/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220715.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 135

                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRY: Linares Seeks OT Wages for Non-exempt Employees
ACNE CORP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Foreman Seeks OT Wages for Consultants Under FLSA
ASIA PACIFIC GROCERS: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Lebrecht Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
BD NORTH AMERICAN: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELDT LABS INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BENESYS INC: Lawrence Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan
BENTON COUNTY, AK: Courts Face Class Action Over Legal Procedures

BREADMASTERS ARA-Z INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALGON CARBON: Teamster Appeals Dismissal of Duty Breach Claims
CARNIVAL PLC: 8 Class Suits Over Gross Negligence Settled
CORKCICLE LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

DATTO INC: Parkinson Suit Seeks OT Pay for Sales Representatives
DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suits
ENOCHIAN BIO: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
EYM PIZZA: Liston Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Wages
FACEBOOK INC: October 27 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set

H2 MARKETING: Orekoya Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
HAWAII: Refuses to Release System's Six Prison COVID-19 Reports
INOTIV INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 22 Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Liu Suit Under Appeal
NEW YORK: MTA Settles Two Accessibility Class Action Lawsuits

NOMURA INT'L: Faces Securities Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Law
ORACLE CORPORATION: To Settle Shareholder Suit in California Court
ORGANISME CANADIEN: Court of Appeal Tosses Privacy Class Action
PAPA TEXAS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Sufficient Wages, Holmes Alleges
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Settlement in PCRS Suit Gets Final OK

POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Alers Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 1st Cir.
SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims' Suit Ongoing in Toronto Court
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Final Nod

SPANX INC: Faces Raslavich Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
STEVE'S LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Suit to Be Reopened After Partial Appeal Win
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over "Amitiza" Deal

TILT HOLDINGS: Court OKs Settlement of Class Suit in Ontario
TITLE CHECK: Garcia Appeals Sanctions Ruling in RICO Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Appeal Over Unfavorable Judgment
WAHOO FITNESS: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Merger Deal

WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
WATERROWER INC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 29 Deadline
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Rousseau Sues Over Consumer Collection Practices
WISE UP MARKETING: Tracy Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.

WORK 'N GEAR INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Spano Files Suit in D. Arizona
[*] Fintech Company Faces FCRA Class Action in Arizona
[*] New Zealand Report Recommends New Class Actions Legislation

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Not Liable for Any Insulation Claims


                            *********

ABM INDUSTRY: Linares Seeks OT Wages for Non-exempt Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
EFREN LINARES, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the State of California and aggrieved
employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. ABM
INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC, FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC; and DOES
1 through 40, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-at-00499 (E.D. Cal., July 1,
2022) is a wage and hour class action to vindicate the rights
afforded employees by federal and California labor law.

This action is brought by the Plaintiff for himself and on behalf
of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for
systemic violations of federal and California labor law.

This action revolves around the systemic failure by Defendants to
pay California non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and the
Class, in conformance with federal and California law. The
Defendants employed the Plaintiff and the Class directly, jointly,
and/or are liable under California Labor Code section 558.1. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are "persons" who violated or
caused to be violated California Labor Code section 558, and 1197.1
and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, says the suit.

The core violations Plaintiff alleges against Defendants are: (1)
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): failure to pay
all overtime wages owed; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages owed
under California law; (3) knowing and intentional failure to comply
with itemized wage statement provisions; (4) failure to pay all
wages earned at termination or resignation; (5) violation of Unfair
Competition Law; and (6) violation of the Labor Code, for which
Plaintiffs seek penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General
Act, the suit alleges.

The Defendants have allegedly refused to pay the wages due and owed
to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees under the express
provisions of the FLSA and California Labor Code, which in turn has
resulted in additional Labor Code violations entitling Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees to prompt payment of wages
and penalties.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee. He performed work for the Defendants at various times
during the relevant time period and, among other things, was not
paid appropriately over the period of his employment, added the
suit.

ABM Industry Groups, LLC provides facility services. The Company
offers electical lighting, HVAC installation, landscape
maintenance, and janitorial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Daniel C. Keller, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ, Esq.
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
                  DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com

ACNE CORP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acne Corp. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Acne Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-03988 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 7, 2022).

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

Acne Corp. -- https://www.acnestudios.com/ -- designs and retails
apparels. The Company offers coats, shoes, jeans, dresses,
sweatshirts, suit jackets, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Behavioral
Research Institute, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Mejia,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Behavioral Research Institute, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05770
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022).

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

American Behavioral Research Institute doing business as Relaxium
Sleep -- http://www.relaxium.com/-- is an all-natural sleep aid,
developed by a clinical neurologist to help achieve best full
night's rest.[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


APPLE INC: Foreman Seeks OT Wages for Consultants Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY P. FOREMAN, individually, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v.  APPLE, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-03902 (N.D.
Cal., July 1, 2022) is a collective action seeking to recover
overtime wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by
Foreman, on behalf of all similarly situated former and current
employees of Apple, who worked as a Solutions Consultant within the
past three years.

According to the complaint, for at least the past three years,
Apple has failed to include all statutorily required forms of
compensation -- including commissions earned by Solutions
Consultants -- in determining the regular rate for purposes of
calculating overtime pay.

In addition, Apple has failed to pay Solutions Consultants for all
hours worked. Specifically, Apple has engaged in an unlawful
pattern or practice of denying earned overtime to its Solutions
Consultant by requiring them to begin their workday at home via
online videoconferences, to clock out after these videoconferences
were complete, and to then travel to their work site location,
i.e., next job assignment, without being paid for their time in
transit, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and the FLSA Collective, the Plaintiff seeks
actual and liquidated damages, including but not limited to damages
for willful violations of the FLSA, as well as fees and costs, for
Apple's violations of the FLSA.

Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          Jessica Moldovan, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
                  rgeman@lchb.com
                  jmoldovan@lchb.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Landry, Esq.
          ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
          5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 349-7460
          Facsimile: (225) 349-7466
          E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com

ASIA PACIFIC GROCERS: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asia Pacific Grocers,
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Asia Pacific Grocers, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00522-JLS (W.D.N.Y., July 6, 2022).

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

Asia Pacific Grocers LLC, doing business as Just Asian Food --
https://justasianfood.com/ -- brings a huge selection of Asian
noodles, snacks, and groceries to the customers' door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Lebrecht Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Yehoshua Lebrecht,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Associated Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-05777 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 7, 2022).

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

Associated Credit Services -- https://www.acsrecovery.com/ -- is
dedicated to providing superior accounts receivable solutions since
1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


BD NORTH AMERICAN: Joyner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BD North American
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Joyner, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BD North American
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05788 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022).

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

BD -- https://www.bd.com/en-us -- is one of the largest global
medical technology companies in the world and is advancing the
world of health.[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


BELDT LABS INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beldt Labs, Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Beldt Labs, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05796-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022).

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

BELDT Labs -- https://beldt.com/ -- is a leading developer,
manufacturer and distributor of premium quality performance
supplements that are specifically created for the unique needs of
high-intensity athletes, such as MMA fighters, Crossfit
participants, and similar fitness enthusiasts.[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


BENESYS INC: Lawrence Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benesys, Inc. The
case is styled as Heather Lawrence, Kathy Campau, Laura
Pettis-Clark, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Benesys, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-11517-GAD-EAS (E.D.
Mich., July 6, 2022).

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

BeneSys -- https://www.benesys.com/ -- has provided Taft-Hartley
Trust Fund Administration and I.T. services since 1979.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 11402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com


BENTON COUNTY, AK: Courts Face Class Action Over Legal Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Wood, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports
that a federal lawsuit taking Benton County courts to task for how
first appearance and bail hearings are conducted is about following
proper legal procedures, high bonds and jail overcrowding,
according to lawyers who filed the complaint.

The federal lawsuit argues not appointing a lawyer to represent
people who can't afford to hire one in the earliest stages of a
criminal case is a violation of their constitutional rights.

"It's a situation whose time has come, and I'm going to have to
push it along because nobody seems to be interested in fixing it on
their own," said Doug Norwood, one of the attorneys who filed the
lawsuit.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court in Fayetteville by
Norwood and Alison Lee on behalf of Abigail Farella and Logan
Murphy. The lawsuit seeks class-action certification.

Farella has been released on bond. She's charged with possession of
a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and
shoplifting. Murphy was still in jail Friday. He's charged with
fleeing, reckless driving, DUI and refusing a chemical test.

"Washington County, as far as I know, does have the public defender
stand up for people at their bond hearings," Norwood said. "Benton
County has never had that. So, this is about a way of trying to
address the fact that so many people are being put in jail on high
bonds, and they're filling up the jail."

Norwood said bonds were low enough people could hire a bondsman and
get out of jail. But the bonds are so high for a significant number
of them now, they can't afford a bail bondsman, he said. Norwood
said a lawyer with understanding of the legal system, has a better
chance when arguing for a lower bond than the accused alone.

"Bonds for a period of time in Washington and Benton County have
been going up, kind of bail bond inflation, and it's got to the
point now that it's backing up the jail so bad with these people
that something's going to have to give," Norwood said.

If you have money, you can hire a lawyer to go to your bail hearing
with you, but Norwood said that's very unusual.

"Most people don't take advantage of that, and I never have
understood why," Norwood said. "If I were to ever get arrested, the
first thing I would try to do is get a lawyer. But most people try
to get a bail bondsman first."

Norwood said he has been following federal litigation on the issue
four or five years.

"Basically the time is right to try and get it to where people have
a lawyer at the bond hearing," Norwood said. "I've been a lawyer
for 35 years. It's always been done this way in Benton County."

NOTHING PERSONAL

The case names Benton County District Court, Division 4, and
District Judge A.J. Anglin specifically, in his official capacity,
but says the practice is the same in all four district courts in
Benton County.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction and a judgment the
practice violates the defendants' Sixth and 14th Amendment rights
to have legal representation and due process.

The lawsuit argues Farella and Murphy were both arrested on felony
charges and given bail hearings before Anglin. Both were found to
be indigent, but didn't have attorneys appointed to represent them
at their bail hearings.

Indigent means a person doesn't have sufficient income to afford a
lawyer for defense in a criminal case. If the court finds a person
indigent, it must appoint a public defender or other attorney to
represent him.

"The rule is called Rule 8.2 in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It
says the judge at the initial contact with the defendant will try
to make the assessment of whether the person is indigent. If they
are indigent, you get them somebody at the hearing," Norwood said.
"That's the rules of criminal procedure, the judges have not been
following that, not in Benton County, none of them have been
following that."

Anglin does about 25% of all felony and misdemeanor bail hearings
in Benton County, according to the lawsuit.

"We don't have a problem with A.J. Anglin, he does it just like
everybody else. We're not trying to single him out as being a bad
judge, he's not. He's a good judge," Norwood said.

Anglin and the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts didn't
respond to requests for comment. Nathan Smith, Benton County
prosecuting attorney, declined comment, citing the ongoing
litigation.

The class, if certified, would include all indigent individuals who
have appeared or will appear before Anglin for a bail hearing and
who have been or will be denied the right to counsel at bail
hearings, according to the lawsuit.

"Indigents must have counsel at bail hearings that actively
participate in the proceedings and are adequately prepared,"
according to the lawsuit.

Alison Lee, a partner with Norwood, said she has asked informally
about how other jurisdictions handle the issue.

"I know a lot of places do it a lot like Washington County, but I'm
not sure about everywhere else," Lee said. "But, that's part of the
problem, it's different everywhere. It doesn't seem like anybody is
following the same rules."

DOING IT DIFFERENTLY

Prosecuting Attorney Matt Durrett said, at a typical first
appearance in Washington County, the person arrested is brought
before a judge prior to regularly scheduled morning arraignments.
Both deputy prosecutors and public defenders are on hand.

"We're already there for arraignments. If the judge determines they
are eligible and they request an attorney then the judge will
appoint them an attorney for purposes of their first appearance
hearing," Durrett said. "I think that's what is contemplated by the
rule so we do it."

Durrett said in some jurisdictions, the attorney appointed at first
appearance may represent the defendant from that point forward.

The judge explains the pending charges and what rights the person
has, and they're given an initial court date for formal arraignment
where a plea will be entered to formal charges filed by prosecutors
and further court dates are set, typically about 30 days later.

Their attorney can also make an argument for bond, if they want to,
Durrett said.

Durrett said judges don't typically take up probable cause
arguments at first appearances, but it can and has been done
before.

"Usually they just argue bond if they're going to," he said.

Gregg Parrish, executive director of the Arkansas Public Defender
Commission, said the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure were
amended in 2017 to clarify a lawyer has to be appointed to indigent
defendants during their earliest appearance before a judge.

"Some jurisdictions are still not following it," Parrish said.

The rule was changed because in some parts of the state, people
could spend 30 to 60 days or more in jail after their first
appearance before being appointed a lawyer, Parrish said.

"Somebody sitting in jail that long, not only can they lose
everything but, without a lawyer, they're still subject to be
interrogated, unless they invoke their rights, and anybody can go
in there and talk to them," Parrish said. "But, once I'm appointed
and they're my client, you don't get to go talk to them as a law
enforcement officer."

Parrish said getting a lawyer appointed earlier in the process
means you might get the case resolved earlier, which is better for
everyone.

"The sheriff would be very appreciative of not having someone in
jail for an extra 30 days," Parrish said. "And, the client would be
glad to get out an extra 30 days earlier as well."

Parrish said he will be watching the case closely.

"I think it raises some interesting questions both procedurally and
ethically with constitutional ramifications," Parrish said. "I'm
kind of surprised he didn't name the State of Arkansas in that
because if they're wanting public defenders at those hearings, we
don't have the manpower. We just don't." [GN]

BREADMASTERS ARA-Z INC: Fontanez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breadmasters ARA-Z.
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Fontanez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Breadmasters ARA-Z.
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05764-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022).

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

Breadmasters ARA-Z -- https://www.breadmasters.com/ -- is
manufacturing and selling bakery 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


CALGON CARBON: Teamster Appeals Dismissal of Duty Breach Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff TEAMSTER MEMBERS RETIREMENT PLAN filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TEAMSTER MEMBERS
RETIREMENT PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANDALL S. DEARTH, ROBERT M. FORTWANGLER, STEVAN R.
SCHOTT, JAMES A. COCCAGNO, CHAD WHALEN, J. RICH ALEXANDER, WILLIAM
J. LYONS, LOUIS S. MASSIMO, WILLIAM R. NEWLIN, JOHN J. PARO, JULIE
S. ROBERTS, TIMOTHY G. RUPERT, DONALD C. TEMPLIN, KURARAY CO.,
LTD., KURARAY HOLDINGS U.S.A., INC. AND MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
Case No. 2020-0807-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 9, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of former
Calgon Carbon Corp. stockholders, seeking a remedy for the
Individual Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties in connection
with an unfair proposed transaction, pursuant to which Calgon will
be acquired by Kuraray.

According to the complaint, Calgon's Officer and Director
Defendants have violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of Calgon as they acted to put their personal
interests ahead of the interests of the stockholders. The
Defendants acted to push through the acquisition, rather than
making any reasonable effort to maximize value for all stockholders
by either allowing the Company to remain independent and continue
executing its strategy, or by running a fair process to sell the
Company to the highest bidder at an appropriate time. And they
acted to mislead Calgon's stockholders into approving the
acquisition by concealing and misleading stockholders as to
material facts, including with respect to the Company's true value
and its true prospects as an independent company.

The Plaintiff alleges that Calgon Board's financial advisor, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, has participated in the breaches of fiduciary
duty as it conspired with the Defendants to manipulate the
projections so that they would support Morgan Stanley's own
fairness analyses. Morgan Stanley then worked with management to
prepare a proxy that materially misled stockholders with respect
to, among other things, the financial projections and Morgan
Stanley's valuation analyses, the Plaintiff adds.

The complaint asserts four counts: Counts I and II assert breaches
of fiduciary duty against the Officer Defendants and the Director
Defendants, respectively. The Plaintiff contends Calgon's
management was motivated not by stockholder value, but by seeking
to keep their jobs, and constrained the sale process and depressed
calculations of the Company's value in order to draw an offer from
their preferred bidder that appeared fair and would keep them in
their roles after the Acquisition. Count III alleges Morgan Stanley
aided and abetted those breaches, and Count IV alleges Kuraray
aided and abetted those same breaches.  

The Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed Kuraray and Morgan
Stanley. Accordingly, Counts III and IV have been dismissed.

The Individual Defendants moved to dismiss the remaining counts in
the Complaint on May 3, 2021.

On May 31, 2022, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an Order signed by Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the breach of
fiduciary duty claims in Counts I and II.

The Plaintiff currently seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as TEAMSTER MEMBERS RETIREMENT
PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. RANDALL S. DEARTH, ROBERT M. FORTWANGLER,
STEVAN R. SCHOTT, JAMES A. COCCAGNO, CHAD WHALEN, J. RICH
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM J. LYONS, LOUIS S. MASSIMO, WILLIAM R. NEWLIN,
JOHN J. PARO, JULIE S. ROBERTS, TIMOTHY G. RUPERT, and DONALD C.
TEMPLIN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 224,2022, in the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware, filed on June 30, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TEAMSTER MEMBERS RETIREMENT PLAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
          COOCH & TAYLOR, P.A.
          1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
          P.O. Box 1680
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
          Telephone: (302) 984-3810

               - and -

          Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

Defendants-Appellees RANDALL S. DEARTH, ROBERT M. FORTWANGLER,
STEVAN R. SCHOTT, JAMES A. COCCAGNO, CHAD WHALEN, J. RICH
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM J. LYONS, LOUIS S. MASSIMO, WILLIAM R. NEWLIN,
JOHN J. PARO, JULIE S. ROBERTS, TIMOTHY G. RUPERT, and DONALD C.
TEMPLIN are represented by:

          Stephen C. Norman, Esq.
          Tyler J. Leavengood, Esq.
          Christopher D. Renaud, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
          1313 N. Market Street
          Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801

CARNIVAL PLC: 8 Class Suits Over Gross Negligence Settled
---------------------------------------------------------
Carnival PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2022, that as of May 31, 2022, 10 purported
class actions have been brought by former guests from Ruby
Princess, Diamond Princess, Grand Princess, Coral Princess and
Zaandam in several U.S. federal courts and in the Federal court of
Australia. As of May 31, 2022, eight of these class actions have
either been settled individually for immaterial amounts or had
their class allegations dismissed by the courts and two remain.

These actions include tort claims based on a variety of theories,
including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn,
physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with
being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard.

Carnival PLC is into cruise ships and is based in Florida.


CORKCICLE LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corkcicle, LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Corkcicle, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05792
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2022).

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

Corkcicle -- https://corkcicle.com/ -- make cool things, like
insulated tumblers, coffee mugs, coolers, barware, canteens &
more.[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



CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dennis Ross, Jamal Moore, Robert Smith, Regina
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 220600444 was removed
from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 6, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02632-KSM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Credit Acceptance Corporation -- https://www.creditacceptance.com/
-- is an auto finance company providing automobile loans and other
related financial products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
          6550 Lakeshore Street
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Phone: (412) 716-5800
          Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
          Michael W. Mctigue, Jr., Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 735-3534
          Fax: (917) 777-3534
          Email: meredith.slawe@skadden.com
                 michael.mctigue@skadden.com


DATTO INC: Parkinson Suit Seeks OT Pay for Sales Representatives
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOURDAN PARKINSON, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. DATTO, INC., Case No. 518902/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings
Cty., July 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers
who have worked for Defendant as inside salespeople, in the job
titles of Account Executives, Account Managers, Channel Sales
Executives, Enterprise Sales Executives, Territory Sales
Executives, and other similar roles (Sales Representatives).

While employed by Datto, the Plaintiff and other Sales
Representatives consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
without receiving overtime compensation for all the hours they
worked. Throughout the relevant period, it was Datto's policy to
deprive Plaintiff of his earned overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, says the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant requires Sales
Representatives to spend their workday making sales calls to new
and existing clients, prospecting for new clients, and performing
other sales tasks. Datto requires its Sales Representatives,
including Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, to work long
hours, often in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in order to make
sales.

During the relevant period, it has been Datto's policy to uniformly
classify Sales Representatives, including Plaintiff, as exempt from
federal overtime provisions and not to pay Sales Representatives
any overtime wages, added the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by Datto in its Norwalk, Connecticut
office as a Channel Sales Executive from January 18, 2018 through
approximately April 2018.

Datto is a software company with offices located in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Illinois, Texas, New York, California, and Oregon.
Datto sells cybersecurity, IT networking, and data backup products
to business clients. Datto employs Sales Representatives, such as
Plaintiff, to make sales to current and prospective customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chauniqua D. Young, Esq.
          Rebecca Pattiz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com
                  rpattiz@outtengolden.com

DR. REDDY'S LAB: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2022, that three class action
complaints were filed against the company alleging violations of
the Sherman Act, and violations of thirty-one States' antitrust
statutes and consumer protection statutes.

In June 2018, three class action complaints were filed alleging
conspiracies in restraint of trade in violation of Sections 1 of
the Sherman Act, and violations of thirty-one State antitrust
statutes and consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of
unjust enrichment seeking injunctive relief, recovery of treble
damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all
named defendants on a joint and several basis.

They allege an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants
involving fifteen drugs and, with slight variations, name
approximately twenty-five generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
including the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc.

The drug-specific allegations against the Company's U.S. subsidiary
involve two of the fifteen drugs, meprobamate and zoledronic acid.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's U.S. subsidiary were part
of a larger "overarching conspiracy" as to all of the drugs named
in the complaints.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman and
violations of thirty-one States' antitrust statutes and consumer
protection statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named
defendants on a joint and several basis.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories is a pharmaceutical company based in
India.


ENOCHIAN BIO: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP
(www.JohnsonFistel.com) is investigating whether Enochian
Biosciences, Inc. ("Enochian" or the "Company"), any of its
executive officers, or others violated securities laws by
misrepresenting or failing to timely disclose material, adverse
information to investors. The investigation focus on investors'
losses and whether they may be recovered under the federal
securities laws.

What if I purchased Enochian common stock? If you purchased
Enochian common stock and suffered significant losses on your
investment, join our investigation now:

Click or paste the following web address into your browser to
submit your losses:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/enochian-biosciences-inc-murder-sec-class-action

Or for more information, contact Jim Baker at
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or (619) 814-4471

There is no cost or obligation to you.

What is Johnson Fistel investigating? On May 25, 2022, the United
State Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont, announced that
the co-founder of Enochian Biosciences Inc was arrested on June 29
following a two-year investigation into a man who was kidnapped and
found dead in January 2018. Dr. Serhat Gumrukcu, a co-founder of
Enochian Biosciences, is being charged with conspiring to use
interstate commerce facilities in the commission of
murder-for-hire, which resulted in the death of Gregory Davis, a
resident of Vermont.

Dr. Gumrukcu sold 253,493 shares of Enochian Biosciences stock on
May 18, 2022, for a total value of over $2 million.

Then, on June 1, 2022, market analyst Hindenburg Research published
a report regarding Enochian titled "Miracle Cures and Murder For
Hire: How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million
Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies[.]" The report noted
that the individual in whose murder Gumrukçu was implicated,
Gregory Davis, "was murdered … just 19 days before Gumrukcu was
scheduled to appear in court to defend himself against felony fraud
allegations related to a 2016 deal with Davis" and that "[f]ederal
prosecutors argued that the prospective merger deal that eventually
resulted in Enochian going public served as a key motive for the
murder." The report also stated that "[u]nbeknownst to investors
(but known to Enochian's senior leadership) Gumrukcu's latest
arrest for a murder conspiracy is simply the most recent in a
string of alleged crimes by Gumrukcu," who "was arrested based on
accusations of falsely posing as a doctor" in his native Turkey in
2012 and "[i]n February 2017, Gumrukcu was arrested by authorities
after the State of California accused him of a slew of white-collar
crimes, including fraud, identity theft, and check kiting - a total
of 14 felonies." The report further states that "[w]e have been
unable to find any jurisdiction in which Gumrukcu is licensed as a
medical doctor" and that "Gumrukcu looks to have purchased a fake
Russian medical degree on the black market[.]"

What if I have relevant nonpublic information? Individuals with
nonpublic information regarding the company should consider whether
to assist our investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the SEC program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may, under certain circumstances,
receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, contact Jim Baker
at (619) 814-4471 or jimb@johnsonfistel.com.

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 securities class action and derivative
lawsuits. 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, Lead Securities Analyst
Telephone: (619) 814-4471
Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

EYM PIZZA: Liston Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses, Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY LISTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. EYM PIZZA OF GEORGIA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00060-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., July 1, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a
reasonable attorneys' fee, as a result of Defendant's policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff sufficient wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act within the applicable statutory
limitations period.

On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff initiated a Demand for Arbitration
containing substantially the same allegations as alleged in this
Complaint without the collective action allegations. The
arbitration was initiated pursuant to Defendant's arbitration
agreement which Plaintiff was required to sign as a condition of
her employment. The Defendant failed to pay the filing fee for the
arbitration and it was dismissed. The Plaintiff's statute of
limitations should therefore be tolled from the date of filing the
arbitration.

According to the complaint, the Defendant also classified other
Delivery Drivers as nonexempt from the overtime provisions of the
FLSA. The Plaintiff worked at more than one Pizza Hut restaurant
owned by the Defendant, and Defendant's employment policies,
practices and procedures were substantially the same at each
location where Plaintiff worked. The Defendant applies or causes to
be applied substantially the same employment policies, practices
and procedures to all Delivery Drivers at all of their locations,
including policies, practices, and procedures relating to payment
of minimum wages and reimbursement of automobile expenses, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and the other Delivery Drivers at Defendant's
restaurants work "dual jobs." Specifically, they deliver food to
Defendant's customers and receive tips, and they also work inside
the store completing nontipped duties.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers a rate at
or close to minimum wage per hour for work performed while in the
store. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers
less than minimum wage per hour for all hours worked outside of the
restaurant making deliveries, the suit further asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Charles E. Cox, Jr., Esq.
           CHARLES E. COX, JR., LLC
           484 1st Street, Suite 1, P.O. Box 67
           Macon, GA 31202
           Telephone: (478) 714-2688
           E-mail: charles@cecoxjr.com

                 - and -

           Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
           Josh Sanford, Esq.
           SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
           Kirkpatrick Plaza
           10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
           Little Rock, AR 72211
           Telephone: (501) 221-0088
           Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
           E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
                    josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

FACEBOOK INC: October 27 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that if you used Facebook in
2010 or 2011, you may qualify for a class action settlement against
the social media giant.

A lawsuit dating back to 2011 accused the company of tracking users
across other websites, even after they logged off the platform. Now
a US district court in California has given preliminary approval
for a $90 million settlement.

The plaintiffs claimed Facebook executives were aware the company
violated privacy, communications and wiretap laws by tracking
logged-out users, in breach of its own contract.

The case was initially dismissed in 2017 but then reinstated in
2020 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined
Facebook's profiting from the sale of users' data was a violation
of privacy that caused economic harm. When the US Supreme Court
declined to review the case, settlement negotiations began.

As a result, US Facebook users who visited other sites displaying
the Facebook "Like" button between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 25,
2011, may be eligible for a portion of the settlement if it
receives final approval this fall.

This is the seventh-largest data privacy class action settlement
ever to receive preliminary court approval, according to a release
from law firm DiCello Levitt Gutzler.

Read on to find out what the class action lawsuit is all about,
whether you're eligible for a payout and how much recipients could
receive.

What does the suit accuse Facebook of?
The plaintiffs allege that Facebook tracked people's activities on
outside websites, even when they were signed out of their Facebook
accounts, by installing cookies on users' computers.

In a 2011 suit filed in US District Court in San Jose, California,
they claimed such monitoring violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the
Stored Electronic Communications Act and the Federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, among other statutes.

That year, Facebook disclosed that it personalized content by
placing cookies onto users' computers that remained active even
when they were logged out. Facebook told CNET at the time that it
quickly removed uniquely identifying data from post-logout cookies
and that it didn't store or use data from cookies for tracking.

But according to the 2011 lawsuit, "This admission came only after
an Australian technology blogger exposed Facebook's practice of
monitoring members who have logged out, although he brought the
problems to the defendant's attention a year ago."

What's the settlement Facebook has agreed to?
Facebook parent Meta Platforms has agreed to a $90 million
settlement, though it "expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing
whatsoever," according to court filings.

Meta didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Who's eligible to receive part of the Facebook settlement?
US Facebook users who, between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 25, 2011,
visited websites that displayed the Facebook "Like" button are
eligible to be recipients, or "class members."

The 2011 suit alleges Facebook's use of cookies violated the
Federal Wiretap Act and other laws.

The claims administrator, Angeion, has already begun to email class
members and will continue to do so through July 15, 2022. If you
received a personalized notice in the mail or via email, go to the
claims site and enter the Notice ID and Confirmation Code you were
provided with.

If you believe you're eligible but haven't been contacted, you can
also file a claim on your own through Sept. 22. Individuals who
want to reserve the right to file their own lawsuit have until
Sept. 12 to opt out of the settlement.

If you do nothing, you won't get a payment and you'll give up the
right to sue or be part of another lawsuit relating to the case.

How much money could you receive?
The court has scheduled a final approval hearing on Oct. 27, 2022,
in San Jose, California, where it will consider whether the $90
million settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

It isn't yet clear how many class members there will be or how much
each individual will receive.

In 2021, Facebook agreed to a $650 million class action settlement
to a suit that alleged it broke Illinois' biometric laws by
collecting and storing users' physical characteristics without
their consent. Nearly 1.6 million Facebook users in the state each
received $397 payouts.

When will Facebook settlement checks go out?
The court will make a final decision about the settlement on Oct.
27, but there may be appeals.

"It is always uncertain whether appeals will be filed and, if so,
how long it will take to resolve them," according to the settlement
site. "Settlement payments will be distributed as soon as
possible." [GN]

H2 MARKETING: Orekoya Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
MORAYO OREKOYA, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. H2 MARKETING CONSULTANTS LLC, HEATHER HELLMANN, Case
No. 1:22-at-00500 (E.D. Cal., July 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorney’s fees, costs
of litigation, and other remedies available pursuant the U.S. Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, who operated a business under
various trade names including "Well Minded Media" and variations on
"H2 Marketing" Plaintiff’s work consisted of updating online
marketing content for Defendant's customers.

By agreement, the Plaintiff was to be paid by the hour. The
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff's wages, even after multiple
written demands. The Plaintiff has never been paid by Defendants,
despite working for over 140 hours between May 3, 2022 and June 2,
2022. Online reviews by past employees reflect that the Defendants
have a pattern and practice of refusing to pay employees, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com

HAWAII: Refuses to Release System's Six Prison COVID-19 Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dayton, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that the
state is refusing to release six reports on the correctional
system's efforts to cope with the pandemic inside Hawaii prisons
and jails, and the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest
has filed a lawsuit in Honolulu Circuit Court to try to force the
state to make those records public.

The prison reports were generated by a five-member expert panel
that was appointed as part of a settlement of a class-action
federal lawsuit. The settlement between the state and the lawyers
who filed the case dictates the reports produced by that panel be
kept secret.

But Brian Black, executive director of the law center, said those
reports must be open to the public under the state open records law
despite the terms of the settlement. State law has some exceptions
that allow some government records to be kept secret, but none of
those exceptions apply to the panel's reports, he said.

"The government can't enter into an agreement with a third party
and say 'We're going to keep these documents confidential,' unless
they can keep them confidential under some other exception to the
public records law," Black said. [GN]

INOTIV INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 3
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Inotiv, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NOTV) securities between September 21, 2021 and June 13, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have until August 22, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., No.
22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.). The Inotiv class action lawsuit charges
Inotiv as well as certain of its top executive officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-inotiv-inc-class-action-lawsuit-notv.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: 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. On November 5, 2021, Inotiv completed its
acquisition of Envigo RMS, LLC ("Envigo") which is now a direct,
wholly owned subsidiary of Inotiv.

The Inotiv class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Envigo and Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia
facility engaged in widespread and flagrant violations of the
Animal Welfare Act of 1966 ("AWA"); (ii) Envigo and Inotiv's
Cumberland facility continuously violated the AWA; (iii) Envigo and
Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to animal
welfare at the Cumberland facility; (iv) as a result, Inotiv was
likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (v)
Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the
Cumberland facility; (vi) Inotiv did not engage in proper due
diligence; and (vii) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 20, 2022, Inotiv announced the search and seizure at its
Cumberland facility and the filing of a United States Department of
Justice complaint "alleging violations of the Animal Welfare Act at
the Cumberland, Virginia facility." The following day, on May 21,
2022, Judge Moon of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia issued a temporary restraining order
which stated the following pertinent details regarding the
Cumberland facility: "Over 300 beagle puppies have died onsite due
to 'unknown causes' over seven months;" "[n]ursing female beagles
were denied food, and so they (and their litters) were unable to
get adequate nutrition;" "[o]ver an eight-week period, 25 beagle
puppies died from cold exposure;" "[p]erhaps the most heinous
discovery of the November 2021 inspection was that Envigo had
allowed staff to euthanize dogs without anesthesia, in violation of
the facility's own program of care;" and "[t]he Government contends
that Envigo has consistently failed, despite repeated warnings and
opportunities for correction, to meet its obligations under AWA's
implementing regulations to provide adequate veterinary care . . .
[b]ased on the overwhelming evidence produced by the Government,
the Court agrees." On this news, Inotiv's share price fell by
approximately 28%.

Then, on June 13, 2022, Inotiv announced the closing of two Envigo
facilities -- the purpose-bred canine facility in Cumberland and a
rodent breeding facility in Dublin -- mere months after the
acquisition. On this news, Inotiv's share price fell an additional
2%, further damaging investors.

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

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

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contacts:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Liu Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report
dated June 16, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 21, 2022, that plaintiffs of the class action
lawsuit captioned "Liu et al. v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al.," case number 20-3488, have appealed their request for
reconsideration and for leave to amend the complaint.

On June 16, 2022, in the purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered a summary order affirming the order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dated
September 9, 2020.

In March 2020, the district court dismissed the amended class
action complaint of the plaintiffs Liu et al., and on September 9,
2020, the district court denied the plaintiffs' requests for
reconsideration and for leave to amend their Complaint. The
plaintiffs subsequently appealed the latter order, which has now
been affirmed.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
based in New Jersey.


NEW YORK: MTA Settles Two Accessibility Class Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gannon, writing for Queens Chronicle, reports that the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority settled two class-action
lawsuits with an agreement that schedules handicapped-accessible
upgrades over the next 32 years.

The agreements include 81 stations listed in the MTA's existing
five-year capital plan that runs through 2024, and six subsequent
plans. The stated aim is to have 95 percent of all stations
accessible by 2055.

As of now, the MTA has 472 subway stations. Of those, 126 are fully
accessible to customers with disabilities, the elderly and people
with things like baby strollers, via elevators and ramps.

While the federal Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in
1990, the city's subway system first opened in 1904, and many of
the existing stations are more than a century old.

"No New Yorker should have to worry about whether or not they can
safely access public transportation," Gov. Hochul said in a
statement issued by her office. "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."

The MTA has completed accessibility projects at 15 subway stations
across four boroughs since 2020, all while the Authority was
dealing with a financial crisis brought on by the Covid-19
pandemic.

The agency has awarded contracts for upgrades at another 22
stations and has an additional 13 station projects in the
procurement process.

Queens stations listed in the existing five-year-plan include:

• the M-R station at Woodhaven Boulevard;
• Queensborough Plaza;
• the G line at Court Square;
• Beach 678th Street in the Rockaways;
• the A line at Rockaway Boulevard;
• the J/Z line at Woodhaven Boulevard;
• the M-R stations at both Steinway Street and Northern
Boulevard;
• the N-W station at Broadway in Astoria;
• the J/Z and M station at Metropolitan Avenue;
• the F station at Parsons Boulevard;
• the E-F station in Briarwood;
• the No. 7 stations at 46th Street-Bliss Street and 33rd
Street-Rawson Street; and
• the E-M station at Court Square-23rd Street.

"Even during the dire financial crisis brought on by the pandemic,
the MTA prioritized accessibility, leading to the completion of 15
accessibility projects," said MTA Chairman and CEO Janno Lieber.
"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," Lieber added.

He did say all is contingent, of course, on securing the necessary
state and federal funding.

Jean Ryan of Disabled In Action New York praised the agreement in
Hochul's press release.

"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," Ryan said. "All
our members need elevators in the subways, and we need elevators in
all stations. Elevators are for everyone."

Along with station projects already somewhere in the pipeline, the
new agreement calls for the addition of 85 more accessible stations
by 2035; another 90 by 2045, and a further 90 by 2055. [GN]

NOMURA INT'L: Faces Securities Suit Over Violation of Antitrust Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomura Horudingusu Kabushiki Kaisha disclosed in its Form 10-F
Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2022, that Nomura
International PLC (NIP) and Nomura Securities International, Inc.
(NSI) are defendants in a class action filed in the United States
District court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of U.S. antitrust law in relation to the alleged
manipulation of the primary and secondary markets for European
Government Bonds.

Nomura Horudingusu Kabushiki Kaisha is a financial services group
based in Japan.


ORACLE CORPORATION: To Settle Shareholder Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 21, 2022, that it plans to settle a putative
class action, brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, filed in
August 10, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company, its Chief Technology
Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle
executives, and one former Oracle executive.

On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and
misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff
further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider
trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. On April 19, 2019,
defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.

On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion, giving
plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which
plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020. On April 23, 2020, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing on this
motion on September 24, 2020. On March 22, 2021, the court granted
in part and denied in part this motion. The court dismissed the
action as to one Oracle executive and the former Oracle executive.

The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with only a narrow
omissions theory against the remaining defendants. On April 21,
2021, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On October 8,
2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the
court granted on May 9, 2022. On May 23, 2022, defendants filed a
petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to
appeal the court's order granting class certification, and
plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 2, 2022.

On June 3, 2022, the court "So Ordered" a stipulation by the
parties, which vacated all dates in this case because the parties
had reached an agreement to settle this action, subject to the
court's approval. On June 8, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted defendants' unopposed motion to stay the petition
for permission to appeal in light of the proposed settlement.

Oracle Inc. provides products and services that address enterprise
information technology (IT) environments based in Texas.


ORGANISME CANADIEN: Court of Appeal Tosses Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephane Pitre, Esq., Anne Merminod, Esq., and Alexis Leray, Esq.,
of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that
BLG's Class Action team has recently proved successful in defending
clients in four different class actions dismissed by the Quebec
Court of Appeal.

It should be remembered that the authorization of a class action by
the Superior Court does not guarantee success on the merits. While
the initial authorization is an important step for the plaintiff,
it by no means indicates that the class action will be successful.
At the merits stage, the defendant has free rein to use all the
legal arsenal at their disposal and raise their grounds of defence.
Moreover, the Court of Appeal will not hesitate to dismiss a class
action at a preliminary stage if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate
an arguable case at authorization.

What follows are some examples of class actions dismissed by the
Quebec Court of Appeal in recent months.

These are groundbreaking decisions that help develop the law on
important issues, including consumer law, privacy and business
disruption due to COVID-19.

In all of these cases, the defendants were represented by lawyers
from BLG's Class Action team.

Lamoureux v. Organisme canadien de reglementation du commerce des
valeurs mobilières (OCRCVM)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the first privacy class action on the
merits. In its decision, it sets a key precedent for privacy class
actions in Quebec and Canada. The case also provides a blueprint to
organizations faced with data breaches as the Court of Appeal
closely examined the procedures and steps that the Defendant
followed after the loss of the laptop. This decision provides
increased clarity on how the civil liability framework applies in
matters involving a loss of personal information. It also serves as
an example of appropriate corporate response following a loss of
personal information.

Key takeaway
This judgment underlines the importance of establishing a rapid and
diligent response as soon as the event occurs, in compliance with
applicable standards. Canadian businesses and organizations that
handle personal information could take inspiration from the
measures taken by the defendant to rebut claim for punitive damages
(e.g. taking the time to identify what information was breached,
purchasing credit protection for affected individuals, engaging
external experts, following incident response guidelines).

Consult the decision (2022 QCCA 685)
Consult BLG's case comment (May 2022)
Fortin v. Mazda Canada inc.
The Court of Appeal of Quebec rendered an important class action
decision in consumer law. In Fortin vs. Mazda Canada Inc., the
Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed at the merits a class action
which had been authorized against Mazda in relation to certain
models of Mazda 3.

Key takeaway
In this matter, the Court confirmed that the presumption of
prejudice does not exempt the consumer from proving damages, that
is, the existence of a real financial impact, when making a claim
under the Consumer Protection Act. The decision clarifies the
conditions for applying such article 272 of the CPA, the
presumption of prejudice in consumer law, and the burden to be met
for price reduction claims under this regime.

Consult the decision (2022 QCCA 635)
Consult BLG's case comment (May 2022)
Chandler v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
In Chandler, the Court of Appeal confirmed the dismissal of the
class action instituted by the shareholders of Volkswagen relating
to the emissions scandal.

Key takeaway
The Court concluded that Article 236.1 of the Quebec Securities Act
does not find application since the securities in question were
traded outside of Quebec and, moreover, that the Quebec courts do
not have jurisdiction to hear this matter in the absence of a
substantial and real link for the whole group. This judgment will
have major repercussions on the applicability of the Quebec
Securities Act for foreign issuers and it brings welcome
clarifications to the international jurisdiction of Quebec
authorities in class action matters.

Consult the decision (2022 QCCA 272)
Consult BLG's case comment (June 2022)
Centre de sante dentaire Gendron Delisle inc. v. La Personnelle,
assurances generales inc.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the dismissal of the demand to
authorize a class action on the basis of a business interruption
claim as a result of COVID-19.

Key takeaway
The decision of the Court of Appeal is significant as it confirms
that the governmental orders forcing the temporary closing of
business do not trigger the standard business interruption
insurance policies in Quebec. This is the first appeal ruling on
COVID-19 and business interruption losses in Canada. [GN]

PAPA TEXAS: Fails to Pay Drivers' Sufficient Wages, Holmes Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE HOLMES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PAPA TEXAS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01436-C (N.D. Tex.,
July 1, 2022) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay the
Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA within the applicable
statutory limitations period in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant owns and operates Papa John's franchises in Georgia,
which is where Plaintiff worked for the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid Delivery Driver from April of 2021 until April of 2022.
The Plaintiff and the other Delivery Drivers at Defendant's
restaurants work "dual jobs." Specifically, they deliver food to
Defendant's customers and receive tips, and they also work inside
the store completing nontipped duties, says the suit.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers a rate at
or close to minimum wage per hour for work performed while in the
store. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers less
than minimum wage per hour for all hours worked outside of the
restaurant making deliveries. In other words, Defendant takes
advantage of the "tip credit" provision of the FLSA pursuant to
U.S.C. section 203(m) while Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers
are out making deliveries, the suit alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

PATTERSON COMPANIES: Settlement in PCRS Suit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Companies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that the Court granted final
approval of the class settlement in the Plymouth County Retirement
System suit in June 2022.

On March 28, 2018, Plymouth County Retirement System filed a
federal securities class action complaint against Patterson
Companies, Inc. and its former CEO Scott P. Anderson and former CFO
Ann B. Gugino in the U.S. District court for the District of
Minnesota in a case captioned "Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Scott P. Anderson and Ann B. Gugino,"
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871 MJD/SER.

On November 9, 2018, the complaint was amended to add former CEO
James W. Wiltz and former CFO R. Stephen Armstrong as individual
defendants. Under the amended complaint, on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Patterson's common
stock between June 26, 2013 and February 28, 2018, Plymouth alleges
that Patterson violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose that Patterson's revenue and earnings were "artificially
inflated by Defendants' illicit, anti-competitive scheme with its
purported competitors, Benco and Schein, to prevent the formation
of buying groups that would allow its customers who were
office-based practitioners to take advantage of pricing
arrangements identical or comparable to those enjoyed by
large-group customers."

In its class action complaint, Plymouth asserts one count against
Patterson for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and a second,
related count against the individual defendants for violating
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plymouth seeks compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' witness fees
and costs. On August 30, 2018, Gwinnett County Public Employees
Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System, Pembroke
Pines Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central
Laborers Pension Fund were appointed lead plaintiffs.

On January 18, 2019, Patterson and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 25, 2019, the
U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The report
and recommendation, among other things, recommends the dismissal of
all claims against individual defendants Ann B. Gugino, R. Stephen
Armstrong and James W. Wiltz.

On September 10, 2019, the District court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation. On September 28, 2020, the
District court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the class,
appoint class representatives and appoint class counsel.

On October 12, 2020, Patterson and the remaining individual
defendant, Mr. Anderson, filed a Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory appeal of the class certification order with the
Eighth Circuit court of Appeals in which the defendants sought
clarification of the standard for rebutting the Basic presumption
of class-wide reliance in securities class actions.

On October 13, 2020, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion to
stay the underlying proceeding with the District court pending the
possibility of interlocutory appeal. On November 9, 2020, the
District court denied defendants' motion to stay and on November
12, 2020, the Eighth Circuit court of Appeals denied defendants'
Rule 23(f) petition.

On May 17, 2021, Patterson and Mr. Anderson filed a motion for
summary judgment and a motion to exclude plaintiff's expert. On
August 27, 2021, the company signed a memorandum of understanding
to settle this case.

The parties filed a stipulation of settlement during the second
quarter of fiscal 2022. On February 3, 2022, the District court
entered an order initially approving the settlement and directing
the claims administrator to mail a notice of settlement and claim
form to all class members. On June 9, 2022, the District court held
a final settlement hearing to determine whether the settlement
should be approved. On June 10, 2022, the District court entered an
order granting final approval to the settlement.

Patterson Companies, Inc. is a value-added specialty distributor
serving the U.S. and Canadian dental supply markets and the U.S.,
Canadian and U.K. animal health supply markets based in Minnesota.


POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report dated June 23, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2022, that in March 2021, a Swedish
investment firm specializing in class action lawsuits, initiated
class action activities in Norway against Polestar Norway.

The class action suit alleges that Polestar Norway issued
misleading statements regarding the range of the PS2 vehicle, which
Polestar Norway rejects. These class action activities consisted of
the initial steps of soliciting individuals who purchased a PS2
vehicle in Norway to join the class action suit against Polestar
Norway. No claim has been filed in court.

The Swedish investment firm refers to a potential total claim of
$2,530. Simultaneously, a Norwegian automobile association for car
owners (NAF) has sent separate claim letters to Polestar Norway on
behalf of a few members, on the same grounds as the class action
lawsuit. These claims have also been rejected by Polestar Norway.

Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC is an electric performance car
brand headquartered in Sweden.


ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Alers Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jim A. Alers, on his own behalf, and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial, LLC, Virtu
Financial, Inc., Citadel Securities LLC, Apex Clearing Corporation,
Wolverine Securities, LLC, Two Signa Securities, LLC, Case No.
0:21-cv-61848 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District California on July 5, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03916-DMR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duties.

Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- a subsidiary
of Robinhood Markets Inc, is a stock brokerage firm, which provides
brokerage clearing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ely Robert Levy, Esq.
          Venessa Valdes, Esq.
          LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 727-8570
          Email: elevy@lawlp.com
                 venessa@lawlp.com

               - and -

          Igor Hernandez, Esq.
          2525 Ponce De Leon Bvld. Suite 300
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 710-3139
          Fax: (786) 292-2934
          Email: ihernandez@chglawyers.com

               - and -

          Kristen Diane Montgomery, Esq.
          Michael Abraham Citron, Esq.
          MAC LEGAL PA.
          3100 N. 29th Ave
          Hollywood, FL 33063/33020
          Phone: (954) 358-9416
          Fax: (305) 402-0866
          Email: kmontgomery@maclegalpa.com
                 michael@MACLegalPA.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 954-4400
          Fax: (415) 954-4480
          Email: kkimmey@fbm.com

               - and -

          Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 906-6000
          Email: bfetzer@debevoise.com
                 egreenfi@debevoise.com
                 mloconnor@debevoise.com

               - and -

          Grace Lee Mead, Esq.
          Ryan Thomas Thornton, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON
          150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 789-3559
          Fax: (305) 789-3395
          Email: gmead@stearnsweaver.com
                 rthornton@stearnsweaver.com

               - and -

          Ian M. Ross, Esq.
          STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC
          Two S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 614-1400
          Email: iross@sfslaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew G. Gordon, Esq.
          Jessica S Carey, Esq.
          Kristina A. Bunting, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Phone: (212) 373-3000
          Fax: 757-3990
          Email: agordon@paulweiss.com
                 jcarey@paulweiss.com
                 kbunting@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          John F. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL
          2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 439-5008
          Email: johnosullivan@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Phone: (305) 371-2700
          Fax: 358-5744
          Email: adaker@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Bryan Daniel Gant, Esq.
          Jack E. Pace, III, Esq.
          WHITE AND CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 819-8200
          Fax: (212) 354-8113
          Email: bgant@whitecase.com
                 jpace@whitecase.com

               - and -

          John Mark Gidley, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 626-3609
          Fax: (202) 639-9355
          Email: mgidley@whitecase.com

               - and -

          James Daryl Gassenheimer, Esq.
          BERGER SINGERMAN
          1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 755-9500
          Fax: (305) 714-4340
          Email: jgassenheimer@bergersingerman.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Dolan, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 565-7160
          Email: mdolan@sidley.com

               - and -

          Allison Beth Kernisky, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 374-8500
          Fax: (305) 374-8500
          Email: allison.kernisky@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Jared Mitchell Gerber, Esq.
          Miranda Gonzalez, Esq.
          Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 225-2507
          Email: jgerber@cgsh.com
                 mirgonzalez@cgsh.com
                 racooper@cgsh.com

               - and -

          Louise McAlpin, Esq.
          35 Edgewater Drive, Ste. Apt. 204
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 283-3451
          Email: louisemcalpin23@gmail.com


ROGER WILLIAMS: Smith Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 1st Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JIMMY SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Jimmy Smith, Plaintiff v. American Bar
Association, Roger Williams Law School, United States Department of
Education, Francis X Flaherty, Jared Goldstein, Jonathan Gutoff,
Jenna Wims Hashway, Olivia Milonas, Tanya Monesteir, William E.
Smith, Michael Yelonsky, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00133-PJB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island,
Providence.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2021, the
lawsuit arose after Roger Williams Law School (RWU) purposely gave
the Plaintiff an unfair hearing and edited the Zoom hearing video
so that his rights on appeal were not as live.

According to the complaint, RWU Law's Honor Board Process is
supposed to be confidential but RWU either through indifference or
purposeful action can never keep it secret. As the only law school
in the state, they have a duty to make sure their hearings are fair
and information is not leaked.

Mr. Smith says that Roger Williams did not provide a fair hearing
to him during the honor board process and subjected him to
expulsion without an adequate opportunity to defend himself. His
complaints were dismissed arbitrarily. He adds that RWU Law has
failed to recruit and hire adequate racial minority faculty and the
U.S. Department of Education and American Bar Association should
never have funded them after the "Ralph Pappito incident." The OCR
investigation procedure is discriminatory on its face, he said.
Persons with certain disabilities cannot possibly file a complaint,
says the suit.   

The Plaintiff previously appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit from a TEXT ORDER as fully given by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dated May
17, 2021, stating that "All pending motions are denied without
prejudice. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge who
shall hold a status conference and establish a schedule for the
filing of pretrial motions."

On February 16, 2022, the District Court presented a REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS regarding the dismissal of several other claims
against RWU Law, and all claims against the individual defendants
and the U.S. Department of Education. The R&R further states that
the individual defendants named in the complaint addendum should be
dismissed.

On April 15, 2022, the Court entered an Order adopting the Report
and Recommendations dismissing claims 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g),
2(c), 2(d), and 4, as well as all claims against the individual
defendants and the U.S. Department of Education.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Smith v. Roger Williams
University School of Law, Case No. 22-1515, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 30,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JIMMY SMITH, of Bristol, Rhode Island, appears
pro se.

Defendant-Appellee ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW is
represented by:

          Steven M. Richard, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          1 Citizens Plaza, 5th Flr.
          Providence, RI 02903-0000
          Telephone: (401) 454-1000
          E-mail: srichard@nixonpeabody.com

SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims' Suit Ongoing in Toronto Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 23, 2022, that the plaintiff for the
class action has filed a motion staying the company's motion for
leave to appeal and is scheduled for certification hearing for
December 2022.

The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada that was
filed in December 2019. The action claims CAD$50 million in
aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in aggregate punitive
damages, special damages in an unspecified amount, together with
interest and legal costs.

The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto in July 2018 and their family members. One victim was
shot and injured during the shooting. The other victim suffered
unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes
that include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting
and their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent
design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a
class action. In July 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion
for an order striking the claim and dismissing the action in its
entirety.

In February 2021, the court granted the company's motion in part,
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict
liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design claim,
and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification motion. In
March 2021, the company filed a motion for leave to appeal the
court's refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the
Divisional Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In July 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the company's
motion for leave to appeal with the Divisional Court, on grounds
that appeal is premature. In November 2021, the Divisional Court
granted plaintiffs' motion, staying the company's motion for leave
to appeal until 30 days after the decision on the balance of
plaintiffs' certification motion. Plaintiffs' certification motion
is scheduled to be heard in December 2022.

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. is a manufacturer and designer of
firearms based in Massachusetts.


SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Securities Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that the court granted
final approval of the settlement for a class action lawsuit
alleging violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

In October 7, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by
Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and directors
for, among other things, alleged false or misleading statements and
omissions in the registration statement issued in connection with
the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure to disclose
software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged misstatements about
performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.

In July 2020, the Company entered into an agreement to settle that
case on a class wide basis for $2.0 million. In March 5, 2021, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.

Sonim Technologies, Inc. is a provider of ultra-rugged mobile
devices, including phones and accessories based in Texas.


SPANX INC: Faces Raslavich Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPANX, INC., Case No. (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
July 1, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

To promote its goods and services, Defendant allegedly engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.220(b)(2) and (b)(3). The "Class" that Plaintiff
seeks to represent is defined as:

"All persons in the State of Florida who, (1) were sent a
telephonic sales call regarding Defendant's goods and/or services,
(2) using the same equipment or type of equipment utilized to call
Plaintiff, (3) without "prior express consent" as defined by Fla.
Stat. section 501.059(1)(g), (4) on or after July 1, 2021."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 422-7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422-7783
          E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com

STEVE'S LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve's LLC. The case
is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Steve's LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05698
(S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2022).

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

Steve's PaleoGoods -- https://stevespaleogoods.com/ -- is an e-shop
that provides fruits, cereal, snacks, sauces and healthy food store
services.[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


SUN PRODUCTS: Eidelman Suit to Be Reopened After Partial Appeal Win
-------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York directs the Clerk of Court to reopen
the lawsuit entitled SHAYA EIDELMAN, Plaintiff v. THE SUN PRODUCTS
CORPORATION and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
16-CV-03914 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Eidelman brings this proposed class action against the
Defendants, alleging violations of New York's General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350, and unjust enrichment.

On March 30, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. On June
6, 2022, the Second Circuit issued an Order affirming in part,
reversing in part, and vacating in part the Court's Opinion and
Order.

Therefore, Judge Roman ordered the Clerk of Court to reopen the
case as to Sun Products Corporation and Costco Wholesale
Corporation. The parties are directed to appear for a telephonic
pre-trial conference on July 15, 2022, at 3:00 p.m.

To access the telephonic conference, please follow these
instructions: (1) Dial the meeting number: (877) 336-1839; (2)
enter the Access Code: 1231334#; (3) press pound (#) to enter the
conference as a guest.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 27, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3245cmmf from Leagle.com.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited) disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2022, that in January 2017, an antitrust
class action was filed against its subsidiaries Shire PLC, Shire
LLC, and Shire U.S. Inc. in the U.S. District court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs, a putative class of wholesalers, allege that
Shire's settlement in 2013 of patent litigation claims against
Actavis Elizabeth LLC related to its generic formulation of Intuniv
(guanfacine) constituted an anticompetitive "reverse payment."

Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha is a global, values-based,
R&D-driven biopharmaceutical company based in Japan.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Shareholder Suit Over "Amitiza" Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that in August
2021, an antitrust class action was filed against Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. in the U.S. District court for the
Eastern District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs, a putative class of wholesalers, allege that a
settlement that Takeda and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered
into in 2014 with Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. to resolve patent
litigation claims related to Par's generic formulation of its
chronic constipation drug "AMITIZA" were anticompetitive.

Takeda Yakuhin Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha is a global, values-based,
R&D-driven biopharmaceutical company based in Japan.


TILT HOLDINGS: Court OKs Settlement of Class Suit in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
TILT Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-12G/A Report, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2022, that
a class action settlement was approved over a claim filed in the
Ontario Superior court of Justice.

The plaintiff claimed and sought to claim on behalf of a proposed
class, an unspecified amount of damages for alleged
misrepresentations made by the Defendants about the company's
business in its public disclosure during the proposed class period
of October 12, 2018 to May 1, 2019.

Prior to any hearings in the matter, the parties reached a
settlement of the proposed class action. The settlement was
approved by the Ontario court, on behalf of a defined certified
class of investors, by Order dated November 29, 2021. The plan for
the distribution of the settlement funds is ongoing.

TILT Holdings Inc. sells vape and accessory products and services
based in Arizona.


TITLE CHECK: Garcia Appeals Sanctions Ruling in RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ruben Garcia, Jr. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Ruben Garcia, Jr., and a class of
property buyers similarly situated v. Title Check, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00724-PLM-RSK, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The lawsuit, filed on August 4, 2020, alleges violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of all
buyers from each auction undertaken by Defendant Title Check, LLC
on behalf of any Michigan county treasurer during the relevant
statutorily-limited time period who were subject to a buyer's
premium of 10 percent of the bid price imposed by Defendant Title
Check, LLC which was not the proportional costs of preparing for,
and conducting, the auction sale.

At the auction, Defendant Title Check, LLC acted as an auctioneer
on behalf of the Bay and Tuscola County Treasurers selling numerous
parcels of property, including the property located at 309 9th St,
Bay City, Michigan.

The alleged conduct of Defendant Title Check, LLC in demanding,
charging, and obtaining a buyer's premium of 10 percent of the bid
price which was not the proportional costs of preparing for and
conducting the auction sale to buyers (or included with the minimum
bid), in joint enterprise with and between certain county
treasurers and Defendant Title Check, LLC, was a racketeering
activity, through highly repeated actions (i.e. by each auctioned
property) which results in the obtainment of property being far
excess of what is entitled to be obtained by the auction sales,
says the suit.

On October 22, 2020, District Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an
Order dismissing as moot Defendants' October 6, 2020 motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

On April 29, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for sanctions
against Plaintiff which the Court granted on June 28, 2022 through
an Order signed by Judge Maloney.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Ruben Garcia, Jr. v. Title
Check, LLC, Case No. 22-1574, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 29, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appellant
brief is due on August 8, 2022 and appellee brief is due on
September 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RUBEN GARCIA, JR., and a class of property
buyers similarly situated, is represented by:

          Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          P.O. Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055
          E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com  

Defendant-Appellee TITLE CHECK, LLC is represented by:

          Kyle Michael Asher, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 374-9100
          E-mail: kasher@dykema.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Appeal Over Unfavorable Judgment
----------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 23, 2022, that the company is named as
a defendant in an economic loss class action lawsuit in Australia
in which damages are claimed on the basis that diesel particulate
filters in certain vehicle models are defective.

On April 7, 2022, Toyota received an unfavorable judgment in the
court of first instance. The judgment included a finding that there
was a perceived reduction in vehicle value of certain vehicle
models. Toyota disagrees with the judgment and has filed an appeal.


Toyota Motor Corporation, based in Japan, primarily conducts
business in the automotive industry.


WAHOO FITNESS: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wahoo Fitness L.L.C.
The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Wahoo Fitness L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-05703 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2022).

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

Wahoo Fitness -- https://eu.wahoofitness.com/ -- is a fitness
technology company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[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


WALGREENS BOOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2022, that a class
action was filed against the company alleging that the company made
false or misleading statements regarding the transactions arising
out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between
the company and Rite Aid.

On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The company filed an answer
and affirmative defenses, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

Fact and expert discovery have concluded and summary judgment
briefing is complete. In October and December 2020, two separate
purported Rite Aid Shareholders filed actions in the same court
opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. class action and making
nearly identical allegations as those in the M.D. Pa. class action.


Said actions have been stayed until the earlier of 30 days after
the entry of an order resolving any pretrial dispositive motions in
the M.D. Pa. class action, or 30 days after the entry of an order
of final approval of any settlement of the class action.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is into operations of retail
drugstores, health and wellness services, and specialty and home
delivery pharmacy services based in Illinois.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2022, that the Court
granted preliminary approval of a settlement in a securities class
suit in June 2022.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
captioned "Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v.
Walgreen Co. et al.," Case No. 1:15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.)

The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. The Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint filed on August 17,
2015 was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018, and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018.

A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part on September 23, 2019. Fact discovery and expert
discovery have concluded. On November 2, 2021, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted in part and
denied in part defendants' cross motion.

On March 2, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to
reconsider a portion of that ruling. On June 29, 2022 the court
granted preliminary approval of a settlement in the amount of $105
million.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is into operations of retail
drugstores, health and wellness services, and specialty and home
delivery pharmacy services based in Illinois.


WATERROWER INC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WaterRower Inc. The
case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WaterRower Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05702 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2022).

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

WaterRower Inc. -- https://www.waterrower.com/ -- designs and
manufactures superb indoor rowing simulators for both private and
commercial use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 3
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC)
between February 24, 2021 and June 9, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than August 29, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Wells Fargo class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7261 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 29, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Wells Fargo had misrepresented
its commitment to diversity in the Company's workplace; (2) Wells
Fargo conducted fake job interviews in order to meet its Diverse
Search Requirement; (3) the foregoing conduct subjected Wells Fargo
to an increased risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and
enforcement action, including criminal charges; (4) all of the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact Wells
Fargo's reputation; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

To join the Wells Fargo class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7261 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

WESTLAKE SERVICES: Rousseau Sues Over Consumer Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA ROUSSEAU, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC D/B/A WESTLAKE
FINANCIAL, Case No. CACE-22-009671 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July
1, 2022) sues Defendant Westlake Services for violating the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On a date better known by Defendant, the Defendant began attempting
to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from the Plaintiff.

The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. The
Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action. The "Class" that Plaintiff
seeks to represent is the below defined "FCCPA Class."

The "FCCPA Class" consists of: [1] all persons with Florida
addresses [2] that Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf [3]
sent an electronic mail communication to [4] between 9:00 PM and
8:00 AM [5] in connection with the collection of a consumer debt.
24. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the
Class.

Westlake provides financial services. The Company offers auto
finance, equity loans, and other financial products.[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, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com
                  jibrael@jibraellaw.com

WISE UP MARKETING: Tracy Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Up Marketing,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Devin Tracy, Kelly Weigold, on
behalf of Themselves and those similarly situated v. Wise Up
Marketing, Inc., Nancy Bean, Case No. 2281CV02668 (Mass. Super.
Ct., Middlesex Cty., July 5, 2022).

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

Wise Up -- https://www.wiseupmarketing.com.au/ -- is a digital
marketing agency offering offering marketing strategy, social
media, lead generation, and SEO services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Bace, Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
          PO Box 9316
          Boston, MA 02114


WORK 'N GEAR INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Work 'N Gear, Inc.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Work 'N Gear, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05722 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2022).

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

Work 'N Gear, LLC -- https://www.workngear.com/ -- operates a chain
of retail stores selling work apparel, footwear, and healthcare
apparel in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Spano Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuma Regional Medical
Center. The case is styled as Anthony Spano, Donald Banti, Marcia
Banti, Ryan Mangum, Tiffany Mangum, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical Center, Case No.
2:22-cv-01125-JJT (D. Ariz., July 5, 2022).

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

Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home
-- is a hospital in Yuma, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colleen M. Auer, Esq.
          Elaine Ryan, Esq.
          AUER RYAN PLLC
          20987 N John Wayne Pkwy., Ste. B104-374
          Maricopa, AZ 85139
          Phone: (520) 705-7332
          Fax: (602) 560-0256
          Email: cauer@auer-ryan.com
                 eryan@auer-ryan.com

               - and -

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Sam Strauss
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Ste. 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: raina@turkestrauss.com


[*] Fintech Company Faces FCRA Class Action in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
PreEMPLOY reports that a financial technology company specializing
in preparing third-party consumer reports has been targeted in a
proposed federal class-action lawsuit. According to allegations, it
failed to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA)
requirements to provide a copy of reports despite multiple
requests.

According to the complaint filed in a federal court based in
Arizona, the consumer reporting agency (CRA) failed to provide the
named plaintiff with a copy of his consumer report despite filing
three valid requests with relevant identifying information. As a
result, the plaintiff has alleged that the CRA has received a
"substantial" amount of material apprising it of its FCRA
obligations. As a result, the consumer alleges that the defendant
"consciously and willfully" violated its duties under the FCRA.

According to the complaint, the issue began after the plaintiff's
financial accounts were closed without a suitable explanation. The
consumer suspected this was due to incorrect or damaging
information shared between banks by the CRA. The plaintiff
subsequently requested a copy of his file from the CRA. In his
request, he included identifying information such as his driver's
license number, Social Security Number, date of birth, and more.

In response, the CRA sent a form letter that stated he would need
to provide further identifying information. This letter included an
additional form for him to complete titled "consumer identification
and certification form." According to the plaintiff, he had already
provided the same information the form demanded in his original
request. As a result, the plaintiff alleges that this form is
simply a tool to delay and potentially avoid supplying consumers
with their requested information.

The plaintiff sent a second letter to the CRA containing a notary
acknowledgment for additional identification but received the same
response. His third attempt came with further identifying
information and received the same answer. According to the
plaintiff, the attempts included all information required by
federal law and everything requested in the CRA's form. Further,
the complaint alleges how the CRA failed to maintain suitable
procedures to prevent these violations, claiming either a willful
or reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights. Finally, the
complaint alleges that the company failed to include mandatory
disclosure of the plaintiff's rights under the FCRA in any of its
responses.

The putative class action includes individuals who requested a
consumer file or report from the CRA in the last five years and
were required to complete the additional form. The action asks for
statutory, punitive, and unspecified damages, in addition to all
costs and attorney's fees. [GN]

[*] New Zealand Report Recommends New Class Actions Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that a New Zealand Law Commission
report has proposed that new class actions legislation should be
developed to improve access to justice, with the review unconvinced
about adverse implications for insurance.

"In our view, the potential impact of class actions on the
insurance market is not a compelling argument against class actions
provided there are mechanisms in place to discourage meritless
litigation," the report says.

The commission's final report makes 121 recommendations on class
actions and litigation funding, including that there should be a
"certification test" before a proceeding goes ahead, which would
help limit meritless actions. It says funding agreements should be
subject to court approval and proposes both opt-in and opt-out
class actions should be permitted.

The report, which takes into account overseas experience, says it's
not persuaded that litigation funding will have a significant
impact on the availability and affordability of directors' and
officers' or other types of insurance.

"We recognise there has been a hardening of the insurance market in
recent years, which has seen premiums increase and the availability
and coverage of insurance decrease in Aotearoa New Zealand and
particularly in Australia," it says. "However, a number of factors
may be contributing to these changes."

In the absence of meritless cases, any impact litigation funding
has on the insurance market can only come from meritorious cases
that are presently being hindered by barriers to access to justice
in New Zealand, the report says.

The Insurance Council of New Zealand (ICNZ) says the risk of a
negative impact on directors' & officers (D&O) cover should be
limited if a new regime is appropriately regulated.

"While supportive of the Law Commission's recommendations, it
remains to be seen whether the Government accepts them and then
what legislation might look like," a spokesperson told
insuranceNEWS.com.au.

"It will only be once any regime commences, that we will able to
see whether there is any actual impact on D&O."

ICNZ's submission to the inquiry argued class actions should be
limited to an opt-in basis, where claimants have to proactively
sign up, rather than being automatically included unless they opt
out.

Opt-out class actions, combined with interest from litigation
funders, could lead to an increase in speculative litigation,
particularly following large-scale disasters and regulator action,
which could impact on insurance availability and affordability, it
said.

Litigation funder Omni Bridgeway says it welcomes the
recommendations and the commission's recognition of the benefits of
funding, particularly given high costs that can limit access to
justice by individuals. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Not Liable for Any Insulation Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Segalla writing for goldbergsegalla.com reports that the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
moved for summary judgement on the case filed against ViacomCBS
Inc. ("Westinghouse").

In this asbestos matter, the defendant ViacomCBS Inc.
("Westinghouse") moved for partial summary judgment as to Decedent
Callen Cortez's claims arising from alleged exposure to asbestos
from Westinghouse's turbines, arguing that the plaintiffs could not
establish that Decedent was exposed to a Westinghouse turbine at
the Monsanto plant at which he worked, that his exposures were not
substantial factors in causing his mesothelioma, and that
Westinghouse was not liable for any of the asbestos-containing
products Cortez was allegedly exposed to.

The court examined the legal standard for reviewing a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Under Louisiana law, in an asbestos exposure
case, the plaintiff must show that (1) "he had significant exposure
to the product complained of" and that (2) the exposure to the
product "was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury."
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., 16 So. 3d 1065, 1091 (La. 2009)
(quoting Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc., 726 So. 2d 926, 948 (La. App.
4 Cir. 1998)). "Even if the plaintiff was only exposed to asbestos
for a 'short period for an employer[,] and he had longer exposure
working for others, it cannot be said the relatively short asbestos
exposure was not a substantial factor in causing his
mesothelioma.'" Williams v. Boeing Co., 23 F.4th 507, 512 (5th Cir.
2022) (quoting Rando, 16 So. 3d at 1091). To defeat an asbestos
defendant's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff need only show
that a reasonable jury could conclude that it is more likely than
not that he inhaled defendant's asbestos fibers, even if there were
only 'slight exposures.'" Id. (citing Held v. Avondale Indus.,
Inc., 672 So. 2d 1106, 1109 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996)). Under the
controlling Louisiana law, in order to recover from a manufacturer,
the plaintiff must prove that the harm resulted from the condition
of the product, that the condition made the product unreasonably
dangerous to normal use, and that the condition existed at the time
the product left the manufacturer's control. 484 So. 2d at 113. In
the instant matter, the court had to determine whether
Westinghouse's product was "unreasonably dangerous," under any of
the recognized theories of liability: (1) unreasonably dangerous in
construction or composition, (2) unreasonably dangerous per se, (3)
unreasonably dangerous in design, or (4) unreasonably dangerous for
failure to warn. See id. at 113-15. Here, the first theory did not
apply, as Plaintiffs did not allege that Westinghouse's turbines
were defective in construction or composition. The plaintiffs
alleged that Decedent was exposed to asbestos through gaskets
affixed to Westinghouse turbines and through asbestos-containing
insulation used with the turbines. The court reviewed relevant
portions of Decedent's deposition testimony regarding his work with
these products throughout his career. Additionally, the court
considered Westinghouse's discovery responses, admitting that it
manufactured and sold turbines for use at Monsanto. Taken together,
the court held that this evidence created a triable issue of fact
as to whether Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets
utilized on Westinghouse turbines, and denied summary judgment as
to the alleged exposure from gaskets. The plaintiffs also alleged
that Decedent was exposed to asbestos dust from insulation used on
Westinghouse turbines, both through his own employment and through
take-home exposures from his family members. The court found that
testimony submitted by the plaintiffs, that Westinghouse was aware
that asbestos-containing thermal insulation was widely used in the
ship building industry and was required by military specs, did not
create an issue of fact supporting a products-liability claim
against Westinghouse. While asbestos-containing insulation may be
unreasonably dangerous per se, the plaintiffs submitted no evidence
that Westinghouse manufactured or supplied asbestos-containing
insulation. Accordingly, to survive summary judgment on
Westinghouse's liability for the subsequent insulation of its
turbines, the plaintiffs had to point to material facts going to
either defective design or failure to warn. The court noted that
even if a product is not unreasonably dangerous per se, it may
nonetheless be unreasonably dangerous in design if (1) "alternative
products were available to serve the same needs or desires with
less risk of harm," or if (2) "there was a feasible way to design
the product with less harmful consequences." Halphen v.
Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So. 2d 110, 115 (La. 1986).
However, there was no evidence that Westinghouse's design of the
turbines required that they be insulated with asbestos. Without
this, the plaintiffs could meet their burden on a design-defect
claim against Westinghouse based on the insulation of its
turbines.

The court also found that the plaintiffs' failure to warn claim
failed. While numerous Louisiana cases discuss a duty to warn
stemming from dangers inherent in the manufacturer's own product,
the court could locate no case in which a manufacturer was held
liable for failure to warn of a product's dangers when the
manufacturer did not manufacture, sell, design, install, specify,
require, or recommend the product. As such, it held that
Westinghouse had no duty to warn of dangers related to the possible
use of asbestos insulation on its turbines. In the absence of any
authority indicating that a manufacturer in Westinghouse's position
has a duty to warn of the dangers of a third party's product, the
court found the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn theory to be meritless.
Accordingly, the Court granted Westinghouse summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims arising out of third-party use
of asbestos-containing insulation on its turbines.


                            *********

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 ***