/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220708.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 130

                            Headlines

ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Enters Show Cause Order in Foster Suit
ALBERTSONS COS: Sued Over Mislabeled Macaroni, Cheese Products
ALPHABET INC: Shareholders Seek Class Certification in Privacy Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kryzhanovskiy Suit
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Display Warranty, Youngblood Says

AMERICARE INC: Juraeva Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
AT&T INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Illegal Merger Deal
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Cities' Consolidated Suit
BIG LOTS STORES: Cornejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BLUE CROSS: W.D. Washington Grants C.P.'s Bid to Compel Discovery

BNSF RAILWAY: Must Face Biometric Privacy Class Action
CA GLATT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miranda Class Suit Says
CANADA: Indigenous Groups Seek to Extend Class Action Settlement
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Huffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CENTRAL BUCKS: Cartee-Haring's Partial Summary Judgment Bid Denied

CHARLES SCHWAB: Barbiero Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
CHOCXO CHOCOLATIER: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CODEFIED INC: Livengood Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
COMPLEX DIVISION: Violates FCCPA, Barnett Class Action Suit Says
CREDIT CONTROL: Gowens' Claims Under 15 USC Section 1692f(1) Tossed

DAVID LEWIS GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOLLAR GENERAL: Hodorovych Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
DOMA TITLE: Petition for Writ of Mandate in Cortina Suit Denied
ENERGY TRANSFER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 2 Deadline
ENTERGY CORP: 5th Cir. Rejects CAFA Jurisdiction in Hurricane Suit

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Enters Protective Order in Kouri Class Suit
FERGUSON, MO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Fant Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Grants Partial Bid to Dismiss Lewis-Bledsoe Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Settles AdWords Class Action Lawsuit for $7 Million
GREATBANC TRUST: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Szalanski Suit

GROUPE RENAULT: Faces Legal Action in France Over Engine Issues
HELEN OF TROY: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Sandy River Files Suit in D. North Dakota
HESSE FLATOW: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOMEGOODS INC: Faces Casas Wage-and-Hour Suit in California

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HP INC: All-in-One Printers' Ads "Deceptive," Freund Suit Claims
HP INC: Burks Sues Over Tying Product Warranty to Exclusive Repair
IMMUNOVANT SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
INNOVATION FURNITURE: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

INOTIV INC: Grobler Sues Over Artificial Inflation of Market Price
IONQ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 1 Deadline
IONQ INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of August 1 Deadline
J.M. SMUCKER: Ferguson Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
JACK RABBIT CREATIONS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JACKBOX GAMES INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: Appeals FDA's Marketing Denial Orders re E-Cigarettes
KING BUFFET: Yeung Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Managers
L'OREAL USA INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAKE AREA FISH: Pitts Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas

LEGACY TRANSITION: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEMONADE INC: Settles Biometric Privacy Class Action for $4 Million
LILIUM NV: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
LIONEL LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Kearns Says

LOLLIPROPS INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LORENTA NUTS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MADAME ALEXANDER: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAESTRO-CONNECTIONS: Powell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
MAJOR MODEL: Model Loses Bid to Pause Chapter 11 Proceedings

MARY'S NUTRITIONALS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCG HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Massive Data Breach
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Ads Misleading, White Salmon Valley Says
MDL 2913: Misleads Users on E-Cigarette Risks, Wenatchee Claims
MDL 2913: Tumwater School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

MDL 2913: Union Gap School Sues Over E-Cigarette Risks
MDL 2913: Yelm Community School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
META PLATFORMS: Attorneys Discuss Privacy Class Action Ruling
META PLATFORMS: Sept. Claims Filing Deadline Set in Privacy Suit
MIGHTY MUG: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MILLIARD ENTERPRISES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
MIZU INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAT WITH FRIENDS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Files Motion to Arbitrate Flores Class Action

NAVY FEDERAL: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
NETFLIX INC: Borough of Longport Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
NEW PRIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Melendez Suit Says
NEW YORK: MTA Settles Class Action Over Subway Accessibility
NICK'S MGMT: Court Tosses Naranjo's Kickbacks Claim With Prejudice

NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Transmission
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action
OPERA LIMITED: Brown Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
ORPHAZYME AS: Faces Busic Shareholder Suit in IL Court
OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline

OUTLIER HEALTH: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAINTYOURLIFE LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PETROCHOICE LLC: Class Settlement Approval in Gravely Suit Denied
POPCORNVAN INC: Arrington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PYZEL SURFBOARDS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

R & L CARRIERS: Bobb Sues Over Unpaid OT for Forklift Operators
RACHEL UFFNER: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RBT INDUSTRIES: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RITE AND CORP: Court Dismisses Ramirez Class Suit With Prejudice
ROOT INC: Faces Huang Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices

S-10 TRAINING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAKS FIFTH: New York District Court Dismisses Tucker Class Suit
SAN JOAQUIN FIGS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHIELDS HEALTH CARE: Roach Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
SIMON PEARCE: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SLUMBERKINS INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCLEAN INC: Ciesla Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
SUDBURY'S HEALTH: Breast Imaging Class Action Discontinued
SWEDENCAREUSA INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Perez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

TENDER LEAF TOYS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THAMES & KOSMOS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TMC MANAGEMENT: Faces Kuehn Suit Over Unlawful Rental Practices
TOOTIE PIE COMPANY: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOTES ISOTONER: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRANSCO LINES: Brown Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
TRIPLE CANOPY: Conquest Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRITERRAS INC: Settlement Deal in Ferraiori Suit Gets Initial OK
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNILEVER PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 15 Deadline

UNILEVER PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 15 Deadline
UNILEVER UNITED: Krause-Pettai Wins Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit
UNITED STATES: Dinh Files Suit in U.S. Court of Federal Claims
UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
VALLEY LAHVOSH BAKING: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VENTURE DYNAMICS: Ceja Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. Cal.
VETERANS AFFAIRS: Order Tossing Facial-Vagueness Challenge Affirmed
VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Shareholder Suit in California Court
VIKING RIVER: Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss Labor Class Suit
VIRGIN CRUISES: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ZYNGA INC: Ferrando Wins Leave to File Oversize Brief Instanter
[*] Quebec Charter of French Language May Prompt Class Actions

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Fluid Succeeds on Summary Judgment


                            *********

ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Court Enters Show Cause Order in Foster Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL FOSTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. ADAMS AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02723-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California orders the Defendants
to show cause as to why they have not cooperated with the
Settlement Administrator and the Class Counsel to distribute the
settlement allocations.

Carol Foster and Theo Foreman brought the class action under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Sections 1001, et seq., on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Adams and Associates Employee Stock Ownership
Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Adams and Associates,
Roy A. Adams, Leslie G. Adams, Daniel B. Norem, Joy Curry Norem,
and The Daniel Norem Revocable Trust Dated January 9, 2002,
breached their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs, participated in
prohibited transactions, failed to make required disclosures, and
improperly agreed to indemnification.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
class action settlement.  Judgment was entered on March 14, 2022
and no appeal was filed.

In accordance with the terms of the final approval order, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice of post-distribution accounting on June
21, 2022. While the Plaintiffs indicate that distribution of the
settlement funds has been accomplished as to some class members,
they contend that the Defendants have prevented the Settlement
Administrator from distributing the funds to other class members
because it has failed to provide wire instructions for these
individuals existing or newly created AAI 401K Plan accounts. They
also indicate that they have not received confirmation that the
Defendants have provided a new Summary Plan Document (SPD) as
required by the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, Judge Corley orders the Defendants to show cause as to
why they have not cooperated with the Settlement Administrator and
the Class Counsel to distribute the settlement allocations to the
remaining class members and provide a revised SPD. The Defendants
will file a written response to the Order by July 12, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/xd3urwdcfrom Leagle.com.


ALBERTSONS COS: Sued Over Mislabeled Macaroni, Cheese Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Albertsons Companies' Signature Select brand macaroni and cheese
products are sold in boxes that are nearly half empty, a new class
action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Shane Winkelbauer claims Albertsons fails to "reasonably
inform" its customers that boxes of Signature Select brand macaroni
and cheese are 45% empty.

"Defendants' scam dupes unsuspecting consumers across California
and America to pay for empty space at premium prices and undercuts
fair competition," the Albertsons class action states.

Winkelbauer claims Albertsons markets the product in a
"systematically misleading manner by representing them as
adequately filled when, in fact, they contain an unlawful amount of
slack-fill."

Albertsons class action claims retailer underfills boxes for 'no
lawful reason'
Winkelbauer argues there is "no lawful reason" for Albertsons to
allegedly underfill the boxes of Signature Select brand macaroni
and cheese.

Albertsons chooses to "underfill" the macaroni and cheese boxes as
a way to cut costs and "deceive" consumers into purchasing the
products over the brands of its competitors, the Albertsons class
action alleges.

"Defendants' slack-fill scheme not only harms tens of thousands of
consumers, but it also harms law-abiding competitors," the lawsuit
states.

Winkelbauer claims Albertsons is guilty of unjust enrichment,
common law fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation,
along with violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.

He demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief along with
damages for himself and all class members.

Winkelbauer wants to represent a nationwide class and a California
subclass of consumers who have purchased Signature Select brand
macaroni and cheese products.

A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit earlier in June
over claims it misrepresented that certain over-the-counter
Signature Care brand acetaminophen drugs were "rapid release."

Have you purchased a Signature Select brand macaroni and cheese
product? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson and Zachary Chrzan
of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

The Albertson macaroni and cheese class action lawsuit is
Winkelbauer v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-04206, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. [GN]

ALPHABET INC: Shareholders Seek Class Certification in Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Berg, writing for Law360, reports that Alphabet Inc.
shareholders asked a California federal judge on June 21 to grant
them class certification in their suit accusing Google's parent
company of deceiving investors about a bug that exposed half a
million users' data in 2018. [GN]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Kryzhanovskiy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01292-DAD-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denies Amazon.com Services, Inc. and
Amazon.com Services, LLC's motion to dismiss.

I. Background

The matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss filed by
Amazon.com Services, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC
(collectively "Amazon" or "Defendants") on Sept. 10, 2021. In light
of the ongoing public health emergency posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, the Defendants' motion was taken under consideration
based on the papers.

On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff Kryzhanovskiy filed the putative class
action against her employer Amazon. On Aug. 20, 2021, the Plaintiff
filed her operative first amended complaint ("FAC") in the action
against the Defendants.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in January 2020 to work
as an "Onsite Medical Representative" primarily assigned to the
Defendants' Stockton, California warehouse location. In April 2020,
the Plaintiff's husband -- who has comparable qualifications and
experience to the Plaintiff -- was hired for the same position.
However, her husband was offered substantially more in wages. In
the position of Onsite Medical Representative, the Plaintiff and
her husband have identical primary responsibilities.

On May 27, 2021, the Plaintiff sent a notification letter to the
California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (the "LWDA
letter"), as well as to the Defendants, in which she outlined the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code,
including the Equal Pay Act based on their disparate treatment on
the basis of gender. She is informed and believes that the
Defendants' corporate offices received her notification letter on
June 1, 2021, and that, thereafter, her supervisors in the Stockton
office were informed of her complaint.

Once her supervisors became aware of the Plaintiff's complaint,
they began retaliating against her. In May 2021, the Plaintiff had
applied for a promotion to the position of "Workplace Health &
Safety Specialist" at the Stockton warehouse.  On June 8, 2021, she
was contacted by an internal recruiter and advised that the hiring
team had been "very impressed" with her background. An interview
was scheduled to take place on June 18, 2021.

On June 16, 2021, the Plaintiff approached her direct supervisor
Brent Butterfield to ask him about her upcoming interview.
Butterfield responded that the position had already been filled and
that her interview would consequently be canceled. Upon information
and belief, the Plaintiff alleges that Butterfield filled the
position and/or did not afford her the opportunity to interview in
retaliation for her having lodged complaints about the Defendants'
Labor Code violations and gender discrimination.  In the time since
the Plaintiff submitted her LWDA letter, Butterfield has been
dismissive of her.

The Plaintiff's FAC also includes class allegations regarding the
Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code,
including that the Defendants had: (1) uniform written policies and
practices that failed to include all remuneration in calculating
the regular rate of pay; (2) a uniform pattern and practice of
underpaying female employees as compared to their male
counterparts; and (3) a uniform provision of wage statements to
their California employees. The Plaintiff alleges that the wage
statements furnished by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and the
putative class of other non-exempt California employees failed to
accurately show the total hours worked and/or all applicable hourly
rates in effect during the pay period in violation of California
Labor Codes Sections 226(a)(2) and (9).

Based on the allegations in the Plaintiff's FAC, the Plaintiff
asserts both class representative claims as well as individual
claims. She asserts class and representative claims for: (1)
failure to provide overtime pay in violation of California Labor
Code Sections 510, 558, and 1194 and in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.; (2)
failure to furnish accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226; (3) violation of the
California's Equal Pay Act; (4) unlawful business practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; and (5) a Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim. The Plaintiff also asserts
individual claims for: (6) gender discrimination in violation of
the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); (7) retaliation in
violation of the FEHA; (8) retaliation under California Labor Code
Section 1102.5(b); (9) failure to timely furnish payroll records in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226; and (10) failure to
timely furnish personnel records in violation of California Labor
Code Section 1198.5.

On Sept. 10, 2021, the Defendants filed their pending motion,
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's fourth, seventh, and eighth
causes of action. On Sept. 30, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her
opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 7,
2021, the Defendants filed their reply thereto.

II. Analysis

In their pending motion, the Defendants seek to dismiss the
Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for unlawful business practices
under the UCL and the Plaintiff's seventh and eighth causes of
action for unlawful retaliation pursuant to FEHA and California
Labor Code Section 1102.5, respectively.

A. Whether Plaintiff Has Adequately Alleged a UCL Claim

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
cannot pursue her UCL claim because "she does not allege that she
lacks an adequate remedy at law, which the Ninth Circuit has held
is a prerequisite for bringing such a claim in federal court." They
contend that district courts are required to dismiss claims seeking
equitable relief brought under the UCL absent a showing that the
Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law. The Defendants advance
that while the Plaintiff's UCL claim seeks injunctive relief, the
Plaintiff has adequate legal remedies because she is seeking unpaid
wages, overtime premiums, and related benefits based on the same
allegedly "unlawful" conduct upon which her UCL claim is premised.
According to them, the Plaintiff's "allegations that she is owed
damages under the Labor Code show that the relief she seeks is 'a
quintessential legal remedy.'"

In her opposition to the Defendants' pending motion, the Plaintiff
argues that there is no adequate remedy at law for her or the other
members of the putative class because they are subjected to ongoing
injury and harm, which monetary damages cannot fully redress. She
contends that she "does not have adequate remedies at law to
redress the prospective harm of ongoing violations of her rights"
because "it is readily recognized that damages are generally
inadequate to redress prospective harm." Thus, the Plaintiff
concludes, "there is necessarily no legal remedy to redress/prevent
the future harm she seeks to avoid through the injunctive relief
sought by her fourth cause of action."

In their reply, the Defendants protest that the Plaintiff's
assertions are wholly conclusory as to why her legal remedies are
inadequate. They note that although the Plaintiff represents that
she is being subjected to ongoing harm, she "nowhere alleges why
the nature of such unspecified 'ongoing injury/harm' could not be
remedied by the monetary relief she seeks in this lawsuit." In
fact, the Defendants argue, the Plaintiff "offers no detail at all
as to the nature of the alleged future harm or why monetary damages
would be insufficient to address it."

Based on the allegations of the Plaintiff's FAC and the relevant
caselaw, Judge Drozd concludes that the Plaintiff's allegations are
sufficient to support her claim that she and the putative class
lack an adequate remedy at law because monetary damages alone would
be insufficient to remedy the alleged ongoing harm. Accordingly, he
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL claim
for injunctive relief to the extent that claim is premised on
alleged future harm.

B. Whether Plaintiff Has Adequately Alleged Retaliation Claims

The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiff's seventh and
eighth claims for retaliation under FEHA and California Labor Code
Section 1102.5, respectively. They argue that the Plaintiff's
individual retaliation claims are deficient because she has not
alleged "any facts from which the Court could reasonably infer that
she was retaliated against because of her alleged protected
activity."

Judge Drozd is not persuaded by the Defendants' arguments and
concludes instead that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
her supervisors in the Stockton office knew of her complaints.
Notably, the Ninth Circuit has held that because many relevant
facts are often known only to the defendant, a plaintiff can plead
sufficient facts on information and belief to state a plausible
claim so long as there are additional facts alleged by plaintiff
that support her belief, citing Soo Park v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910,
928-29 (9th Cir. 2017).

In Soo Park, the Ninth Circuit explained that "the Twombly
plausibility standard does not prevent a plaintiff from pleading
facts alleged upon information and belief where the facts are
peculiarly within the possession and control of the defendant or
where the belief is based on factual information that makes the
inference of culpability plausible."

Accordingly, the fact that the Plaintiff's FAC contains allegations
that are based upon information and belief does not, in and of
itself, mean that she has failed to state a claim against the
Defendants for retaliation -- especially because the Plaintiff's
information and belief allegations are supported by other facts she
has alleged. That is, in addition to her allegations on information
and belief that the Defendants had notice of her protected
activity, the Plaintiff has also alleged in her FAC that: (i) she
mailed her LWDA letter to Amazon headquarters on May 27, 2021; (ii)
less than a month later, the Plaintiff's previously scheduled
interview for a promotion with defendants was unexpectedly and
inexplicably canceled only two days before her interview date;
(iii) in the month after she mailed her letter, the Plaintiff's
supervisor Brent Butterfield became dismissive of her; and (iv) in
the month after her letter was mailed, employees who were junior to
the Plaintiff were granted schedule changes that she had been
denied, even though schedule assignments are based on seniority.

Taken together, Judge Drozd concludes that the allegations are
sufficient to plead a causal link between the Plaintiff's
engagement in protected activity and the adverse employment action
allegedly taken against her. Although the Plaintiff must ultimately
come forward with evidence that her supervisors possessed knowledge
of her protected activity in order to prevail on her retaliation
claims, no such evidence is necessary at the pleading stage, where
the court is to construe the allegations of the complaint in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's retaliation claims will be
denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Drozd denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/2p8utcstfrom Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Display Warranty, Youngblood Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN YOUNGBLOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22STCV20876 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the
Magnuson-Moss's Pre-Sale Availability Rule by failing to either
display product warranties in close proximity to its products, or
else place signs reasonably calculated to elicit the prospective
buyer's attention, in prominent locations, advising consumers of
the availability of warranties upon request. As a result of the
Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have
been damaged, says the suit.

Amazon.com Services LLC is a retailer headquartered in Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
         Sara D. Avila, Esq.
         Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
         MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
         10990 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 396-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
         E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

AMERICARE INC: Juraeva Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAHZODA JURAEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICARE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03784 (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York State Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation.

Ms. Juraeva was employed as a home health aide in Brooklyn, New
York from on or around May 2021 through and including the present
date.

Americare, Inc. is home health care company located at 171 Kings
Highway, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0046
         E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

AT&T INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Illegal Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
customers of telecoms AT&T and Verizon have been forced to pay more
and get less services, as a result of an allegedly illegal merger
of competing telecoms Sprint and T-Mobile, according to a new class
action lawsuit.

On June 17, attorneys with the firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, of San Francisco; Berger Montague, of Philadelphia;
Hausfeld LLP, of Philadelphia; and the Law Offices of Kenneth N.
Flaxman P.C., of Chicago, filed an antitrust class action lawsuit
in Chicago federal court against the parent companies of T-Mobile
and Sprint.

The lawsuit names as defendants T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom AG
and Sprint parent Softbank Group Corp.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs, identified as
Anthony Dale, Brett Jackson and Johnna Fox, all of Indiana;
Benjamin Borrowman, Ann Lambert, Robert Anderson and Chad
Hohenberry, all of Illinois. All of the named plaintiffs are
identified as customers of AT&T and Verizon.

However, the lawsuit seeks to expand the action to include
potentially hundreds of millions of other customers of the two
telecommunications giants, identified in the complaint as "the
industry's leviathans."

The lawsuit takes aim at the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile, which
created the third largest telecom in the U.S.

According to the lawsuit, the merger unfairly reconfigured the
marketplace for wireless communications and mobile internet
services, leaving consumers with far fewer choices and much higher
prices.

"The merger not only consolidated the number of national retail
mobile wireless carriers from four to three; it combined two fierce
competitors into a single behemoth with no incentive to compete
meaningfully against the equally-large AT&T Inc. and Verizon
Communications, Inc.," the complaint said. "As a result, small
businesses and consumers in the United States who subscribe to
national retail mobile wireless carriers, including AT&T and
Verizon customers, have paid billions more for wireless service
than they would have if the merger had never happened."

According to the complaint, before the merger, Sprint and T-Mobile
routinely targeted AT&T and Verizon customers with more
economically priced data and communications plans and products.

However, the two companies allegedly changed their strategy in
2018, when they announced their intent to merge to create the
nation's third large mobile telecommunications provider.

The merger was challenged by dozens of U.S. states and other
government agencies, which asserted the it was anti-competitive and
violated federal antitrust law.

However, a federal judge ultimately backed the merger and allowed
the deal to be consummated in 2020.

The aftermath left consumers with little more than more expensive
bills, the complaint said.

"In the decade preceding the merger announcement, the average price
of a nationwide wireless plan decreased by approximately 6.3% per
year," the complaint said. "Quality-adjusted prices consistently
decreased as well. Since the announcement of the merger, that trend
has stopped: quality-adjusted prices have inflated and stabilized
because the three surviving carriers have no reason to compete as
vigorously for subscribers and can focus on maximizing profits from
existing customers.

"And, led by T-Mobile, all three carriers have begun raising
prices, both through outright increases in plan prices as well as
through increases in taxes, fees, and surcharges."

The lawsuit says the merger harmed customers of Verizon and AT&T,
as well. On their behalf, it seeks to "undo the merger" and create
a "viable firm that can replicate Sprint's competitive significance
in the consumer mobile wireless telecommunications services market
or otherwise restore competition in that market to the extent it
existed before the illegal merger."

Further, the complaint seeks a court order forcing the new T-Mobile
and Sprint entity to pay the customers of their competitors who
have allegedly been overcharged as a result, plus pay the attorneys
who brought the lawsuit.

"I'm hard-pressed to think of a more anti-competitive and damaging
acquisition in recent history," said attorney Brendan P. Glackin,
of Lieff Cabraser, in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

"Mobile phones are now integral to American life, and the three
carriers provide mobile wireless service to the vast majority of
American subscribers. The consequences of the merger are currently
being felt in the pocketbook of nearly every person living in this
country and will continue to be felt until competition is restored
and the ill effects of this merger are undone."

Glackin's colleague, Gary I. Smith Jr., of the Hausfeld firm, said
the lawsuit will "serve an important function in remediating
undesirable effects of a merger that should not have been, and
restoring competitive balance moving forward."

"This suit alleges that the Sprint-T-Mobile merger is one example
where judicial predictions of the merger's effects did not align
with real world outcomes," said Smith. [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Cities' Consolidated Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Plaintiffs v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1608 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

I. Introduction

In these consolidated putative class actions, the Plaintiffs allege
that, between 2008 and 2016, remarketing agents at some of the
world's largest banks conspired to fix the interest rates for a
type of bond called Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDOs").
Specifically, three VRDO issuers -- the City of Philadelphia, the
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore ("Baltimore"), and the Board of
Directors of the San Diego Association of Governments ("San Diego")
-- bring claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of
local and state public entity issuers against eight banks
(collectively, the "Banks" or "Defendants"). They allege that the
Banks violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1, and breached contractual and fiduciary duties under
state law.

In November 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' first motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. In
particular, to the extent relevant here, the Court concluded that
Philadelphia had failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty under Pennsylvania law but declined to dismiss Baltimore's
fiduciary-duty claim under Maryland law. It also rejected the
Defendants' effort to dismiss the bulk of the Plaintiffs' claims as
time barred.

Following that earlier ruling, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
request to consolidate with the case an additional action brought
by San Diego. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint,
incorporating San Diego's claims and correcting the inadvertent
omission of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC as one of Baltimore's
remarketing agents.

The Defendants now move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss San Diego's
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and to dismiss Baltimore's
fiduciary-duty claim against JPMorgan. They also move to dismiss
most of San Diego's claims as time barred.

II. Background

VRDOs are a type of bond issued by municipalities and other public
or charitable entities, such as schools, hospitals, and community
organizations, to raise funds for operating expenses,
infrastructure projects, and public services. These bonds are
issued on a long-term basis but have short-term interest rates that
are reset on a periodic basis, typically weekly. In order to
attract investors, VRDOs have a "built-in 'put' feature that allows
investors to redeem the bond at any periodic reset date at face
value" (that is, at "par") plus any accrued interest. That makes
them a "low-risk and high-liquidity investment."

To manage VRDOs, an issuer contracts with a bank to act as a
remarketing agent ("RMA"). An RMA typically has two primary
responsibilities. First, on each reset date, the RMAs are required
to reset the VRDO's interest rate at the lowest rate possible that
would permit the bond to trade at par. Second, when an existing
investor exercises the "put" option on the bond, thereby tendering
the bond to the RMA, the RMA is required to remarket the VRDO to
other investors at the lowest possible rate.

The gravamen of Plaintiffs' claims is that the Defendants -- who
together serve as RMAs for the vast majority of the VRDO market --
actively conspired not to compete against each other in the market
for remarketing services. Instead, beginning as early as February
2008, they worked together to keep interest rates on VRDOs
artificially high. These inflated rates benefitted the Banks by
helping to keep the VRDOs off their own books. They also benefitted
money market funds (some of which were managed by the Banks) that
were the predominant holders of VRDOs. Absent this coordination,
the Banks that set higher rates than their competitors would have
been at risk of losing their clients to those competitors. The
Plaintiffs claim that, by engaging in this conspiracy, the
Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, and breached their contractual and fiduciary
duties under different state laws.

At the outset, the case was comprised of two consolidated actions:
one brought by Philadelphia, 19-CV-1608 (JMF), and one brought by
Baltimore, 19-CV-2667 (JMF). Both cities are issuers of VRDOs that
contracted Defendants to act as their RMAs. As noted, in November
2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss both cities' claims. Specifically, the Court
dismissed Philadelphia's and Baltimore's breach-of-contract claims
against a subset of Defendants who were not direct counterparties
to any remarketing agreement. It likewise dismissed Philadelphia
and Baltimore's unjust-enrichment claims and
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims in their entirety, with one
exception: Baltimore's fiduciary-duty claims against Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. Id. at 534-39.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that the Defendants
had "waived the argument" that the Plaintiffs failed to plead the
existence of a fiduciary relationship "under Maryland law." It also
declined to dismiss Philadelphia's and Baltimore's federal
antitrust claims and breach-of-contract claims against a subset of
the Defendants and rejected the Defendants' argument that the bulk
of Philadelphia and Baltimore's claims were time barred. Following
that ruling, the Court entered a Case Management Plan and the
parties commenced discovery.

On June 2, 2021, San Diego filed a complaint asserting similar
claims against the same set of Banks -- Case No. 21-CV-4893 (JMF).
In particular, San Diego's initial complaint alleged violations of
the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition
Law, and for breach of contractual and fiduciary duties.
Approximately two months later, Philadelphia and Baltimore moved to
consolidate San Diego's action with their own and to file an
Amended Complaint incorporating San Diego's claims. The Defendants
did not oppose, but "reserved their right to" "move against the
amended complaint on grounds not previously available." On Aug. 4,
2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and directed the
Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint.   
Two primary changes to the operative pleadings are relevant in the
case. First, the Amended Complaint adds San Diego as a named
plaintiff and incorporates San Diego's claims for violations of the
Sherman Act, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Notably, San Diego's claims are based on "the same conduct on the
part of the Defendants" as that originally alleged by Philadelphia
and Baltimore. The fraudulent concealment allegations in the
Amended Complaint are also identical to those in the original
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Original Complaint"). Second,
the Amended Complaint "corrects an inadvertent drafting error" with
respect to Baltimore's claims: It replaces Morgan Stanley with
JPMorgan as the RMA counterparty for one of Baltimore's VRDOs and
eliminates one of the at-issue VRDOs previously identified by
Baltimore.

Shortly after the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file their
Amended Complaint, the parties filed a joint letter-motion
requesting an extension of the fact discovery deadlines and
proposing a briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The proposed briefing
schedule provided that the "Defendants will file any single,
omnibus motion to dismiss the operative complaint on grounds not
previously available." The Court adopted the parties' proposed
briefing schedule, and the Defendants thereafter timely filed the
instant motion to dismiss.

III. Discussion

The Defendants move to dismiss three portions of the Amended
Complaint. First, they argue that San Diego fails to state a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty under California law. Second, they
contend that Baltimore likewise fails to state a fiduciary-duty
claim against JPMorgan under Maryland law. And, finally, they argue
that the bulk of San Diego's claims are time barred.

A. San Diego's Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Claim

The Plaintiffs make two arguments in support of the existence of a
fiduciary relationship between the Fiduciary Defendants and San
Diego. First, they argue that by "acting as RMAs" for San Diego,
those Defendants "entered into agency relationships that subjected
them to fiduciary duties under California law."  Second, they argue
that "the Fiduciary Defendants' conduct even apart from their
contractual obligations further underscores the fiduciary nature of
their relationship with the Plaintiffs."

Neither argument is persuasive, Judge Furman holds. He concludes
that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege an agency relationship
between San Diego and the Fiduciary Defendants. For starters, the
Plaintiffs do not allege that the Fiduciary Defendants "represent"
San Diego in any "dealings with third parties." Making matters
worse, the Plaintiffs fail to allege that San Diego possessed
sufficient control over the Fiduciary Defendants' activities. They
do not cite, nor has the Court found, any cases that suggest the
right to terminate a contractual relationship at any time, without
more, is sufficient to create an agency relationship.

The Plaintiffs' second argument -- that, "even apart from their
contractual obligations," the Fiduciary Defendants' conduct
"confirms their fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiffs," --
similarly falls flat. Judge Furman opines that none of the conduct
identified by the Plaintiffs indicates that the Fiduciary
Defendants "knowingly agreed to act on behalf and for the benefit
of" San Diego. Absent a factual basis to conclude the Fiduciary
Defendants voluntarily undertook to "act primarily for the benefit
of San Diego," such an arrangement does not rise to the level of a
fiduciary relationship.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' contention that the existence of an agency
or fiduciary relationship is "generally a question of fact" and
thus ill-suited for resolution on a motion to dismiss, does not
save San Diego's claim. In short, because the Plaintiffs do not
plausibly allege facts that would give rise to a fiduciary
relationship between San Diego and the Fiduciary Defendants, San
Diego's fiduciary-duty claims fail as a matter of law and must be
dismissed.

B. Baltimore's Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Claim

Next, Judge Furman turns to Baltimore's fiduciary-duty claim
against JPMorgan. The Plaintiffs raise two threshold arguments that
warrant brief discussion at the outset. First, they argue that the
"Court's prior ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Baltimore's fiduciary duty claim constitutes the 'law of the case'"
and should not be revisited.

Judge Furman finds that the Plaintiff has filed an amended
complaint following an earlier ruling, the law of the case doctrine
does not apply "to the extent that the Plaintiff has offered new
claims or factual allegations." Regardless of the reason, however,
the new allegation renders the law of the case doctrine
inapplicable to Baltimore's breach of fiduciary duty claim against
JPMorgan in its capacity as Baltimore's RMA.

Second, the Plaintiffs contend that the argument JPMorgan seeks to
make was "previously available to all Defendants when making their
first motion to dismiss" but not raised and, as such, JPMorgan's
"attempt to raise it now contravenes this Court's Aug. 12, 2021
Scheduling Order."

Judge Furman disagrees. He concludes that Baltimore fails to
plausibly allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship under
Maryland law. To begin, Baltimore fails to plausibly plead that
JPMorgan was Baltimore's agent. The Plaintiffs likewise fail to
plausibly allege that a fiduciary duty existed in the absence of an
agency relationship. In short, the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly
allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Baltimore
and JPMorgan and, thus, fail to state a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty as a matter of law.

C. The Timeliness of San Diego's Claims

Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the bulk of San Diego's
claims as time barred. More specifically, they contend that San
Diego's breach-of-contract and fiduciary-duty claims, as well as
San Diego's antitrust claim based on conduct prior to Feb. 21,
2015, are untimely because the "California Attorney General was
required to provide San Diego with notice of a qui tam action
making similar allegations no later than August 2014." According to
the Defendants, the 2014 qui tam complaint -- of which the Court
may take judicial notice -- "set forth theories of liability
similar enough to those alleged in the case to put any diligent
party on inquiry notice (if not actual notice) of its claims." It
follows, they argue, that tolling for fraudulent concealment is
unavailable.

Judge Furman is not persuaded. Given the limited substantive
overlap between the two complaints, and that the Court must draw
all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor at this stage in
the litigation, Judge Furman cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs
fail to plausibly allege reasonable due diligence, even assuming
(without deciding) that they were on notice of the CFCA Complaint
in 2014. As the Court said in its earlier ruling, the "Defendants'
argument may win another day, but it does not provide a basis for
dismissal at this stage of the litigation."

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Furman grants in part and denies
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. In particular, he grants
the Defendants' motion to dismiss San Diego's
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim in its entirety and Baltimore's
fiduciary-duty claim against JPMorgan. He denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the bulk of San Diego's claims as time barred,
however.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 231.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4j39sxmsfrom Leagle.com.


BIG LOTS STORES: Cornejo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Lots Stores,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Katy Cornejo, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00322614-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 29, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"

Big Lots, Inc. -- https://www.biglots.com/ -- is an American retail
company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
          Phone: 760-942-9433
          Fax: 760-452-4421
          Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com


BLUE CROSS: W.D. Washington Grants C.P.'s Bid to Compel Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, C.P., by and through his parents Patricia Pritchard
and Nolle Pritchard; and PATRICIAL PRITCHARD, Plaintiffs v. BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-06145-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma,
issued an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery;

   2. denying the Defendant's Motion to Seal Motion to Compel
      Discovery;

   3. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Pursuant to
      Protective Order; and

   4. granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal
      Placeholder.

I. Introduction

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Discovery, the Defendant's Motion to Seal Motion to Compel
Discovery, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Pursuant to Protective
Order, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Placeholder. The Court
has considered the documents filed in support of and opposition to
the motions and the remaining file. The Defendant requests oral
argument, but the Court finds that it is not needed to fairly
resolve the issues raised. The Court is fully advised.

II. Background

In the motion to compel discovery, the Plaintiffs seek to
additional information in response to Interrogatories and Requests
for Production about other plans administered by Blue Cross that
include an exclusion like the transgender reassignment surgery
exclusion at issue in the case. They seek this information to
support class action claims. Blue Cross opposes the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel and moves to seal its briefing and related
filings. According to the Defendant, it already produced all
responsive information, and information contained in the filings is
confidential and proprietary.

Nonetheless, Blue Cross provided the Plaintiffs additional
discovery after they filed the pending motion to compel. As of the
Plaintiffs' reply, the discovery remaining at issue is limited to:
(1) the identity of employers with plans that contain or contained
a gender affirming care exclusion during the proposed class period;
(2) the total number of people enrolled in these plans, by plan
year; and (3) documents responsive to Request for Production
("RFP") 13.

RFP 13 requests "all documents, emails, and other communications
relating to covering or excluding treatment related to gender
dysphoria and/or a gender-affirming care exclusion with regards to
any plan identified in response to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6,
including but not limited to, treatment with puberty blockers,
hormone treatment, and/or surgery."

The Plaintiffs' initially sought copies of all Benefit Program
Applications ("BPAs") and Summary Plan Descriptions ("SPDs"), but
agreed to reserve that dispute after Blue Cross agreed to provide a
redacted set of exemplar BPAs and SPDs. They request that Blue
Cross be ordered to produce the exemplar BPAs immediately and the
remaining information sufficiently in advance of the class
certification deadline on July 6, 2022, so they can determine
whether their class definition will need to be modified and, if so,
how. They also ask that the Court order Blue Cross's Rule 30(b)(6)
witness, Telisa Drake, who the Plaintiffs already deposed, to be
questioned about the belated production should they conclude that
further questioning is necessary.

In the Plaintiffs' motions to seal, they move to seal information
marked as "confidential" pursuant to the parties' stipulated
protective order and Western District of Washington Local Civil
Rule ("LCR") 5(g)(3). They concede that information marked as
confidential by Blue Cross in Dkts. 66-1 and 66-2 may be redacted,
but argue that Dkt. 62-1 should not be filed under seal because it
is a communication between the counsel about document
confidentiality that does not contain any confidential
information.

III. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel

As a threshold argument, the Plaintiffs argue that Blue Cross
waived its objections to produce this discovery because it did not
object to that in its initial response. The interrogatory asks Blue
Cross to "identify any other plans for which BCBSIL administers the
same or similar Transgender Reassignment Surgery Exclusion." Blue
Cross objects that the request is broad and burdensome but responds
that "it will produce responsive Documents sufficient to show the
requested information for ERISA self-funded group health plans in
effect from Nov. 23, 2016 to the present pursuant to Rule 33(d) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite Blue Cross's agreement to provide some of the documents the
Plaintiffs originally requested in the pending motion to compel,
the parties still dispute the discoverability of all of Request for
Production No. 13. Request for Production No. 13: All documents,
emails, and other communications relating to covering or excluding
treatment related to gender dysphoria and/or a gender-affirming
care exclusion with regards to any plan identified in response to
Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 6, including but not limited to,
treatment with puberty blockers, hormone treatment, and/or
surgery.

Judge Bryan holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, as
narrowed in their reply brief, should be granted. Blue Cross should
provide that information as soon as possible to give the Plaintiffs
time to review it before the deadline for class certification.
However, Judge Bryan does not order Blue Cross to produce its Rule
30(b)(6) witness to be questioned about the belated document
production at this time. The Plaintiffs request is speculative. If
the Plaintiffs request further questioning and Blue Cross declines
their request, then they may move for the Court to order additional
questioning.

B. Defendant's Motion to Seal

Blue Cross moves to seal the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery, the Declaration of Eleanor Hamburger is Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Blue Cross's Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel, and the Declaration of Gwendolyn C. Payton is
Support of Blue Cross's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel,
all pursuant to the parties stipulated protective order and Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and LCR 5(g)(3).

Blue Cross filed proposed redacted versions of the motions and
declarations, which redact the number of plans for which it
administers an exclusion for transgender-related services, the
number and amount of denied claims administered by Blue Cross under
these exclusions, and the number of enrollees and the Catholic
Health Initiatives plan. It also argues that language from its BPAs
and SPDs is confidential and should not be made public. Blue Cross
argues that this information is confidential and proprietary and
that disseminating it could harm its competitive standing and
interests of non-parties.

Judge Bryan finds that Blue Cross does not demonstrate good cause
to seal. The disputed numbers are not clearly traceable to any
specific employer or non-party to the lawsuit, to any individual
enrollee, or a clear proprietary secret. They do not include any
medical information, secret formula, or information that is
"traditional kept secret" like a grand jury transcript. The SPD
language is general and that such a plan exclusion exists does not
appear to be a secret. In short, Judge Bryan holds that Blue Cross
does not demonstrate how public access these general numbers could
harm its competitive standing or the interests of non-parties.
Therefore, Blue Cross' Motion to Seal should be denied.

C. Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal

The Plaintiffs' motions to seal relate to information marked by
Blue Cross as confidential pursuant to the parties' stipulated
protective order. The Plaintiffs filed the motions to facilitate
compliance with that order and LCR 5(g), but they substantively
argue that an email between counsel should not be sealed while
conceding that portions of the declaration filed in support of
their reply may remain under seal. The second motion to seal is
noted for July 1, 2022, but it is appropriate to resolve this
motion at this time, June 28, 2022. Blue Cross did not file a
response, the issues overlap so the Court is fully advised, and the
deadline to file a motion for class certification, July 6, is
quickly approaching.

The disputed emails, do not contain confidential or proprietary
information and should not be sealed. They discuss discovery
exchange and, in general terms, whether information should be
redacted or sealed. Id. However, some information contained in
Dkts. 66-1 and 66-2, as the Plaintiffs concede, does.

Therefore, Judge Bryan finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal
should be denied and the emails may be unsealed, and their Motion
to Seal Placeholder should be granted in part. The parties should
confer about what information in Dkts. 66-1 and 66-2 should remain
sealed and file an updated redacted copy reflecting those changes.

IV. Order

Therefore, Judge Bryan grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel,
denies the Defendant's Motion to Seal and the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Seal, and grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal
Placeholder.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of the Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y8bx9d4ffrom Leagle.com.


BNSF RAILWAY: Must Face Biometric Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that BNSF Ry. Co.
lost its bid for interlocutory appeal when an Illinois federal
judge found the railroad hadn't shown the "substantial ground for
difference of opinion" necessary for such review.

BNSF sought to appeal a decision finding that several federal
statutes -- the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Interstate
Commerce Commission Termination Act, and the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act -- didn't preempt Biometric
Information Privacy Act claims levied against the railroad. [GN]

CA GLATT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Miranda Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON MIRANDA, as an aggrieved employee and on behalf of all other
aggrieved 12 employees under the Labor Code Private Attorney's
General Act of 2004 v. CA GLATT MART, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV20480 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 23, 2022) alleges
that the Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to
pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in
the State of California in violation of California state wage and
hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Aggrieved
Employees working over eight hours per day, 40 hours per week,
and/or seven straight workdays in a workweek without paying them
proper overtime wages

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants employed him as a non-exempt
employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to,
cleaning services. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from June of
2012 through April of 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Alexander D. Wallin, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                  jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                  alex@tomorrowlaw.com

CANADA: Indigenous Groups Seek to Extend Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MBC News reports that the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous
Nations and the Anishinabek Nation are jointly calling for an
extension to the federal Day School Class action Settlement.

Day schools were residential schools where Indigenous students
attended the school during the day, but were able to return to
their families and communities.

The settlement on these schools is set to close in July and the two
organizations say many survivors and their families were excluded
from the process.

"Canada's approach to the implementation of the claim regime should
be grounded in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to
Action. Today, we ask Canada to consider Call #29, to work
collaboratively with Day School Survivors and their families who
were not included in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement
Agreement," said Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Reg
Niganobe in the statement.

The two organizations point to issues created by the Covid-19
pandemic and a process they feel hindered survivors ability to
properly participate in the settlement as reasons to delay.

"Day School Survivors and their families have endured enough trauma
already. They do not need to face these barriers while on their
difficult and emotional healing journey," said FSIN Chief Bobby
Cameron

Both the FSIN and Anishinabek Nation admit it is not typical to
amend a class-action lawsuit this late in the process, but both
organizations believe it is important for survivors and their
families.

They are asking the Government of Canada to intervene and bring an
extension to the lawsuit.

It is estimated that close to 200,000 Indigenous children attended
the nearly 700 federally operated Indian day schools in Canada.
[GN]

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Huffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centene Management
Company LLC, et al. The case is styled as Erik Huffman, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Centene Management Company LLC, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00322629-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June
29, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited."

Centene -- https://www.centene.com/ -- is the largest Medicaid
managed care organization in the country and provides a portfolio
of services to government sponsored healthcare programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
          Phone: 858-551-1223
          Fax: 858-551-1232
          Email: norm@bamlawca.com


CENTRAL BUCKS: Cartee-Haring's Partial Summary Judgment Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REBECCA CARTEE-HARING v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL
DISTRICT, DAWN MARINELLO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated female employees, v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Civil
Action Nos. 20-1995, 21-2587 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff  Cartee-Haring, in her individual capacity, seeks summary
judgment with respect to her claim against the District pursuant to
the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d)(1). She claims that the
District violated the Equal Pay Act by compensating her less than
its male teachers for equal, "if not more demanding," work. T

II. Background

Since Aug. 27, 2007, the District has employed Cartee-Haring as a
fulltime high school English teacher. Prior to her employment with
the District, the Plaintiff taught for nine years in Pennsylvania
public schools. She has a bachelor's degree in English, with
honors, from Rutgers University and a master's degree in English
Education from Rutgers University Graduate School of Education.

The District employs Salary Schedules to determine the salary of
its fulltime faculty members. he Salary Schedules consist of two
criteria: (1) "step" and (2) "educational level."

"Step" placement, according to Cartee-Haring, "has to do with the
years of related teaching experience an individual has for purposes
of placement on the Salary Schedules." "A teacher's status as a
coach has nothing to do with Step placement under the Salary
Schedules," and "coaches are compensated based on a different
Salary Schedule for their service as a coach." The District agrees
with Cartee-Haring that a teacher's "step" placement is related to
years of teaching experience, however it counters that "step"
placement "does not necessarily equal years of teaching
experience." And although the District recognizes that "teachers
are not given credit toward step placement for their athletic
coaching experience" and that coaches are compensated for their
service as coaches on a different Salary Schedule, it maintains
that "teachers joining the District are sometimes given credit for
more of their prior teaching experience based on having skills that
are difficult to find the ability to run a successful athletic
program."

The second placement criterion depends on the teacher's level of
education. For example, a teacher will be placed at a "educational
level" corresponding to "whether the teacher has a Bachelor's
Degree, a Bachelor's Degree plus 24 post-graduate credits, a
Master's Degree plus 15 credits toward a doctorate degree, and a
Master's Degree plus 30 credits toward a doctorate degree."

According to Cartee-Haring, upon her hiring in 2007, her annual
salary should have been $66,650 under the District's
then-applicable Salary Schedule, given she was in entering her
tenth year of teaching ("Step J") and had a master's degree.
Instead, she contends that the District placed her at "Step E" with
a salary of $54,100, "as if she were only in her fifth year of
teaching."

Ms. Cartee-Haring maintains that the then-Assistant Superintendent
of the District, Nancy Silvious, told her that "it was the policy
of the District to never give teachers credit for their prior
teaching experience for purposes of placement on the Salary
Schedules" and that her placement at "Step E" was "doing her a
favor." For the 2008-2009 school year, she states that she was
placed on the Master's Degree plus 15 credits column of the Salary
Schedule, as she had obtained fifteen additional post-graduate
credits, but the District failed to credit her salary to correspond
with this new placement.

Although the District states that Cartee-Haring "is on the highest
step of the salary schedule," it does not dispute that
Cartee-Haring was placed on "Step E" for the 2007-2008 school year
at a salary of $54,100. However, the District maintains that
Cartee-Haring should not have been placed above "Step E" because
"teachers transferring from other districts are only placed up to
Step E even when they have more than four years of prior
experience, except in special circumstances." According to the
District, although its administrative procedures as to Step
placement have changed several times in the past 30 years, its
current policy authorizes its Director of Human Resources to "give
teachers credit for up to four years of prior teaching experience,
resulting in placements up to Step 5."

"Any recommendations for placement above Step 5 -- whether made by
the Human Resources office, a school principal, or otherwise --
must be approved by the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent,
or the Director of Pupil Services." Reasons for such approvals of
placement above "Step 5" include: (1) "attracting teachers with
hard-to-find certifications," such as the specialized
certifications required of "business teachers, foreign language
teachers, mathematics teachers, guidance counselors, industrial
technology teachers, and speech therapists;" (2) "filling a
critical need of the District"; (3) "filling positions on short
notice"; and (4) "enticing sought-after candidates to join the
District." The District also denies that Nancy Silvious ever made a
statement to Cartee-Haring concerning her placement at "Step E."

Ms. Cartee-Haring identifies two women, Erica Penn and Taralyn
Doris, who were also hired by the District, at Step 1, as fulltime
teachers and were not accurately credited for their prior teaching
experience for purposes of their Step placement. She lists eight
male teachers for whom the District's Salary Schedules applied: (1)
John Donnelly, (2) Stuart Kesilman, (3) David Mussari, (4) Edward
Protzman, (5) Joseph Shousky, (6) Walter Sandstrom, (7) James
Achuff, and (8) Angelo Menta.

Ms. Cartee-Haring filed the instant action on April 22, 2020.
Pursuant to the operative Third Amended Complaint, filed Nov. 11,
2020, she brings four claims against the District: (1) violations
of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(d)(1) (Count I), (2)
gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Paragraph 2000e, et seq. (Count II), (3) age
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq. (Count III), and (4) disability
discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. Section 12101 (Count IV). Cartee-Haring, in her
individual capacity, moved for partial summary judgment as to her
Equal Pay Act claim (Count I) on April 14, 2022. The District
responded in opposition on April 28, 2022.

III. Discussion

The Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from paying male and female
employees unequal wages for "equal work." Claims arising under the
Equal Pay Act follow a "two-step burden-shifting paradigm." First,
the plaintiff "must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating
that employees of the opposite sex were paid differently for
performing 'equal work' -- work of substantially equal skill,
effort and responsibility, under similar working conditions." "The
burden of persuasion then shifts to the employer to demonstrate the
applicability of one of the four affirmative defenses specific in
the Act."

Ms. Cartee-Haring seeks summary judgment on the ground that the
District is "unable to prove the applicability of any of the four
affirmative defenses under the Act." She reasons that the District,
when determining her placement on the Salary Schedule as a fulltime
teacher, failed to give her credit for "all of her years of prior
teaching experience" and for a higher academic level than what she
had achieved. She argues, therefore, that the District's actions as
to her compensation contrasted with how it determined compensation
for her male counterparts, to include John Donnelly, Stuart
Kesilman, Davis Mussari, Edward Protzman, Joseph Shousky, Walter
Sandstrom, James Achuff, and Angelo Menta.

Ms. Cartee-Haring's argument relies on a misstatement of the
summary judgment standard. For an employer to prevail at summary
judgment on an Equal Pay Act claim, it must prove at least one
affirmative defense "so clearly that no rational jury could find to
the contrary," and it "must produce sufficient evidence such that
no rational jury could conclude that the proffered reasons actually
motivated the wage disparity of which the plaintiff complains."
However, Cartee-Haring is the moving party, and, as the District
recognizes, the standard for defeating an employee's motion for
summary judgment on a claim under the Act "requires only that the
defendant point to record evidence that creates a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether factors other than sex explain the pay
differential."

The District has satisfied that standard, Judge Baylson holds. He
finds that the District points to numerous factual disputes
concerning the "hybrid seniority/merit system" that it uses to
determine compensation. For example, the District argues that this
system accounts for "most" of the pay differentials between its
teachers, given that teachers will be placed at a different Step
depending on their years of prior teaching experience and a
different column depending on their level of education. Relying on
Mr. Donnelly, the District explains that his difference in pay,
compared to Cartee-Haring, is explained by his higher education
level and years of prior experience as a teacher. The District also
explains it takes factors other than sex into account when deciding
a teacher's Step placement, such as whether the teacher had a
hard-to-find certification, was a sought-after candidate, or was
filling a critical need or an open position on short notice.

Ms. Cartee-Haring disputes the facts underlying Mr. Donnelly's
placement on the Salary Schedule, arguing the District credited him
higher placement than his background and qualifications mandated.
Yet taking these facts in the light most favorable to the District,
as the Court must do at summary judgment, there are genuine issues
of material fact as to the use and application of the District's
"hybrid seniority/merit system" to determine Mr. Donnelly's
compensation that preclude summary judgment. There are similar
factual disputes concerning the District's determination of
compensation for the remaining seven men that Cartee-Haring relies
upon in her motion.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson denies Cartee-Haring's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wz6k58a from Leagle.com.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Barbiero Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs LAUREN MARIE BARBIERO, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling dismissing her lawsuit entitled Lauren Barbiero, et
al. v. Charles Schwab Investment Advisory, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-07034-PJH, in the United States District Court for the
District for Northern California, Oakland.

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 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 sought to dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FAC on two
grounds. First, the Defendants moved 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 moved 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.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 17, 2022, Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case.

The appellate case is captioned as LAUREN MARIE BARBIERO; KIMBERLY
JO LOPEZ; WILLIAM KENNETH LOPEZ; TAMMY L. COLEMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CHARLES SCHWAB INVESTMENT ADVISORY, INC.; THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-15932, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 24,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 1, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 22, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be filed by August 22, 2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed by September 30, 2022;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed October 31, 2022;

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

CHOCXO CHOCOLATIER: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ChocXO Chocolatier
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ChocXO Chocolatier LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05568 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

ChocXO -- https://chocxo.com/ -- is a premium dark chocolate that
focuses on natural, simple ingredients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CODEFIED INC: Livengood Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Codefied, Inc. The
case is styled as Philip Livengood, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Codefied, Inc. doing business as:
Housecall Pro, Case No. 3:22-cv-00954-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., June 29,
2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Codefied, Inc. doing business as Housecall Pro --
https://www.housecallpro.com/ -- is the #1 all-in-one solution for
home service businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


COMPLEX DIVISION: Violates FCCPA, Barnett Class Action Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. COMPLEX DIVISION APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, Case No.
CACE-22-009193 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., June 23, 2022) sues the
Defendant Aptive Environmental for violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on a date better known by the
Defendant, the Defendant began attempting to collect a debt from
the Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by
the Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction between the
creditor of the Consumer Debt, Defendant, and the Plaintiff, says
the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telepone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com
                  jibrael@jibraellaw.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Gowens' Claims Under 15 USC Section 1692f(1) Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIA GOWENS, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-CV-12222-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Judge Berg grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to any
claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(1) and otherwise denies.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Gowens received four letters from Defendant Credit
Control attempting to collect two different debts. As to each of
the two debts, Credit Control sent the Plaintiff a first letter and
then a second letter about six months later. While almost all the
information pertaining to the debt on each pair of sequential
letters was identical -- such as the amount of the debt, the name
of the current creditor and original creditor, and the original
creditor's account number -- the field labeled "Our Acct.#" had a
different number on each letter, even when the letters referred to
the same debt.

The Plaintiff alleges that this confused her and led her to believe
Defendant was trying to collect the debts more than once. She filed
the Amended Complaint to bring a class action alleging that the
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, and the Michigan Regulation of Collection
Practices Act, MCL Section 445.252. The Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims.

II. Background

Gowens resides in Ingham County, Michigan. Defendant Credit Control
is a Missouri corporation with a registered agent in Michigan and
is alleged to be a "debt collector" per the FDCPA. The Plaintiff
was first contacted by the Defendant in June 2020, when she
received a letter which stated a debt amount that she allegedly
owed and options for paying it off. She received a total of four
letters from the Defendant over a period of about seven months. The
four letters appear to concern two distinct debts.

The Plaintiff alleges these letters, sent with different "our
account" numbers even though they refer to the same debts, are a
part of the Defendant's business practice and were intended to
"confuse and frustrate consumers so they cannot determine which
account balance to pay down." She alleges that these letters
"oppress and abuse" consumers, who might "believe that Defendant
was attempting to collect the same Debt twice."

The Plaintiff now brings the lawsuit on behalf of consumers in
Michigan who were sent two or more form letters by the Defendant
referencing the same debt but using different account numbers, just
as she was. The action was originally filed in state court, and
timely removed by the Defendant on Sept. 21, 2021. The Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss, in response to which the Plaintiff filed
the operative Amended Complaint. The Defendant's renewed Motion to
Dismiss is now fully briefed, and the Court has indicated it will
be resolved without oral argument.

III. Analysis

To make out a claim under the FDCPA, a plaintiff must show that
"(1) it is a "consumer" as defined by the FDCPA, (2) the "debt"
arose "out of transactions which are 'primarily for personal,
family or household purposes,'" (3) the defendant is a "debt
collector" as defined by the FDCPA, and (4) the defendant violated
the prohibitions set forth in the FDCPA."

Judge Berg concludes that the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges
elements (1) through (3) in the complaint, and the Defendant does
not appear to challenge these elements. Instead, it disputes that
the Plaintiff can successfully allege any violations of the
statute. The Defendant makes three different legal arguments to
attempt to dismiss all six of the Plaintiff's claims (four under
the FDCPA, and two under the MCPA).

A. Whether the letters would mislead the "least sophisticated
consumer" and were "materially false"

The Plaintiff makes two specific claims under 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e, which prohibits a debt collector from using "any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt." She states that the Defendant made a
"false representation of the character, amount, or legal status" of
her debts in violation of Section 1692e(2)(A), and used a "false
representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect
any debt" in violation of Section 1692e(10). The Defendant argues
that the letters do not meet the standard for misleading
representations as interpreted by courts, and that therefore these
claims fail.

Judge Berg holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
the letters were deceptive and misleading enough to make out
violations of 1692e(2)(A) and (10). She received two sets of
letters that were almost identical, but that used different account
numbers, attempting to collect debts. Notably, the Plaintiff
received the second set of letters after attempting to dispute the
debts but receiving no response to that request. A reasonable
consumer who takes the time to dispute a debt has the right to
expect that the collection agency will abide by the "important
disclosures" that it includes in the debt notice. In these
disclosures, each letter stated that if the debtor disputes the
validity of the debt within 30 days, "this office will obtain
verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against you and a
copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to you by this
office."

The use of two different account numbers is also misleading in a
material way. It introduces confusion regarding the "identity" of
the debt and what steps the consumer must take to ensure it is paid
off. The facts as alleged by the Plaintiff indicate that the
account numbers presented to her in the communications from the
Defendant were materially misleading.

The Defendant argues that even an unsophisticated consumer would
clearly recognize the letters are referring to the same debts,
brushing aside the difference in account number as irrelevant. But
absent more specific explanation from the debt collector in
writing, the unsophisticated consumer has no way of knowing what is
or is not relevant on a written collection notice. Consumers are
dependent on clear, unambiguous communication from debt collectors,
and this is also what the FDCPA requires.

For these reasons, the Motion to Dismiss as to Count I's claims
under Section 1692e(2)(A) and Section 1692e(10), and Count II's
claim under MCL 445.252(e), is denied.

B. Whether the letters were intended to "harass, oppress, or
abuse"

Section 1692d prohibits a debt collector from engaging in "any
conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or
abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt."

Although it is a close call, Judge Berg holds that at this stage,
taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true and construing the
Complaint in the light most favorable to her, she states that the
letters she received created "severe confusion and frustration" as
to how she should pay off the debt, and whether the debt was in
fact being collected twice. This is plausibly upsetting to a
consumer and is sufficient to state a claim. The Motion to Dismiss
as to Count I's claims under Section 1692d and Count II's claim
under MCL 445.252(n) is denied.

C. Whether the letters attempt to collect an unauthorized debt

The Defendant's last argument is that the Plaintiff cannot make out
a claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which prohibits the use of
"unfair or unconscionable means" to collect or attempt to collect
any debt. Specific debt collection practices are listed as
violations constituting unfair or unconscionable means. Her claim
references Section 1692f(1), which prohibits "the collection of any
amount (including interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to
the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly
authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by
law."

The Plaintiff claims that each set of two letters, because it
referenced the same debt twice, constituted an attempt to collect
more than the amount of debt that was actually authorized. The
Defendant maintains that the letters each stated the correct and
undisputed amount of the debt and no more. Consequently, it
contends, the letters were not attempting to collect any more than
the amount of the debt that was authorized.

Judge Berg finds that the Plaintiff's claim is more a concern that
she may have thought that the letters were attempting to collect
the same debt more than once, which is the gravamen of the Section
1692e claim. But that confusion is not borne out by the face of the
notices, each of which only stated that the amount due was the
amount authorized. The Defendant cannot therefore be in violation
of this provision because it was "expressly authorized" to collect
the debts as stated.

The Complaint is devoid of facts that the Defendant intended to
convey a request to receive more than the authorized amount of the
debt. To make a plausible claim under a statute like Section 1692f,
focused on prohibiting "unfair or unconscionable" conduct, a
plaintiff making a claim under subsection (1) would need to include
some facts indicating purposeful activity aimed at collecting more
than the authorized debt, not merely a possibility that a debtor
might interpret an ambiguous notation that way. In the case, the
Plaintiff does not make any plausible allegations that Defendant
was, in fact, attempting to collect the debt twice. So, the Motion
to Dismiss as to Count I's claims under Section 1692f(1) is
therefore granted.

IV. Conclusion

For the reason set forth, Judge Berg grants the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss as to any claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(1) and
otherwise denies.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/5xpt6n4sfrom Leagle.com.


DAVID LEWIS GALLERY: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Lewis Gallery,
LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. David Lewis Gallery,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05561 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

David Lewis -- https://www.davidlewisgallery.com/ -- is a
contemporary art gallery in the TriBeCa neighborhood of
Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


DOLLAR GENERAL: Hodorovych Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General
Corporation. The case is styled as Alexander Hodorovych,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03415 (N.D. Ill..,
June 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is
an American chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


DOMA TITLE: Petition for Writ of Mandate in Cortina Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMA TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Petitioner v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO COUNTY, Respondent; CAROLYN CORTINA, et
al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. F083454 (Cal. App.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth District denies
Doma Title's petition for writ of mandate.

I. Introduction

This writ proceeding addresses the validity of a peremptory
challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.61 made by a
corporation that was added as a defendant after a trial as to
liability against the original defendant was completed and before a
judgment was entered. The newly added corporate defendant filed the
peremptory challenge seven days after being served. The trial court
denied the challenge as untimely. The newly added corporate
defendant contends the challenge was timely under the provision
stating that "if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then
[the peremptory challenge may be made] within 15 days after the
appearance."

Another timeliness provision in section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2)
provides that "in no event will a judge entertain" a peremptory
challenge after trial has commenced. This provision "requires that
disqualification motions be raised no later than commencement of
the trial or hearing," citing Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1
Cal.5th 962, 979 (Maas).

The Court of Appeals concludes the provision allowing a
late-appearing party to make a peremptory challenge within 15 days
of its appearance is subject to the general rule that a peremptory
challenge must be made before trial has commenced. In other words,
the provision for late-appearing parties operates only to move the
deadline forward; it does not relax the deadline and allow a
peremptory challenge after trial has commenced. Applying the rule
that a peremptory challenge under section 170.6 must be made before
trial has commenced, the Court of Appeals concludes the peremptory
challenge by the newly added corporate defendant was untimely.

II. Background

In 2007, Plaintiffs Carolyn Cortina and 12 other escrow officers
("Class Representatives") filed a class action against their
employer, then named North American Title Co., Inc., a California
corporation (Former NATC/Lennar Title). In 2010, the trial court
granted a motion to certify class action.

According to the docket, Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Jr. made his
first ruling in the case in September 2010, granting a motion in
part. In September 2015, a court trial of Class Representatives'
claims for overtime began before Judge Hamilton. In October 2016,
Judge Hamilton issued a statement of decision as to liability that
found in favor of Class Representatives. A judgment has not yet
been entered; however, there is a proposed judgment setting
restitution for unpaid overtime wages at approximately $21 million
and awarding a nearly equal amount in accrued prejudgment interest.
The docket also contains an entry for June 25, 2020, indicating a
notice of assignment of a judge for all purposes (Judge Hamilton)
was filed.

The petitioner in this writ proceeding currently is named Doma
Title, a California corporation. This entity was incorporated on
Jan. 23, 2018, long after this lawsuit was filed. The important
fact for purposes of the Opinion is that Doma Title and Former
NATC/Lennar Title are separate legal entities. Nothing in the
Opinion should be read as implying that these entities are, or are
not, alter egos or that Doma Title is, or is not, a successor in
interest liable for the debts of Former NATC/Lennar Title.

The proceedings relevant to this writ petition began in February
2020 when the trial court granted the Class Representatives leave
to file a third amended complaint to add additional entities as
parties. One of those entities was Doma Title.

In September 2021, the Class Representatives served Doma Title with
a summons and the third amended complaint. On Oct. 4, 2021 -- seven
days after service -- Doma Title filed a peremptory challenge to
Judge Hamilton pursuant to section 170.6 that included a supporting
declaration of its attorney.

On Oct. 5, 2021, the Class Representatives filed an objection to
the peremptory challenge. They argued the right to exercise a
peremptory challenge within 15 days after appearing in the action
was not absolute. In their view, the applicable rule of law
provided that "`neither side in a proceeding may make a motion
under section 170.6 after trial has commenced or the trial judge
has resolved a disputed issue of fact relating to the merits.'

On Oct. 21, 2021, Doma Title submitted a petition for writ of
mandate to the Court of Appeals contending the trial court erred in
denying its peremptory challenge under section 170.6. The only way
to obtain review of an order addressing the disqualification of a
judge is to file a writ petition because such an order is not
appealable.

On Nov. 2, 2021, the Class Representatives filed an informal
response to the petition for writ of mandate. They argued Doma
Title was a suspended corporation and was barred from filing the
writ petition. They also argued the peremptory challenge was
untimely because the trial court previously resolved disputed facts
on the merits.

The Court of Appeals (1) directed Doma Title to file an informal
response within 15 days addressing whether the writ proceeding
should be dismissed and (2) allowed real parties in interest to
submit an informal reply. On Nov. 30, 2021, Doma Title filed an
informal response and a request for judicial notice of a
certificate of revivor issued by the Franchise Tax Board and dated
Nov. 18, 2021, and a printout from the Secretary of State's Web
site listing it as an active corporation.

On Jan. 6, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued an alternate writ
directing the superior court to (1) vacate the Oct. 6, 2021, order
denying Doma Title's peremptory challenge, issue an order granting
the peremptory challenge, and strike as void all orders issued by
Judge Hamilton after October 4, 2021, or (2) show cause before this
court why the relief requested in Doma Title's writ petition should
not issue.

The trial court set the matter for hearing on Jan. 21, 2022. At the
request of the Class Representatives, the court continued the
hearing to Jan. 28, 2022.

On Jan. 25, 2022, the Class Representatives filed an ex parte
application for the dismissal of Doma Title. Later that day, Judge
Kimberly Gaab signed and filed an order dismissing Doma Title
without prejudice effective immediately.

On Jan. 28, 2022, Judge Hamilton filed an order responding to
alternative writ or order to show cause issued on Jan. 6, 2022, by
Court of Appeals. The order stated that prior to the hearing, the
Class Representatives' request to dismiss Doma Title had been
granted. The order also stated that, as a result of the dismissal,
cause existed for the Fifth District to deny the writ relief
requested.

On Feb. 9, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued an order to show cause
directing the real parties in interest to file a reply to the writ
petition within 30 days and allowing Doma Title to file a reply 30
days after the filing of the returns. It also stayed the superior
court proceedings pending a determination of this writ proceeding.

III. Discussion

A. Corporate Suspension and Effect of Revivor

The Court of Appeals assumes for purposes of this writ proceeding
that the certificate of revivor obtained by Doma Title from the
Franchise Tax Board retroactively validated the peremptory
challenge and the petition for writ of mandate, both of which were
filed while its corporate status was suspended from on Oct. 1,
2021, until Nov. 18, 2021.

B. Peremptory Challenges

Peremptory challenges are creatures of statute. They are presented
in the form of a motion, but they fall outside the usual law and
motion procedural rules, and are not subject to a judicial
hearing." "When a motion under section 170.6 is in proper form and
timely filed, the judge is not permitted to try the assigned civil
or criminal action or special proceeding, or to hear 'any matter
therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact.

In the case, the procedural facts relevant to the validity of the
peremptory challenge are not disputed. As a result, this writ
proceeding presents questions of law subject to the de novo
standard of review.

C. Duly Presented

Phrased in statutory terms, the broad issue presented in this writ
proceeding is whether Doma Title's peremptory challenge was "duly
presented" as required by section 170.6, subdivision (a)(4). Duly
presented means the peremptory challenge was "in proper form and
timely filed." The trial court resolved this issue by concluding
the peremptory challenge was "untimely and/or filed without
standing to do so." The Court of Appeals agrees the challenge was
untimely. Once the trial commenced, the time for making a
peremptory challenge had expired.  It is important to recognize in
the case that the fact Doma Title was a new party did not impact
the application of the deadline imposed by section 170.6,
subdivision (a)(2) that prohibits peremptory challenges after trial
has commenced.

In closing, the Court of Appeals recognizes that the court in
Stephens v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 54, stated that
"section 170.6 is to be liberally construed in favor of allowing a
peremptory challenge, and a challenge should be denied only if the
statute absolutely forbids it." The Court of Appeals'
interpretation of the statute does not violate this general
admonition because, read literally, section 170.6 absolutely
forbids challenges after the commencement of trial.

IV. Disposition

The petition for writ of mandate is denied. The alternative writ is
discharged as improvidently granted and the Court of Appeals' stay
order is vacated upon the finality of the Opinion as to the Court
of Appeals court. The Class Representatives are the prevailing
party and will recover their costs in this writ proceeding.

The motion for judicial notice proposed in the Court of Appeals'
order of May 4, 2022, is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/5da9nk7xfrom Leagle.com.

Gilmore Magness Janisse and David M. Gilmore --
dgilmore@gmlegal.net -- for the Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Wagner Jones Kopfman & Artenian, Lawrence M. Artenian --
lartenian@wagnerjones.com -- Andrew B. Jones --
ajones@wagnerjones.com; Wanger Jones Helsley, Oliver Wanger,
Patrick D. Toole, Benjamin C. West; Cornwell & Sample, Stephen R.
Cornwell and Rene' Turner Sample for Real Parties in Interest
Carolyn Cortina, Judith Bates, Tina Texeira, Janet Doran, Kimberly
Baker, Laurel Johnstone, Mary Weidmark, Cheryl Fuller, Melodie
Benton, Robin Johnson, Catherine Bell, Teresa Spencer, and Martha
Dominguez.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Thomas Peterson --
thomas.peterson@morganlewis.com -- Barbara J. Miller --
barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- and John D. Hayashi --
john.hayashi@morganlewis.com -- for Real Party in Interest North
American Title Company, Inc., now known as Lennar Title, Inc.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common shares of
Energy Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer" or the "Company") (NYSE: ET)
between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Energy Transfer, a Delaware company headquartered in Dallas, Texas,
was founded in 1996 and became a publicly traded partnership in
2006. The Partnership was formerly known as Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer LP in October 2018.
Energy Transfer is a company engaged in natural gas and propane
pipeline transport. Energy Transfer LP, through its subsidiaries,
provides transportation, storage, and terminalling services for
products like natural gas, crude oil, Natural Gas Liquids ("NGL"),
and refined products.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
Energy Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to
prevent contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards
to drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known
issues related to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy
Transfer, through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC ("Rover"),
hired a third-party contractor to conduct Horizontal Directional
Drilling Activities ("HDD") for the Rover Pipeline Project (the
"Project"), whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the
drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River when
a large inadvertent release took place on April 13, 2017 (the
"April 13 Release"); and (c) Energy Transfer continually downplayed
its potential civil liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC") was actively investigating Energy Transfer's
wrongdoing related to the April 13 Release and consistently
provided it with updated information about FERC's findings on this
matter. These issues were foreseeably likely to subject Energy
Transfer to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as
well as increased reputational and financial harm, and would also
materially impact Energy Transfer's financial results.

On August 8, 2019, Energy Transfer filed its quarterly report on
Form 10-Q with the SEC, reporting the Partnership's financial and
operating results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2019 (the
"2Q19 10-Q"). The 2Q19 10-Q disclosed that two years earlier, in
mid-2017, FERC Enforcement Staff began a non-public formal
investigation "regarding allegations that diesel fuel may have been
included in the drilling mud at the Tuscarawas River HDD."

As a result of this news, the price of Energy Transfer stock
declined 4.6% over two trading days, to close at $13.38 on August
12, 2019.

Then on December 16, 2021, FERC publicly issued to Energy Transfer
an Order To Show Cause And Notice of Proposed Penalty (the "FERC
Order"), which proposed a $40 million fine for the inadvertent
release incident. On this news, the price of Energy Transfer shares
declined 2.8% over the course of two trading days, to close at
$8.25, on December 20, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 2, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

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

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

ENTERGY CORP: 5th Cir. Rejects CAFA Jurisdiction in Hurricane Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravier House Press disclosed that plaintiffs are individuals who
were adversely affected by power outages following Hurricane Ida
and filed a class action lawsuit in State Court alleging that
Entergy negligently designed, operated, and maintained the
electricity transmission system, which led to power outages in the
wake of the storm. Entergy removed this case to Federal Court.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, and the District Court granted the
remand motion. Accepting a discretionary appeal, the U.S. Fifth
Circuit affirmed.

"To determine whether two-thirds of a proposed class are citizens
of the state in which a class action was originally filed, we must
first define the class . . .. Here, the petition asserts that the
class action is brought 'on behalf of all residents of the East
Bank of Jefferson Parish and all residents of Orleans Parish.' The
petition then states: 'Until a more precise determination is made
of all residents of the East Bank of Jefferson Parish and all
residents of Orleans Parish affected by the failure of the
Transmission System, the Plaintiffs allege that the class consists
of all persons affected by power outages and residing in the
Parishes of within the service area of Entergy who sustained
personal, mental, and economic damages and/or inconvenience as a
result of the failure of the Transmission System resulting from
Hurricane Ida.'

"We conclude that, whatever the Plaintiffs may have meant, we must
construe the petition as written and the proper reading of these
two paragraphs, the first one limiting the class to portions of
Jefferson and all of Orleans parish and the second one referencing
those parishes and then referring to the Parishes, i.e., those
parishes, means that the class definition is quite limited in
scope: it consists of Louisiana residents and businesses in the
East Bank of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes affected by the
relevant power outages. Focusing narrowly on the phrase 'all
persons' and the allegation that Entergy 'provides services to 3
million customers in 4 states,' Entergy argues that the class
definition must include persons residing outside Louisiana. That
interpretation, however, is belied by a plain reading of the
petition. Even if one could read the petition more broadly than the
conclusion above, of the four states served by Entergy, only
Louisiana uses the word 'parish' to describe its geographic
subdivisions. This should end the matter, but even if we set this
compelling fact aside (as Entergy urges us to do) our conclusion
remains the same. The petition states that the class action is
brought on behalf of residents of two specific parishes; makes
repeated references to Louisiana generally and southeast Louisiana
specifically; and describes how Entergy's alleged negligence
affected the Ninth Ward, the French Quarter, and the Central
Business District – all neighborhoods located within New Orleans.
Even if, as Entergy suggests, the class might include residents
outside East Bank of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, it is still
limited to those residents in parishes served by Entergy (i.e.,
those in Louisiana). Considering the petition as a whole, we cannot
determine that other states are involved.

"With the class defined, we next determine if the district court
clearly erred in concluding that two-thirds of proposed class
members are Louisiana citizens. . .. Based on the class definition
and facts alleged, it's evident that this class will consist
overwhelmingly of Louisiana citizens and corporations. To support
that reasonable assumption, Plaintiffs adduced an informal survey
establishing that many of the proposed class members are indeed
Louisiana citizens. Entergy takes issue with the survey, asserting
that its informal nature renders it 'essentially useless' in
assessing the citizenship of the full proposed class. We understand
Entergy's arguments regarding the survey's methodology and
reliability, but its conclusions merely support what a commonsense
presumption based on the class definition and the factual
allegations dictates. At the very least, it was not clearly
erroneous for the district court to rely on the survey in reaching
its conclusion that at least two-thirds of the proposed class
members are Louisiana citizens."

Stewart v. Entergy, No.22-30177, 2022 WL 1711659 (5th Cir. May 27,
2022). [GN]

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Enters Protective Order in Kouri Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California issues a Stipulated Protective
Order in the case, JANNE KOURI, individually on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-CV-08066-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is a nationwide and statewide class action lawsuit
filed against FedEx involving a putative class of handicapped
individuals that have used or attempted to use one or more of
FedEx's approximately 34,000 nationwide drop boxes. Among the
allegations are that FedEx's drop boxes fail to comply with the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines in various way including the height and
pull forces of the package and supply cabinet doors, and that drop
boxes lacked accessible routes and level landings. Defenses include
that proposed modifications would not be readily achievable, would
impose an undue burden on FedEx, and would fundamentally alter the
nature of the drop boxes. FedEx has also defended that it is
engaged in good faith efforts to remediate ADA accessibility issues
with the drop boxes.

FedEx is in competition with other companies and entities,
including UPS, DHL, and the United States Post Office regarding the
shipment of packages. FedEx's drop boxes have unique designs not
shared by these competitors. FedEx's drop box designs and
information about their development, costs, usage, and proposed
modifications will likely be areas of discovery in this lawsuit.
This information is proprietary and would have competitive value to
FedEx's competitors. It represents the expenditure of a great deal
of money and resources in research and development.

Discovery is likely to include multiple depositions, copious
written discovery, including dozens of Requests for Production by
both sides, and the production of thousands of documents. Exposure
of proprietary information related to FedEx's drop boxes is likely
to place FedEx at a competitive disadvantage, thereby jeopardizing
its business. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition
the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality
obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a
Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order
otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later
of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or
without prejudice; and (2) final judgment after the completion and
exhaustion of all appeals, re-hearings, remands, trials, or reviews
of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or
applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's
Scheduling Order.

A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is disclosed or
produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with the
Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle
this Action. Such Protected Material may be disclosed only to the
categories of persons and under the conditions described in the
Order. When the Action has been terminated, a Receiving Party must
comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Order.

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

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.

Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by civil or
criminal contempt proceedings, financial or evidentiary sanctions,
reference to disciplinary authorities, or other appropriate action
at the discretion of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yckjreb9from Leagle.com.

Jonathan D. Miller -- jonathan@nshmlaw.com -- Jordan T. Porter --
jordan@nshmlaw.com -- NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP, 33 West
Mission Street, Suite 201, Attorneys for Plaintiff JANNE KOURI AND
THE PROPOSED CLASS.

John W. Campbell, FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, in Memphis,
Tennessee, Attorney for Defendant FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION.


FERGUSON, MO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Fant Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Ferguson, Missouri filed an appeal from a court ruling
granting in part a motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit entitled KEILEE FANT, et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No.
4:15-cv-00253-AGF, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri-St. Louis.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all impoverished people who
were jailed indefinitely and who were not afforded a lawyer or the
inquiry into their ability to pay by the City of Ferguson because
they were unable to pay a debt owed to the City from traffic
tickets or other minor offenses.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 29, 2022, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify proposed Classes.

On June 9, 2022, District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig GRANTED in part
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said it will
grant certification but will modify certain of the class
definitions. Specifically, Judge Fleissig ruled that:

-- Named Plaintiffs Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson,
Herbert Nelson, Jr., Alfred Morris, Shameika Morris, Anthony
Kimble, Donyale Thomas, and Ronnie Tucker are appointed as Class
Representatives to represent the Bearden Class, defined as follows:
All persons who have, at any time since February 8, 2010, been kept
in jail by the City of Ferguson for failing to pay a fine, fee,
bond, surcharge, or cost, without an inquiry into their ability to
pay (Count One).

-- Named Plaintiffs Roelif Carter, Alfred Morris, and Ronnie Tucker
are appointed as Class Representatives to represent the Modified
Gerstein Class (a subclass of the Bearden Class), defined as
follows: All persons who have, at any time since February 8, 2010,
been held in jail by the City of Ferguson after a warrantless
arrest with no finding of probable cause by a neutral magistrate
for their arrest and continued detention (Count Seven).

-- Named Plaintiffs Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson,
Herbert Nelson, Jr., Alfred Morris, Shameika Morris, Anthony
Kimble, and Donyale Thomas are appointed as Class Representatives
of the Warrant Class (a subclass of the Bearden Class), defined as
follows: All persons who have, at any time since February 8, 2010,
been held in jail by the City of Ferguson after being arrested on a
warrant issued by the City (Count Three).

-- Named Plaintiffs Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson,
Herbert Nelson, Jr., Alfred Morris, Shameika Morris, and Donyale
Thomas are appointed as Class Representatives of the Post-Judgment
Class (a subclass of the Bearden Class), defined as follows: All
persons who have, at any time since February 8, 2010, been jailed
by the City of Ferguson because of their non-payment in connection
with a prior judgment (Counts Two, Five, and Six).

-- Named Plaintiffs Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Allison Nelson,
Herbert Nelson, Jr., Alfred Morris, Shameika Morris, Anthony
Kimble, Donyale Thomas, and Ronnie Tucker are appointed as Class
Representatives of the Jail Conditions Class, defined as follows:
All persons who, at any time since February 8, 2010, were held in
the City of Ferguson jail (Count Four).

-- Named Plaintiffs Keilee Fant, Roelif Carter, Alfred Morris,
Shameika Morris, and Donyale Thomas are appointed as Class
Representatives to represent the Modified Declaratory and
Injunctive Class, defined as follows: All persons who currently owe
or who will incur debts to the City of Ferguson from fines, fees,
costs, or surcharges arising from judgments in cases prosecuted by
the City (Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven).

-- John Waldron and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, Inc.;
Angela Daker, J. Frank Hogue, Claire Leonard, Shannon Lane, and
Hafsa S. Mansoor of White & Case LLP; Marco Lopez and Ryan Downer
of Civil Rights Corps; and Brendan Roediger and John Ammann of SLU
Law Clinic, were appointed as Class Counsel.

The Court also directed the parties to promptly meet and confer and
to file, within 14 days of the date of the Memorandum and Order, a
joint proposed schedule for the remainder of the litigation,
including prompt proposed deadlines and procedures.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Ferguson, Missouri v.
Keilee Fant, et al., Case No. 22-8012, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on June 23, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner City of Ferguson, Missouri is represented by:

          William A. Hellmich, Esq.
          Blake Hill, Esq.
          HELLMICH & HILL
          1049 N. Clay Avenue
          Kirkwood, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 646-1110  

               - and -

          Timothy John Reichardt, Esq.
          REICHARDT & NOCE
          12444 Powerscourt Drive, Suite 370
          Saint Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 789-1199

Plaintiffs-Respondents Keilee Fant, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          John J. Ammann, Esq.
          Brendan D. Roediger, Esq.
          ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          100 N. Tucker Boulevard
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 977-2796

               - and -
         
          Danielle Marie Audette, Esq.
          Ross E. Elfand, Esq.
          Kathryn Hong, Esq.
          Paula Kates, Esq.
          Leonardo Kim, Esq.
          Hafsa S. Mansoor, Esq.
          Dorian K. Panchyson, Esq.
          Cvetiva Popa, Esq.
          Alice Tsier, Esq.
          Betty Zhang, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10002

               - and -

          Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq.
          Maureen Hanlon, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          John McCann Waldron, Esq.
          ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
          440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 361-8834

               - and -

          Meredith Francine Craven, Esq.
          Katherine May Raunikar, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          1200 Smith Street, Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 496-9700  

               - and -

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          4900 First Union Financial Center
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 371-2700

               - and -

          Ryan Chasce Downer, Esq.
          Marco Antonio Lopez, Esq.
          Tara Mikkilineni, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W. Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 844-4975

               - and -

          Zaur D. Gajiev, Esq.
          Maria Lattanzi, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700

               - and -

          Jerry Frank Hogue, Esq.
          Shannon Lane, Esq.
          Claire Leonard, Esq.
          Shiv Patel, Esq.
          Margaret Spicer, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          701 13th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 626-3600

               - and -

          Li Jiang, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          26th Floor 1-8-3 Marunouchi
          Chiyoda-ku
          Tokyo, JP
          Telephone: 8-136-384-3172  

               - and -

          Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, N.W., Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409

               - and -

          Scott Miller, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN
          260 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 278-4298     
  
               - and -

          Andrew E. Tomback, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-0000
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200

FORD MOTOR: Court Grants Partial Bid to Dismiss Lewis-Bledsoe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRI LEWIS-BLEDSOE, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 21 C 6116 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Ford's Partial Motion to
Dismiss.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Lewis-Bledsoe brings suit against Defendant Ford for five
counts of sexual harassment and sex discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e and the
Illinois Gender Violence Act ("IGVA"), 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN.
82/1-98. Ford has filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6).

II. Background

Ms. Lewis-Bledsoe worked for Ford in its Chicago Assembly Plant.
She alleges that during the course of her employment, she faced sex
and gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Specifically,
Lewis-Bledsoe alleges that one of her supervisors, Superintendent
Myron Alexander, subjected her to repeated instances of unwanted
touching, including grabbing her from behind and lifting her up off
the ground. Lewis-Bledsoe reported Alexander's conduct to Ford via
its sexual harassment hotline and Labor Relations department. She
also made reports to her supervisors and to her union.

Ms. Lewis-Bledsoe claims that despite her reports, Ford took no
meaningful steps to protect her from further discrimination,
harassment, or battery. Instead, she claims that because of her
complaints, a supervisor working for Ford threatened her with
disciplinary action and denied her requests to report additional
instances of sexual harassment. Lewis-Bledsoe further alleges that
as a direct result of her complaints, her supervisors deprived her
of bathroom breaks and overtime opportunities granted to employees
that did not complain and assigned her to work undesirable tasks
with insufficient tools. Ford asserts that the Ford employee who
subjected Lewis-Bledsoe to discrimination and retaliation,
presumably her supervisor Alexander, was terminated in October
2014.

Ms. Lewis-Bledsoe initially brought her claims against Ford as a
named plaintiff in a class action suit in Van v. Ford Motor
Company, No. 14 C 8708 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 3, 2014) ("Van Class
Action"). Lewis-Bledsoe's individual claims were severed on Nov.
16, 2021. The Clerk of Court was ordered to open a new case for
Lewis-Bledsoe's claims and to file the most recent operative
Complaint in the Van Class Action in the new case. Id.

Ms. Lewis-Bledsoe filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Jan.
13, 2022, alleging five counts: Hostile Work Environment and Sexual
Harassment in Violation of Title VII (Count I); Gender
Discrimination in Violation of Title VII (Count II); Retaliation in
Violation of Title VII (Count III); Battery (Count IV); and
Illinois Gender Violence Act ("IGVA") Claim (Count VI). The Court
notes that Lewis-Bledsoe's Second Amended Complaint only lists five
causes of action, but she has labeled her IGVA claim as Count VI
instead of Count V. Counts I-IV comprise claims that were severed
from the Van Class Action. Count VI was added with the filing of
the SAC. Ford has filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss as to Count VI
only.

III. Discussion

Ms. Lewis-Bledsoe brings her new count, Count VI, under the IGVA,
740 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 82/1-98. The IGVA defines "gender-related
violence" as one or more acts of assault or battery "committed, at
least in part, on the basis of a person's sex." Lewis-Bledsoe
asserts that Alexander's conduct, which includes unwanted touching
like grabbing Lewis-Bledsoe from behind, is an act of battery that
constitutes gender-related violence under the IGVA. Lewis-Bledsoe
asserts that Ford has perpetrated gender-related violence by
encouraging or assisting Alexander's behavior via its tolerance of
his conduct.

Ford has filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) arguing that Count VI should be dismissed for three
reasons. First, Ford argues that the IGVA does not apply to
corporations. Second, Lewis-Bledsoe has not pled sufficient facts
to support that Ford committed any of the acts prohibited under the
IGVA. Finally, Ford argues that Lewis-Bledsoe's IGVA claim is
time-barred.

A. Corporate Liability Under the IGVA

Ford contends that, as a corporate entity, it does not qualify as a
"person" who can be sued under the IGVA. Courts considering this
issue have focused on the legislature's use of the term "person" in
the IGVA and whether a corporation can act "personally." Because
Lewis-Bledsoe's IGVA claim is a state law claim, Judge Leinenweber
applies the law as the Illinois Supreme Court would. He opines that
the Illinois Supreme Court has already held that the "plain and
ordinary" meaning of the term "person" is "an individual human
being" in People v. Christopherson, 899 N.E.2d 257, 260 (Ill.
2008), and that "absent a statutory definition that expands the
meaning of person, that term refers to an individual, not a legal
entity." Furthermore, "nothing in the text of the IGVA suggests
that the drafters intended to deviate from this rule."

On this basis, Judge Leinenweber holds that corporations are not
"persons" who acted "personally" under the IGVA. He finds that
Lewis-Bledsoe has failed to state a claim under state law.

B. Statute of Limitations

The Defendants argue that an alternative reason to dismiss Count VI
of Ford's claim is that is it time-barred under the statute of
limitations. Under the IGVA, the statute of limitations for
gender-related violence involving battery or a physical intrusion
is seven years, or seven years from when the victim turns eighteen
years old.

Ford states that the former Ford employee whose conduct serves as
the basis for Lewis-Bledsoe's IGVA claim was terminated in October
2014. Based on this date, Ford asserts that Lewis-Bledsoe's claim
should have been filed no later than October 2021. Lewis-Bledsoe
asserted an IGVA claim for the first time in the SAC, filed Jan.
13, 2022, which is outside the statute of limitations.

Judge Leinenweber opines that because the present action arises
from severance of Lewis-Bledsoe's individual claims in the Van
Class Action, the present action is part of the Van Class Action.
Lewis-Bledsoe joined the Van Class Action as a named plaintiff with
the filing of a First Amended Complaint on May 1, 2015. Therefore,
the original pleading for the purposes of this action is the First
Amended Complaint filed in the Van Class Action on May 1, 2015
("Van FAC"), well before the seven-year statute of limitations
expired in October 2021.

The Court has two choices when faced an issue of unresolved state
law. It could dismiss the state law claim outright or simply
decline to exercise jurisdiction. Although the Court acknowledges
that there is some uncertainty in the state law, the timing of the
amendment to the federal claim bars Lewis-Bledsoe's IGVA claim from
being pled separately. If the Court simply declined to exercise
jurisdiction over the state law claim, Lewis-Bledsoe's IGVA claim
would not relate back to any lawsuit, and the claim would be barred
in state court. Because he finds that the Illinois Supreme Court
would define "person" as set forth in the IGVA to exclude
corporations, and because declining to exercise jurisdiction would
be futile for Lewis-Bledsoe's claim, Judge Leinenweber grants
Ford's Motion to Dismiss Count VI.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Leinenweber grants Ford's Partial
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/fz7c7edrfrom Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Settles AdWords Class Action Lawsuit for $7 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Google agreed to pay $7 million to
resolve claims it failed to refund or credit its AdWords
advertisers for invalid activity.

The settlement benefits Google AdWords advertisers who, between
Dec. 13, 2013, and April 28, 2022, had an AdWords account not
subject to an arbitration clause in its terms and were billed for
clicks on ads displayed on DoubleClick Ad Exchange websites.

Google Ads, formerly known as Google AdWords, allows businesses to
advertise on Google search results. These ads appear in relevant
searches and generate business for companies.

Although these advertisements can be a boon to businesses looking
to attract customers, Google may fail to properly compensate
advertisers. According to a Google AdWards class action lawsuit,
some advertisers were denied refunds or credits by Google for
clicks or impressions from "invalid activity" or violation of
Google policies.

Advertisers are charged for Google Ads whenever a consumer clicks
on the ad, visits a company's website through an ad or calls a
business through an ad listing. However, according to the AdWorks
class action lawsuit, Google allegedly charged advertisers even
when clicks or impressions resulted from invalid activity or Google
policy violations.

Plaintiffs in the case argue that, when clicks or impressions were
found to result from invalid sources, Google should have issued a
refund or a credit. Failure to do so allegedly violated Google's
advertising terms, California's False Advertising Law and
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Google hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these
allegations with a $7 million class action settlement.

Under the terms of the Google AdWords settlement, class members can
collect a cash payment.

Each payment will represent a proportional share of the net
settlement fund based on the amount each class member spent on
Google AdWords advertisements appearing on any DoubleClick Ad
Exchange publisher website.

There are no payment estimates available at this time.

Class members whose proportional share of the settlement fund would
be less than $1 are not eligible for payment under the settlement.

If any funds are left over after the distribution of settlement
payments, the funds will be donated to Public Justice, a non-profit
advocacy group.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 20, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
27, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the Google AdWords settlement,
class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 30, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits Google AdWords advertisers who, between
Dec. 13, 2013, and April 28, 2022, had an AdWords account not
subject to an arbitration clause in its terms and were billed for
clicks on ads displayed on DoubleClick Ad Exchange websites.

Potential Award
TBD

Proof of Purchase
All available AdWords account numbers and email addresses you used
for any of those accounts.

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/30/2022

Case Name
AdTrader, Inc., et al. v. Google LLC, Case No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Final Hearing
10/27/2022

Settlement Website
AdWordsAdXClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
AdWords Advertiser Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@adwordsadxClassAction.com
855-874-1818

Class Counsel
Randolph Gaw
Mark Poe
GAW | POE LLP

Defense Counsel
Michael G Rhodes
Jeffrey M Gutkin
Audrey J Mott-Smith
COOLEY LLP [GN]

GREATBANC TRUST: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Szalanski Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENDA SZALANSKI, on behalf of herself, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIKE
ARNOLD, LEA GEREND, PHIL TROIA, MIKE WHALEY, and GREATBANC TRUST
COMPANY, Defendants, and PDQ FOOD STORES, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-940-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin grants the motions to dismiss filed
by the Individual Defendants and Defendant GreatBanc.

I. Introduction

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Szalanski, a former
employee of PDQ, and a participant in the PDQ Employee Stock Option
Plan ("ESOP"), contends that four PDQ executives and GreatBanc, the
Trustee of the ESOP, breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating
and approving PDQ's October 2017 sale to Kwik Trip in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001
et seq. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss, one by the
Individual Defendants and one by Defendant GreatBanc.

II. Background

Plaintiff Szalanski was an employee of PDQ from October 2000 until
October 2017, and she participated in the ESOP for the final eight
years of her employment. As a result, she remains a participant in
the ESOP.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant GreatBanc and four
executives of PDQ, Defendants Mike Arnold, Lea Gerend, Phil Troia
and Mike Whaley, all arising out of the October 2017 sale of PDQ's
assets to Kwik Trip. Before the sale, Arnold serving as PDQ's
President, while Troia and Whaley were both PDQ's Vice Presidents.
All three were also members of the PDQ Board of Directors. While
Gerend did not sit on the board, she did sign the ESPO's Form 5500s
filed with the United States Department of Labor from 2009 to 2017,
as its "administrator."

For over 60 years, PDQ operated a series of convenience stores
primarily in and around the Madison and Milwaukee areas. For
various reasons, PDQ's Board of Directors decided to seek a buyer
for the company sometime around 2017. To that end, the Board
authorized company representatives to speak with and evaluate
potential purchasers. Based on these evaluations, the Board agreed
to enter into exclusive negotiations with Kwik Trip.

With respect to the ESOP, PDQ also hired GreatBanc in March 2017 to
act as the "sole discretionary trustee" of the ESOP in anticipation
of PDQ's potential sale. Upon retaining GreatBanc as trustee for
the PDQ ESOP, Defendants Arnold, Whaley and Troia resigned as PDQ
ESTOP trustees. Specifically, GreatBanc was engaged to determine
whether the transaction was "in the best interest of the ESOP
participants and beneficiaries." In that capacity, GreatBanc -- and
only GreatBanc -- was authorized to decide whether voting in favor
of or against the transaction would violate ERISA. The Board also
hired Enterprise Services, Inc. ("ESI"), a third-party financial
consulting firm, to evaluate the fairness of the transaction to the
company and its shareholder.

After extensive negotiations, Kwik Trip agreed to purchase
substantially all of PDQ's assets for $67.4 million ("the
Transaction"). On July 14, 2017, the parties signed and executed
the Asset Purchase Agreement by which Kwik Trip acquired 100% of
the assets of PDQ. Some of these funds were held back to satisfy
certain liabilities and expenses of PDQ, but the remaining proceeds
were distributed to the participants in the PDQ ESOP. In the
Information Statement sent to all ESOP participants, the estimated
net purchase amount to be distributed to the PDQ ESOP participants
would be $47,120,500, or approximately $17,500 per share of PDQ
Stock. The individual defendants note that the share value was
approximately $10,380 per share higher than the value of PDQ stock
just nine months before the agreed upon sale.

Further, in its role as Trustee of the ESOP, GreatBanc hired an
independent, outside legal advisor and financial advisor, Prairie
Capital, to review the Transaction. Prairie Capital generated a
written opinion in which it advised Great Banc that the transaction
was fair to the ESOP.

On Sept. 1, 2017, participants of the PDQ ESOP were all sent a copy
of the "Information Statement" -- an 88-page document detailing the
proposed Transaction with Kwik Trip, which included a summary of
the proposed financial terms of the deal, the fairness opinion of
Prairie Capital, the role of GreatBanc as the Trustee, and
potential risk factors associated with the proposed transaction.
The Information Statement also disclosed each of the five,
challenged payments described below.

The PDQ Board unanimously voted to approve the Transaction; in so
doing, the Board conducted its own separate discussions and voted
on each aspect of the transaction, including the additional
compensation to be received by the director defendants. None of the
director defendants took part in these conversations. The Board
voted to recommend that Plan participants direct GreatBanc as
Trustee to vote for the proposal to approve the transaction in its
entirety. The ESOP participants agreed, and GreatBanc followed the
directive received from the voting participants by voting the
ESOP's shares in favor of the Transaction, which closed on Oct. 10,
2017. At that time, all plain participants became fully vested in
their ESOP accounts. The proceeds of the sale, minus liabilities
and expenses, were then distributed to the ESOP participants pro
rata, and the ESOP was terminated effective Jan. 31, 2018, by
resolution of the PDQ Board.

Szalanski specifically challenges the following, five "side
payments" to the individual defendants related to the larger
Transaction:

      1. Kwik Trip's payment of $1,000,000 to each of the
Individual Defendants in exchange for their promise, through
separate agreements entered into with Kwik Trip, not to compete
with Kwik Trip's new business for seven years after the
Transaction;

      2. Kwik Trip's option at some point after the Transaction to
purchase other property owned by Mike Arnold for $2 million;

      3. PDQ's payment of $4.96 million to the individual
defendants owed under a Stock Appreciation Rights Plan also
established eight years before the Transaction;

      4. Severance payments to approximately thirty office and
division PDQ employees, including the individual defendants; and

      5. An incentive to the individual defendants to earn from
Kwik Trip up to $1.85 million for PDQ (and the ESOP) and up to
$1.85 million for themselves by successfully negotiating long-term
leases or purchases of select properties on behalf of Kwik Trip
after the transaction.

III. Discussion & Opinion

Although overlapping, the Plaintiff asserts five counts against the
Defendants under ERISA. In Count I, the Plaintiff claims that all
the Defendants caused (and in the case of the four Individual
Defendants, knowingly participated in) the October 2017 Transaction
in violation of Section 406(a). In Count II, she claims the
Individual Defendants dealt with the assets of the Plan in their
own interest in violation of Section 406(b). In Count III, the
Plaintiff claims under ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A) and (B), that:
the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty by
structuring the Transaction to include side-payments; and GreatBanc
breached its fiduciary duty by approving those side payments as
part of the transaction. In Count IV, she claims that the
Individual Defendants failed to monitor GreatBanc's performance as
the Plan's Trustee, also in violation of ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A)
and (B). Finally, in Count V, she claims that all the Defendants
are liable as co-fiduciaries for knowing breach of their
co-fiduciaries and failing to take any steps to remedy them, again
in violation of ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A) and (B).

The Individual Defendants and GreatBanc filed separate motions to
dismiss.

A. The Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

The Individual Defendants consist of the three Director Defendants
-- Arnold, Troia and Whaley -- and the administrator defendant
Gerend. Since the arguments presented by the parties treat the
director defendants as distinct from Gerend, Judge Conley begins
with the Defendants' arguments as to Gerend only.

As alleged, Gerend's role is limited to signing the Plan's Form
5500s filed with the United States Department of Labor from 2009 to
2017. Based on this limited allegation, the Individual Defendants
contend that Gerend was simply fulfilling a ministerial function
and, therefore, lacked any discretion in signing. In response, the
Plaintiff criticizes the Northern District of Illinois' decision in
Godfrey v. Greatbanc Tr. Co., No. 18 C 7918, 2019 WL 4735422, at *3
(N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2019), for failing to explain its ruling
adequately, then directs the Court to other cases where courts
noted that a defendant signed a Form 5500, among other factors that
indicated the defendant exercised discretion over the plan at
issue.

Given that the Plaintiff's only basis for holding Gerend
responsible is her signing regulatory filings, Judge Conley agrees
with the Individual Defendants that the Plaintiff has failed to
allege sufficient facts to find that she acted in a fiduciary
capacity for purposes of pursuing ERISA claims.

As for the Director Defendants, they primarily seek dismissal on
the basis that in negotiating the terms of the Transaction, they
were not acting in a fiduciary capacity, but rather resigned as
ESOP trustees once PDQ had hired an independent trustee,
codefendant GreatBanc, to fulfill that role. As such, the
Plaintiff's allegations against the Director Defendants must be in
their business capacity, not in their ERISA fiduciary capacity.

In response, the Plaintiff first contends that the negotiation of
the terms of the 2017 Transaction constitutes a fiduciary act.
Second, she contends that the Director Defendants acted in a
fiduciary capacity in recommending that the participants of the
ESOP vote in favor of the transaction, citing Kenseth v. Dean
Health Plan, Inc., 610 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2010), for the
proposition that "communications about 'material facts affecting
the interests of beneficiaries' are fiduciary acts subject to the
duties of loyalty and care under ERISA." Third, the Plaintiff
contends that the Director Defendants were fiduciaries in
appointing GreatBanc and retaining the authority to direct
GreatBanc. Fourth, she contends that the Director Defendants
retained authority over the administration of the ESOP, even after
appointing GreatBanc, because PDQ, as the Administrator of the
Plan, retained "discretionary authority or discretionary
responsibility in the administration of the plan."

Judge Conley agrees with the Individual Defendants that "the fact
that a company's shareholder is an ESOP does not turn ordinary
business decisions into ERISA fiduciary acts." Based on the
allegations in the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in
the Plaintiff's favor, he concludes that the Plaintiff has failed
to allege sufficient facts to reasonably infer that the individual
defendants violated any fiduciary or other obligation under ERISA
with respect to the 2017 Transaction. As such, he grants the
Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss.

B. GreatBanc's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant GreatBanc seeks dismissal solely of those portions of
Counts I and III challenging two of the five side payments: (1)
Kwik Trip's payment of $1 million to each of the individual
defendants in exchange for their promise, through separate
agreements entered into with Kwik Trip, not to compete with Kwik
Trip's new business for seven years after the transaction; and (2)
at some point after the transaction, Kwik Trip's option to purchase
property owned by Mike Arnold for $2 million. As described, the
laintiff in Count I alleges that GreatBanc violated ERISA Section
405(a)(1)(D) by causing the ESOP to engage in a prohibited
transaction. In Count III, she alleges that GreatBanc's approval of
the side payments as a part of the transaction violated ERISA
Section 404(a)(1)(A) and (B).

In its motion to dismiss, GreatBanc argues that neither of these
side payments involved the ESOP or its assets, and as a result,
neither could constitute a prohibited transaction under ERISA.
Similarly, GreatBanc argues that approving these payments as part
of the Transaction could not breach its fiduciary duties as an
outside trustee. In response, the Plaintiff argues that she has
adequately alleged that the non-compete payments and the purchase
option were secured through the use of Plan assets; specifically,
"neither the non-competes nor the purchase option would have been
entered into without the use of Plan assets -- in the transaction
of which they were a part."

Judge Conley grants GreatBanc's motion to dismiss the portions of
Counts I and III concerning the non-compete and purchase option
payments. He opines that absent some allegation that PDQ held
similar non-competes with the Individual Defendants or purchase
option on Arnold's land, this is not a reasonable inference.

The Plaintiff also seeks to hold GreatBanc liable for "breach of
fiduciary responsibility of another fiduciary" under ERISA Section
405. Since he is dismissing these claims against the Individual
Defendants, GreatBanc necessarily cannot be held liable on a
subordinated basis under Section 405.

IV. Order

Judge Conley grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The claims
against Defendants Arnold, Gerend, Troia and Whaley are dismissed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate them as Defendants and
enter judgment in their favor at the close of the case.

Because Defendant GreatBanc's motion to dismiss was only a partial
motion, and, therefore, claims against it still remain, the Clerk's
office is directed to set a telephonic scheduling conference with
Magistrate Judge Crocker to reset the schedule in the case,
including establishing a firm trial date.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4687yba8from Leagle.com.


GROUPE RENAULT: Faces Legal Action in France Over Engine Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Today reports that carmaking partners Renault and Nissan face legal
action in France from customers who have suffered problems with
some engines made between 2012 and 2016.

Christophe Leguevaques, a lawyer for the MyLeo legal platform
involved in the lawsuit, said the companies had just been notified
of the group action representing some 1,100 people.

He added his clients weren't currently seeking financial
compensation but as a first step wanted to secure evidence for
their claim the carmakers should have issued a recall when they
discovered an issue with the 1.2 litre gasoline engine used in
400,000 vehicles in Europe between 2012 and 2016.

Renault has said previously the engine, made in Spain and Britain,
used too much oil, but added this did not entail any safety risks.
No official recall was issued by regulators.

The carmaker said it would not engage in any collective
negotiation, but would examine paying compensation to customers
over the issue on a case-by-case basis.

"In the first instance, we encourage customers who believe they may
be affected by this issue to contact their local Nissan dealership
who will inspect and diagnose vehicle appropriately and provide the
necessary support," added Nissan in a statement.

(Reporting by Gilles Guillaume Editing by Sudip Kar-Gupta and Mark
Potter) [GN]

HELEN OF TROY: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Helen of Troy L.P.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Helen of Troy L.P., Case No.
1:22-cv-05536 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Helen of Troy -- https://www.helenoftroy.com/ -- is an American
publicly traded designer, developer and worldwide marketer of
consumer brand-name housewares, health and home, and beauty
products under owned and licensed brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Sandy River Files Suit in D. North Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hess Bakken
Investments II, LLC. The case is styled as Sandy River Resources,
LLC, Sandy River Energy, LLC, on behalf of themselves and Classes
of similarly situated royalty owners v. Hess Bakken Investments II,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00108-CRH (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Hess Corporation -- https://www.hess.com/ -- is an American global
independent energy company involved in the exploration and
production of crude oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor Foye, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 421-0700
          Email: taylor@georgebartonlaw.com


HESSE FLATOW: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hesse Flatow, LLC.
The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Hesse Flatow, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05562 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Hesse Flatow -- https://hesseflatow.com/ -- is a gallery founded by
artist Karen Hesse Flatow.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


HOMEGOODS INC: Faces Casas Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARAHI CASAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEGOODS, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00025084-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., June 27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's
Unfair Competition Law including failure to provide rest and meal
breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay
compensation due upon termination, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee at the Defendant's
store located at 284 N. El Camino Real, Encinitas, California on
March 7, 2021.

HomeGoods, Inc. is an operator of retail stores throughout
California, with its principal executive office in Framingham,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel S. Levinson, Esq.
         Justin R. Stockton, Esq.
         LEVINSON STOCKTON LLP
         990 Highland Drive, Suite 206
         Solana Beach, CA 92075
         Telephone: (858) 792-1100

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Horizon Actuarial
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Teresa Jimenez,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons v. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC, Does 1-50, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC22600443 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 29,
2022).

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

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC --
https://www.horizonactuarial.com/ -- is a leading consulting firm
that specializes in providing innovative actuarial solutions to
multiemployer benefit plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI
          220 Halleck St., Ste. 220
          San Francisco, CA 94129-1728
          Phone: 415-264-9990
          Fax: 415-923-9292
          Email: matt@righettilaw.com


HP INC: All-in-One Printers' Ads "Deceptive," Freund Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY FREUND and WAYNE MCMATH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HP INC. d/b/a HP COMPUTING
AND PRINTING INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-03794-NC (N.D. Cal.,
June 27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of the
California's Business and Professions Code, the Minnesota's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Minnesota's False
Advertising Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional
manipulation of the functionality of its All-in-One Printers in
order to impermissibly increase the number of ink cartridges
purchased by consumers. The Defendant advertises its All-in-One
Printers as having three core functions: printing, copying and
scanning. However, it fails to disclose to consumers that the
printers do not function as scanners or as fax machines if the
devices have low or empty ink cartridges. If consumers wish to use
either of two of the main functions of the device, they should
purchase ink cartridges whether or not they intend to use ink or
want to print or to copy documents. As a result, consumers must
incur unexpected and unnecessary burden and expense by purchasing
ink cartridges or be deprived of several of the core functions of
their supposedly All-in-One printing devices, says the suit.

HP Inc., doing business as HP Computing and Printing Inc., is a
manufacturer of consumer electronic products, headquartered in Palo
Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         401 West C St., Suite 1760
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (714) 651-8845
         E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com

                  - and –

         Nick Suciu, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

                  - and –

         Gary Klinger, Esq.
         Russell Busch, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                 rbusch@milberg.com

HP INC: Burks Sues Over Tying Product Warranty to Exclusive Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD BURKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HP INC., Defendant, Case No. 22STCV20806
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act by stating to consumers that the
warranty of its products will be void if they use third-party
repair services to fix the products. This type of warranty-voiding
condition, where the warranty is tied to exclusive repair by the
manufacturer, is expressly prohibited by the law. As a result of
the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
have been damaged, says the suit.

HP Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer electronic products,
headquartered in Palo Alto, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
         Sara D. Avila, Esq.
         Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
         MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
         10990 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 396-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
         E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

IMMUNOVANT SCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Suit in New York Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roivant Sciences Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 28, 2022, that the company's
subsidiary, Immunovant Sciences GmbH, is facing a putative
securities class action complaint against it and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
those who acquired Immunovant's securities from October 2, 2019 and
February 1, 2021.

The complaint alleged that Immunovant and certain of its officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements
regarding the safety of "Batoclimab" and seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

In December 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court appointed a lead
plaintiff. On February 1, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint adding both the company and Immunovant's directors and
underwriters as defendants, and asserting additional claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, which was further amended by an amended
complaint filed on March 15, 2022. On May 27, 2022, defendants,
including the company, filed motions to dismiss that amended
complaint.

Roivant Sciences Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company based in the UK.


INNOVATION FURNITURE: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovation Furniture,
Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Innovation Furniture,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05494 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Innovations Furniture -- https://www.inovationsfurnitureinc.com/ --
offers a collection of quality furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


INOTIV INC: Grobler Sues Over Artificial Inflation of Market Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GROBLER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INOTIV, INC., ROBERT W. LEASURE, and BETH A. TAYLOR,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind., June 23, 2022) is a class action
on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Inotiv securities between September 21,
2021 and June 13, 2022, inclusive seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, the Defendants, individually and in
concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated or approved the false
statements specified above, which they knew or deliberately
disregarded were misleading in that they contained
misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading. The Defendants violated
section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-in that they  employed
devices, schemes and artifices to defraud, says the suit.

Individual Defendants, who are or were senior executives and/or
directors of the Company, had actual knowledge of the material
omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements set forth
above, and intended to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class, or, in the alternative, acted with reckless disregard
for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true
facts in the statements made by them or other Inotiv personnel to
members of the investing public, including Plaintiff and the Class,
the suit asserts.

As a result of the foregoing, the market price of Inotiv securities
was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of
the falsity of Defendants' statements, the Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class relied on the statements described above
and/or the integrity of the market price of Inotiv securities
during the Class Period in purchasing Inotiv securities at prices
that were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' false
and misleading statements. Had Plaintiff and the other members of
the Class been aware that the market price of Inotiv securities had
been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading
statements and by the material adverse information which Defendants
did not disclose, they would not have purchased Company securities
at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all, added
the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased Inotiv securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which
provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development
services and research models and related products and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad A. Catlin, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
          1101 North Delaware Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 633-5270
          Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
          E-mail: brad@williamspiatt.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

IONQ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in IonQ? If so, please visit
IonQ, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter
Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your
rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE: IONQ) between March 30,
2021 and May 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

IonQ claims to "develop quantum computers designed to solve the
world's most complex problems." On or about September 30, 2021,
IonQ became a public entity via a business combination with dMY
Technology Group, Inc. III ("DTG"), a special purpose acquisition
company.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that IonQ had not yet
developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's
11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates,
rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not
sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being
available through major cloud providers; and (4) that a significant
portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper roundtripping
transactions with related parties.

On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report
alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony
statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and
business." It further claimed that the Company' reported
"[f]ictitious ‘revenue' via sham transactions and related-party
round-tripping."

On this news, the Company's stock fell 9% to close at $7.15 per
share on May 3, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 1, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

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

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

IONQ INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of August 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against IonQ, Inc. ("IonQ" or the "Company") (NYSE:
IONQ) and certain of its former officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
and docketed under 22-cv-01536, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired IonQ securities between March 30, 2021 and May
2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired IonQ
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 1, 2022
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

[Click here for information about joining the class action]
IonQ claims to "develop quantum computers designed to solve the
world's most complex problems."

On or about September 30, 2021, IonQ became a public entity via
business combination with dMY Technology Group, Inc. III, a special
purpose acquisition company.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that IonQ had not yet
developed a 32-qubit quantum computer; (2) that the Company's
11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates,
rendering it useless; (3) that IonQ's quantum computer is not
sufficiently reliable, so it is not accessible despite being
available through major cloud providers; (4) that a significant
portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping
transactions with related parties; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 3, 2022, Scorpion Capital released a research report
alleging, among other things, that IonQ is a "scam built on phony
statements about nearly all key aspects of the technology and
business." It further claimed that the Company reported
"[f]ictitious 'revenue' via sham transactions and related-party
round-tripping."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.71, or 9.03%, to close at
$7.15 per share on May 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

J.M. SMUCKER: Ferguson Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The J.M. Smucker
Company. The case is styled as Tyneisha Ferguson, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The J.M. Smucker
Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-00173-DCR (E.D. Ky., June 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.

The J. M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker --
https://www.jmsmucker.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of food
products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Phone: (216) 373-0539
          Fax: (216) 373-0536
          Email: bflick@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 440-0020
          Fax: (312) 440-4180


JACK RABBIT CREATIONS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Rabbit
Creations, Inc. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Jack Rabbit
Creations, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05513 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Jack Rabbit Creations -- https://jackrabbitcreations.com/ -- is an
e-commerce platform that offers children's toys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


JACKBOX GAMES INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jackbox Games, Inc.
The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jackbox Games, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05497 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Jackbox Games, Inc. -- https://www.jackboxgames.com/ -- is an
American video game developer based in Chicago, Illinois, best
known for the You Don't Know Jack series of quiz-based party video
games and The Jackbox Party Pack series.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


JUUL LABS: Appeals FDA's Marketing Denial Orders re E-Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juul Labs, Inc. filed an appeal from the issuance of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration of marketing denial orders (MDOs) for all
of their products currently marketed in the United States.

According to the press announcement, these MDOs only pertain to the
commercial distribution, importation and retail sales of the
e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products, and
do not restrict individual consumer possession or use -- the FDA
cannot and will not enforce against individual consumer possession
or use of JUUL products or any other tobacco products. The products
include the JUUL device and four types of JUULpods: Virginia
tobacco flavored pods at nicotine concentrations of 5.0% and 3.0%
and menthol flavored pods at nicotine concentrations of 5.0% and
3.0%. As a result, the company must stop selling and distributing
these products. In addition, those currently on the U.S. market
must be removed, or risk enforcement action, the notice says.

After reviewing the company's premarket tobacco product
applications (PMTAs), the FDA determined that the applications
lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of
the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be
appropriate for the protection of the public health. In particular,
some of the company's study findings raised concerns due to
insufficient and conflicting data -- including regarding
genotoxicity and potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the
company's proprietary e-liquid pods -- that have not been
adequately addressed and precluded the FDA from completing a full
toxicological risk assessment of the products named in the
company's applications, relates the notice.

The appellate case is captioned Juul Labs, Inc. v. FDA, Case No.
22-1123, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, filed on June 23, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case will apply to
Petitioners' emergency motion for stay pending court review:

   -- Petitioner's Emergency Motion was due on June 27/2022

   -- Respondent's Response was due July 7, 2022; and

   -- Reply to response is due on July 12, 2022.[BN]

Petitioner Juul Labs, Inc. is represented by:

          John Caviness O'Quinn, Esq.
          Devin Scott Anderson, Esq.
          Jason M. Wilcox, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000

Respondent United States Food and Drug Administration is
represented by:

          Lindsey Powell, Esq.
          Alisa B. Klein, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

KING BUFFET: Yeung Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHUNG YEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KING BUFFET OF CHARLESTON, INC. d/b/a A1
China Super Buffet; KING CHEF, LLC d/b/a King Chef; LI FEN YANG
a/k/a Lifen Yang; MING YANG; SHAN CHING LING a/k/a Shanching Ling;
and MEI ZHEN CHEN a/k/a Meizhen Chen, Defendants, Case No.
2022CP1002885 (S.C. Sup. Ct., Charleston Cty., June 27, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiff Yueng was employed by the Defendants as a manager at A1
China Super Buffet located at 975 Savannah Hwy., Charleston, South
Carolina from June 01, 2012 until May 31, 2021.

King Buffet of Charleston, Inc., doing business as A1 China Super
Buffet, is a restaurant owner and operator, with a principal
address at 975 Savannah Hwy., Charleston, South Carolina.

King Chef, LLC, doing business as King Chef, is a restaurant owner
and operator, with a principal address at 261 Treeland Dr., Ladson,
South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Tiffany Troy, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

L'OREAL USA INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L'Oreal USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05534 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- https://www.loreal.com/en/usa/ -- manufactures
and markets cosmetic products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAKE AREA FISH: Pitts Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lake Area Fish House
Inc. The case is styled as Andrea Pitts, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lake Area Fish House Inc., Mack
McAlister, Case No. 4:22-cv-00599-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 29, 2022).

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

Lake Area Fish House Inc. is a restaurant located in Heber Springs,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          Laura Edmondson, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 laura@sanfordlawfirm.com


LEGACY TRANSITION: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legacy Transition
Capital LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Legacy Transition
Capital LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05510 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Legacy Transition Capital -- https://legacytransitioncapital.com/
-- is a different type of investment firm looking for unique
businesses to acquire and manage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LEMONADE INC: Settles Biometric Privacy Class Action for $4 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Lemonade, an insurance company,
agreed to pay $4 million to resolve claims it violated Illinois
biometric privacy laws with video claim submissions.

The settlement benefits a nationwide class of Lemonade
policyholders who provided first notice of loss through a video
claim submission between June 25, 2019, and May 27, 2021.

The settlement also includes a subclass of the same class members
who live in Illinois. Eligible consumers would have submitted video
claims from which Lemonade could have collected, captured,
otherwise obtained or disclosed biometric identifiers, such as
facial geometry.

Lemonade is an insurance company that offers policies for renter's
insurance, homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, pet insurance and
term life insurance. Lemonade policyholders have the option to
submit a video as part of their insurance claim process.

According to Lemonade policyholders, the insurer violated consumer
privacy rights by collecting biometric information from video
submissions without consent. This collection and storage of
biometric information allegedly violates Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

BIPA regulates the way businesses can collect, store and share
biometric data such as fingerprints, facial geometry scans, and
more. Under BIPA, companies must get consent before collecting or
sharing biometrics and are required to follow strict standards when
retaining and destroying this information.

Lemonade allegedly fails to follow these regulations, putting
consumers at risk for having their biometric data stolen or
misused.

Lemonade hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these
allegations with a $4 million settlement deal.

The settlement provides cash payments to members of both the
national class and Illinois subclass. Of the settlement fund, $1
million will be used to fund payments to the nationwide class,
while the remaining $3 million will be used to fund Illinois
subclass payments.

Each class member will be able to recover a proportional share of
whichever funds they are eligible for. No payment estimates are
available at this time.

In addition to providing cash payments, the settlement provides
non-monetary relief to help protect class members' rights.

Lemonade stopped collecting biometric information from video
submissions in May 2021 and, within a week of final approval, will
delete all previously collected biometric data. If the company
chooses to collect this data in the future, it has promised to
comply with BIPA and other applicable privacy laws.

The deadline for exclusion and objection in the settlement is Aug.
8, 2022.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for Aug. 25, 2022. Class
members are not required to attend this hearing but may ask to do
so if they wish to speak to the court about the settlement.

In order to receive a payment from the Lemonade insurance BIPA
settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug.
22, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits a nationwide class of Lemonade
policyholders who provided first notice of loss through a video
claim submission between June 25, 2019, and May 27, 2021.

The settlement also includes a subclass of the same class members
who live in Illinois. Eligible consumers would have submitted video
claims from which Lemonade could have collected, captured,
otherwise obtained or disclosed biometric identifiers, such as
facial geometry.

Potential Award
TBD

Proof of Purchase
Class members will need to provide their name, mailing address,
email address, phone number, the address for the property that is
the subject of their claim (if different from their current contact
address) and certification. If additional information is required,
the settlement administrator will contact the class member.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
08/22/2022

Case Name
Clarke, et al. v. Lemonade Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
2022LA000308 in the Circuit Court of 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage
County, Illinois

Final Hearing
08/25/2022

Settlement Website
LemonadeBIPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Lemonade Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 5376
Portland, OR 97228-5376
info@lemonadeBIPAsettlement.com
866-977-1153

Class Counsel
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
BURSOR & FISHER PA

Defense Counsel
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN]

LILIUM NV: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Lilium N.V. f/k/a Qell Acquisition
Corp. (LILM, LILMW, QELL, QELLU, QELLW) ("Lilium " or the
"Company") investors that a class action filed on behalf of
investors that lost money on their Lilium stock. Lilium investors
are encouraged to contact the firm to discuss their legal rights.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.

On March 14, 2022, Iceberg Research published a report, questioning
Lilium's technology for both its aircraft, the Lilium Jet, and its
battery cells; its timeline for government certification for
commercial flight; and a sale of more than 200 jets.

On this news, Lilium NV's share price plummeted thereby harming
investors.

According to the lawsuit, Lilium and its executives made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Lilium
materially overstates the Lilium Jet's design and capabilities; (2)
Lilium materially overstates the likelihood for the Lilium Jet's
timely certification; (3) Lilium misrepresents its ability to
obtain or create the necessary batteries for the Lilium Jet; (4)
the SPAC-merger would not and did not generate enough cash to
commercially launch the Lilium Jet; (5) Qell Acquisition Corp. did
not engage in proper due diligence regarding the Merger; and (6) as
a result, defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

LIONEL LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lionel LLC. The case
is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lionel LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05483
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Lionel, LLC -- http://www.lionel.com/-- is an American designer
and importer of toy trains and model railroads that is
headquartered in Concord, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Kearns Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01217 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted prerecorded
voice messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products
and services without obtaining prior express written consent. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been harmed including invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life, says the suit.

LoanDepot.com, LLC is a consumer financial services company,
headquartered in Foothill Ranch, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, PA
         1925 Century Park E., Ste. 1700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-2740
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

LOLLIPROPS INC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lolliprops, Inc. The
case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lolliprops, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05498 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Lolliprops -- https://lolliprops.net/ -- is a boutique prop house
in Los Angeles specializing in fine art, home decor, kids bedroom
decor, toys, kids arts and crafts, and school art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LORENTA NUTS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorenta Nuts, LLC.
The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lorenta Nuts, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05505 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

L'Orenta Nuts -- https://www.lorentanuts.com/ -- sells nuts, dried
fruits, chocolates, sweets, and stroopwafels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MADAME ALEXANDER: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madame Alexander Doll
Company (2018) LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Madame Alexander Doll Company (2018) LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05507
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Madame Alexander Doll Company -- https://madamealexander.com/ -- is
an American manufacturer of collectible dolls, founded in 1923 by
Beatrice Alexander in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MAESTRO-CONNECTIONS: Powell Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maestro-Connections
Health Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Cashell Powell, on
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated v.
Maestro-Connections Health Systems, LLC, Case No. 2277CV00586
(Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., June 29, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Contract/Business Cases."

Maestro-Connections Health Systems --
http://www.maestrohomecare.com/-- is a trusted provider of home
health care services in Lawrence, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brant Casavant, Esq.,
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South St Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111


MAJOR MODEL: Model Loses Bid to Pause Chapter 11 Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Capriel, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
bankruptcy judge on June 21 rejected a model's request to pause
Major Model Management's Chapter 11 proceedings and allow her
proposed punitive class action to go forward, saying the bankruptcy
process could better handle the talents' mismatched stalled payment
claims. [GN]




MARY'S NUTRITIONALS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary's Nutritionals,
LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mary's Nutritionals,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05471 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Mary's Nutritionals -- https://marysnutritionals.com/ -- is an
e-commerce platform for CBD oil products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MCG HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Massive Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Collins, writing for Law Street, reports that on June 21, Leo
Thorbecke and Marjorita Dean filed a complaint in the Western
District of Washington against MCG Health, Inc. for allegedly
failing to prevent a data breach that compromised the personal
information of MCG Health's customers.

The complaint said that MCG Health is a software company "that
provides patient care guidelines to health care providers and
health plans" that over 2,600 hospitals use. When patients go to
these hospitals, plaintiffs say, their data is given to the
defendant for easily recall at a later point with sensitive
information such as names, Social Security numbers, medical codes,
postal addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of
birth and gender.

On June 10, the complaint said, MCG Health announced a data breach
that it had discovered in March and offered two years of free
identity protection services as recompense. However, they did not
state why they were "unable to detect the unauthorized individuals
accessing Defendant's servers" and "why [they] waited for nearly
three months before notifying affected patients and members."

Because of this data breach, the plaintiffs say they have been
placed in "substantial risk of harm" in the form of identity theft
or credit fraud. According to the complaint, they then had to call
numerous companies, change passwords and take actions to protect
themselves on their own time, which added to the damages they
faced. The plaintiffs noted that "a minor's social security number
has not yet been used for financial purposes actually makes it more
valued by hackers" as hackers can sign up for credit cards or use
government services with their social security numbers. As a
result, the plaintiffs are suing for negligence, invasion of
privacy, a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
bailment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence.

The plaintiff and putative class are seeking class certification,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other
relief.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC,
Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, and Levin, Sedran & Berman. [GN]

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Ads Misleading, White Salmon Valley Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
White Salmon Valley School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-03739 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated 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 co-founder 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 complaint alleges that 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.

The White Salmon Valley School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Plaintiff White Salmon Valley is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of
Washington.

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

MDL 2913: Misleads Users on E-Cigarette Risks, Wenatchee Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wenatchee School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-03736 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and similarly situated 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 co-founder 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 complaint asserts that 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.

The Wenatchee School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Plaintiff Wenatchee School is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

MDL 2913: Tumwater School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Tumwater School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-03733-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated 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 co-founder 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, notes the complaint. 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
complaint adds.

The Tumwater School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Plaintiff Tumwater is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

MDL 2913: Union Gap School Sues Over E-Cigarette Risks
------------------------------------------------------
Union Gap School District v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-03734 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and similarly situated 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 co-founder 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 complaint alleges that 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.

The Union Gap School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Plaintiff Union Gap is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

MDL 2913: Yelm Community School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Yelm Community Schools v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-03740 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2022) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff and similarly situated 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 co-founder 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 complaint notes that 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.

The Yelm Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Plaintiff Yelm Community is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

META PLATFORMS: Attorneys Discuss Privacy Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monique McAlister, Esq., and Peter Ruby, Esq., of Goodmans LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, report that another chapter in the now
decade-long saga of Douez v. Facebook was penned earlier in June as
a British Columbia Court found Facebook liable for providing
advertisers access to users' personal information without the
users' consent. On June 2, 2022, after a summary trial, the Court
ruled that Facebook's "Sponsored Stories" advertising practices
contravened the privacy statutes of B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
and Newfoundland and Labrador. The proceeding, first commenced in
2012 and certified as a class action in 2014, involved a lengthy
battle relating to jurisdictional competence and the enforceability
of a forum selection clause in Facebook's Terms of Use. In 2019,
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the clause was unenforceable
and certified the class proceeding.

Background
The case involved Facebook's "Sponsored Stories" advertising
program that Ms. Douez, as class representative, claimed used
users' names and likeness without their consent. The Sponsored
Stories program enabled advertisers registered with Facebook to
associate their name and identifiable mark with users who performed
certain social actions such as "Liking" the advertiser's page,
creating a new "Sponsored" version of the social action. The
Sponsored Story benefitted from increased exposure, as Facebook's
algorithm subsequently increased the likelihood that users' friends
would see the Sponsored Story on their home page. Facebook did not
inform users when their likeness was used in association with a
Sponsored Story, nor did it provide users an opportunity to opt out
of the program.

Key issues before the Court were whether and to what uses of
personal information users had consented, as well as jurisdictional
issues concerning the B.C. Courts' authority to deal with statutory
claims brought pursuant to the legislation of a different
province.

Facebook argued that the matter was not suitable for determination
by way of summary trial and that it obtained consent to its "
Sponsored Stories" program through its posted Terms of Use.
Facebook also challenged the Court's jurisdiction to determine
claims under Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and
Labrador's privacy legislation.

The Jurisdictional Challenge
On the issue of jurisdictional competency, Facebook pointed to the
fact that Manitoba's and Newfoundland and Labrador's privacy
statutes expressly designate the respective superior courts of each
province to adjudicate claims for breach of the relevant statute.
Facebook argued that the B.C. Court lacked the requisite
jurisdiction to deal with claims brought pursuant to those privacy
statutes.

The B.C. Court held that the exclusive jurisdiction clauses in the
legislation did not preclude it from deciding claims under the
respective privacy statutes, finding that as a matter of
constitutional law, the provincial legislatures "lack legislative
competence to prohibit [the] Court from adjudicating claims..." On
this point, the B.C. Court departed from the approach used
elsewhere in Canada.

User Consent
One key issue for determination was whether Facebook's method of
use of its users' information was expressly or impliedly consented
to. In this case, the privacy statutes all provided that the
unauthorized use of a person's name or likeness for advertising or
promotional purposes is a tort, actionable without proof of damage.
Significantly, the Court found that under the privacy statutes, the
defendant bears the onus of proving consent as a defence once a
plaintiff has established a prima facie breach of the relevant
legislation.

The Court found that a reasonable interpretation of Facebook's
Terms of Use suggested that users would be able to control whether
their name and picture could be used by advertisers, either
directly or indirectly, through Facebook. Given that users were not
afforded any opportunity to control the use of their information,
the Court concluded that Facebook failed to establish express
consent.

Clause 10(2) of the Terms of Use provided that Facebook would not
"give" a user's content to advertisers without their consent. While
Facebook argued that its practices were consistent with this clause
because it did not transfer users' personal information to
advertisers, the Court interpreted the term "give" broadly in light
of the surrounding circumstances, finding that Facebook gave
advertisers "access to a means of hitching their brand to" user
information. On this interpretation of the term "give", the Court
found that Facebook's Sponsored Stories advertising program
breached the Terms of Use, meaning users did not provide express
consent.

The Court also held that since users were not informed if or when
their information was used for a Sponsored Story, the evidence did
not support an inference of implied consent.

The B.C. Court's Conclusion
On the issue of liability, the Court concluded that Facebook's
failure to obtain either express or implied consent to use class
members' information in Sponsored Stories contravened the
requirements of the provincial legislation, finding the company
liable for statutory breach.

While the Court found that the common issues of liability were
appropriately determined by way of summary judgment, it deferred
issues relating to damages to determination by way of conventional
trial.

While many privacy class actions have been certified, the class
action in Douez v. Facebook reaching a trial decision (albeit a
summary trial) is unusual. As an Ontario judge previously noted,
class members have been "confronted with ultra-enormous difficulty
in establishing specific causation" and have instead been forced to
settle for "very modest per capita recoveries for class members".1
If it does not settle, the trial for damages in this case will be
closely watched by many interested parties. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Sept. Claims Filing Deadline Set in Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Reynolds, writing for KY3, reports that here's your chance
to cash in on a class action settlement. If you had a Facebook
account between the spring of 2010 and fall of 2011, you might get
some extra money.

Facebook agrees to pay $90 million to settle a high-profile,
long-running data privacy litigation over cookies. The social media
platform was accused of tracking you after you logged off. Meta
denies wrongdoing, but reps did not want to go to trial.

Look for the settlement email in your inbox. On the top left corner
-- you have a notice ID and confirmation code. Head to the class
action lawsuit website.

Click on the tab that reads 'submit a claim.' Plug in your info,
like your Facebook username. It will also ask how you'd like to
receive your payment. You can pick Prepaid Mastercard, PayPal,
Venmo, Direct Deposit, or Zelle.

Click send and wait. And wait some more. A final hearing is
scheduled for this in the fall. There could be appeals. This will
take months, maybe a few years.

No word on how much you'll pocket of the $90 million. It depends on
the number of claims. A good chunk of that, probably a third, will
go to attorneys and court fees.

Still, it's extra cash you didn't have before.

You have until September to submit your claim. [GN]

MIGHTY MUG: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mighty Mug
Incorporated. The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mighty Mug
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05473 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Mighty Mug -- https://themightymug.com/ -- is the innovative mug
that grips the desk when knocked into.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MILLIARD ENTERPRISES: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milliard Enterprises
Limited Liability Company. The case is styled as Richard Mejia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Milliard Enterprises Limited Liability Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-05456 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Milliard Enterprises Limited Liability Company doing busiess as
Milliard Bedding -- https://milliardbedding.com/ -- offers premium
folding beds, mattresses, pillows, and other innovative accessories
for your home and bedroom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MILWAUKEE ENTERTAINMENT LLC dba HEART BREAKERS, a
Wisconsin Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00732 (E.D. Wisc., June 23, 2022),
alleges that Defendants evaded the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally
absconded with Plaintiff's tips, and demanded illegal kickbacks
including in the form of "House Fees."

These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in 2021. During her time
being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was denied minimum
wage payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to
classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as
"independent contractors." The Defendants allegedly failed to pay
Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in
violation of 29 U.S.C. section of 206 and 207 of the FLSA, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' facility, Heart Breakers
located at 9440 W. National Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 273-1230
          E-mail: kristensen@cz.law

               - and -

          Jay Urban, Esq.
          URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
          Urban Taylor Law Building
          4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 906-1700
          E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com

MIZU INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mizu, Inc. The case
is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mizu, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05570
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Mizu -- https://mizulife.com/ -- makes double walled vacuum sealed
stainless steel water bottles created and backed by professional
athletes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAT WITH FRIENDS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nat with Friends,
LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nat with Friends, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05484 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Nat with Friends is a domestic limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Files Motion to Arbitrate Flores Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN reports that the NFL on June 21 filed a motion in federal
court to compel Brian Flores' class-action lawsuit against the
league and several teams, in which he and two other coaches allege
racial discrimination in its hiring practices, to arbitration.

The filing was made in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and included redacted contracts for
all the coaches who are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit --
Flores, Steve Wilks and Ray Horton. The filing also includes a copy
of the NFL's constitution and bylaws.

The NFL argued in its filing that all three coaches agreed in their
signed contracts to arbitrate any claims against the teams that
employed them and that "the NFL Constitution's arbitration
provisions to which Plaintiffs agreed expressly cover claims
involving two or more member clubs and claims between any coach and
any member club -- precisely the case here."

The NFL also argued in its filing that those signed contracts also
compel any claim against the league to arbitration and that Supreme
Court precedent requires each man to arbitrate his claims on an
individual basis.

Flores, who filed his lawsuit in February, also alleged that Miami
Dolphins owner Stephen Ross offered him $100,000 per loss during
the 2019 season, his first with the team, to improve its draft
position. In its motion filed on June 21, the NFL stated that this
also is not a matter for the federal courts to rule on, writing,
"Courts are particularly hesitant to interfere in such matters,
because the internal standards of professional sports leagues 'are
not necessarily familiar to courts and obviously require some
expertise in their application.' To support that argument, the NFL
cited Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn (1978) and Crouch v. NASCAR
(1988) as precedent.

Douglas Wigdor, one of Flores' attorneys, had argued before a judge
in May that arbitration is the wrong way to resolve the lawsuit.
Flores' attorneys also said in a statement issued in April, when
the NFL first expressed its intention to file a motion to compel
arbitration, that doing so would eliminate much-needed transparency
in the case.

Flores' attorneys want the case to remain in the courts for a jury
trial, where it would eventually move to discovery and each side
could view relevant documents held by the other.

A Manhattan federal judge is unlikely to rule on the arbitration
issue until late summer, at the earliest.

David Gottlieb, a lawyer for the coaches, said on June 22 that
moving the case to the secrecy of arbitration was, in effect,
"stripping our clients of their rights."

"Arbitration is privatizing the judicial branch," Gottlieb said.
"All we're asking for is an open and fair process."

He said lawyers for the coaches will argue that the lawsuit against
the league belongs in federal court because any agreements calling
for arbitration were signed with the teams rather than the league.

Flores alleged discrimination from the Dolphins for his firing in
January and from the Denver Broncos, New York Giants and Houston
Texans -- teams he interviewed with for head-coaching jobs but was
not hired by. Flores alleged that he received "sham" interviews
from the Broncos and Giants to satisfy the Rooney Rule requirement
to interview minority coaches. The Texans were later added to the
lawsuit after Flores alleged that the team "retaliated" against him
by not hiring him because he filed his lawsuit.

The Arizona Cardinals and Tennessee Titans were added to the suit
in April when Wilks and Horton joined the lawsuit. Wilks alleges he
was "not given any meaningful chance to succeed" by the Cardinals,
who fired him after one season in which Arizona finished 3-13.
Horton was passed over for the Titans job in favor of Mike Mularkey
in 2016.

Mularkey, who had been the team's interim head coach for the final
nine games of the 2015 season, said in a 2020 podcast that the
Titans' owners told him he was going to get the job before they had
completed the interview process, including interviewing two
minority candidates.

Flores is currently employed by the Pittsburgh Steelers as a senior
defensive assistant and linebackers coach. Wilks is currently
employed by the Carolina Panthers as the defensive pass game
coordinator and secondary coach. Redacted copies of Flores'
contract with the Steelers and Wilks' with the Panthers were also
attached to the NFL's filing, as well as Flores' contract with the
New England Patriots, the team he was employed by before being
hired by the Dolphins.

Horton is now retired.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. [GN]

NAVY FEDERAL: Wants Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emilie Ruscoe, writing for Law360, reports that Navy Federal Credit
Union has pushed back against a customer's attempt to see her
proposed class action against the bank litigated in state cout,
arguing that "simple math" shows the suit belongs in federal court.
[GN]

NETFLIX INC: Borough of Longport Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs BOROUGH OF LONGPORT and TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON are taking
an appeal from a court ruling entered on June 2, 2022, by Judge
Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granting motions to dismiss filed by Netflix, Inc. and
Hulu, LLC in the lawsuit entitled BOROUGH OF LONGPORT and TOWNSHIP
OF IRVINGTON, Plaintiffs v. NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-15303 (SRC) (MAH).

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid fees as required by New
Jersey's Cable Television Act.

Defendants provide online streaming services, using wireline
facilities located at least in part in public rights-of-way. Its
services, which offer subscribers a catalog of television shows,
movies and other programming, are comparable to that provided by
traditional cable companies and television-broadcast stations and
are available to customers throughout the state of New Jersey.

New Jersey's Cable Television Act governs entities that provide
video programming and cable television service to subscribers and
imposes certain franchise and fee obligations on these entities and
are, thus, required to pay New Jersey municipalities franchise fees
equivalent to a percentage of their gross revenue, derived in each
municipality.

Judge Chesler found that the Plaintiffs do not have an implied
private right of action under the Cable Television Act.
Accordingly, their claims must fail for this reason alone, he
said.

Because Judge Chesler found that the Plaintiffs do not have a
private right of action against the Defendants, he declined to
consider the Defendants' other arguments. He explained that a
plaintiff cannot bring claims to enforce a statute if it does not
have a private right of action.

The appellate case is captioned as BOROUGH OF LONGPORT and TOWNSHIP
OF IRVINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NETFLIX, INC. and HULU, LLC, Case No. 22-2139, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June
23, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BOROUGH OF LONGPORT and TOWNSHIP OF
IRVINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
           BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  kcooper@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  dcheck@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com

NEW PRIDE: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Melendez Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARIO MELENDEZ, and KHALID AMINZADA v. A.K. RASHIDZADA CORPORATION,
NEW PRIDE CORP and MAGID A. RASHIDZADA, Case No. 2:22-cv-03717
(E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2022) is a putative collective action and class
for the Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of:

       (i) the overtime provision the Fair Labor Standards Act
           ("FLSA");

      (ii) the overtime provision of the New York Labor Law
           ("NYLL");

     (iii) the New York State Anti-Retaliation Provision, NYLL
           section r215(1);

      (iv) the prohibition against unlawful deductions as
contained
           in NYLL §193;

       (v) the requirement that employers furnish employees with
           wage statements on each payday, containing specific
           categories of accurate information, and also provide
           employees with accurate wage notice at the time of
           hiring, pursuant to NYLL section 195(1) and (3),
           codified as the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the

           "NYWTPA"); and

      (vi) the anti-discrimination provisions, based on race and
           national origin, of the New York State Human Rights Law

           ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law section 296(1); and

Defendant A.K. Rashidzada Corp. wholesales and distributes general
and personal consumer items. The Company markets personal hygiene,
batteries, lighters, and other non-food items to retail outlets
throughout the United States. It has several subsidiaries and/or
related entities through which it operates, including but not
limited to, Defendant New Pride Corp.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants at various times from
2017 to the present. As employees, the Plaintiffs performed and
continue to perform the following functions: making sales,
traveling to trade shows, and storing, sorting, packing, and
shipping the merchandise. Throughout the course of their
employment, the Plaintiffs regularly worked as many as six days a
week, and over 40 hours each week.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a systematic
scheme of failing to pay Plaintiffs their statutorily required
overtime compensation; and failing to provide Plaintiffs with
lawful wage statements and wage notices, pursuant to the NYWTPA,
among other violations. Further, the Defendants systematically
discriminated against its workers of Hispanic origin and created a
hostile work environment based on race and national origin, says
the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are  represented by:

          Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
          TULLY RINCKEY PLLC
          777 Third Avenue 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 813-2965
          Facsimile: (646) 705-0049
          E-mail: cgourarie@tullylegal.com

NEW YORK: MTA Settles Class Action Over Subway Accessibility
------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Kathy Hochul on June 22 disclosed that the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and accessibility advocates reached a
class action settlement agreement that affirms the MTA's commitment
towards accessibility in the subway system. The agreement will
resolve two class action lawsuits (Center for Independence of the
Disabled, New York, et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, et al. No. 153765/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.) and De
La Rosa et al. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al. No.
19-cv-04406 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.)), and is subject to court approval, a
notice period where class members will have the opportunity to
comment, and a fairness hearing. Under the terms of the agreement,
the MTA will add elevators or ramps to create a stair-free path of
travel at 95 percent of the currently inaccessible subway stations
by 2055.

"No New Yorker should have to worry about whether or not they can
safely access public transportation," Governor Hochul said. "This
agreement between the MTA and accessibility advocates is a critical
step towards further expanding accessibility in our subways and
serving the needs of New Yorkers with disabilities. My
administration will continue to ensure that New York State is
accessible for all."

The announced agreement builds on the Authority's ongoing mission
to enhance accessibility throughout the subway system at an
accelerated pace. The MTA has completed accessibility projects at
15 subway stations across four boroughs since 2020, all while the
Authority was dealing with a dire financial crisis brought on by
the COVID-19 pandemic. The MTA has awarded contracts for another 22
stations and has an additional 13 station projects in procurement.


MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber said, "Even during the dire
financial crisis brought on by the pandemic, the MTA prioritized
accessibility, leading to the completion of 15 accessibility
projects. There will be 81 more projects in progress by the end of
the 2020-2024 capital plan, which includes a historic $5.2 billion
dedicated to accessibility upgrades. These commitments, combined
with recently enacted zoning that incentivizes private developers
to incorporate station accessibility projects into their buildings,
will help us achieve a fully accessible transit system much faster
than ever before imagined."

MTA Chief Accessibility Officer and Senior Advisor Quemuel Arroyo
said, "This is a seminal moment for accessibility in the New York
City transit system. For far too long, the MTA and accessibility
advocates have appeared at odds over a goal that we in fact share,
making the transit system fully accessible. This settlement is not
just the unveiling of a gameplan, but the start of a closer
collaboration between the MTA and advocates to achieve our shared
goal, to ensure that everyone has the ability to ride mass transit
without needing to plan around accessible stations."

Joe Rappaport, Executive Director of Brooklyn Center for
Independence of the Disabled said, "Hallelujah! Finally, some good
news! This extraordinary agreement ensures that no one will be shut
out of the fastest, best way to get around town. For BCID, like the
other plaintiffs and our attorneys, this is the culmination of
years of advocacy, both in and out of the courtroom. We're
immensely proud we and the MTA have reached this day."

Dr. Sharon McLennon-Wier, Ph.D., CRC, LMHC, Executive Director of
Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York said, "It is my
pleasure as an advocate for accessibility, after decades of
advocacy and hard work by disability-related stakeholders, to
celebrate the commitment to access for all who use New York City's
subway system operated by the MTA. Everyone who lives, works, or
visits New York City and our amazing state will benefit from the
promise of universal access that our work with the MTA on this
settlement agreement will afford our community. This took a
collaborative approach and dedication by numerous disability
advocates who envisioned a more accessible city for all New
Yorkers."

As part of the agreement reached with accessibility advocates, the
MTA has committed, subject to extensions of time based on funding
commitment caps and other contingencies, to procure contracts to
make accessible 81 stations by 2025, another 85 stations by 2035,
another 90 stations by 2045, and the last 90 stations by 2055.

The MTA has 472 subway stations and including 21 Staten Island
Railway (SIR) stations, has 493 stations in the transit system. Of
those, 131 are fully accessible to customers with disabilities, via
elevators and ramps, including five Staten Island Railway stations.
There are more than one million people with a disability living in
New York City, more than 1.5 million over the age of 65, and
approximately 250,000 children under the age of two whose families
need to navigate New York City with strollers.

NYC Transit President Richard Davey said, "Millions of New Yorkers
rely on accessible stations to get to their destination daily, and
currently have to travel farther and for longer to get to an
accessible station. It is our job to make this a thing of the past,
providing as seamless a commute as possible for all riders by
continuing to increase the number of accessible stations in the
subway system."

Brett Eisenberg, Executive Director of Bronx Independent Living
Services said, "Today is a historic day for individuals with
disabilities. Future generations will now be able to say that we
have a fully accessible subway system. We will all be able to go
anywhere in the five boroughs allowing us to participate in all New
York City has to offer. BILS is grateful to all the other
plaintiffs in the case as well as our attorneys at DRA and Sheppard
Mullin. We thank the MTA for recognizing the importance of a fully
accessible subway system. We look forward to implementation of this
agreement to make the subway system accessible as fast as
possible."  

Christina Curry, Executive Director of Harlem Independent Living
Center said, "The Harlem Independent Living Center is pleased and
excited to be part of this historic achievement regarding the MTA
and assisting in making the subway transit system accessible to the
disabled community and to everyone in general."

Jean Ryan of Disabled In Action New York said, "Disabled In Action
has fought to eliminate barriers to full equality for people with
disabilities for more than 50 years and is proud to do so here on
behalf of all New Yorkers. All our members need elevators in the
subways, and we need elevators in all stations. Elevators are for
everyone."

Maria Alvarez, Executive Director of StateWide said,
"Transportation Accessibility is one of the most important issues
for the community, NYC's leaders and people with disabilities.
Given the fact that the within 4 short years close to 25% of NYC's
population will 65 years of age and over, these improvements to the
subways cannot come soon enough. We must continue striving toward
an age-friendly New York City which will make it a city conducive
to the comfort and ease for all."

Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, who uses a wheelchair said, "This
settlement builds on decades of disability rights work, by
countless advocates, activists and allies. People like Rise and
Resist Elevator Action Group, rallying at every hearing, from
courthouse steps to MTA board meetings -- you all made a
difference. We're grateful, humbled, and can't wait to ride
together."

The following stations are funded for upgrades under the current
capital plan:

8 Av (N)
Tremont Av (B, D)
149 St-Grand Concourse (2, 4, 5)
6 Av (L)
14 St (F, M, 1, 2, 3)
Woodhaven Blvd (M, R)
Westchester Sq-East Tremont Av (6)
Queensboro Plaza (N, W, 7)
Court Sq (G)
68 St-Hunter College (6)
Bay Ridge-95 St (R)
Grand St (L)
Beach 67 St (A)
7 Av (F, G)
Dyckman St (1)
E 149 St (6)
New Dorp (SIR)
Lorimer St (L)
Metropolitan Av (G)
181 St (A)
Church Av (B, Q)
Sheepshead Bay (B, Q)
Rockaway Blvd (A)
Kings Hwy (N)
Woodhaven Blvd (J, Z)
Steinway St (M, R)
Junius St (3)
Mosholu Pkwy (4)
Northern Blvd (M, R)
137 St-City College (1)
Parkchester (6)
Borough Hall (4, 5)
Broadway Junction (A, C, L, J, Z)
Broadway (N, W)
36 St (D, N, R)
18 Av (D)
Kings Hwy (F)
Norwood Av (J, Z)
Myrtle Av (J, M, Z)
Jefferson St (L)
96 St (B, C)
81 St-Museum of Natural History (B, C)
Hoyt-Schermerhorn (A, C, G)
Nostrand Av (A, C)
167 St (B, D)
Avenue I (F)
Neptune Av (F)
Parsons Blvd (F)
Briarwood (E, F)
7 Av (B, D, E)
Classon Av (G)
Van Cortlandt Park-242 St (1)
New Lots Av (3)
Brook Av (6)
3 Av-138 St (6)
Kingsbridge Rd (4)
Burnside Av (4)
110 St (6)
86 St (4, 5, 6)
Wakefield-241 St (2)
Harlem-148 St (3)
46 St-Bliss St (7)
33 St-Rawson St (7)
Clifton (SIR)
Huguenot (SIR)
168 St (1)
Court Sq-23 St (E, M)
42 St-Bryant Pk (B, D, F, M)
5 Av (7)
Lexington Av/59 St (N, R, W)
59 St (4, 5, 6)
Delancey St-Essex St (F, J, M, Z) [GN]

NICK'S MGMT: Court Tosses Naranjo's Kickbacks Claim With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AYDEE NARANJO, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NICK'S MANAGEMENT, INC., NICK'S
CLUBS, INC., f/k/a ADVENTURE PLUS ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PT'S
MENS' CLUB, and NICK MEHMETI, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:21-CV-2883-B (N.D. Tex.), Judge Jane J. Boyle of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay
this Action filed by Defendants Nick's Management, Inc., Nick's
Clubs, Inc., and Nick Mehmeti.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case. From
approximately June 2020 to May 2021, Plaintiff Naranjo worked as an
exotic dancer for the Defendants.

On Nov. 17, 2021, the Plaintiff, "on behalf of herself and all
other exotic dancers who have worked for the Defendants," filed her
Complaint alleging that the Defendants "misclassified her and other
exotic dancers as independent contractors, that the Plaintiff and
the other dancers were not paid minimum wage or overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA, and that the Plaintiff and
the other dancers were subject to unlawful kick-backs under the
FLSA."

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Stay followed on Dec. 20,
2021. The Motion being ripe, the Court turns to the merits.

II. Analysis

The FLSA provides the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of
employers engaged in interstate commerce. Under Section 216(b), a
qualifying employer who fails to pay an employee the federally
mandated minimum wage and/or one-and-one-half times the employees
regular rate of pay for work completed over 40 hours per week will
be liable to the employee.

The Defendants present four arguments why the Plaintiff's claim for
minimum/overtime wage compensation under the FLSA should be
dismissed. First, the Plaintiff entered into an enforceable
collective/class action waiver via the Licensing Agreement. Second,
the Plaintiff violated a condition precedent of the Licensing
Agreement. Third, the "Plaintiff's 'kickback' cause of action is
not a private cause of action." Fourth, the Plaintiff's Complaint
does not meet the standards of Iqbal and Twombly.

Judge Boyle begins by discussing whether the Court can consider the
Licensing Agreement at this stage, which impacts the Defendants'
first two arguments. She then addresses the Defendants' remaining
two arguments.

A. Consideration of the Licensing Agreement

Judge Boyle first addresses whether it is proper to consider the
Licensing Agreement at this stage to determine whether the
Plaintiff waived her right to bring this collective action and
whether that Agreement established a condition precedent to suit.
The Defendants argue that the Licensing Agreement may be considered
by the Court because its terms are "referenced throughout the
Complaint and its provisions are central to the Plaintiff's
claims."

The Plaintiff responds that the introduction of the Licensing
Agreement is premature because she has not yet moved for
conditional certification of a collective action. Should she move
for certification, Plaintiff contends it would be more appropriate
to then consider the Licensing Agreement in determining "whether
collective action certification and FLSA notice is appropriate."

Judge Boyle opines that the Licensing Agreement is likely central
to the Plaintiff's collective action claim because the Agreement
speaks directly to her ability to pursue the claim. However, she is
reluctant to dismiss the collective action claim without giving the
Plaintiff an opportunity to present her arguments and evidence on
the enforceability of the Licensing Agreement. Accordingly, Judge
Boyle denies without prejudice the Defendants' Motion on this
ground, but orders the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
laying out the facts she believes support her contention that she
is not bound by the disputed provisions of the Licensing
Agreement.

B. Plaintiff's "Kickbacks" Cause of Action

Judge Boyle next addresses the Defendants' argument related to the
Plaintiff's "kickbacks" cause of action. In her Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleges that "the house fees, 'funny money' fee, and
mandatory tip-outs that the Defendants required from the Plaintiff
constitute unlawful 'kick-backs' to an employer under the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 203(m)." Subsection 203(m)(2)(B) states that "an
employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any
purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any
portion of employees' tips, regardless of whether or not the
employer takes a tip credit."

The Defendants argue that, even assuming the Plaintiff's
allegations are true, the Court must dismiss this claim because
Section 203(m) does not create a private cause of action for
anything other than minimum or overtime wages. The Plaintiff
responds that when a tip pool includes employees that do not
customarily receive tips, "the employee is owed all tips he or she
contributed to the pool and the full $7.25 minimum wage."

Judge Boyle agrees with the Defendants. She says, as they relate to
FLSA claims, "kickbacks are not per se illegal, but only when they
reduce the wage below the minimum or overtime wages required by the
FLSA." The issue raised by the Plaintiff's Complaint deals with a
requirement of tip-outs and fees related to services provided by
Defendants, not a tip pool. More relevant is 29 C.F.R. Section
531.35, which states that "the wage requirements of the Act will
not be met where the employee kicks-back directly or indirectly to
the employer the whole or part of the wage delivered to the
employee." Because the Plaintiff fails to plead a claim for
"unlawful kickbacks," the Defendants' Motion is granted" to the
extent kickbacks are pleaded as an independent cause of action.
However, the alleged kickbacks may be considered in determining the
Defendants' compliance with the minimum and overtime wage
provisions of the FLSA."

C. Plaintiff's Pleading Under Twombly and Iqbal

Judge Boyle next addresses whether the Plaintiff has satisfied the
pleading requirements of Iqbal and Twombly. To successfully plead a
claim under the FLSA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege: (1) the
existence of an employee/employer relationship during the relevant
time, (2) that the plaintiff's job responsibilities were covered by
the FLSA (i.e., connected to interstate commerce), (3) "that the
employer violated the FLSA's minimum or overtime-wage
requirements," and (4) the amount of pay due.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead
the interstate commerce element with the requisite particularity
and that the Plaintiff's minimum and overtime wage allegations are
also too generic. The Plaintiff responds by pointing to
Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterprises, L.L.C. as evidence that
she has sufficiently pled interstate commerce in line with Fifth
Circuit precedent. The Plaintiff then argues that previous cases
"in this Circuit and around the country have found exotic dancers'
claims to be subject to the FLSA."

Judge Boyle holds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled
enterprise coverage. Under the FLSA, a business is an enterprise if
it "has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods
or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by
any person; and the business' annual gross volume of sales made or
business done is not less than $500,000." To plead enterprise
coverage, the Plaintiff need only plausibly allege that she handled
goods or materials that had at some point traveled interstate."

In Johnson v. North Texas Dancers, LLC, plaintiff exotic dancers
pled enterprise coverage in terms almost identical to those pled by
the Plaintiff. The Johnson court held, based on undisputed
summary-judgment evidence, that the plaintiff had successfully
established that the defendant was a covered enterprise. In the
present case, should the Plaintiff's factual allegation that the
Defendants' annual gross volume of sales made or business done
exceeds $500,000 prove true, then the Defendants would be a covered
enterprise like the defendant in Johnson. Thus, taken as true, the
Plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently allege enterprise coverage under
the FLSA.

As to the FLSA claims themselves, Judge Boyle also finds the
Complaint sufficient. The Plaintiff makes factual allegations such
as "she and the other exotic dancers often worked 40 or more hours
a week," the "Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week," and the "Defendants did not pay
them any wages."

While the Complaint is not "replete with factual allegations," it
placed the Defendants on notice that the claim involved unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA. Moreover, Judge Boyle is
satisfied that the Plaintiff has pleaded "enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Because the
Complaint is sufficient, the Defendants' Motion is denies as to
this issue.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Boyle grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Motion. Specifically, she grants the Defendants'
Motion as to the Plaintiff's "kickbacks" cause of action and
dismisses that claim with prejudice. Judge Boyle denies the
Defendants' Motion in all other respects. However, she orders the
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint laying out the facts
supporting her assertion that she is not bound by the Licensing
Agreement within 14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/43wvsjkbfrom Leagle.com.


NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' Defective Transmission
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges certain model year Nissan Altima, Sentra,
Versa and Versa Note vehicles are equipped with a defective
transmission.

The 31-page case says that the apparent defect in the continuously
variable transmission (CVT) in the following Nissan models can
cause a vehicle to hesitate significantly during acceleration or
otherwise stall, jerk, lurch, judder or shake during operation:

   -- 2017-2018 Nissan Altima;
   -- 2018-2019 Nissan Sentra;
   -- 2018-2019 Nissan Versa; and
   -- 2018-2019 Nissan Versa Note.

According to the complaint, the Nissan transmission defect poses an
"extreme and unreasonable" safety hazard, in part because it may
cause a driver to be unable to maintain the proper speed while
merging into traffic or passing other vehicles.

The lawsuit alleges Nissan of North America and Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd. knew that the above-listed vehicle models were defective and
unfit to provide safe and reliable transportation yet "actively
concealed" the transmission problem from consumers. To date, the
automaker has not recalled affected vehicle models, offered drivers
a suitable repair free of charge, or otherwise offered
reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs related to the issue, the
suit says.

The lawsuit states that a continuously variable transmission does
not use conventional gears to achieve the various required ratios
while driving. Instead, a CVT uses a segmented steel belt between
pulleys that can be adjusted to change a transmission's reduction
ratio, the suit says. This process, per the case, is supposed to
occur smoothly and continuously during operation.

Nissan drivers have reported, however, a delay in the vehicle's
response to the depression of the gas pedal, which, in the affected
models, is accompanied by the engine revving and little to no
increase in speed, the complaint relays.

According to the filing, other Nissan vehicle models have also been
plagued by similar recurrent CVT problems for the last decade, and
the automaker has issued to authorized dealers "scores of technical
service bulletins" concerning the alleged transmission problems.

The case looks to represent all individuals who bought or leased in
the U.S. any of the Nissan vehicle models listed on this page. [GN]

NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: NRXP) ("NRx Pharmaceuticals"), a
clinical-stage, biopharmaceutical company, disclosed that on June
13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the securities class action lawsuit
captioned "Dal Bosco v. NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." filed a
notice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
voluntarily dismissing the action against NRx Pharmaceuticals and
its former officers. The dismissal was made without prejudice.

"We are pleased by the plaintiff's action," said Robert Besthof,
Interim CEO. "Our focus is on developing life-saving medicines, and
we continue to focus on the development of NRX-101. We will further
evaluate the opportunities for ZYESAMI® once we receive the full
data from the ACTIV-3b / TESICO NIH Study. "

About NRx Pharmaceuticals
NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. draws upon decades of collective,
scientific, and drug-development experience applying innovative
science to known molecules to address very high unmet needs and
bring improved health to patients. The Company is developing
NRX-101, its proprietary fixed dose combination as a treatment for
Bipolar Depression in Patients with Acute Suicidal Ideation and
Behavior (ASIB). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has
granted Breakthrough Therapy designation, a Special Protocol
Agreement, and a Biomarker Letter of Support for NRX-101. NRx
Pharmaceuticals is led by executives who have held leadership roles
at Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis as well as major investment banking
institutions.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This announcement of NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. includes
"forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the "safe
harbor" provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, which may include, but are not limited to, statements
regarding our financial outlook, product development, business
prospects, and market and industry trends and conditions, as well
as the Company's strategies, plans, objectives, and goals. These
forward-looking statements are based on current beliefs,
expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections of, as well as
assumptions made by, and information currently available to, the
Company's management.

The Company assumes no obligation to revise any forward-looking
statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise. Accordingly, you should not place reliance on any
forward-looking statement, and all forward-looking statements are
herein qualified by reference to the cautionary statements set
forth above.

CORPORATE CONTACT
Molly Cogan
Sr. Director, Global Communications
mcogan@nrxpharma.com

INVESTOR RELATIONS
Tim McCarthy
Investor Relations
tim@lifesciadvisors.com [GN]

OPERA LIMITED: Brown Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
Opera Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F/A Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 28, 2022, that the class action
captioned "Brown v. Opera Limited. et al.," Case No. 20-cv-674, was
dismissed with prejudice in April 2021.

In January 2020, the company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The complaint, as amended, alleged that the company had made
certain material misstatements and/or omissions in violation of
U.S. securities laws. The company moved to dismiss the complaint.
In March 13, 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss,
dismissing all of the claims on multiple grounds.

The plaintiffs in the action determined to forgo their right to
file a further amended complaint and instead stipulated to
dismissal of the litigation. The case was dismissed with prejudice
in an order entered on April 22, 2021.

Opera is an internet brand based in Norway.


ORPHAZYME AS: Faces Busic Shareholder Suit in IL Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Orphazyme A/S disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 28, 2022, that in July 9, 2021, a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned "Busic v. Orphazyme A/S, et al.," No. 21-
cv-03640 (N.D. Ill.), was filed against the company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 13, 2021, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class. On November 19, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting claims under the Securities Act and the
Exchange for alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in the
company's registration statement for our IPO of ADS in the United
States and in subsequent public statements, which seeks an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of a putative class
comprised of all persons and entities other than the defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired the ADS in connection with the
IPO in September 2020 and/or between September 29, 2020 and
November 4, 2021.

In January 21, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. In March 11, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed his
opposition to the motion to dismiss, as well as a motion to strike
certain exhibits that the defendants submitted in connection with
their motion to dismiss. In April 4, 2022, the defendants filed
their opposition to the motion to strike.

In April 11, 2022, the defendants filed their reply in support of
the motion to dismiss. In April 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply in support of the motion to strike. In April 15, 2022,
the lead plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in
further opposition to the motion to dismiss. In April 18, 2022, the
court held a telephonic hearing on the motion to dismiss and motion
to strike.

Orphazyme A/S is a biopharmaceutical company based in Denmark.


OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Oscar
Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (: OSCR). The class action
is on behalf of shareholders who purchased in or traceable to
Oscar's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Investors
are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

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

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

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/oscar-health-recover-your-losses-ipo-lawsuit

There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

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

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

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

OUTLIER HEALTH: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outlier Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Outlier Health, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05470 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Outlier -- http://outlier.ai/-- offers analytic solutions that
enable businesses to make better decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PAINTYOURLIFE LLC: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PaintYourLife LLC.
The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PaintYourLife LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05509 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

PaintYourLife -- https://www.paintyourlife.com/ -- offers high
quality hand-painted portraits from photos, created by talented
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PETROCHOICE LLC: Class Settlement Approval in Gravely Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA GRAVELY, et al., Plaintiffs v. PETROCHOICE,
LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-5409 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald
J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denies approval of the Settlement Agreement as
currently drafted.

I. Introduction

Tamara Gravely and Odell Bradley Jr. sued their employer,
PetroChoice, over its alleged failure to pay them and similarly
situated employees overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Gravely, Bradley
and subsequent opt-in plaintiffs move unopposed for approval of
their FLSA settlement and, as part of that agreement, attorneys'
fees.

II. Background

On Nov. 18, 2019, Gravely and Bradley sued the company in a
collective action under the FLSA and class action under the PMWA.
The Named Plaintiffs alleged PetroChoice denied overtime pay to
them and employees in similar administrative or financial roles by
deducting 30 minutes of pay daily for meal breaks they worked
through and not accurately tracking their hours worked.

On Feb. 26, 2021, Judge Jones granted the Named Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification as an FLSA collective. Five other
people subsequently opted in as plaintiffs, joining one other prior
opt-in plaintiff. The parties then negotiated a Settlement
Agreement.

Under the Agreement, the Plaintiffs broadly waive and release their
claims against PetroChoice. In exchange, PetroChoice will pay the
Plaintiffs $45,000. Of that sum, approximately $23,843.25 will be
distributed to the Plaintiffs in amounts proportional to their
alleged economic injuries. The Named Plaintiffs also will receive
$2,500 service awards for their contributions to the case.
Further, the counsel will receive $15,750 in attorneys' fees and
$406.75 as reimbursement for litigation costs.

III. Discussion

Judge Pappert denies both motions without prejudice because the
Settlement Agreement's waiver and release provisions are overbroad
and as such frustrate the FLSA's purposes.

First, he finds that the Settlement Agreement concerns a bona fide
dispute. The Plaintiffs and PetroChoice disagree about factual
questions under the FLSA, including how often the Plaintiffs worked
through lunch and whether that work was properly reported.
Moreover, PetroChoice has denied liability throughout, as reflected
in the Settlement Agreement.

Second, Judge Pappert finds that the settlement amount of $45,000
is fair and reasonable. The Settlement Agreement fairly and
reasonably awards the counsel $15,750. The counsel will receive 35%
of the $45,000 settlement amount, in line with fee awards approved
by courts in the Third Circuit. In turn, the Plaintiffs do not
object to the award or any part of the Settlement Agreement. As a
cross check, the award is less than the applicable lodestar amount
of approximately $19,531.

Finally, Judge Pappert notes that the Settlement Agreement's waiver
and release provisions are at odds with the FLSA's purposes.
PetroChoice is broadly released from all claims known or unknown to
the Named Plaintiffs and claims known or unknown to all the
Plaintiffs that are related to this case, regardless of the statute
or cause of action. These provisions use sweeping language.

This frustrates the FLSA by allowing employers like PetroChoice to
take advantage of their superior bargaining power over employees
like the Plaintiffs.

IV. Disposition

Judge Pappert does not approve the Settlement Agreement as
currently drafted. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dr3hkdcv from Leagle.com.


POPCORNVAN INC: Arrington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popcornvan, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jayson Arrington, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Popcornvan, Inc., Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600445 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., June 29, 2022).

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

Popcornvan, Inc. -- https://popcornvan.com/ -- is the fastest way
to get the groceries, snacks, drinks, baby food, pet food, personal
care items, and household essentials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Nakama, Esq.
          LADVA LAW FIRM
          530 Jackson St., Fl. 2
          San Francisco, CA 94133-5143
          Phone: 415-296-8844


PYZEL SURFBOARDS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pyzel Surfboards LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pyzel Surfboards LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05464 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Pyzel Surfboards -- https://www.pyzelsurfboards.com/ -- offers the
best surfboards in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


R & L CARRIERS: Bobb Sues Over Unpaid OT for Forklift Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDMOND L. BOBB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R & L CARRIERS SHARED SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02558-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Bobb was employed by the Defendant as a forklift operator from
August 28, 2017 until 2019.

R & L Carriers Shared Services, LLC is an owner and operator of a
freight shipping business based in Wilmington, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq.
         THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
         152 New Street, Suite 109B
         Macon, GA 31201
         Telephone: (404) 944-3128
         E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com

RACHEL UFFNER: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rachel Uffner
Gallery, LLC. The case is styled as Milagros Senior, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Rachel Uffner
Gallery, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05563 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Rachel Uffner Gallery -- https://www.racheluffnergallery.com/ -- is
an influential contemporary art gallery founded in 2008 located in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


RBT INDUSTRIES: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBT Industries LLC.
The case is styled as Vanessa Jimenez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RBT Industries LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05475 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

RBT Industries -- http://www.rbtindustries.com/-- is a leader in
affordable flooring driven by quality customer service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


RITE AND CORP: Court Dismisses Ramirez Class Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID RAMIREZ and MARION LEMONS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RITE
AID CORPORATION, THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
Defendants, Case No. CV 20-3531-GW-SKx, Consolidated with Case No.
CV 20-7617-GW-SKx (C.D. Cal.), Judge George H. Wu of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California dismisses the
Action with prejudice.

Said dismissal is subject to the Court's order granting final
approval of Class Action and PAGA Representative Settlement.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court reserves
jurisdiction over the implementation, administration and
enforcement of the Judgment and the Settlement, and all matters
ancillary thereto.

Judge Wu finds no reason exists for delay in ordering final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

The Clerk is hereby directed to enter the Judgment forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/34msh2d2 from Leagle.com.

Carolyn Hunt Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Ori
Edelstein -- oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com -- Kristabel Sandoval
-- ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP, in Emeryville, California.

Randall B. Aiman-Smith -- ras@asmlawyers.com -- Reed W.L. Marcy --
rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Hallie Von Rock -- hvr@asmlawyers.com --
AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY PC, in Oakland, California, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs and on behalf of others similarly situated.


ROOT INC: Faces Huang Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
TONGBO HUANG, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant ROOT,
INC., Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER TIMM, DANIEL ROSENTHAL, JERRI DEVARD,
ELLIOT GEIDT, LARRY HILSHEIMER, NANCY KRAMER, SCOTT MAW, NICK
SHALEK, DOUG ULMAN, LUIS VON AHN, CHRISTOPHER OLSON, and MEGAN
BINKLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00865-UNA (D. Del., June 27,
2022) is a shareholder derivative action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment,
waste of corporate assets, and violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly authorized
and/or permitted the issuance of false and misleading statements
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding Root's
business operations and prospects to trade Root common stock at
artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose that the company's plan to increase its marketing
expenditures in connection with its nationwide rollout had caused,
and would continue to cause, Root's customer acquisition costs to
be materially higher than $332. Thus, contrary to the Registration
Statement, Root had no competitive advantage on a customer
acquisition costs basis over traditional insurers as of the initial
public offering (IPO). As a result of the Defendants' failure to
fulfill their fiduciary obligations, the company has sustained
significant damages, the suit says.

Root, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal executive
offices located at 80 E. Rich Street, Suite 500, Columbus, Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
         300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 295-5310
         Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
         E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com
                 hwm@rl-legal.com

S-10 TRAINING: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S-10 Training, LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. S-10 Training, LLC doing
business as: S-10 Training, Case No. 1:22-cv-05508 (E.D.N.Y., June
28, 2022).

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

S-10 Training -- https://s10training.com/ -- is a small
members-only fitness studio focused on weight training, nutrition &
personalized coaching.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SAKS FIFTH: New York District Court Dismisses Tucker Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismisses the case, HENRY TUCKER, On
Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-CV-10289-LTS-RWL (S.D.N.Y.).

The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly,
Judge Swain dismisses with prejudice the action as to the named
Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs and
without costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration
of the action to her calendar if settlement is not achieved within
45 days of the date of the Order. If a party wishes to reopen this
matter or extend the time within which it may be settled, the party
must make a letter application before this 45-day period expires.

The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yc2tpjb3from Leagle.com.


SAN JOAQUIN FIGS: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against San Joaquin Figs,
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. San Joaquin Figs, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05540-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

San Joaquin Figs -- https://nutrafig.com/ -- is a dried fig
processing and packing company located in Fresno, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SHIELDS HEALTH CARE: Roach Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Shields Health Care Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Jonathan Roach, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shields Health Care
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11035 (D. Mass., June 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Shields Health Care Group -- https://shields.com/ -- provides MRI,
PET/CT, and ambulatory surgical services to patients at more than
30 locations in New England.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 542-8300
          Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com


SIMON PEARCE: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon Pearce (U.S.),
Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simon Pearce (U.S.),
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05495 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Simon Pearce -- https://www.simonpearce.com/ -- is a retail company
specializing in glassware, tableware, lighting, and home
decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SLUMBERKINS INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slumberkins Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Slumberkins Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05481 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Slumberkins -- https://slumberkins.com/ -- is a leading educational
children's brand created to promote early emotional learning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SOCLEAN INC: Ciesla Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoClean, Inc. The
case is styled as Herbert Ciesla, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02593-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Derek Chad Nuce, Esq.
          PASLEY & NUCE, LLC
          P.O. Box 1168
          103 North Center Street
          Thomaston, GA 30286
          Phone: (706) 646-3200
          Fax: (706) 647-2147
          Email: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com


SUDBURY'S HEALTH: Breast Imaging Class Action Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Lamothe, writing for sudbury.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit for patients who, it is alleged, had breast imaging reports
misread at Sudbury's Health Sciences North (HSN) has been
discontinued, said a notice from the law office handling the suit.

The class action lawsuit was announced back in February.

Gluckstein Lawyers filed an order to discontinue the proceedings on
June 2. You can find that document here. Lawyer Jordan Assaraf of
Gluckstein Lawyers refused an interview seeking clarity on what
transpired with the proposed suit.

The class action suit originally centred around issues of alleged
negligence in Health Sciences North's Radiology Department,
specifically focused on quality and accuracy problems in breast
imaging interpretation.

The suit alleges that, between 2008 and 2020, the department
consistently fell below the required standard of care when
interpreting breast imaging reports.

Gluckstein Lawyers notes in the the Notice of Intent to Discontinue
that Health Sciences North, the defendant hospital administrators
and the defendant doctors deny these allegations.

The discontinuance of the class action means, essentially, that
Gluckstein Lawyers will be pursuing each claim individually, rather
than as a class action.

The discontinuance of the class action means each person believes
they may have been affected by the alleged shortcoming of the
breast imaging centre at HSN must file their own claim and the
class action, and it will no longer cover people who have not yet
come forward that may have wanted to form part of the class.

The firm will be filing individual actions against HSN and the
individual doctors who had an involvement with each specific
patient's file.  

For those who were a part of the claim, there is now the need to
pursue the suit on their own, with individual lawyers, and to pay
special attention to timelines.

The Limitations Act sets out a basic limitation period of two years
in Ontario. This means that a lawsuit must be filed within two
years of the day on which the claim was discovered. Those who had
their time limit paused because of their involvement with the suit,
that is, their claim was ‘tolled' as of Dec. 14, the beginning of
the class action, will have their two-year period restart as of
Aug. 31.

The notice of intent to discontinue issued by Gluckstein Lawyers
states that those who have had their claim paused "should take
notice that the limitation period for bringing a claim, if there is
any time left within it, will recommence running on August 31,
2022." Therefore, those who wish to continue with proceedings
individually will need to refile, and consider that the two year
period will recommence on Aug. 31, the official end date of
proceedings.

As a result, former breast imaging patients of Health Sciences
North wishing to claim compensation should seek legal advice and
must commence their individual actions before their respective
limitation period(s) expire.

"Failure to do so may restrict one's ability to pursue a claim for
compensation," states the notice.

In its description of "Health Sciences North and What They Knew"
Gluckstein states, "In February 2018, a group of senior surgeons at
Health Sciences North sent a letter to the hospital's senior
leadership ‘regarding significant concerns regarding
breast-specific imaging at Health Sciences North. The letter
outlined substantial issues that were identified relating to the
accuracy and overall quality of breast imaging reports. According
to the doctors, they had problems with the substandard quality
frequency and the lack of desire for improvements."

The original 33-page statement of claim was filed on behalf of
Shannon Hayes, a former Sudbury woman.

The original suit names the hospital and several doctors and
radiologists as defendants. Hayes claimed that a proper diagnosis
of her breast cancer was missed during her screening at HSN in
2018.

A year would go by before her breast cancer was diagnosed during a
checkup performed at another hospital, in London, England, where
she now lives. By then, the cancer had spread and Hayes is
currently coping with metastatic cancer.

The $22-million claim originally alleged "systemic negligence of
the radiology service" at HSN for such things as interpretation of
breast imaging, mammography, breast ultrasound and MRI (magnetic
resonance imaging) breast imaging.  The claim originally covered
the period from Jan. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2020.

In the original claim statement, several situations were described.
During the time outlined in the lawsuit, HSN operated a breast
screening and assessment service (BSAS) at the hospital, part of
the Ontario Breast Screening Program, said the court document.

Also, during the time period, the claim alleged "there was an
overwhelming, objective decline in the standards of practice in the
performance and interpretation of Breast Imaging (sic)."

The claim alleged this significantly impacted the BSAS team's
ability to manage patients to an appropriate standard of care and
the lawyers also alleged that radiology chief, Dr. Evan Roberts,
knew of the substandard breast imaging but took no corrective
action.

It also stated that medical chief of staff Dr. John Fenton was
specifically told about the substandard breast imaging but failed
to take any timely action.

None of these claims have been proven in court.

For more information about the discontinuance of the class action,
visit the Gluckstein Lawyers website here. [GN]

SWEDENCAREUSA INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SwedenCareUSA, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SwedenCareUSA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05532 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

SwedenCareUSA, Inc. -- https://us.swedencare.com/ -- offer dog
products that strengthen your dog's health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Perez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANUEL PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC d/b/a
THE PRITCHETT AGENCY, Case No. 2022-008971-CA-01, was removed from
the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
June 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-21963 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

Symmetry Financial Group, LLC, doing business as The Pritchett
Agency, is an insurance agency in Asheville, North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
         Matthew A. Keilson, Esq.
         KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
         171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
         Atlanta, GA 30363
         Telephone: (404) 400-7300
         Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
         E-mail: rwatstein@kcozlaw.com
                 mkeilson@kcozlaw.com

TENDER LEAF TOYS: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tender Leaf Toys. The
case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tender Leaf Toys, Case No.
1:22-cv-05502 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Tenderleaf Toys -- https://www.tenderleaftoys.com/ -- design and
manufacture of quality sustainable wooden toys for inspiring
children's imagination and creativity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


THAMES & KOSMOS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thames & Kosmos, LLC.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Thames & Kosmos, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05479 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Thames & Kosmos -- https://www.thamesandkosmos.com/ -- is a
publisher of science kits, board games, and craft kits for kids of
all ages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


TMC MANAGEMENT: Faces Kuehn Suit Over Unlawful Rental Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven James Kuehn Jr., Phyllis Sorrell, Robin Johnson, Ashlee
Cross, ShaNica Clark, Steven Dunson, and Ramon Mercado
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMC
Management Corp., Case No. 27-CV-22-9682 (D. Minn., June 23, 2022)
arises from a pattern of unlawful rental practices by Defendant at
a number of its rental properties rented primarily to low-income
tenants.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, assert six legal bases for relief: breach of contract;
violations of Minnesota Landlord Tenant law, Minn. Stat. section
504B.161; (3) violations of Minnesota Landlord-Tenant law, Minn.
Stat. section 504B.178; (4) violations of Minnesota Uniform Trade
Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 325D.44; (5) violations of the
Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. section 325F.69; and (6)
declaratory relief pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments
Act, Minn. Stat. section 555.03.

The Defendant owns and operates rental units across the Minneapolis
metropolitan area.  The rental units owned and operated by TMC
typically serve low-income clientele, many of whom require rental
assistance to afford their rental units.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vernle C. Durocher, Jr., Esq.
          Charles J. Pults, Esq.
          Florence Neale, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
          Suite 1500, 50 South Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
          Telephone: (612) 340-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 340-2868
          E-mail: Durocher.Skip@dorsey.com
                  Pults.Charles@dorsey.com
                  Neale.Flossie@dorsey.com

TOOTIE PIE COMPANY: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tootie Pie Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tootie Pie Company,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05500 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Tootie Pie Company Ltd. -- https://www.tootiepieco.com/ -- bakes
pies and freezes them for delivery to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


TOTES ISOTONER: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Totes Isotoner
Corporation. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Totes Isotoner
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05514 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2022).

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

Totes Isotoner Corporation -- https://www.totes.com/ -- often
abbreviated to Totes, is an international umbrella, footwear, and
cold weather accessory supplier, headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal



TRANSCO LINES: Brown Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transco Lines Inc.
The case is styled as Cody Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Transco Lines Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-00600-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 29, 2022).

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

Transco Lines Inc. (TLI) -- http://transcolines.com/-- provides
transportation management in truckload, less-than-truckload,
drayage and specialized services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel D. Ford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
          One Financial Center-Suite 411
          650 South Shackleford
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Email: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TRIPLE CANOPY: Conquest Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triple Canopy Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as James Gregory Conquest, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Triple Canopy Inc., Triple
Canopy - A Constellis Company, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00322538-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June
28, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Triple Canopy, Inc. -- https://www.constellis.com/ -- is an
American private security company that provides integrated
security, mission support and risk management services to
corporate, government and nonprofit clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          THE MAURO LAW FIRM APLC
          790 E Colorado Blvd., Fl. 9
          Pasadena, CA 91101-2193
          Phone: 626-698-0048
          Fax: 626-698-0049
          Email: greg@maurolawfirm.net


TRITERRAS INC: Settlement Deal in Ferraiori Suit Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triterras, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 28, 2022, that a settlement agreement
for the class action complaint "Ferraiori v. Triterras, Inc., et
al.," Case No. 7:20-cv-10795 was preliminarily approved in May
2022.

In December 21, 2020, said complaint was filed in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York against the
company, its founder, Mr. Srinivas Koneru, and Mr. Marat Rosenberg
of Netfin Acquisition Corp. for alleged violations of U.S. federal
securities laws.

In July 1, 2021, an amended class action complaint was filed under
the caption Erlandson and Norris v. Triterras, Inc., et al., Case
No. 7:20-cv-10795-CS against the company, Mr. Srinivas Koneru, Mr.
Marat Rosenberg, Netfin Acquisition Corp., Fintech, MVR Netfin LLC,
Mr. Richard Maurer, Mr. Vadim Komissarov, Mr. Gerald Pascale, Mr.
James H. Groh, Sr., Mr. Alvin Tan, Mr. John A. Galani, Mr. Matthew
Richards, Ms. Vanessa Slowey and Mr. Kenneth Stratton. The amended
class action complaint is based on alleged undisclosed facts and
misrepresentations made by the above-named defendants from June 29,
2020 to January 14, 2021.

In April 27, 2022, the company and other parties in the class
action entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on May
20, 2022.

Triterras, Inc. is a financial technology company based in
Singapore.


TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of August 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Tupperware Brands Corporation.

Shareholders who purchased shares of TUP during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form-2/?id=28886&from=4

CLASS PERIOD: November 3, 2021 to May 3, 2022

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tupperware was facing
significant challenges in maintaining its earnings and sales
performance; (ii) accordingly, Tupperware's full-year 2022 guidance
was unrealistic and/or unsustainable; (iii) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was likely to have a material negative impact on
Tupperware's financial condition; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

DEADLINE: August 15, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tupperware-brands-corporation-loss-submission-form-2/?id=28886&from=4

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of TUP during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is August 15, 2022. There is no cost
or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]

UNILEVER PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever PLC ("Unilever" or
the "Company") (NYSE: UL) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired
Unilever American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") between September 2,
2020 and July 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/ul.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that in July 2020, Ben & Jerry's board
passed a resolution to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied
Palestinian Territory" as well as the risks attendant to the
board's decision. Additionally, Unilever's s description of its
legal risks was materially false and misleading because Unilever
acknowledged that complying with all applicable laws and
regulations was important but omitted to discuss Ben & Jerry's
boycott decision, which risked adverse governmental actions for
violations of laws, executive orders, or resolutions aimed at
discouraging boycotts, divestment, and sanctions of Israel adopted
by 35 U.S. states ("Anti-BDS Legislation").

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ul or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Unilever you have until August 15, 2022 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

UNILEVER PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Unilever PLC
("Unilever" or the "Company") (NYSE: UL) of a class action
securities lawsuit.

CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Unilever investors who were adversely affected by alleged
securities fraud. This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Unilever American Depositary
Receipts between September 2, 2020 and July 21, 2021, inclusive.
Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a
member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/unilever-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=28973&wire=4
UL investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: a) in July 2020, the board
of Ben & Jerry's, one of Unilever's marquee brands, passed a
resolution to end sales of its ice cream in "Occupied Palestinian
Territory" ;  and b) this boycott decision risked adverse
governmental actions for violations of laws, executive orders, or
resolutions aimed at discouraging boycotts, divestment, and
sanctions of Israel adopted by 35 U.S. states.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Unilever during the relevant
time frame, you have until August 15, 2022 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

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

UNILEVER UNITED: Krause-Pettai Wins Leave to File 3rd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE KRAUSE-PETTAI, CHRISTY STEVENS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20cv1672-LL-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
a Third Amended Complaint.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs, a class of California consumers who purchased the
Defendant's products, filed a putative class action against
Defendant on Aug. 26, 2020. On Dec. 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Defendant moved to dismiss the
FAC, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion, with leave to amend.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' requests for
injunctive relief and their claims based on products they did not
purchase for lack of standing. It also granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' claims for unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty, and as to the Plaintiffs'
claims under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), as well as to their claims for
negligent misrepresentation and fraud on the ground that they were
untimely.

On May 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") realleging their claims and curing any prior pleading
deficiencies.

On June 3, 2021, the Court entered a scheduling order per Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The scheduling order gave the parties
until Aug. 2, 2021 to file motions to amend pleadings or join other
parties. This deadline was not adjusted further. The scheduling
order also set a deadline for all fact discovery and class
certification. Per multiple joint stipulations by the parties,
however, the discovery cut-off deadline was extended to June 24,
2022, and the class certification deadline was extended to July 29,
2022.

On May 26, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion of Voluntary
Dismissal of Class Representatives Scott Grimm and Lanier. The next
day, on May 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion,
including the proposed and red-lined Third Amended Complaint
("TAC"), seeking permission to modify the deadline for amended
pleadings in the Scheduling Order and seeking leave to file their
TAC to add additional putative class representatives Kevin Bolden
and Errol Carreon in substitution of class representatives Grimm
and Lanier. The Plaintiffs' Motion further seeks to correct minor
factual discrepancies and remove Axe consumers from the purported
class.

On June 1, 2022, the Defendant filed an opposition contending that
the Plaintiffs' Motion should be denied because it was filed well
after the Aug. 2, 2021 deadline to amend the pleadings per the
Court's scheduling order, and was filed too closely to the
discovery cut-off deadline of June 24, 2022. It further opposes the
Plaintiffs' Motion on the grounds that the Motion is untimely and
will prejudice it and cause further undue delay.

II. Discussion

A party must next meet the standard for leave to amend. When the
time has passed for amendment as a matter of course, a party may
amend its pleading with the opposing party's written consent or
with the court's permission. "The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires." The Ninth Circuit has stated that "this
policy is to be applied with extreme liberality." "Five factors are
taken into account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to
amend: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party,
futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously
amended the complaint." However, of these considerations, "it is
the consideration of prejudice to the non-moving party that carries
the greatest weight."

A. Rule 16(b)

The Plaintiffs' Motion was filed after the scheduling order's Aug.
2, 2021 deadline for amendments and joining parties had passed.
Accordingly, they must first meet the good cause standard of Rule
16(b) focusing on the diligence of the party seeking to modify the
scheduling order.

The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend to add two new class members
because "neither Mr. Grimm nor Mr. Lanier are able to participate
in the litigation and fulfill their duties to the Class." Their
counsel provides the timing of their discussions with Lanier and
the Defendant. The Plaintiffs' counsel "tried and failed to reach
Lanier, who could not be contacted at any previously available
telephone numbers or email addresses." The Plaintiffs, however,
were unaware of this until after the first sets of discovery, which
required responses from Grimm and Lanier, were propounded on Oct.
15, 2021. This was after the scheduling order's Aug. 2, 2021
deadline to file motions for leave to amend the pleadings and join
other parties had already passed. Lanier informed the Plaintiffs'
counsel he was no longer able to participate as a class
representative on March 21, 2022.

On that same day, the Plaintiffs' counsel informed opposing counsel
of this in an email correspondence. Further, the Plaintiffs'
counsel notified the Defendant's counsel of the proposed motion for
leave to file the amended complaint and asked the Defendant's
counsel to stipulate to the amendment. The Defendant's counsel did
not agree to the stipulation, and thus the Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs waited nearly three months
from the time when their counsel concluded that a substitution
might be necessary in this action to seek leave to amend. While
this delay is relevant, the time between learning of Lanier's need
to withdraw and the filing of the Motion seems reasonable
considering the time required to identify, investigate, and
interview absent class members to find a suitable candidate. The
order of events indicates the Plaintiffs' counsel was diligent in
responding to events outside its control, and the Plaintiffs'
counsel was sufficiently diligent in securing potential replacement
class representatives and seeking leave to amend.

Judge Lopez finds the Plaintiffs' timing demonstrates diligence and
their stated reasons for seeking leave to amend demonstrate good
cause. Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiffs have been
diligent in seeking leave to amend and good cause exists under the
standard of Rule 16(b).

B. Rule 15(a)

1. Undue Delay and Prejudice

When "good cause" has been established under Rule 16(b), courts
will then examine whether amendment is proper under the standards
outlined in Rule 15(a). The Defendant argues that the Court should
deny leave to amend because the proposed amendment would prejudice
it and cause further undue delay. It does not argue that the
Plaintiffs are acting in bad faith or the amendment to substitute
new plaintiffs is futile.

Judge Lopez holds that although the case was filed more than a year
ago and initial discovery has begun, it is still in its early
stages. At this stage, the issue before the Court is limited to
whether the Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint
and does not extend to any class certification issues. Further,
Judge Lopez finds any further undue delay or prejudice to the
Defendant is minimal because the parties may address any need for
additional discovery time by seeking amendment of the Court's
scheduling order, with the Jan. 9, 2023 trial date remaining
unaffected.

Additionally, she is mindful that failing to allow substitution of
the two new parties at this point would merely require the filing
of a new case and would waste the resources of both of the parties
and the judiciary. The policies favoring judicial economy suggest
that these parties and matters should be litigated in a single
action, rather than in multiple actions. As such, granting leave to
amend would not "impose unwarranted burdens on the court."

2. Previous Amendments

As to the last factor, "the district court's discretion to deny
leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously
amended the complaint." In the case, the Plaintiffs have previously
amended their complaint twice. First, as a matter of right, and
second, after the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
certain claims with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' prior
amendments did not substitute or join other parties.

Given the procedural history of the action, Judge Lopez does not
find this factor weighs heavily against amendment. In sum, she
finds that leave to amend to file a TAC is appropriate here under
the Rule 16(b) good cause standard and under Rule 15(a).

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Lopez grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to
File a Third Amended Complaint and the Plaintiffs will file and
serve the proposed Third Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/2h5khpyefrom Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Dinh Files Suit in U.S. Court of Federal Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Johnathan H. Dinh, Dwight D.
Jereczek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00725-EGB (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl.,
June 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA) --
https://www.usa.gov/ -- commonly known as the United States (U.S.
or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger J. Marzulla, Esq.
          MARZULLA LAW, LLC
          1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1050
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 822-6760
          Fax: (202) 822-6774
          Email: roger@marzulla.com


UPSTART HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 22
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of
investors of Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (
UPST). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased
between November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022. Investors are hereby
notified that they have 60 days from this notice to move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

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

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

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/upstart-holdings-inc-news-class-action

There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Upstart's AI model could not adequately account
for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

VALLEY LAHVOSH BAKING: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley Lahvosh Baking
Company, Incorporated. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Valley Lahvosh Baking Company, Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-05537
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Valley Lahvosh Baking Company -- https://www.valleylahvosh.com/ --
is the premier manufacturer of quality crackerbreads and flatbreads
for wrap.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VENTURE DYNAMICS: Ceja Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NOE PONCE CEJA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VENTURE DYNAMICS
ENTERPRISES, INC., and DOES 1 to 100, Case No.
37-2022-00004908-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the  Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
June 23, 2022.

The California Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:22-cv-00918-L-AHG to the proceeding.

This case is a wage and hour employment class action brought by the
Plaintiff Noe Ponce Ceja arising from his employment with
Defendant. The Plaintiff, on behalf himself and the putative class,
alleges Defendant has instituted and implemented unlawful
wage-and-hour policies, which constitute unfair, unlawful, or
fraudulent business acts or practices within the State of
California.

Venture Dynamics was founded in 2001. The company's line of
business includes providing help supply and personnel supply
services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John L. Barber, Esq.
          Rita R. Kanno, Esq.
          Julie W. O'Dell, Esq.
          Brian K. Katoozi, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 545-9200
          Facsimile: (714) 850-1030
          E-Mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Rita.Kanno@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Julie.ODell@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Brian.Katoozi@lewisbrisbois.com

VETERANS AFFAIRS: Order Tossing Facial-Vagueness Challenge Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLOTTE A. BOWLING, KEVIN D. APPLING,
Claimants-Appellants v. DENIS McDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee, Case Nos. 2021-1945, 2021-1970 (Fed.
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirms
the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims declining
to consider the extra-record material and rejecting the Appellants'
facial-vagueness challenge.

I. Introduction

Appellants Charlotte Bowling (substituting as the claimant for her
deceased spouse, Charles Bowling) and Kevin Appling argued to the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) that it
should declare a longstanding regulation of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to be vague on its face, in violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Veterans Court
rejected the argument.

Mr. Bowling and Mr. Appling were discharged from military service
under conditions other than honorable, and they eventually sought
certain veteran's benefits. It is undisputed that, for each former
servicemember, the discharge would statutorily bar the benefits at
issue unless he came within an exception applicable where an
offense led to the discharge and the servicemember was "insane" at
the time of the offense.

A regulation, 38 C.F.R. Section 3.354(a), implements the statutory
insanity exception. The Board of Veterans' Appeals found the
regulatory definition of "insane" not to be met either in the case
of Mr. Bowling (for whom Mrs. Bowling had by then been substituted)
or in the case of Mr. Appling. On appeal to the Veterans Court, the
Appellants argued the unconstitutional vagueness of the
insanity-defining regulation on its face, though not as applied to
them; and in support, they asked that court to take judicial notice
of material outside the record, such as a publication by advocates
for veterans addressing VA actions across a range of cases over
many years. The Veterans Court declined to consider the material
because it had not been made part of the record before the Board
and the standard for judicial notice was not met, and the court
then rejected the facial constitutional challenge.

In the Federal Circuit, the Appellants challenge the Veterans
Court's refusal to consider the extra-record material, no longer
arguing that the standard for judicial notice is met but arguing
the futility of developing the record on the constitutional issue
before the Board. The Federal Circuit rejects this challenge,
finding no futility even if the Board could not have held the
regulation unconstitutional. It also holds that the Appellants'
facial-vagueness challenge fails on the merits.

II. Background

Congress has provided that discharge "under conditions other than
honorable" sometimes precludes receipt of veterans' benefits. But
it has also provided an exception if, "at the time of the
commission of an offense leading to a person's court-martial,
discharge, or resignation, that person was insane." The threshold
bar is not in dispute here, only the exception -- specifically, its
implementing regulation.

Congress did not define "insane" for purposes of Section 5303(b).
But since 1961, based on earlier regulations dating to the 1920s,
VA has defined the term in a regulation: (a) Definition of
insanity. An insane person is one who, while not mentally defective
or constitutionally psychopathic, except when a psychosis has been
engrafted upon such basic condition, [1] exhibits, due to disease,
a more or less prolonged deviation from his normal method of
behavior; or who [2] interferes with the peace of society; or who
[3] has so departed (become antisocial) from the accepted standards
of the community to which by birth and education he belongs as to
lack the adaptability to make further adjustment to the social
customs of the community in which he resides. The regulation adds
that a rating agency, considering an insanity claim, "will base its
decision on all the evidence procurable relating to the period
involved, and apply the definition" above.

The Appellants did not present to the Veterans Court, and so have
not presented to the Federal Circuit, an argument that the
regulation is inconsistent with the statute, although the
regulatory language does not copy the familiar formulations of the
insanity defense in criminal law. Nor do they challenge various
interpretations of this regulation. Notably, they do not dispute
the Veterans Court's longstanding holdings that the "due to
disease" clause (despite its placement in the text) applies equally
to clauses [1], [2], and [3] and that, although the "servicemember
need not show that insanity caused the misconduct that led to
discharge, he or she must show medical evidence confirming insanity
existed during the misconduct in question." The Appellants likewise
do not dispute that the Board, in applying the regulation, is
bound, under 38 U.S.C. Section 7104(c), by a wide-ranging
precedential opinion that the VA General Counsel issued in 1997 to
interpret the regulation.

Appellant Mr. Bowling pursues a claim as the surviving spouse of
Charles Bowling; Appellant Mr. Appling pursues his own claim. Both
Mr. Bowling and Mr. Appling were servicemembers who were discharged
from military service under conditions other than honorable. For
Mr. Bowling, who served in the Marine Corps during two periods from
1961 to 1970, the precipitating offense, after other misconduct,
was being absent without leave for months after a tour in Vietnam.
For Mr. Appling, who served in the Army from 1979 to 1981, the
relevant conduct included certain charged offenses and other
misconduct.

As relevant in the case, when Mr. Bowling and Mr. Appling sought
certain veteran's benefits, they invoked Section 3.354(a) to try to
surmount the barrier presented by the character of their
discharges. Mr. Bowling submitted opinions from two private
clinical psychologists opining that he had posttraumatic stress
disorder from his Vietnam service at the time he went absent
without leave. Mr. Appling described his misconduct as the result
of depression resulting from racial harassment during service and,
at least in part, from alcoholism that began during basic
training.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals ruled that neither Mr. Bowling nor
Mr. Appling came under the regulation, relying on the 1997 GC
Opinion, and so denied them benefits. The Board found that Mr.
Bowling had not established a psychiatric disability that caused
conduct covered by clauses [1] and [3], that alcohol abuse did not
suffice, and that there was no evidence of conduct coming under
clause [2]. The Board found that Mr. Appling did not establish a
psychiatric disorder and that alcoholism, invoked by Mr. Appling,
did not suffice.

The Appellants appealed to the Veterans Court, which, given the
arguments presented, consolidated the appeals. They made no
case-specific challenges to the application of the regulation to
their cases or to the statutory validity of the regulation or to
the constitutionality of the regulation as applied to their cases.
Rather, they argued that Section 3.354(a) was on its face vague, in
violation of the Due Process Clause, and they requested class
treatment.

The Appellants asked the Veterans Court to take judicial notice of
extra-record material that they characterize (in the Federal
Circuit) as "reports, historical material, and scholarly articles,"
to purportedly show the arbitrary and capricious application of the
regulation over time and, hence, the regulation's facial vagueness.
One submission featured by them was a publication prepared by the
Veterans Legal Clinic, Services Center of Harvard Law School, with
the cooperation of Swords to Plowshares and the National Veterans
Legal Services Program, Underserved: How the VA Wrongfully Excludes
Veterans with Bad Paper (2016). The Veterans Court explained that
the publication includes certain "statistics as to the percentage
of character of discharge findings that service was dishonorable
broken down by regional office and by Board member" over certain
periods.

The Veterans Court was unpersuaded. It recognized the strong rule
that its review is limited to the record made before the Board. And
the court denied the Appellants' request to take judicial notice of
the extra-record material, explaining that the Appellants "do not
rely on this evidence to establish facts not subject to reasonable
dispute," but rather "ask the Court to take judicial notice of the
evidence and then draw inferences from it to support their
arguments." The Veterans Court noted that the Appellants offered
the material to argue that the regulation had been applied
inconsistently within VA (at the Board and regional-office levels),
the inconsistencies were caused by the imprecision of the
regulation, and the regulation was therefore unconstitutionally
vague. The court explained that the standard for judicial notice
was not met by the Appellants' argument about "such a relationship"
between applications and imprecision being "suggested" or "strongly
indicated."

With the extra-record material excluded, the court rejected the
facial-vagueness challenge. It reasoned that the Appellants had
"not demonstrated that VA is incapable of applying Section 3.354(a)
or that the regulation fails to provide fair notice of the factors
by which insanity may be established, except by way of speculation
based on the extra-record opinion evidence that the Court may not
consider." It also invoked Supreme Court precedent suggesting a
need to show vagueness in all applications to support a facial
challenge, while recognizing a possible exception when there is
"'pervasive disagreement'" about a provision's meaning.

The Appellants timely appealed. They contend that the Veterans
Court erred in declining to consider the extra-record material and
in rejecting their facial-vagueness challenge. A premise of their
argument is that the material is important to the assessment of the
facial-vagueness challenge.

III. Discussion

A.

The Federal Circuit first considers the Veterans Court's refusal to
consider the extra-record material presented by the Appellants. The
Appellants argue that the Veterans Court was required to consider
the material at issue because it would have been futile, as a
matter of law, for them to have submitted such evidence to the
Board.

The Federal Circuit does not deem this contention forfeited, even
though the Appellants may have made the point to the Veterans Court
only at oral argument to that court: The issue is readily decided
without more development, and the argument is "essentially
consistent with" the formulations the Appellants presented in
briefing to the Veterans Court. But the Federal Circuit rejects the
contention, accepting for this purpose the assumption -- pressed by
the Appellants -- that the material at issue is important to
assessing the facial-vagueness challenge.

In arguing that it would have been futile for them to develop a
facial-vagueness record before the Board, the Appellants contend
that it would have been futile to present evidence of facial
unconstitutionality to the Board, as the Board lacks jurisdiction
to find regulations unconstitutional. They ask the Federal Court to
hold generally that "there is no requirement to present evidence to
the Board that pertains only to a constitutional issue, which the
Board will not address."

The Federal Circuit holds that, even if the Board could not grant
the Appellants their requested relief of declaring Section 3.354(a)
unconstitutionally vague, presenting such evidence to the Board
would not be futile. Even if the Board could not have declared the
regulation unconstitutional, the Board could have performed at
least record-development functions, as well as associated
fact-finding functions.

Because it would not have been futile for appellants to raise their
constitutional challenge before the Board, the Appellants have not
shown that futility justified their failure to present to the Board
the factual material they sought to add to the basis of
adjudication when they appealed to the Veterans Court. And they
have supplied no other ground for upsetting the Veterans Court's
refusal to consider the extra-record evidence. The Federal Circuit
therefore affirms that determination by the Veterans Court.

B.

The Veterans Court held that, with the rejected extra-record
material set aside, the Appellants had not established facial
vagueness of the challenged regulation.

The Federal Circuit agrees. In so concluding, it accepts arguendo,
without adopting as correct, certain assumptions underlying the
challenge. One is that the constitutional standards for avoiding
vagueness demand the same in the case, which involves an exception
to a bar to government benefits protected by the Due Process
Clause, as they do in a case involving criminal punishment. Another
is that the requirements central to vagueness doctrine -- provision
of "fair notice" to "ordinary people" and avoidance of "inviting
arbitrary enforcement" -- include a requirement of adequate clarity
about what evidence is relevant in adjudicating application of a
challenged law in a particular case.

The Federal Circuit notes, too, that it is undisputed that the case
does not call for application of heightened vagueness protections
associated with speech or other conduct subject to independent
substantive constitutional protection. On these premises, it sees
sat least two decisive deficiencies in the Appellants' case.

First, with no help from the extra-record statistics-focused
material, the Appellants have made no substantial case for the
insufficient clarity of the governing regulatory standards -- which
include the accepted and binding interpretations summarized.
Second, a longstanding principle of vagueness law independently
bars the Appellants' facial challenge -- namely, that a person to
whom a law is not vague as applied to that person's situation
cannot assert facial vagueness.

The Appellants' facial vagueness challenge thus fails because they
have not argued or shown vagueness as applied to them. This failure
of their facial vagueness challenge is independent of whether the
Appellants were entitled to have the Veterans Court consider the
extra-record material at issue.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Federal Circuit affirms the judgment
of the Veterans Court.

The parties will bear their own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8ktsx5 from Leagle.com.

JAMES DANIEL RIDGWAY -- info@vetlawyers.com -- Bergmann & Moore,
LLC, in Bethesda, Maryland, argued for the Claimants-Appellants.
Also represented by GLENN R. BERGMANN, THOMAS POLSENO.

MEEN GEU OH, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., argued for the
Respondent-Appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P.
BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. McCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, ANDREW J.
STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, in Washington, D.C.


VIEW INC: Faces Mehedi Shareholder Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
View Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 28, 2022, that in August 18, 2021, an Asif
Mehedi filed a putative securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
captioned "Mehedi v. View, Inc. (formerly CF Finance Acquisition
Corp. II et al.," Case No. 5:21CV06374, N.D. Cal., alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the company, its Chief
Executive Officer Rao Mulpuri and its Chief Financial Officer Vidul
Prakash.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and that Mulpuri and Prakash violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
putative class of persons who acquired the company's stock between
November 30, 2020 and August 16, 2021.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the company had not properly accrued warranty costs
related to its product; that there was a material weakness in the
company's internal control over financial reporting related to
warranty accrual, that the company's financial results for prior
periods were misstated as a result and that defendants' positive
statements about the company's business were materially misleading.


The complaint alleges that the foregoing statements caused the
price of the company's stock to be inflated and that class members
were damaged when the price of the company's stock declined on
August 16, 2021, when the company announced an independent
investigation concerning the adequacy of the company's previously
disclosed warranty accrual. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and costs, including attorneys' and expert
fees.

In February 8, 2022, the Court appointed Stadium Capital LLC lead
plaintiff and denied the competing motion of Sweta Sonthalia. In
March 14, 2022, Ms. Sonthalia filed a Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus, asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the
lead plaintiff order.

In April 11, 2022, the district court denied Ms. Sonthalia's motion
to stay proceedings in the district court pending disposition of
the writ petition. The writ petition is now fully briefed in the
Ninth Circuit and oral argument has been scheduled for August 11,
2022.

View Inc. is a smart buildings platform and technology company
based in California.


VIKING RIVER: Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran D. Hartley, Esq., -- kieran.hartley@aalrr.com -- Brian D.
Martin, Esq.,-- Brian.Martin@aalrr.com -- and Amber S. Healy, Esq.,
-- ahealy@aalrr.com --, of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd & Romo,
disclosed that on June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered
its opinion in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (Dkt. No. 20-1573),
which opened claims under California's Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") to individual arbitration. In light of
the Viking River Cruises ruling, employers should immediately
review their arbitration agreements.

By way of context, employers regularly implement arbitration
agreements to manage workplace litigation risk, relying on two key
features in the agreements: first, a mandate that all claims be
resolved through arbitration; and second, a class and
representative action waiver limiting the arbitration to the
employee's individual claims and not those of other employees.
Arbitration agreements have been effective in combating class
action lawsuits, which otherwise can expose employers to
multi-million dollar liability.

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") mandates enforcement of
arbitration agreements, including the class and representative
action waiver, notwithstanding state law resisting the agreements.
However, PAGA lawsuits posed a unique challenge for arbitration
agreements. PAGA is a law that permits any employee who sustained a
Labor Code violation to sue their employer for civil penalties --
not just on their own behalf, but on behalf of every other employee
who was aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the employer.
Previously, the California Supreme Court held in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, that PAGA claims
are fundamentally a Labor Code enforcement action that cannot be
separated into individual claims and, therefore, cannot be
compelled to arbitration. Since Iskanian, California courts
routinely refused to enforce agreements to arbitrate when the
claims asserted were brought under PAGA.

Through application of the FAA, the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled
PAGA's absolute immunity from arbitration. Employers should note
several principal holdings.

First, an arbitration agreement cannot prevent an employee from
bringing a PAGA claim altogether, whether in court or arbitration.
Second, the FAA allows arbitration agreements to require employees
to bring their individual PAGA claims in arbitration. Third, the
FAA prevents the employee's individual PAGA claim from being
forcibly bundled with non-individual PAGA claims arising from Labor
Code violations sustained by other employees. Finally, the Court
ruled that where individual PAGA claims are compelled to
arbitration, the non-individual PAGA claims that remain in court
should be dismissed because the employee no longer has standing to
pursue such claims in court. For a more detailed breakdown of
Viking River Cruises, please consult our previous Alert on the
Court's opinion.

The end result is that employers may now compel individual PAGA
claims to arbitration. However, employers should anticipate waves
of litigation as parties contest whether a particular arbitration
agreement qualifies under the new standard, as well as the
appropriate legal standard for PAGA's standing requirement.

Employers should work with experienced employment counsel to
promptly review their arbitration agreements to ensure the language
falls within the coverage of the Viking River decision. Arbitration
agreements should generally cover the following bases:

   -- Include the employee's individual PAGA claims within the
scope of covered claims subject to arbitration
   -- Include a representative action waiver sufficient to permit
individual PAGA claims but disallow representative PAGA claims in
arbitration, while being careful to avoid language from being
interpreted as a forbidden "wholesale waiver" of representative
PAGA claims
   -- Include a severability clause to ensure that all lawful
provisions authorized by Viking River Cruises are enforced and
survive legal challenges designed to misconstrue the meaning of the
representative waiver

Employers should understand that the centerpiece feature of Viking
River Cruises --dismissal of the costly non-individual PAGA claims
from court -- relies on PAGA's state law standing doctrine. In
addition to legal challenges by employees in the state courts to
avoid this aspect of Viking River Cruises, it is anticipated that
the California Legislature may seek to revise PAGA to alter this
standing requirement and provide a renewed pathway for continuing
representative PAGA lawsuits in the courts.

Employers with questions about arbitration agreements and in need
of assistance should contact the authors or their usual counsel at
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo for guidance. [GN]

VIRGIN CRUISES: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virgin Cruises
Intermediate Limited Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Virgin Cruises Intermediate Limited Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05569
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2022).

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

Virgin Voyages -- https://www.virginvoyages.com/ -- is a cruise
line headquartered in Plantation, Florida and a joint venture
between the Virgin Group and Bain Capital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZYNGA INC: Ferrando Wins Leave to File Oversize Brief Instanter
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONDA FERRANDO and DEX MARZANO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZYNGA INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-214-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Oversize Brief Instanter.

The Plaintiffs may file up to a 29-page Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 28, 2022 Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/2nsywr9tfrom Leagle.com.


[*] Quebec Charter of French Language May Prompt Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Harding, Esq., Alexandre Fallon, Esq., and Raphael-Elie
Kazandjian, Esq., of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for
Lexology, disclosed that on June 1, 2022, Bill 96 received assent
and An Act respecting French, the official and common language of
Quebec (the Act) officially became law. Reaffirming the
predominance of the French language in the Province of Quebec, the
Act has a substantial impact on the Charter of the French Language
and other legislations. Among other things, it further limits the
use of English and broadens requirements regarding the use of the
French language in various industries, workplaces, commerce and
business, including in commercial advertising and inscriptions on
products.

The Act also brings a notable amendment to the Quebec Charter of
human rights and freedoms, acknowledging, at a new section 3.1, the
"right to live in French to the extent provided for in the Charter
of the French language".

This amendment in particular puts businesses operating in Quebec at
greater risk of being the subject of a class action lawsuit in
respect of non-compliance with the standards set forth in the
Charter of the French Language, notably because of the possibility
of a standalone award of punitive damages.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are a form of autonomous sanction intended to
punish unlawful business practices and to deter others from
engaging in similar behaviour. Article 1621 of the Civil Code of
Quebec states that punitive damages can only be awarded if provided
for by law, which is the case notably under the Quebec Consumer
Protection Act (CPA) (s. 272) and the Quebec Charter of human
rights and freedoms (s. 49).

Without the need to prove prejudice, a claim for punitive damages
brings new risk in the context of class actions alleging a breach
of the Charter of the French Language, (i.e., of the "right to live
in French"), potentially giving rise to the application of section
49 of the Quebec Charter of human rights and freedoms where the
interference is unlawful and intentional. As seen in Association
quebecoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique v Volkswagen
Group Canada Inc.[1] or in Service aux marchands détaillants ltée
(Household Finance) v Option Consommateurs[2], standalone punitive
damages may be sought and awarded in the context of class
proceedings.

Class action risks

In certain circumstances, individuals who believe that their
fundamental language rights have been infringed may become inclined
to launch class action lawsuits pertaining to violations of the
Charter of the French Language.

Businesses operating in Quebec whose commercial operations, notably
regarding public signs and commercial advertising, are found to
unlawfully and intentionally interfere with individuals' right to
live in French to the extent provided for in the Charter of the
French language may be at greater risk of a class action lawsuit
seeking the award of punitive damages.

In this context, businesses in Quebec are well advised to review
their commercial practices, including signs and trademarks, to
ensure their compliance with the requirements of the Charter of
the French Language. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Fluid Succeeds on Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Segalla of goldbergsegalla.com reports that plaintiffs
Lisa and Edward Gavin filed a lawsuit to recover damages for the
injuries Lisa allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by defendants
during her employment with Courter and Company from 1978 to 1980.

Defendant Sterling Fluid Systems LLC (USA), moved for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint against it, arguing that the
plaintiff did not allege asbestos exposure from its pumps, and that
there was no evidence that the plaintiff encountered or was exposed
to asbestos from its pumps. The plaintiffs opposed the motion,
arguing that testimony of other tradesmen working contemporaneously
with the plaintiff at the facility identified the pumps
manufactured by Sterling.

In order to establish its entitlement to summary judgment, a
defendant must make a prima facie showing that its products could
not have contributed to the causation of the plaintiff's injury
(see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 216 AD2d 79, 628
NYS2d 72 [1st Dept 1995]; Reid v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d
462, 622 NYS2d 946 [1st Dept 1995]). If this burden is met, the
plaintiff must then allege facts and conditions from which the
defendant's liability may reasonably be inferred, that is, that the
plaintiff worked in the vicinity where the defendant's products
were used and that the plaintiff was exposed to the defendant's
products (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, supra;
Scheidel v. A.C. and S. Inc., 258 AD2d 751, 685 N.Y.S.2d 829 [3d
Dept 1999]; see also Healey v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 NY2d
596, 663 N.E.2d 901, 640 NYS2d 860 [1996]).

The court noted that the testimony of both plaintiffs and the
responses to the interrogatories did not identify Sterling as a
manufacturer of an asbestos-containing product to which the
plaintiff was exposed. Additionally, thecourt found that testimony
of the nonparty witness relied upon by the plaintiffs which
identified the manufacturer's pumps at the facility was not
admissible. (see McDonald v Mauss, 38 AD3d 727, 832 NYS2d 291 [2d
Dept 2007]; Santos v. Intown Assocs., 17 AD3d 564, 793 NYS2d 477
[2d Dept 2005]). Finally, the court found that it was insufficient
for the plaintiffs to show that equipment made by Sterling was
installed at the facility. Rather, it must be shown that the
plaintiff herself was exposed to asbestos from such equipment (see
Diel v. Flintkote Co., 204 AD2d 53,611 NYS2d 519 [1st Dept 1994];
Cawein v. Flintkote Co., 203 AD2d 105, 610 NYS2d 487 [1st Dept
1994]).

Accordingly, Sterling's summary judgment motion was granted.


                            *********

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 ***