/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220617.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 17, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 115

                            Headlines

910 SEVENTH AVE: Mosso Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Shareholder Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Denial of Intervention in Field Suit Reversed
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Quinones Claims
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Rumayor Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT

ARC ONE: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
BAYER CORP: Robinson Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Medicine
CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
CENTRA TECH: Rensel's Bid to Amend Ancillary Petition v. U.S. Nixed
CETERIS PORTFOLIO: Nojovits Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Barbiero Class Suit
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Nod
COINBASE INC: N.D. California Refuses to Stay Bielski Class Suit
DEERE & CO: Ferrell Suit Moved From W.D. Oklahoma to N.D. Illinois
DEERE & CO: Underwood Suit Moved From E.D. Tenn. to N.D. Ill.

EARGO INC: Faces Chung Shareholder Suit
EARGO INC: Faces Consolidated IBEW Local 353 Shareholder Suit
EARGO INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in California Court
EARGO INC: Fazio Voluntarily Dismisses Class Suit
ENOVIX CORP: Faces Sopheak Labor Suit in California Court

GARDEN GROVE: Burklund FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Judge in Brown Suit Seeks Help From Swiss High Court
GOOGLE LLC: Judge in Calhoun Suit Seeks Swiss High Court's Help
HAEMONETICS CORP: Faces Crumpton Data Privacy Suit in CA Court
HIGHTECH LA: Baida Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge

INTUIT INC: Settles Consolidated Suits After Arbitration
JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santander Alleges
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Zenith Academy Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Washington Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
KERING AMERICAS: Healthcare Ally Sues Over Underpaid Medical Costs

LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fulton Suit Alleges
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
MEDICAL SECURITY: SASB Corp. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
MORPHE LLC: Brooks' Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
PHH MORTGAGE: Fails to Send Proper Default Notice, Fisher Alleges

POWERS PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Ashworth Says
RENAL TREATMENT: Thornton Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
REYES HOLDINGS: Dayak Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Infante Suit Stayed Pending Verdun Case Ruling
ST BARTH GROUP: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SUNRISE SENIOR: California Court Enters Judgment in Schlieser Suit
TACOS DE CABEZA: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WALGREEN CO: Toporek GBL Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
WEST VILLAGE: Kaloshi Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
WOLVERINE WORLD: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Shareholder Suit in CA Court

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Level 3 Pays $36.7MM Damages in Mesothelioma Case


                            *********

910 SEVENTH AVE: Mosso Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Mosso, Norberto Garcia, Johnny Chamorro, Adrian Santiago
Ramirez, and Andres Ortiz Mendoza, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 910 Seventh Ave
Rest LLC d/b/a 9Ten Restaurant, Theodore Katsihtis and Demetrios
Glekas, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04584 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2022)
is brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law for Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime and spread-of-hours compensation and
failure to provide with wage notices required by the NYLL's Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff Mosso was employed by the Defendants as a cook from
approximately February 1, 2017, until December 31, 2021.

Plaintiff Garcia was employed as a dishwasher and deliver man from
approximately October 2018, through December 31, 2021.

Plaintiff Chamorro was employed as a cook from approximately
January 2014, until December 31, 2021.

Plaintiff Ramirez was employed as a grill man from approximately
June 15, 2019, until December 31, 2021.

Plaintiff Mendoza was employed  as a cook, food preparer and grill
man from approximately April 2016, until December 31, 2021.

910 Seventh Ave Rest LLC is a restaurant company located in
Manhattan, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Shareholder Suit Settlement Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report as of
April 23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 24, 2022, that a settlement agreement of a putative class
action on behalf of purchasers of its securities received
preliminary approval from the court in January 11, 2022 and remains
subject to final court approval.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of our securities who purchased or otherwise acquired
their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017,
inclusive, was commenced against the company and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
financial well-being, business relationships and prospects during
the alleged Class Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On February 7, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
its motion to dismiss. On November 6, 2020, the court granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. In March 15, 2021, the
company moved for reconsideration of the order denying in part its
motion to dismiss, and in October 15, 2021, it filed a motion for
summary judgment, seeking full dismissal of the case. Following
mediation, in November 5, 2021, the parties executed a confidential
binding term sheet to settle all claims and on December 23, 2021,
the parties executed a settlement agreement fully documenting their
agreement. The settlement agreement received preliminary approval
from the court on January 11, 2022 and remains subject to final
court approval. The settlement amount is $49.3 million and is
subject to court approval.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and subsidiaries is an automotive
aftermarket parts provider in North America, serving both
professional installers and "do-it-yourself" customers.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Denial of Intervention in Field Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
district court's order denying Rusco Operating, L.L.C., and
Planning Thru Completion, L.L.C.'s motion to intervene in the case,
JOEL FIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee v. RUSCO OPERATING, L.L.C.; PLANNING THRU
COMPLETION, L.L.C., Appellants, Case No. 22-20054 (5th Cir.).

I. Introduction

A movant attempting to intervene in an action must show that it has
a sufficient interest in the litigation to do so. The Fifth
Circuit's would-be intervenors are two companies that offer an
online application (an "app" in today's parlance) that connects oil
field workers looking for work with oil-and-gas operators looking
for workers. The companies seek to intervene because some app-using
workers have opted-in as Plaintiffs alleging claims for unpaid
overtime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, against an operator
that used the app to hire them. The app companies' asserted
interests in the litigation relate to arbitration agreements
between them and the workers, their belief that a win by the
workers would destroy their business model, and a demand for
indemnity allegedly made by the Defendant operator for liability it
might incur as to the Plaintiffs' claims. The district court found
these interests insufficient to justify intervention and denied
leave. The Intervenors appeal.

II. Background

The Intervenors developed an app that connects oilfield workers
with oil-and-gas operators. Using the app, individuals find work,
and operators find the skilled workers they need for their oilfield
endeavors. Before would-be workers can use the app, the Intervenors
require that they execute agreements in which users expressly
identify themselves as "independent professionals," and agree to
arbitrate "every claim, controversy, allegation, or dispute arising
out of or relating in any way to a Project, the Project Details, or
this Agreement." These agreements further provide that they
encompass disputes between the workers, the Intervenors, and
"intended third party beneficiaries of the Dispute Resolution
Section," including operators that hire "independent professionals"
using the app, like Defendant Anadarko.

In February 2020, Plaintiff Field filed the collective action
against Anadarko alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201. Specifically, Field alleged that
Anadarko misclassified him and others as independent contractors
rather than employees and did not pay them for overtime as the FLSA
requires. Other individual Plaintiffs have since opted-in to the
collective action, including some who connected with Anadarko via
the Intervenors' app.

The Intervenors were served with subpoenas in December 2020, as
Field sought to discover and contact potential plaintiffs. After
workers who had used their app opted-in to the collective action,
the Intervenors filed a motion to intervene of right and,
alternatively, for permissive intervention. In the motion, the
Intervenors asserted that they should be allowed to intervene in
this case because they have an interest in enforcing their
arbitration agreements with the plaintiffs and in defending their
business model, which rests on classifying their users as
independent contractors.

A magistrate judge held a hearing on the motion and recommended
that the request to intervene be denied. The magistrate judge
determined that the Intervenors had failed to demonstrate any of
the elements necessary for intervention of right (beyond timeliness
of their motion) and that the Intervenors had not offered any
compelling argument for permissive intervention. The district court
adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations in a brief order
over the Intervenors' objections. The Intervenors now appeal.

III. Discussion

To intervene of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a),
a putative intervenor must show that "(1) the application was
timely"; (2) that it has "an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action"; (3) that it is "so
situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical
matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest";
and, finally, (4) that its interest is "inadequately represented by
the existing parties to the suit."

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the Intervenors timely moved to
intervene in the action. They have shown an adequate interest in
the subject of the lawsuit by virtue of their contracts with the
parties, and "disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the Intervenors' ability to protect their
interest." By contrast, no other party in the action will
adequately represent the Intervenors' interest. They should
therefore be allowed to intervene of right, and the district court
erred in denying their motion to do so.

IV. Disposition

Because it concludes that the arbitration agreements at issue give
rise to a sufficient interest in the action to support the app
companies' intervention, the Fifth circuit reverses the judgment of
the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent
with its Opinion.

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


ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Quinones Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE QUINONES and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARC
ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, CHANCE RAMOS, and AUSTIN WALLACE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21756-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2022)
alleges the Defendants of willful and intentional violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants since August 2021 as a
security guard providing services at Covid-19 testing sites in
Miami-Dade.

The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants did not properly compensate him and
other similarly situated security guards at the applicable federal
overtime wage rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week.
Despite working an average of 72 hours per week, the Defendants
refused to pay him one and one-half times his regular rate for all
hours of work performed over 40. According to the complaint, the
Defendants were unjustly enriched from its alleged their alleged
failure and refusal to pay overtime wages, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and all other
similarly situated security guards to recover monetary damages from
the Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys’ fs incurred, and other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.

Arc One Protective Services, LLC provides security services through
the State of Florida and other Texas. Chance Ramos and Austin
Wallace are owners and operators of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yelina Angulo, Esq.
          ANGULO DIAZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          780 NW 42 Avenue, Ste. 426
          Miami, FL 33126
          Tel: (305) 468-9564
          E-mail: service@angulodiazlaw.com

ARC ONE PROTECTIVE: Rumayor Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HUMBERTO RUMAYOR, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ARC ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, CHANCE RAMOS, and
AUSTIN WALLACE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21749-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants since November 2021 as
a security guard providing services at Covid-19 testing sites in
Miami, Dade.

According to the complaint, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated security guards of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime wage rate. The
Plaintiff and other security guards have jointly and severally
suffered. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks for all damages for himself and
all other similarly situated security guards, as well as pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs and attorneys' fees
incurred, says the suit.

Arc One Protective Services, LLC provides security services through
the State of Florida and other Texas. Chance Ramos and Austin
Wallace are owners and operators of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yelina Angulo, Esq.
          ANGULO DIAZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          780 NW 42 Avenue, Ste. 426
          Miami, FL 33126
          Tel: (305) 468-9564
          E-mail: service@angulodiazlaw.com

ARC ONE: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO HERNANDEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ARC ONE PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC, CHANCE RAMOS, and AUSTIN WALLACE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-21760-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2022)
brings this complaint to recover monetary damages and other relief
from the Defendants as a result of their alleged willful and
intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant since November 2021 as
a security guard providing services at Covid-19 testing sites in
Miami-Dade.

The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated
security guards regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendants did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Arc One Protective Services, LLC provides security services through
the State of Florida and other Texas. Chance Ramos and Austin
Wallace are owners and operators of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yelina Angulo, Esq.
          ANGULO DIAZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          780 NW 42 Avenue, Ste. 426
          Miami, FL 33126
          Tel: (305) 468-9564
          E-mail: service@angulodiazlaw.com

BAYER CORP: Robinson Sues Over Mislabeled Cold and Flu Medicine
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION; BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC; and
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-03892 (C.D. Cal., June 7, 2022) alleges that the Defendants
mislabeled their Alka-Seltzer branded "Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter
cold and flu medicine.

According to the complaint, the Defendants make, sell, and market
Alka-Seltzer branded "Non-Drowsy" over-the-counter cold and flu
medicine that contain the active ingredient Dextromethorphan
Hydrobromide ("DXM") and state prominently on the front of their
label that they are "Non-Drowsy."

By prominently labeling these products as "Non-Drowsy," the
Defendants led the Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers to
believe that the Non-Drowsy Alka-Seltzer Products do not cause
drowsiness, and that drowsiness cannot be a side effect of those
products. However, after using Non-Drowsy Alka-Seltzer Product as
directed on the packaging during his work day, the Plaintiff
unexpectedly experienced drowsiness. He would not have purchased or
paid as much for a Non-Drowsy Alka-Seltzer Product had he known
that it could cause drowsiness, says the suit.

The Defendants' misrepresentations allowed them to overcharge the
Plaintiff and other consumers for the Non-Drowsy Alka-Seltzer
Products, the suit added.

BAYER CORPORATION operates as a pharmaceutical and life science
company. The Company researches, develops, manufactures, and
markets products for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of
diseases, as well as produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides,
and crop varieties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 438-5355
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

CAMBER ENERGY: Faces Coggins Shareholder Suit in Texas Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Camber Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report as of April
23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
18, 2022, that that a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company alleging violation of federal securities laws.

On October 29, 2021, said action was filed against the company, its
CEO and CFO under case captioned "Ronald E. Coggins, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camber Energy,
Inc., et al." in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to which the plaintiffs are
seeking to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by them as
a result of the defendants' violations of federal securities laws.

Camber Energy, Inc., based in Texas, is primarily engaged in the
acquisition, development and sale of crude oil, natural gas and
natural gas liquids from various known productive geological
formations.


CENTRA TECH: Rensel's Bid to Amend Ancillary Petition v. U.S. Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. SOHRAB SHARMA,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Crim. 340 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denies the Claimants' motion for leave to
amend the Ancillary Petition for a Hearing to Adjudicate Validity
of Legal Interest and Right to Forfeited Property under 21 U.S.C.
Section 853(n)(1).

I. Introduction

In this ancillary proceeding, Claimants Jacob Zowie Thomas Rensel,
Wang Yun He, Mateusz Ganczarek, Chi Hai Poon, King Fun Poon and Jae
J. Lee seek leave to amend. The issue is whether the Claimants may
amend the petition to assert on behalf of members of a certified
class in a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida, those
investors' alleged interest in approximately $33 million that were
proceeds of the Defendants' cryptocurrency fraud. The Government
opposes.

II. Background

The Government has approximately $33 million, which are the
proceeds from selling units of cryptocurrency that the Government
seized from the Defendants through criminal forfeiture. The
Defendants obtained the units from victims who used the units to
invest in their fraudulent scheme. The Government proposes to
distribute the proceeds of the liquidated units to pay the victims
on a pro rata basis through a remission program. The Claimants and
the members of the Class could participate in the remission
program, along with other victims who would be eligible.

The Claimants, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seek to
obtain the entire $33 million for themselves and distribute it in
the Class Action -- net of up to 20% (or $6.6 million) for the
class counsel's attorneys' fees. The result would be (1) to prevent
recovery by other victim investors who are not class members but
who are eligible to participate in the Government's remission
program and (2) to reduce the amount distributable to victims by
the amount of class counsel fees.

The Claimants challenge the Government's seizure and proposed
distribution of the proceeds. They assert that units of
cryptocurrency, unlike traditional currency, are not fungible and
are therefore traceable. The Claimants argue that the
cryptocurrency units that the Government seized were entirely
theirs, are not subject to forfeiture, should not have been
liquidated and, consequently, that the proceeds of the units should
not be distributed to all defrauded investors but instead should be
transferred to the Class. The Claimants seek to file an amended
petition on behalf of the Class in order to make this challenge.

A. Criminal Prosecutions

The ancillary proceeding arose out of the convictions of Defendants
Sohrab Sharma and two other individuals. Between approximately July
and October 2017, the Defendants fraudulently solicited
approximately $39 million in digital assets from investors,
including at least 100,000 units of "Ether," in exchange for
digital purchase "CTR" tokens that were issued by the Defendants'
company Centra Tech., Inc. as part of an initial coin offering
("ICO").

The Defendants generated interest in the ICO by fraud to pump up
the price of CTR tokens on a cryptocurrency exchange. CTR token
prices remained artificially inflated as Defendants continued their
market manipulation until their arrests in April 2018. Between July
2017 and April 2018, potentially thousands of individuals purchased
CTR tokens in connection with the ICO, and those ICO investors sold
CTR tokens to secondary market buyers at artificially inflated
prices.

Following the Defendants' arrests and exposure of the fraud, CTR
token prices collapsed. The total loss to victims, both initial
investors and those who purchased in the secondary market, may be
in the hundreds of millions of dollars, due at least in part to the
fraudulently inflated prices of the CTR tokens in the secondary
market.

The Defendants pleaded guilty to various charges and agreed to
forfeit to the Government all fraud proceeds. Between November 2020
and April 2022, the Court issued preliminary orders of forfeiture,
one for each of the three Defendants. The Preliminary Order of
Forfeiture as to Sharma, entered Nov. 11, 2020, (1) ordered entry
of a money judgment in the amount of $36,088,960, representing
"proceeds traceable to those offenses that the Defendant Sharma
personally obtained," and (2) forfeited Sharma's right, title and
interest in 100,000 Ether units that the Government had seized and
subsequently sold ("Ether Proceeds"). The majority of the property
ordered to be forfeited (the "Property") was $36 million from
Sharma, which included $33 million of Ether Proceeds.

B. The Government's Remission Program

The Department of Justice Money Laundering and Asset Recovery
Section ("MLARS") has established a remission program by which
victims may petition for, and receive a pro rata share of, the
Property as compensation for the fraud, all pursuant to MLARS' sole
discretion under an enabling statute and regulation. Purchasers of
CTR digital tokens issued by Centra Tech either through the ICO or
in the secondary market from approximately July 23, 2017, through
April 2, 2018, are eligible to file a petition for remission. The
Government has hired a claims administrator to assist in the
process. In January 2022, MLARS sent an email to victims notifying
them of remission claims procedures and launched a website, where
victims may find information about the remission process and submit
claims. MLARS has received numerous claims in advance of the
current claim deadline of Sept. 30, 2022.

C. Florida Class Action Lawsuit

While the criminal case was ongoing, Claimants were proceeding on a
parallel track to pursue civil remedies. In 2017, Claimants filed a
civil securities fraud class action in the Southern District of
Florida against Centra Tech, Sharma and his two criminal
co-defendants. According to Claimants, "[b]oth the Civil Action and
Criminal Action concern identical facts and substantively identical
claims." In June 2020, each Claimant obtained a default judgment
against Centra Tech in the combined amount of approximately $3.4
million.

Although class certification was initially denied, the Eleventh
Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class certification
and remanded the case for further proceedings in June 2021. Rensel
v. Centra Tech, Inc., 2 F.4th 1359 (11th Cir. 2021). On remand, the
district court granted the renewed motion for class certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Claimants were
appointed as class representatives.
The Class consists of "all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Centra Tech Tokens ('CTR Tokens') directly from
Defendant Centra Tech in connection with its `official' initial
coin offering from July 23, 2017 through Oct. 5, 2017." The
certified Class does not include purchasers in the secondary market
because of issues with the ascertainability requirement for classes
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
Consequently, the Class comprises only a subset of the victims who
would be eligible under the Government's remission process.

Claimants assert that the Class contributed (i.e., paid into the
ICO) all of the Ether that the Government later sold in exchange
for the Ether Proceeds and that the Class therefore has a superior
right to those proceeds. On November 23, 2021, Claimants filed an
unopposed motion for default judgment seeking a class-wide judgment
against Centra Tech for approximately $33.4 million. On May 31,
2022, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the motion for default be granted.
If successful in this ancillary proceeding, the Claimants intend to
use the Ether Proceeds to satisfy the default judgment.

D. Ancillary Proceeding

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section 853(n)(1), from Nov. 19, 2020 until
at least Dec. 19, 2020, the Government published notice of the
Sharma preliminary forfeiture order and intent to dispose of the
Property, which includes the Ether Proceeds. Anyone claiming an
interest in the Property was required to file a petition within
sixty days from the first day of the Government's publication. On
Jan. 9, 2021, the Claimants filed a petition commencing the
ancillary proceeding and seeking, among other things, to prevent
the Government from forfeiting the Ether Proceeds and to establish
that Claimants have a superior interest in the Ether Proceeds.

On the Government's motion, the petition was dismissed on March 8,
2021, without prejudice to renewal for lack of standing. The
Petition was dismissed because it did not allege "facts
demonstrating an interest in any specific property held by the
Defendants or Centra Tech" and "contained only limited factual
allegations relating to an interest in fraud proceeds," which made
"no reference to Ether, much less specific units or quantities of
Ether transferred from Claimants to Defendants as a result of
Defendants' fraud," and the rest of the allegations were
conclusory.

With the Court's leave, the Claimants filed an amended petition
(the "First Amended Petition") to remedy the deficiencies
identified in the Dismissal Opinion and seeking $6.2 million of the
Ether Proceeds for themselves personally. Following the
certification of the Class in the Class Action, they informed the
Government that they intended to seek relief on behalf of the
Class, and the Claimants were directed to file their motion for
leave to file a second amended petition on behalf of themselves and
the Class.

The Claimants filed the instant motion, along with a proposed
second amended petition (the "PSAP"). The PSAP seeks, on behalf of
Claimants and the Class, a hearing to adjudicate the validity of
their interest in the Ether Proceeds. The PSAP asserts that the
Claimants and the Class have a superior interest in the Ether
Proceeds. The PSAP alleges that "the entirety of the 100,000 Ether
Proceeds seized from Centra Tech are directly traceable to the
Class' investments." The PSAP relies, in part, on a special agent's
statement that "there is probable cause to believe" that "Centra
Tech raised at least 100,000 Ether units during its ICO from
investors who purchased Centra Tokens" and that "the 100,000 Ether
units that Centra Tech transferred to the Seizure Wallet are
traceable in whole or substantial part to funds raised by Centra
Tech during and as part of its ICO."

The PSAP asserts that a summary spreadsheet prepared by Centra Tech
provides identifying information for most members of the Class,
including the time, amount, transaction ID and source wallet for
each transaction, and that the Claimants' and the Class members'
transactions can be further verified on the Ethereum blockchain.

III. Discussion

Judge Schofield holds that the Claimants' motion is denied because
permitting filing of the PSAP would be both futile and prejudicial.
She says, granting the motion is futile because the PSAP is
improper and insufficient as to the absent class members on whose
behalf it attempts to assert a claim. In addition, granting the
motion would be prejudicial and result in distributing more of the
$33 million in Ether Proceeds to the Claimants, the Class and the
class counsel, to the detriment of other victims of the Defendants'
fraud. The Government makes the related argument that, because the
PSAP is contrary to what is contemplated by the forfeiture statute,
the Claimants lack standing to file a petition on behalf of the
Class in this forfeiture proceeding. Hence, leave to amend is
denied for all of these reasons.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield denies the Claimants'
motion for leave to amend. The Court reserves decision on issues
relating to the adequacy of the Government's notice of the Sharma
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture pending resolution of any motion by
the Government to dismiss the First Amended Petition. A separate
order will be issued regarding such motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5693s48x from Leagle.com.


CETERIS PORTFOLIO: Nojovits Suit Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Pamela K. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismisses the case, ZEV NOJOVITS, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CETERIS
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a SRA, Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-2833
(PKC) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Nojovits filed the putative class action in federal court
on May 16, 2022, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. On May 25,
2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause why the case
should not be dismissed because the Plaintiff had not alleged an
injury-in-fact sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction. The
Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause on June 2, 2022.

II. Background

Some time prior to Feb. 2, 2022, while financing the purchase of a
car, the Plaintiff incurred a debt to Kia Motors Finance, a
non-party to the instant lawsuit. Kia then contracted Defendant
Ceteris Portfolio Services, LLC d/b/a SRA to collect the debt.

On Feb. 2, 2022, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter. The top of the letter states that the "amount past due" is
$0, with an interest rate of 0%, interest of $0, late charges of
$0, and "other fees" of $537.56, with a "total amount past due" of
$537.56. The letter left the Plaintiff "confused" and "concerned."
As a result, the Plaintiff "has expended, and continues to expend,
time and money," and has suffered "wasted time and annoyance," as
well as "emotional distress, including, but not limited to, fear,
anxiety, stress, increased heartrate, and difficulty with sleep."

On May 25, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OTSC")
directing the Plaintiff to "review the Court's decision in
Wolkenfeld v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 22-CV-1156 (PKC)
(CLP), 2022 WL 1124828 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2022), and the cases
cited therein, and show cause by written submission why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of an injury-in-fact; or, in the
alternative, voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice to
refiling in state court."

On June 2, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a response to the OTSC. She
argues that injury-in-fact is plausibly alleged because "(1) the
emotional harm was not asserted in conclusory fashion and was
plausibly alleged as a physical response manifested as the result
of the Plaintiff's reliance on the facially fraudulent debt
collection Letter; (2) current pecuniary harm, including the
presumption of dynamic increasing fees as shown in the Letter, is
plausibly alleged as the result of the Plaintiff's reliance by
inaction concerning the facially fraudulent debt collection Letter;
and (3) the Plaintiff faced a sufficient risk of being harmed by
future conversion and then spent time, money and effort mitigating
the risk. The harms caused by the Defendant have a close
relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis
for a lawsuit in America. The common law analogues are the torts of
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligent infliction of
emotional distress and conversion."

III. Discussion

Judge Chen holds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated standing
to pursue her claims in federal court, and thus thie Court lacks
jurisdiction over this action. First, she finds that the
Plaintiff's allegation of "emotional distress, including, but not
limited to, fear, anxiety, stress, increased heartrate, and
difficulty with sleep," are insufficient to establish standing.
Second, the Plaintiff's argument that she will face "dynamic
increasing fees, as shown in the Letter, as the result of her
reliance by inaction concerning the facially fraudulent debt
collection Letter," is not "plausibly alleged," as the Plaintiff
contends.

Third, the Plaintiff's argument that she "faced a sufficient risk
of being harmed by future conversion and then spent time, money and
effort mitigating the risk" is also insufficient to confer
standing. Likewise, the Plaintiff's bald assertion that her harms
"have a close relationship to the torts of fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and
conversion," does not make it so. Finally, the Plaintiff is not
without remedy; she may pursue her claims in state courts, which
"are not bound to adhere to federal standing requirements."

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she explained, Judge Chen dismisses the case for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2vhwcze3 from Leagle.com.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Barbiero Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case, LAUREN MARIE BARBIERO, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT ADVISORY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-07034-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

I. Background

Plaintiffs Lauren Marie Barbiero, Kimberly Jo Lopez, William
Kenneth Lopez, and Tammy L. Coleman bring the class action lawsuit
against the Charles Schwab Corp. ("CSC") and its wholly owned
subsidiary Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, Inc. ("CSIA").

In their first amended complaint ("FAC"), the Plaintiffs allege
that Schwab Intelligent Portfolios ("SIP") is an investment
robo-advisor product launched by defendants in 2015. They allege
that the Defendants' clients complete an online questionnaire to
set up their "investor profile" establishing, among other things,
their financial goals, risk tolerance, and investment timelines.
They allege that, based the questionnaire answers, the SIP Program
constructs an investment portfolio for an investor that usually
consists of a selection of exchange-traded funds ("ETFs") and
similar investments.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants employ a unique fee
system in connection with SIP, advertising the plan as a free
service. But they allege that instead of charging SIP clients an
annual fee, the Defendants, among other things, "sweep the cash
allocation of client managed accounts into Schwab Bank and earn a
net interest margin on this cash." The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have made at least hundreds of millions of dollars in
skimming earned interest (a.k.a., "cash sweeps") away from linked
cash accounts of SIP clients held at Charles Schwab Bank.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants overconcentrated the
Plaintiffs' SIP accounts in cash during the "white-hot boom years"
on the stock market. They allege they and the class missed out on
significant market gains. They allege that the Defendants'
self-dealing directly caused them and the proposed class over half
a billion dollars in losses. The Plaintiffs note that the
Defendants disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that the "cash sweeps" feature helps them to generate revenue.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated fiduciary duties
by overconcentrating their SIP accounts in cash positions. They
assert six causes of action based on this conduct: (1) breach of
fiduciary duty at common law, (2) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, (3)
negligent misrepresentation, (4) breach of contract, (5) unjust
enrichment and imposition of constructive trust, and (6) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On Feb. 1, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FAC. They seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC on two grounds.
First, the Defendants move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") bars the action. Second, they move
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing
the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for any of their causes
of action.

II. Analysis

The Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' lawsuit is barred by SLUSA.
"SLUSA deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to hear (1) a
covered class action (2) based on state law claims (3) alleging
that the defendants made a misrepresentation or omission or
employed any manipulative or deceptive device (4) in connection
with the purchase or sale of (5) a covered security." The statute
"is designed to prevent persons injured by securities transactions
from engaging in artful pleading or forum shopping in order to
evade limits on securities litigation that are designed to block
frivolous or abusive suits." A "claim is not automatically
SLUSA-barred merely because it involves securities."

Judge Hamilton "must determine if the Plaintiffs' claims, stripped
of formal legal characterization, could have been pursued under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5." Reading the complaint in a light
most favorable to the Plaintiffs, he finds that SLUSA bars the
Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety.

First, the case concerns a covered class action. Second, the
Plaintiffs' claims are based in state law. Third, the Plaintiffs
allege a misrepresentation. Fourth, the Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants' misrepresentation was made in connection with the sale
or purchase. Finally, the Defendants' alleged misrepresentation was
made in connection with the sale or purchase of a covered security.
Accordingly, Judge Hamilton will grant the Defendants' motion to
dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1).

Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter, Judge
Hamilton does not address the Defendants' motion to dismiss
pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) nor does he address their request for
judicial notice. He, however, will grant the Defendants' motion to
seal. The Defendants' sealing requests all meet the compelling
reasons standard because they concern the Plaintiffs' personal
financial information.

III. Disposition

For these reasons, Judge Hamilton grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss and their motion to seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9h34rk from Leagle.com.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that in March
29, 2021, the court granted final approval of a class settlement
and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with the amount
of attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount
has been determined.

The company is a defendant in case captioned "Rael v. The
Children's Place, Inc.," a purported class action, pending in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. In the
initial complaint filed in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged
that the company falsely advertised discount prices in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in April 2016, adding allegations of violations of other
state consumer protection laws. In August 2016, the plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and
removing the other state law claims. The plaintiffs' second amended
complaint sought to represent a class of California purchasers and
sought, among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017. The parties reached an agreement in
principle in April 2017, and signed a definitive settlement
agreement in November 2017, to settle the matter on a class basis
with all individuals in the U.S. who made a qualifying purchase at
The Children's Place from February 11, 2012 through January 28,
2020, the date of preliminary approval by the court of the
settlement. In March 29, 2021, the court granted final approval of
the class settlement and denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's
fees, with the amount of attorney's fees to be decided after the
class recovery amount has been determined. The settlement provides
merchandise vouchers for qualified class members who submit valid
claims, as well as payment of legal fees and expenses and claims
administration expenses. Vouchers were distributed to class members
on November 15, 2021 and they will be eligible for redemption in
multiple rounds through November 2023.

The Children's Place, Inc. and subsidiaries is the largest
pure-play children's specialty apparel retailer in North America.
It provides apparel, footwear, accessories, and other items for
children and "tweens."


COINBASE INC: N.D. California Refuses to Stay Bielski Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM BIELSKI, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COINBASE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. C 21-07478 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denies the
Defendant's motion to stay proceedings.

In this putative class action, the Defendant moves to stay
proceedings pending appeal of an order denying a motion to compel
arbitration.

Defendant Coinbase operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform
where, in brief, users can buy and trade various forms of
cryptocurrency and hold their assets in digital wallets. After the
equivalent of $31,039.06 was transferred out of Plaintiff Bielski's
Coinbase account, he turned to Coinbase for assistance but ran into
egregious barriers to adequate customer service.

Bielski filed the lawsuit against Coinbase in September 2021. An
April 2022 order denied Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration on
the grounds that its delegation provision and the broader
arbitration agreement contained unconscionable terms. Coinbase
appealed that order and now seeks a motion to stay all proceedings
pending the outcome of its appeal.

District courts apply four factors when evaluating whether to issue
a stay pending appeal: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a
strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits or that
its appeal raises "serious legal questions;" (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether
issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest
lies. These factors are then weighed on a sliding scale such that
"a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of
another."

First, Coinbase claims that "serious legal questions are raised" in
its appeal. Judge Alsup recognizes that reasonable minds may differ
over whether the onerous burdens placed on the right to arbitrate
were so onerous as to invalidate the arbitration clause. This
provides some support for a stay.

Second, Coinbase argues that absent a stay, it will be forced to
expend time and resources litigating in this forum, which would
defeat the anticipated advantages of arbitration. Coinbase's
concern about wasting resources is hypothetical, for discovery
conducted here would be usable should this dispute ever shift to
arbitration. Judge Alsup says, mere litigation expenses do not
generally constitute irreparable injury, and any appeal of the
order denying arbitration will be resolved long before the expenses
of trial.

Third, a stay would significantly prejudice Bielski. Coinbase
argues that a delay in litigation is not a cognizable harm compared
to the potential wasted time and money that would result from
proceeding with this litigation. Bielski, however, would experience
significant prejudice from delay in vindicating his rights.
Coinbase is a large company. Bielski is a single individual. He
would suffer if forced to wait for a remedy in the face of
significant financial loss. Judge Alsup agrees that there is a
strong risk of harm to Bielski if a stay is imposed and further
finds Coinbase has not shown that the balance of hardships tips in
its favor.

Fourth, Coinbase asserts that the public interest would be served
by a stay because there is a strong federal policy in favor of
arbitration and a stay would conserve judicial resources. A federal
policy favoring arbitration "does not, by itself, require a stay."
This is further offset by the prevailing public interest in a
"just, speedy, and inexpensive" determination of civil actions, as
contemplated by Rule 1. Hence, a stay would not be speedy.

For these reasons, Judge Alsup denies the Defendant's motion for a
stay of the entire action pending appeal of the order denying
arbitration. However, it is without prejudice to possibly
postponing any merits motions should they be made. The hearing on
this motion will not be useful and is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2fx3ea from Leagle.com.


DEERE & CO: Ferrell Suit Moved From W.D. Oklahoma to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MONTY FERRELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. d/b/a JOHN DEERE, Case No.
5:22-cv-00157, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-50190 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment by monopolizing
the repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural
equipment with onboard central computers known as engine control
units (ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market
for repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment
with ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible
to farmers and independent repair shops. As a result of the
Defendant's monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have
derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and
maintenance services, says the suit.

Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
         Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
         Greg M. Bentz, Esq.
         Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
         Hammons Hepner, Esq.
         SHARP LAW, LLP
         4820 W. 75th Street
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
         E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                 idiel@midwest-law.com
                 gbentz@midwest-law.com
                 rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
                 hhepner@midwest-law.com

                 - and –

         Kyle B. Hadwiger, Esq.
         HADWIGER & JUNGMAN, PLLC
         120 S. Grand
         P.O. Box 306
         Cherokee, OK 73728
         Telephone: (580) 596-3591
         E-mail: kyle@hjoklaw.com

                 - and –

         Tim Battin, Esq.
         BOIESBATTIN LLP
         4041 University Drive, 5th Floor
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (703) 764-8700
         Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
         E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com

DEERE & CO: Underwood Suit Moved From E.D. Tenn. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID UNDERWOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. d/b/a JOHN DEERE, Case No.
4:22-cv-00005, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-50191 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment by monopolizing
the repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural
equipment with onboard central computers known as engine control
units (ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market
for repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment
with ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible
to farmers and independent repair shops. As a result of the
Defendant's monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have
derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and
maintenance services, says the suit.

Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John Whitfield, Esq.
         Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
         Knoxville, TN 37929
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: jwhitfield@milberg.com
                 gcoleman@milberg.com com

                 - and –

         Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
         Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
         John D. Hughes, Esq.
         Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
         Michael Acciavatti, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         405 E. 50th Street
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 594-5300
         E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                 emckenna@milberg.com
                 jhughes@milberg.com
                 byagman@milberg.com
                 macciavatti@milberg.com

EARGO INC: Faces Chung Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------
Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 24, 2022, that on November 4, 2021, shareholder Alden Chung
filed a class action lawsuit action against the company and certain
of its officers alleging that certain of the company's disclosures
about its business, operations, and prospects, including
reimbursements from third-party payors, violated federal securities
laws.

Eargo, Inc. is a medical device company dedicated to improving the
quality of life of people with hearing loss.


EARGO INC: Faces Consolidated IBEW Local 353 Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 24, 2022, that on November 4, 2021, shareholder IBEW Local
353 filed a class action lawsuit action against the company and
certain of its officers alleging that certain of the company's
disclosures about its business, operations, and prospects,
including reimbursements from third-party payers, violated federal
securities laws.

The IBEW Local 353 action was brought purportedly on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Eargo shares
in or traceable to the company's October 15, 2020 initial public
offering of common stock and/or shares of Eargo common stock
between October 15, 2020 and September 22, 2021.

In January 5, 2022, the court consolidated said class action under
the caption "In re Eargo, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No.
21-cv-08597-CRB, and appointed IBEW Local 353 Pension Plan as lead
plaintiffs.

Eargo, Inc. is a medical device company dedicated to improving the
quality of life of people with hearing loss.


EARGO INC: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 24, 2022, that in January 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California consolidated three
purported securities class actions brought against the company.

While the lead plaintiffs have not yet filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the complaints of the individual lawsuits filed prior to
the consolidation generally alleged that certain of the company's
disclosures about its business, operations and prospects, including
reimbursements from third-party payers, violated federal securities
laws.

Eargo, Inc. is a medical device company dedicated to improving the
quality of life of people with hearing loss.


EARGO INC: Fazio Voluntarily Dismisses Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Eargo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended
March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 24, 2022, that on October 6, 2021, shareholder Joseph Fazio
filed a purported securities class action against the company and
certain of its officers. Fazio voluntarily dismissed his complaint
on December 6, 2021.

Plaintiff alleged that certain of the company's disclosures about
its business, operations, and prospects, including reimbursements
from third-party payors, violated federal securities laws.

Eargo, Inc. is a medical device company dedicated to improving the
quality of life of people with hearing loss.


ENOVIX CORP: Faces Sopheak Labor Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Enovix Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 18, 2022, that a class action lawsuit
was filed against the company alleging violations under the
California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders.

On January 21, 2022, two former machine operator employees filed a
putative wage and hour class action lawsuit against Enovix and
co-defendant Legendary Staffing, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda. The case is captioned "Sopheak Prak
& Ricardo Pimentel v. Enovix Corporation and Legendary Staffing,
Inc.," Case No. 22CV005846.

The Peak complaint alleges, among other things, on a putative
class-wide basis, that the defendants failed to pay all overtime
wages and committed meal period, rest period and wage statement
violations under the California Labor Code and applicable Wage
Orders. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, statutory
penalties and interest and reasonable costs and attorney fees.

Enovix Corporation designs, develops and plans to commercially
manufacture an advanced silicon-anode lithium-ion battery based in
California.


GARDEN GROVE: Burklund FLSA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VINCE BURKLUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2022-01258164-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
June 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-01132-DOC-JDE to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers for all hours worked,
including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Garden Grove Unified School District is a school district in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Anthony P. De Marco, Esq.
         Amber S. Healy, Esq.
         Michael C. Mauceri, Esq.
         ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
         A Professional Corporation
         12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
         Cerritos, CA 90703-9364
         Telephone: (562) 653-3200
         Facsimile: (562) 653-3333

GOOGLE LLC: Judge in Brown Suit Seeks Help From Swiss High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHASOM BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03664-YGR-SVK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Susan van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, requests the assistance
of the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial
Assistance, pursuant to the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral
deposition testimony of Ms. Sabine Borsay under the terms set forth
in this Letter of Request:

I. Introduction

The Court, located at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th
Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, presents its
compliments to the Federal Office of Justice and has the honor of
requesting its assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in a
civil proceeding now pending before the Court in the matter,
specifically by permitting commissioners appointed by the Court to
take evidence under Article 17 of the Hague Convention of 18 March
1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters.

It appears to the Court that Ms. Borsay, whose professional address
is: Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munchen, Germany, is a witness in
the action and therefore has evidence relevant to the action. It is
necessary for the purposes of justice and for the due determination
of the matters in question between the parties that Ms. Borsay be
examined (remotely) at the Swiss offices of Quinn Emanuel at
Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, under oath or
affirmation.

Given that the deposition would take place (remotely) in the canton
of Zurich, Switzerland, the competent authority for the granting of
this request is the High Court of the Canton of Zurich,
International Judicial Assistance, Hirschengraben 13/15, 8021
Zurich 1, Switzerland. As is customary, a copy of the present
Letter of Request is sent to the Federal Office of Justice, Central
Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil and
Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen, therefore, respectfully requests assistance
pursuant to the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral deposition
testimony of Ms. Borsay under the terms set forth in the Letter of
Request.

II. Background

The individual, named Plaintiffs on behalf of the class action are
Chasom Brown, William Byatt, Jeremy Davis, Christopher Castillo,
and Monique Trujillo (collectively, Plaintiffs). The Defendant is
Google.

Defendant Google is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its headquarters also in
Delaware, USA. Witness Ms. Borsay is an individual who is employed
by Google as a Senior Product Manager but is a resident of Munich,
Germany.

It is a data privacy class action brought by and on behalf of
Google subscribers who allege their internet use was tracked by
Google, from June 1, 2016 to the present (the "Relevant Period"),
while browsing the internet from a browser in private browsing
mode. The Plaintiffs have sued Google for various causes of action
including: (1) Federal Wiretap Violations, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510,
et seq.; (2) Invasion of Privacy Act Violations, Cal. Penal Code
Sections 631 & 632; (3) Violations of The Comprehensive Computer
Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"), Cal. Penal Code Sections 502
et seq.; (4) Invasion Of Privacy; (5) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; (6)
Breach of Contract; And (7) Violation of California UCL, Cal Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17200, et. seq.

The Plaintiffs contend Google has represented that users "are in
control of what information they share with Google, meaning that
they have the power to limit what data Google tracks, collects, and
shares with third parties" and that "one way for users to exercise
this control is by setting their web-browsing software (used to
connect to websites) to private browsing mode." They allege that
Google "unlawfully intercepted users' private browsing
communications to collect personal and sensitive information
without disclosure or consent."

Google believes all claims should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs and the websites consented to Google's receipt of the
data; the Plaintiffs fail to state their claims; and the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statutes of limitations.

Notices for the deposition of witnesses, including Ms. Sabine
Borsay, were served on May 19, 2022. The parties have agreed to
conduct a remote deposition of Ms. Borsay, who will be located for
such deposition in Switzerland, in accordance with Chapter II of
the Hague Convention.

III. Evidence Requested & Order

Judge van Keulen holds that the parties have satisfied the Court
that Ms. Borsay has material information related to this pending
action for use at trial, and that justice cannot be completely done
between the parties without his testimony. She requests assistance
in permitting the commissioners appointed by the Court to take
testimony from Ms. Borsay, which will be given voluntarily.

The topics of examination may include, but are not limited to: a.
Ms. Borsay's role and duties as an employee of Google; b. knowledge
of private browsing, including Google Chrome Incognito mode for the
Chrome browser; and c. knowledge of documents related to and
produced in the matter.

Judge van Keulen is satisfied that the testamentary evidence is
relevant to the pending proceeding and is likely to be used at
trial to assist the Court in resolving the dispute presented in the
civil action before it. With the approval of the Court, the parties
and the Court therefore seek permission to have commissioners take
this testamentary evidence for the purpose of using such evidence
at trial.

It is requested that the testamentary evidence be given in the
English language, and on oath or affirmation. However, it is also
requested that a German/English translator be allowed to be present
and offer translation assistance, if necessary. It is also
requested that the testimony be in the form of a recorded remote
deposition testimony via a secure session using videoconferencing
technology upon questions communicated to the witness by U.S.
counsel of the parties, acting as commissioners. It is requested
that the testamentary evidence be given at some time agreeable to
all involved in June 2022, on June 29 and June 30, 2022.

The parties have agreed on and the Court appoints Mr. Remo
Decurtins to serve as commissioner ("the Swiss Commissioner"). Mr.
Decurtins is a lawyer with the law firm Quinn Emanuel at
Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, and admitted to
practice as an attorney in Switzerland and New York.

In his capacity as commissioner, Mr. Remo Decurtins will complete
and oversee the following tasks: Liaise with the Swiss authorities,
including dispatch/submission of the present Letter of Request to
the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial
Assistance, Hirschengraben 13/15, 8021 Zurich 1, Switzerland, and
of a copy of the same to the Federal Office of Justice, Central
Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil and
Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland; act as
an agent of service for any communication of the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich and/or the Federal Office of Justice to the Court,
the parties and Ms. Borsay; invite Ms. Borsay to the deposition
once authorization is granted; verify and confirm the identity of
Ms. Borsay before testamentary evidence is taken; supervise the
testimony of Ms. Borsay by remote videoconferencing software from
the Swiss offices of Quinn Emanuel at Dufourstrasse 29, 8008
Zurich, Switzerland; instruct the witness on his rights and
obligations as per Article 21 of the Hague Convention; and ensure
that the testimony is conducted in accordance with those rights and
obligations.

The U.S. counsel of the parties, which the Court upon request of
the parties also appoints as commissioners are the following:

      a. For Plaintiffs: James Lee, from BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
at 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800, Miami, FL 33131, USA.

      b. For Google: Jomaire Crawford, from QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP at 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY
10010, USA.

In addition to the U.S. counsel and commissioners listed and of the
Swiss Commissioner, it is also requested that client
representatives for each party be allowed to be present, and that a
videographer and a stenographer be present to take and record a
verbatim transcript of all testimony and proceedings in the English
language and that the transcript of the testimony be
authenticated.

As mentioned, it is requested that the commissioners take Ms.
Borsay's testimony in the English language (to which Ms. Borsay has
agreed) under oath or affirmation, with potentially a
German/English translator being present and offering translation
assistance, and that the Swiss Commissioner be allowed to
administer such oath or request for affirmation on Ms. Borsay in
accordance with United States law, as follows: "Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

It is also requested that after giving testimony, Ms. Borsay be
allowed after completion of the transcript to review, submit any
errata, and sign the transcript of his testimony, and that the
signed, transcribed, and videotaped testimony together with any
documents marked as exhibits be transmitted to the parties' U.S.
counsel as soon as possible thereafter.

Accordingly, it is requested that assistance be granted and the
Swiss and U.S. commissioners appointed are authorized to question
Ms. Borsay under oath or affirmation at the remote deposition in
June 2022, or at another time determined by the High Court, and
that a verbatim transcript and videotape be prepared and be
transmitted to the parties' U.S. counsel for submission and use
before the Court.

It is also requested that the High Court informs the Swiss
Commissioner, the Court, and the parties through their mentioned
U.S. counsel of its approval of the Court's request and of all
relevant dates and times determined by it for the production of the
aforementioned requested testamentary evidence of Ms. Borsay. The
Court and the U.S. counsel appoint Mr. Remo Decurtins to file the
necessary application for authorization with the High Court and act
as the agent of service in Switzerland for any and all
communication from it in this respect. As mentioned, Mr. Remo
Decurtins' professional address in Switzerland for purpose of the
High Court's communications is: Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich,
Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen expresses appreciation to the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich and the Federal Office of Justice for its courtesy
and assistance in the matter and states that the Court will be
ready and willing to assist the courts of Switzerland in a similar
manner when required. The Court is also willing to reimburse
(through the Parties) the competent judicial authorities of
Switzerland for any costs incurred in executing the request for
judicial assistance. The Court extends to the competent judicial
authorities of Switzerland the assurances of its highest
consideration.

The Letter of Request is signed and sealed by Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5zeepc3w from Leagle.com.

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP, Mark C. Mao -- mmao@bsfllp.com -- San
Francisco, CA, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P., William Christopher Carmody
(pro hac vice) Shawn J. Rabin (pro hac vice), in New York City,
MORGAN & MORGAN, John A. Yanchunis (pro hac vice) Ryan J. McGee
(pro hac vice) in Tampa, Florida, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Andrew H. Schapiro --
andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com -- (pro hac vice), in Chicago,
Illinois; Stephen A. Broome (CA Bar No. 314605) Viola Trebicka (CA
Bar No. 269526), in Los Angeles, California; Jomaire A. Crawford
(admitted pro hac vice) in New York City, Attorneys for the
Defendant.


GOOGLE LLC: Judge in Calhoun Suit Seeks Swiss High Court's Help
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR-SVK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Susan
van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, requests assistance of the High
Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial Assistance,
pursuant to the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral deposition
testimony of Ms. Sabine Borsay under the terms set forth in the
Letter of Request.

I. Introduction

The Court, located at the San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 6 - 4th
Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, presents its
compliments to the Federal Office of Justice and has the honor of
requesting its assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in a
civil proceeding now pending before the Court in the matter,
specifically by permitting commissioners appointed by the Court to
take evidence under Article 17 of the Hague Convention of 18 March
1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
Matters.

It appears to the Court that Ms. Borsay, whose professional address
is: Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munchen, Germany, is a witness in
the action and therefore has evidence relevant to the action. It is
necessary for the purposes of justice and for the due determination
of the matters in question between the parties that Ms. Borsay be
examined (remotely) at the Swiss offices of Quinn Emanuel at
Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, under oath or
affirmation.

Given that the deposition would take place (remotely) in the canton
of Zurich, Switzerland, the competent authority for the granting of
this request is the High Court of the Canton of Zurich,
International Judicial Assistance, Hirschengraben 13/15, 8021
Zurich 1, Switzerland. As is customary, a copy of the present
Letter of Request is sent to the Federal Office of Justice, Central
Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil and
Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen, therefore, respectfully requests assistance
pursuant to the Hague Convention in obtaining the oral deposition
testimony of Ms. Borsay under the terms set forth in the Letter of
Request.

II. Background

The individual, named Plaintiffs on behalf of the class action are
Patrick Calhoun, Elaine Crespo, Claudia Kindler, Dr. Corinice
Wilson, Dr. Rodney Johnson, and Michael Henry (collectively,
Plaintiffs). The Defendant is Google.

Defendant Google is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its headquarters also in
Delaware, USA. Witness Ms. Borsay is an individual who is employed
by Google as a Product Manager but is a resident of Munich,
Germany.

It is a data privacy class action brought by and on behalf of
Google Chrome users who chose not to Sync their browsers with their
Google accounts while browsing the web (Un-Synched Chrome Users)
from July 27, 2016, to the present (the Relevant Period). The
Plaintiffs have sued Google for various causes of action including
Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Cal.
Penal Code Section 631, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Breach of
Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing, Statutory Larceny Cal. Penal Code Sections 484 and 496,
and Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.

The Plaintiffs originally brought 16 claims: (1) unauthorized
interception of electronic communications under the Wiretap Act;
(2) unauthorized electronic communication service (ECS) disclosure
under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510; (3) unauthorized
access to stored ECS communications under the Stored Communications
Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. Section 2701; (4) unauthorized disclosures of
stored communications under the SCA,18 U.S.C. Section 2701; (5)
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal.
Penal Code Section 631; (6) invasion of privacy; (7) intrusion upon
seclusion; (8) breach of contract; (9) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (10) quasi-contract
(restitution and unjust enrichment); (11) violation of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1030(g); (12)
violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act,
Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (13) statutory larceny, Cal. Penal
Code Sections 484 and 496; (14) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et
seq.; (15) punitive damages under Cal. Civil Code Section 3294; and
(16) declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201(a).

On Sept. 18, 2020, the Court directed the parties to select 10
claims to litigate. On Sept. 25, 2020, the parties selected the
following 10 claims: (1) unauthorized disclosure under the Wiretap
Act; (2) unauthorized access under the SCA; (3) unauthorized
disclosures of stored communications under the SCA; (4) violation
of the CIPA; (5) intrusion upon seclusion; (6) breach of contract;
(7) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(8) violation of the CFAA; (9) statutory larceny; and (10)
violation of the UCL.

The Plaintiffs contend Google promises Chrome users that they don't
need to provide any personal information to use Chrome and that the
personal information that Chrome stores won't be sent to Google
unless one chooses to store that data in his or her Google Account
by turning on sync. The Plaintiffs allege that despite these
express and binding promises, Google causes Chrome to record and
send users' personal information to Google regardless of whether a
user elects to Sync or has a Google account.

The Plaintiffs maintain Google's contract with Chrome users
designates California law, and consistent with California law,
defines Personal Information as "information that you provide to us
which personally identifies you or other data that can be
reasonably linked to such information by Google, such as
information we associate with your Google Account. The Plaintiffs
allege examples of personal data improperly created and sent to
Google by Chrome include: IP addresses linked to user agents;
Unique, persistent cookie identifiers including the Client ID;
Unique browser identifiers called X-Client Data Headers; and
Browsing history.

Google believes all claims should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs and the websites consented to Google's receipt of the
data; the Plaintiffs fail to state their claims; and the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statutes of limitations.

Google successfully moved to dismiss the following claims:
Unauthorized disclosure under the Wiretap Act, Unauthorized access
under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), Unauthorized disclosure
under the SCA, and Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
18 U.S.C. Section 1030(g) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have
not stated a claim for each of the aforementioned claims.

Notices for the deposition of witnesses, including Ms. Borsay, were
served on Dec. 21, 2021. The parties have agreed to conduct a
remote deposition of Ms. Borsay, who will be located for such
deposition in Switzerland, in accordance with Chapter II of the
Hague Convention.

III. Evidence Requested & Order

Judge van Keulen holds that the parties have satisfied the Court
that Ms. Borsay has material information related to this pending
action for use at trial, and that justice cannot be completely done
between the parties without his testimony. She requests assistance
in permitting the commissioners appointed by the Court to take
testimony from Ms. Borsay, which will be given voluntarily.

The topics of examination may include, but are not limited to: a.
Ms. Borsay's role and duties as an employee of Google; b. Knowledge
of the sync function on the Chrome browser; and c. Knowledge of
documents related to and produced in the matter.

Judge van Keulen is satisfied that the testamentary evidence is
relevant to the pending proceeding and is likely to be used at
trial to assist the Court in resolving the dispute presented in the
civil action before it. With the approval of the Court, the parties
and the Court therefore seek permission to have commissioners take
this testamentary evidence for the purpose of using such evidence
at trial.

It is requested that the testamentary evidence be given in the
English language, and on oath or affirmation. However, it is also
requested that a German/English translator be allowed to be present
and offer translation assistance, if necessary. It is also
requested that the testimony be in the form of a recorded remote
deposition testimony via a secure session using videoconferencing
technology upon questions communicated to the witness by U.S.
counsel of the parties, acting as commissioners. It is requested
that the testamentary evidence be given at some time agreeable to
all involved in June 2022, on June 29 and June 30, 2022.

The parties have agreed on and the Court hereby appoints Mr. Remo
Decurtins to serve as commissioner ("the Swiss Commissioner"). Mr.
Decurtins is a lawyer with the law firm Quinn Emanuel at
Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland, and admitted to
practice as an attorney in Switzerland and New York.

In his capacity as commissioner, Mr. Remo Decurtins will complete
and oversee the following tasks: Liaise with the Swiss authorities,
including dispatch/submission of the present Letter of Request to
the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, International Judicial
Assistance, Hirschengraben 13/15, 8021 Zurich 1, Switzerland, and
of a copy of the same to the Federal Office of Justice, Central
Authority for the Request for Judicial Assistance in Civil and
Commercial Matters, Bundesrain 20, 3003 Bern, Switzerland; act as
an agent of service for any communication of the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich and/or the Federal Office of Justice to thw Court,
the parties and Ms. Borsay; invite Ms. Borsay to the deposition
once authorization is granted; verify and confirm the identity of
Ms. Borsay before testamentary evidence is taken; supervise the
testimony of Ms. Borsay by remote videoconferencing software from
the Swiss offices of Quinn Emanuel at Dufourstrasse 29, 8008
Zurich, Switzerland; instruct the witness on his rights and
obligations as per Article 21 of the Hague Convention; and ensure
that the testimony is conducted in accordance with those rights and
obligations.

The U.S. counsel of the parties, which the Court upon request of
the parties also appoints as commissioners are the following:

      a. For Plaintiffs: Lesley E. Weaver, from BLEICHMAR FONTI &
AULD LLP, 555 12th Street, Suite 1600, Oakland, CA 94607.

      b. For Google: Jomaire Crawford, from QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP at 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY
10010, USA.

In addition to the U.S. counsel and commissioners listed and of the
Swiss Commissioner, it is also requested that client
representatives for each party be allowed to be present, and that a
videographer and a stenographer be present to take and record a
verbatim transcript of all testimony and proceedings in the English
language and that the transcript of the testimony be
authenticated.

As mentioned, it is requested that the commissioners take Ms.
Borsay's testimony in the English language (to which Ms. Borsay has
agreed) under oath or affirmation, with potentially a
German/English translator being present and offering translation
assistance, and that the Swiss Commissioner be allowed to
administer such oath or request for affirmation on Ms. Borsay in
accordance with United States law, as follows: "Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

It is also requested that after giving testimony, Ms. Borsay be
allowed after completion of the transcript to review, submit any
errata, and sign the transcript of his testimony, and that the
signed, transcribed, and videotaped testimony together with any
documents marked as exhibits be transmitted to the parties' U.S.
counsel as soon as possible thereafter.

Accordingly, it is requested that assistance be granted and the
Swiss and U.S. commissioners appointed are authorized to question
Ms. Borsay under oath or affirmation at the remote deposition in
June 2022, or at another time determined by you, and that a
verbatim transcript and videotape be prepared and be transmitted to
the parties' U.S. counsel for submission and use before the Court.

It is also requested that you inform the Swiss Commissioner, this
Court, and the parties through their above-mentioned U.S. counsel
of your approval of this Court's request and of all relevant dates
and times determined by you for the production of the
aforementioned requested testamentary evidence of Ms. Borsay. This
Court and U.S. counsel hereby appoint Mr. Remo Decurtins to file
the necessary application for authorization with you and act as the
agent of service in Switzerland for any and all communication from
you in this respect. As mentioned above, Mr. Remo Decurtins's
professional address in Switzerland for purpose of your
communications is: Dufourstrasse 29, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland.

Judge van Keulen expresses appreciation to the High Court of the
Canton of Zurich and the Federal Office of Justice for its courtesy
and assistance in the matter and states that the Court will be
ready and willing to assist the courts of Switzerland in a similar
manner when required. The Court is also willing to reimburse
(through the Parties) the competent judicial authorities of
Switzerland for any costs incurred in executing the request for
judicial assistance. The Court extends to the competent judicial
authorities of Switzerland the assurances of its highest
consideration.

The Letter of Request is signed and sealed by Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39659x7k from Leagle.com.

Lesley Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Angelica M. Ornelas --
aornelas@bfalaw.com -- Joshua D. Samra -- jsamra@bfalaw.com --
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP, in Oakland, California.

David A. Straite -- dstraite@dicellolevitt.com -- (admitted pro hac
vice), DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC, in New York City.

Jason 'Jay' Barnes -- jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com -- (admitted pro
hac vice), SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC, in New York City, Counsel for
the Plaintiffs.

Andrew H. Schapiro -- andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com -- (admitted
pro hac vice), QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois.

Stephen A. Broome -- stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com -- Viola
Trebicka -- violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com -- in Los Angeles,
California. Counsel for the Defendant.


HAEMONETICS CORP: Faces Crumpton Data Privacy Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haemonetics Corporation disclosed in its current Form 10-K Report
for fiscal year ended April 2, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 25, 2022, that in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Mary
Crumpton, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals
(Case No. 1:21-cv-1402).

In her complaint, the plaintiff asserts that between June 2017 and
August 2018 she donated plasma at a center operated by one of the
company's customers, that the center required her to scan her
finger print in a scanner that stored her finger print to identify
her prior to plasma donation, and that the company's "eQue" donor
management software sent her biometric information to a
Company-owned server to be collected and stored in a manner that
violated her rights under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The plaintiff seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief. In March 2021, the company moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and
concurrently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and a motion to stay. In late March 2022, the court denied the
company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but
did not address the merits of the company's other positions.

Haemonetics is a global healthcare company dedicated to providing a
suite of innovative medical products and solutions for customers,
to help them improve patient care and reduce the cost of
healthcare.


HIGHTECH LA: Baida Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA BAIDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHTECH LA and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18598 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code, California's Public Policy,
and California's Business and Professions Code including
retaliation, wrongful constructive discharge, failure to compensate
for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to give rest
breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse expenses,
failure to provide personnel records, failure to provide pay
records, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendants around 2018. Her
latest job title was Special Education Para-Professional. Her
employment ended on or around November 15, 2021.

HighTech LA is a charter high school located in Lake Balboa,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

INTUIT INC: Settles Consolidated Suits After Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. disclosed in its current Form 10-Q Report for quarterly
period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 24, 2022, that multiple putative class actions
that were consolidated into a single putative class action in the
Northern District of California in September 2019 were resolved
after arbitration.

In May 2021, the litigation was dismissed on a non-class basis
after it entered into an agreement that resolved the matter on an
individual non-class basis for an immaterial amount, without any
admission of wrongdoing. These proceedings also included individual
demands for arbitration that were filed beginning in October 2019.

On February 23, 2022 and May 23, 2022, Intuit entered into
settlement agreements that will resolve all of these pending
arbitration claims, without any admission of wrongdoing.

Intuit helps consumers, small businesses, and the self-employed
prosper by delivering financial management and compliance products
and services and providing specialized tax products to accounting
professionals.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santander Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNEY PINTO SANTANDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV18737
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty. June 7, 2022) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Santander was employed by the Defendants as relationship
banker.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION provides investment and
banking services. The Company offers wealth planning, investing,
credit, and other financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit King, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                 lking@bradleygrombacher.com


JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Zenith Academy Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZENITH ACADEMY EAST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-03307 (N.D. Cal., June 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Zenith Academy East is a unified school district with its offices
located at 2661 South Hamilton Road in Columbus, Ohio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Washington Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., f/k/a PAX
Labs, Inc. and PLOOM Inc., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILLIP MORRIS USA
INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18769 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 7, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for public nuisance and negligence.

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

Washington Unified School District is a unified school district in
California.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         Jason J. Julius, Esq.
         Victoria E. Sherlin, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
                 jjulius@baronbudd.com
                 tsherlin@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Brian J. Panish, Esq.
         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         Rachel Gezerseh, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: panish@psblaw.com
                 ravipudi@psblaw.com
                 gezerseh@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

                 - and –

         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com

                 - and –

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

KERING AMERICAS: Healthcare Ally Sues Over Underpaid Medical Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KERING AMERICAS,
INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV18612 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., June 7, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation,
breach of written contract, and violation of the California's
Business and Professions Code.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to make proper
payments to medical providers, including the Plaintiff, for
surgical care, treatment and procedures provided to patients, who
are insureds, members, policyholders, certificate-holders or were
otherwise covered for health, hospitalization and major medical
insurance through policies or certificates of insurance issued and
underwritten by the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated medical providers have been damaged due to the
loss of monies expended in providing said services for which they
were significantly underpaid and have suffered damages in the loss
of use of the proceeds and income to be derived from the services,
the suit says.

Healthcare Ally Management of California, LLC is a medical provider
in California.

Kering Americas, Inc. is a management consulting services provider
based in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ
         11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (323) 979-2063
         Facsimile: (323) 488-6748
         E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com

LOANCARE LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fulton Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TABITHA FULTON, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE, LLC; CAPTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
L.P; and CENTER ONE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00823-MRH
(W.D. Pa., June 7, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Fulton was employed by the Defendants as call center
representative.

LOANCARE, LLC is engaged in the operation of providing service to
lenders, servicers and investors who own assets or servicing rights
in any stage of the loan servicing cycle. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Manes, Esq.
          MANES & NARAHARI, LLC
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant St, Suite 270
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 626-5570
          Facsimile: (412) 650-4845 Fax
          Email: dm@manesnarahari.com

MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Analog Devices, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 18, 2022, that its subsidiary Maxim
Integrated Products, Inc. was named defendant in a class action
lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duties.

On March 17, 2022, Walter E. Ryan and Ryan Asset Management, LLC,
purported stockholders of Maxim, filed a putative class action in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No.
2022—0255) against the Company and the former directors of Maxim.


The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties by the individual
defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part of the
merger negotiations with Analog Devices, to suspend Maxim dividends
for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the Acquisition.
The complaint further alleges that Analog Devices aided and abetted
that alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs' costs
and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, costs and other expenses.

Analog Devices, Inc. is into semiconductors and related devices
based in Massachusetts.


MEDICAL SECURITY: SASB Corp. Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
SASB CORPORATION d/b/a OKEECHOBEE DISCOUNT DRUG, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-14206-AMC (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant caused to send
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to the Plaintiff's telephone
facsimile machine on June 8, 2018 advertising the commercial
availability or quality of its property, goods, or services. The
Defendant allegedly did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior express
invitation or permission to send any advertisement by fax.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated persons have suffered damage because they
violated their privacy, have used their paper and toner, wasted
their fax receiving capacity, and wasted their valuable time, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from
sending advertisement by fax without obtaining express invitation
or permission to fax advertisements. The Plaintiff also demands for
statutory damages, and other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Medical Security Card Company, LLC provides prescription savings
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          820 W. 41st St., #305
          Miami Beach, FL 33140
          Tel: (305) 239-8726
          E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

MORPHE LLC: Brooks' Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Valerie Brooks, Plaintiff v. Morphe LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01219-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice to renewal.

I. Background

Ms. Brooks, who is legally blind, brought the action on behalf of a
proposed class of visually impaired internet users. She alleges
Morphe operates a website that is not accessible to the visually
impaired, and she moves now to certify the proposed class.

According to Brooks' complaint, Morphe operates morphe.com, a
website for affordable makeup. She alleges morphe.com is not
accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired. For
example, she claims the website lacks alt-text that would permit
screen reader software to describe the graphics and images on each
page, and she alleges the website has empty links with no text,
which prevents screen readers from communicating the link's
purpose. Brooks asserts claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and she
seeks damages and prospective relief on behalf of a proposed class
of visually impaired people who encounter the alleged barriers on
morphe.com (class allegations) (prayer for relief).

Ms. Brooks completed service on Morphe soon after she filed her
complaint, but Morphe did not respond or appear, and the Clerk's
Office entered default. Brooks moved for default judgment. The
motion was referred to the assigned magistrate judge under this
District's local rules, and the magistrate judge denied the motion
without prejudice for several reasons.

Because Brooks sought to represent a class under Rule 23 but had
not moved for class certification, a default judgment would not
offer class-wide relief. Nor had Brooks specified how many times
she had visited the website, so she could not quantify her claim
for damages under California law, which imposes penalties based on
the number of visits. In addition, although her complaint requests
injunctive relief, she had not discussed that claim in her motion
for default judgment, and it was unclear whether she had standing
to assert a claim for prospective relief.

Ms. Brooks now moves to certify a class action under Rule 23. She
proposes a nationwide class and a California class. The proposed
nationwide class would include "all legally blind individuals who
have attempted to access Defendant's website by use of a screen
reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and
including final judgment in this action." The proposed California
class is defined identically, but includes only people in
California. Because Morphe has not appeared, the motion is
unopposed. The Court submitted the matter without a hearing.

II. Analysis

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. Rule 23 imposes four prerequisites on every class. First, the
class must be "so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." Second, questions of law or fact must be common to
the class. Third, the named representatives' claims or defenses
must be typical of those of the class. And fourth, the
representatives must "fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class." Plaintiffs who satisfy these four prerequisites must
also show the proposed class fits within one of the three
categories of classes described in Rule 23(b). Brooks seeks
certification under two of these categories: Rules 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3).

A class can be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) if "the party opposing
the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole." Rule 23(b)(3) permits certification of a class
if common questions of law and fact predominate and a class action
is the superior means of litigation. "The party seeking class
certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met."

Judge Mueller holds that Brooks has not satisfied two of the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a). First, she has not shown the classes
she proposes are "so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable." She cites no evidence that any visually impaired
person other than herself visited morphe.com. She instead relies on
extrapolations from survey and census data.

Nor has Brooks proven "the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule
23(a)(4). This rule requires her to show, among other things, that
the class counsel is competent and will vigorously advocate the
interests of absent class members. Although Brooks' counsel at the
Wilshire Law Firm has represented other plaintiffs in many class
actions, including in many cases of alleged ADA violations, its
representation in the present case to date has not been adequate.

III. Conclusion

Because Ms. Brooks has not proven the proposed class meets the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a), Judge Mueller does not consider
whether the class could be certified under one of the categories in
Rule 23(b). The motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice to renewal. Any renewed motion must be filed within 30
days.

The Order resolves ECF No. 21.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/33j29pe3 from Leagle.com.


PHH MORTGAGE: Fails to Send Proper Default Notice, Fisher Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ c/o NEW REZ/PHH MORTGAGE
SERVICES; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TRUST AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3, Defendants, Case No. _____ (Mass.
Super., June 7, 2022) is an action against the Defendant alleging
failure to properly send proper notices prior foreclosure.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached the mortgage
contracts in violation of Massachusetts General Laws by sending
purported default notices in accordance with the mortgage contract
and right to cure notices that contained materially misleading
statements.

As such, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff proper
Notice of Default in breach of the Mortgage for failure to first
comply with the terms of the mortgage prior to exercising the power
of sale, rendering any acceleration, foreclosure, and sale void,
says the suit.

The Defendants also failed to send and the Plaintiffs failed to
receive a Notice of Acceleration pursuant to the terms of the Note
which is a condition precedent to foreclosure. As such, the
Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff proper Notice of Default
in breach of the Mortgage contract, hence considered as failure to
first comply with the terms of the mortgage prior to exercising the
power of sale, rendering any acceleration, foreclosure, and sale
void, the suit added.

PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES provides financial services. The Company
offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on buying,
lending, and rental basis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Dion, Esq.
          15 Cottage Avenue, Ste 202
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Telephone: (401) 965-4131
          Facsimile: (401) 270-2202
          Email: toddsdion@msn.com

POWERS PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum Wages, Ashworth Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ASHWORTH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. POWERS PIZZA, LLC and JOHN M. POWERS,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00023 (E.D. Tenn., June 8, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 2020 to present as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Cookeville, Tennessee.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers were paid by the Defendant below the
federal minimum wage requirements. This is because of the
Defendants' reimbursement policy which reimburses their delivery
drivers below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or
much less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers'
automobile expenses. Allegedly, the Defendants systematically
failed to adequately reimburse automobile expenses incurred by
their delivery drivers while delivering pizza and other food items
to the Defendants' customers.

As a result of the Defendants' willful violations of the minimum
wage provisions of the FLSA, the Plaintiff demands from the
Defendants for compensatory damages, liquidated damages, litigation
costs and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable, says the suit.

Powers Pizza, LLC operates Domino's pizza. John M. Powers is the
owner and director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RENAL TREATMENT: Thornton Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER THORNTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS -
CALIFORNIA, INC.; DAVITA INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
CVRI2201305, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00950 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure
to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay
all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to produce records, and unfair
competition.

Renal Treatment Centers - California, Inc. is an independent
provider of outpatient kidney dialysis services, headquartered in
California.

DaVita Inc. is a healthcare company based in Colorado. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Evan R. Moses, Esq.
         Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
                 aaron.cole@ogletree.com

REYES HOLDINGS: Dayak Sues Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW J. DAYAK; JEFFREY S. JACOBS; and THOMAS DORE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REYES
HOLDINGS, LLC; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF REYES HOLDINGS, LLC; REYES
HOLDINGS, LLC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; and JOHN DOES 1-30.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02974 (E.D. Il., June 7, 2022) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the
duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other
participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively
and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care
to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or similar investment options with lower
costs and better performance histories; and (3) failing to control
the Plan's recordkeeping and administration ("RKA") costs.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. Their actions were
contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and
its participants millions of dollars, says the suit.

REYES HOLDINGS, L.L.C. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides food and beverage products to
restaurants, sporting venues, schools, nursing homes, hospitals,
and hotels. Reyes Holdings serves customers globally. {BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esquire
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          Email: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4101
          Email: markg@capozziadler.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Infante Suit Stayed Pending Verdun Case Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California stays the case, MARIA INFANTE,
Plaintiff v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-06892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), pending guidance from the Ninth
Circuit in Verdun v. City of San Diego, 549 F.Supp.3d 1192, 1193
(S.D. Cal. 2021), appeal docketed, No. 21-55046 (9th Cir. Aug. 25,
2021).

The lawsuit is a putative class action lawsuit challenging the City
of San Francisco's practice of "chalking," or physically marking
car tires to enforce parking ordinances. The Plaintiff's Complaint,
filed in September 2021, alleges that the practice of chalking
amounts to an "unreasonable search" in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Defendant City and County of San Francisco filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint, in which they argue that chalking does not
constitute a "search" and, in any event, is "reasonable" under the
Fourth Amendment.

As both parties have acknowledged, the central legal issues raised
by the Defendant's motion are presently before the Ninth Circuit in
Verdun.

Judge Gilliam stays the case pending guidance from the Ninth
Circuit in Verdun. He explains that the power to stay proceedings
is "incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants."

In order to issue a stay, courts consider: (1) the possible damage
which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or
inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward;
and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law
which could be expected to result from a stay.

Judge Gilliam finds the third factor dispositive. In short, a stay
pending guidance from the Ninth Circuit on the central issue in the
case will likely prevent the parties and the Court from wasting
resources. And neither party has identified any potential damage,
hardship, or inequity that would result from staying the case.

Accordingly, the case is stayed, and the parties are ordered to
immediately notify the Court (in a joint submission) when the Ninth
Circuit issues an opinion or memorandum disposition in Verdun. If
no disposition has issued by Sept. 9, 2022, the parties are
directed to submit a joint report of no more than two pages on that
date regarding the status of the appeals.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4k5xreva from Leagle.com.


ST BARTH GROUP: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St Barth Group, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. St Barth Group, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04722 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

The St Barths Group -- http://stbarthsgroup.com/-- provides
consulting services to private and public entities to support their
business activities.[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



SUNRISE SENIOR: California Court Enters Judgment in Schlieser Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, NANCY SCHLIESER, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants. CHRISTIAN VAN CLEAVE, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00443 JAK (PLAx), Consolidated with 2:20-cv-06300
JAK (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California enters
Judgment in the matter in accordance with the Class Action
Settlement.

The parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as
represented in the Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and
Release that was filed previously on the docket in the action.

A final approval hearing was conducted following the prior Order re
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs and Enhancement Awards was granted.

Therefore, Judge Kronstadt enters Judgment in the matter in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

The parties will effect the Settlement Agreement according to its
terms and according to the terms of the prior orders. The Released
Claims of the Plaintiff Class Representatives and all the members
of the Settlement Class are dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

All Class Members who did not timely and properly opt out from the
Settlement Agreement are barred from pursuing or seeking to reopen
any of the Released Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement.
Consistent with the definition provided in the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement Class consists of: All persons who were
employed in non-exempt positions at Sunrise Senior Living
Management, Inc.'s California communities at any time during the
period from July 1, 2016, to June 15, 2020.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court will
retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the action and
the parties, including all the Class Members, for purposes of
enforcing the terms of the Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2tvp7fzw from Leagle.com.


TACOS DE CABEZA: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Homar Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tacos de Cabeza, LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company, Carlos Salas and Rosalinda Arzate, a married
couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00957-DMF (D. Ariz., June 2,
2022) is a class action brought against the Defendants for their
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mendoza was a full-time, non-exempt employee of
Defendants who worked for approximately 10 years until
approximately February 27, 2022. He was employed by Defendants as a
cook, a server, and a manager earning a daily rate of pay of $100,
plus an additional $3 per hour for time spent serving.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all other similarly situated current and former employees of
Defendants--specifically, current and former employees of
Defendants who were not paid overtime for time worked in excess of
40 hours in a given workweek and whose wages, therefore, were
non-compliant with the FLSA, says the suit.

Tacos de Cabeza, LLC is a taco restaurant based in Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

WALGREEN CO: Toporek GBL Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL TOPOREK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 2:22-cv-02084,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 7, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04766-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York General Business Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment by engaging in deceptive and misleading advertising,
labeling and marketing of various pain relief lidocaine patch
products.

Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates pharmacy store
chain in the U.S., with its principal place of business in
Deerfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Joseph Lipari, Esq.
         Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
         270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (845) 483-7100
         Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

WEST VILLAGE: Kaloshi Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA KALOSHI, MISHELE KOROVESHI, and ALFONSO TENEZACA,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WEST VILLAGE OASIS, INC., d/b/a CASA LA FEMME SOUTH;
ANASTASIOS HAIRATIDIS; AMIR IBRAHIM; and MEDHAT IBRAHIM; jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04593 (S.D.N.Y., June
2, 2022) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and that the Defendants
are liable to the Plaintiffs and party Plaintiffs for unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages, unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation,
misused tips, compensatory damages for retaliation, and such other
relief available by law.

Plaintiffs Kaloshi and Koroveshi were employed by the Defendants as
waiters from October 2020 until December 6, 2021 and from January
18, 2021 until December 6, 2021, respectively. Plaintiff Tenezaca
was employed as food service runner from August 2020 until February
2022.

The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing
business as Casa La Femme South situated in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael K. Chong, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          MKC LAW GROUP LLC
          2 Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 947-5200
          Facsimile: (201) 708-6676
          E-mail: mkchong@mkclawgroup.com
                  bsherr@mkclawgroup.com

WOLVERINE WORLD: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolverine World Wide,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04713 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022).

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

Wolverine World Wide, Inc. or Wolverine Worldwide --
https://www.wolverineworldwide.com/ -- is a publicly traded
American footwear manufacturer based in Rockford, Michigan.[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


ZOOM VIDEO: Faces Shareholder Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarter ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 25, 2022, that it is facing securities
class action complaints filed against it and two of its officers in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California filed in April 7, 2020 and April 8, 2020.

The plaintiffs, purported stockholders of the company, allege,
among other things, that Zoom violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact about its data privacy
and security measures. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
interest, fees, and costs. In May 18, 2020, the actions were
consolidated. In December 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint and Zoom filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in May 20, 2021. Plaintiff filed an
opposition to Zoom's motion to dismiss on July 9, 2021. Zoom's
reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed in August 9,
2021.

In February 16, 2022, the court granted in part, and denied in
part, the company's motion to dismiss. In March 14, 2022, Zoom
moved for reconsideration of the court's ruling on the motion to
dismiss.

Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries connect people
through its core unified communications offering, which brings
together video, phone, chat, webinars events, and contact center,
and enables meaningful experiences across disparate devices and
locations.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Level 3 Pays $36.7MM Damages in Mesothelioma Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baron & Budd recently obtained a record-breaking judgment in a
mesothelioma case in the state of Louisiana. A jury found Level 3
Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Peter Kiewit Sons" Co.) and
twenty other Louisiana-based companies liable for giving the
Plaintiff mesothelioma and awarded the victim an extraordinary
$36.7 million in damages.

The victim, who was a welder and pipefitter in the 1960s and 1970s,
was diagnosed with mesothelioma last year. The victim is a retired
union member, who was exposed to asbestos through his work as a
pipefitter. The plaintiff worked at numerous plants along Cancer
Alley throughout his career. The target trial defendant was the
plaintiff's employer, Level 3 Holdings (formerly known as Peter
Kiewit Sons' Co.), which is part of the Kiewit corporate empire.

According to the lawsuit, the victim was exposed to asbestos while
working with and around asbestos-containing products and equipment,
and while in the vicinity of others using or handling asbestos
products at these facilities, which released injurious levels of
asbestos-containing dust all of which the victim was exposed to and
breathed.

When asbestos is inhaled or ingested, it causes irreparable and
progressive lung damage that can manifest itself as
asbestos-related pleural disease, mesothelioma, gastrointestinal
cancer, cardiac problems, other lung diseases, and various other
injuries.

The lawsuit alleged that each of the companies were negligent
because they knew or should have known through industry and medical
studies of the health hazards inherent in the asbestos containing
products they were selling or using. The focus of the trial
centered on the undisputed proof that Kiewit failed to provide the
plaintiff with a safe work environment, which ultimately resulted
in plaintiff being diagnosed with a man-made cancer, mesothelioma.
There is no cure for mesothelioma. Consequently, Kiewit's failure
to warn the plaintiff about the dangers of asbestos has caused
plaintiff's death sentence.

"The victims of mesothelioma and their families face many
challenges as soon as they receive the shocking diagnosis," said
Baron & Budd Shareholder, David Cannella. "We know that no amount
of money can make things right for mesothelioma victims, but it is
necessary they receive financial support for the costly medical
bills and expenses they have incurred as a result of the negligence
of companies that chose profits over safety."

After a six-day trial, the jury found the companies were negligent
in their responsibility to warn the victim of the health hazards of
the asbestos products in their facilities and issued a judgment of
$36.7 million to the victim.


                            *********

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 ***