
objection to deposition topics or discovery related to classroom
assignment, special education classes or otherwise. The Board also
argues there is no link between special education and the former
dual education system, because the current federal laws protecting
students with disabilities were enacted after suit was filed in
1965.

The Court notes special education has been a part of the case
since, at the latest, the May 2, 1967 issuance of the first
superseding Decree.

The final superseding Decree, issued on Aug. 4, 1969, retained the
provisions, removing only the reference to the "freedom of choice"
plan in the "Transfers to Special Classes or Schools" provision.
Thus, contrary to the Board's argument that special education is
not relevant to the Green factors in this case, the Court finds
that special education has been relevant to the Plaintiff Class's
claim that the Defendant operates its schools in a manner that
violates the Equal Protection clause almost since the inception of
the suit.

Further, as special education can be relevant to the first Green
factor--student assignment--the Court finds the Plaintiff Class is
entitled to conduct discovery regarding whether disparities exist
in the manner of administering special education services. Such
information is relevant to whether school authorities have complied
with their affirmative obligation to eliminate from the public
schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation to the extent
practicable.

For these reasons, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's Ruling
denying a protective order on the topic of special education.
However, for the reasons set forth here, the scope of the topic
will be modified.

B. Whether the Magistrate Judge's Ruling was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law by denying the Board's motion requesting a
protective order on the grounds that Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6)
topics are vague and overly broad.

The Board argued that a protective order was warranted because "a
number of the Plaintiffs' 30(b)(6) topics include language that
make it impossible for a deponent to be properly prepared to
testify on behalf of the School Board because they include language
that topics 'include, but are not limited to' certain areas and/or
other similar terms that lack specificity." The Magistrate Judge
granted the motion on these grounds in part, finding six of the 13
topics argued by the Board were overly broad and/or vague.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff Class to
"more specifically tailor" those six requests. The Board objects on
the same grounds it argued to the Magistrate Judge, and asks the
Court to order the Plaintiffs to more narrowly and specifically
tailor the remaining seven topics, or alternatively, to remove the
"including but not limited to" language from the requests.

Following a review of the topics to which the Board objects, the
Court finds that the use of the phrase "including but not limited
to" does not provide the "reasonable particularity" that Rule
30(b)(6) requires. Incorporating the phrase "including, but not
limited to" broadens the scope of the specifically enumerated
topics, such that the Board is unable to properly prepare a
designee to testify on its behalf. For these reasons, the Court
will strike the "but not limited to" language from General Topics 3
and 4, and from Faculty and Staff Topics 3, 4, 5, and 14.

The Board additionally objects to General Topic 4, which seeks
information regarding the "planning and execution of Black History
Month programs at each school and districtwide from 2017 to
present." Specifically, the Board asserts "it is unduly burdensome
to require a designee to research an unknown time period for all
schools related to Black History Month" (noting it operates 22
schools), and further contends that this topic is not relevant to
the Plaintiff Class's claims.

Judge Summerhays holds that this objection is overruled. As
explicitly stated in General Topic 4, the inquiry is limited in
time "from 2017 to present." As to the Board's argument that
requiring a response for all schools it operates is unduly
burdensome, the Court finds the Board has failed to support this
objection with the level of specificity required by Rule 26(c).
Merely stating a topic is unduly burdensome is insufficient to meet
the standard of Rule 26(c), Judge Summerhays points out.
Accordingly, this objection is overruled.

Finally, the Board objects to Facilities Topic 5, which seeks
information regarding: "Defendant's efforts, including any policies
and practices, to ensure that its facilities operations comply with
the Desegregation Order, including any attempts to address racial
disparities in facilities and the District's efforts to review
and/or revise facilities procedures from 2017 to present."

The record reflects that the operative Desegregation Order in this
case is the Decree issued on Aug. 4, 1969, as amended by the Orders
issued on Aug. 5, 1970, and June 30, 1971. As to the Board's
statement that the topic calls for "opinions or legal conclusions,"
the Court notes that a corporate designee has the authority to
speak on behalf of the corporation with respect to the areas within
the notice of deposition and that authority extends to facts,
subjective beliefs, and opinions.

The remainder of this objection is overruled due to the failure to
support the objection with the level of specificity required by
Rule 26(c), Judge Summerhays holds.

C. Whether the Magistrate Judge's Ruling was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law with regard to the time period of the Rule 30(b)(6)
topics.

Finally, the Board objects to the Magistrate Judge's Ruling to the
extent it permits discovery into "any pre-2018-19 school year
information," beyond that which is in the record. In the Ruling,
the Magistrate Judge held "as a general rule, the discovery
requests should only cover the time period from the 2018-19 school
year going forward, unless any party can show a particular
relevancy not addressed herein with respect to an earlier time
period."

However, as to those discovery requests, which seek information
allowing for a comparison between where the School Board was in
1975 and where it is now, the time period may exceed three years,
Judge Summerhays notes. The Board objects only to the latter
finding.

The Board contends that all of the Plaintiffs' requests for
discovery should be limited in time to 2018 to present, and to the
extent the parties intend to rely upon information from early time
periods, they should be limited to the Reports filed by the Board
from 1969 to 1983 that are in the record. Essentially, this is what
the Magistrate Judge ordered, Judge Summerhays says. Nevertheless,
with regard to the 30(b)(6) topics that do not set forth a time
frame, the Court will limit the time frame of those topics to 2018
forward.

To the extent the Plaintiffs seek information beyond that
limitation, they may seek leave of court to propound such
discovery, Judge Summerhays states. However, the Court will not
permit the Board to rely on any information prior to 2018 that is
not contained in the record in any motion seeking unitary status or
at trial, absent a showing of good cause or agreement of the
parties.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, the Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Ruling are sustained in part and denied in part. More specifically,
the Court: (1) strikes the "but not limited to" language from
General Topics 3 and 4 and from Faculty and Staff Topics 3, 4, 5,
and 14; and (2) for those topics that do not state a time period,
the Court limits the time frame to 2018 forward.

A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling dated May 16, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bde85xxn from Leagle.com.


STATE FARM: Court Refuses to Stay Schwartz and Palmer Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico denies motions to stay and motions to appoint class
counsel in the lawsuits styled DANA SCHWARTZ, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant; and FREEMAN J. PALMER, and
CHELSEA PALMER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:18-cv-00328-KWR-SCY,
1:19-cv-00301-KWR-SCY (D.N.M.).

The matter comes before the Court upon cross motions to stay and
appoint interim class counsel in two separate but related class
actions. In Schwartz v. State Farm, 1:18-cv-328 KWR-SCY, Plaintiff
Schwartz filed the following:

   * a Motion to Appoint Co-Class Counsel Pursuant to
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2); and

   * a Motion to Stay Palmer v. State Farm, No. 1:19-cv-00301
     KWR/SCY. Because it is Duplicative of the Instant Case.

In Palmer, et al. v. State Farm, et al., 1:19-cv-301 KWR-SCY, the
Palmer Plaintiffs filed:

   * a Motion to Stay Schwartz v. State Farm, 18-cv-328 KWR-SCY;
     and

   * a Motion to Appoint Co-class Counsel Pursuant to
     Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and (g)(1)-(4).

The Schwartz and Palmer Plaintiffs filed cross-motions asserting
that the other competing class action should be stayed as
duplicative. Plaintiff Schwartz asserts that Palmer should be
stayed, while the Palmer Plaintiffs assert that Schwartz should be
stayed. The State Farm Defendants assert that one of the cases
should be stayed or this matter consolidated.

For the reasons stated here, the Court will deny the motions to
stay and motions to appoint class counsel.

The matter is before the Court on two competing and related class
actions filed against the same insurer. These class actions arise
out of a dispute over "underinsured motorist coverage." The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misrepresented or failed to
adequately explain to them and similarly situated class members the
extent of "underinsured motorist" coverage when purchased at the
minimum level of $25,000. The putative classes and the claims in
the two cases are substantially similar.

Judge Riggs notes that courts are cautioned that the power to stay
must not to be exercised lightly, considering a party's "right to
proceed in court should not be denied except under the most extreme
circumstances," citing Commodity Futures Trading Com'n v. Chilcott
Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477, 1484 (10th Cir. 1983). In
exercising such discretion, courts weigh various factors, including
(1) the interests of judicial economy, (2) hardship or inequity if
the movant is required to go forward, (3) harm to the non-movant in
the issuance of a stay, (4) and the public interests at stake.

As to the first factor, judicial economy may not necessarily be
furthered if one case is stayed. Currently, the cases are in the
same procedural posture because of a prior stay, are in the same
discovery stage, and are before the same presiding and referral
judges. Judge Riggs finds that if the Court were to stay one case,
a resolution in one case may not necessarily resolve the other. In
other words, the Court may have to lift a stay at some point, in
which case these cases will not be on the same track. Therefore,
staying one case does not necessarily further judicial economy.

As to the second and third factors, the Court looks to the harm
faced by the parties in granting or denying a stay. The Plaintiffs
seek to stay a case to which they are not parties. Neither party
has cited to cases where parties have done this.

The putative class or putative class representatives are generally
not in danger of harm either way if a class is certified in one of
the cases, Judge Riggs observes. A stay does not benefit the
putative class. As explained here, the parties ask the Court to
predict which case will be more successful at the class
certification stage. If the Court were to predict incorrectly, the
putative class could be harmed.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys face the principal harm in this case,
Judge Riggs says. They clearly do not want to spend litigation
resources if they will ultimately not be appointed as class
counsel. Although the Court is sympathetic, the Court does not
believe that a stay (rather than consolidation) is the appropriate
resolution to this problem.

Judge Riggs notes that the Defendants may suffer harm by having to
defend two simultaneous cases. However, the cases are at the same
procedural posture, before the same presiding and referral judges,
and on the same discovery track. Therefore, the Defendants' burden
has been lessened. The Defendants may face a greater burden if the
Court were forced to stay one case, then, lift the stay.

Plaintiff Schwartz asserts that the first to file rule counsels in
favor of staying the later filed Palmer case. However, the first to
file rule does not appear to apply here, Judge Riggs finds. The
Tenth Circuit has applied the first to file rule in instances where
cases are filed in two separate federal district courts; see Wakaya
Perfection, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Youngevity Int'l, Inc., 910 F.3d
1118, 1124 (10th Cir. 2018). Here, the cases are in the same
district court before the same presiding and referral judges.

The Schwartz case was filed one year before the Palmer case.
However, the Court notes that Palmers' counsel pursued these legal
theories in other earlier cases, and their legal theories and
success in Bhasker spawned a series of other class actions against
other insurers, including Schwartz. Palmers' counsel also obtained
success in a certified question before the New Mexico Supreme Court
in Crutcher v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 1:18-cv-412 JCH (D.N.M),
which guided the Court's ruling in Schwartz and Palmer. Therefore,
it is not obvious that the earlier filed Schwartz case should
proceed, Judge Riggs holds.

Although their case was later filed, the Palmer Plaintiffs assert
they have the superior class action, because (1) their class
definitions are broader and more accurate and (2) they assert
claims against additional State Farm entities under a joint venture
theory. Plaintiff Schwartz disagrees that the Palmer case is
superior. The parties essentially ask the Court to predict which
case will have a greater chance of success at class certification
or on the merits. The Court cannot make such a prediction.

In sum, the Court is asked to decide which class action has the
greatest chance of success at class certification, without any
class certification briefing before it. Moreover, the Court does
not wish to substantially delay one of these cases further. The
Court concludes that the motions to stay are not well taken.

Similarly, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court decide competing
motions to appoint class counsel in order to edge out the competing
counsel. Generally, the Court rules on appointment of class counsel
at the class certification stage, but may appoint interim class
counsel. As the Defendants argue, motions to appoint interim class
counsel are generally accompanied by a motion to consolidate. The
parties did not file a consolidation motion. Because the cases are
not consolidated and neither case is stayed, it would be premature
to appoint interim class counsel at this time. For similar reasons
as stated above, the Court declines to appoint interim class
counsel at this time.

The parties should consider whether consolidation would be the most
equitable solution, Judge Riggs says. If this matter is
consolidated, it may be appropriate to rule on renewed motions to
appoint counsel.

The motions to stay and motions to appoint class counsel in both
cases are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 16, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryp9byz from
Leagle.com.


SUMMIT SAFETY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Safety, LLC.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Summit Safety, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04387 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

Summit Safety, LLC -- http://www.summitsignsafety.com/-- is a
distributor of personal protective equipment based in Brooksville,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUN GROVE FOODS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Grove Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sun Grove Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04434 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Sun Grove Foods -- https://sungrovefoods.com/ -- is a major
importer and manufacturer of high quality extra virgin olive
oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNBELT RENTALS: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV17704 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys
General Act including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from
employment, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide accurately itemized wage
statements, and failure to pay and record sick leave.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a truck driver from
approximately August 2012 through May 2021.

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company
headquartered in Fort Mill, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Gregory Mauro, Esq.
         Michael Calvo, Esq.
         Lauren Falk, Esq.
         Ava Issary, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
         E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

TA OPERATING: Taylor Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARCUS TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TA OPERATING LLC and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 199594, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Shasta to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 31,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00396 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to provide sick pay, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to comply with itemized wage statement
provisions, failure to pay final wages, and unfair business
practices.

TA Operating LLC is a company that owns and operates gasoline
service stations headquartered in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Mia Farber, Esq.
         Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
         Telephone: (213) 689-0404
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
         E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
                 Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com

                 - and –

         Kevin Ha, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Kevin.Ha@jacksonlewis.com

TD BANK: $5.5MM in Attorneys' Fees & Expenses Awarded in Perks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards in the
lawsuit entitled MARY JENNIFER PERKS, MARIA NAVARRO-REYES,
individuals, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
18-CV-11176 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

District Judge Valerie Caproni awards attorneys' fees to Class
Counsel in the amount of $5,446,875, and reimbursement of expenses
for $84,734.

In conjunction with final approval of the class action settlement
of this case, Plaintiffs Mary Jennifer Perks and Maria
Navarro-Reyes have filed a Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Awards. The Motion is unopposed by Defendant
and no Class Member or Attorney General has objected to the
request.

Judge Caproni finds that the parties have engaged in significant
litigation in this class action, which Class Counsel asserts was
one of the first cases in the country to challenge the assessment
of insufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees") on an item that had
previously been returned for insufficient funds (and had an initial
NSF Fee assessed) and was later resubmitted by the merchant for
payment again and charged an additional NSF Fee ("Retry NSF Fees").
Class Counsel asserts that they conducted significant investigation
to formulate the theory of liability reflected in the Complaint and
Amended Complaint.

The settlement obtained by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel includes a
cash Settlement Fund of $20,750,000, debt forgiveness of
$20,750,000, and $500,000 in settlement administration costs paid
by the Defendant. The settlement monies and forgiveness will be
directly distributed to the Class Members, without any claims
process, with the cash component paid by check to former customers
of TD Bank and by a direct account credit to current customers of
TD Bank. Class Counsel estimates that this method of distribution
of settlement proceeds will save more than $193,000 compared to the
settlement administration costs that would have been incurred if
checks had been mailed to all Class Members.

In addition, the Defendant assumed the cost of identifying Class
Members. Class Counsel estimates that, if the value of debt
forgiveness is calculated at 100 cents on the dollar, the value of
the settlement represents a recovery of between 42% and 70% of the
maximum possible recovery at trial. No funds will revert to the
Defendant.

The Plaintiffs request the following amounts to be paid out of the
Settlement Fund: (1) attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount
of $10,375,000 (25% of the sum of the $20,750,000 Settlement Fund
and the $20,750,000 in Fee Forgiveness but 50% of the cash portion
of the Settlement Fund); (2) reimbursement of expenses of
$95,286.87 to Class Counsel, compromised largely of expert witness
fees ($70,350) and mediation costs; and (3) service awards of
$7,500 each to the two Class Representatives ($15,000 total).

Notice of the requested attorneys' fee was provided to the Class
Members and, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, to 55
United States, State, and Territory Attorneys General. None objects
to the amount of attorneys' fees requested.

I. Attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the cash and 5% of the
debt forgiveness provided by the settlement are reasonable in this
case.

The Plaintiffs are requesting attorneys' fees equal to 25% of the
value of cash and debt forgiveness provided by the settlement,
which they say amounts to $10,375,000. In arriving at their
requested fees, Class Counsel treats debt forgiveness -- which
accounts for half of the value of the Settlement Fund -- as the
equivalent of a monetary benefit.

Although the Court agrees that, in certain circumstances, cash and
retirement of debt are economically equivalent, in the context of
this case, the Court disagrees that the debt forgiveness portion of
this settlement should be treated as the economic equivalent of
cash payments to members of the Settlement Class. Because Class
Counsel has provided no evidence that the Defendant ever sought to
collect on the debt that it will now officially "forgive"; because
the statute of limitations has likely run on much of that debt,
rendering it non-collectable even if TD Bank tried to collect it
(the Class is defined to include bank customers who were assessed
repeat NSF fees as early as 1998); and because, for the
approximately 80,000 Settlement Class members that will receive
only "debt relief," their debt to TD Bank will be reduced, but not
eliminated, the Court finds that each dollar of debt forgiveness is
not the functional equivalent to the Class Member as a dollar in
cash.

The Court finds that the $20,750,000 the Defendant will provide in
the form of debt forgiveness, which will average roughly $45.43 per
closed account is worth substantially less to the Class than the
$20,750,000 the Defendant will provide in cash. Given the paucity
of data provided by Class Counsel to assist the Court in evaluating
the true value of "debt forgiveness" to the Class Members, the
Court finds it appropriate to reduce the value to the Class of that
portion of the Settlement to 5% of the stated value, or
$1,037,500.

The Court finds the requested percentage to be in line generally
with attorneys' fees in Class Settlements; the Court simply
disagrees with the assessed value of the Settlement. Viewing the
value of the Settlement as the cash payment of $20,750,000 plus 5%
of the debt forgiveness, or $1,037,500, the total value of the
Settlement to the Class is $21,787,500. The requested 25% of that
value would yield attorney's fees of $5,446,875. Using the current
lodestar represented by Class Counsel, if the Court were to grant
that amount in attorney's fees, the multiplier would be 2.97.

Judge Caproni also finds that a fee of $5,446,875 is appropriate
under the factors courts in the Second Circuit consider, including
the time and labor expended by counsel, and the magnitude and
complexities of the litigation.

Given all of these facts, the Court finds attorneys' fees totaling
$5,446,875 are reasonable.

II. Most of the requested litigation expenses are reasonable.

Class Counsel requests reimbursement of $95,286.87 for actual costs
incurred in connection with the prosecution and settlement of this
action. Although Class Counsel was incentivized only to incur
reasonable and necessary expenses, in one respect the Court finds
that expenses incurred by Class Counsel were not reasonable and
should be reduced.

The Plaintiffs' expert was Arthur Olsen. In a supplemental
affidavit, Mr. Olsen provided his billing records. The records are
bare bones, and provide neither the Court nor Class Counsel with
substantial insight into his activities. The Court appreciates that
there was a substantial amount of "data crunching" required, but
Mr. Olsen's total fee, for an expert who was never deposed, is on
the high side. Upon examination of his monthly invoices it is
apparent that he bills in hour increments, a billing practice that
has not been accepted from attorneys for years.

The Court, therefore, reduces the amount of his fee that is payable
from the Settlement Fund by 15%, which reduces the reimbursement of
that expense to $59,797.50.

III. The requested service awards are reasonable.

Judge Caproni notes that the Plaintiffs invested significant time
in litigating this case on behalf of others and risked their
reputations in doing so by publicly disclosing their personal
financial difficulties. The Plaintiffs provided assistance that
enabled Class Counsel to successfully prosecute this action and
reach the settlement, including: (1) submitting to interviews with
Class Counsel; (2) locating and forwarding responsive documents and
information; (3) providing discovery documents; (4) participating
in conferences with Class Counsel; and (5) with respect to
Plaintiff Perks, sitting for a deposition.

The $7,500 awards sought are within the range awarded in this
Circuit and are reasonable here, Judge Caproni holds.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court approves and awards the following payments
to be made from the Settlement Fund:

   A. Attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of
      $5,446,875;

   B. Reimbursement of expenses to Class Counsel in the amount of
      $84,734.37; and

   C. Service awards of $7,500 to each of the two Class
      Representatives ($15,000 total).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 9, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42zky7e6 from Leagle.com.


TIFFANY & BOSCO: Thomas Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON C. THOMAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIFFANY & BOSCO P.A., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-007936 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., May 31, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an initial written
communication to the Plaintiff on or about August 3, 2021 in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred primarily for a
personal home loan. In its letter, the Defendant has mentioned at
least 4 separate entities which are purportedly connected in some
way with the alleged debt. The Defendant's letter is allegedly
misleading because it has failed to disclose and specify the name
of the creditor to whom the debt is owed in its letter as required
by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2), nor did the Defendant provide
such disclosure within 5 days thereafter. In addition, the
Defendant has included the validation notice with the appropriate
30-day time period for disputing the debt or requesting creditor
information. However, the Defendant also advised the Plaintiff that
payment was due in its Winter Park, Florida office by September 3,
2021 that is less than 30 days from his receipt of the letter. The
Defendant's statement in its letter contradicts the language in the
letter explaining the Plaintiff's validation rights under the
FDCPA, says the suit.

Tiffany & Bosco P.A. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and –

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          Matthew Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Tel: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: Matis@Fight13.com
                  Matthew@Fight13.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Murphy
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIET MURPHY, et al., v.
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00178-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos L. Mazzant entered an order granting
plaintiffs unopposed motion to continue specified pretrial
deadlines as follows:

         Pretrial                  Existing       Requested
         Deadline                  Deadline       Deadline

-- Deadline for Plaintiffs      June 3, 2022   Sept. 2, 2022
    to disclose the names,
    curriculum vitae and
    subject areas of expected
    testimony for all experts
    in support of motion for
    class certification
    pursuant to Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A):

-- Deadline for Defendants      July 1, 2022   Sept. 30, 2022
    to disclose the names,
    curriculum vitae, and
    subject areas of expected
    testimony for all experts
    in opposition to motion
    for class certification
    pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 26(a)(2)(A):

-- Deadline for Plaintiffs     July 15, 2022   Oct. 14, 2022
    to disclose the names,
    curriculum vitae, and
    subject areas of expected
    testimony for all experts
    to rebut Defendants'
    experts (only if
    necessary):

-- Hearing on Motion for      Jan. 12, 2023   April 13, 2023
    Class Certification and
    Daubert Motions to
    Exclude Class
    Certification Experts
    at 9:00 a.m.:

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

A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x5vbzl at no extra charge.[CC]

TRUE MADE FOODS: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against True Made Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. True Made Foods, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04414 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2022).

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

True Made Foods -- https://www.truemadefoods.com/ -- is making
American food nutritious.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


U.S. BANCORP: S.D. Texas Dismisses Claims in Morris Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit titled
VALENCIA MORRIS, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP, Defendant, Case No.
H-22-142 (S.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff Valencia Morris sued U.S. Bancorp under the Texas Debt
Collection Practices Act, alleging that when she makes mortgage
payments online or over the phone, she is charged a fee ranging
from $3.50 to $8. Morris seeks certification of a class of
similarly situated individuals, defined as:

     All persons in the United States (1) with a Security
     Instrument on a property located in the State of Texas,
     (2) that is or was serviced by US, (3) who were charged a
     Pay-to-Pay fee, and (4) whose Security Instrument did not
     expressly allow for the charging of a Pay-to-Pay fee.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Court has subject-matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A).

U.S. Bancorp, identifying itself as U.S. Bank National Association,
moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for failure to state a claim. Morris did not respond.

U.S. Bank has submitted a declaration stating that: (1) U.S. Bank
maintains records of its loan payments and fees; (2) Morris did
incur "convenience fees" ranging from $5 to $11, totaling $114; (3)
the records belonging to the entirety of the proposed class show
that the total amount of Convenience Fees collected from borrowers
with mortgage loans serviced by U.S. Bank and secured by real
properties in Texas since Jan. 13, 2018, is $2,194,854.19. Morris
did not respond to, much less dispute, the declaration.

Judge Rosenthal finds that the undisputed record evidence shows
that the amount in controversy does not exceed $2,194,854.19, which
is well below the $5 million amount in controversy required for
subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Hence, Ms. Morris has not met her burden of demonstrating the
Court's subject-matter jurisdiction.

Judge Rosenthal ruled that U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss is
granted. Morris's claims are dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated May
16, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/44xk5fs9 from
Leagle.com.


UNITED COLLECTION: Pratt Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shaundra Pratt, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Case
No. 2021CH05342 was removed from the Cook County Illinois Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-02813 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

United Collection Bureau (UCB) -- https://ucbinc.com/ -- is one of
the largest contingency collection agencies in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Edward Feinberg, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          One N. Franklin, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 565-1400
          Email: dfeinberg@grsm.com



UNITED PROPANE: Brummett Seeks Issuance of Notice to Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL BRUMMETT, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED PROPANE
GAS, INC. and DCC PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00037-TBR (W.D.
Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing
notice, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), of this action to similarly
situated current and former employees using the following methods:
U.S. Mail and e- mail.

Granting this relief will allow this FLSA collective action to
proceed efficiently and appropriately under this Court's
supervision by ensuring that potential Opt-In Plaintiffs receive
timely notice of their right to join this action to prevent erosion
of their claims by the FLSA's statute of limitations, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Plaintiff requests that this Court authorize notice of this
collective action to the following potential Opt-In Plaintiffs:

   "All current and former salaried employees of Defendants who
   worked at UPG locations on or after January 1, 2020, and who
   were also paid a salary amount lower than $35,568 per year
   (or the weekly ($684) or biweekly ($1,368) equivalent) in at
   least one workweek."

This group is narrowly defined and was subject to a single, common
pay practice that Plaintiffs challenges. Thus, they are clearly
similarly situated under the FLSA, and FLSA notice is warranted,
the lawsuit adds.

United Propane provides propane delivery services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NOyrpD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON
          MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Telephone: (502) 587-2002
          E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com

The Defendant United Propane Gas, Inc., is represented by:

          Chadwick Hatmaker, Esq.
          Keith Coates, Jr., Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT,
          ALLEN & C ARPENTER , PLLC
          P.O. Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
          Telephone: (865) 215-1054
          Facsimile: (865) 215-1015
          E-mil: kcoates@wmbac.com
                  chatmaker@wmbac.com

The Defendant DCC Propane, LLC, is represented by:

          Katharine C. Weber, Esq.
          Ryan M. Martin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          201 E. Fifth Street, 26 Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-898-0050
          Facsimile: 513-898-0051
          E-mail: katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com
                  ryan.martin@jacksonlewis.com

UNITED STAFFING: Filipino Nurses Get Class Status in Magtoles
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY GRACE MAGTOLES, AIRA
C. TAN, ANA MYRENE ESPINOSA, and ANA MERVINE ESPINOSA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STAFFING
REGISTRY, INC. d/b/a UNITED HOME CARE and BENJAMIN H. SANTOS, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01850-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A.
Matsumoto entered an order granting the Nurse Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The court certifies a class of:

   "all Filipino nurses who were employed by the Defendants at
   any time since April 5, 2011 pursuant to an employment
   contract containing a liquidated damages provision, non-
   compete clause, immigration notification provision, and a
   prevailing wage requirement."

The Nurse Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. John J.P. Hawley, Esq. and Mr.
Leandro B. Lachica, Esq., are appointed as co-lead class counsel
pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The Nurse Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), declaratory judgment,
and breach of contract under New York Law.

The Plaintiffs Mary Grace Magtoles, Aira Tan, and Ana Myrene
Espinosa are Filipino nurses who worked for the Defendant United
Staffing Registry, Inc., a healthcare staffing agency owned by
Defendant Benjamin H. Santos.

United Staffing is a staffing agency that recruits nurses and other
professionals to provide healthcare services for its clients in the
New York City area.

Most of the nurses that United Staffing recruits from abroad are
citizens of the Republic of the Philippines.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GKpMSI at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Bid to Appoint Counsel in Schubert v. Strange Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAIAH SCHUBERT, Plaintiff v. CHERYL STRANGE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01070-RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash.), Chief
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denies the Plaintiff's
motion for the appointment of counsel.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a Section
1983 civil action. However, in "exceptional circumstances," a
district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1). To decide whether
exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both "the
likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the
Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the
complexity of the legal issues involved. A plaintiff must plead
facts showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal
issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual
basis of his claims.

Judge Creatura first observes that the case raises similar
allegations to those in Penwell v. Strange, 3:21-cv-05722-RJB-JRC,
in which the Court attempted to appoint counsel for a person
incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Complex who challenged that
institution's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Court
was unable to locate counsel for that plaintiff, despite attempting
to do so from December 2021 to March 2022.

Judge Creatura cannot force the counsel to represent the Plaintiff.
He is not inclined to further delay the case where previous efforts
indicate that attempting to locate pro bono counsel for such claims
will be futile. Even if Judge Creatura could find counsel, however,
he would not appoint counsel in the case for the reasons he
discussed.

First, the case differs in material respects from Penwell. Second,
the Plaintiff cites barriers that are common to pro se prisoners as
justification for his request, but barriers that are common to pro
se prisoners are not sufficient, standing alone, to justify the
appointment of counsel. Thus, Judge Creatura will not appointment
counsel on the basis that the Plaintiff cannot afford counsel, has
only a high school education, and has a limited knowledge of the
law.

The Plaintiff also states that he will be transferred to a camp
where he will not be able to access a law library. However, this
appears to be somewhat speculative, at present, because the
Plaintiff's address remains in the Monroe Correctional Complex.
Moreover, the Defendants assert that there are means to obtain law
library access in such a situation. The Plaintiff asserts that the
claims involved in his case are complex, but Judge Creatura finds
that at least at present, the case is not so complex as to justify
the appointment of counsel where the Plaintiff has not otherwise
shown any exceptional circumstances.

Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied,
although the Plaintiff may renew his motion if matters materially
change so that he is able to establish the exceptional
circumstances justifying such a request.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc74uacj from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Fredrich Files Suit in U.S. Fed. Cl.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Harold Jay Fredrich, and other
similarly situated persons v. USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00582-EMR (U.S.
Fed. Cl., May 27, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Civilian Pay – FLSA for the
Tucker Act.

The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Roy Fabry, Esq.
          THE CARLSON LAW FIRM (RR)
          1717 S. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
          Round Rock, TX 78664
          Phone: (512) 671-7277
          Fax: (512) 238-0275
          Email: jfabry@carlsonattorneys.com


VIVID SEATS: Dennard Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brent Dennard, an individual, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Vivid Seats LLC, Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 30-02022-01256312-CU-FR-CXC was removed
from the Orange County Superior, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on May 27, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01074-CJC-ADS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Vivid Seats Inc. -- https://www.vividseats.com/ -- is an American
ticket exchange and resale company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com
                 khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                 swong@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Alan Hale, Esq.
          Latham and Watkins LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 485-1234
          Fax: (213) 891-8763
          Email: michael.hale@lw.com


WALDEN FARMS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walden Farms, LLC.
The case is styled as Isabel Taveras, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Walden Farms, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04431 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2022).

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

Walden Farms -- https://www.waldenfarms.com/ -- develops healthy
specialty foods, helping people control their calories, fat,
carbohydrates and sugar, without having to give up on great
taste.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Bid to Amend Droesch Suit to Correct Omission Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENISE DROESCH, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek to amend their First Amended Complaint to,
among other things, correct their error in omitting Plaintiff
Droesch from the First Amended Complaint because the Court stayed
her claims rather than dismissed them pending arbitration.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Denise Droesch and Shakara Thompson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, brought this wage and
hour collective and class action against their former employer
Wells Fargo. The Court subsequently granted Wells Fargo's motion to
compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Droesch and certain Opt-in
Plaintiffs, and granted Plaintiff Thompson's motion for conditional
certification under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Following issuance of an FLSA opt-in notice to the 7,257-person
collective, the Plaintiffs moved to amend complaint to add
additional named plaintiffs and an Arizona state law claim. The
Court granted their motion. Four months later, the Plaintiffs filed
the now pending motion to amend the First Amended Complaint.

After carefully considering the arguments and briefing submitted,
Judge Corley concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, vacates
the May 26, 2022 hearing.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs seek to amend their First Amended Complaint to (1)
correct their error in omitting Plaintiff Droesch from the First
Amended Complaint because the Court stayed her claims rather than
dismissed them pending arbitration; (2) add two additional
California representative plaintiffs: Camen Zamarippa and Janisha
Lee Price, and (3) add new claims under California law. Defendant
objects to the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment on the basis of undue
delay and prejudice.

Judge Corley agrees that the Plaintiffs' delay in seeking amendment
to add parties and claims that they were aware of, or should have
been aware of, prior to the last amendment, coupled with the
considerable discovery the parties have undertaken in the interim
and the summary judgment schedule, weighs against allowing the
Plaintiffs to amend their complaint yet again.

III. Conclusion

Judge Corley concludes that the Plaintiffs' unduly delayed in
seeking amendment to add claims which were known or should have
been known at the time of their prior motion to amend and amendment
at this late stage would prejudice the Defendant and the Court's
schedule. She thus exercises her discretion to deny the motion to
amend. However, Judge Corley grants the amendment insofar as it
seeks to correct the Plaintiffs' error and return Plaintiff Droesch
as a named Plaintiff. Her claims, however, remain stayed pending
arbitration.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Corley denies the Plaintiffs'
motion to amend except to correct the omission of Plaintiff Droesch
from the First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs will file their
second amended complaint with the change. The Order disposes of
Docket No. 99.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 25, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4fv45rfn from Leagle.com.


ZENDESK INC: Roe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zendesk, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Jane Roe, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe
III, individually and on behalf of others, similarly situated v.
Zendesk, Inc., Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599855
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 27, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint Other Employment)."

Zendesk -- https://www.zendesk.com/ -- is an American company
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It provides
software-as-a-service products related to customer support, sales,
and other customer communications.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Irina A. Kirnosova, Esq.
          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
          Phone: 310-531-1900
          Fax: 310-531-1901
          Email: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***