---

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

              Thursday, June 16, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 114

                            Headlines

ACE AMERICAN: Florida Court Refuses to Certify Class in MSP Suit
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Denies Bid to Remand Smith Labor Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Eifort Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective
AMERICAN TEXTILE: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Sheet Sets
APYX MEDICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline

ASSESSOR OF GLEN COVE CITY: Kotzky Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in MSP Suit
BELLEVUE, WA: Court Enters Protective Order in Fredrickson Suit
BENEYOU, LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOFI HOLDINGS: $14.1M Class Deal in Securities Suit Wins Prelim. OK

BOISE, ID: Bid to Certify Class in Zeyen v. District # 1 Denied
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Plummer Suit
BUY4LESSTUXEDO.COM INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER: Sykes Files Suit in C.D. California
CAPITAL ONE: Data Breach Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 19

CAREDX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 22 Deadline
DEL TACO: Entered $50M Settlement in Labor Class Suit in Calif.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 1 Deadline
DEXTERITY INC: Eggers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DIGITAL TURBINE: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of August 5 Deadline

DIGITAL TURBINE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 5 Deadline
DUNGAREES INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 2 Deadline
ENSERVCO CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 19 Deadline
EYM PIZZA: Hearn Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jackson Claims
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 21
GMC SKIN CARE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ILLINOIS GASTROENTEROLOGY: Castillo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
INDIQUE HAIR: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

IRVING K MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Williamson TCPA Suit
JAMES LEBLANC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
JPMORGAN CHASE: $185.87MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
KROGER CO: Class Action Suit Over Patches' False Ads Dismissed
LEITERS INC: May Face Class Suit Over Personal Info Data Breach

LOUIS MILUSNIC: Parties Seek to Certify Settlement Class in Garries
LUCKY BUCKS: Ward Sues Over Failure to Pay Service Technicians' OT
MERRICK GARLAND: Clayton Files Suit in D. Columbia
MOWI ASA: Settles Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing for $85-MM
MSP DIGITAL LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NEST FRAGRANCES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OOSHIRTS INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAIGE A. THOMPSON: USA's Consolidated Bids in Limine Partly Granted
PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Settlement Deal in Valladares Wins Final Nod
PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Pay CFRs' OT Wages, Fontenot Suit Claims

PIONEER VALLEY: Acevedo Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Certifies Five Classes in Edwards FLSA Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Hit With Employee Wage Lawsuit Over Kronos Hack
PRESIDIO BRANDS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEBEC: Judge Rejects Government's Effort to Quash Suit Evidence

REALGY LLC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Lindenbaum TCPA Suit
S&P GLOBAL: Court Sets July 31 Deadline on Class Action Opt-Out
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: $21.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 6
SIGNET JEWELERS: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $175M
SYMANTEC CORP: Class Settlement to be Heard on July 7

TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Class Suit for Allegedly Misleading Investors
TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of August 5 Deadine
TESLA INC: Settlement Claim Forms Due on Sept. 17
TEXAS: Mary Sapp Conditionally Appointed as Class Rep
TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Strougo Securities Suit

TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Has Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
VERRICA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action
VICTORIA: Law Firm Dumps Class Suit Over Ambulance-Dispatch Delays
VIP AUTO: Manfredo Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 8 Deadline

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
WEEKS ISLAND: Faces Comeaux Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid OT Wages

                            *********

ACE AMERICAN: Florida Court Refuses to Certify Class in MSP Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-23749-CV-SEITZ (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Patricia A. Seitz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.

I. Background

The Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") Act ensures that Medicare
funds do not cover costs that should be paid by private insurers.
This situation arises where a person is covered by both Medicare
and private insurance. As relevant in the case, for instance, a
Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO") plan beneficiary might be
injured on commercial property where an insurer ultimately accepts
responsibility for the medical expenses. In such cases, the MAO
plan or one of its contracted providers (often termed downstream or
first-tier entities) might have to pay first to cover immediate
medical needs (a "conditional payment" under the Act). Later,
following the individual's settlement with the commercial insurer,
the MAO plan is entitled to seek reimbursement of its conditional
payment from the commercial insurer -- now deemed the "primary
payer" under the Act by virtue of the settlement.

The Plaintiff is not an injured individual, an MAO Plan, or a
downstream or first-tier entity. It is simply an aggregator of MSP
Act claims. It allegedly gains title through assignment to possible
unreimbursed conditional payment claims to collect on them.
Plaintiff functions, in a sense, as a privatized class action
vehicle for MSP Act claims -- not surprising, given the Plaintiff's
name. It acquires by assignment MSP Act claims from individual
entities who might be entitled to reimbursement, but who have
deemed individual pursuit of claims uneconomical, or otherwise find
it undesirable. As one might imagine, the Plaintiff or one of its
affiliates is a frequent litigator in federal courts.

In this instance, the Plaintiff wishes to stand in the shoes of a
downstream entity, Hygea Health Holdings, Inc., with the sole
representative claim in the action relating to a settlement between
R.C. and Defendant. The essential facts about the claim are
undisputed. R.C. was a Medicare beneficiary. R.C. chose to receive
Medicare services through a MAO instead of directly from the
government. The MAO plan was allegedly managed by Wellcare.
Wellcare, in turn, contracted with All Care Management Services to
provide medical services to Wellcare beneficiaries such as R.C.

On Sept. 5, 2012, R.C. cut his forearm on a supermarket's display,
and was billed less than $270 by a West Palm Beach urgent care
facility for his injuries. On May 2, 2013, R.C. settled for $1,000
any liability regarding the bodily injuries, with the Defendant and
the Defendant's insured, Pepsi Co., through the Defendant's
third-party claims administrator ("TPA"), Sedgwick Claims
Management Services. While not clear, after R.C.'s injuries, the
bill for those services appears to have been paid out of an account
managed by Wellcare and the parties contest which legal entity
assumed the financial liability for the medical services rendered
to R.C.

At this point, the Plaintiff finally becomes involved. At some
later time, it is alleged the rights and title to any potential MSP
Act claims, including R.C.'s, became Hygea claims, which Hygea
assigned to the Plaintiff to recoup conditional payments from
primary plans.

As a result of the alleged assignment, the Plaintiff asserts a
private cause of action under the MSP Act's provisions, namely 42
U.S.C. Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), on behalf of itself as an assignee
of Hygea and other downstream entities. It contends that by
entering settlements (like R.C.'s with Sedgwick described above),
the Defendant became the "primary plan" under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y (b)(3)(B)(ii) and, thus, liable for reimbursement of
conditional payments made by MAOs or affiliated entities (in R.C.'s
case, by Hygea) on the underlying medical claims. In addition to
claiming Defendant is liable on the underlying R.C. claim, the
Plaintiff contends that hundreds of other similar claims exist
against the Defendant for which the Plaintiff does not hold title.

II. Discussion

As with any federal action, a plaintiff must have Article III
standing. Next, the proposed class must be "adequately defined" and
"clearly ascertainable." If a plaintiff carries its burden on thee
prerequisites, a plaintiff must, then, meet the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Specifically, all four of Rule
23(a)'s requirements must be met: numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy.

In addition to Rule 23(a), one of Rule 23(b)'s requirements must be
met as well. Rule 23(b)(3) requires that "questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action be superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy."

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant systematically and routinely
fails to reimburse MAOs or related entities for conditional
payments under the MSP Act. With reference to the online Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services MA Plan Directory, it claims that
967 MAOs, along with hundreds of first-tier and downstream
entities, have claims against the Defendant. The Plaintiff contends
it can quickly identify these claims, using a computer-run
proprietary set of protocols, if it can be permitted to analyze
Defendant's data, any of its TPAs' settlement data, and putative
class members' data.

The Plaintiff states that proof of the class member claims can be
accomplished by common evidence. Namely, its search protocols will
eliminate need to litigate individualized liability. In short, when
the matching system is employed, whoever is on the resulting list
is entitled to relief because it represents settled liability
claims with MAO plan beneficiaries where the class member made a
reimbursable payment. Finally, the Plaintiff argues that it has
standing and otherwise satisfies Rule 23's requirements.

The Defendant challenges every aspect of the Plaintiff's Motion. It
rejects standing, charges that the Plaintiff has improperly
expanded and simultaneously defined a fail-safe class, and argues
that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any requirement of Rule
23. The Defendant further contends that the Plaintiff's approach of
relegating to its software the Court's role of determining
liability is improper and has been rejected by other courts.

Judge Seitz holds that the Plaintiff fails to carry its burden
establishing standing. She says, the Plaintiff is correct that
individual issues and its assignee status do not per se disqualify
it as a class representative. In this instance, however, where the
Plaintiff already struggles to identify commonality with putative
class members, these additional issues certainly make it a less
appealing one. As noted, the Plaintiff removed any reference to
assignees from the Complaint's class definition to the Motion's
definition. Thus, it intends on being the only holder of claims by
assignment representing a class that is intended to be exclusively
those with directly held claims. While Plaintiff might be entitled
to stand in the shoes of Hygea, its solo assignee status and
Defendant's specific defenses to R.C.'s claim hinder Plaintiff's
efforts to argue that "a sufficient nexus exists between the claims
of the named representatives and those of the class at large.

Even if it had, Judge Seitz finds that the Plaintiff runs into a
pair of related issues. Under the operative class definition in the
Motion, the proposed class fails under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 because it does not include members with questions
susceptible to common proof, among other issues. On the other hand,
if the Court allowed an alternative definition like that in the
Fifth Amended Complaint in order to avoid Rule 23 issues, fail-safe
issues arise. One of these two outcomes is inescapable.

Thus, the Motion fails because the class definition either requires
liability determination (if the Court reverted to the Complaint's
definition) or results in individualized litigation that fails to
satisfy Rule 23 (under the Motion's operative definition) and, as a
result, steals any class action benefit for the putative class
members, the Defendant, or the the Court.

These conclusions result from, among other things, reviewing
closely an evolution of the proposed class definition, from the
Fifth Amended Complaint, to the following operative definition in
the Motion for Class Certification: "All MAOs and downstream
entities that provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the U.S.
and its territories, who made conditional payments as secondary
payers for medical items and services on behalf of their
beneficiaries who had entered into settlements with the Defendant
under a third-party insurance coverage, such as bodily injury
insurance coverage."

III. Disposition

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3zefe87y from Leagle.com.


ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Denies Bid to Remand Smith Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs v. ADVANCED CLINICAL
EMPLOYMENT STAFFING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-07325-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denies
Plaintiffs Ashley Smith and Donna Chang's motion to remand.

I. Background

On Aug. 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an unverified complaint in
the Santa Clara County Superior Court against the Defendant,
alleging: (1) failure to pay for all hours worked; (2) failure to
pay minimum wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to
authorize and/or permit meal breaks; (5) failure to authorize
and/or permit rest breaks; (6) failure to reimburse
business-related expenses; (7) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (8) waiting time penalties; and (9) unfair business
practices. See Compl. Defendant, an Alabama limited liability
company, is a temporary staffing agency for healthcare facilities
throughout California.

Specifically, the Defendant contracts with healthcare facility
clients to provide travel and/or strike nurses, and separately
enters contracts with individual nurses to satisfy its facility
contracts. The nurse contracts are typically for either a four,
eight, or 12-week term, and provide for either three or four
12-hour shifts per week.

The Plaintiffs were both hired to work as travel nurses in
California. Plaintiff Smith, a resident of Indiana, was hired to
work at O'Connor Hospital in Santa Clara County, California for an
approximately thirteen-week contract assignment starting on Dec.
16, 2019, and ending on March 14, 2020. Plaintiff Smith worked less
than two weeks before she was terminated after she got sick.

Plaintiff Chang, a resident of Ohio, was also hired to work at
O'Connor Hospital in Santa Clara County, California for an
approximately four-week contract assignment starting on March 4,
2019, and ending on March 30, 2019. However, Defendant converted
Plaintiff Chang's position to a non-exempt, hourly-paid nurse
because the hospital she was working at became engaged in a trade
dispute. The Defendant subsequently terminated the Plaintiff on
March 13, 2019.

Each Plaintiff was hired to work 12-hour shifts, and thus received
overtime compensation during their contracts. C

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay all overtime
payments based on two theories. First, with respect to non-strike
travel assignments, they allege that the Defendant adjusted the
"travel stipends" it promised to its employees, including housing,
meals and/or incidental payments, based on the number of hours or
shifts they worked in a given week, but it unlawfully failed to
include the value of those "travel stipends" in its employees'
regular rates of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay.

For example, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant's employment
contract with Plaintiff Smith promised to pay her $2,135 per week
for "housing stipends," but also provided, "the weekly housing per
diem will be paid as a percentage per day based on the number of
days worked during the prior week." Second, with respect to travel
assignments, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant required its
employees to take company provided shuttles to commute to work, but
it failed to compensate them for time spent on those shuttles.

The Complaint does not plead a specific amount in controversy but
seeks to certify a class consisting of "all of the Defendant's
non-exempt employees who were assigned to work at any facility
inside California" from the filing date of the complaint to the
date of class certification. However, the Complaint asserts that
under California Labor Code Section 203 Plaintiffs and other
putative class members must be compensated for "all their unpaid
wages earned and an additional penalty equal to the daily earnings
of such employees up to an amount equal to those owed for 30 days
of work."

On Sept. 20, 2021, based on its assertion that the requisite amount
in controversy to create diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
exceeds $5 million, the Defendant removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
Plaintiffs challenge the sufficiency of the Defendant's evidence,
arguing that the Defendant has not met its burden of showing that
the amount in controversy exceeds the amount required under Section
1332(d).

II. Discussion

The parties do not dispute that the first two requirements of
Section 1332(d) are satisfied. Thus, the only question at issue is
whether the Defendant has proven the amount-in-controversy
requirement. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant unreasonably
and improperly calculates the amount in controversy by relying on
uncredible figures.

Judge Davila disagrees. He finds that the Defendant has met its
burden of demonstrating an amount in controversy greater than $5
million. The Defendant based its calculations on reasonable
assumptions founded in the Complaint. The potential amount in
controversy for unpaid overtime regarding travel stipends amounts
to $4,022,415.36 for 2019 to 2020. Because the Plaintiffs' counsel
has received a similar (and higher) rate in a similar case, the
Defendant's notice of removal properly included attorneys' fees of
25% the aggregate damages. At minimum, this puts an additional
$1,005,603.84 in controversy (25% of the $4,022,415.36). Thus, the
Defendant's calculation of an amount in controversy of at least
$5,028,019.20 is reasonable and satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional
threshold.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila denies the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3833xcd7 from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Eifort Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Eifort,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00363-SMB (D. Ariz.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   A. Conditionally certifying the collective proposed by
      Plaintiff:

      "All hourly-paid Access Team Members since March 9, 2019;"

   B. Approving the use of U.S. Mail and email to distribute
      Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent to Join;

   C. Approving the form and content for use in providing notice
      to the potential collective members;

   D. Directing the Defendant to produce the names and last
      known mailing addresses and email addresses of each
      potential opt-in Plaintiff in an electronically importable
      and malleable format, such as Excel, within seven days
      after this Court's Order is entered;

   E. Allowing for an opt-in period of ninety (90) days, to
      begin seven days after the day that Defendant produces the
      names and contact information for the putative collective
      members, in which putative collective members may submit a
      Consent to Join this lawsuit as an opt-in plaintiff;

   F. Granting the Plaintiff leave to send a follow-up reminder
      Postcard via U.S. Mail or email, beginning 30 days after
      the opt-in period begins, to potential plaintiffs who have
      not responded to the Notice; and

   G. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorneys' fee and grant
      all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid Access Team Member ("ATM")
for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and former hourly-paid ATMs who worked for  Defendant
and who are similarly situated to the Plaintiff, to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Amazon Services LLC offers many of the Web service platforms that
are Amazon offers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xIagUw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Waltman, Esq.
          Sarah K. Watt
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Camelback Esplanade
          2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3600
          Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
          E-mail: jlwaltman@littler.com
                  swatt@littler.com

               - and -

          Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          1900Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: jharpole@littler.com

AMERICAN TEXTILE: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresented Sheet Sets
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that American Textile
Co. inflates the thread count of a Sealy brand sheet set it
manufactures, markets and sells, a new class action lawsuit
alleges.

Plaintiff James Bruno claims the Sealy Premium Comfort 1250 thread
count sheet sets have an actual thread of only 223.

Bruno argues Sealy used its own method of counting thread counts
rather than the standard set by the industry.

"By counting the plied yarns individually, the Product's thread
count is inflated by several times over what it would be if
industry standard methods were used," the Sealy class action
states.

Bruno claims consumers purchased a worse sheet set product than
they otherwise would have if Sealy had not allegedly inflated its
thread count.

"The Product was of lower quality, softness, comfort, durability
and longevity than they otherwise would if they were the
represented thread count and quality as stated on the labeling,"
the Sealy class action states.

Sealy sheet set class action alleges product worth 'materially
less' Bruno claims the value of the Sealy sheet set was "materially
less" than what was represented, which ultimately misled
"reasonable consumers."

Bruno alleges Sealy is guilty of fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and unjust enrichment and in violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, multiple state consumer fraud
acts and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

Bruno wants to represent an Illinois class and multistate consumer
fraud subclass of individuals who have purchased a Sealy Premium
Comfort 1250 thread count sheet set.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with monetary and statutory and/or punitive
damages for himself and all class members.

In 2020, consumers filed a separate lawsuit against several
mattress companies, including Serta, over claims they committed
state and federal antitrust law violations by making allegedly
false and defamatory statements to the government and public.

Have you purchased a Serta Premium Comfort 1250 thread count sheet
set? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan &
Associates PC.

The Sealy sheet set class action lawsuit is Bruno v. American
Textile Co. Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02937, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]

APYX MEDICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of August 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 5, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Apyx Medical Corporation ("Apyx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: APYX) securities between May 12, 2021 and March
11, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Apyx investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/apyx-medical-corporation-1/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On March 14, 2022, Apyx disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would be posting a Medical Device Safety
Communication ("MDSC") related to the Company's Advanced Energy
Products. The Company further disclosed that "[b]ased on our
initial interactions with the FDA, we believe the Agency's MDSC
will pertain to the use of our Advanced Energy products outside of
their FDA-cleared indication for general use in cutting,
coagulation, and ablation of soft tissue during open and
laparoscopic surgical procedures."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $4.02, or 40.6%, to close at
$5.88 per share on March 14, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that a significant number of Apyx's Advanced Energy
products were used for off-label indications; (2) that such
off-label uses led to an increase in the number of medical device
reports filed by Apyx reporting serious adverse events; (3) that,
as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur regulatory
scrutiny; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Apyx securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 5, 2022
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

ASSESSOR OF GLEN COVE CITY: Kotzky Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
City of Glen Cove, et al. The case is styled as Helen Kotzky, all
other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioners v. The Assessor of the City of Glen Cove, The Board of
Assessment Review of the City of Glen Cove, Respondents, Case No.
607312/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 7, 2022).

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

Glen Cove -- https://glencoveny.gov/ -- is a city in Nassau County,
New York, United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Arielle Carla, Esq.
          132 Spruce Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516


AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Certify Classes in MSP Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS
SERIES 44, LLC, Plaintiffs v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
SOUTHERN-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 17-23841-CV-SEITZ (S.D. Fla.), Judge Patricia
A. Seitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs, as assignees of Medicare Advantage Organizations
("MAOs) and downstream entities, bring the putative class action to
recover from the Defendants, no-fault auto insurers, automobile
accident-related medical payments the MAOs and downstream entities
allegedly paid on a conditional basis. The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants were obligated to pay these conditional payments but
did not. They seek not only reimbursement but also double damages
from the Defendants.

In their Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages ("SAC"),
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants systematically failed to
repay Medicare liens, in violation of the Medicare Secondary Payer
Act ("MSPA". They assert a private cause of action for double
damages under the MSPA's provisions, namely 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(A).

The elements of the private cause of action are: 1) a defendant's
status as a primary plan; 2) a defendant's failure to provide for
primary payment or appropriate reimbursement; and 3) damages. The
SAC alleges that Defendants' no-fault and liability policies are
primary plans, which render Defendants primary payers for
accident-related medical expenses under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(B)(ii).

The SAC identifies several assigned representative entities, such
as AvMed, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Health
Alliance Medical Plans, Inc., and Health First Health Plans, Inc.
The Plaintiffs also list 67 exemplars of these entities' claims for
1) unreimbursed Medicare liens; 2) liens arising from settlements;
and 3) liens arising from no-fault policies. Thus, the Plaintiffs
maintain Defendants are liable to MAOs and downstream entities for
reimbursement of conditional payments.

The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. The Motion is fully briefed.

The Plaintiffs' definitions of the two putative classes have
evolved. They explained the reason for the change was to
"streamline and clarify" the class membership and to remove any
link between membership and liability to avoid impermissible
fail-safe class definition.

In the SAC, the Plaintiffs assert two putative class definitions:

     a. Contractual Obligations Class: All non-governmental
organizations, and/or their assignees, that provide benefits under
Medicare Part C, in the United States of America and its
territories, who made payments for automobile accident-related
medical items and services on behalf of their beneficiaries, for
which the Defendants have provided no-fault insurance coverage
related to the medical items and services involving automobile
accidents, and for which the Defendants have not reimbursed in full
or in part.

     b. Settlement Class: All non-governmental organizations,
and/or their assignees that provide benefits under Medicate Part C,
in the United States of America and its territories, who made
payments for medical items and services on behalf of their
beneficiaries for which Defendants have not reimbursed in full or
part after Defendants entered into settlement with Medicare
Beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification offers two new class
definitions:

      a. The No-Fault Class: All MAOs and downstream entities that
provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States of
America and its territories, who made conditional payments as
secondary payers for automobile accident-related medical items and
services on behalf of their beneficiaries who also had first-party
insurance coverage, such as no-fault and medical payments insurance
coverage, with the Defendants.

     b. The Settlement Class: All MAOs and downstream entities that
provide benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States of
America and its territories, who made conditional payments as
secondary payers for medical items and services on behalf of their
beneficiaries who also had third-party insurance coverage, such as
bodily injury insurance coverage, with the Defendants.

II. Discussion

A proposed class must first be "adequately defined and clearly
ascertainable." If this prerequisite is met, courts then turn to
the four requirements of Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation. A plaintiff must also
meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). To
certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class action, questions of law or fact
common to class members must predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and the class action must be
"superior to other available methods."

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of plaintiffs comprised of
MAOs and downstream entities that made conditional payments for
automobile-accidents medical claims, or in settlement of those
claims, on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who also had insurance
coverage with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that the action is appropriate for class
action because proof of the class member claims can be accomplished
by common evidence. Namely, they assert that its proprietary data
search protocols, which include the use of their software, will
eliminate need to litigate individualized liability. According to
them, when their matching system is employed, whoever is on the
resulting list is entitled to relief because it represents either
no-fault insurance covered claims or settled liability claims with
MAO plan beneficiaries where the class member made a reimbursable
payment. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that they otherwise satisfy
Rule 23's requirements.

The Defendants charge that the Plaintiffs have improperly expanded
and simultaneously defined a fail-safe class. They also argue that
the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy any requirement of Rule 23.

Judge Seitz has considered the foregoing, the record, and the
applicable law. She holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to define
the classes in a manner which are ascertainable and adequately
defined. Further, reasonable interpretations of the class
definitions result in individualized attention to defenses to
liability or offsets on reimbursable amounts. As such, the
Plaintiffs have not satisfied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Rule 23 requirements.

III. Conclusion

At bottom, for the reasons she discussed, Judge Seitz concludes
that the action is not suited for class-action management and
resolution. The Plaintiffs are unable to meet their initial burden
of demonstrating that the class is ascertainable and adequately
defined. The class definitions either determine liability or result
in individualized attention to defenses to liability, which runs
afoul of the Rule 23 requirements.

Therefore, Judge Seitz denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and denies as moot their Motion for Hearing on this
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8nussauz from Leagle.com.


BELLEVUE, WA: Court Enters Protective Order in Fredrickson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LACEY FREDRICKSON; JOHN AND JANE DOES ARRESTEES, as
Members of the Class Action, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF BELLEVUE; SOUTH
CORRECTION ENTITY (a/k/a "SCORE"), Defendants, Case No.
C21-1517-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
enters the Parties' Stipulated Protective Order.

Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information or tangible
materials of the parties (and third parties) falling within the
ambit of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), for which special protection may be
warranted ("Confidential Material"). Accordingly, the parties
stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated
Protective Order, which will apply to all discovery in the action,
including third-party discovery.

The protections conferred by the agreement cover not only
Confidential Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Confidential Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Confidential Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by parties or their
counsel that might reveal Confidential Material. However, the
protections conferred by this agreement do not cover information
that is in the public domain or becomes part of the public domain
through trial or otherwise.

Any party or non-party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time. The parties must make every attempt to
resolve any dispute regarding confidential designations without
Court involvement. If the parties cannot resolve a challenge
without Court intervention, the designating party may file and
serve a motion to retain confidentiality under Local Civil Rule 7
(and in compliance with Local Civil Rule 5(g), if applicable).

If a receiving party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it
has disclosed Confidential Material to any person or in any
circumstance not authorized under this agreement, the receiving
party must immediately (a) notify in writing the designating party
of the unauthorized disclosures, (b) use its best efforts to
retrieve all unauthorized copies of the protected material, (c)
inform the person or persons to whom unauthorized disclosures were
made of all the terms of this agreement, and (d) request that such
person or persons execute the "Acknowledgment and Agreement to Be
Bound."

Within 45 days after the termination of the action, including all
appeals, each receiving party must destroy or return all
confidential material to the producing party, including all copies,
extracts and summaries thereof if such material is not required to
be retained pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act or any
other law.

Subject to the foregoing, the parties may agree upon appropriate
methods of destruction. A signed, written confirmation of
compliance with this paragraph will be made by all parties and
their counsel of record within 60 days of the final termination of
this action, including all appeals.

The confidentiality obligations imposed by this agreement will
remain in effect until a designating party agrees otherwise in
writing or court orders otherwise.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p959vzk from
Leagle.com.


BENEYOU, LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BeneYOU, LLC. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BeneYOU, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04702
(S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

BeneYOU -- https://beneyou.com/ -- provides a comprehensive line of
nutritional and beauty products that support a total approach to
health, from the inside out.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


BOFI HOLDINGS: $14.1M Class Deal in Securities Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:15-CV-02324-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order:

   a. conditionally approving the Proposed Notice Form, subject
      to the revisions consistent with the Court's Order, and the
      Proof of Claim Form;

   b. approving the Plan of Allocation detailed by the Plaintiff
      and the Class Counsel in their moving papers; and

   c. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' settlement of
      the class action.

I. Background

On Oct. 13, 2015, former BofI auditor Charles Matthew Erhart filed
a federal whistleblower complaint. As Plaintiff detailed in the
Third Amended Complaint ("TAC), the New York Times reported about
Mr. Erhart's whistleblower complaint, and the BofI stock declined
by 30% between Oct. 13, 2015 and Oct. 14, 2015 dropping from a
closing price of $35.50 to $24.78. Several BofI investors commenced
putative class actions following the filing of the Erhart
Complaint.

The Court consolidated the actions and appointed Houston Municipal
Employees Pension System ("HMEPS" or "Plaintiff") as the Lead
Plaintiff and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as the lead
counsel for the consolidated class. On April 11, 2016, the
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC").

On May 11, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss the CAC as to all
claims for failure to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter. On
Sept. 27, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). On Dec. 23, 2016, the Defendants moved to dismiss the SAC,
as to all claims, for failure to plead falsity and scienter. On May
23, 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part the
Defendants' motion. On June 20, 2017, the Defendants filed an
Answer to the SAC.

On Sept. 29, 2017, the Defendants moved for judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the Plaintiff failed to
sufficiently allege loss causation. On Dec. 1, 2017, the Court
granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims
with leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed the TAC on Dec. 22, 2017. The TAC alleges BofI
made material misrepresentations relating to (1) BofI's internal
controls, compliance infrastructure, and risk management; (2) the
Bank's underwriting standards and loan credit quality; and (3)
government and regulatory investigations. On Jan. 19, 2018, the
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing again that the
Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege loss causation. On March
21, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion, dismissed the
action with prejudice, and entered judgment against the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff appealed the Court's dismissal and entry of judgment
to the Ninth Circuit. On Oct. 8, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its
opinion, reversing and remanding in part. It denied the Defendants'
petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. The
Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United
States Supreme Court which was denied on Oct. 4, 2021.

Following the Ninth Circuit's remand to the Court, the Court
directed the Parties to begin discovery. At the time the Parties
reached a settlement in principle, three motions regarding
objections to rulings on discovery disputes were pending before the
Court.

On May 28, 2021, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class of
investors. The Defendants opposed the motion. On Aug. 20, 2021, the
Court held a hearing on the motion.

On Aug. 24, 2021, it issued an Order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification. The Order certified a Class
consisting of "all persons and entities that, during the period
from Sept. 4, 2013 through Oct. 13, 2015, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of
BofI, as well as purchasers of BofI call options and sellers of
BofI put options, and were damaged thereby." The Court also
appointed HMEPS as Class Representative, and Lieff Cabraser as
Class Counsel. The Court approved the Plaintiff's proposed notice
plan and directed notice to the Class on Dec. 2, 2021. The notice
period concluded on March 21, 2022. The Class Counsel received only
nine requests for exclusion, only one of which was a timely
request.

In late 2021, the Parties retained the Honorable Daniel Weinstein
(Ret.) of JAMS to explore settlement. On Jan.  13, 2022, the
parties held a mediation session with Judge Weinstein over Zoom.
They communicated through Judge Weinstein thereafter about
potential resolution of the action.

On Feb. 23, 2022, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle all claims in the matter. They notified the Court of the
settlement, and the Court issued an order vacating all deadlines,
scheduling orders, and motion hearings in the action. On Feb. 28,
2022, the parties signed a Term Sheet "reflecting the material
terms of the agreement" which was modified on March 7, 2022. On
April 13, 2022, the parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Amount of $14.1
million to a common Settlement Fund on behalf of the
already-certified Class. The Settlement Agreement provides that the
total Settlement Amount will be used to pay: (a) any Taxes; (b) any
Notice and Administration Costs; (c) any Fee and Expense Award
awarded by the Court. The balance remaining in the Settlement Fund
(the Net Settlement Fund) will be distributed to Authorized
Claimants. No portion of the $14.1 million Settlement Fund will
revert to the Defendants. After the deduction of notice-related
costs and Court-approved award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of
litigation expenses, and service award to HMEPS as the Class
Representative, the Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro
rata basis to all the Class Members.

The Plaintiff also seeks appointment of JND Legal Administration to
serve as Settlement Administrator. The Court previously appointed
JND to serve as the Notice Administrator in its order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for issuance of class notice.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement. The Defendants filed a Statement of
Non-Opposition. On June 3, 2022 the Court held a hearing on this
matter.

II. Conclusion

Judge Curiel finds that the Settlement Agreement is an adequate,
fair, and reasonable resolution to the action. Accordingly, he
grants the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

Judge Curiel conditionally approves of the Proposed Notice Form
subject to revisions consistent with the Court's instructions at
the hearing on the matter, and the Order. The Plaintiff is
instructed to re-submit a Proposed Notice Form that clarifies the
deductions for all fees and costs, including fees for the Claims
Administration.

The Judge approves (i) the Proof of Claim Form and (ii) the Plan of
Allocation detailed by the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel in their
moving papers.

Judge Curiel preliminary approves the Parties' Settlement Agreement
to resolve this Action, subject to further consideration at the
Final Approval Hearing.

The Court previously certified a Class on Aug. 24, 2021, which is
defined in the Court's Class Certification Order.

Judge Curiel will hold a Settlement Hearing Oct. 7, 2022 at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 2D. The hearing will take place at: United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Edward J.
Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA
92101.

The Class Counsel is authorized to retain JND Legal Administration
(the Claims Administrator) to supervise and administer the notice
procedure in connection with the proposed Settlement as well as the
processing of Claims. The Notice will be given follows:

      a. not later than 21 calendar days after the date of entry of
this Order (the Notice Date), the Claims Administrator will cause a
copy of the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (Claim
Form), substantially in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits A-1
and A-2, respectively, to be mailed by first-class mail to
potential Class Members at the addresses set forth in the records
provided by BofI or in the records which BofI caused to be
provided, or who otherwise may be identified through further
reasonable effort;

      b. contemporaneously with the mailing of the Notice and Claim
Form, the Claims Administrator will cause copies of the Notice, the
Summary Notice, and the Claim Form to be posted on a website to be
developed for the Settlement, from which copies of the Notices and
Claim Form can be downloaded;

      c. note later than 10 calendar days after the Notice Date,
the Claims Administrator will cause the Summary Notice,
substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A-3, to be
published in PRNewswire and Investors Business Daily; and

      d. not later than seven calendar days prior to the Settlement
Hearing, Class Counsel will serve on the Defendants' Counsel and
file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such
mailing and publication

Judge Curiel (a) approves, as to form and content, the Notice, the
Claim Form, and the Summary Notice. Brokers and other nominees who
purchased or otherwise acquired BofI common stock shares, or
purchased BofI call options or sold BofI put options, during the
Class Period for the benefit of another person or entity shall: (a)
within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, request from the
Claims Administrator sufficient copies of the Notice and Claim Form
to forward to all such beneficial owners/purchasers and within
seven calendar days of receipt of those Notice and Claim Form
forward them to all such beneficial owners/purchasers; or (b)
within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Notice, send a list of
the names, addresses, and/or email addresses of all such beneficial
owners/purchasers to the Claims Administrator in which event the
Claims Administrator will promptly mail/email the Notice and Claim
Form to such beneficial owners/purchasers. Where the Claims
Administrator receives a valid email address, they will email the
Notice and Claim Form to beneficial owners/purchasers.

Upon full compliance with the Order, such nominees may seek
reimbursement of their reasonable expenses actually incurred in
complying with this Order, in an amount not to exceed $0.50 plus
postage; or $0.05 per transmitted by email; or $0.05 per name,
mailing address, and email address (to the extent available)
provided to the Claims Administrator, by providing the Claims
Administrator with proper documentation supporting the expenses for
which reimbursement is sought. Such properly documented expenses
incurred by nominees in compliance with the terms of this Order
will be paid from the Settlement Fund, with any disputes as to the
reasonableness or documentation of expenses incurred subject to
review by the Court.

In order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the
Settlement Fund, in the event the Settlement is effected in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation, each claimant will take the following actions and be
subject to the following

      a. A properly completed and executed Claim Form must be
submitted to the Claims Administrator, at the post office box
indicated in the Notice and Claim Form, postmarked no later than 30
days after the Settlement Hearing. Such deadline may be further
extended by Order of the Court. Each Claim Form will be deemed to
have been submitted when legibly postmarked (if properly addressed
and mailed by first-class mail). Any Claim Form submitted in any
other manner will be deemed to have been submitted when it was
actually received by the Claims Administrator at the address
designated in the Notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Class
Counsel will have the discretion (but not an obligation) to accept
late-submitted claims for processing by the Claims Administrator so
long as distribution of the Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants
is not materially delayed thereby, but will bear no liability for
failing to accept such late claims.

      b. The Claim Form submitted by each Class Member must satisfy
the following conditions: (i) it must be properly filled out,
signed, and submitted in a timely manner in accordance with the
provisions of the preceding subparagraph; (ii) it must be
accompanied by adequate supporting documentation for the
transactions reported therein, in the form of broker confirmation
slips, broker account statements, an authorized statement from the
broker containing the transactional information found in a broker
confirmation slip, or such other documentation as is deemed
adequate by the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel; (iii) if the
person executing the act on behalf of the Class Member must be
provided with the Claim Form; and (iv) the Claim Form must be
complete and contain no material deletions or modifications of any
of the printed matter contained therein and must be signed under
penalty of perjury.

      c. Once the Claims Administrator has considered a timely
submitted Claim Form, it will determine whether such claim is
valid, deficient, or rejected. For each claim determined to be
either deficient or rejected, the Claims Administrator will send a
deficiency letter or rejection letter as appropriate, describing
the basis on which the claim was so determined. Persons who timely
submit a Claim Form that is deficient or otherwise rejected will be
afforded a reasonable time (at least 20 calendar days) to cure such
deficiency if it will appear that such deficiency may be cured.

      d. For the filing of and all determinations concerning their
Claim Form, each Class Member will submit to the jurisdiction of
the Court.

Any member of the Class may enter an appearance in the Action, at
their own expense, individually or through counsel of their own
choice. If they do not enter an appearance, they will be
represented by Class Counsel.

Any Class Member who wishes to exclude himself, herself, or itself
from the Class must request exclusion from the Class in a timely
and proper manner, as follows:

      a. A Class Member must request exclusion in writing within
the time and in the manner set forth in the Notice, which will
provide that: (a) any such request for exclusion from the Class
must be mailed or delivered such that it is received by the Claims
Administrator no later than 60 calendar days following entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order; and (b) each request for exclusion must
(i) state the name, address, and telephone number of the person or
entity requesting exclusion, and in the case of entities, the name
and telephone number of the appropriate contact person; (ii) state
that such person or entity requests exclusion from the Class in In
Re BofI Holding Inc. Securities Litigation, 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC,
(iii) state the number of BofI common stock shares, or put or call
options, that the person or entity requesting exclusion
purchased/acquired and/or sold during the Class Period, as well as
the dates and prices of each such purchase/acquisition and sale;
and (iv) be signed by the person or entity requesting exclusion or
an authorized representative. A request for exclusion will not be
effective unless it provides all the required information and is
received within the time stated above or is otherwise accepted by
the Court.

      b. A Class Member that requested exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice will be excluded from the Class
and need not request exclusion again in connection with the
provisions of paragraph 12(a).

Any Person that has requested exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice may elect to opt-back into the
Class. By opting back into the Class, such Person will be eligible
to submit a Claim Form for payment from the Settlement Fund. Any
such Person who wishes to opt-back into the Class must either,
individually or through counsel, request to opt-back into the Class
in writing to the Claims Administrator within the time and in the
manner set forth in the Notice, which provides that any such
request to opt-back into the Class must be mailed or delivered such
that it is received no later than 6) calendar days before the
Settlement Hearing, at the address set forth in the Notice. Each
request to opt-back into the Class must: (a) provide the name,
address and telephone number of the person or entity requesting to
opt-back into the Class; (b) state that such person or entity
requests to opt-back into the Class in in In Re BofI Holding Inc.
Securities Litigation, 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, and (c) be signed by
the person or entity requesting to opt-back into the Class or an
authorized representative.

Any Class Member who does not request exclusion from the Class may
enter an appearance in the Action, at his, her or its own expense,
individually or through counsel of his, her or its own choice, by
filing with the Clerk of Court and delivering a notice of
appearance to both Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, at the
addresses set forth, such that it is received no later than 21
calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, or as the Court may
otherwise direct. Any Class Member who does not enter an appearance
will be represented by Class Counsel.

Any Class Member who does not request exclusion from the Class may
file a written objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed
Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for a Fee and
Expense Award (including reimbursement of the reasonable costs and
expenses, including time, to Lead Plaintiff) and appear and show
cause, if he, she or it has any cause, why the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the requested Fee and Expense
Award (including reimbursement to Lead Plaintiff) should not be
approved.

Until otherwise ordered by the Court, the Court stays all
proceedings in the Action other than proceedings necessary to carry
out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Upon
requesting and receiving permission from the Court, the Escrow
Agent may disburse all reasonable costs (up to $350,000) incurred
in notifying Class Members of Settlement and administering the
Settlement.

The Class Counsel is authorized and directed to prepare any tax
returns and any other tax reporting form for or in respect to the
Settlement Fund, to pay from the Settlement Fund any Taxes owed
with respect to the Settlement Fund, and to otherwise perform all
obligations with respect to Taxes and any reporting or filings in
respect thereof without further order of the Court in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the Stipulation.

The following schedule will govern Class Counsel's motion for final
approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and Class
Counsel's request for a Fee and Expense Award: The Class Counsel's
motion for final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation,
and any responses to any Class Member objections will be filed 28
days before the Settlement Hearing.

The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications
arising out of or connected with the Settlement.

The Court's orders entered during the Action relating to the
confidentiality of information will survive the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4m4tzzb7 from Leagle.com.


BOISE, ID: Bid to Certify Class in Zeyen v. District # 1 Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE ZEYEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. BOISE DISTRICT #1,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-207-RCT (D. Idaho), Judge
Richard C. Tallman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho denies with prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs brought the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
seeking declaratory relief, monetary relief, and class
certification to litigate on behalf of the proposed class of
patrons of public school districts and charter schools in the State
of Idaho who have paid school fees allegedly assessed by
Defendants. Relying on the Idaho Supreme Court's decision in
Paulson v. Minidoka County School District No. 331, 463 P.2d 935
(Idaho 1970), the Plaintiffs contend that certain categories of the
fees assessed by the Defendants have been charged in violation of
the State of Idaho's constitutional mandate that the State provide
"free common schools," Idaho Const., art. IX, sec. 1, and therefore
such fees constitute a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, applied to the States
by the Fourteenth Amendment.

This long-running dispute has spanned decades and a number of
judicial fora, and the parties' familiarity with these prior
proceedings is assumed. The Court therefore limits its discussion
to those facts relevant to the disposition of the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the proposed class.

The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on Nov. 13,
2019. The case was subsequently stayed pending the results of
related actions filed in Boise's Ada County District Court, and on
April 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of an order
certifying the class, or, alternatively, requested a hearing date
on their motion.

The Court (Hon. B. Lynn Winmill, presiding) denied the motion for
class certification at that stage of the litigation but granted the
request for a hearing date and lifted the stay. Following oral
argument and consideration of the parties' filings, the Court
denied, without prejudice, the motion for class certification of
all students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade in public
and charter schools in Idaho, and their parents and/or guardians,
since school year 2014-2015.

The Plaintiffs amended their complaint and subsequently filed a
renewed motion for class certification on Nov. 16, 2021. In support
of their renewed motion, the Plaintiffs included the expert reports
and accompanying materials of Doctors Russell Joki and Robert
Ranells. The Defendants opposed the renewed motion and additionally
moved to strike both expert reports. Adhering to established Ninth
Circuit precedent, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to
strike the expert reports at the class certification stage but
indicated that it would consider the arguments set forth in
Defendants' motions when determining what weight, if any, to
ascribe to the expert reports when evaluating the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification.

On the merits of class certification, the Plaintiffs argue they
have now satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 by identifying four
categories of impermissible fees which have allegedly been assessed
in violation of the Idaho Constitution: Category 1 ("Fees
associated with normal academic curriculum offerings with credit
toward graduation"); Category 2 ("Fees associated with
co-curricular (i.e., in addition to the normal course of study)
offerings with credit, often including a performance"); Category 3
("Fees associated with educational activities for which separate
credits are not offered but which bear the imprimatur of the school
and which are 'part of the entire educational product,' including
but not limited to field trips, school clubs, and STEM study
groups"); Category 4 ("Fees generally imposed on all students
whether they participate in extra-curricular activities or not,
such as registration fees, textbook fees, computer fees, locker
fees, or parking lot fees").

These proposed categories of fees are not used by the schools, but
rather are the product of the Plaintiffs' experts who have examined
the Paulson decision and placed items in each category based on an
undisclosed methodology developed by Dr. Joki. The Plaintiffs'
theory is that these four categories of fees are unconstitutional
to assess, and the fees charged each year can be grouped into one
of these four categories.

The fees assessed vary between school districts and even among
schools within districts, resulting in thousands of different fees.
The Plaintiffs do not argue there is any commonality between the
fees other than that they were allegedly unconstitutionally
assessed by the defendant school districts and charter schools; nor
does the Court perceive any.

Having identified these groups of fees, the Plaintiffs rely on
their expert, Dr. Joki, to review the fees levied by three named
defendant School Districts--Bonneville, Pocatello, and West
Ada--and to classify the fees students allegedly paid according to
the expert's proposed categories. Dr. Joki's report purports to
have determined which fees are constitutional under the Idaho
Constitution by reference to the proposed categories. Dr. Joki does
not explain how he determined which fees belong in which category,
nor how he made the calculations, and provides the Court only with
a sum of what he calculates the total value of the unconstitutional
fees to be: "Based on my findings, above, I believe Bonneville,
Pocatello, and West Ada school districts charged and collected, at
minimum, the unconstitutional fees during fiscal years 2012-2018"
of $11,467,091, $8,056,486, and $4,854,370, respectively. According
to the Plaintiffs, the "unrefuted expert report of Dr. Joki
establishes that such unconstitutional fees have been levied by
each of the three school districts involved."

Following oral argument, at which the Court attempted to probe for
answers to its concerns regarding the scope and management of the
litigation, and the proposed method of assessing constitutionality
and damages, the Plaintiffs filed what they referred to as a Notice
of Withdrawal of Category 3 & 4 Refund Claims. With this filing,
the Plaintiffs abandoned their claim to fees falling into their
third and fourth proposed categories, to pursue only the fees they
self-designate as curricular and co-curricular -- Category 1 and
Category 2.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Defendants oppose class certification, arguing that
the Plaintiffs are unable to establish commonality, typicality, or
adequacy of representation.

II. Discussion

Judge Tallman explains that Rule 23 does not set forth a mere
pleading standard. A party seeking class certification must
affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule -- that is,
he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently
numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc."

Judge Tallman finds that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the demands
of Rule 23 throughout this inquiry. He finds that (i) no party has
quantified the number, but the class could easily involve hundreds
of thousands of students, even in a smaller state like Idaho; (ii)
the Plaintiffs have failed to establish how determining the
constitutionality of any one fee assessed as to one class member
will answer other questions posed by the statewide class; (iii) the
Plaintiffs cannot "affirmatively demonstrate" that the members of
the proposed class have suffered a similar injury, inflicted by the
same course of conduct, sufficient to demonstrate the typicality of
their claims; and (iv) because the abundance of individual issues
in the case bars a finding of typicality, adequacy of
representation is necessarily lacking as well.

In order to seek monetary recovery by class adjudication, the
Plaintiffs must additionally satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), which requires
a court to find "that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Because "Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance criterion is even more
demanding than Rule 23(a)," Judge Tallman holds that the Plaintiffs
necessarily fail to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) for the same reasons they
failed to meet their burden under Rule 23(a). This proposed class
action, as structured by the Plaintiffs, is in no way "superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy."

Finally, regardless of the policy and funding choices made by the
State Legislature, Judge Tallman holds that the Court is required
to abide by the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
entitlement to class certification for the relief sought. For these
reasons, the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification
will be denied with prejudice.

III. Disposition

Having considered the parties' briefing and oral argument, Judge
Tallman denies the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/hdh9yzy7 from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Plummer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EDNA PLUMMER v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., Civil Action No. 17-4483-WBV-MBN (E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B.
Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana grants BP's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Introduction

Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and
BP p.l.c. (collectively, "BP"). Defendants Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Deepwater, Inc., have also
joined in the Motion. The Motion was noticed for submission on May
17, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, any response was due by May
9, 2022. As of the date of the Order, no opposition has been filed.
Additionally, Plaintiff Plummer has not moved for an extension of
the submission date or moved for an extension of her deadline to
file an opposition brief. Thus, the Motion is unopposed.

II. Background

The case arises from Plaintiff Plummer's alleged exposure to
harmful chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that
occurred on April 20, 2010. On Jan. 11, 2013, U.S. District Judge
Carl J. Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement (the "MSA"). The MSA includes a Back-End Litigation
Option ("BELO") that permits certain class members, such as
clean-up workers who follow procedures outlined in the MSA, to sue
BP for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions ("LMPC's").

After opting out of the MSA, Plummer filed an individual Complaint
on May 1, 2017 against BP, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean
Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). She
alleges that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, she was injured
as a result of exposure to oil and/or dispersing chemicals and/or
decontaminants by virtue of her environment.

Plummer alleges that her symptoms include headaches, skin
irritation (face), difficulty breathing, burning and watery eyes,
coughing, nausea, and abdominal pain as a result of continuous
exposure in and around her residence at 3305 Spruce Street,
Pascagoula, Mississippi beginning in April 2010. Plummer further
alleges that she suffered personal injury damages, including
economic, income, property, and compensatory damages, and past and
future medical expenses and pain and suffering, as a result of the
defendants' negligence, strict liability, gross negligence, willful
and wanton conduct, and violations of applicable safety,
construction, or operation regulations and/or statutes.

On Oct. 18, 2021, with leave of Court, the Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. In her Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts
that "Although Plaintiff opted out of the Class Settlement, or was
excluded as a class member, the statements and declarations
submitted by BP to support its motion to approve the settlement
constitute judicial admissions or statements binding on the BP
Defendants for purposes of this case." Shef then refers to a
Specified Physical Conditions Matrix that "accounts for medical
conditions that reasonably could arise from exposure to oil, other
hydrocarbons, or other substances released from the MC252 well
and/or Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances, as well as exposure
to dispersants or decontaminants used during the Response
Activities." The Plaintiff further points to a Declaration of Dr.
Jessica Herzstein apparently introduced in the previous litigation
which stated that medical literature supported the inclusion of the
conditions listed on the Matrix.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion on May 2, 2022, asserting
that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plummer has not
produced an expert report or any expert testimony in support of her
complaints and, thus, cannot prove that her alleged medical
conditions were caused by her exposure to substances related to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They claim that the Fifth Circuit and
at least eleven Sections of this Court have issued numerous
opinions addressing the obligation of a BELO plaintiff to prove
legal causation. According to Defendants, this requirement derives
from the fundamental principles governing proof of causation in
toxic tort cases decided under general maritime law.

The Defendants claim that B3 plaintiffs like Plummer, who were
originally part of the multidistrict litigation stemming from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, must satisfy the same legal cause
standard as BELO plaintiffs. They further assert that due to the
technical nature of the proof, courts have uniformly concluded that
toxic tort plaintiffs need expert testimony to meet their burden of
proving causation. They claim that courts have repeatedly granted
summary judgment dismissing claims of plaintiffs who alleged
injuries from exposure to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but
failed to produce expert support for their claims.

The Defendants argue that, for these reasons, the Plummer's claims
lack the expert support required to carry her burden of proof on
causation. As such, they assert that the Court should grant their
Motion and dismiss Plummer's claims with prejudice.

Plummer did not file a response to the Motion.

III. Analysis

As the Defendants correctly point out, Judge Barbier previously
described the BELO and B3 cases in similar terms, explaining that:
"BELO cases and the B3 cases are similar in several important
respects. Both allege personal injuries or wrongful death due to
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. Furthermore, both BELO plaintiffs and B3 plaintiffs must
prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response."

Judge Vitter holds that while all reasonable inferences must be
drawn in favor of the non-moving party, the non-moving party cannot
defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations,
unsubstantiated assertions or "only a scintilla of evidence." Such
is the case here. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiff, Judge Vitter finds the Plaintiff has failed to meet her
burden to prove causation.

The Plaintiff, in her Amended Complaint, has alleged that certain
conditions could arise from exposure to contaminants, but the
Complaint and Amended Complaint are absolutely silent regarding any
causation of her alleged injuries. As explained by another section
of the Court, "With respect to general causation, 'scientific
knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a chemical, plus
knowledge that the plaintiff was exposed to such quantities, are
minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs' burden in a
toxic tort case.'"

Thus, again, while drawing all reasonable inference in favor of the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has still failed to provide even a
scintilla of evidence to prove specific-causation. Judge Vitter
finds that because Plummer failed to identify a causation expert in
this case by the Court's April 7, 2022 deadline and did not move
for an extension of that deadline, or for an extension of her
deadline to respond to the instant Motion, and has failed to
provide evidence to defeat summary judgment, she cannot meet her
burden of proof on causation for her alleged injuries. Accordingly,
the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of
law.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, BP's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted, and Plummer's claims against BP Exploration & Production,
Inc., BP America Production Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.,
Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Deepwater, Inc. are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r3cpfy2u from Leagle.com.


BUY4LESSTUXEDO.COM INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buy4lesstuxedo.Com,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Buy4lesstuxedo.Com, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04673 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

Buy4LessTuxedo -- https://www.buy4lesstuxedo.com/ -- is an online
source for quality tuxedos.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


CALIFORNIA STATE CONTROLLER: Sykes Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Office of the
California State Controller, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer
I. Sykes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Office of the California State Controller; Betty T.
Yee, in her official capacity as California State Controller; Case
No. 2:22-cv-03860-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The California State Controller -- https://www.sco.ca.gov/ -- is
the state's independent fiscal watchdog, providing sound fiscal
control over more than $100 billion in receipts and disbursements
of public funds a year, offering fiscal guidance to local
governments, and uncovering fraud and abuse of taxpayer
dollars.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Betsy C Manifold, Esq.
          Oana Constantin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 239-4599
          Fax: (619) 234-4599
          Email: byrd@whafh.com
                 manifold@whafh.com
                 constantin@whafh.com


CAPITAL ONE: Data Breach Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL ONE DATA BREACH
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

IF YOUR INFORMATION WAS ACCESSED IN THE 2019 CAPITAL
ONE DATA BREACH, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS FROM A
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A class action settlement has been proposed in a case against
Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One, N.A., and Capital
One Bank (USA), N.A. ("Capital One"), and against Amazon.com, Inc.,
and Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("Amazon") (together "Defendants"),
relating to a data breach that Capital One announced in July 2019
(the "Data Breach"). If you are a Settlement Class Member, there
will be benefits available to you from the proposed settlement. The
easiest way to submit a claim under the settlement is online at
www.CapitalOneSettlement.com. If you are unsure of whether you are
eligible for benefits, visit the website or call 1-855-604-1811.

In addition to other benefits, the proposed settlement requires
Capital One to establish a "Settlement Fund" of $190 million. The
settlement relief includes: [] Cash Payment for Out-of-Pocket
Losses: The Settlement Fund will be used to reimburse verifiable
unreimbursed costs or expenditures that a Settlement Class Member
actually incurred and believes are fairly traceable to the Data
Breach. This includes costs incurred as a result of identity theft
or identity fraud, falsified tax returns, or other alleged misuse
of a Settlement Class Member's personal information; and costs
incurred on or after March 22, 2019 associated with placing or
removing a credit freeze on a credit file, obtaining credit
reports, credit monitoring or other products related to detection
or remediation of identity theft, and other related miscellaneous
expenses such as notary, fax, postage, copying, mileage, and
long-distance telephone charges ("Out-of-Pocket Losses").

* Cash Payment for Lost Time: The Settlement Fund will be used to
reimburse for time spent remedying fraud, identity theft, or other
misuse of a Settlement Class Member's personal information that he
or she believes is fairly traceable to the Data Breach, and for
time spent taking preventative measures to avoid losses relating to
the Data Breach ("Lost Time"). Lost Time related to a qualifying
claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses may be supported by a certification
for up to 15 hours. Lost Time not related to a qualifying claim for
Out-of-Pocket Losses may be supported by a certification for up to
5 hours. The "Reimbursement Rate" for Lost Time shall be the
greater of $25 per hour or, if the Settlement Class Member took
time off work, the Settlement
Class Member's documented hourly wage.

* Identity Defense Services: All Settlement Class Members are
eligible to enroll in at least three (3) years of Identity Defense
Services offered at no cost through Pango. The services include
dark web monitoring for your personal information, identity
monitoring with authentication alerts, lost wallet protection,
security freeze capability, a $1 million identity theft insurance
policy with no deductible, and other features discussed below
("Identity Defense Services"). If a Settlement Class Member's
Social Security number or linked bank account number was accessed
in the Data Breach, their Identity Defense Services will also
include Three-Bureau Credit Monitoring with instant alerts and a
monthly credit score. You can make a claim for both cash payments
and Identity Defense Services.

* Restoration Services: All Settlement Class Members (regardless of
whether they enroll in Identity Defense Services or submit a claim
for Out-of-Pocket Losses or Lost Time) will be entitled to utilize
Restoration Services offered through Pango for a period of at least
three (3) years ("Restoration Services"). This coverage is a
separate benefit and permits all Settlement Class Members to have
access to U.S.-based fraud resolution specialists who can assist
with important tasks such as placing fraud alerts with the credit
bureaus, disputing inaccurate information on credit reports,
scheduling calls with creditors and other service providers, and
working with law enforcement and government agencies to dispute
fraudulent information.

* Capital One Business Practices Changes: Capital One has agreed to
implement and/or maintain certain business practices changes
relating to its information security program. A description of
those Business Practices Changes are available on the settlement
website.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

- File a claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses or Lost Time

You must submit a claim in order to receive reimbursement
for Out-of-Pocket Losses and/or Lost Time under the
settlement.

Deadline: August 22, 2022

- File a claim for Identity Defense Services

You must take action in order to receive the free Identity
Defense Services offered under the settlement. To
maximize protection provided by this service, you should
file a claim by August 22, 2022. You may also enroll
later at any time the service is active (at least 3 years).

Deadline: August 22, 2022

- Access to Restoration Services

You may access Restoration Services after the settlement
becomes final, whether or not you make a claim under the
settlement.

Deadline: No deadline.

Services will be  available for at  least 3 years.

- Exclude yourself from  the settlement

You can exclude yourself from the settlement by
informing the Settlement Administrator that you want to
"opt-out" of the settlement. If the settlement becomes
final, this is the only option that allows you to retain your
rights to separately sue Capital One or Amazon for claims
related to the Data Breach. If you opt-out, you may not
make a claim for benefits under the settlement.

Deadline: July 7, 2022

- Object or comment on the settlement

You may object to the settlement by writing to explain to
the Court why you don't think the settlement should be
approved. If you object, you will remain a Settlement
Class Member, and if the settlement is approved, you will
be eligible for the benefits of the settlement and give up
your right to sue Capital One or Amazon on certain
claims described in the Settlement Agreement, which is
available at www.CapitalOneSettlement.com.

Deadline July 7, 2022

- Do nothing

If you do nothing, you can still sign up for Identity
Defense Services after the Effective date, and access
Restoration Services, but will not be entitled to any other
benefits provided under the settlement. If the settlement
becomes final, you will give up your rights to sue Capital
One or Amazon separately for claims relating to the Data
Breach or to continue to pursue any such claims you have
already filed.

Final Approval Hearing

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing to listen to and
consider any concerns or objections from Settlement Class Members
regarding the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. That hearing is currently scheduled to
take place on August 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Anthony J. Trenga, at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia located in Room 700 of the United
States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia
22314. This hearing date and time may be moved.

If you have questions about this notice or the settlement, you may
go to the settlement website at www.CapitalOneSettlement.com   You
can also contact the Settlement Administrator at 1-855-604-1811 or
by mailing a letter to Capital One Data Breach Class Action
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4518, Portland, OR 97208-4518
for more information or to request that a copy of this document be
sent to you in the mail. If you wish to communicate directly with
Class Counsel, you may contact them (contact information noted
above in Question 16). You may also seek advice and guidance from
your own private lawyer at your own expense, if you wish to do so.

This notice is only a summary of the lawsuit and the settlement.
Other related documents can be accessed through the settlement
website. If you have questions about the proposed settlement, or
wish to receive a copy of the Settlement Agreement but do not have
access to the Internet to download a copy online, you may contact
the Settlement Administrator. The Court cannot respond to any
questions regarding this notice, the lawsuit, or the proposed
settlement.


CAREDX INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law
Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss,
you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA)
Class Period: February 24, 2021 - May 5, 2022
Deadline: July 22, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cdna.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
had engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes to inflate
testing services revenue, including: (i) pushing protocols for
surveillance of organ rejection through inaccurate marketing
materials and in violation of Medicare standards; (ii) offering
extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and other
providers; and (iii) improperly bundling expensive testing services
with other blood tests as part of the RemoTraC service. These
practices, and others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of
regulatory scrutiny and rendered the Company's testing services
revenue and demand reported throughout the Class Period
artificially inflated. As a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. [GN]

DEL TACO: Entered $50M Settlement in Labor Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
streetinsider.com reports that on June 4, 2022, Del Taco, LLC ("Del
Taco"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Jack in the Box Inc. (the
"Company"), entered into a Settlement Memorandum of Understanding
(the "Agreement") providing for the settlement of a certified class
action lawsuit entitled Karolina Torrez v. Del Taco, LLC (Case No.
JCCP004904) pending in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda (the "Court"). This litigation challenged Del Taco's
compliance with certain California wage and labor laws and alleged
certain unfair and unlawful business practices.

Under the Agreement, the Company is obligated to pay a gross
settlement amount of $50 million. This payment is "all inclusive"
and shall be used to satisfy the settlement administrator expenses,
Plaintiff Karolina Torrez's attorneys' fees and costs, an incentive
award for the Plaintiff, payments to all members of both the Class
(defined below) and PAGA Group (defined below) of aggrieved
employees, and the portion of PAGA penalty payment payable to the
State of California.

The class is comprised of all current and former non-exempt
employees of Del Taco in the State of California at any time during
the period from March 2, 2012 through November 12, 2021 (the
"Class"). The PAGA group of aggrieved employees consists of all
non-exempt employees of Del Taco in the State of California from
January 28, 2015 through August 2, 2022 or the date of preliminary
approval of the settlement, whichever is earlier (the "PAGA
Group").

In exchange for the gross settlement amount, Del Taco will be
released from all claims by the Plaintiff, the Class, and the PAGA
Group. The Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing.

The Agreement is contingent upon various conditions, including, but
not limited to, preliminary approval by the Court and final
approval by the Court after notice to the class and a hearing.
There can be no assurance that the Agreement will be approved by
the Court nor upheld if challenged on appeal.

The Company had anticipated reaching this settlement, and it is
within the anticipated range. The Company believes the Del Taco
acquisition remains accretive, as the settlement will fold into the
purchase accounting with minimal impact on earnings per share. [GN]

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of August 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased the common stock of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. ("Dentsply"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: XRAY) from June 9, 2021 through May 9,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Dentsply common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later
than August 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by
your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You
may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in
the action.

Dentsply investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here, text
or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff
Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Dentsply Securities Class Litigation

Dentsply, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, produces
dental supplies, including anesthetics, plaque and gum disease
prevention, tooth polishers, and artificial teeth.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had improperly recognized revenue
tied to certain dealer incentive or rebate programs to enable
Dentsply executives to meet certain compensation targets; and (2)
consequently, Dentsply's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") rules, and the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting were materially
deficient.

On April 19, 2022, Dentsply announced that Donald J. Casey, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, had been terminated, effective
immediately. On this news, the price of Dentsply shares fell $6.52
per share, or 13.38%, from its closing price of $48.72 on April 18,
2022, to close at $42.20 per share on April 19, 2022, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

On May 10, 2022, Dentsply announced that following reports by
internal whistleblowers, the Audit and Finance Committee of its
Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee") had started an
investigation into certain financial reporting by Dentsply,
including "the Company's use of incentives to sell products to
distributors in the third and fourth quarters of 2021" and "whether
those incentives were appropriately accounted for" in the Company's
SEC filings. Additionally, Dentsply revealed that the Audit
Committee was investigating whether "certain former and current
members of senior management directed the Company's use of these
incentives and other actions to achieve executive compensation
targets in 2021." On this news, the price of Dentsply shares fell
$2.87 per share, or 7.31%, from its closing price of $39.25 on May
9, 2022, to close at $36.38 per share on May 10, 2022, on heavy
trading volume.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is an
internationally-recognized law firm committed to advancing the
rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the
nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. Law360 has
selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide
for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting
that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of
the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world."
Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10
Plaintiffs' Firms in America." [GN]

DEXTERITY INC: Eggers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dexterity, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Decedent Samuel Eggers, by and through
his, successor-in-interest, Lisa Strauch Eggers, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated employees v. Dexterity,
Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC22600040 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 6, 2022).

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

Dexterity, Inc. -- https://www.dexterity.ai/ -- is a leader in
robotic warehouse automation for manufacturing, logistics, supply
chain and retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-495-7800
          Fax: 415-495-7888
          Email: jed@arnslaw.com



DIGITAL TURBINE: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on June 6, 2022, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ:
APPS). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 9, 2021 through May 17, 2022.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit:
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-an-investigation-into-digital-turbine-inc-nasdaq-apps-for-potential-securities-law-violations/

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Digital
Turbine, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period. You may move the Court no later than August 5, 2022,
to serve as a lead plaintiff on behalf of the Class.

If you wish to join this action or obtain further information,
please contact: Lacrista A. Bagley at lab@federmanlaw.com or visit
the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]

DIGITAL TURBINE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of those who acquired Digital Turbine
Inc. ("Digital Turbine") (NASDAQ: APPS) securities from August 9,
2021 through May 17, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until August 5, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Digital Turbine is a software company that delivers products to
assist third parties in monetizing through the utilization of
mobile advertising. The Company completed the acquisitions of
AdColony Holdings AS ("AdColony") and Fyber N.V. ("Fyber") on April
29 and May 25, 2021, respectively

On May 17, 2022, Digital Turbine issued a press release revealing
that it will "restate its financial statements for the interim
periods ended June 30, 2021, September 30, 2021, and December 31,
2021, following a review of the presentation of revenue net of
license fees and revenue share for the Company's recently acquired
businesses." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by
$1.93 per share, or approximately 7.09%, from $27.21 per share to
close at $25.28 per share on May 18, 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber,
act as agents in certain of their respective product lines; (2) as
a result, revenues for those product lines must be reported net of
license fees and revenue share, rather than on a gross basis; (3)
the Company's internal control over financial reporting as to
revenue recognition was deficient; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's net revenues was overstated throughout
fiscal 2022; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Digital Turbine securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

DUNGAREES INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dungarees, Inc. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Dungarees, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04699-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

Dungarees, Inc. -- https://dungarees.com/ -- offers carhartt &
other work clothing available at the lowest prices guaranteed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Energy Transfer investors who were adversely affected by alleged
securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Energy Transfer
stock between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates
inclusive. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=28247&wire=4
ET investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (a) Energy Transfer had
inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent contractors
from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to drilling
activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy Transfer, through its
subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC, hired a third-party contractor to
conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities for the Rover
Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the
drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when
a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017; (c)
Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil
liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC")
was actively investigating the Energy Transfer's wrongdoing related
to the April 13 release and consistently provided it with updated
information about FERC's findings on this matter.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Energy Transfer during the
relevant time frame, you have until August 2, 2022 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.

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

ENSERVCO CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Law
Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss,
you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Enservco Corporation (NYSE: ENSV)
Class Period: May 13, 2021 - April 18, 2022
Deadline: July 19, 2022
For more info: www.bgandg.com/ensv.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enservco had defective
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, there were errors in
Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its
transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs;
(iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (iv) the
Company downplayed the true scope and severity of its financial
reporting issues; (v) accordingly, the Company could not file its
delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC within its initially
represented timeline; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. [GN]

EYM PIZZA: Hearn Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMONDO HEARN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. EYM PIZZA OF ILLINOIS, LLC, and EDUARDO DIAZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02970 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2022)
alleges the Defendants of failure to pay minimum wages in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately May
2013 to June 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Pizza Hut
store located in Chicago, IL.

The Plaintiff asserts 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. Consequently, they have incurred automobile
expenses. However, the Defendants have employed a flawed
reimbursement policy that reimburses its delivery drivers below the
IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses, the
suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' systemic failure to adequately
reimburse automobile expenses, the Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated delivery drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the
federal minimum wage requirements, added the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to demand for compensatory damages for himself and
all other similarly situated delivery drivers. The Plaintiff also
seeks liquidated damages, litigation costs and attorney's fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court
deems fair and equitable.

EYM Pizza of Illinois, LLC operates numerous Pizza Hut franchise
stores owned and directed by Eduardo Diaz. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. McCarley, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N Saint Paul St., 700
          Dallas, TX 75201-6843
          Tel: (214) 201-7493
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: mccmat2000@yahoo.com

FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Jackson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-03372 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver at
the Defendant's location in Medford, New York from in or about
December 2021 to in or about April 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual
workers on a weekly basis and not later than seven days after the
end of the week in which the wages are earned. Instead, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual workers received
their pay on a bi-weekly basis pursuant to the Defendant's payroll
policy, which violated the NYLL Section 191. Moreover, the
Defendant also failed to provide the Plaintiff with notice of his
wage rate and the basis of pay upon his hire as required by NYLL
Section 195(1), says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's failure to timely pay the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated manual workers' wages,
they have suffered harm because they were unable pay their bills or
buy goods that they needed or wanted to buy. Thus, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, the
Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to the NYLL Section 198, as well
as attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper, the
suit added.

Ferguson Enterprises, LLC is a distributor of residential and
commercial plumbing supplies and pipe valves and fittings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 21
----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT TRUST, Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant FIDELITY NATIONAL
FINANCIAL, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.
WILLIAM P. FOLEY, II, DOUGLAS K.
AMMERMAN, THOMAS M. HAGERTY,
DANIEL D. LANE, RICHARD N. MASSEY,
HEATHER H. MURREN, RAYMOND R.
QUIRK, JOHN D. ROOD, PETER O. SHEA,
JR., CARY H. THOMPSON, MVB
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and TRASIMENE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendants,

and
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant.

C.A. No. 2020-0650-KSJM

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTION

TO: All record and beneficial owners of Fidelity National
Financial, Inc. ("FNF" or the "Company") common stock as of the
close of business on April 1, 2022 ("Current FNF
Stockholders").

PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT AND CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

If you are a brokerage firm, bank, or other nominee that holds
securities as a record owner on behalf of the beneficial owners of
the securities, please read the section below entitled "Notice To
Persons Or Entities Holding Record Ownership On Behalf Of Others."

The purpose of this Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Derivative Action (the "Notice") is to inform you of: (a) the
pendency of the above-captioned lawsuit, City of Miami General
Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust v. William P.
Foley, II, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0650-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the
"Action"), which is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware (the "Court") and asserts claims derivatively on behalf
of Nominal Defendant FNF; (b) the proposed settlement of the Action
(the "Settlement"), subject to Court approval and other conditions
of the Settlement being satisfied, as provided for in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release, dated April
1, 2022 (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with the Court and is
publicly available for review at https://www.investor.fnf.com/; and
(c) a hearing to be held before the Court on June 21, 2022, at 1:30
p.m., either in person at the Leonard L. Williams Justice Center,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by remote
proceeding (the "Settlement Hearing").

The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to consider, among other
things: (i) the proposed Settlement; (ii) the joint request of the
Parties that the Court enter the Order and Final Judgment; (iii)
Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application; and (iv) any
objections to any of the foregoing.

The Stipulation was entered into as of April 1, 2022, by and among
(i) the Special Litigation Committee (the "SLC") of the Board of
Directors of FNF (the "Board"), acting for and on behalf of
FNF;(ii) Plaintiff City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust ("Plaintiff"); (iii) Defendants William
P. Foley, II ("Foley"), Douglas K. Ammerman ("Ammerman"), Thomas M.
Hagerty ("Hagerty"), Daniel D. Lane ("Lane"), Richard N. Massey
("Massey"), Heather H. Murren ("Murren"), Raymond R. Quirk
("Quirk"), John D. Rood ("Rood"), Peter O. Shea, Jr. ("Shea"), and
Cary H. Thompson ("Thompson," and together with Foley, Ammerman,
Hagerty, Lane, Massey, Murren, Quirk, Rood, and Shea, the "Director
Defendants"); (iv) Defendant Trasimene Capital Management, LLC
("Trasimene"); and (v) Defendant MVB Management, LLC ("MVB," and
together with the Director Defendants and Trasimene, the
"Defendants") (the SLC, Plaintiff, the Company, and Defendants,
together, the "Parties"). A copy of the Stipulation, including
Exhibits, is available at https://www.investor.fnf.com/ or by
contacting counsel listed below.

This Notice describes the rights you may have with respect to the
Action and pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take,
but are not required to take, in relation to the Settlement. If the
Court approves the proposed Settlement, the Parties will ask the
Court at the Settlement Hearing to enter an Order and Final
Judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice in accordance with
the terms of the Stipulation. Also, if the Settlement is approved
by the Court, FNF stockholders will be barred from contesting the
fairness of the Settlement or pursuing the Plaintiff Released
Claims against the Defendant Released Parties.

Because the Action was brought as a derivative action, which means
that the Action was brought by Plaintiff on behalf of and for the
benefit of FNF, the monetary payment to be made
under the Settlement will go to the Company. Individual FNF
stockholders will not receive any direct payment from the
Settlement.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS NO PROOF OF CLAIM FORM FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO
SUBMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SETTLEMENT, AND STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE.

Concurrent with seeking final approval of the Settlement,
Plaintiff's Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, in full satisfaction of any claim by
Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of fees and expenses
in respect of Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's Counsel's efforts in
filing this Action and the benefits conferred on FNF and FNF's
stockholders from the prosecution of the Action and the Settlement
(the "Fee and Expense Application"). After all of the
substantive terms of the Settlement were agreed upon, Plaintiff's
Counsel engaged in arm's-length negotiations with counsel for the
SLC (on behalf of FNF) and counsel for Defendants concerning an
appropriate award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for
Plaintiff's Counsel based upon Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's Counsel
efforts in filing this Action and the benefits conferred on FNF and
FNF's stockholders from the prosecution of the Action and the
Settlement. As a result of those negotiations, it
has been agreed that the Fee and Expense Application will be for an
amount no greater than four million four hundred thousand dollars
and no cents ($4,400,000.00) (United States Dollars).

Any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel
that is approved by the Court in connection with the Settlement
(the "Fee and Expense Award") shall be paid solely out of the
Monetary Settlement Amount, and not in addition to the Monetary
Settlement Amount. FNF stockholders are not personally liable for
the payment of any Fee and Expense Award.

The award of any Fee and Expense Award by the Court is not a
precondition to the Settlement, the Releases provided under the
Stipulation, or the dismissal of the Action with prejudice.

The Court may consider and rule upon the fairness, reasonableness,
and adequacy of the Settlement independently of any Fee and Expense
Application and/or Fee and Expense Award. Any disapproval or
modification of any Fee and Expense Application and/or any Fee and
Expense Award by the Court or on appeal shall not affect or delay
the enforceability of the Stipulation or the Settlement, provide
any of the Parties with the right to terminate the Settlement,
impose any obligation on Defendants, the SLC (on behalf of FNF), or
FNF, or subject Defendants in any way to an increase in the amount
paid by them or on their behalf in connection with the Settlement,
or affect or delay the binding effect or finality of the Order and
Final Judgment or the Releases.

You do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. The Court will
consider any submission made in accordance with the provisions
below even if you do not attend the Settlement Hearing.

The Court will consider the Settlement and all matters related to
the Settlement, including the Fee and Expense Application, at the
Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing will be held before the
Delaware Court of Chancery on June 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., either in
person at the Court of Chancery, Leonard L. Williams Justice
Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by
telephone or video conference (in the discretion of the Court).

At the Settlement Hearing, any Current FNF Stockholder who
continues to own FNF common stock through the date of the
Settlement Hearing may appear personally or by counsel, and show
cause, if any: (a) why the Settlement in accordance with and as set
forth in the Stipulation should not be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of FNF; (b) why
the Order and Final Judgment should not be entered in accordance
with and as set forth in the Stipulation; or (c) why the Court
should not grant Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, or
otherwise wishes to be heard; provided, however, that unless the
Court in its discretion otherwise directs, no Person shall be
entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement or (if approved) the Order and Final Judgment to be
entered thereon, the Fee and Expense Application, or the Fee and
Expense Award, and no papers, briefs, pleadings, or other documents
submitted by any Person (excluding a party to the Stipulation)
shall be received or considered, except by order of the Court for
good cause shown, unless, no later than June 1, 2022, such person
files with the Register in Chancery, Delaware Court of Chancery,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, and serves upon the
attorneys listed below: (a) a written and signed notice of
intention to appear that identifies the case name and case number
for the Action, City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust v. William P. Foley, II, et al., C.A.
No. 2020-0650-KSJM, and includes the name, address, and telephone
number of the objector and, if represented by counsel, the name,
address, and telephone number of the objector's counsel; (b)
documentation sufficient to prove that the objector owned shares of
FNF common stock as of the close of business on April 1, 2022,
together with a statement that the objector continues to hold
shares of FNF common stock on the date of filing of the objection
and will continue to hold shares of FNF common stock as of the date
of the Settlement Hearing; (c) a detailed statement of objections
to any matter before the Court; (d) the grounds thereof or the
reasons for wanting to appear and be heard; and (e) all documents
or writings the Court shall be asked to consider. Such filings must
be served upon the following counsel by hand delivery, overnight
mail, or the Court's electronic filing and service system:

Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
1313 N. Market Street
Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Douglas D. Herrmann, Esq.
Troutman Pepper Hamilton
Sanders LLP
1313 N. Market Street
Hercules Plaza, 5th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Craig J. Springer, Esq.
Andrews & Springer LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, Delaware 19807

Bradley R. Aronstam, Esq.
Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP
100 S. West Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the
Action, you may inspect the pleadings, the Stipulation, the Orders
entered by the Court, and other papers filed in the Action at the
Office of the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, during regular business
hours of each business day. If you have questions regarding the
Settlement, you may write or call the following counsel for
Plaintiff:

Craig J. Springer, Esq.
Andrews & Springer LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
Phone: 302-504-4957
Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.

Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Phone: 800-380-8496
Email: settlements@blbglaw.com


GMC SKIN CARE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GMC Skin Care USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. GMC Skin Care USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04691-PAE-OTW (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

GMC Skin Care USA, Inc. doing business as G.M. Collin Skincare --
https://www.gmcollin.com/ -- offers high-performance professional
skincare clinically-proven, results-driven made in Montreal
cruelty-free.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ILLINOIS GASTROENTEROLOGY: Castillo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois
Gastroenterology Group, PLLC. The case is styled as Heriberto
Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Illinois Gastroenterology Group, PLLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02953 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2022).

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

Illinois Gastroenterology -- https://www.illinoisgastro.com/ -- is
the largest GI practice in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (847) 208-4585
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


INDIQUE HAIR: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indique Hair, LLC.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Indique Hair, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04689 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

Indique Hair -- https://www.indiquehair.com/ -- is an
internationally known hair extension brand with retail stores
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


IRVING K MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Williamson TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRVING K MOTOR COMPANY LLC
D/B/A CLAY COOLEY KIA, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:21-CV-1599-L-BH (N.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Irma Carillo
Ramirez of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) and Brief in Support.

I. Background

Plaintiff Williamson brings the putative class action against the
Defendant, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) (TCPA).

From 2017 through 2020, the Defendant utilized four telephone
numbers to transmit "multiple prerecorded voice messages" to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Each prerecorded voice
message attempted to sell Plaintiff a vehicle from the Defendant's
inventory, and included music and its marketing slogan: "Shop me
first, shop me last, either way, come see Clay!" On Jan. 29, 2018,
the "Defendant sent the Plaintiff a prerecorded voice message from
telephone number 972-659-2204 which identified 'the service
department of Clay Cooley KIA' and sought for the Plaintiff to have
her vehicle serviced by the Defendant."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant also sent similar
prerecorded messages to individuals residing within this judicial
district. She references four anonymous complaints on the Internet
complaining about receiving robocalls from the Defendant from phone
numbers 469-447-8212 and 469-480-5500. She contends that the calls
"constitute telemarketing/advertising because they promoted the
Defendant's business, goods and services, including the sale of
vehicles and its vehicle maintenance and repair services." She also
contends that these calls "violated her substantive rights under
the TCPA to be free from unsolicited calls;" caused her harm,
including invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance;
inconvenienced her; and disrupted her daily life.

The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges that the Defendant
violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA, and 47
C.F.R. Sections 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and 64.1200(a)(2) of its
implementing regulations, "by using prerecorded messages to make
non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones of the Plaintiff
and the other members of the putative Class without their prior
express written consent." It also alleges that the violations were
"willful or knowing" because the Defendant "knew that it did not
have prior express consent to make these calls, and knew or should
have known that it was using prerecorded messages." It seeks actual
and statutory damages for the Plaintiff and each member of the
Class, including "up to $1,500 for each and every violation
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)," an order declaring that
Defendant's actions violated the TCPA, and an injunction requiring
it "to cease all unsolicited call activity without obtaining
consent first, and to otherwise protect the interests of the
Class."

On Sept. 13, 2021, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint. The Plaintiff responded on Oct. 4, 2021,
and the Defendant replied on Oct. 18, 2021.

II. Discussion

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

The Defendant first moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, arguing the entire action is based on violations of
an unconstitutional and void statute. The Defendant's motion
presents a facial attack that does not require the resolution of
factual matters outside the pleadings.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's lawsuit should be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) was unenforceable at the time the alleged calls
were made.

Judge Ramirez opines that jurisdiction "arises not from the
provision declared unconstitutional in Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol.
Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 2335, 2344 (2020) (AAPC), however, but
from the private cause of action in section 227(b)(3) that grants
the Plaintiff standing to bring her claims." Whether the Plaintiff
asserts a plausible claim for relief against Defendant for
violating Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) while it was enforceable is a
question that implicates the existence of a federal claim, not
subject-matter jurisdiction. When, as in the present casae, "a
defendant's challenge to the court's jurisdiction is also a
challenge to the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper
procedure for the district court is to find that jurisdiction
exists and to deal with the objection as a direct attack on the
merits of the plaintiff's case."

B. Constitutionality of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's lawsuit is based on
alleged violations of Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) when it was
"constitutionally deficient and thus unenforceable," and that it
cannot be held liable for violations of "an unconstitutional and
void statute."

Judge Ramirez explains that in AAPC, the Supreme Court found the
government-debt exception to the TCPA was unconstitutional, but
instead of invalidating the entire robocall restriction, it applied
"traditional severability principles" and concluded that the proper
course was to "sever the 2015 government-debt exception and leave
in place the longstanding robocall restriction." It noted that the
Act included a severability clause and explained that there is a
presumption that "an unconstitutional provision in a law is
severable from the remainder of the law or statute." When an
unconstitutional amendment has been added to a valid law, the
"original, pre-amendment statute" is treated as the "'valid
expression of the legislative intent.'" This is because the
unconstitutional amendment "is a nullity and, therefore, powerless
to work any change in the existing statute." Because the 2015
amendment was an unconstitutional enactment, it was void ab initio
and was never law.

So, if the unconstitutional 2015 amendment was "'a nullity' and
'void' when enacted," it stands to reason that the original
robocall restriction was not impacted by the subsequent addition of
the unconstitutional government-debt exception." Moreover, footnote
12 of the plurality opinion explicitly states that the decision did
"not negate the liability of parties who made robocalls covered by
the robocall restriction."

For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss on this basis
is denied.

C. Plausibility of Claim

The Defendant next argues that the Plaintiff's TCPA claim must be
dismissed because her allegations fail to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent multiple prerecorded
voice messages to her cellular telephone number between 2017 and
2020, promoting the sale of its vehicles and its vehicle
maintenance and repair services. She provides four phone numbers
that were used to contact her, as well as information that connects
Defendant to those numbers, and describes the contents of these
messages. She contends, "upon information and belief," that
Defendant possesses "transmission logs detailing the specific dates
and times of each call it made to her number utilizing a
prerecorded message." She also provides additional facts of a
specific prerecorded voice message that was sent to her phone
number on January 29, 2018, which promoted Defendant's vehicle
service department.

For these reasons, Judge Ramirez determines that the Plaintiff has
offered sufficient factual allegations in support of her TCPA claim
against the Defendant.

III. Conclusion

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8c734y from
Leagle.com.


JAMES LEBLANC: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Sched Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JAMES LEBLANC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order extending the briefing schedule for class
certification by three weeks, as follows:

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class       July 1, 2022
     certification:

  -- The Defense response to motion         August 1, 2022
     for class certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply regarding        August 16, 2022
     motion for class certification:

A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xH7DCB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
          Stephen Weil, Esq.
          Kelly Jo Popkin, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3 rd FL
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
          E-mail: weil@loevy.com

               - and -

          Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
          Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
          Elena Malik, Esq.
          Nishi Kumar, Esq.
          THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
          1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Telephone: (504) 529-5955
          Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
          E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org

               - and -

          William Most, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST, L.L.C.
          Louisiana Bar No. 37764
          201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114 No. 101
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 509-5023
          E-mail: williammost@gmail.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: $185.87MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you transacted in BBSW-Based Derivatives(1) from January 1, 2003
through August 16, 2016, inclusive, then your rights will be
affected, and you may be entitled to a benefit.  This Notice is
only a summary of the proposed settlements and is subject to the
terms of the Settlement Agreements(2) and other relevant
documents.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights
in connection with eight proposed settlements ("Settlements")
between Plaintiffs and (1) JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (collectively, "JPMorgan"); (2) Westpac Banking
Corporation ("Westpac"); (3) Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group Ltd. ("ANZ"); (4) Commonwealth Bank of Australia ("CBA"); (5)
National Australia Bank Limited ("NAB"); (6) Morgan Stanley and
Morgan Stanley Australia Limited (collectively, "Morgan Stanley");
(7) Credit Suisse AG and Credit Suisse Group AG ("Credit Suisse");
and (8) BNP Paribas, S.A. ("BNPP"), Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche
Bank"), Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"), The Royal Bank of Scotland
plc (n/k/a NatWest Markets plc) ("RBS"), and UBS AG ("UBS") in the
action titled Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al., No.
16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action").

The Settlements have been proposed to resolve a class action
lawsuit concerning the alleged manipulation of the Bank Bill Swap
Rate ("BBSW") and the prices of BBSW-Based Derivatives from January
1, 2003 through August 16, 2016, inclusive.  JPMorgan, Westpac,
ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank,
RBC, RBS and UBS each has denied and continues to deny each and
every claim asserted against them in the Action and deny having
engaged in any wrongdoing or violation of law of any kind
whatsoever.  They have agreed to the Settlements solely to avoid
the continuing cost and burden of, and expense associated with,
continued litigation.  Accordingly, the Settlements may not be
construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by JPMorgan, Westpac,
ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank,
RBC, RBS or UBS.  The Settlements will provide the following
amounts for the benefit of qualifying members of the Settlement
Class who transacted in BBSW-Based Derivatives from January 1, 2003
through August 16, 2016, inclusive:

JPMorgan Settlement:           $7,000,000

Westpac Settlement:           $25,000,000

ANZ Settlement:               $35,500,000

CBA Settlement:               $35,500,000

NAB Settlement:               $27,000,000

Morgan Stanley Settlement:     $7,000,000

Credit Suisse Settlement:      $8,875,000

BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC,
RBS and UBS Settlement:       $40,000,000

TOTAL:                       $185,875,000

If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form
to potentially get benefits.  You may exclude yourself from one or
more of the Settlements, or object to one or more of the
Settlements.   The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide
whether to approve the Settlements.

Who Is a Member of the Settlement Class?

You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased,
acquired, sold, held, traded or otherwise had any interest in
BBSW-Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2003 through
August 16, 2016, inclusive.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are
(i) the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent
of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant; and (ii) the United States Government.

You may contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold,
held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in BBSW-Based
Derivatives.  If you are not sure you are included, you can get
more information, including the Settlement Agreements, Mail Notice
and other important documents, at www.BBSWSettlement.com
("Settlement Website"), via email at info@BBSWSettlement.com or by
calling toll-free 1‑877-308-3241.

What Is the Nature of This Action?

Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2003 through
August 16, 2016, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the
manipulation of BBSW and the prices of BBSW‑Based Derivatives.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did so by using several means of
manipulation.  For example, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
coordinated manipulative, uneconomic transactions of Prime Bank
Bills during the daily BBSW "Fixing Window" in order to move the
published BBSW rate in a direction that benefitted their BBSW-Based
Derivatives trading positions and that inter-dealer brokers,
intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and
derivatives markets, assisted Defendants' effort to manipulate
BBSW.  Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various
theories, including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange
Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
common law.

JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse,
BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS each has consistently and
vigorously denied and continues to deny each and every allegation
of any wrongdoing that has or could have been asserted by or on
behalf of Plaintiffs.  JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan
Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS
further deny they have violated, in any way and to any degree,
inter alia, the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs.
1961-1968, and any claim available under U.S. common law, and
maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged
in this Action.  JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS each entered
into its respective Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs, despite
believing that it is not liable for the claims asserted against it,
solely to avoid the continuing cost and burden of, and business
interruption associated with, the Action.

What Do the Settlements Provide?

Under the Settlements, JPMorgan agreed to pay $7,000,000, Westpac
agreed to pay $25,000,000, ANZ agreed to pay $35,500,000, CBA
agreed to pay $35,500,000, NAB agreed to pay $27,000,000, Morgan
Stanley agreed to pay $7,000,000, Credit Suisse agreed to pay
$8,875,000 and BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS have agreed to
pay an aggregate $40,000,000 for the benefit of the Settlement
Class.  Under the terms of their respective Settlements, JPMorgan,
Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP,
Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS have each agreed to provide
Plaintiffs with certain cooperation materials solely for use in
connection with the prosecution of the Action against non-settling
Defendants or to provide notice of the Settlements to the
Settlement Class. If the Court approves the Settlements, potential
members of the Settlement Class who qualify and submit valid and
timely Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the
Net Settlement Funds.  The Settlement Agreements, available at the
Settlement Website, describe all of the details about the proposed
Settlements.  The method of distributing the Net Settlement Funds
to Authorized Claimants will be determined in accordance with a
Distribution Plan, which will be submitted to the Court by Class
Counsel (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP) before the below deadlines to object or to request
exclusion from one or more of the Settlements.  The proposed
Distribution Plan and Proof of Claim and Release form will be
posted on the Settlement Website at the time they are submitted to
the Court for approval on or about August 3, 2022.  The exact
amount each qualifying Settling Class Member will receive from the
Net Settlement Funds cannot be determined until (1) the Court
finally approves the Settlements; (2) the Court determines to
approve certain fees and expenses identified in the full Settlement
Agreements to be deducted from the Settlement Funds; and (3) the
number of participating Class Members and the amount of their
claims are determined pursuant to the Distribution Plan approved by
the Court.  In addition, each Settling Class Member's share of the
Settlement Fund will vary depending on the information the Settling
Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form.
The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case.  If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a
Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Request a Payment?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlements by submitting a Proof of Claim and
Release form to the Settlement Administrator (A.B. Data, Ltd.) at
the address set forth below that is postmarked no later than
January 16, 2023.  

BBSW Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173031
Milwaukee, WI 53217

You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release form on the Settlement
Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a
Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlement Agreements if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement Agreements, and you will not be eligible
to share in the Net Settlement Funds.

How Do You Request Exclusion or Object to the Settlements?

All requests to be excluded from one or more of the Settlements
must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Mail Notice (available on the Settlement Website) and must be sent
in writing by U.S. first class mail (or, if sent from outside the
U.S., by a service that provides for guaranteed delivery within
five (5) or fewer calendar days of mailing) to the Settlement
Administrator in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Mail Notice not later than September 2, 2022.  All objections to
one or more of the Settlements, including objections to Class
Counsel's requests for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Mail Notice (available on the
Settlement Website) and must be filed with the Court and received
by Class Counsel and counsel for JPM, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB,
Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and
UBS no later than September 2, 2022.

All requests for exclusion and objections must comply with the
requirements set forth in the Mail Notice and the Notice Orders
issued by the Court.  If you exclude yourself from one or more of
the Settlements, you will not be bound by the respective Settlement
Agreement(s) and may independently pursue claims at your own
expense.  However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be
eligible to share in the Net Settlement Funds or otherwise
participate in the Settlement(s) for which you have sought to be
excluded.  If you chose to remain in the Settlement Class and the
Court approves the Settlements, you will be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlements and any judgments or other orders
entered by the Court with respect to the Settlements.  

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing concerning the Settlements
on November 1, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 21B of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, New York 10007, to consider whether to approve the
Settlements and to consider a request by Class Counsel, which
represent all Settlement Class Members, for an award of attorneys'
fees of no more than one-third of the Settlement Funds for the
Settlements and for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses
in the amount of no more than $1,250,000.  Class Counsel may also
seek additional awards of fees, and reimbursement of costs and
expenses in connection with services provided after the Fairness
Hearing.  Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses will be available on the Settlement
Website on or about August 18, 2022.  The Representative Plaintiffs
may seek an award from the Settlement Fund of no more than $75,000
as reimbursement of their own expenses and compensation for their
time devoted to this litigation.  To the extent approved by the
Court, the foregoing payments will be deducted from the Settlement
Funds for the Settlements before any distributions are made to the
Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have
to.  You may enter an appearance through an attorney if you so
desire, but you do not have to.  For more information, call
toll-free 1-877-308-3241 or visit the website
www.BBSWSettlement.com.  The time and date of the Fairness Hearing
may be continued from time to time without further notice, and you
are advised to confirm the time and location if you wish to attend.
As soon as practicable after any change in the scheduled date,
time or venue, such change will be posted on the Settlement
Website.

(1) "BBSW-Based Derivatives" means any financial derivative
instrument that is based or priced in whole or in part in any way
on the Bank Bill Swap Rate ("BBSW") or in any way includes BBSW as
a component of price (whether priced, benchmarked and/or settled by
BBSW), entered into by a U.S. person, or by a person from or
through a location within the U.S., including, but not limited to:
(i) Australian dollar foreign exchange ("FX") derivatives,
including Australian dollar FX forwards (also known as "outright
forwards" or "outrights"), Australian dollar FX swaps (also known
as "currency swaps"), Australian dollar currency options,
Australian dollar futures contracts (such as the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") Australian dollar futures contract) and options on
such futures contracts; (ii) BBSW-based interest rate derivatives,
including interest rate swaps, swaptions, forward rate agreements
("FRAs"), exchange-traded deliverable swap futures and options on
those futures, 90-day bank accepted bill ("BAB") futures and
options on those futures, and other over-the-counter ("OTC")
contracts or publicly traded vehicles that reference BBSW; (iii)
Australian dollar cross-currency swaps; and (iv) any other
financial derivative instrument or transaction based in whole or in
part on BBSW, or that in any way incorporates BBSW as a component
of price, or is alleged by Representative Plaintiffs in this Action
to be based in whole or in part on BBSW, or to in any way
incorporate BBSW as a component of price.  For the avoidance of
doubt, BBSW-Based Derivatives do not include: (i) any BBSW-based
deposits or loans, including floating rate notes, deposit-taking
facilities, and commercial loans that are priced or call for
payments due, in whole or in part, based on BBSW, including
Australian dollar deposits and loans ("BBSW-Based Deposits or
Loans"); or (ii) any negotiable certificates of deposit ("NCDs")
and bank accepted bills ("BABs") issued and accepted by Prime Banks
(collectively, "Prime Bank Bills") or Prime Bank eligible
securities. "Prime Banks" means the banks designated by AFMA as
prime banks during the Settlement Class Period.

(2) The "Settlement Agreements" means the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with JPMorgan entered into on November 20, 2018, the
Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
JPMorgan entered into on March 1, 2021, and the Second Amendment to
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with JPMorgan entered
into on January 13, 2022; the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Westpac entered into on March 1, 2021 and the
Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Westpac entered into on January 13, 2022; the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with ANZ entered into on December 10, 2021;
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with CBA entered into
on December 10, 2021; the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
with NAB entered into on December 10, 2021; the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with Morgan Stanley entered into on October
1, 2021 and the Amendment to the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with Morgan Stanley entered into on January 13, 2022;
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Credit Suisse
entered into on January 21, 2022; and the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement with BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS entered
into on April 29, 2022.


KROGER CO: Class Action Suit Over Patches' False Ads Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
medtruth.com reports that a class action lawsuit alleging that
Kroger brand's lidocaine patches were falsely advertised has been
dismissed. The suit claimed that the patches fall off within
minutes after being applied to the skin, despite promising pain
relief for hours.

The lawsuit, filed May 23, claimed that Kroger, which manufactures
and markets pain relief patches with 4% lidocaine, violated both
federal and state consumer laws.

Plaintiff Tina Lee said that Kroger's lidocaine patches use
misleading marketing terms such as:

Maximum Strength
Up to 8 hours of relief
For Temporary Relief of Pain
Provides Numbing Relief
Desensitize Aggravated Nerves
Lee's lawsuit alleged that Kroger's lidocaine patches do not offer
the implied benefits on the product labels. The suit also claimed
that Kroger failed to prove in clinical studies that its pain
relief patch can stick to a consumer's skin, something that other
companies selling similar patches have accomplished, according to
Lee.

The class action also said that Kroger had been aware of the pain
patches falling off of consumers' bodies because of online user
comments, but they neglected to rectify problems with the product
or revise the product's labeling.

The price for Kroger brand lidocaine patches is $8.99 for six
patches, excluding tax, which is more expensive than similar
products, Lee's lawsuit said. This premium price, the plaintiff
argued, is directly related to the false and misleading marketing
claims.

Although Lee's lawsuit against Kroger has been dismissed
voluntarily, it was filed at a time when similar lidocaine patch
lawsuits were being filed against Walmart and Walgreens. [GN]

LEITERS INC: May Face Class Suit Over Personal Info Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
legalscoops.com reports that on May 23, 2022, Leiters, Inc., a
pharmacy based in Englewood, Colorado that provides specialized
"compounded" prescription medications by mail-order, reported a
data breach involving sensitive personal information from its
mailed prescription orders. This breach took place between April
6-8, 2022.

According to the company, on April 11, 2022, Leiters "identified
unauthorized activity involving [its] computer systems." After
further investigation, it was determined that an unauthorized
person accessed Leiter's computer network and obtained files from
the system.

The stolen files involved invoice information about mailed
prescription orders placed between 2016 and 2019, and may include:

Customer Names
Addresses
Phone Numbers
Invoice Numbers
Prescription Information, and
Debit and Credit Card Information - the last four digits exposed
and the expiration date

If you received a Data Breach Notice from Leiters and are concerned
about this breach of your medical data and what your options are,
fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8
(1-844-273-2248).

California Privacy Laws Protect You
If you are a California resident and received prescription
medications from Leiters, several laws, including the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), require that
every company that maintains medical information do so in a manner
that reasonably preserves its confidentiality, protecting it from
unauthorized access.

Under the CMIA, if you received a recent Notice of Data Breach from
Leiters and are or were a California resident, you may be entitled
to $1,000 and your actual damages resulting from the release of
your confidential information.

Participants in data breach lawsuits can recover damages,
injunctive relief (to make sure that the business has reasonable
security practices in place to protect consumer data from being
leaked again), and anything else the court concludes is necessary
to compensate data breach victims and prevent these harms from
reoccurring.

If you received a Data Breach Notice from Leiters and are concerned
about this breach of your medical data and what your options are,
fill out the form below or call us at 1-844-BREACH8
(1-844-273-2248).

Pharmaceutical Records Are Highly Attractive Targets for
Cyber-Criminals
Identity theft is on the upswing. By 2021, there were over 50
million personal records compromised nationwide.

Even Equifax and Experian, which are in the business of offering
credit monitoring services, have experienced massive data breaches
affecting over 150 million people.

The pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry have seen a significant
increase in data breaches in the past few years.

According to data risk protection group, Constella Intelligence,
from January 2018 to September 2021, pharmaceutical companies
experienced 9,830 breaches and leakages, exposing over 4.5 million
records from the companies analyzed.[1] Approximately 64% of the
breaches and leakages contained personally identifiable
information, like here most often including email, password, name,
username, phone number, address, date of birth, and credit card
information.[2]

As data held by these companies is particularly sensitive, these
cyber thieves recognize the havoc they can cause by stealing
medical information. And when data such as medical records are
stolen, cyber thieves may choose to wait years to capitalize on
compromised personal data. The longer cyber thieves can go
undetected, the more they stand to profit from their illegal
activities.

Therefore, it is important for companies such as Leiters to be
proactive and vigilant about eliminating or reducing their risk for
attacks and to meet their health data breach notification
obligations to protect the public.[3]

Once you know your data has been disclosed, it is reasonable to be
concerned that your data might be used. Compromised data also
increases the risk of hacking, phishing, and increased anxiety over
future losses and identity theft.

Exercise Your Legal Rights Under California Law
Experienced data breach and class action attorneys can help you
exercise your rights, evaluate your options, and decide whether you
could seek compensation under the CMIA. There are no out of pocket
costs to you, as we only get paid if we prevail.

If you received a Data Breach Notice from Leiters and are concerned
about this breach of your medical data and what your options are,
simply fill out the form or call us at 1-844-BREACH8
(1-844-273-2248). [GN]

LOUIS MILUSNIC: Parties Seek to Certify Settlement Class in Garries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD GARRIES; ANDREW
YBARRA, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated,
v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, in his capacity as Warden of Lompoc, et al.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying as the Settlement Class the class that was
      provisionally certified on July 14, 2020;

   2. preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement;

   3. approving the proposed Notice to the Class; and

   4. setting the proposed case schedule and fairness hearing.

Petitioners filed suit on May 16, 2020, seeking (1) a "highly
expedited process" for review of class members for home
confinement, as well as (2) an order seeking improved conditions,
including adequate social distancing, access to hygiene supplies
and PPE, adequate screening procedures, a system for isolated
exposed individuals, adequate medical care for those that contract
COVID-19, protections against retaliation, and monitoring to ensure
compliance.

Petitioners moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
class certification. On July 14, 2020, the Court issued an order
granting Petitioners' motions in part, converting the requested TRO
into a preliminary injunction, and provisionally certifying a class
of people in custody at Lompoc over 50 or with underlying health
conditions.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mW3uVn at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff-Petitioners, are:

          Terry W. Bird, Esq.
          Dorothy Wolpert, Esq.
          Shoshana E. Bannett, Esq.
          Kate S. Shin, Esq.
          Oliver Rocos, Esq.
          Christopher J. Lee, Esq.
          BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
          NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
          RHOW, P.C.
          1875 Century Park East, 23 rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
          Telephone: (310) 201-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
          E-mail: tbird@birdmarella.com
                  dwolpert@birdmarella.com
                  sbannett@birdmarella.com
                  kshin@birdmarella.com
                  orocos@birdmarella.com
                  clee@birdmarella.com

               - and -

          Naeun Rim, Esq.
          Ima E. Nsien, Esq.
          David Boyadzhyan, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: nrim@manatt.com
                  insien@manatt.com
                  dboyadzhyan@manatt.com

The Attorneys for Defendants-Respondents, are:

          Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq.
          David M. Harris, Esq.
          CHIEF, CIVIL DIVISION
          Joanne S. Osinoff
          ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          CHIEF, GENERAL CIVIL SECTION
          
               - and -

          Chung H. Han, Esq.
          Daniel A. Beck, Esq.
          Jasmin Yang, Esq.
          Paul B. Green, Esq.
          ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

LUCKY BUCKS: Ward Sues Over Failure to Pay Service Technicians' OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HAROLD WARD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKY BUCKS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02264-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 7, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as a Service Technician from January 2012
until June 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified him and other
similarly situated service technicians as exempt of overtime
compensation throughout their employment with the Defendant.
Despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek, added the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages for himself and all
other similarly situated service technicians. The Plaintiff also
seeks attorney fees, costs, penalties, pre- and post-judgment at
the highest rates allowed by law, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

Lucky Bucks, LLC provides coin-operated amusement machines. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Tel: (404) 965-8811
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  jstephens@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Alyssa J. White, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  awhite@mybackwages.com

MERRICK GARLAND: Clayton Files Suit in D. Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merrick Brian
Garland, et al. The case is styled as Victor Clayton, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated v. MERRICK GARLAND, U.S.
Attorney General, in his official capacity; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, Director of FBI in his official capacity;
MICHELLE MORGAN, AUSUA, Chief of Corruption Civil Rights Division
in her official capacity; AMANDA REINITZ, AUSA (E.D.P.A) in her
official capacity; JENNIFER ARBITTIER WILLIAMS, Acting United
States Attorney in her official capacity, Case No.
1:22-cv-01631-UNA (D.D.C., June 6, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights
(Other) for the Administrative Procedure Act.

Merrick Brian Garland -- https://www.justice.gov/ag -- is an
American lawyer and jurist serving as the 86th United States
attorney general since March 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MOWI ASA: Settles Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing for $85-MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Salmon manufacturers agreed to pay
$85 million to direct purchasers to resolve claims salmon products
were overpriced due to price fixing.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased farm-raised
Atlantic salmon products from various defendants between April 10,
2013, and May 26, 2022. Defendants covered by the settlement are:

Mowi (formerly known as Marine Harvest)
Mowi Ducktrap (also known as Ducktrap River of Maine)
Greig Seafood (formerly known as Ocean Quality)
Sjor AS
SalMar
Leroy Seafood
Cermaq

The Norwegian companies listed above are massive producers and
distributors of farm-raised salmon products. Direct purchasers for
these companies could include fish markets, restaurants and other
companies that purchased salmon products directly from
manufacturers.

According to a class action lawsuit against the defendants, salmon
producers violated federal law with a price-fixing scheme. As a
part of the plan, the defendants allegedly agreed to work together
to raise the price of salmon products.

The salmon market is especially vulnerable to manipulation by
Norwegian salmon companies since these producers set the benchmark
for global salmon prices, the price-fixing class action lawsuit
explains. As a result, the scheme allegedly had far-reaching
effects on the salmon market.

The plaintiffs maintain direct purchasers such as themselves were
tricked into overpaying for salmon products from the defendants. In
a healthy, competitive market, direct purchasers would have
allegedly been able to purchase the same products for a lower
price.

After the plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss, the defendants
agreed to resolve the allegations against them with an $85 million
settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can recover a cash
payment. Payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed
with the settlement and the amount of commerce claimed in total.

Each class member will receive a proportional share of the
settlement based on the amount of eligible product they purchased.


After initial distributions, any unclaimed funds will be used for
either a second round of payments or a cy pres donation to another
organization. No funds will be retained by the defendants.

The deadline for exclusion and objection in the settlement is July
11, 2022.

The salmon settlement final approval hearing is scheduled for Sept.
8, 2022. Class Members who wish to speak at the fairness hearing
must submit a notice to the court by July 11, 2022.

In order to receive a cash payment from the settlement, class
members must submit a valid claim form by Sept. 23, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased farm-raised
Atlantic salmon products from various defendants between April 10,
2013, and May 26, 2022. Defendants covered by the settlement are:

Mowi (formerly known as Marine Harvest)
Mowi Ducktrap (also known as Ducktrap River of Maine)
Greig Seafood (formerly known as Ocean Quality)
Sjor AS
SalMar
Leroy Seafood
Cermaq
Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Provide supporting documentation such as receipts, invoices, or
other payment documents naming the payee and payor.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
09/23/2022

Case Name
In Re: Farm-Raised Salmon and Salmon Products Antitrust,
Litigation, Master File No. 19-21551-CV-ALTONAGA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Final Hearing
09/08/2022

Settlement Website
SalmonDirectPurchaserSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Salmon Direct Purchaser Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91447
Seattle, WA 98111
info@SalmonDirectPurchaserSettlement.com
877-540-1084

Class Counsel
Peter Prieto
PODHURST ORSECK PA

Christopher L Lebsock
HAUSFELD LLP

Defense Counsel
Britt M. Miller
MAYER BROWN LLP

Eric Mahr
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP

D. Bruce Hoffman
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP

Matthew M. Martino
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

Stephen Neuwirth
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

Ryan W. Marth
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP [GN]

MSP DIGITAL LLC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSP Digital, LLC. The
case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MSP Digital, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04681 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

MSP Digital Marketing -- https://www.mspdigital.com/ -- helps
clients develop and deliver focused messages to the right audience
effectively and efficiently.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


NEST FRAGRANCES: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nest Fragrances, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nest Fragrances, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04730 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

NEST Fragrances -- https://www.nestnewyork.com/ -- is a luxury
lifestyle fragrance brand that designs, manufactures, and markets
exceptionally crafted home and fine fragrances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OOSHIRTS INC: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ooShirts Inc. The
case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. ooShirts Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04688 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

ooShirts -- http://www.ooshirts.com/-- is an online custom t-shirt
design company that allows groups and individuals to quickly and
conveniently create their own custom apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


PAIGE A. THOMPSON: USA's Consolidated Bids in Limine Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. PAIGE A.
THOMPSON, Defendant, Case No. CR19-159-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part
the government's Consolidated Motions in Limine.

I. Background

Defendant Thompson faces trial for charges of wire fraud,
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. Section
1030) ("CFAA"), access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
The indictment alleges that the Defendant created proxy scanners
that allowed her to identify Amazon Web Services servers with
misconfigured web application firewalls that permitted outside
commands to reach and be executed by the servers. The Defendant
then allegedly sent commands to the misconfigured servers to obtain
security credentials for particular accounts or roles belonging to
the victims. She allegedly used these "stolen credentials" to "copy
data, from folders or buckets of data" in the victims' cloud
storage space and set up cryptocurrency mining operations on the
victims' rented servers.

The matter comes before the Court on the government's "Consolidated
Motions in Limine."

II. Discussion

The government moves the Court to: (A) exclude evidence or argument
regarding potential or actual cyber-security vulnerabilities of
victim companies, including Capital One, other than the
vulnerability allegedly exploited by defendant, (B) exclude
evidence or argument regarding a note given to an Amazon employee
by an unknown person in mid-to-late May 2019, describing a
potential Amazon Web Services ("AWS") security vulnerability, (C)
exclude evidence relating to an $80 million civil penalty imposed
against victim Capital One by the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency ("OCC") in August 2020, (D) exclude evidence regarding a
pending $190 million settlement by Capital One of a class-action
lawsuit brought on behalf of Capital One's customers whose personal
identifying information ("PII") defendant allegedly stole, and (E)
exclude evidence and argument from defendant's mental health expert
except as it bears directly on her capacity to form the specific
intent for the crimes for which she is being tried.

A. Motion in Limine No. 1: Victim Security Vulnerabilities

The government moves the Court to exclude evidence regarding
cyber-security vulnerabilities at Capital One or other victim
entities that are unrelated to the specific vulnerability that
defendant allegedly exploited in the case at hand. The government
argues that such evidence would be irrelevant and would confuse the
issues, mislead the jury, waste time, and risk unfair prejudice. In
particular, the government argues that such evidence would be
irrelevant because the existence of other vulnerabilities does not
"bear on any issue involving the elements of the charged
offenses."

Judge Lasnik disagrees with the government. He says, the
government's argument is hung on the legal proposition that victim
negligence is not a defense to wire fraud. The government, however,
makes an unsupported leap to the conclusion that victim negligence
is also not a defense to CFAA violations, and the security
vulnerability evidence must therefore be excluded as irrelevant.
Therefore, to the extent that the Defendant seeks to introduce
evidence regarding cyber-security vulnerabilities at Capital One or
other victim entities unrelated to the specific vulnerability that
defendant allegedly exploited here to show victim negligence as a
defense to wire fraud, she may not do so.

In addition, to the extent that the Defendant seeks to introduce
evidence of the victims' prior cybersecurity vulnerabilities to
argue that the data was not "confidential business information,"
she may do so, but only if such evidence goes to the specific data
that the Defendant allegedly obtained in the case. Evidence that
other data was not confidential business information due to
security vulnerabilities would be irrelevant.

B. Motion in Limine No. 2: AWS Security Vulnerability Note

The government moves the Court to exclude evidence regarding "a
handwritten note of unknown origin given to an Amazon employee at
an internal Amazon conference in May, 2019, and then shared by
Amazon with Capital One." The note warned Amazon of an open SOCKS
proxy. The government argues that the note is irrelevant because:
(i) the security vulnerability that defendant allegedly exploited
in this case did not involve a SOCKS proxy, (ii) Amazon received
the note approximately two months after defendant allegedly
exfiltrated Capital One's data, and (iii) the government is unaware
of any evidence that defendant was involved with the writing or
dissemination of the note.

The Defendant argues, among other things, that the note is relevant
because it identifies the same IP address that she allegedly
accessed and the same vulnerability that she allegedly exploited
and because there is circumstantial evidence that Capital One
believed that she authored or otherwise authorized the note.

In light of the substantial similarities between the Defendant's
alleged conduct and the vulnerability described in the note, Judge
Lasnik rejects the government's argument that the note is
irrelevant because it refers to a SOCKS proxy rather than an HTTP
proxy. He is likewise unpersuaded that the date of the note renders
it irrelevant, given its proximity to the Defendant's alleged
conduct.

C. Motion in Limine No. 3: Capital One Civil Penalty

The government moves the Court to exclude evidence of the fact that
the OCC imposed an $80 million fine on Capital One following
defendant's alleged breach. The Defendant argues that evidence of
the OCC fine is critical to its cross-examination of Capital One
witnesses, as Capital One has a strong interest in blaming the data
breach on defendant. The Defendant further argues that the consent
order is not hearsay because it is falls under the public record
exception to the hearsay rule.

Judge Lasnik agrees with the Defendant that evidence of the OCC
fine is relevant cross-examination evidence, and this use outweighs
the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and
misleading the jury. He therefore declines to exclude evidence of
the OCC fine pursuant to Rules 401 and 403.

As to whether the OCC consent order is excludable hearsay, Judge
Lasnik holds that the OCC is a public office, and the consent order
sets out the OCC's factual findings. The OCC consent order
therefore is not inadmissible hearsay.

D. Motion in Limine No. 4: Capital One Class Action Settlement

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 408, the
government moves the Court to exclude all evidence relating to
Capital One's proposed $190 million class action settlement
stemming from the data breach.

First, Judge Lasnik disagrees that such evidence is inadmissible
across the board. He therefore declines to exclude the settlement
on this ground. Second, he agrees that the proposed settlement is
properly excluded under Rule 403. Because Judge Lasnik concludes
that evidence of the proposed class action settlement is properly
excluded pursuant to Rule 403, he does not consider the parties'
arguments pursuant to Rule 408.

E. Motion in Limine No. 5: Mental Health Evidence

The government moves the Court to exclude evidence regarding the
Defendant's mental health unless such evidence relates directly to
the Defendant's mens rea for the charged offenses. The Defendant
argues that this motion should be denied as premature because the
Defendant has not yet decided if she will put on a mental condition
defense.

Judge Lasnik agrees with the government. Only relevant evidence is
admissible. "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to
make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the
action." A fact is of consequence to the determination of the
action if it "bears on any issue involving the elements of the
charged offense." Evidence of the Defendant's mental health only
conceivably bears on the intent elements of the charged offenses.
Such evidence offered for any other purpose is therefore
inadmissible. Judge Lasnik, therefore, grants the government's
motion to exclude irrelevant mental health evidence.

III. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik grants in part and
denies in part the government's Consolidated Motions in Limine.

Motion in Limine No. 1 is granted in part. The Defendant may
present evidence regarding cyber-security vulnerabilities at
Capital One or other victim entities that are unrelated to the
specific vulnerability that defendant allegedly exploited in the
case at hand to the extent that the Defendant seeks to show that
access to the computer was open to the general public. The
Defendant may not present such evidence to show victim negligence
in relation to the wire fraud charge.

Motion in Limine No. 2 is denied. The Defendant may present the AWS
security vulnerability note.

Motion in Limine No. 3 is denied. The Defendant may use the OCC
fine as cross-examination evidence, and the OCC consent order is
not excludable hearsay.

4. Motion in Limine No. 4 is granted. The Court excludes all
evidence relating to Capital One's proposed $190 million class
action settlement stemming from the data breach.

Motion in Limine No. 5 is granted. The Defendant's mental health
evidence is excluded unless it relates to the Defendant's mes rea
for the charged offenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ycyf2fnu from Leagle.com.


PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Settlement Deal in Valladares Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY VALLADARES, CARLOS
REYES, YOSELY ESPINAL HENRIQUEZ, VILMA DIAZ and JESSICA CHICAS
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PERFUME WORLDWIDE INC. and PIYUSH GOLIA, Case No. 2:17-cv-02972-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Steven J. Moser entered an order:

   1. Certifying the following settlement class under Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of effectuating the
      parties' settlement:

      "All employees of Perfume Worldwide Inc. who performed
      work as non-exempt employees between January 1, 2011 and
      December 31, 2018;"

   2. Granting final approval of the proposed Class and
      Collective Action Settlement Agreement;

   3. Awarding $10,000 to each of the seven class
      representatives as compensation for their service on
      behalf of the class;

   4. Approving administration costs and fees in an amount of up
      to $37,500.00 to be paid to the claims administrator,
      Settlement Services, Inc. (SSI);

   5. Approving Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
      of one-third of the total settlement amount ($750,000.00),
      as well as out of pocket litigation expenses;

   6. Directing the Parties and the Claims Administrator to
      fully comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
      and incorporating by reference the terms of the proposed
      settlement; and

   7. Dismissing this matter and Litigation in its entirety and
      with prejudice.

Perfume Worldwide is an online retailer for fragrance, hair care,
skincare, cosmetics, and small accessories.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aIVbct at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Moser
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 East Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150

PHILLIPS 66: Fails to Pay CFRs' OT Wages, Fontenot Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN J. FONTENOT, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01866
(S.D. Tex., June 7, 2022) brings this collective action complaint
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Construction Field
Representative (CFR) from approximately November 2019 until March
2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other
similarly situated CFRs as independent contractors. Although they
regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, the Defendant did not
pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the legally
mandated rate. Instead, they were only paid a flat amount for each
day worked without overtime compensation throughout their
employment with the Defendant, adds the Plaintiff.

Phillips 66 Company is an energy company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor S. Montgomery, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tmontgomery@mybackwages.com

                - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

PIONEER VALLEY: Acevedo Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pioneer Valley
Interiors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Enrique Acevedo,
individually and on behalf of a group of individuals similarly
situated v. Pioneer Valley Interiors, Inc., Andrey Kaletin, Sergey
Kaletin, Pavel Kaletin, Case No. 2279CV00341 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Hampden Cty., June 6, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Equitable Remedies."

Pioneer Valley Interiors, Inc. --
https://pioneervalleyinteriors.com/ -- is a family owned and
operated dry wall contractor in West Springfield,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Simpson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES W. SIMPSON, JR., P.C
          100 Concord St., Suite 3B
          Framingham, MA 01702


PJ OPS IDAHO: Court Certifies Five Classes in Edwards FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORY EDWARDS, et al., On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ OPS IDAHO, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho), Judge David C.
Nye of the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Rule 23 Classes Under
Idaho, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, and North Dakota Law.

I. Introduction

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Certification. Judge Nye held oral argument on April 21, 2022, and
took the Motion under advisement.

II. Background

The lawsuit is a putative hybrid Rule 23 class and 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) collective action. Named Plaintiffs Cory Edwards,
James Hollingsworth, Matthew Garber, Seth Thomas Sweeney, John
Carrigan, and Jeffrey Smith worked, at one point or another, as
pizza-delivery drivers for various Papa John's franchise locations
in various states. In the action, the Plaintiffs assert the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201, et seq. ("FLSA") and various states' laws by improperly
applying a tip credit to their wages and by failing to adequately
reimburse them for their delivery expenses.

On May 15, 2018, the Court conditionally certified a Section 216(b)
FLSA collective action. Notice was sent to 3,846 prospective
plaintiffs and, to date, roughly 700 individuals have consented to
join this action. On Dec. 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant
Motion seeking class certification for five classes -- one each in
Idaho, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, and North Dakota. The
Defendants oppose the motion.

In connection with this certification, the Plaintiffs also ask the
Court to: (1) affirm them as the class representatives; (2) approve
their selection of counsel by appointing Biller & Kimble, LLC; Paul
LLP; and Weinhaus & Potashnick as the Class Counsel pursuant to
Rule 23(g); and (3) permit them to send notice of the lawsuit to
putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).

II. Analysis

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may certify a
class if the class meets the numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy prerequisites of Rule 23(a). In addition to meeting
the four requirements of Rule 23(a), class actions must fall within
one of the three types specified in Rule 23(b). The district
court's Rule 23(a) and (b) analysis must be "rigorous." The party
seeking certification bears the burden of showing that each of the
four requirements of Rule 23(a), and at least one of requirements
of Rule 23(b), have been met.

Judge Nye holds that there are some matters in the case that are
not a perfect fit for a class action. But perfection is not
required, and the nuances here do not defeat the underlying purpose
of Rule 23. The purpose of a class action is to obviate the need
for all similarly situated persons to file separate lawsuits when
impractical to do so. In the case, Judge Nye finds that the
Plaintiffs are all similarly situated. They have identical job
roles and identical claims against the Defendants. The resolution
of the Plaintiffs' claims should, therefore, be determined in the
same forum. Such a course of action is beneficial for the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

Based on the foregoing analysis, Judge Nye finds that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden under Rule 23(a)(1-4) and under
Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, he will certify each class as defined
by the Plaintiffs in their opening brief.

Additionally, Cory Edwards, Matthew Garber, Seth Thomas Sweeney,
John Carrigan, and Jeffrey Smith are approved as the class
representatives for the various subclasses.

Biller & Kimble, LLC; Paul LLP; and Weinhaus & Potashnick are also
approved as the Class Counsel.

Finally, the Plaintiffs are permitted to send notice of this
lawsuit to putative class members pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2).

III. Order

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motions to Seal
are granted.

Plaintiffs Cory Edwards, Matthew Garber, Seth Thomas Sweeney, John
Carrigan, and Jeffrey Smith are designated as the representatives
of each of their respective state classes.

The law firms of Biller & Kimble, LLC; Paul LLP; and Weinhaus &
Potashnick are designated as the Class Counsel.

Judge Nye approves for dissemination, in the manner proposed by the
Plaintiffs, the form of Class Notification attached as Exhibit 10
to the motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p86s75t from
Leagle.com.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Hit With Employee Wage Lawsuit Over Kronos Hack
---------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that PPG Industries Inc. is facing a
proposed class action alleging the company underpaid thousands of
employees when its timekeeping and payroll system was hacked.

PPG uses the Kronos time keeping system, which became inoperative
due to a ransomware attack from Dec. 11, 2021 through February
2022, according to the complaint, filed in the US District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Over the several week outage period, PPG paid its employees an
estimated weekly pay that didn't reflect the actual hours worked,
the complaint alleges. [GN]


PRESIDIO BRANDS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Presidio Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Presidio Brands, Inc. d/b/a Every Man
Jack, Case No. 1:22-cv-04684 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

Presidio Brands, Inc. doing business as Every Man Jack --
https://www.everymanjack.com/ -- set out to bring clean, affordable
grooming products to a rapidly expanding men's market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


QUEBEC: Judge Rejects Government's Effort to Quash Suit Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Gyulai at montrealgazette.com reports that a judge has
rejected the Quebec government's attempt to remove any evidence it
was repeatedly warned about illegal delays in the detention of
people arrested in the north of Quebec from a class-action lawsuit
that has been filed on behalf of at least 1,500 Nunavik residents
whose right to a timely bail hearing has been violated.

Quebec Superior Court Judge Donald Bisson dismissed the attorney
general of Quebec's arguments that the plaintiff should remove all
documents filed as exhibits in the lawsuit that show repeated
condemnations of the justice delays in Nunavik - where 90 per cent
of residents are Inuit - from judges, the Quebec Bar Association,
the Quebec Ombudsman, the Viens Commission and even the current
justice minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, when his Coalition Avenir
Québec party was in the opposition.

The attorney general had argued that such references in the lawsuit
as Jolin-Barrette's comments in 2016 that the Ministry of Public
Security had "ignored citizens who are in the territory of Nunavik
and treated them like second-class citizens" and that a
double-standard exists for citizens in northern Quebec and in
southern Quebec were "hearsay" and therefore should be removed.

On the contrary, the judge says in his June 7 ruling, the repeated
warnings to the government about the illegal delays for those
arrested in the north are "relevant."

Bisson's ruling adds that he "accepts as valid" the plaintiff's
position that the fact that Jolin-Barrette is now Minister of
Justice means his 2016 declarations constitutes "clear proof of the
attorney general's level of knowledge of the problem and of its own
perception of the unacceptable nature of the situation, which are
essential elements for the assessment of its conduct." The court
will decide on the plaintiff's argument at trial, Bisson writes.

"You can't write the Viens Commission out of existence, you can't
undo what all of these people said," Robert Kugler, one of the
lawyers representing the lead plaintiff, Michael Carrier, and the
class action's members, said.

"It's relevant because if the government was specifically told over
and over again about a problem and didn't act - which is one of the
allegations we make - that justifies the condemnation to punitive
damages."

The authorized class-action lawsuit against the attorney general of
Quebec seeks compensation of $219 million, on top of $75 million in
punitive damages. A trial date has not yet been set.

The lawsuit contends the government should be condemned to pay the
punitive damages, amounting to $50,000 per defendant, "given the
unlawful, intentional and malicious acts of the state and the
fundamental importance of dissuading it from disregarding the
fundamental rights of the people it detains, that is, a
historically disadvantaged and severely overly-prosecuted group."

The compensation, meanwhile, is calculated as $10,000 for each day
that every individual covered in the lawsuit was detained for
longer than three clear days before their bail hearing.

Every person arrested and detained in Canada has a guaranteed right
to a bail hearing within three days of their appearance following
arrest. However, that right is systematically violated in Nunavik
because it has no detention facility and anyone arrested there is
sent on a days-long harrowing journey by van to a courtroom in
Amos, first passing through Montreal and St-Jérôme, the lawsuit
says. Nunavik residents are "deported" to Amos, it alleges, because
the government has never made provisions to hold bail hearings by
video conference, even though the option exists in places like
Montreal. As well, the government hasn't heeded calls to fly
detainees directly between Nunavik and Amos, it says.

The lawsuit members include anyone arrested in Nunavik since 2015
who was detained longer than three days before a bail hearing.

Government statistics presented in the lawsuit show 3,656 arrests
involving about 1,500 men and women in Nunavik between 2015 and
2019 alone resulted in detentions that violated the three-day
maximum delay for a bail hearing. In that period, 97.55 per cent of
arrests in Nunavik resulted in individuals being detained, on
average, more than three times longer than the maximum limit.

The Quebec Justice Department said it will not comment on Bisson's
ruling "out of respect for the legal process." [GN]

REALGY LLC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Lindenbaum TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Roberta Lindenbaum, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Realgy, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19 CV 2862 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Patricia A. Gaughan of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, grants Realgy's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Facts

The case arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). Plaintiff Lindenbaum filed the class action lawsuit
against Defendant Realgy alleging that the Defendant or its agent
placed two illegal robocalls to her.

According to the Plaintiff, on Nov. 26, 2019, she received an
unsolicited, pre-recorded telephone call to her cellular telephone
number. Her caller identification system indicated that the call
was placed from 216-407-9803. Upon answering the call, the
Plaintiff heard a recorded voice discussing her electric bill. The
recording instructed the Plaintiff to press one in order to be
connected to a live operator. The Plaintiff pressed one, and spoke
with a man. He asked the Plaintiff to obtain a copy of her electric
bill, which she did.

The Plaintiff avers that he was very pushy and made her
uncomfortable. The operator asked her for her customer number,
address, other personal information, as well as the current price
she paid for electricity. He then offered to switch the Plaintiff's
electricity supplier in order to save her money. The Plaintiff
asked the operator "to identify the company from which he was
calling." He indicated that he was calling from "Realgy." At the
request of the Plaintiff, the operator spelled out the name of the
company.

The Plaintiff informed her son-in-law of the call. Her son-in-law
thereafter filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated.

After the filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff received a recorded
call to her land line. This time the caller identification system
showed that the call came from 216-612-0211. She again pressed one
and was transferred to a live operator, who made many of the same
aforementioned requests for information. The Plaintiff asked the
operator to identify the company from which he was calling, and the
operator identified Realgy.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint
asserting two claims for relief. Count one is a claim for violation
of 47 U.S.C. Section 227 for making a prohibited robocall to a
cellular line. Count two alleges a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section
227 for making a prohibited robocall to a residential land line.

Because of a genuine dispute as to whether the Defendant or its
agent placed the two telephone calls at issue, the Court allowed
the parties to brief the issue prior to addressing class
certification. The Defendant now moves for summary judgment, and
the Plaintiff opposes the motion.

II. Analysis

The parties agree that in order to succeed on her claims, the
Plaintiff must establish that defendant made a "prohibited call."
The Defendant argues that it did not make any call -- prohibited or
otherwise -- to the Plaintiff. The Defendant further argues that it
cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of the
unidentified caller.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that all of the
admissible evidence demonstrates that it did not directly make the
subject telephone calls. The Plaintiff disputes this assertion.
According to her, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to
the identity of the caller. She claims that the Defendant's own
evidence is either inconclusive or inadmissible. She points to her
own affidavit and argues that there are issues of credibility that
the jury must decide.

Judge Gaughan agrees with the Defendant. Michael Vrtis, the
Defendant's President, avers that the Defendant does not place
marketing calls itself. Instead, it contracted with Yorisdidi
Marketing ("YM") to run a telemarketing campaign on behalf of the
Defendant. Vrtis testified that he and his office manager searched
the records and reviewed the results. Specifically, he indicates
that they reviewed logs of calls that were maintained in the
ordinary course, but found no record of calls made to the
Plaintiff's telephone numbers, including on the days she alleges
she received the subject calls. The Court finds that this testimony
is sufficient to establish that Vrtis has personal knowledge of the
search for records and the results of that search.

Judge Gaughan concludes that there is no admissible evidence as to
who made the telephone calls, and the Plaintiff comes forward with
no evidence suggesting that an individual at YM placed the calls.
This is especially so in light of the fact that the Plaintiff notes
YM used three other agents. The Court will not assume that YM made
the call at issue because that is tantamount to issuing an advisory
opinion on the issue of YM's agency relationship with defendant.
Because the Plaintiff failed to produce any admissible evidence as
to whether the operator worked for YM or any one of its agents,
there is no evidence that an agent of the Defendant made a
prohibited call.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Realgy's Motion for Summary Judgment is
granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Memorandum of Opinion
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/25rnu6ub from
Leagle.com.


S&P GLOBAL: Court Sets July 31 Deadline on Class Action Opt-Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Court of Australia Proceedings No: NSD 881 of 2020
S&P CDO Ratings Class Action
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

A class action has been commenced in the Federal Court of Australia
against S&P Global, Inc. and Standard & Poor's International, LLC
(together S&P) regarding collateralised debt obligations (CDOs).

The relevant CDOs were rated "AA" or higher by S&P in the period
from December 2005 to around mid to late 2007. You may be eligible
to participate in the class action if you acquired an interest in
such a CDO because the rating was published or disseminated in
Australia. Some class members may not be aware of a class action
having been commenced on their behalf. The Federal Court has
directed class members to decide whether they wish to:

(1) opt out of the class action by July 31, 2022; or

(2) register in the class action by July 31, 2022 to
    ensure their right to any compensation that may
    become available in this class action pursuant
    to any settlement reached at an upcoming
    mediation (subject to Court approval); or

(3) remain part of the class action without registering.

A longform notice is available at
https://bantongroup.com/SandPCDOs/ which provides more information
about the class action.

If you meet these criteria and suffered loss or damage from your
investment, you may have an eligible claim.

If you think you may be a class member, visit
https://bantongroup.com/SandP-CDOs/ or contact the applicants'
solicitors Banton Group by email (sandpcdos@bantongroup.com) to
obtain more information including a long-form version of this
notice.

You should read this carefully. If there is anything that you do
not understand, you should seek independent legal advice. If you
are unable to email, Banton Group's phone number is (+61) 2 8076
8090.

If you take no action, you may lose any right to receive
compensation or to pursue any separate action on your claim.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: $21.8MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

In re SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

No. 5:12-cv-01341-G

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SANDRIDGE
ENERGY, INC. ("SANDRIDGE") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 24, 2011 AND NOVEMBER 8, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, that a
hearing, which the Court may require or permit to be conducted as a
telephonic hearing, will be held on October 6, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Charles B. Goodwin, United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, 200 NW 4th Street,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102, for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the above-captioned litigation
(the "Litigation"), as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement ("Stipulation") reached between the parties,
consisting of Twenty-One Million Eight Hundred Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($21,807,500) in cash, should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether
the release by Class Members of claims as set forth in the
Stipulation should be authorized; (3) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Allocation") is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the application by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, charges, and expenses and
the award to Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in
connection with their representation of the Class should be
approved; and (5) whether the Judgment, in the form attached to the
Stipulation, should be entered.

Please note that the date, time and location of the Settlement
Hearing are subject to change without further notice.  The Court
may require or permit attendance at the Settlement Hearing by
telephone.  If the Court requires or permits telephonic
participation in the Settlement Hearing, the dial-in number for the
Settlement Hearing will be posted on
www.SandRidgeSecuritiesSettlement.com.  Class Members who intend to
appear at the Settlement Hearing are advised to visit
www.SandRidgeSecuritiesSettlement.com for updates.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ANY OF THE COMMON STOCK OF SANDRIDGE
DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN FEBRUARY 24, 2011 AND NOVEMBER 8, 2012,
INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by
writing to SandRidge Securities Settlement, c/o Epiq, P.O. Box
6909, Portland, OR 97228-6909, or on the internet at
www.SandRidgeSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than August 19, 2022) or if submitted
electronically no later than August 19, 2022, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery.  Unless the deadline is extended, your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by the above deadline will
preclude you from receiving any payment from the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member and you desire to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than September 15, 2022, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice, referred to above.  All Members
of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from
the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation
pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee
and expense application must be mailed to each of the following
recipients, received no later than September 22, 2022:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
200 NW 4th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
EVAN J. KAUFMAN
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747

Counsel for Settling Defendants:

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
STEVEN M. BAUER
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
MARK P. GIMBEL
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR SETTLING
DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about
the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed
above.

DATED: June 3, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

URL// www.SandRidgeSecuritiesSettlement.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $175M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
beaconjournal.com reports that Signet Jewelers says it has agreed
to pay about $175 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that
alleged gender pay and promotion discrimination involving tens of
thousands of current and former employees.

The proposed settlement, involving Signet's Sterling Jewelers
subsidiary, was included in regulatory filings for the Akron
jewelry retailer's first quarter financial results that were
released. The agreement was reached, the company said.

The lawsuit alleged Signet-owned brand stores discriminated against
female employees in pay and promotions dating back to 2003.

                 Signet Issues Statement

The company and plaintiffs put out a joint statement on the
settlement separate from Signet's earnings release. A spokesperson
said the company will not comment beyond what was in the
statement.

About $125 million of the settlement will go to about 68,000
claimants, the company said. That works out to an average of $1,838
per person. The remaining $50 million will pay for estimated
employer payroll taxes, administration fees, and attorney fees and
costs, according to the regulatory filing.

Signet Jewelers says it has agreed to pay about $175 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged gender pay and promotion
discrimination involving tens of thousands of current and former
employees.

The proposed settlement, involving Signet's Sterling Jewelers
subsidiary, was included in regulatory filings for the Akron
jewelry retailer's first quarter financial results that were
released. The agreement was reached the company said.

The lawsuit alleged Signet-owned brand stores discriminated against
female employees in pay and promotions dating back to 2003.

Signet issues statement
The company and plaintiffs put out a joint statement on the
settlement separate from Signet's earnings release. A spokesperson
said the company will not comment beyond what was in the
statement.

About $125 million of the settlement will go to about 68,000
claimants, the company said. That works out to an average of $1,838
per person. The remaining $50 million will pay for estimated
employer payroll taxes, administration fees, and attorney fees and
costs, according to the regulatory filing.[GN]

SYMANTEC CORP: Class Settlement to be Heard on July 7
-----------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION
FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of
SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN M. BENNETT, et al.,
Defendants,
-and SYMANTEC CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation,
Nominal Defendant.

Case No. 1-13-CV-244718

AMENDED NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
EXHIBIT C
Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni
Dept.: 1
Date Action Filed: April 16, 2013


TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF NORTONLIFELOCK INC., FORMERLY
KNOWN AS SYMANTEC CORPORATION ("NORTON" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY
AND AS OF DECEMBER 16, 2021 ("CURRENT SHAREHOLDERS"):

THIS NOTICE RELATES TO THE PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE
CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. IF YOU ARE A NORTON SHAREHOLDER,
THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS.

THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND
UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR MONETARY PAYMENT. IF YOU DO NOT
OBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE AMOUNT
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOU ARE
NOT OBLIGATED TO TAKE ANY ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior Court
of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara (the "Court"), that a proposed
settlement (the "Settlement")1 has been reached by the parties to
the above-captioned shareholder derivative action (the "Action")
brought on behalf and for the benefit of Norton.

A hearing will be held on July 7, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni, at the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, Downtown Superior Court, 191
North First Street, San Jose, California 95113 (the "Settlement
Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the
Settlement. You have an opportunity to be heard at
this hearing.

The terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Stipulation and
summarized in this Notice. If approved by the Court, the Settlement
will fully resolve the Action, including the dismissal of the
Action with prejudice. For a more detailed statement of the matters
involved in the Action, the Settlement, and the terms discussed in
this Notice, the Stipulation may be inspected at the Clerk of
Court's office, Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Downtown Superior Court, 191 North First Street,
San Jose, California 95113. The Stipulation is also available for
viewing on the website of Norton at
https://investor.nortonlifelock.com/resources/notice-of-settlement.com

THE ACTION
The Action is brought by Plaintiff solely on behalf of and for the
benefit of Norton and against
the Individual Defendants. The derivative claims arise from the
Individual Defendants' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment in connection
with their failure to provide adequate oversight as to Norton's
compliance with certain provisions of its contract with the U.S.
Government (specifically, its U.S. General Services Administration
Multiple Award Schedule Contract No. GS 35F-0240T (the "GSA
Schedule Contract")). Specifically, the Action concerns whether the
Company provided false, incomplete, and inaccurate information to
the U.S. government regarding the discounts that Norton offered to
other customers, and ultimately overcharged the U.S. government for
its products and services.

On May 17, 2012, relator Lori Morsell (the "Relator") filed a qui
tam complaint against Norton
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf
of the United States, alleging that the Company breached its
obligations under the GSA Schedule Contract and violated the False
Claims Act. On July 18, 2014, the U.S. government moved to
intervene, and the states of Florida and California moved to
intervene shortly thereafter (the "Government Action," captioned
United States ex rel. Morsell v. NortonLifeLock Inc. (f/k/a
Symantec Corp.), No. 1:12-cv-00800 (D.D.C.)). The trial of the
Government Action concluded in March 2022 and the parties are
currently engaging in post trial briefing.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND THE BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff believes that the Action has substantial merit, and
Plaintiff's entry into the Stipulation and Settlement is not
intended to be and shall not be construed as an admission or
concession concerning the relative strength or merit of the claims
alleged in the Action. However, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel
recognize and acknowledge the significant risk, expense, and length
of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Action against
the Individual Defendants through trial and possible appeals.
Plaintiff's Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain
outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex cases
such as the Action, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent
in such litigation. Plaintiff's Counsel are also mindful of the
inherent problems of establishing standing in derivative
litigation, and the possible defenses to the claims alleged in the
Action.

Plaintiff's Counsel have conducted extensive investigation and
analysis, including, inter alia:


   (i) reviewing Norton's press releases, public statements, U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings, and securities
analysts' reports and advisories about the Company;

  (ii) reviewing related media reports about the Company;

(iii) issuing the 220 Demand on the Company, negotiating for
internal books and records regarding the alleged wrongdoing, and
reviewing the books and records produced;

  (iv) researching applicable law with respect to the claims
alleged in the Action and potential defenses thereto;

    (v) preparing and filing the derivative complaint;

   (vi) conducting damages analyses;

  (vii) evaluating the merits of, and potential liability in
connection with the Government Action; and

(viii) negotiating this Settlement with Defendants, including
researching corporate governance best practices and negotiating the
Reforms.

Based on Plaintiff's Counsel's thorough review and analysis of the
relevant facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal
principles, Plaintiff's Counsel believe that the Settlement set
forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
confers substantial benefits upon Norton. Based upon Plaintiff's
Counsel's evaluation, Plaintiff has determined that the Settlement
is in the best interests of Norton and has agreed to settle the
Action upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth
herein.

TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT

The terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are set forth
in the Stipulation, which has been filed with the Court and is
available for viewing on Norton's website at
https://investor.nortonlifelock.com/resources/notice-of-settlement.com.
The following is only a summary of its terms.

As consideration for the Settlement, Norton has agreed to ensure
adherence to the corporate governance reforms set forth in Exhibit
A to the Stipulation (the "Reforms"). The Reforms shall be
maintained by Norton for a period of not less than four (4) years.
Norton and the Individual Defendants acknowledge and agree that the
Reforms confer substantial benefits upon Norton and its
shareholders. Norton also acknowledges that the prosecution and
settlement of the Action was a
substantial and material factor in their agreement to adopt and/or
maintain the Reforms.

PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

After negotiating the substantive terms of the Settlement, the
Settling Parties discussed a fair and reasonable sum to be paid to
Plaintiff's Counsel for their attorneys' fees and expenses. In
recognition of the substantial benefits conferred upon Norton as a
direct result of the Settlement, and subject to Court approval,
Norton agreed to pay Plaintiff's Counsel the agreed-to amount of
$450,000 (the "Fee and Expense Amount"). To date, Plaintiff's
Counsel have neither received any payment for their services in
conducting the Action, nor have counsel been reimbursed for their
out-of-pocket expenses incurred. The Settling Parties believe that
the sum agreed to is within the range of attorneys' fees and
expenses approved by courts under similar circumstances in
litigation of this type. Norton shareholders are not personally
liable for the payment of any award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Plaintiff's Counsel may apply to the Court for a service award of
up to $2,000 for Plaintiff, only to be paid upon Court approval,
and to be paid from the Fee and Expense Amount in recognition of
Plaintiff's participation and effort in the prosecution of the
Action. Neither Norton nor any of the Individual Defendants shall
be liable for any portion of any service awards.

THE SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Settlement Hearing will be held before the Honorable Sunil R.
Kulkarni, at the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, Downtown Superior Court, 191 North First Street,
San Jose, California 95113, at which the Court will determine: (i)
whether the terms of the Stipulation should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Judgment finally
approving the Settlement, substantially in the form of Exhibit E
attached to the Stipulation, should be entered, dismissing the
Action with prejudice and releasing and enjoining the prosecution
of any and all Released Claims against the Released Persons; (iii)
whether the agreed-to Fee and Expense Amount (and Plaintiff's
service award to be paid out of the Fee and Expense Amount) should
be approved; and (iv) such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate. The Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court
at the Settlement Hearing, or at any adjourned session thereof
without further notice to Current Shareholders.

THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING

Any Current Shareholder may object and/or appear and show cause, if
he, she, or it has any concern, why the Settlement should not be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why the Judgment
should not be entered thereon, or why the amount of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should not be approved. Hearings
before the judge overseeing this case are again being conducted in
person. However, remote appearances are still permitted, and are
offered with the assistance of a third-party service provider,
CourtCall. If that remains the case at the time of the final
fairness hearing, shareholders who wish to appear at the final
fairness hearing remotely should contact Plaintiff's counsel to
arrange an appearance through CourtCall, at least three days before
the hearing if possible. Any CourtCall fees for an appearance by an
objecting shareholder shall be paid by Plaintiff's Counsel

All written objections and supporting papers must be filed on or
before June 23, 2022, with the Clerk of the Court, Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Downtown
Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113
and serve such materials by that date, to each of the following
Settling Parties' counsel:

Counsel for Plaintiff:
ROBBINS LLP
ASHLEY R. RIFKIN
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
arifkin@robbinsllp.com

Counsel for Defendants:
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
KATHERINE L. HENDERSON
One Market Plaza, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 947-2065
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
khenderson@wsgr.com

Any Current Shareholder may appear and object at the Settlement
Hearing without submitting a written objection.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, any Current Shareholder who
does not make his, her, or its objection in the manner provided
herein, whether by filing a written objection and/or appearing at
the Settlement Hearing, shall be deemed to have waived such
objection (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be
barred and foreclosed, in this proceeding or in any other
proceeding, from making any objection to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, or to otherwise be
heard, and shall otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered
and the releases to be given.

EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES

There is additional information concerning the Settlement available
in the Stipulation, which is available for viewing on Norton's
website at https://investor.nortonlifelock.com/resources/notice
of-settlement.com. You may also inspect the Stipulation during
business hours at the office of the Clerk of the Court, Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Downtown
Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113.
Or you can call Robbins LLP, 5040 Shoreham Place, San Diego,
California 92122, telephone: (619) 525-3990, for additional
information concerning the Settlement.


TELADOC HEALTH: Faces Class Suit for Allegedly Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the
telehealth company misled investors about its business and
prospects.

The suit was filed in US District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all people and entities who purchased
Teladoc securities between Oct. 28, 2021, and April 27, 2022.

According to the complaint, brought by shareholder Jeremy
Schneider, the company, its CEO and CFO made "materially false and
misleading statements" about increased competition that was
negatively impacting Teladoc's BetterHelp mental health and chronic
care businesses. The suit claims that as a result, growth of those
businesses was less sustainable than Teladoc had led investors to
believe, and the company's revenue and adjusted EBITDA projections
for fiscal year 2022 were unrealistic.

Teldaoc Health maintains that the allegations are not factual.

"Unfortunately, lawsuits like this one have become commonplace for
public companies," a Teladoc Health spokesperson said via email.
"There is no factual basis to the suit whatsoever, but we otherwise
can't comment further on pending litigation."

Per its most recent earnings report, the company's full-year
guidance for 2022 revenue ranged from $2.4 to $2.5 billion and
adjusted EBITDA from $240 and $265 million. These figures were far
lower that prior estimates provided in its full-year financial
statement for fiscal year 2021, which included a range of $2.5 to
$2.6 billion for 2022 revenue and adjusted EBITDA from $330 to $355
million.

Further, Teladoc Health had to recognize a non-cash goodwill
impairment charge of $6.6 billion related to its 2020 acquisition
of Livongo Health. An impairment charge is a process by which
companies write off assets whose value drops or is lost completely.
Soon after, Teladoc shares plunged by 37 percent, according to
MarketWatch.

The impairment charge also drove a net loss per share of $41.58 in
the first quarter of fiscal year 2022.

"On a conference call with investors and analysts [on April 27] to
discuss Teladoc's Q1 2022 results, Defendants largely attributed
the Company's poor performance, revised FY 2022 guidance, and $6.6
billion non-cash goodwill impairment charge to increased
competition in its BetterHelp and chronic care businesses,"
according to Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a stockholder rights law
firm that is prosecuting the legal action on plaintiffs' behalf.

But the company has dismissed competition in the past, guaranteeing
investors that it had a "dominant market position in the industry,"
the law firm stated.

Competition in the telehealth arena has been heating up, with
several companies jostling to get a piece of the increasingly
profitable pie.

Earlier this year, Amazon added three new businesses to the lineup
of companies offering its virtual care service to their employees,
and Walmart acquired multispecialty telehealth provider MeMD last
year.

Teladoc Health has attempted to cement its position in the industry
through various technology partnerships, including collaborations
with Microsoft and Amazon.

Shortly before its disappointing first quarter financial results
were reported in April, the company announced a new partnership
with Northwell Health. [GN]

TELADOC HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds of August 5 Deadine
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC) between October 28,
2021 and April 27, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 5, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Teladoc Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6818 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) increased competition, among
other factors, was negatively impacting Teladoc Health's BetterHelp
and chronic care businesses; (2) accordingly, the growth of those
businesses was less sustainable than defendants had led investors
to believe; (3) as a result, Teladoc Health's revenue and adjusted
EBITDA projections for its fiscal year 2022 were unrealistic; (4)
as a result of all the foregoing, Teladoc Health would be forced to
recognize a significant non-cash goodwill impairment charge; and
(5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the Teladoc Health class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6818 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

TESLA INC: Settlement Claim Forms Due on Sept. 17
-------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission released a notice about the
lawsuits SEC v. Elon Musk, No. 18-cv-8865 (S.D.N.Y.) and SEC v.
Tesla, Inc., No. 18-cv-8947 (S.D.N.Y.).

Those who purchased or acquired Tesla common stock, listed on a
U.S. Exchange and registered with the Commission and traded under
the symbol TSLA (the "Securities") during the Relevant Period
(between 12:48:16 p.m. EDT on August 7, 2018 and 4:00 p.m. EDT on
August 8, 2018), may be eligible for a distribution from the Fair
Fund.

On September 27, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC" or "Commission") filed a civil action against Elon Musk
("Musk") alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in connection with
certain false and misleading statements by Musk.

On September 29, 2018, the Commission filed a related civil action
against Tesla, Inc. ("Tesla") alleging violations of Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15, also in connection with Musk's false and misleading
statements.

The two complaints alleged that Musk, the Chief Executive Officer
of Tesla, made a series of materially false and misleading
statements about Tesla on his Twitter account in August 2018, and
that Tesla failed to implement adequate procedures or controls for
determining whether to disclose the information Musk disseminated
on Twitter in its filings.

Musk and Tesla (the "Defendants") paid a total of $40 million to
the Commission. By Order entered February 26, 2020, the Court
established a Fair Fund, so the civil penalties paid by the
Defendants can be distributed to harmed investors.

To receive a payment from the Fair Fund, you must satisfy the
following: 1) You must have purchased or acquired Tesla common
stock, listed on a U.S. exchange and registered with the Commission
and traded under the symbol TSLA, during the Relevant Period; 2)
Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss
Amount pursuant to the Plan of Allocation and the Distribution
Payment must equal or exceed $10.00; and 3) You are not an Excluded
Party as defined in the Plan of Distribution (the "Plan").

You can file an online Claim Form or obtain a physical Claim Form
by visiting www.SECvTeslaFairFund.com. To submit a Claim Form by
mail, you must submit it to SEC v Tesla Fair Fund, c/o Rust
Consulting, Inc., Distribution Agent – 7329, P.O. Box 44,
Minneapolis, MN 55440-0044. All Claim Forms are due by September
17, 2022.

For more information:

Copies of the Plan, the Plan Notice, and the Claim Form are
available at www.SECvTeslaFairFund.com as well as background
information. You may also call 1 (877) 576-9981 or email the
Distribution Agent at info@SECvTeslaFairFund.com


TEXAS: Mary Sapp Conditionally Appointed as Class Rep
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH WARD, by his next
friend FLOYD JENNINGS, et al. v. CECILE YOUNG, in her official
capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LY (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order that the Court's Order on
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is corrected to
conditionally appoint Mary Sapp as a class representative for the
class of persons found incompetent to stand trial, joining Joseph
Ward, Marc Lawson, Kenneth Jones, Jennifer Lampkin, and Julian
Torres who were previously conditionally appointed in the Court's
Order.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission is an agency within
the Texas Health and Human Services System.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 10, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QhIC8c at no extra charge.[CC]

TIVITY HEALTH: Court Certifies Class in Strougo Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT STROUGO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants Plaintiff Sheet Metal
Workers Local No. 33's Motion for Class Certification.

I. Background

The securities action relates to Tivity's acquisition of
Nutrisystem, Inc. Tivity provides fitness and wellness programs
geared toward senior citizens. Tramuto served as Tivity's CEO and
Adam Holland served as CFO. Hoping to expand the business in the
face of intense competition, Tivity acquired Nutrisystem, a company
known for its diet programming, for $1.3 billion. Following the
acquisition, which became final on March 8, 2019, Dawn Zier, who
was Nutrisystem's former top executive, became Tivity's President
and COO.

The complaint alleged that Tivity painted a deceitfully rosy
picture of the Nutrisystem acquisition (the Nutrisystem Claim).
Executives misled investors about Nutrisystem's performance in the
beginning of 2019 and the acquisition's impact on Tivity's new
nutrition segment. Tivity misstated that the new segment was on
track and performing well despite its poor performance from the
onset. At the heart of Tivity's alleged cover-up were misstated
financial statistics. Specifically, the company reported that its
adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization (EBITDA) was $13.3 million. But this number failed to
account for an $8.3 million loss that resulted in an actual
adjusted EBITDA of $5 million.

In August 2019, the Defendants again told investors that Tivity's
nutrition segment results were on track according to plan, and
continued to report an adjusted EBITDA that failed to account for
the $8.3 million loss.  Despite these assurances, however, Tivity
launched a Buy One, Get One Free offer to customers, allegedly to
recoup the hidden Nutrisystem losses. Soon after the offer's
launch, on Dec. 9, 2019, Zier was mutually terminated without
explanation.

Then, on Feb. 19, 2020, the Defendants disclosed, for the first
time in nearly a year, the $8.3 million adjusted EBITDA loss.
Executives also admitted to the weaknesses of the Nutrisystem
acquisition and announced a charge that reduced the value of the
goodwill associated with the acquisition (the Goodwill Claim). Lead
Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District,
Pension Fund acquired Tivity securities between March 8, 2019 and
Feb. 20, 2020.2 They brought the putative class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 against Tivity, Tramuto,
Holland, and Zier (Defendants) on behalf of all those who purchased
Tivity securities during that period.

Based upon those alleged facts and the record that has been
developed, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of the
following: "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Tivity Health, Inc. between March 8, 2019, and Feb.
19, 2020, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Tivity, Donato
Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, members of their immediate
families, and any entity of which Defendant has a controlling
interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors, or assigns of any excluded party."

The Plaintiff also requests that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
be appointed as the Class Counsel.

II. Conclusion

Based upon the record, Judge Crenshaw "finds that the questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion
to Certify Class is granted.

Judge Crenshaw certifies a class consisting of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Tivity common stock between March
8, 2019, and Feb. 19, 2020.

Further, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is appointed
as the class counsel

An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vzjz55r from Leagle.com.


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Roberts Has Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIRK ROBERTS, FARAJI ARTURO COUNCIL, TERRENCE
COLVIN-WILLIAMS, REGINALD BRADLEY, DAVID COLEMAN, and CARL
McROBERTS JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., OLATHE NOBLE
EQUIPMENT LEASING, INC., and JACOBSON HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge
Gwynne E. Birzer of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File their Third
Amended Complaint.

I. Background

On Feb. 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs originally brought their claims
against Defendant TransAm for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, ("FLSA") and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act,
("KCPA".) They also sought class or collective action certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
adding Olathe Noble Equipment Leasing, Inc., ("ONE Leasing") as a
Defendant, alleging the Defendants violated the Kansas Wage Payment
Act, ("KWPA") adding new claims under the FLSA and under the
Florida Constitution. On Jan. 7, 2022, a Second Amended Complaint
was filed, which added a third Defendant, Jacobson, with new
factual allegations, a modified definition of the proposed class
under the KCPA claims, and changed the name of the lead Plaintiff.

Prior to the Second Amended Complaint being filed, the Court
entered a Phase I Scheduling Order that controlled discovery,
focusing on liability and class and collective action certification
issues. The original Phase I Scheduling Order included a March 31,
2022, discovery deadline. Before Phase I discovery closed, the
Plaintiffs sought to amend the scheduling order, which the Court
granted. The new schedule included a June 30, 2022, deadline for
Phase I discovery.

After substantial discovery was conducted, the parties again sought
to amend the scheduling order. The Court conferenced with the
parties regarding Phase I discovery issues and again granted an
extension, setting a new discovery deadline of Sept. 30, 2022. A
motion for leave to join parties or otherwise amend the pleadings
is to be filed within five months after the Court's ruling on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class and/or collective action
certification. That deadline was set at the initial scheduling
conference and has not been modified. The current deadline to file
motions for class/collection action certification is Sept. 30,
2022.

The Plaintiffs now seek to file a Third Amended Complaint. The
Third Amended Complaint will add claims under 49 U.S.C. Section
14102, alleging violations of federal Truth-in-Leasing ("TIL")
regulations authorized by the statute, factual allegations in
support of those claims, facts to support class certification for
the TIL claims, and requests relief for violation of TIL
regulations. The Plaintiffs do not seek to add any new parties.

The Plaintiffs' Motion seeks to add claims under the TIL
regulations. In support of their Motion, the Plaintiffs attach a
proposed Third Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs add language
wholly alleging violations of the TIL regulations, the allegation
Defendant TransAm is a motor carrier and authorized carrier under
the TIL statutes, the three Defendants are affiliated entities, and
a request for relief under the TIL regulations. The Plaintiffs'
Proposed Third Amended Complaint also includes 69 new factual
allegations to support the alleged TIL violations and 10 paragraphs
of facts to support the proposed TIL class action claim.

To summarize the new factual allegations, there are several
categories of information which include, 1) details about the
equipment lease agreements ("ELAs") between the parties; 2)
improper use and retention of escrow funds; 3) facts regarding the
charges for and payment of insurance; 4) the disclosure of
information by the Defendants; and 5) other improper charges to
and/or deductions from the Plaintiffs' earnings.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs contend their Motion should be granted pursuant to
Fed. Rule Civ. P. 15 because there is no undue delay and no undue
prejudice to the Defendants. The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs'
Motion should be denied for two reasons: 1) the Plaintiffs have
unduly delayed bringing their Motion; and 2) the Defendants will
suffer undue prejudice if the amendments are allowed. The
Defendants subtly mention futility, but recognize the proposed
amendments are not futile in the analysis for amending the
complaint.

First, Judge Birzer holds that the Plaintiffs have not unduly
delayed bring their motion. She finds that the cases cited by the
Defendants to support their claim regarding the untimely nature of
the Plaintiffs' Motion is misplaced. The Plaintiffs filed their
motion for leave to amend well before the Court's deadline. That
said, Judge Birzer is growing increasingly concerned with the
Plaintiffs' propensity to seek multiple amendments to its
Complaint, including the pending amendment 15 months after the case
was initially filed.

Second, the Defendants will not suffer undue prejudice if the
amendments are allowed. The discovery deadline is not until Sept.
30, 2022. No new parties are being added by the proposed amendment,
the claims arise out of the facts and parties identified in the
Second Amended Complaint, and, the Defendants, by their own
admission, are in possession of the documents which they claim give
rise to at least a portion of the new TIL claims. The ability to
prepare a defense in this case is not unfairly affected by an
amendment to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. And, there
is time to engage in any additional discovery deemed necessary to
prepare a defense.

Third, Judge Birzer finds that the parties' briefing is void of any
mention of bad faith, and she sees none demonstrated in the
parties' submissions. Therefore, neither futility nor bad faith
applies in the case.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Birzer concludes that the
Plaintiffs will be allowed to file their Third Amended Complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Plaintiffs' Motion for
Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support is
granted as set forth. The Plaintiffs will file their Third Amended
Complaint within seven days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxetaker from Leagle.com.


VERRICA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Discloses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Verrica investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022. Follow the link below
to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28251&wire=4
VRCA investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) there were
manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract
manufacturer produced a bulk solution for the Company's lead
product candidate, VP-102; (2) these deficiencies were not
remediated when Verrica resubmitted its New Drug Application for
VP-12 for molluscum; (3) the foregoing presented significant risks
to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Verrica during the relevant
time frame, you have until August 5, 2022 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.

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

VICTORIA: Law Firm Dumps Class Suit Over Ambulance-Dispatch Delays
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Graham at theage.com.au reports that a major law firm has
ruled out bringing a class action against Victoria's triple-zero
authority, citing conflicts of interest, just weeks after
announcing the plan.

Slater and Gordon said in late May that it would investigate
whether the loved ones of those who had died following call-taking
and ambulance-dispatch delays by Victoria's Emergency Services
Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) were entitled to damages for
shock and economic loss.

Delays at ESTA have put patients in dangerous circumstances and
been linked to at least 15 deaths.

The firm also said those who had physical injuries caused or
exacerbated by excessive delays might be entitled to damages.

People who had registered their interest in the class action
received a letter informing them the law firm had decided not to
proceed.

The letter said the decision "should not be seen as an indication
of the strengths or merits of any claim against ESTA".

A spokesperson for the law firm said in a statement that the
decision not to proceed was based on a number of factors, including
"actual and perceived" conflicts of interest.

"In these circumstances we determined it was not in the best
interests of the people who had contacted us for us to continue to
investigate a potential class action," the spokesperson said in a
statement.

Late last month, Slater and Gordon said it had been investigating
the issue since the beginning of the year and that any class action
could focus on "code one" lights-and-sirens cases not picked up by
ESTA or being delayed. The firm said it could also consider
patients affected by delays dispatching an ambulance.

A review by former Victoria Police chief commissioner Graham Ashton
into the crisis has led the Victorian government to commit to
rebrand ESTA as Triple Zero Victoria. Its nine-person board and
advisory committee will be disbanded.

The review, which was released in May, highlighted the authority's
"continued and systematic" underperformance and "dire outcomes".

The new agency would be brought within the Department of Justice
and Community Safety to improve government oversight of its
operations, with Ashton finding ESTA's distance from government had
eroded service delivery.

In March, The Age and Nine's 60 Minutes revealed that four children
were among the Victorians who died after those trying to save them
from critical injuries or illness made urgent calls for an
ambulance that were never answered or were picked up too late. [GN]

VIP AUTO: Manfredo Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN MANFREDO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VIP AUTO GROUP OF
LONG ISLAND, INC., LEVITTOWN FORD LLC, WESTBURY JEEP CHRYSLER
DODGE, INC., WESTBURY IMPORTS LLC f/k/a WESTBURY FIAT LLC, d/b/a
ALFA ROMEO OF WESTBURY and FIAT OF WESTBURY, GRAND PRIX SUBARU,
LLC, LINDENHURST SUBARU LLC d/b/a SOUTH SHORE SUBARU, VIP OF
HUNTINGTON, LLC f/k/a and d/b/a VOLVO CARS OF HUNTINGTON, LLC,
GARDEN CITY JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE, LLC, and JOEL SPORN, Case No.
2:20-cv-03728-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only,
      the proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(b)(3) and collective under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA);

   3. appointing Kessler Matura P.C. as Class Counsel;

   4. approving the proposed Notice, and directing its
      distribution;

   5. appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the Settlement
      Administrator; and

   6. scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
      settlement, to be held after the close of the Opt-Out
      Period, approximately 125 days after the issuance of the
      Order.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 10,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQ0zUt
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                  gkaske@gmail.dom

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard K. Zuckerman, Esq.
          Sharon N. Berlin, Esq.
          LAMB & BARNOSKY, LLP
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 210
          Melville, NY 11747-9034
          Telephone: (631) 694-2300
          E-mail: rkz@lambbarnosky.com
                  snb@lambbarnosky.com

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of purchasers of Waste
Management, Inc. (NYSE: WM) redeemable senior notes. The Notes
include the following senior redeemable notes issued by WM in May
2019: (i) 2.95% Senior Notes due 2024; (ii) 3.20% Senior Notes due
2026; (iii) 3.45% Senior Notes due 2029; and (iv) 4.00% Senior
Notes due 2039. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Waste Management securities between February 13, 2020 and
June 23, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors are hereby notified
that they have until August 8, 2022 to move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff in this action.

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

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

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/waste-management-senior-notes-class-action-doj

There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Waste Management class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the DOJ had
indicated to Waste Management that it would require Waste
Management to divest significantly more assets than the $200
million Antitrust Revenue Threshold; (ii) as a result, the merger
would not be completed by the End Date; and (iii) the Notes would
be subject to mandatory redemption at 101% of par.

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

                      About Johnson Fistel

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Waste
Management, Inc. (NYSE: WM) redeemable senior notes (the "Notes")
between February 13, 2020 and June 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The Notes include the following senior redeemable notes
issued by WM in May 2019: (i) 2.95% Senior Notes due 2024; (ii)
3.20% Senior Notes due 2026; (iii) 3.45% Senior Notes due 2029; and
(iv) 4.00% Senior Notes due 2039. The Waste Management class action
lawsuit - United Industrial Workers Pension Plan v. Waste
Management, Inc., No. 22-cv-04838 (S.D.N.Y.) - charges Waste
Management as well as certain of its top executives and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please submit your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-waste-management-inc-class-action-lawsuit-wm.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Waste Management class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than August 8, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: On April 14, 2019, Waste Management entered into
an agreement and plan of merger to acquire Advanced Disposal
Services, Inc. for $4.9 billion, or $33.15 per share. The merger
was conditioned upon, among other things: (i) the affirmative vote
of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Advanced
Disposal Services at a special meeting of Advanced Disposal
Services shareholders to be held on June 28, 2019 (which was
ultimately obtained); and (ii) obtaining antitrust clearance from
regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ").
Knowing that the transaction posed significant antitrust concerns,
Waste Management agreed in the Merger Agreement to divest up to
$200 million in revenue-producing assets of the combined companies
over a prior 12-month period (the "Antitrust Revenue Threshold").
Under the merger agreement, Waste Management maintained full
control over the negotiating strategy for obtaining antitrust
consent from the DOJ and was not obligated to divest assets that
exceeded the Antitrust Revenue Threshold. Rather, Waste Management
had a right to terminate the deal for failure to obtain antitrust
approval.

On May 14, 2019, Waste Management issued $4 billion worth of senior
notes in a public offering to finance Waste Management's
acquisition of Advanced Disposal Services. All series received an
investment grade rating. As described in the final prospectus for
the Notes, four of the five series, totaling $3 billion in
principal, were subject to a special mandatory redemption ("SMR")
clause in the merger agreement. The SMR clause required Waste
Management to repurchase the Notes for 101% of par in the event the
Merger was not completed by July 14, 2020, the end date under the
Merger Agreement (the "End Date"). In the Notes prospectus, Waste
Management represented that the "Merger will close by the first
quarter of 2020." And to address the concerns raised by the DOJ,
Waste Management and Advanced Disposal Services engaged in
extensive negotiations with several potential divesture buyers,
including GFL Environmental, Inc., for the divesture of assets well
in excess of the Antitrust Revenue Threshold.

The Waste Management class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the DOJ had
indicated to Waste Management that it would require Waste
Management to divest significantly more assets than the $200
million Antitrust Revenue Threshold; (ii) as a result, the merger
would not be completed by the End Date; and (iii) the Notes would
be subject to mandatory redemption at 101% of par.

On June 24, 2020, Waste Management announced that it and Advanced
Disposal Services had revised the terms of the merger and that
Waste Management needed to divest substantially more assets than
previously disclosed to receive DOJ approval for the deal. Under
the revised merger terms, Waste Management had agreed to purchase
Advanced Disposal Services for $4.6 billion, or $30.30 per share,
thereby reducing Waste Management's acquisition cost by
approximately $300 million to $4.6 billion. In addition, Waste
Management and Advanced Disposal Services had agreed to sell $835
million worth of assets in an attempt to satisfy antitrust
regulators, which assets were responsible for generating
approximately $345 million in 2019 revenue. Notably, approximately
$300 million of the total revenue related to assets and businesses
were being sold to GFL Environmental, with whom Waste Management
had been in extended negotiations for months prior to the Class
Period. Furthermore, Waste Management revealed that the deal was
now not expected to close until "the end of the third quarter of
2020" - six months later than had been represented by defendants at
the start of the Class Period and, critically, after the End Date
which triggered the SMR redemption feature of the Notes. As a
result of this disclosure, the prices of the Notes fell
significantly.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

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

Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action
firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm
is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone - more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is
one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. [GN]

WEEKS ISLAND: Faces Comeaux Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW J. COMEAUX, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEEKS ISLAND RENTALS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:22-cv-01517-TAD-CBW (W.D. La., June 7, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal pay practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from
approximately 2018 to approximately May 29, 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated laborers regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime premium
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated laborers against the Defendant seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages, as well as liquidated damages,
litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Weeks Island Rentals, LLC provides hauling and construction
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.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 ***