/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220725.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 141

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Ribar Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Devore Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Hicks Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Loschiavo
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ruelas, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Macomb County Suit
AMADOR RESIDENTIAL: Hitchcock Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMAZON.COM INC: Monopolizes Online Retail Market, Brown Suit Says
AMERR RUGS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMK DESOTO: Owens Sues Over Lube Technicians' Unpaid Overtime

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL: Bennett Suit Goes to E.D. California
APPLE INC: Parties Seeks March 23, 2023 Filing of Class Cert.
ARCHON BUSINESS: Butcher Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AT&T CORP: Faces Golden Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AUTOMILE HOLDINGS: Manchur Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts

BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Faces Tung Suit Over Waiters' Unpaid Wages
BCG ATTORNEYS: Zermay Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
CABLE TECHNOLOGY: FLSA Conditional Certification Granted in Part
CALIFORNIA: Cote Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
CALIFORNIA: Sykes Suit Transferred to N.D. California

CARBON CREEK: Colton Files Suit in D. Wyoming
CARLISLE ETCETERA: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CCH HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Employee Class
CENTURIAN OF DELAWARE: Brown Files Suit in D. Delaware
CLERICS OF ST-VIATEUR: Canadian Judge Rejects $28-Mil. Settlement

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Improper Business Practices
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Skrandel Files Bid for Class Certification
CRICKET WIRELESS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Esparza Labor Suit in California Court
CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Insurance Litigation Suit in California

CRUSADER INSURANCE: Insurance Litigation Suit Dismissed
CUBESMART LP: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CURADEN AG: Lyngaas Must Explain Noncompliance With Court Order
DESKTOP METAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Luongo Securities Suit
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Faces Class Action Over T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

DJGN INDY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brady Suit Alleges
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Zaker Shareholder Suit in NY Court Dismissed
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Zeva Shareholder Suit in NJ Court Dismissed
EFIGIE CORP: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Faces Safee Securities Suit in Colorado Court

EVENTIDE CREDIT: Court Allows Smith to Amend Bid to Certify Class
EVMO INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit
FAWBUSH'S GALLERIA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FEDEX GROUND: Cullinane Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
FIRST COMMUNITY BANK: Cox Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees

FOUR BUILDERS: American Builders Files Suit in D. South Carolina
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Berman Seeks to Certify Classes
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Surcharge Fees Not Proper, Massaro Claims
GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Certification of Class in Booth Suit Vacated
GEICO GENERAL: Settles Auto Claims Underpayment Class Action Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Massachusetts District Court Dismisses Sreedhar Suit
GUARDIAN OF GEORGIA: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
GURNEYS INN RESORT: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Judgment on Pleadings in Levy Suit Affirmed
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Updated Status Report in Freitas Suit Due Aug. 3

HOLE NYC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUEGAR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernadez Suit Alleges
INDEPENDENT LIVING AIDS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INSURANCE BY ROB: Olesh Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
JACKSONVILLE SPINE CENTER: Kenney Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

JGL RESTAURANT: Faces Zamora Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
KIA MOTORS: Could Face Class Action Over Window Regulators
KURA SUSHI: Settlement of Labor Suit for Court Approval
L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Recommendation in Umbrino Suit Adopted in Part
LEVI STRAUSS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Quebec Court
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Tremblay Suit
LOTSPEICH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Magistrate Judge Endorses Approval of Horton Deal
LULUS CUTS AND TOYS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LYFT INC: Carr Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LYFT INC: Lannon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Teoh Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Class Action Over Jail Conditions Dropped
MCCORMICK & CO: Court Sets Deadlines for Class Certification Bid

MCG HEALTH: Booth Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Berry Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
MERRILL GARDENS: Court Stays Ramirez Class Suit Until November 21
MIDLAND CREDIT: Case Management Order Entered in Geddings Suit
MISSFRESH LTD: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Suit

MODA XPRESS INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Investors Reminded of Securities Class Action
MONSANTO CORP: Settles Weed Killers' Class Suit for $45 Million
MOUNTAIN CORPORATION: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAVY FEDERAL: 4th Cir. Vacates Order Tossing Morrow's Breach Claim

NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Faces Product Litigation Suit in New Jersey
NEW HORIZON: Sartori Sues Over Misrepresented Terms of Agreements
NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Jeffery's Bid for Partial Final Judgment
NEW YORK: Court Wants Supplemental Filing in Thompson v. Carter
NURTURE INC: Court Asks Clerk to Amend Caption of Cullors Suit

OUTSET MEDICAL: Lieff Cabraser Notes of Sept. 6 Filing Deadline
PARISON INC: Galarce Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PARKER RESTAURANT: Boukardougha Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ohio
PEPPERIDGE FARM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Alfred Class Suit

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Settlement in Remick Suit Gets Final Nod
PLYMOUTH ROCK ENERGY: 300 West End Files Suit in E.D. New York
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Mouynivong Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

QUANTUM 3 MEDIA: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Court OKs Settlement of Derr Shareholder Suit
RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Court Stays Borg Shareholder Suit
REBEL CREAMERY: Davis Sues Over Ice Cream's False Healthy Label
RITE AID CORP: Consumer Suit Stayed Pending Mediation

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Wins Arbitration Bid; Shirley TCPA Suit Dismissed
SAFE BOX: Scheduling Order Entered in Gilmore Class Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: O'Connor Sues Over Defective Game Apps
SCION GROUP: Giles Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SCWORX CORP: Court OKs Settlement of Yannes Securities Suit

SHAHID INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHANNON BALDERAS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Cabreja Sues Over Hidden 4% Surcharge
SHIELDS HEALTH: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Provide Timely Notice
SHIELDS HEALTH: Monette Sues Over Alleged Info Data Breach

SLASHDOT MEDIA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCLEAN INC: Williams-Redding Sues Over Unsafe CPAP Cleaning Device
SONY CORPORATION: Hit With Class Action Over PS5 Defects
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. Cal.
STEEP HILL: Plumlee Files RICO Suit in E.D. Arkansas

SUNRISE SENIOR: C.D. California Enters Judgment in Schlieser Suit
SWIFT PORK COMPANY: Vail Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
TAPESTRY INC: Reed Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TESCO CONTROLS: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
THERANOS INC: Faces Suit Over Unreliable Blood Testing Services

TIDAL CREEK: American Builders Files Suit in D. South Carolina
TOTAL LIFE: Partial Motion to Dismiss Santiago Suit Partly Granted
TRUTHFINDER LLC: Mejia Suit Removed to S.D. California
TURNING POINT: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Reynolds Suit
U.S. SPECIALTY: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Egg and I Suit

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Over 500 Women Join Sexual Assault Class Action
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment
UNITED STATES: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action, Issues TRO
VITRO FLAT: Court Approves Voluntary Dismissal of Romero Wage Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mishkin Files Suit in E.D. Missouri

VOYA RETIREMENT: S.D. New York Issues Final Judgment in Hanks Suit
WAFFLE HOUSE INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLSPACE HEALTH: Gueths Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Defers Ruling on Bid for Extension
WISH GROUP 1: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

Y.M.I. JEANSWEAR: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Sarabia Suit Removed to D. Arizona
ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks to Toss Foreigners' Data Privacy Class Action

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Ribar Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JANINE BARTLEY, RICHARD R. RIBAR, and RICHARD M. RIBAR by the
proposed administrator Richard R. Ribar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02243-RMG
(D.S.C., July 13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Faces Devore Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROY DEVORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02237-RMG
(D.S.C., July 13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Hicks Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02244-RMG
(D.S.C., July 13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Initial Pretrial Order Entered in Loschiavo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNIE LOSCHIAVO, et al.,
v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Loschiavo et al v. Advanced
Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial
order as follows:

  -- The parties have agreed to make        Aug. 12, 2022
     initial disclosures by:

  -- Amendments to Pleadings and/or         June 16, 2023
     Joinder of Parties Motions or
     stipulations addressing the parties
     or pleadings, if any, must be
     filed no later than:

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for             Jan. 31, 2023
     class certification of the
     putative Ohio law class
     claims shall be filed by:

Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures and markets polypropylene
and polyethylene pipes, plastic leach field chambers and systems,
septic tanks and accessories, storm retention/detention and septic
chambers, polyvinyl chloride drainage structures, fittings, and
water filters and water separators.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXwuAq at no extra charge.[CC]


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Ruelas, et al., Seek to Certify Class, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE'ANDRE
EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL
REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; LUIS NUNEZ-ROMERO; SCOTT ABBEY; and all
others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; GREGORY J. AHERN,
SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class and a subclass.

The Class consists of:

   "all pretrial detainees who work or who have worked for
   Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail Kitchen during the period
   November 20, 2015 and the present, without compensation."

The Class seeks relief from all defendants under the following
claims: Thirteenth Amendment, Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA"), Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, California Labor Code, California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and California Bane Act.

The subclass, the "Equal Protection Subclass," consists of:

   all women who worked for Aramark in the Santa Rita Jail
   Kitchen during the period November 20, 2015 to the present,
   without compensation. The Subclass seeks relief from all
   defendants for plaintiffs’ claim under the Equal Protection
   Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Plaintiffs Armida Ruelas, De'Andre Eugene Cox, Bert Davis,
Katrish Jones, Joseph Mebrahtu, Dahryl Reynolds, Monica Mason,
Scott Abbey, and Luis Nunez-Romero are current and former pretrial
detainees who performed labor during their detention at Santa Rita
Jail for Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, a private company.
Aramark employed the labor of plaintiffs to produce meals sold to
the County of Alameda to be served in Santa Rita Jail and to jails
in other counties. The Plaintiffs did not receive wages or any
other compensation for their labor, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs brought suit against Alameda County, which operates
Santa Rita Jail, and Aramark, which contracts with Alameda County
to provide food services to its carceral institutions and to use
the uncompensated labor of detainees to provide those services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RDuIOx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          Anne Butterfield Weills, Esq.
          Emilyrose Johns, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA alifornia q94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mails: danmsiegel@gmail.com
                   abweills@gmail.com
                   emilyrose@siegelyee.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Macomb County Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant, CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.; JOSEPH M.
HOGAN; JOHN F. MORICI; JULIE TAY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
21-15823 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the securities
suit.

Securities actions often ask courts to distinguish between
corporate braggadocio and genuinely false or misleading statements.
This is one of those cases, says Circuit Judge Mary Margaret
McKeown, writing for the Panel.

In reviewing the dismissal of the class action, the Panel considers
whether corporate executives misrepresented their company's
prospects in China to such an extent that their statements were
actionable under U.S. securities laws. After a careful review of
the record, the Court of Appeals concludes that the district court
did not err in determining that all twelve challenged statements
were non-actionable.

Background

For the better part of twenty years, Align--a medical device
manufacturer that is best known for selling clear, plastic
"Invisalign" braces--enjoyed skyrocketing growth. At the beginning
of 2002, the company had served roughly 44,000 customers, but by
2019 that number had grown to 7 million. During much of that
period, the growth was driven primarily by international sales,
especially in China: Between 2013 and 2017, shipments of Invisalign
cases to China increased by an average of 88 percent each year, and
then by another 91 percent in 2018. Indeed, every quarter in 2017
and 2018, Align's year-over-year revenue growth rate in China
hovered between 70 percent and 100 percent.

But then the trouble began. At the start of 2019, Align's Chinese
growth rate dipped slightly, apparently due to increased
competitive pressure and diminished consumer demand, and in the
second quarter of that year the rate fell to between 20 and 30
percent. As news of this fall reverberated across the market,
Align's stock dropped by roughly 27 percent, from $275.16 per share
on July 24, 2019, to $200.90 per share on July 25, 2019, erasing
approximately $5.4 billion in shareholder value.

A year later, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, a
Michigan-based pension plan, filed suit against Align (and several
of its senior executives) on behalf of itself and all others that
acquired Align common stock between April 25, 2019, and July 24,
2019 (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby. Macomb alleged
that several Align senior executives had "misrepresented" Align's
growth in China throughout the second quarter of 2019, claiming
strong numbers despite knowing (or recklessly disregarding) that
the growth rate in China had slowed significantly. According to
Macomb, Align executives made twelve statements during the Class
Period that are actionable under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A, as
well as Rule 10b-5, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Section 78a et seq. ("Exchange Act" or "Act").

The district court dismissed the action with leave to amend,
holding that the majority of the challenged statements constituted
non-actionable puffery and the rest were not false or misleading.
Instead of amending the complaint, Macomb requested a final
judgment, so the district court dismissed the action with
prejudice. Macomb appealed.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals reviews de novo a district court's dismissal
for failure to state a claim, taking all allegations of material
fact as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party; see In re Quality Sys., Inc. Sec. Litig. (Quality
Systems), 865 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2017).

Section 10(b) of the Act prohibits using "any manipulative or
deceptive device" that contravenes "such rules and regulations as
the Commission may prescribe."

I. Unsupported Premise

As a threshold matter, Align asks this Court to affirm the district
court on the narrow ground that Macomb's complaint is based on an
unsupported premise. Macomb's complaint rests on the premise that
Align's rate of growth had, in fact, "significantly declined" by
the time Align's executives were touting the company's growth in
China in May and June of 2019. But, according to Align, it is
possible that the rate of growth only started to decline
"significantly" during the Class Period (which lasts until July 24,
2019). Because, Align continues, Macomb has not alleged sufficient
facts to make plausible the inference that the rate of growth had
begun to decline "significantly" by the time the Align executives
made the challenged statements, the statements cannot be considered
false at the time they were made, and, therefore, they are not
actionable.

The Court of Appeals rejects this argument as unsupported.

Judge McKeown notes that it is settled precedent that the passage
of just a short period of time between executives' rosy statements
about their company's prospects and a downturn in those prospects
is "circumstantial evidence" that the challenged statements "were
false when made," citing Fecht v. Price Co., 70 F.3d 1078, 1083
(9th Cir. 1995). In Fecht, for instance, the passage of
two-and-a-half months was a sufficient "shortness of time" to be
considered "circumstantial evidence that the challenged statements
were false when made." Here, just three months passed between the
first challenged statement and the revelation of Align's downturn
in China.

Macomb has provided additional evidence to support the inference
that Align's growth rate was declining substantially at the time of
the challenged statements. Multiple reports from former employees
support the inference that Align's growth in China had slowed
materially when the challenged statements were made in late April,
May, and June 2019.

Viewed alongside the short period of time between the challenged
statements and the downturn in Align's prospects in China, Macomb
has alleged sufficient evidence to support the inference that
Align's growth in China had slowed materially when the challenged
statements were made in late April, May, and June 2019.

Macomb's complaint does not rest on an unsupported premise, Judge
McKeown finds.

II. Puffery

Turning to the challenged statements, Judge McKeown holds that the
district court correctly found that six were non-actionable
"puffery." Corporate "puffing" involves "expressing an opinion"
that is not capable of objective verification.

The six challenged statements that the district court determined to
be puffery are as follows:

   1. During an April 24, 2019, earnings call, Chief Executive
      Officer Joseph Hogan stated in response to analyst
      questions about Align's international business, [w]e still
      have a great business in APAC from a growth standpoint
      overall, and China is a great growth market for us.

   2. At a healthcare conference on May 14, 2019, Chief Financial
      Officer John Morici said, China . . . gets a lot of
      attention. And rightly so, it's a huge market opportunity
      for us.

   3. At a dental and veterinary conference on May 29, 2019, in
      response to an analyst question about growth rates in the
      Asia-Pacific (i.e., APAC) region, Morici responded, we see
      tremendous growth in APAC, in China in particular.

   4. At the same conference, in response to an analyst question
      probing deeper about China, Morici stated, we're seeing
      tremendous growth.

   5. At the same conference, Morici said, [t]he dynamics in
      China are really good for us. . . . [T]he appetite for
      growth and new technology adoption in China has been great
      for us. And as you mentioned, the economics work well for
      us; and

   6. At a healthcare conference on June 5, 2019, Morici also
      described China as a market that's growing significantly
      for us with [g]reat economics.

Judge McKeown finds that these six statements plainly fit beneath
the umbrella of puffery. All use vague, generically positive terms,
describing China as "a great growth market," "a huge market
opportunity," "a market that's growing significantly for us," and
possessing "really good" "dynamics," and describing Align's
performance there as "tremendous" and "great." Such
characterizations are not "objectively verifiable." None of these
six statements present the kind of precise information on which
investors rely when valuing corporations.

Contrary to Macomb's assertions, the district court did not err by
failing to "consider the context" in which these six statements
were made, Judge McKeown opines. Although "general statements of
optimism" made against a clearly pessimistic backdrop may form a
basis for a securities fraud claim, this was not the case here.
Significantly, at the time Align's executives made the six
challenged statements, the company's sales were still growing in
China, albeit at a diminished rate, so these feel-good descriptions
from Align's executives did not affirmatively create an impression
of a state of affairs that differed in a material way from the one
that actually existed.

III. Otherwise Non-Actionable Statements

The Court of Appeals holds that the district court correctly found
that the remaining six statements did not create a false impression
of Align's growth in China and so were not actionable.

IV. Remaining Matters

Having determined that all of the challenged statements are
non-actionable, Judge McKeown says the Panel can quickly dispense
with Macomb's remaining arguments. Judge McKeown declines to reach
the matters of scienter and control-person or insider-trading
liability.

And the Court of Appeals rejects Macomb's argument that because
Align touted "positive facts about China," the company had "a duty
to disclose negative facts in order to make the statements not
misleading." Securities laws "do not create an affirmative duty to
disclose any and all material information."

Because all twelve challenged statements are non-actionable, Align
had no duty to provide additional information to render those
statements "not misleading," Judge McKeown opines.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y242hset from Leagle.com.

Javier Bleichmar -- jbleichmar@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, in New York City, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Shay Dvoretzky -- shay.dvoretzky@skadden.com -- and Peter A.
Bruland, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in Washington,
D.C.; Peter B. Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Virginia
F. Milstead -- virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- and Mayra Aguilera
-- mayra.aguilera@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, in Los Angeles, California; for the Defendants-Appellees.


AMADOR RESIDENTIAL: Hitchcock Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amador Residential
Partners, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kimberly Hitchcock,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Amador Residential Partners, Inc., Does 1–10, Case No.
34-2022-00323183-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
11, 2022).

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

Amador Residential Partners Inc is primarily engaged in Real
Estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Monopolizes Online Retail Market, Brown Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SCOTT GRAEBER, LAURA LOES, LETICIA SHAW, and
DAVID ATWOOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00965 (W.D. Wash., July 13, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, the California's Cartwright Act, and the Maryland Antitrust
Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization and
restrain of competition in the online retail marketplace by
enforcing minimum margin agreements (MMAs). Under the MMAs, Amazon
suppliers guarantee both that Amazon will be able to price the
supplier's product competitively against other online competition
at least 95 percent of the time and that Amazon will receive a
minimum margin on each sale regardless of the actual price that
Amazon sells the product at retail. Amazon enforces this agreement
by requiring its suppliers to compensate it monthly for any lost
margins necessitated by lowering its retail price to match a
competitor. The loss of competition in the online retail
marketplace represents higher prices and the loss of quality and
innovation that a competitive market fosters, says the suit.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer based in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Steve Berman, Esq.
         Barbara Mahoney, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                 barbaram@hbsslaw.com

AMERR RUGS INC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerr Rugs, Inc. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Amerr Rugs, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05947 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022).

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

Amer Rugs -- https://www.amerrugs.com/ -- is a premier design and
manufacturing house of area rugs, based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMK DESOTO: Owens Sues Over Lube Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY OWENS AND JOSEPH OWENS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMK DESOTO, INC. AND AHMAD
KHATIB, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-1455 (N.D. Tex.,
July 6, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime premiums to
Plaintiffs and similarly situated.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs are Defendants' current
and former lube technicians who were paid on a salary basis and who
were not paid any overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

AMK Desoto, Inc. operates a number of oil change stations in and
around the Dallas-Fort Worth area. It employs lube technicians,
among other employees, to provide oil change services to
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
          409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
          Longview, TX 75601
          Telephone: (512) 799-2048
          E-mail: doug@welmakerlaw.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL: Bennett Suit Goes to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CORNELIUS OMAR BENNETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMMERCIAL
STRATEGY, LLC; ANHEUSERBUSCH, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. FCS058207, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of
California, Solano County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on July 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01239-MCE-KJN to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to timely pay wages upon separation of
employment, knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized
wage statement provisions, and unfair competition.

Anheuser-Busch Commercial Strategy, LLC is a liquor company, with
its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.

Anheuser-Busch, LLC is a liquor company, with its principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
         Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
         Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                 tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com

APPLE INC: Parties Seeks March 23, 2023 Filing of Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS SMITH, CHERYL SMITH,
KAREN SMITHSON, JASON ROUSH, COREY POMROY, FRANK ORTEGA, LESLIE
WHITE, ALBERTO CORNEA, MICHELLE ROGERS, JOSHUA BAYS, DEBORAH CLASS,
and AMBER JONES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-09527-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate as follows:

  1. The mediation deadline will be:         February 7, 2023

  2. The fact discovery deadline             March 9, 2023
     will be:

  3. The Plaintiffs' Class                   March 23, 2023
     Certification Motion
     (including expert disclosures
     and reports) will be filed by:

  4. Apple's Opposition to Class             May 18, 2023
     Certification (including Daubert
     motions and expert reports)
     will be filed by:

  5. The  Plaintiffs' Reply to               June 15, 2023
     Apple's Opposition to Class
     Certification (including Daubert
     motions and rebuttal expert
     reports) will be filed by:

  6. The Court will hear Plaintiff's         July 13, 2023
     Motion for Class Certification
     on:

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

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cjDErX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Nicholas, Esq.
          Lucy E. Tufts, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
          Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
          E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com
                  let@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H. Kilborn, Jr., Esq.
          KILBORN LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 2164
          Fairhope, AL 36533
          Telephone: (251) 929-4623
          E-mail: benk@kilbornlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com
                  ramen@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


ARCHON BUSINESS: Butcher Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archon Business
Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Caitlin Marie Butcher,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Archon Business Group, LLC, Does 1–10, Case No.
34-2022-00323196-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
11, 2022).

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

Archon Group LP -- http://www.archonbusiness.com/-- develops,
manages, finances, and sells commercial real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


AT&T CORP: Faces Golden Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DALE GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T CORP., Defendant, Case No. 153243949
(Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 13, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has made a telephonic
sales call to the Plaintiff's telephone number in an attempt to
solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services. The Defendant
allegedly caused similar telephonic sales calls to be sent to
individuals in Florida without obtaining prior express written
consent from the called party. Moreover, the Defendant utilized an
automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers
or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed
to a number called to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic sales calls,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have
allegedly suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction
requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made
without express written consent. The Plaintiff also seeks to
recover statutory damages, litigation costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

AT&T Corp. is an American multinational telecommunications holding
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AUTOMILE HOLDINGS: Manchur Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward L. Manchur, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. AUTOMILE HOLDINGS, LLC doing business
as: Prime Motor Group; AMR Auto Holdings-PA, LLC doing business as:
Audi Westwood; Case No. 2273CV00177 was removed from the Briston
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on June 24, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-10992-RWZ to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Automile Holdings, LLC owns and operates auto repair centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. D'Avolio, Jr., Esq.
          JD CONSULTING, LLC
          P.O. Box 637
          Dracut, MA 01826
          Phone: (781) 640-9094
          Fax: (978) 535-0014
          Email: jdconsulting@comcast.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Robert Brown, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN, P.C.
          175 Federal Street, 10th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 482-0600
          Fax: (617) 482-0604
          Email: mbrown@apslaw.com


BANZAI STEAKHOUSE: Faces Tung Suit Over Waiters' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tzu-Hsiang Tung, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Banzai Steakhouse Inc., Karl Shao, as an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05750 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and other amounts pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants deprived Plaintiff of
the protections of the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay minimum wage
and premium overtime pay. The Defendants also deprived Plaintiff of
tips in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waiter from April
14, 2022 through June 1, 2022.

Banzai Steakhouse Inc. is a restaurant situated in Hartsdale, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Nardo, Esq.
          RAYMOND NARDO, P.C.
          129 Third Street
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 248-2121
          E-mail: Nardo@Raynardo.com

BCG ATTORNEYS: Zermay Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY ZERMAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BCG ATTORNEY SEARCH, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-04778-FMO-AFM (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff
numerous text messages between August 7, 2021 and November 20,
2021, on April 20, 2022, on April 22, 2022, and on April 24, 2022
in an attempt to solicit a sale of any consumer services. The
Defendant allegedly did not obtain prior express written consent
from the Plaintiff to send such sales calls, and did not provide
any instruction on how to make the text messages to stop. Moreover,
the Defendant transmitted those text messages by means of
"automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers
or the playing of recorded message," says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff allegedly suffered an invasion of a legally protected
interest in privacy, and he was frustrated, distressed, and annoyed
by the Defendant's unwanted telephonic sales calls. Thus, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
an order providing injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in
the future, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

BCG Attorney Search is the premier legal job site for attorney and
law firm jobs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kzlg.com

                - and –

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

CABLE TECHNOLOGY: FLSA Conditional Certification Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB MCKEE, individually
and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CABLE
TECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and THANH NGUYEN, Case No.
2:21-cv-02385-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's motion for
FLSA conditional certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification is granted for former and current employees of the
Defendants that worked in Tennessee and the Parties are to submit a
Joint Proposed Notice and Consent form by July 15, 2022. The
Plaintiff's motion is denied as to tolling the statute of
limitations at this time."

The Plaintiff contends that "conditional certification is warranted
because Mr. McKee has demonstrated that he and others employed by
Defendants are similarly situated because their claims are "unified
by common theories of defendants’ statutory violations."

In response, the Defendants contend that "Plaintiff's declaration
only provides conclusory allegations and no factual support as to
why he believes other technicians were never compensated for
overtime, travel time, and mandatory meetings." The Defendants
contend that "Plaintiff's unsupported assertions in his declaration
are insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden and do not justify a
conditional certification of a collective action.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ocWLXm at no extra charge.[CC]


CALIFORNIA: Cote Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexander Cote, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Office of the California State
Controller, Betty T. Yee in her official capacity as California
State Controller, Case No. 2:22-cv-03630 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District California on July
12, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-04056-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Office of the California State Controller --
https://www.sco.ca.gov/ -- account for and control disbursement of
all state funds, determine legality and accuracy of every claim
against the state, issue warrants in payment of the state's bills
including lottery prizes, administer the uniform state payroll
system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Arthur T. Susman, Esq.
          SUSMAN HEFFNER & HURST LLP
          Two First National Plaza, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 346-3466
          Fax: (312) 346-2829

               - and -

          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600
          Fax: (212) 686-0114
          Email: kaufman@whafh.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO ARNOLD APLC
          6200 Canoga Avenue, Suite 375
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (747) 777-7748
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay C Russell, Esq.
          CAAG-OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Phone: (415) 703-5717
          Fax: (415) 703-5843
          Email: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov


CALIFORNIA: Sykes Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer I. Sykes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Office of the California State
Controller, Betty T. Yee, in her official capacity as California
State Controller, Case No. 2:22-cv-03860 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-04133-LB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The state controller of California -- https://www.sco.ca.gov/ -- is
a constitutional office in the executive branch of the government
of the U.S. state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay C Russell, Esq.
          CAAG-OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          455 Golden Gate Avenue Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Phone: (415) 703-5717
          Fax: (415) 703-5843
          Email: jay.russell@doj.ca.gov


CARBON CREEK: Colton Files Suit in D. Wyoming
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carbon Creek Energy
LLC. The case is styled as Gregg B. Colton, on behalf of himself
and a class of similarly situated persons v. Carbon Creek Energy
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00150-ABJ (D. Wyo., July 12, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Carbon Creek -- https://carbon-creek.com/ -- is a leader in
producing responsibly-sourced natural gas in Wyoming's Powder River
Basin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly Shaw, Esq.
          Travis W. Koch, Esq.
          KOCH LAW PC
          PO Box 2660
          Cheyenne, WY 82003
          Phone: (307) 426-5010
          Email: kshaw@kochlawpc.com
                 tkoch@kochlawpc.com



CARLISLE ETCETERA: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlisle Etcetera,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Carlisle Etcetera, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022).

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

The Carlisle Collection -- https://www.carlisle-etcetera.com/ -- is
a U.S. fashion design company founded in 1981 by William Rondina,
to offer elegant classic clothing and accessories for women by
private appointment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CCH HEALTHCARE: Suit Seeks to Certify Healthcare Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK FREDERICK, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. CCH HEALTHCARE OH,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00699-JZ (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   a. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      under the FLSA on behalf of the Plaintiff and others
      similarly situated;

   b. Directing that notice be sent by United States mail, email
      and text message to the following:

      "All current and former hourly, non-exempt healthcare
      employees of Defendant in Ohio who (1) had a meal break
      deduction taken from their compensable hours worked or (2)
      received additional renumeration in any workweek that they
      were paid for at least 40 hours of work at any time during
      the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and
      continuing through the final disposition of this case;"

   c. Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form;

   d. Directing Defendant CCH Healthcare OH, LLC  to provide
      within 14 days an electronic spreadsheet in Microsoft
      Excel or comma-delimited format a roster of all
      individuals that fit the definition above that includes
      their full names, dates of employment, last known home
      addresses, personal email addresses, and phone numbers;
      and

   e. Directing Defendant to provide a declaration that the
      produced Roster fully complies with the Court's Order.

CCH is a family of Rehabilitation and Nursing facilities.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 1,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o9QbRu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road
          Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
          agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
          khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

CENTURIAN OF DELAWARE: Brown Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centurian of
Delaware, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jenail Brown, Jeremy
Cartwright, Jeffrey Clayton, William Cordell, Bryan Cordrey, Philip
Davis, Sean Dupree, James Elliotte, Frankie Galindez, Ronald Grine,
Christopher King, Japhis Lampkins, George Leifheit, John Mayhew,
James McCardell, Jeffery McCray, Gary Palmer, Richard Pandiscio,
Stephen Parsons, John Taylor, Joseph Walls, Adam Wenzke, Frank
Whalen, Jr., Robert Worley, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Centurian of Delaware, LLC, Correct RX
Pharmacy Services, Inc., Monroe Hudson, Michael Records, Awele
Mduka-Ezeh, Sheri L. McAfee-Garner, Victor A. Heresniak, Emilia
Adah, Charles Reinette, Flora A. Atangcho, Barbara Denkins, Carla
Miller, William F. Ngwa, Feeah M. Stewart, Jane or John Does 1-50,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00923-UNA (D. Del., July 12, 2022).

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

Centurion Health -- https://www.centurionmanagedcare.com/ -- is a
leading provider of correctional healthcare in the U.S..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raeann Warner, Esq.
          JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
          750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
          P. O. Box 1271
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 656-5445
          Fax: (302) 655-9329
          Email: raeann@jcdelaw.com


CLERICS OF ST-VIATEUR: Canadian Judge Rejects $28-Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has
rejected a $28-million settlement in a sex abuse lawsuit against a
Catholic religious order because of the high legal fees associated
with the agreement.

The agreement would have awarded the Montreal law firm Arsenault,
Dufresne and Wee, which represented the plaintiffs, more than $8
million in fees.

Justice Thomas M. Davis wrote in a July 4 decision that those fees
were "excessive" and not in the interest of the more than 375
sexual abuse victims who were part of the class action.

Davis says the firm did "remarkable work" and that he expects a new
agreement with reasonable fees can be reached and resubmitted to
the court.

The suit against the Quebec-based Catholic religious order the
Clerics of St-Viateur, involved acts committed between 1935 and the
present at more than 20 establishments run by the group, including
boarding schools.

In July 2021, one priest from the order, Rev. Jean Pilon, was
sentenced to three and a half years in prison for criminal acts of
a sexual nature against a dozen victims who were minors at the time
of the crimes between 1961 and 1989. [GN]

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAVI CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case 1:22-cv-05945-JGK
(S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022) alleges breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, common law fraud, and violation of New York General
Business Law, and seeks compensatory, consequential, and punitive
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees for Columbia's
deceptive and unfair business practices

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and each Class member
accepted the Defendant's offer to provide an education leading to a
degree in the chosen field and entered into an agreement to attend
Columbia in exchange for the payment of agreed upon tuition and
fees.

However, the Defendant breached its agreement with the Plaintiff
and the Class members by misreporting data that were used to
calculate its rankings to U.S. News & World Report ("USNWR"). The
Defendant breached its agreement with the Plaintiff and each Class
member by representing to USNWR that it possessed certain
characteristics, qualifications, requirements, benefits, and levels
of attainment that it did not to actually possess, says the suit.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK is the governing board of Columbia University in New York
City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
          501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
          Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Skrandel Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SKRANDEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826-AMC (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for class
certification.

This case concerns the Plaintiff's allegations, on behalf of
himself and a putative class, that he and putative Class members
purchased an Interstate-branded battery bearing a "Free
Replacement" warranty on its main display panel ("Interstate
Battery") from one of Costco's warehouses.

The Plaintiff alleges that when he and putative Class members
returned their Interstate Batteries to Costco within the applicable
warranty period, they were required to pay out of pocket in order
to obtain a "free replacement" battery.

Because the case centers around Costco's internal policies and
procedures related to its return policy for Interstate Batteries as
it relates to Costco's members, the parties jointly agreed to a
Protective Order governing the information marked confidential.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aOVx1v at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Calamusa, Esq.
          Rachel A. Bentley, Esq.
          Geoffrey Stahl, Esq.
          GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
          4114 Northlake Boulevard
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 799-5070
          Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
          E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                  gstahl@fortheinjured.com
                  rbentley@fortheinjured.com

CRICKET WIRELESS: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cricket Wireless,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05893-JPC (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Cricket Wireless -- https://www.cricketwireless.com/ -- is an
American wireless service provider, owned by AT&T. It provides
wireless services to ten million subscribers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Esparza Labor Suit in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2022, that on May 9, 2022, a
certain Donald Esparza filed an action in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, against the company relating to
the termination of his employment entitled "Donald Esparza v. Unico
American Corporation, Michael Budnitsky and Steven Shea."

The action alleges that the company failed to timely pay wages upon
termination of employment in violation of the California Labor
Code, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of the California Labor Code, violated the California
unfair competition law by the forgoing alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and failure to provide the personnel file of
Mr. Esparza after written demand in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The action seeks general and statutory damages, including without
limitation lost wages, back pay, front pay, lost earning capacity,
special damages, statutory penalties and other relief, including
reasonable attorneys' fees. The employment of Mr. Esparza, a former
officer, director and employee of its subsidiary, Crusader
Insurance Company, was terminated in connection with a reduction in
force of employees in connection with the runoff of Crusader.
Budnitsky is a former officer of the company and Crusader. Shea is
the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the company and Crusader.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company.


CRUSADER INSURANCE: Faces Insurance Litigation Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 12, 2022, that Crusader, a
subsidiary of the company, is facing a class action lawsuit filed
on March 23, 2021 by ten policyholders sued in a putative class
action entitled "Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v. Crusader Insurance
Company," Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999).

The action alleges that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business
interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to the
COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders that limited or
halted operations of bars and restaurants.

The action further alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in
denying the claims, and it seeks as damages the amounts allegedly
due as contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys'
fees and costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages.

The lawsuit alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in
California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business
income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more
Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the
property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader.  

On October 1, 2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the
pleadings without leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On
December 15, 2021, Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal
with California Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, Division
2 (A164412). The opening brief of Anchors & Whales LLC is due to be
filed by August 12, 2022.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company based in
California.


CRUSADER INSURANCE: Insurance Litigation Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 11, 2022, that a putative class
action faced by its subsidiary, Crusader Insurance Company was
dismissed on October 1, 2021.

On March 23, 2021, ten policyholders sued Crusader Insurance
Company, in a putative class action entitled "Anchors & Whales LLC
et al. v. Crusader Insurance Company," in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco (Case No.
CGC-21-590999).

Said action alleged that Crusader wrongly denied claims for
business interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related
to the COVID- 19 pandemic and related government orders that
limited or halted operations of bars and restaurants. The action
further alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the
claims, and it seeks as damages the amounts allegedly due as
contract benefits under the insurance policies, attorneys' fees and
costs, punitive damages, and other unspecified damages. The lawsuit
alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in California
that were insured by Crusader for loss of business income, who made
such a claim as a result of "one or more Governmental Orders and
the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the property," and whose
claim was denied by Crusader.

In October 1, 2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the
pleadings without leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On
December 15, 2021, Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal
with California Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, Division
2 (A164412). The opening brief of Anchors & Whales LLC is due to be
filed by August 12, 2022.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company.


CUBESMART LP: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cubesmart, L.P. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cubesmart, L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-05897
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

CubeSmart -- https://www.cubesmart.com/ -- is a real estate
investment trust that invests in self-storage facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CURADEN AG: Lyngaas Must Explain Noncompliance With Court Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. CURADEN AG, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-10910 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, directed the Plaintiff to
file a memorandum explaining why he did not comply with a Court
order.

In the class action brought by Plaintiff Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S. --
individually and as the representative of those similarly situated
-- the Court found that Defendant Curaden USA, Inc. was liable to
the class for a total of $907,500. The Court directed that, within
14 days, either (i) the parties submit a proposed order or
judgment, if they could agree on the form and language; or (ii)
Lyngaas file a motion for entry, if the parties could not agree on
the form and language.

The parties did not submit a proposed order or judgment, nor did
Lyngaas file a motion for entry. Lyngaas is directed to file a
memorandum within seven days explaining why he did not comply with
the Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/369st5k6 from Leagle.com.


DESKTOP METAL: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Luongo Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts appoints Sophia Zhou as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuits styled NICHOLAS LUONGO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC., et
al., Defendants. GREGORY HATHAWAY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC., et
al., Defendants. OSCAR GUZMAN-MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC.,
et al., Defendants. YICHUN XIE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:21-cv-12099-IT, 1:22-cv-10059-IT,
1:22-cv-10173-IT, 1:22-cv-10297-IT (D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Desktop Metal and several of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and/or misleading
statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts relating
to Desktop Metal's acquisition of EnvisionTEC, Inc. On Feb. 4,
2022, the Court sua sponte consolidated the first three of the
actions pending further order, and on March 18, 2022, the Court sua
sponte consolidated a fourth action alleging similar claims but
with an earlier-commencing class period than the first three.

Now pending before the Court are competing motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel under
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), filed by Ajmair Heer, Yichun Xie, and
Sophia Zhou ("Movants").

For the reasons set forth, the Court finds the appropriate class
period for the consolidated action to be Feb. 17, 2021, through
Nov. 15, 2021 (inclusive of both dates). The Court has reconsidered
consolidation, and vacates consolidation of the fourth action, so
that the action alleging losses from an earlier class period may
proceed as a separate action. Sophia Zhou will be appointed lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action, but the Court denies without
prejudice her request to appoint Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as
lead counsel in the consolidated action.

I. Discussion

Under the PSLRA, the court must appoint as lead plaintiff the
purported class member or class members that it determines to be
most capable of adequately representing the interests of class
members (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i)).

A. Consolidation and the Class Period

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), where actions involve
a common question of law or fact, the court may consolidate the
actions.

The Court did so here, on the ground that the allegations in these
actions are substantially similar. Although the movants all have
endorsed consolidation, they have also pointed to a difference in
the actions. Xie contends that the class period should be from Jan.
15, 2021, to Nov. 15, 2021 (inclusive of both dates), whereas the
other potential lead plaintiffs contend that the class period
should be from Feb. 17, 2021, through Nov. 15, 2021 (inclusive of
both dates).

For purposes of determining the lead plaintiff, courts typically
adopt the most inclusive proposed class period, Judge Talwani
notes. The other potential lead plaintiffs urge the Court not to
use Xie's proposed class period, however, and instead reject claims
based on Desktop Metal's alleged material omissions in January
2021.

The Court finds neither route satisfactory. Xie's claims based on
purchases in January 2021 are not "obviously frivolous" where they
are tied to the date of Desktop Metal's January 2021 public
announcement of the acquisition of EnvisionTEC. But evaluating the
potential class period under this "obviously frivolous" standard
leaves open the likelihood that the January 2021 claims will still
be challenged by Defendants on a motion to dismiss, Judge Talwani
explains.

The Court would, therefore, still need to consider, before
appointing Xie lead plaintiff, if Xie is likely to be "subject to
unique defenses that render such plaintiff incapable of adequately
representing the class," see 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II), namely, a motion to dismiss. Nor could the
Court comfortably use the longer class period but appoint one of
the other potential lead plaintiffs to represent that broader class
where those movants have already given a disparaging assessment of
Xie's motion advocating for the longer class period.

The Court concludes that the cleaner resolution here is to vacate
the consolidation of Xie's action, allowing that action to proceed
separately, with new notice to investors, for a proposed class of
investors, who purchased Desktop Metal stock from Jan. 15, 2021, to
Feb. 16, 2021 (inclusive of both dates). The Court finds further
that the class period relevant for purposes of determining the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated action is Feb. 17, 2021, through Nov.
15, 2021 (inclusive of both dates).

B. Presumptively Most Adequate Plaintiff

The Court must presume that the most adequate Plaintiff is: the
person or group of persons that: (a) has either filed the complaint
or made a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff; (b) in the
determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in
the relief sought by the class; and (c) otherwise satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the PSLRA does not provide a methodology for determining
which putative class member has the largest financial interest,
many courts have considered (1) the number of shares purchased
during the class period; (2) the number of net shares purchased
during the class period; (3) the total net funds expended during
the class period; and (4) the approximate losses suffered during
the class period.

1. The First Three Factors

Judge Talwani finds that the first three factors all undisputedly
favor Zhou. Zhou purchased 318,700 shares during the class period,
as compared to Heer's 82,000. Zhou purchased 312,000 net shares
during the class period, as compared to Heer's 65,000. And Zhou
expended $2,628,900 net funds during the class period, as compared
to Heer's $1,229,803.

2. The Fourth Factor -- Approximate Losses Suffered

a. Loss Calculation Methodology

Courts using the Olsten-Lax factors often consider approximate loss
to be the most important factor, Judge Talwani notes. To calculate
the approximate losses sustained by a proposed lead plaintiff in a
securities class action, courts typically employ one of two
methodologies: First-In-First-Out ("FIFO") or Last-In-First-Out
("LIFO"). Under FIFO, stocks acquired first are assumed to have
been sold first in the calculation of losses; under LIFO, stocks
acquired most recently are assumed to have been the first sold.

Judge Talwani explains that one reason LIFO is the preferred
methodology is because FIFO has the potential to exaggerate losses,
by failing to take into account gains that an investor might have
made on the stock that were attributable to its artificial
inflation as a result of the alleged fraud, while LIFO takes into
account such gains. LIFO allows the court to exclude "in-and-out"
transactions, purchases and sales that occur during the class
period, i.e., after the stock price was fraudulently inflated and
before it dropped due to a corrective disclosure.

Accordingly, the Court finds that LIFO is the proper methodology
for calculating losses in the relevant period.

b. Transactions During the Class Period

Although both Zhou and Heer use LIFO in their calculations, they
disagree as to how to treat certain transactions completed during
the class period. Zhou contends that Heer's "stated losses are
inherently overstated because they include significantly large
in-and-out transactions," and that if these are disregarded, Zhou's
losses of $628,605 are greater than Heer's losses of $575,546. Heer
contends that the court should include all of these transactions in
the losses calculation. He calculates losses of $815,887, as
compared to Zhou's losses of $616,757. Heer asserts "that there was
leakage of the truth through partial disclosures during the Class
Period including on May 17, 2021," such that he may recover for
subsequent losses.

The Court rejects Heer's argument that the May 17, 2021 disclosure
was corrective such that his subsequent losses are not "in-and-out
transactions."

3. Calculation of Financial Interest

Having identified the Class Period and appropriate methodology for
determining the lead plaintiff, the Court turns to applying the
Olsten-Lax factors. Heer does not dispute that Zhou's Olsten-Factor
analysis, a summary of which is provided in her Response in Further
Support of Her Motion, is incorrectly calculated. During the class
period of Feb. 17, 2021, to Nov. 15, 2021, excluding the gains and
losses resulting from in-and-out transactions (which is consistent
with LIFO), Zhou has the larger loss, purchased the greatest number
of shares, purchased the greatest number of net shares, and
expended the greatest amount in net funds.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Zhou is the movant with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.

4. Relevant Preliminary Requirements of Rule 23

The PSLRA's final requirement is that the proposed lead plaintiff
satisfies Rule 23's class certification requirements of typicality,
and adequacy.

The Court finds that Zhou satisfies both requirements. Zhou is a
typical class member because her claims arise from her purchase of
Desktop Metal securities in reliance upon allegedly false and/or
misleading statements made knowingly by Desktop Metal, which
resulted in financial losses to her when the truth was publicly
disclosed.

Ms. Zhou is also adequate to represent the class, Judge Talwani
finds. As Zhou has sustained significant financial losses, the
court finds that she has incentive to maximize the recovery from
the alleged fraud and her claims do not conflict with those
asserted on behalf of the class.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Zhou is presumptively the most
adequate plaintiff and will be appointed as lead plaintiff.

5. Lead Counsel

The PSLRA vests authority in the lead plaintiff to select and
retain lead counsel, subject to the Court's approval.

Here, Zhou asks the Court to appoint Hagens Berman as lead counsel
and has submitted a document containing the resumes of Hagens
Berman's law firm. However, Zhou's request that the Court appoint a
law firm, rather than individual attorneys, raises the question of
whether a law firm may serve as counsel where it may not enter
appearances, or file pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and
where the Local Rule 83.5.2 requires that when a party is
represented by a law firm, the appearance must include the name of
at least one attorney individual attorney, Judge Talwani notes.

Accordingly, Zhou's motion is denied without prejudice as to the
appointment of lead counsel. Judge Talwani holds that Zhou may
renew her motion by identifying the individual attorneys Zhou seeks
to have appointed. In the alternative, Zhou may renew her motion
for the appointment of the Hagens Berman, but must provide
authority for the proposition that the PSLRA, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and/or applicable ethical rules contemplate and
provide for the appointment of law firms, as opposed to individual
attorneys, as lead counsel.

The Court does not anticipate finding persuasive court orders that
appoint law firms as counsel without specifically addressing the
issue.

II. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Talwani rules that:

   1. Electronic Order, Civil Action 22-cv-10297, consolidating
      the fourth action with the first three actions is vacated;

   2. Xie's Motion seeking consolidation, appointment as Lead
      Plaintiff in the consolidated action on behalf of a class
      consisting of persons or entities that acquired Desktop
      Metal securities commencing Jan. 15, 2021, is denied as
      moot;

   3. Xie's Motion, in Civil Action 22-cv-10297, seeking the same
      relief is denied as to consolidation, and denied without
      prejudice as premature as to appointment of Lead Plaintiff
      and Lead Counsel on behalf of a class consisting of persons
      or entities that acquired Desktop Metal Securities between
      Jan. 15, 2021, and Feb. 16, 2021 (inclusive of both dates);
      and

   4. Zhou's Motion, is granted in part and denied without
      prejudice in part. The Court appoints Zhou as Lead
      Plaintiff in the consolidated action on behalf of a class
      consisting of persons or entities that acquired Desktop
      Metal securities between Feb. 17, 2021, through Nov. 15,
      2021 (inclusive of both dates). The Court denies without
      prejudice Zhou's request to appoint Hagens Berman Sobol
      Shapiro LLP as lead counsel.

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


DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Faces Class Action Over T-Mobile/Sprint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that a group of AT&T and Verizon
wireless subscribers have filed a proposed class action arguing
that the T-Mobile/Sprint merger - despite all of their emphatic
assurances to the contrary - is harming consumers and should be
unwound.

The suit was filed on June 17 in federal court in Chicago against
Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Mobile U.S., Inc., and former Sprint Corp.
owner SoftBank Group Corp. of Japan. The consumers allege the
merger paved the way for anticompetitive conduct in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act
(Dale, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., No. 1:22-cv-03189,
N.D. Ill.).

The April 2020 merger of T-Mobile and Sprint reduced the number of
national retail mobile wireless carriers from four to three. As a
result, consumers who subscribe to these carriers, including AT&T
and Verizon customers, have paid billions more for wireless
service, the suit maintains. One estimate predicted the merger
would cost consumers as much as $9 billion a year.

DOJ, States Sued in 2019

In July 2019 the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and a
group of states filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia to block the deal (U.S. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, No.
1:19-cv-02232, D. D.C). To secure DOJ's approval, the companies
ultimately agreed to divest Sprint's prepaid cellular business and
additional wireless spectrum assets to satellite TV company, Dish
Network Corp., and granted Dish an option to acquire at least
20,000 cell sites and hundreds of retail stores.

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, head of the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice, said of the deal when it was
proposed: "With this merger and accompanying divestiture, we are
expanding output significantly by ensuring that large amounts of
currently unused or underused spectrum are made available to
American consumers in the form of high quality 5G networks." The
settlement was intended to provide Dish with the assets and
transitional services it would need to become a competitive,
nationwide, full-service facilities-based mobile network operator.
The DOJ said Dish would enter the market in fourth place behind the
new T-Mobile / Sprint company, with AT&T and Verizon jockeying for
first place.

As we wrote in our July 29, 2019, post when the DOJ announced its
proposed arrangement with the companies, "Instead of remedying the
anticompetitive effects of an unlawful merger, the DOJ's settlement
encumbers consumers with the burden of an ill-conceived industrial
adventure that is unlikely to provide any remedy at all."

A separate action was brought by attorneys general from 14 states
and the District of Columbia in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to block the merger (New York v.
Deutsche Telekom, S.D.N.Y.). Following a two-week trial, the judge
ruled in favor of the merger. Because the DOJ had determined that
the deal would be unlawful absent the conditions negotiated by the
parties, the main issue at trial should have been whether the
behavioral and structural remedies actually cured the potential
risks to competition posed by the merger. Unfortunately, as we
wrote in the Los Angeles Daily Journal on Feb. 26, 2020, the court
primarily analyzed whether the parties were likely to implement the
proposed remedies rather than whether the remedies, if implemented,
were likely to cure the competition issues raised by the merger.

Critics might point out that that the T-Mobile/Sprint deal closed
on April Fool's Day 2020. With the reduction in competition, all
three carriers have raised rates through higher plan prices, taxes,
fees, and surcharges, according to plaintiffs in Dale v. Deutsche
Telekom. As such, they seek to unwind the merger, create the viable
fourth competitor that was promised, and recover damages from
overcharges.

The Structure of U.S. Retail Cell Service Industry

The retail cell service market requires basic components in
addition to handsets. These include antenna towers for local
connections; fiber optic lines connecting the towers; computer
software and hardware to manage the immense data flows; and a radio
frequency spectrum. Prior to the merger, only AT&T, Verizon,
T-Mobile, and Sprint were "mobile network operators" or MNOs. The
industry presents "nearly insurmountable barriers" to new entrants
desiring to become MNOs due to the resources, personnel, assets,
and experience the industry demands, the complaint alleges.

T-Mobile and Sprint were smaller MNOs that were willing to cut
prices and make offers to consumers in order to compete with AT&T
and Verizon. T-Mobile ramped up competitiveness through equipment
installment plans, lower-cost monthly service plans, and unlimited
data plans. Sprint followed suit, aggressively slashing prices. The
two disrupted the market and forced responses from AT&T and
Verizon, creating the kind of competition that benefits consumers
and innovation alike.

On April 29, 2018, when T-Mobile and Sprint announced their
intention to merge, opposition came from all directions and
prompted hearings before the House Energy and Commerce Committee
and the House Judiciary Committee. Witnesses testified that such
deals resulted in price inflation in Europe, and would have a
similar result in the U.S., adversely affecting lower-income
consumers by reducing choice of lower-priced plans.

Critics said the deal would also increase the risk that the small
group of competitors would coordinate prices and T-Mobile would not
be motivated to compete as fiercely as before the merger. Gone
would be the days of Sprint's low-cost high-value plans.

T-Mobile knew Dish could never replace Sprint as an effective
competitor, according to the Dale plaintiffs. As explained, to get
a green light from the DOJ, T-Mobile sold Dish its prepaid phone
business and other Sprint prepaid assets for $1.4 billion. T-Mobile
and Sprint sold the arrangement to the DOJ on the theory that these
concessions would enable Dish to ultimately replace Sprint as the
fourth MNO in the industry, reducing the threat to competition.
Internally however, T-Mobile's executive team was "very skeptical"
that such a network would be built, given the time and financial
investment required, according to the complaint.

Declining to enjoin the merger as the 14 states and DC had asked,
the Southern District of New York ruled that T-Mobile would
continue to compete vigorously as the "Un-carrier"; that Sprint
would not have survived as a strong competitor; and, that Dish
would enter the wireless services market as a viable MNO. The
parties' subsequent actions and post-merger data demonstrate the
companies misled the district court about their intentions and
effects of the merger, the plaintiffs charge. Consumers have not
benefited from the deal; instead they have paid billions more to
AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, the suit alleges. This reduced
competition has only led to higher prices and profits for T-Mobile,
a result that is directly counter to the spirit of pricing
commitments made to regulators.

Because the merger has substantially reduced actual and potential
competition in the sale of retail mobile wireless
telecommunications services by MNOs, the plaintiffs have been
paying and will continue to pay artificially inflated prices in
this increasingly concentrated market.

Commentary: A Cautionary Tale at Best
This was always the most likely result of the T-Mobile/Sprint
merger:

-- The parties would fail to effectively implement the proposed
behavioral remedies, many of which required significant cooperation
among competitors.

-- Dish, which has its own history of failing to satisfy
commitments made to the federal government, would not become a
viable fourth competitor, meaning the merger reduced the number of
nationwide cell carriers from four to three.

-- The increased concentration caused by the merger would lead to
higher prices for consumers.

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to restore
competition at this point given the substantial barriers to entry
in this market and exceedingly small chance a court orders this
mega-merger to be unwound several years after it closed. It appears
that, at best, we can hope this will serve as a cautionary tale for
courts and antitrust agencies moving forward. [GN]

DJGN INDY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brady Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN BRADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DJGN INDY, LLC d/b/a TONY’S OF
INDIANAPOLIS, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01381-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind.,
July 12, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Brady was employed by the Defendant as server.

DJGN INDY, LLC d/b/a TONY’S OF INDIANAPOLIS operates a restaurant
known as Tony’s Steaks & Seafood restaurant in Indianapolis,
Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               -and-

          Jason P. Cleveland, Esq.
          Eric J. Hartz, Esq.
          CLEVELAND LEHNER CASSIDY
          6214 Carrollton Avenue, Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Telephone: (317) 388-5424
          Facsimile: (317) 947-1863
          Email: jason@clcattorneys.com
                 eric@clcattorneys.com

EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Zaker Shareholder Suit in NY Court Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebang International Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2022, that a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and
its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer captioned
"Tommie Zaker v. Ebang International Holdings Inc., Dong Hu and Lei
Chen, Case No. 1:21-cv-03060-KPF (April 8, 2021, S.D. N.Y.) but was
voluntarily dismissed.

The complaint in the litigation, which relied extensively on a
report published online on April 6, 2021 by third party Hindenburg
Research, a widely-known short-selling firm, alleged false or
misleading statements and omissions in violation of United States
securities laws.

The litigation was on behalf of persons that purchased or acquired
its Class A ordinary shares between June 26, 2020 and April 5,
2021, a period of volatility in its Class A ordinary shares, as
well as volatility in the price of Bitcoin.

On October 1, 2021, the lead plaintiff in the litigation filed a
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which dismissed all claims in the
Litigation. On October 4, 2021, Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed
an Order confirming the voluntary dismissal and closing the
litigation.

Ebang International Holdings Inc. is a blockchain technology
company with strong application-specific integrated circuit chip
design capability.


EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Zeva Shareholder Suit in NJ Court Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebang International Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2022, that a class
action lawsuit entitled "Konstantin Zeva v. Ebang International
Holdings Inc., Dong Hu and Lei Chen," Case No.
2:21-cv-09859-JXN-LDW (April 20, 2021, D. N.J.) was filed against
the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer alleging false or misleading statements and omissions in
violation of United States securities laws.

In July 23, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, which dismissed all claims. In July 29, 2021, Judge
Julien Xavier Neals signed an order confirming the voluntary
dismissal and closing said litigation.

Ebang International Holdings Inc. is a blockchain technology
company with strong application-specific integrated circuit chip
design capability.


EFIGIE CORP: Valiente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Efigie, Corp. The
case is styled as Heriberto Valiente, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Efigie, Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-22129-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2022).

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

Efigie, Corp. is a domestic for profit company located in Miami,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
          1547 Brooksbend Drive
          Wesley Chapel, FL 33432-33543
          Phone: (561) 789-4413
          Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com
                 ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


ENSERVCO CORPORATION: Faces Safee Securities Suit in Colorado Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enservco Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 7, 2022, that in May 23, 2022, Ali
Safee, individually and on behalf of others, filed a complaint in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado against
the Company, Richard A. Murphy, and Majorie A. Hargrave (its former
Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint generally alleges violation of federal securities
laws in connection with the company's amending of its Quarterly
Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2021, June
30, 2021, and September 30, 2021 to reflect restatements of its
consolidated financial statements for such quarters.

Enservco Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
provides various services to the domestic onshore oil and natural
gas industry based in Colorado.


EVENTIDE CREDIT: Court Allows Smith to Amend Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD LEE SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATT MARTORELLO and
EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-1651-AR (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon grants both Smith's
motion to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint and his
motion to file a First Amended Motion for Class Certification.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued his
Findings and Recommendation in the case on June 8, 2022. Judge
Armistead recommended that the Court grants the motion of Plaintiff
Smith to file an amended complaint, grants Smith's motion to
correct his motion for class certification, and stays the deadlines
to respond and reply to the motion for class certification pending
the Court's review of the Findings and Recommendation. Defendants
Eventide and Martorello timely filed objections, to which Smith
responded.

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a magistrate
judge to "hear and decide" all referred pretrial matters that are
"not dispositive of a party's claim or defense." For dispositive
matters when the parties have not consented to the magistrate
judge's jurisdiction, Rule 72 allows the magistrate judge only to
"enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate,
proposed findings of fact."

When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's determination
of a nondispositive matter, however, the district judge may reject
that determination only when it has been shown that the magistrate
judge's order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. "The
reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of
the deciding court." "An order is contrary to the law when it fails
to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of
procedure."

Judge Simon concludes that Judge Armistead's factual findings are
not clearly erroneous and, after de novo review, Judge Armistead's
legal conclusions are not contrary to law. Accordingly, he
overrules the Defendants' objections and affirms Judge Armistead's
nondispositive Opinion and Order (titled "Findings and
Recommendation"). He grants both Smith's motion to file a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint and his motion to file a First
Amended Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrye32hw from Leagle.com.


EVMO INC: Court Approves Settlement in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 14, 2022, that on July 11, 2022, a hearing was
held in the U.S, District Court, Central District of California, in
which a final settlement among the parties, which include the
company "In re YayYo Securities Litigation," was agreed upon.

An order and final judgment approving class action settlements,
attorneys' fees, expenses, and awards to plaintiffs, which formally
concluded the litigation, was executed by the Court on July 12,
2022.

EVmo is a technology-enabled fleet management and rental company,
connecting gig drivers with electric, hybrid and delivery
vehicles.


FAWBUSH'S GALLERIA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fawbush's Galleria,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, Seana Cromitie, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fawbush's
Galleria, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05932 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022).

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

Fawbush's Galleria -- https://www.fawbushs.com/ -- offers a vast
range of apparel perfect for work, travel or simply lounging on the
weekends.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FEDEX GROUND: Cullinane Labor Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAYLOR CULLINANE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC., M&E
ROUTES, INC. and MICHAEL DACEY, Case No. 2284CV01206-BLS1, was
removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, County of
Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on July 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-11129-FDS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other delivery drivers for all hours worked, promised
bonuses, and overtime wages.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc. is a package delivery services
provider, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

M&E Routes, Inc. is a transportation services company based in
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Diane M. Saunders, Esq.
         Michael Clarkson, Esq.
         Andrea M. Sullivan, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         One Boston Place, Suite 3500
         Boston, MA 02108
         Telephone: (617) 994-5700
         E-mail: diane.saunders@ogletree.com
                 michael.clarkson@ogletree.com
                 andrea.sullivan@ogletree.com

FIRST COMMUNITY BANK: Cox Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy And Dennis Cox, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. FIRST COMMUNITY BANK, Case No.
5:22-cv-00170-JPB (N.D. Va., June 24, 2022), is brought against
Defendant First Community Bank over the improper assessment and
collection of (a) $36 Overdraft Fees on debit card transactions
authorized on sufficient funds, and (b) multiple $36 fees on an
item.

Overdraft fees and insufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") are among
the primary fee generators for banks. The Plaintiffs bring this
action challenging the Defendant's practice of charging OD Fees on
what are referred to in this Complaint as "Authorize Positive,
Settle Negative Transactions," or "APSN Transactions."

At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, Defendant immediately
reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase, sets aside funds in the checking account to cover that
transaction, and adjusts the consumer's displayed "available
balance" to reflect that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these
transactions because Defendant has already held the funds for
payment. However, Defendant still assesses crippling $36 OD Fees on
many of these transactions and misrepresents its practices in the
Contract.

Besides being deceptive, this practice breaches Defendant's
standardized adhesion contract which is comprised of the Terms and
Conditions of Your Account, the Overdraft Policy and the Fee
Schedule (collectively the "Contract"). The practice also breaches
Defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjustly
enriches Defendant to the detriment of its customers. Through the
imposition of these fees, the Defendant has made substantial
revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to turn its
customers' financial struggles into revenue. The Plaintiffs, like
thousands of others, have fallen victim to Defendant's fee revenue
maximization Schemes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of West Virginia and have maintained a
checking account with the Defendant.

The Defendant is a bank with more than $3 billion in assets and its
principal place of business in Bluefield, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rodney A. Smith, Esq.
          ROD SMITH LAW PLLC
          108½ Capitol Street, Suite 300
          Charleston, West Virginia 25301
          Phone: 304-342-0550
          Fax: 304-344-5529
          Email: rod@LawWV.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com


FOUR BUILDERS: American Builders Files Suit in D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Four Builders Plus
Siding Division, LLC, et al. The case is styled as American
Builders Insurance Company f/k/a Association Insurance Company v.
Four Builders Plus Siding Division, LLC, C. Hampton Atkins, Mark A.
Barford, Michelle T. Barford, Holly Blanchard, Karl Buchanan, Leo
Brueggeman, Beverly Carroll, Thomas Cordeiro, Gayle C. Foster,
Robert S. Foster, Sr., Jan R Gunn, Kirk A Gunn, Matthew Horton,
Connie Michels, John Michels, Karen Miller, Ellen Parker, Matthew
V. Roughgarden, Nancy T. Roughgarden, Lydia Schafer, Patrick
Schafer, Annette P Sherman, Enoch G Sherman, Beth Stenger, Walter
Stenger, Chris Taylor, Jane Taylor, Tara White, Warden William
White, Leah Wilkins, Tal Wilkins, Catherine T. Young, Thomas E.
Young, Jr., Individually, on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, and On Behalf of The Preserve at The Clam Farm Homeowners
Association, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02209-DCN (D.S.C., July 12,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Four Builders Plus Siding Division --
https://www.fourbuildersplus.com/ -- specialize in roofing,
decking, windows and siding. Outdoor Construction Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Skahan Willis, Esq.
          R Michael Ethridge, Esq.
          ETHRIDGE LAW GROUP LLC
          1100 Queensborough Boulevard, Suite 200
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 614-0007
          Email: mwillis@ethridgelawgroup.com
                 methridge@ethridgelawgroup.com


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Berman Seeks to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BERMAN, STEPHANIE
HERNANDEZ, and ERICA RUSSELL, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC,
FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, FLUENT, INC., and LEAD SCIENCE, LLC, Case
No. 4:18-cv-01060-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting certification of the following classes:

   -- Cellular Telephone Visitor Class

      "Every person in the United States (1) to whom the
      Defendants placed a call, (2) to a cellular telephone
      number listed in LEADSCIENCE_677, (3) using an artificial
      or prerecorded voice, (4) in order to sell Freedom's
      products, (5) between May 17, 2017, and April 17, 2018,
      (6) after the person had entered the phone number on a
      Fluent website;"

   -- Cellular Telephone Non-Visitor Class

      "Every person in the United States (1) to whom the
      Defendants placed a call, (2) to a cellular telephone
      number listed in LEADSCIENCE_677, (3) using an artificial
      or prerecorded voice, (4) in order to sell Freedom's
      products, (5) between May 17, 2017, and April 17, 2018,
      (6) but who hadn’t entered the phone number on a Fluent
      website before the date of the call;"

   -- DNC Non-Visitor Class

      "Every person in the United States (1) to whom the
      Defendants placed a call or sent a text message, (2) in
      order to market Freedom's products, (3) between May 17,
      2017, and April 17, 2018 (4) to a residential telephone
      number listed in LEADSCIENCE_677, (5) which telephone
      number was listed on the NDNCR for at least 31 days before
      at least two of such communications in a 12-month period,
      (6) but who hadn't entered the phone number on a Fluent
      website before the date of the call."

The Plaintiffs Daniel Berman, Stephanie Hernandez, and Erica
Russell move for certification of three proposed classes of
individuals who received texts and robocalls from defendants
Fluent, Inc. and Lead Science, LLC marketing the debt relief
services of Freedom Financial Network, LLC and its subsidiary
Freedom Debt Relief, LLC.

The Plaintiff Berman received numerous calls and texts out of the
blue, having never visited one of the websites that Fluent uses to
collect leads to telemarket for companies like Freedom.

The lead lists that Fluent and Drips produced revealed that
Plaintiff Berman was one of many people whose phone numbers were
associated with evidently fake names or addresses. Of the 4,492,433
calls and texts that Defendants placed as part of this campaign,
more than 400,000 were made to numbers associated with invalid
first and last names or addresses, more than 500,000 were made to
wrong numbers, and 777,692 were made to class members who told
Fluent to stop calling.

On September 4, 2019, the Court denied Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to Berman's claims.

The Court denied Plaintiff Berman's prior motion for class
certification because he is not subject to the affirmative defenses
of express consent and mandatory arbitration that the Defendants
assert against class members who visited Fluent's websites.

Freedom Financial Network provides financial products and services
to help people improve their financial situation.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 1, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OaFjh2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, Washington 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, Massachusetts 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738-7080
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Surcharge Fees Not Proper, Massaro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MASSARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.; and
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case
5:22-cv-01222 (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2022) seeks enjoin the
Defendants' unlawful advertising scheme regarding their "Internet
Infrastructure Surcharge" for internet service; a "VoIP
Administrative Fee" for phone service; and a "Broadcast TV
Surcharge" and a "Regional Sports Fee" (the "Sports/Broadcast TV
Fee") for television service.

According to the complaint, Frontier has prominently advertised its
service plans at particular, flat monthly rates that were locked in
for a promotional period or term contract, without disclosing or
including additional service charges for each of its services the
"Sports/Broadcast TV Fee" for television service.

The Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, and
Sports/Broadcast TV Fee are not taxes or government fees. Rather,
they are all disguised double-charges for Frontier's services.
These service charges are set by and entirely in the control of
Frontier, and are utilized by Frontier solely to line its own
pockets.

Frontier has utilized the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP
Administrative Fee, and Sports/Broadcast TV Fee to: (1) charge more
per month for the services themselves without having to advertise
the higher prices; and (2) as a way to covertly increase customers'
rates, even during their promised fixed-rate promotional period or
term contract. Through this fraudulent scheme Frontier has
extracted from its California subscribers hundreds of millions of
dollars in the past several years in Internet Infrastructure
Surcharge payments, VoIP Administrative Fee payments, and
Sports/Broadcast TV Fee payments, says the suit.

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC. offers a full range of long
distance voice, tele-conferencing, video-conferencing, and data and
value-added communications services for business and residential
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
          Bellevue, WA 98005
          Telephone: (425) 233-8650
          Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
          Email: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

GALVESTON COUNTY, TX: Certification of Class in Booth Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON BOOTH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GALVESTON COUNTY;
HONORABLE KERRY NEVES; HONORABLE LONNIE COX; HONORABLE JOHN
ELLISOR; HONORABLE PATRICIA GRADY; HONORABLE ANNE B. DARRING;
HONORABLE KERRI FOLEY; HONORABLE JAMES WOLTZ; DISTRICT ATTORNEY
JACK ROADY; STEPHEN W. BAKER; HONORABLE JARED ROBINSON,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 19-40395 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacates without prejudice the
district court's order certifying the class and remands to the
district court for consideration of the jurisdictional questions.

The case originated when Aaron Booth was arrested and had his bail
set by a magistrate judge in Galveston County at an amount he
perceived as too high; additionally, Booth did not initially
receive court-appointed counsel. He ultimately filed a Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class action against: (a) Galveston
County District Court Judges; (b) Galveston County Magistrate
Judges; (c) Galveston County Criminal District Attorney Jack Roady;
and (d) Galveston County.

Booth asserted Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal
Protection claims regarding the bail procedure and a related Sixth
Amendment right to counsel claim. The district court ultimately
certified the following class: "all people who are or will be
detained in Galveston County jail on felony and state-jail felony
charges because they are unable to pay secured bail set at
magistration."

The Defendants sought permission to appeal the district court's
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which
was granted.

In the time that has passed since the class certification, some
significant events have occurred, including the passage of Texas
Senate Bill 6 addressing bail reform and this court's en banc
opinion in Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022) (en
banc). While this appeal addresses only the class certification
question, the jurisdictional questions raised by Daves and the
mootness and potential alteration of the description of the class
raised by the Senate Bill impact this appeal, and the Fifth Circuit
cannot ignore issues that affect subject matter jurisdiction.

The parties disagree about the impact of the intervening events on
jurisdiction in the case. The Fifth Circuit concludes that the
facts and potential differences are worthy of initial consideration
by the district court. Accordingly, it vacates without prejudice
the order certifying the class and remands to the district court
for consideration of the jurisdictional questions (including
mootness) in the first instance and then, if jurisdiction remains,
determination in the first instance of whether an appropriate class
remains for certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4a8bbf9b from Leagle.com.


GEICO GENERAL: Settles Auto Claims Underpayment Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TopClassActions.com reports that Geico agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it misinterpreted no-fault
auto insurance, resulting in underpayment on certain claims.

The settlement benefits Florida healthcare providers who, during
the class period, submitted a claim for reimbursement to a no-fault
insurance policy of which Geico paid 80%, adding code "BA" to the
explanations of benefits or review. Applicable policies include
Florida motor vehicle insurance policies from Geico which contain a
no-fault policy endorsement, indicated by endorsements such as
"FLPIP (01-13)," "FLPIP (07-15)" and "FLPIP (01-18)."

Applicable class periods vary depending on which Geico insurance
company issued the relevant policies:

    Geico Indemnity Co.: June 15, 2017, to May 31, 2022.
    Geico General Insurance Co.: May 7, 2014, to May 31, 2022.
    Geico Casualty Co.: June 15, 2017, to May 31, 2022.
    Government Employees Insurance Co.: June 15, 2017, toMay 31,
2022.

Geico is an insurance company that provides insurance policies for
drivers, business owners, homeowners and more. Some of Geico's
automotive insurance policies have personal injury protection (PIP)
terms, which help pay for medical expenses resulting from a car
accident.

Plaintiffs in the Geico class action lawsuit accused the insurer of
misinterpreting the terms of its personal injury protection
policies. As a result, Geico allegedly underpaid healthcare
providers at a rate of 80% payment per claim. The PIP class action
lawsuit argues providers should receive 100% payment for these
claims.

One plaintiff allegedly provided chiropractic services to a Geico
insured in 2016 after the woman was in a car crash. However, upon
submitting the claim to Geico, the plaintiff claims only $140 of
the $175 billed amount was paid.

According to the Geico PIP class action lawsuit, this payment
policy violates Florida state law.

Geico hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these
claims with a class action lawsuit settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a
readjustment of their claims to reimburse the 20% of the claim
originally unpaid by Geico.

Class members are also eligible for an enhanced payment of 10% of
these payments and $9 per submitted claim form as additional
benefits from the Geico settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Aug. 15, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Dec.
2, 2022. Class members are not required to attend this hearing, but
have until Nov. 2, 2022, to send their notice to appear if they do
wish to speak to the court about the settlement.

In order to receive a claim from the settlement, class members must
submit a valid claim form by Nov. 28, 2022. Multiple claim forms
may be required if providers rendered treatment to different
insureds from different accidents.

Who's Eligible:  The settlement benefits Florida healthcare
providers who, during the class period, submitted a claim for
reimbursement to a no-fault insurance policy of which Geico paid
80%, adding code "BA" to the explanations of benefits or review.
Applicable policies include Florida motor vehicle insurance
policies from Geico which contain a no-fault policy endorsement,
indicated by endorsements such as "FLPIP (01-13)," "FLPIP (07-15)"
and "FLPIP (01-18)."

Potential Award:  Varies

Proof of Purchase: Available supporting documents, such as an
Explanation of Benefit (EOB) or Explanation of Review (EOR) (if
available) should also be submitted with the Settlement Claim
Form.

TO FILE A CLAIM, CLICK
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/insurance/geico-auto-claims-underpayment-class-action-settlement/

Claim Form Deadline: 11/28/2022

Case Name:  Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A., v. GEICO General Insurance
Co., Case No. 19-cv-61422-AMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida

Final Hearing: 12/02/2022

Settlement Website: FLBilledAmountSettlement.com

Claims Administrator:
Rosenberg v. GEICO General Insurance Company
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91222
Seattle, WA 98111
info@FLBilledAmountSettlement.com
855-606-0783

Class Counsel:
Edward Zebersky
Michael T. Lewenz
Mark S. Fistos
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ LLP

and

Alec Schultz
HIGERS GRABEN PLLC

Defense Counsel:
John P Marino
SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP[GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Massachusetts District Court Dismisses Sreedhar Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard G. Stearns of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismisses the lawsuit styled SRIKANTH
SREEDHAR v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 22-10322-RGS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Sreedhar instituted the action on March 1, 2022, by
filing a pro se complaint naming the following Defendants: Google,
Inc.; Parsons Corporation; KPMG LLP; Ravi Duvvuri; United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Employee Benefits
Security Administration of the United States Department of Labor;
the United States Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division; Tata
Consultancy Services and DSS.

By Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2022, the Court granted
Sreedhar leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied his motions
to appoint counsel and to remove from Northeast Housing Court. The
Court granted Sreedhar 42 days to file an amended complaint as to
Defendants Google, LLC, Parsons Corporation, KPMG LLP and Ravi
Duvvuri and dismissed the claims against Tata Consultancy Services,
US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States
Department of Labor EBSA, the United States Department of Labor W&H
Division, and DSS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In response to the Court's May 16, 2022 Memorandum and Order,
Sreedhar filed several motions, including a notice of appeal filed
for the purpose of preserving his right of appeal in the event his
pleadings were not timely received by the district court.

By Order dated June 27, 2022, the Court noted that Sreedhar's
appeal was filed prematurely and that this Court retains
jurisdiction over all of the matters presently before the Court in
this case. Sreedhar was granted leave to file one comprehensive
document entitled "second amended complaint." Sreedhar was advised
that any second amended complaint must comply with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and would be
subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 (e)(2)(B).
Sreedhar was cautioned that it is impermissible to bring multiple
unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action and
that he will not further amend or supplement his second amended
complaint without prior permission of this Court upon motion and
good cause shown.

Now before the Court is Sreedhar's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC")
with supporting exhibits. Sreedhar also filed motions seeking to
file new cases against TCS and Ravi Duvvuri with supporting
exhibit.

To the extent Sreedhar seeks permission to file two complaints in
the instant action, his motions are denied because new actions must
be initiated by filing separate civil actions according to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Stearns opines.

As to the SAC, it consists of 4 single-spaced, typewritten pages.
Rather than setting forth his claims in numbered paragraphs as
required by Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
SAC consists of 170 separately numbered lines, Judge Stearns finds.
The case caption identifies Google LLC as the sole defendant and
the SAC consists primarily of a claim section and a relief
section.

As best can be gleaned from the allegations in the "claim section"
of the SAC, Sreedhar seeks to assert a "right to internet privacy"
and complains that Defendant Google is gathering data without prior
consent from searches conducted on incognito mode. He complains
that he has on-line "stalkers" and that Google Corporation has
refused to remove from the "Google Search Results" for the keywords
"Srikanath+Sreedhar+NITK."

The SAC references litigation against Google that was brought by a
film actor in the Delhi High Court in India ("the DHC") and
complains, among other things, that "the DHC" failed to process
Sreedhar's petition against Google. The SAC makes passing reference
to ongoing litigation "against Google in California on the
incognito mode's privacy."

Judge Stearns notes that the civil cover sheet accompanying the
original complaint references the following "related" case: Brown
v. Google LLC, 2021 WL 6064009 (N.D. Cal., 2021) (class action
arising from Google's practice of using its advertising and data
analytics services to collect data from internet users who visit
websites while in "private browsing mode").

For relief, Sreedhar seeks to have the Court: (1) enjoin Google
from displaying the CIC's Order on the Internet; (2) direct the
United States Department of Justice to probe the conduct of Google
in the Delhi High Court; (3) take note of the conduct of Google to
gather data in the incognito mode; (4) direct Google to inform the
DELHI HIGH COURT that he has the RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN ON THE
INTERNET; and (5) direct Google to help him by providing him legal
aid as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility.

Even with the more liberal construction accorded a pro se
litigant's pleading, the SAC fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, Judge Stearns holds. The SAC recounts
several events surrounding Sreedhar's unsuccessful efforts to have
online information removed, including court orders and academic
marks, however, it fails to identify the legal cause or causes of
action he seeks to assert against Google LLC.

Although the SAC seeks to assert a claim based on an alleged
"right" to internet privacy, the SAC fails to provide an
identifiable cause of action. Even accepting the facts as plausibly
pled, a complaint must state identifiable causes of action and
allege facts that satisfy the elements of those causes of action,
alleging specific acts engaged in by the defendant what would
support plaintiff's claim. Here, the Court can only speculate as to
the basis of jurisdiction and the cause of action being raised.
Because of this, the SAC fails to meet the minimum requirements for
a civil complaint in federal court.

In light of the deficiencies noted, and the fact that the Plaintiff
was unable to successfully amend his complaint after being granted
leave to amend and advised of the applicable legal standards, the
Court concludes that it would be futile to grant the Plaintiff
further leave to amend.

Accordingly, Judge Stearns ordered that:

   1. the Plaintiff's motion to file in the action a new case
      against TCS is denied;

   2. the Plaintiff's motion to file in the action a new case
      against Ravi Duvvuri is denied;

   3. the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
      Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for the reasons stated, and in
      accordance with the Court's Memorandum and Order dated
      May 16, 2022, and the Court's Order dated June 27, 2022;
      and

   4. The Clerk will enter a separate order of dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/468ucpjw from Leagle.com.


GUARDIAN OF GEORGIA: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BEAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN OF GEORGIA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02734-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 12, 2022)
alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from
the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the
Warn Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.

GUARDIAN OF GEORGIA, LLC provides security services. The Company
offers monitoring and maintaining security systems devices such as
burglar and fire alarms. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leon S. Jones, Esq.
          JONES & WALDEN LLC
          699 Piedmont Avenue NE
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 564-9300

               -and-

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th FL
          New York, NY 10078
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               -and-

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181


GURNEYS INN RESORT: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gurneys Inn Resort &
Spa LLC. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Gurneys Inn Resort & Spa LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05886-RA (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Gurney's Resorts -- https://www.gurneysresorts.com/ -- are luxury,
full-service hotels found at premier travel destinations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Judgment on Pleadings in Levy Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; Vanessa N. Keller,
D.M.D.; Trisha M. Young, D.M.D., P.C.; Rivka Goldenhersh, D.M.D.,
LLC; Farhad Moshiri, D.M.D., M.S., P.C., doing business as Moshiri
Orthodontics; Mazyar Moshiri, D.M.D., M.S., P.C., doing business as
Moshiri Orthodontics, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company; Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD; Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc.; Twin City Fire Insurance Company,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-1446 (8th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the order
granting Hartford's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Plaintiffs are Missouri dental and orthodontic practices.
Following recommendations from the CDC, American Dental
Association, and Missouri Dental Board, they limited their practice
to emergency procedures during the first months of the COVID
pandemic.

The Plaintiffs were insured under all-risk property policies issued
by Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., which covered "direct physical
loss of or physical damage to property." The policies included
additional coverage for lost business income and extra expenses
incurred as the result of direct physical loss of or damage to
property.

Notably, the Plaintiffs did not allege that the virus was present
on their premises. After Hartford denied their claims for lost
business income and extra expense coverage, the practices brought a
putative class action alleging breach of contract. The district
court granted Hartford's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The
Plaintiffs appealed.

The lawsuit is one of a series of cases asking the Court of Appeals
to address whether COVID-related shutdowns are a "direct physical
loss" of property. As the Court of Appeals has stated on several
occasions, "there must be some physicality to the loss or damage of
property--e.g., a physical alteration, physical contamination, or
physical destruction," citing Planet Sub Holdings, Inc. v. State
Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., No. 21-2199, 2022 WL 1951615, at
*2 (8th Cir. June 6, 2022).

The Plaintiffs limited their services as a precautionary measure,
not because the virus was present on their premises. Since they
have not alleged physicality, they were not entitled to coverage
under the policy.

The Court of Appeals affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2pbhx8za from Leagle.com.


HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Updated Status Report in Freitas Suit Due Aug. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGG FREITAS and RYAN CALVERT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARTLAND
EXPRESS, INC OF IOWA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-00383-SAB (E.D.
Wash.), Judge Stanley A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington orders the parties to submit by Aug.
3, 2022, another joint status report updating the Court on next
steps, particularly in regard to their plans for filing a motion
for preliminary approval of class settlement.

The parties have submitted an Updated Joint Status Report and
Notice of Settlement. In the joint status report, the parties state
that -- with Judge Sabraw's assistance and after two full-day
mediation sessions -- they have agreed to the mediator's proposal.
They report that the mediator's proposal resolves not only this
case, but also two similar, coordinated putative class action cases
filed against the Defendant in the San Bernardino County Superior
Court, Coordinated Case No. JCPDS5045.

The parties state that they are now in the process of preparing a
long-form settlement agreement and will file a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement once the
agreement is finalized. However, they state that the mediator's
proposal left open the question of whether the Plaintiffs will seek
preliminary approval in the Court or in the San Bernardino County
Superior Court. The parties estimate that they will be able to
update the Court as to next steps within the next 21 days.

Finally, the parties request that the Court vacates the hearing
dates on the Plaintiff's pending motions in light of their
settlement.

Accordingly, Judge Bastian dismisses as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. On Aug. 3, 2022, the parties will submit another
joint status report updating the Court on next steps, particularly
in regard to their plans for filing a motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement.

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter the Order and to
provide copies to the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5eafje52 from Leagle.com.


HOLE NYC: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hole NYC LLC. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. The Hole NYC LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05948 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022).

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

The Hole -- http://theholenyc.com/-- is a contemporary art gallery
run by Kathy Grayson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUEGAR LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hernadez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JONATAN SON HERNANDEZ; MIGUEL VASQUEZ; and KEITA IKEBE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. HUEGAR LLC (D/B/A SILVER RICE); HIDEKI KATO; and YOHEI MIZUKAWA
(AKA SONNY), Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-04108 (E.D.N.Y., July 13,
2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery
workers.

HUEGAR LLC (D/B/A SILVER RICE) owns, operates, and controls two
Japanese restaurants, located at 638 Park Place, Brooklyn, NY
11238and at 575A Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225 under the name
"Silver Rice." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, New York 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


INDEPENDENT LIVING AIDS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Aids, LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Independent Living Aids, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-05900 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Independent Living Aids LLC -- https://independentliving.com/ --
provides blind and visually impaired tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSURANCE BY ROB: Olesh Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK OLESH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE BY ROB LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-010218 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 13, 2022) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

In an attempt to promote its goods and services, the Defendant
allegedly engages in transmitting telephonic sales calls to
consumers without obtaining prior express written consent from them
as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff claims that he received
telephonic sales calls from the Defendant on or about February 9,
2022. In addition, the Defendant purportedly used a messaging
platform which permitted the Defendant to transmit blasts of text
messages automatically and without any human involvement, says the
suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited telephonic
sales calls have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals in the form of statutory damages,
inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, and annoyance. On
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
telephonic sales calls made without express written consent, as
well as an award of statutory damages, and other relief as the
Court deems necessary.

Insurance by Rob LLC provides insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

JACKSONVILLE SPINE CENTER: Kenney Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Kenney, individually and on behalf all
other similarly situated v. Jacksonville Spine Center, P.A., Case
No. 2022-CA-002815-XXXX was removed from the Fourth Judicial
Circuit Duval County Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on June 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00705-BJD-PDB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Jacksonville (Jax Spine & Pain Centers) -- https://jaxspine.com/ --
is a medical group practice located in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW PLLC
          P.O. Box 140036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Phone: (407) 603-6031
          Email: ed@ednormand.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Nathan I. Reiter, III, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Ave, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201

               - and -

          Joshua Robert Jacobson
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 488-8291
          Email: Josh.jacobson@normandpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Walter J. Tache, Esq.
          Magda Christina Rodriguez, Esq.
          TACHE, BRONIS, CHRISTIANSON AND DESCALZO
          150 SE 2nd Ave Suite 600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 537-9565
          Fax: (305) 537-9567
          Email: wtache@tachebronis.com
                 mrodriguez@tachebronis.com

               - and -

          Marissel Descalzo, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          2 MiamiCentral
          700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33136
          Phone: (305) 537-9565
          Fax: (305) 537-9567
          Email: mdescalzo@tachebronis.com


JGL RESTAURANT: Faces Zamora Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARDO CASTILLO ZAMORA, JOSE EDWIN MENDEZ and JAVIER DIAZ PLAZA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JGL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA, and
JOSE LEON, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05739
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2022) seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants fail to pay proper
minimum wages and overtime compensation, fail to pay spread of
hours compensation, fail to provide written wage notices, and fail
to furnish accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Zamora was employed by JGL Restaurant as a food preparer,
delivery person and cleaner while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants from November 2019 until November 2020.

Plaintiff Mendez was employed by JGL Restaurant as delivery person
and food preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties for
the Defendants from November 2019 until March 2020.

Plaintiff Plaza was employed by JGL Restaurant as a delivery
person, food preparer, cleaner and stocker while performing related
miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from November 2019 until
February 2020.

JGL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA, is a New
York-based pizza restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

KIA MOTORS: Could Face Class Action Over Window Regulators
----------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that if you own or lease a 2016-2017 Kia
Optima or 2017 Kia Sportage and you've experienced problems with
your windows, you may be able to help start a class action
lawsuit.

Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether a
defect related to the window regulators is causing the windows to
get stuck in the open position. Drivers have complained that their
windows won't go up and have stopped working completely.

Have you had problems with the windows in your 2016-2017 Kia Optima
or 2017 Kia Sportage? If so, fill out the form on this page and
share your story. Attorneys need to hear from as many people as
possible as they work to determine whether a class action lawsuit
is viable.

Why Won't My Kia Windows Go Up?

It's being investigated whether the window regulator drum gears in
certain Kia vehicles contain a defect that can cause the gears to
separate or break, rendering the windows unable to be closed.

In June 2020, Kia released a technical service bulletin (TSB)
regarding the window regulator drum/gear in certain 2017 Sportage
vehicles that stated the cars "may exhibit an inoperative front
(left and/or right side) window regulator concern due to a drum
gear separating and/or breaking." A similar bulletin was issued in
March 2021 for certain 2016-2017 Optima vehicles.

While the TSBs provide a procedure to help dealers fix the stuck
windows, no recall has been issued.

How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?

If filed and successful, a class action lawsuit could provide
drivers with reimbursement for window repairs, which have
reportedly cost $350 to $550 per window. It could also provide
money for loss of vehicle value and force Kia to recall the cars
and provide a fix.

If the windows on your Kia have gotten stuck and won't go up, fill
out the form on this page and tell us about it. The information you
provide could help get a class action lawsuit started. [GN]

KURA SUSHI: Settlement of Labor Suit for Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 7, 2022, that it will be settling a
putative class action complaint filed by a former employee, Brandy
Gomes, in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 31, 2019. Said
suit alleges violations of California wage and hour laws.

In July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action. In addition, the first amended class
action complaint added new causes of action alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws including a cause of action brought
under the California Private Attorney General Act.

On August 7, 2020, the company filed its answer to the first
amended complaint, generally denying the allegations in the
complaint. In May 2021, a joint stipulation was filed requesting a
delay in the class certification hearing date to March 3, 2022, and
a mediation was scheduled for September 24, 2021.

During the mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of
$1.75 million. A hearing to obtain the Court's preliminary approval
of the settlement occurred on May 9, 2022 and in July 8, 2022.

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant
concept based in California.


L.A.R.E. PARTNERS: Recommendation in Umbrino Suit Adopted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York adopted in part the U.S.
Magistrate Judge's May 2, 2022 Report and Recommendation issued in
the lawsuit entitled VICKI UMBRINO, et al., Plaintiffs v. L.A.R.E.
PARTNERS NETWORK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-06559
EAW (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Vicki Umbrino and Richard Zoller commenced this putative
class and collective action on July 26, 2019, asserting violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201, et seq. (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (the
"NYLL") by Defendants L.A.R.E. Partners Network, Inc. d/b/a
L.A.R.E. Partners f/k/a List Assist Real Estate, Inc., Real Agent
Pro, LLC f/k/a L.A.R.E. Marketing, LLC, L.A.R.E. Properties, LLC,
List-Assist of Rochester, LLC, and Isaiah Colton (collectively
"Defendants").

On April 17, 2020, Hajarah B. Conyer filed a consent to proceed as
an opt-in plaintiff. On Sept. 28, 2021, the Defendants filed a
motion seeking dismissal of Conyer's claims. On May 2, 2022,
Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson issued a thorough Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Court dismisses Conyer's FLSA
claim with prejudice and that she be dismissed as a named plaintiff
in the NYLL class action but without prejudice to her ability to
participate as a non-named class member.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), the parties had 14 days to
file objections to the Report and Recommendation. On May 16, 2022,
the Plaintiffs filed a document styled as objections, but which did
not object to Judge Payson's recommendation except to clarify that
Conyer was not a named plaintiff in this action and, therefore,
could not be dismissed as a named plaintiff in the NYLL class
action.

The Plaintiffs note that "the effect of this correction would not
substantively change the outcome of Judge Payson's report and
recommendation but would simply correct the record on this point."
No other objections were filed.

The Court says it is not required to review de novo those portions
of a report and recommendation to which objections were not filed,
citing Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.
2002).

Notwithstanding the lack of substantive objections, the Court has
conducted a careful review of the Report and Recommendation, as
well as the prior proceedings in the case. The Report and
Recommendation concludes that the criteria for sanctions are met in
light of Conyer's failure to appear for her deposition after being
expressly warned of the consequences of failing to appear.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' counsel has been unable to reach
Conyer for more than a year-and-a-half, supporting the inference
that Conyer was not communicating with counsel and that lesser
sanctions would not be effective to secure her compliance with
obligations.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation appropriately recommends
that the Court dismiss Conyer's FLSA claim with prejudice, and the
Court agrees with that recommendation and adopts it in its
entirety. However, the Court also agrees that the Plaintiff cannot
be dismissed as a named plaintiff in the NYLL class action because
she is not a named class action plaintiff, and, therefore, the
Court declines to adopt that portion of the Report and
Recommendation.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Report and Recommendation recommending
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is adopted except to the extent it recommends that Conyer
be dismissed as a named plaintiff in the NYLL class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated July 7,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p887mw6 from
Leagle.com.


LEVI STRAUSS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Levi Strauss & Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Levi Strauss & Co., Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05910 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Levi Strauss & Co. -- https://www.levistrauss.com/ -- is one of the
world's largest brand-name apparel companies and a global leader in
jeanswear.[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


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Suit in Quebec Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 13, 2022, that on October 13, 2020, the
company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of their officers and
directors were named as defendants in a proposed securities class
action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec (District of
Terrebonne, Province of Quebec, Canada), in file no.
700-06-000012-205.

The application for authorization of a class action and for
authorization to bring an action pursuant to section 225.4 of the
Québec Securities Act was filed by an individual shareholder on
behalf of himself and a class of buyers who purchased its
securities. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants allegedly made
false and/or misleading statements and allegedly failed to disclose
material adverse facts concerning the company's technology,
business model, operations and prospects, thus causing the  stock
price to be artificially inflated and thereby causing plaintiff to
suffer damages.

Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages stemming from losses he claims
to have suffered as a result of the foregoing. In December 13,
2020, the application was amended in order to add allegations
regarding specific misrepresentations. The authorization hearing
was held on February 24, 2022 and the matter is currently under
advisement.

Loop Industries, Inc. is a technology company that owns patented
and proprietary technology that depolymerizes no and low-value
waste PET plastic and polyester fiber to its base building blocks
(monomers).


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in Tremblay Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 13, 2022, that on March 1, 2022, the
parties in the case captioned "Olivier Tremblay, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Loop Industries, Inc.,
Daniel Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti," Case No. 7:20-cv-0838-NSR,
entered into an agreement to settle the class action.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the company's business, operations, and prospects, which caused the
company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Loop's securities between September 24, 2018 and
October 12, 2020.

On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the proposed
class-action lawsuits as "In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538-NSR. Sakari Johansson
and John Jay Cappa were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP were appointed as Co-Lead
Counsel for the class.

In January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the proposed
class-action lawsuits as "In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538-NSR. Sakari Johansson
and John Jay Cappa were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP were appointed as Co-Lead
Counsel for the class.

Plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint on February 18,
2021, which alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly making materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as allegedly failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the company's business, operations, and prospects, which caused the
company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated amended complaint relies on the October 13, 2020
report published by a third party regarding the company to support
their allegations. Defendants served a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on April 27, 2021. Plaintiffs'
opposition to the motion to dismiss was served on May 27, 2021 and
Defendants' reply in support of the motion to dismiss was served on
June 11, 2021.

On March 1, 2022, the company and the current and former officer
defendants entered into an agreement for the settlement of the
Tremblay Class Action, and, on March 4, 2022, advised the Court of
the agreement to settle. The agreement, which is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval, requires the Company to pay
$3.1 million to the plaintiff class.
On May 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement.  The motion is
pending before the Court.

Loop Industries, Inc. is a technology company that owns patented
and proprietary technology that depolymerizes no and low-value
waste PET plastic and polyester fiber to its base building blocks
(monomers).


LOTSPEICH COMPANY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chavez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERLIN A. CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOTSPEICH COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case
1:22-cv-22136-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendant as staff.

LOTSPEICH COMPANY, INC. provides construction services. The Company
engages in the contracting work for commercial and institutional
interior construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LOVE'S TRAVEL: Magistrate Judge Endorses Approval of Horton Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina recommends that the Plaintiff's
amended unopposed motion to approve settlement agreement, including
award of attorneys' fees and costs, be granted in the lawsuit
captioned KRISTEN LEANN HORTON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS &
COUNTRY STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19CV1193 (M.D.N.C.).

I. Factual Background

As set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiff Kristen Leann Horton
worked as an Operations Manager ("OM") for Defendant Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc. at three separate locations from
approximately April 2012 until September 2018. Asserting claims on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a putative
collective action under the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 206(d), the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had a
common policy and practice of paying its female OMs less than
similarly situated male colleagues despite both performing similar
duties requiring the same skill level, effort, and responsibility.

The Plaintiff's duties as an OM included working the cash
registers, assisting customers, stocking shelves, cleaning and
straightening the store, organizing the store according to detailed
corporate directives, and unpacking merchandise delivered from
trucks. She was paid an annual base salary of $45,000.

The Plaintiff alleges that upon information and belief, the
Defendant paid one of the Plaintiff's male counterparts a salary of
$53,000 per year while performing essentially the same duties and
working less hours than the Plaintiff. In addition, the male
counterpart had substantially less tenure with the Defendant and
had less relevant work experience than the Plaintiff. The Defendant
denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind under the EPA and
asserts various defenses.

II. Procedural History

The parties have engaged in extensive litigation in this matter.
The Plaintiff filed her complaint on Dec. 6, 2019. The Defendant
filed an answer on Jan. 13, 2020. After the initial pretrial
conference hearing and consideration of the parties' Individual
Rule 26(f) Reports, the Court ordered a bifurcated discovery
schedule and required the parties to submit a Joint Rule 26(f)
Report. The Court thereafter approved the parties' Joint Report
with a few modifications.

As a result of the order, the first phase of discovery commenced on
July 13, 2020, and was limited to the issue of whether the
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs were "similarly situated" such that
the Plaintiff's claims could be conditionally certified as a
collective action for notice purposes. Discovery relating to the
merits of the claim was also allowed.

During Phase I of discovery after preliminary negotiations and
conferrals, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel with the Court
on Sept. 30, 2020. A few days later, the parties filed a joint
motion to stay deadlines in this matter as they agreed to attend a
mediation with mediator Hunter Hughes, an experienced employment
law mediator. The motion was granted (Text Order dated 10/6/2020),
and the mediation occurred on Oct. 14, 2020.

The parties did not resolve the case, but the Defendant
subsequently agreed to consent to conditional certification of a
collective action under the EPA. In doing so, the Defendant did not
concede that the Plaintiff satisfied her burden for conditional
certification.

On Dec. 16, 2020, the Court conditionally certified the action as a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for notice
purposes only. The notice period closed on April 12, 2021, and at
such time, there were approximately 102 OMs participating in this
action. The parties submitted a Joint Proposed Discovery Management
Order with several points of disagreement. The Court thereafter
entered an order on Phase 2 of the bifurcated discovery process,
which focused on the merits of the claims and defenses in this
matter, based on a sample of OMs, who had joined the case as Opt-In
Plaintiffs. During this period, the Plaintiff renewed her motion to
compel discovery from the Defendant.

Before this motion could be resolved by the Court, the parties
requested another stay of this action to conduct a second
mediation. The case was stayed. While the parties did not settle at
mediation, on Oct. 6, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims at issue in this matter.

The Court thereafter granted several motions to extend the stay and
to allow time for the parties to file their motion for settlement
approval.

On Jan. 27, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their amended unopposed
motion to approve settlement agreement, including award of
attorneys' fees and costs seeking an order from the Court to (1)
find the parties' settlement of this EPA collective action is fair,
reasonable, and just; (2) approve the parties' Settlement Agreement
and all of its terms; (3) authorize the Settlement Administrator to
send notices and issue payments pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement; (4) dismiss this action with prejudice, and retain
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until the conclusion of the
settlement approval process; and (5) enter any other relief that
this Court deems just and proper.

III. Discussion

Settlement Approval

The action alleges that the Defendant violated the EPA by paying
male employees more than female employees despite both performing
similar duties that require the same skill level, effort, and
responsibility. The EPA prohibits gender-based discrimination by
employers resulting in unequal pay for equal work.

In the instant matter, the Court may only approve a proposed EPA
settlement if it is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions, Judge
Webster opines, citing Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. By &
Through U.S. Dep't of Lab., Emp. Standards Admin., Wage & Hour
Div., 679 F.2d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).

A. Bona Fide Dispute

When determining if there has been a bona fide dispute in an EPA
settlement matter, the Court should look to the pleadings and the
proposed settlement agreement.

Here, the Complaint, answer, and representations in the Proposed
Settlement Agreement demonstrate that a bona fide dispute exists as
to the Defendant's liability pursuant to the EPA for paying female
OMs less than their male counterparts for performing equal work,
Judge Webster finds.

B. Fairness and Reasonableness of the Proposed Settlement

Courts consider several factors in determining whether an FLSA
settlement is fair and reasonable, including the extent of
discovery that has taken place.

Here, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendant will pay
the settlement amount which will be based upon the data produced by
the Defendant, which reflects the number of workweeks the
Plaintiffs worked as Operations Managers from Dec. 6, 2016, through
Dec. 2, 2021.

In reviewing the factors, Judge Webster first concludes that
extensive discovery took place. The parties conducted significant
discovery before reaching the proposed settlement. After completing
Phase One of the bifurcated discovery, there were 102 OMs
participating in this action. Discovery included interviewing OMs
and the Defendant's employees, analyzing pay and time records, and
examining large volumes of data including internal records. Also,
as noted, the parties litigated a motion to compel. Based on this
set of facts, Judge Webster says it is clear that the Parties had
adequate time to conduct sufficient discovery to fairly evaluate
the liability and financial aspects of the case.

Judge Webster also finds, among other things, that there is no
evidence of fraud.

Thus, having considered the relevant factors, the settlement
reached by the parties is a fair and reasonable resolution, Judge
Webster holds.

Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Under the FLSA, a court is authorized to award a reasonable
attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the
action, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff.

The percentage of the fund method provides that the court award
attorneys' fees as a percentage of the common fund, while the
lodestar method requires the court to determine the hours
reasonably expended by counsel that created, protected, or
preserved the fund, then to multiply that figure by a reasonable
hourly rate.

Irrespective of the method, the Court generally considers twelve
factors in determining the overall reasonableness of an award of
attorney's fees in FLSA cases, including the time and labor
expended, and the skill required to properly perform the legal
services rendered (Dickey v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., No.
1:18CV920, 2021 WL 1169245, at *4 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2021) (citing
Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 n.28 (4th Cir.
1978))).

Here, the collection action members' counsel ("Collective Counsel")
seek one-third of the settlement amount for attorneys' fees, which
is $379,166.67, and reimbursement of $34,857.12 for their costs and
expenses. Considering the Barber factors, Collective Counsel spent
over two years litigating the claims in this matter and
collectively have invested almost 1,000 hours of work. Judge
Webster notes that the work involved was difficult because
Collective Counsel faced challenges that come with the nature of
equal pay lawsuits regarding evidentiary proof of pay disparity
based upon gender.

In addition, during the two-year period, the work performed by
Collective Counsel placed significant demands on Collective
Counsel's time and resources. Also, one of the firms representing
the Plaintiff customarily charges a one-third contingency fee in
common fund cases. Further, the Court has previously discussed the
maximum amount which the collective action members could have
collected in comparison to the results obtained. This too supports
the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees.

Another factor supporting the reasonableness of attorneys' fees is
the experience and ability of Collective Counsel, Judge Webster
holds. In this case, counsel collectively have over decades of
legal experience and the firms have been involved in dozens of
class and collective actions. Also, the attorney fee is one-third
of the common fund and reflective of awards in similar cases.

Further, Named Plaintiff engaged Collective Counsel's services well
over two years ago, following their representation of her in a FLSA
collective action. Judge Webster also notes that Collective Counsel
did not find this case undesirable to prosecute. Nevertheless, the
Barber factors weigh in favor of a finding that the requested fee
is reasonable.

In addition to the Barber factors, no collective action members
have objected to the Collective Counsel's request for a fee of
$379,166.67, which provides further support for the fee request.

Lastly, the Plaintiff's motion represents that the requested
attorneys' fees amount is an approximate 26% reduction of the
calculated "lodestar" amount of $510,265.50.

In sum, the requested attorneys' fees and the reimbursement for
expenses and costs are reasonable, Judge Webster holds.

Service Award

The parties' settlement agreement provides for a service payment up
to $7,500 for Plaintiff Kristen Leann Horton.

Judge Webster notes that the Plaintiff was instrumental during the
pleadings stage and the discovery process, and she made herself
available to provide information needed during settlement
negotiations. Ultimately, this service award is in recognition of
her assistance to Collective Counsel and reflects her contribution
to achieving the settlement on behalf of the collective action
members.

Thus, Judge Webster points out that it should be paid according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Webster recommends that Plaintiff Kristen
Leann Horton's amended unopposed motion to approve settlement
agreement, including award of attorneys' fees and costs be granted
such that: (1) the Parties' Settlement Agreement and all of its
terms be approved and the Settlement Administrator be authorized to
send the notices and issue payments pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement; (2) the Court retains jurisdiction over this
case to enforce the Settlement Agreement until the conclusion of
the settlement administration process; (3) the Plaintiff's original
unopposed motion to approve settlement agreement, including award
of attorneys' fees and costs be terminated as moot; and (4) this
action be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Recommendation dated July 7, 2022, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35cdyfsp from Leagle.com.


LULUS CUTS AND TOYS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lulus Cuts and Toys,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Lulus Cuts and Toys, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05888 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

LuLu's Cuts & Toys -- https://luluskidscuts.nyc/ -- is a kids hair
salon and toy store located in Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LYFT INC: Carr Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyft Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Zachary Carr, Ashley Cole, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyft Inc., Indian Harbor
Insurance Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, Does 1 Through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600685 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., July 12, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Lyft, Inc. -- https://www.lyft.com/ -- is an American transport
service support provider that develops, markets, and operates a
mobile app, offering ride-hailing, vehicles for hire, motorized
scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food
delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Hamparyan, Esq.
          HAMPARYAN PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SD
          275 W Market St., Ste. 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101-6707
          Phone: 619-550-1355
          Fax: 619-550-1356
          Email: robert@hamparyanlawfirm.com


LYFT INC: Lannon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyft Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Allison Lannon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lyft Inc., Does 1 Through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600687 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., July 12, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Lyft, Inc. -- https://www.lyft.com/ -- is an American transport
service support provider that develops, markets, and operates a
mobile app, offering ride-hailing, vehicles for hire, motorized
scooters, a bicycle-sharing system, rental cars, and food
delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Hamparyan, Esq.
          HAMPARYAN PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS SD
          275 W Market St., Ste. 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101-6707
          Phone: 619-550-1355
          Fax: 619-550-1356
          Email: robert@hamparyanlawfirm.com


MANHASSET RESTAURANT: Teoh Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BOON HOOI TEOH, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANHASSET RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a Toku Modern
Asian, ROSLYN HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a Hendrick's Tavern, GOLD COAST
RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a Bryant & Cooper Steak House, MIRACLE MILE
RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a Bar Frites, EAST MEADOW AVENUE RESTAURANT
CORP. d/b/a Majors Steakhouse, 100 HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a The
Bryant, POLL RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., GEORGE POLL a/k/a George J.
Poll, and GILLIS POLL a/k/a Gillis J. Poll a/k/a Gillis W. Poll,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04110 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2022) arises
from the Defendants' alleged various willful, malicious, and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, the Minimum Wage Act, and the Hospitality Industry
and Wage Order.

The Plaintiff has worked as a sushi chef at Toku Modern Asian
restaurant operated by Manhasset Restaurant LLC.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
However, he did not receive any overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Also, his salary did not
include a spread of time premium for says when his spread of time
exceeded 10 hours. The Plaintiff asserts that his paystubs failed
to reflect his regular and overtime hours worked or pay rates from
on or about August 28, 2017 and thereafter, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective and class
action complaint to recover all unpaid overtime and spread-of-time
pay, as well as liquidated damages, pre-judgement interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem necessary, just, and proper.

The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants owned and controlled
by the Individual Defendants. George Poll is the Chief Executive
Officer of East Meadow Avenue Restaurant Corp. Gillis Poll is the
Chief Executive Officer of Gold Coast Restaurant Corp. and Poll
Restaurant Group, Inc. George Poll and Gillis Poll are both,
jointly, liquor license principals for Manhasset Restaurant, LLC
d/b/a Toku Modern Asian; Roslyn Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Hendrick's
Tavern; Gold Coast Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Bryant & Cooper Steak
House; Miracle Mile Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Cipollini; Wheatley
Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Bar Frites; and 100 Hospitality, LLC d/b/a
The Bryant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Tel: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Class Action Over Jail Conditions Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Peterson of WNDU reports that a class action lawsuit over jail
conditions in Marshall County will be dropped.

At a hearing held on Thursday in U.S. District Court in South Bend,
a judge found that a proposed settlement agreement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

"COVID is what sort of started it, and maybe that sparked a little
bit of creative thinking on the part of, you know, officials and
decision makers, but certainly the changes that have been
implemented are designed to be long term strategies," Attorney
Stevie Pactor of the ACLU of Indiana told 16 News Now. "Through
some really creative solutions such as hiring more prosecutors,
public defenders, adding a superior court judge, revising its bail
schedule. All things designed to keep people out of jail which is
exactly what we want to see."

"They've implemented so many different programs there right along
through, you know, making sure that pretrial detainees are not
being kept in there because they're unable to pay bond or bail,"
said Attorney Lisa Baron, who represents Marshall County.

The suit was filed in 2019. A jail that was "routinely" running at
130-percent capacity at that time is now rarely over its 233-bed
limit. In fact, the jail population has only topped 200 inmates
twice since April 2020.

Court documents indicate that Marshall County has arranged to send
inmates to jails in Elkhart and Fulton County in the future should
its population rise again. [GN]

MCCORMICK & CO: Court Sets Deadlines for Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BALISTRERI, ET AL.,
v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00349-EJD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered an order setting
deadlines for amending pleadings and class certification motion:

   -- The parties shall abide by the schedule set forth in
      paragraph XVIII of the Statement.

   -- The initial case management conference scheduled for July
      14, 2022 is tentatively continued to 10:00 a.m. on
      December 15, 2022. The parties' updated joint statement is
      due December 5, 2022.

McCormick is an American food company that manufactures, markets,
and distributes spices, seasoning mixes, condiments, and other
flavoring products to retail outlets, food manufacturers, and
foodservice businesses.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OaqM4H at no extra charge.[CC]


MCG HEALTH: Booth Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------
Linda Booth, Mary Napier, and Candace Daugherty on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MCG Health, LLC,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00879-JHC (W.D. Wash., June 22, 2022), is brought
arising out of the Defendant's failure to secure the highly
sensitive personal information of its patients.

February 25 to 26, 2020, an unauthorized party or parties accessed
MCG's computer systems and exfiltrated patient files (the "Data
Breach"). MCG did not learn of the breach until more than two years
later, on March 25, 2022 and determined that the exfiltrated files
contained patient names, Social Security numbers, medical codes,
postal addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of
birth, and genders. Over 1,100,000 patients' personally
identifiable information (PII) and personal health information
("PHI") was compromised in the attack. Even after MCG learned of
the hack on March 25, 2022, it did not notify affected patients of
the attack until June 10, 2022. During this time, those patients
remained unaware that their information had been compromised. The
personal information remains in the possession of the unauthorized
party or parties.

As a result of MCG's data security failures, the Plaintiffs and
Class members confront a significant threat of identity theft and
other harm—imminently and for years to come. Plaintiffs by this
action seek damages together with injunctive relief to remediate
MCG’s deficient cybersecurity protocols and provide identity
theft insurance (or the money needed to secure those services) to
protect them and the other breach victims from identity theft and
fraud, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs received letters dated June 10, 2022, from MCG
notifying them of the Data Breach.

MCG is a HIPPA business associate that provides care guidelines to
healthcare providers and health plans.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Phone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                 jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon Grille, Esq.
          Jessica Cook, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
                 sgrille@girardsharp.com
                 jcook@girardsharp.com


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Berry Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediacom
Communications Corporation. The case is styled as Elizabeth Berry,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
Mediacom Communications Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05183-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022).

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

Mediacom Communications Corporation -- https://mediacomcable.com/
-- is the United States' fifth largest cable television provider
based on the number of video subscribers, and among the leading
cable operators focused on serving smaller cities and towns.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benedict P. Morelli, Esq.
          David T. Sirotkin, Esq.
          MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC
          777 Third Avenue 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 751-9800
          Fax: (212) 751-0046
          Email: bmorelli@morellilaw.com
                 dsirotkin@morellilaw.com

MERRILL GARDENS: Court Stays Ramirez Class Suit Until November 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California stays the case, MARIA BUSTOS
RAMIREZ, Plaintiff v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00542-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), until Nov. 21, 2022.

On April 18, 2022, the Defendant removed the putative class action
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the Central District of California. The action
was transferred to the Eastern District of California on May 5,
2022. A scheduling conference is set for Aug. 18, 2022.

On June 14, 2022, the Court granted a stipulated motion granting
leave for the Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint, and on
June 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that
adds an additional cause of action for civil penalties under
California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Currently
before the Court is the parties' stipulated motion to stay the
case.

The parties proffer that they have scheduled a mediation for Nov.
21, 2022, and wish to stay the case before expending significant
resources on pleadings and formal discovery. Thus, the parties
request a stay of all litigation, including the requirement for
Defendant to file a responsive pleading to the first amended
complaint, until Nov. 21, 2022.

Accordingly, Judge Boone grants the stipulated motion to stay the
action. He vacates all pending matters and dates. He stays the
matter until Nov. 21, 2022. The parties will file a joint status
report by Nov. 28, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5bj6hbax from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Case Management Order Entered in Geddings Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GEDDINGS v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00565-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a case management order
as follows:

  1. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or
     before August 1, 2021.

  2. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on
     or before August 1, 2021.

  3. The parties shall file a completed ADR stipulation on or
     before July 8, 2022.

  4. Discovery related to class certification shall be completed
     on or before November 28, 2022.

  5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be due on
     or before December 28, 2022.

  6. The Defendant's response to the Motion for Class
     Certification shall be due on or before January 27, 2023.

  7. The Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant's response,
     which shall be filed by February 10, 2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjQXHS at no extra charge.[CC]

MISSFRESH LTD: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Missfresh Limited ("Missfresh"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MF) pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Missfresh's
June 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

Missfresh purports to be an innovator and leader in China's
neighborhood retail industry which invented the Distributed Mini
Warehouse (DMW) model to operate an integrated online-and-offline
on-demand retail business focusing on offering fresh produce and
fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs).

On or about June 8, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC a
Registration Statement on Form F-1, which in combination with a
subsequent amendment on Form F-1/A and filed pursuant to Rule
424(b)(4), would be used for the IPO.

On June 23, 2021, Missfresh filed with the SEC its final prospectus
for the IPO on Form 424B4 (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of
the Registration Statement. In the IPO, Missfresh sold
approximately 21 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") at
$13.00 per ADS.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements in the Registration
Statement were materially false and misleading when made because:
(1) Missfresh provided false financial figures in its Registration
Statement; (2) Missfresh would need to amend its financial figures;
(3) Missfresh, among other things, had lesser net revenues for the
quarter ended March 31, 2021; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times and negligently prepared.

On April 29, 2022, after trading hours, Missfresh filed with the
SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 which announced,
among other things, that the independent Audit Committee of the
Company's board of directors, with the assistance of professional
advisors, "[wa]s in the process of conducting an internal review of
certain matters, including those relating to transactions between
the Company and certain third-party enterprises." On this news,
Missfresh ADSs fell 13% to close at $0.448 per ADS on May 2, 2021.

Then, on May 24, 2022, Missfresh disclosed that the Company was
unable to file its 2021 Annual Report by the extended deadline,
"primarily because the Company is unable to complete the audit of
the financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021". On this news, Missfresh's ADSs fell $0.018 per
share, or 9.7%, over the following two trading days, to close at
$0.167 per ADS on May 26, 2022.

Finally, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh issued a press release entitled
"Missfresh Announces the Substantial Completion of the Audit
Committee-Led Independent Internal Review" which disclosed, among
other things, that the Company's review "identified certain
transactions . . . that exhibit characteristics of questionable
transactions, such as undisclosed relationships between suppliers
and customers, different customers or suppliers sharing the same
contact information, and/or lack of supporting logistics
information" and that consequently, "certain revenue associated
with those reporting periods in 2021 may have been inaccurately
recorded in the Company's financial statements."

Since the IPO, the price of Missfresh's ADSs has fallen over 97%,
closing at $0.3075 per ADS on July 6, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 12, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

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

MODA XPRESS INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moda Xpress, Inc. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Moda Xpress, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Moda Xpress -- https://modaxpressonline.com/ -- sells
Miami-inspired women clothing online.[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


MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Investors Reminded of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a
shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Molecular Partners AG (NASDAQ:
MOLN) American Depository Shares (ADS) in connection with the
Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and/or Molecular Partners
securities between June 16, 2021 and April 26, 2022. Molecular
Partners operates a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of
therapeutic proteins.

If you would like more information about Molecular Partners AG's
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/molecular-partners-bw/

What is this Case About: Molecular Partners AG (MOLN) Misled
Investors Regarding the Commercial Prospects of its Drug
Candidates

According to the complaint, leading up to and following the IPO
Molecular Partners touted the clinical and commercial prospects of
certain of its product candidates under development in
collaboration with other companies. Two of these products include
ensovibep as a treatment for COVID-19 in collaboration with
Novartis AG, and MP0310 (AMG 506) for the treatment of certain
types of cancer in collaboration with Amgen, Inc.

Molecular Partners held its IPO in June 2021, offering its ADSs at
the IPO price of $21.25 per ADS. However, the documents in support
of the IPO were negligently prepared. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that ensovibep was less effective in treating
COVID-19 than defendants led investors to believe, and therefore,
the FDA would require an additional trial before granting the drug
emergency use authorization. Waning global rates of COVID-19 also
significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing emergency
approval. Further, the product candidate MP0310 was less attractive
to Amgen than defendants led investors to believe, increasing the
likelihood Amgen would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular
Partners, which it did in June 2022.

At each announcement of these setbacks, Molecular Partners' ADS
price declined. The stock now trades significantly lower than its
IPO price.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Molecular Partners AG (MOLN)
ADSs pursuant to the Company's IPO or between June 16, 2021 and
April 26, 2022, you have until September 12, 2022, to ask the court
to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys
and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against
Molecular Partners AG settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.

Contact:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com [GN]

MONSANTO CORP: Settles Weed Killers' Class Suit for $45 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a new settlement involving various
weed killer products is now accepting claims.

If you purchased certain Roundup, HDX or Ace weed and grass killer
products, you may be entitled to a cash payment from a recent class
action settlement. Monsanto Company has agreed to pay up to $45
million to settle claims that it falsely promoted some of its
Roundup, HDX and Ace glyphosate-based weed killers by failing to
disclose that they could cause cancer and other health problems.

Those eligible to file claims could be owed anywhere between $0.50
and $33.00 per product purchased.  

Importantly, if you currently have or later develop cancer or other
health problems from use of these products, filing a claim with the
settlement does not preclude you from suing for your injuries. For
more information on the deal and what you'll need to do to file a
claim, check out this page
https://join.classaction.org/settlements/weed-killers [GN]

MOUNTAIN CORPORATION: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mountain
Corporation. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Mountain
Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-05911 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

The Mountain -- https://www.themountain.com/ -- offers more than an
image on a piece of fabric, we support individuality,
sustainability, & community.[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


NAVY FEDERAL: 4th Cir. Vacates Order Tossing Morrow's Breach Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SIOBHAN MORROW, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; TRACEE LE FLORE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-2323
(4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit vacates an order dismissing a breach of contract claim.

Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., wrote the opinion, in
which Judge Stephanie D. Thacker and Judge Pamela A. Harris
joined.

In this appeal, the Panel reviews an order dismissing a breach of
contract claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The district court determined that the contract's clear
and unambiguous terms precluded relief. But the Court of Appeals
concludes the terms were in fact capable of more than one
reasonable meaning. Thus, the Court of Appeals vacates and
remands.

I.

Using their Navy Federal Credit Union debit cards, Siobhan Morrow
purchased clothing from Chicme.com while in San Diego, California,
and Tracee Le Flore made multiple payments to Freelancer.com from
Memphis, Tennessee. Both merchants are based in foreign countries.

The contractual documents related to Navy Federal debit cards
include a Debit Card Disclosure Agreement and a Schedule of Fees
and Charges ("Fee Schedule"). Under the heading
"Foreign/International Transactions," the Debit Card Disclosure
Agreement specifies that "Transactions using your DC [Debit Card]
made in foreign countries will post to your account in U.S. dollars
and will be charged an International Service Assessment Fee. This
fee will be identified as a separate transaction on your
statement." Subpart (a) of that section provides that "Transactions
made in foreign countries will be charged 1.0% of the transaction
amount." Under the heading "International Transactions--Non-Navy
Federal ATMs and Point-of-Sale," the Fee Schedule provides
"Point-of-sale and ATM transactions made in foreign countries 1%
per transaction."

Navy Federal assessed 1% foreign transaction fees ("FTFs") on
Morrow's and Le Flore's online transactions. In response, Morrow
and Le Flore brought a class action lawsuit complaining that Navy
Federal's imposition of FTFs breached its contracts with account
holders. Asserting a single cause of action for "breach of contract
including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing," they
alleged that Navy Federal breached promises in the contracts when
it charged FTFs on online transactions made while they were
physically in the United States. Morrow and Le Flore claimed the
contracts only allowed FTFs to be assessed "when an accountholder
uses his or her debit card in a foreign country." To put it
differently, they alleged that transactions made while purchasers,
like themselves, were physically in the United States, even to
foreign merchants, did not qualify.

Navy Federal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and the district court granted that motion. It argued
that the phrase "transactions made in foreign countries" as set
forth in the contracts unambiguously referred to the location of
the merchant. The district court agreed. It held that, under the
contractual language, any time Morrow or Le Flore used their debit
card to make an online purchase with a merchant located outside the
United States, the "point-of-sale" for that transaction was a
foreign country.

Accordingly, the district court held that assessing FTFs on such
transactions complied with the contract's plain language.

Plaintiffs Morrow and Le Flore appeal that ruling. The Court of
Appeals has jurisdiction to review the district court's dismissal
of the complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1291.

II.

A.

Judge Quattlebaum notes that the Panel reviews de novo the district
court's grant of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court of
Appeals must take the factual allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. But that
deference is not accorded to the legal conclusions stated in a
complaint.

Mere recitals of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory
statements, are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss brought
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Judge Quattlebaum opines.

B.

To determine whether Morrow and Le Flore have adequately pled a
breach of contract claim, the Court of Appeals must consider if the
factual allegations reasonably state a claim based on the language
of the alleged contract. In reviewing an order dismissing a
complaint, the Court of Appeals reviews not only the allegations of
the complaint itself but also consider documents that are
explicitly incorporated into the complaint by reference and that
are attached to the complaint as exhibits.

The parties agree that, under the contract documents, Virginia law
applies. Under Virginia law, the elements of a breach of contract
action are (1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a
plaintiff; (2) the defendant's violation or breach of that
obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the
breach of obligation; see Filak v. George, 594 S.E.2d 610, 619 (Va.
2004).

The district court concluded that the FTFs were properly assessed
under the contract's plain language. Thus, it held, even accepting
the factual allegations of the complaint as true, Navy Federal did
not breach the contract.

In reviewing that decision, Judge Quattlebaum says the Panel must
decide whether the phrases "transactions made in foreign countries"
from the Debit Card Disclosure Agreement and "Point-of-sale and ATM
transactions made in foreign countries" from the Fee Schedule are
clear and unambiguous, citing Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root,
Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 726 (4th Cir. 2000).

Judge Quattlebaum notes that Virginia follows the "plain meaning"
rule; see Waynesboro Vill., L.L.C. v. BMC Props., 496 S.E.2d 64, 67
(Va. 1998). That means the language used is to be taken in its
ordinary signification, and if the language is plain, it must be
given effect accordingly.

Of course, Judge Quattlebaum explains, the "mere fact that terms of
a contract are in dispute is not evidence that the language is not
clear and explicit and requires extrinsic evidence to aid in its
construction," citing Galloway Corp. v. S.B. Ballad Constr. Co.,
464 S.E.2d 349, 354 (Va. 1995).

C.

Guided by these legal principles outlined, Judge Quattlebaum turns
to the parties' arguments on appeal. Morrow and Le Flore argue that
the district court erred in dismissing their complaint. They insist
that the complaint plausibly alleges a claim for breach of
contract. According to those allegations, the Debit Card Disclosure
Agreement and the Fee Schedule constitute a contract between Navy
Federal and its account holders that expressly bars the assessment
of FTFs on online debit card transactions made while the customers
are physically in the United States. They allege that Navy Federal
represented that FTFs would be assessed only on point-of-sale
transactions "made in foreign countries." They contend that the
plain language of the contract means that a FTF can be assessed
only if the account holder is physically located in a foreign
country. Alternatively, they maintain that the relevant contractual
terms are ambiguous, which also means the district court's
dismissal of their complaint was improper.

Navy Federal insists, among other things, the district court
properly dismissed the complaint because Morrow and Le Flore's
allegations are inconsistent with the unambiguous language of the
alleged contract. In its view, the Debit Card Disclosure Agreement,
which has no point-of-sale language, is the "first and most
important Account Document." Based on this contract language, Navy
Federal argues that Morrow and Le Flore's complaint fails to
plausibly allege a claim for breach of contract and that the
district court's order of dismissal should be affirmed.

Thus, as framed by the parties, the question before the Panel is
narrow, Judge Quattlebaum states. At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage of the
case, do the alleged contractual documents clearly and
unambiguously indicate that the location of the merchant determines
whether a transaction is made in a foreign country? In its view,
the Court of Appeals says the answer is no.

On this issue, the Court of Appeals concludes that the language
from the Debit Card Disclosure Agreement and Fee Schedule are
susceptible to different interpretations.

The Court of Appeals notes that as an initial matter, the phrase
"transactions made in foreign countries" is not defined in the
Debit Card Disclosure Agreement. And without a definition, in this
context, its plain meaning is not clear.

The Fee Schedule's "Point-of-sale and ATM transactions made in
foreign countries" language does not clear things up, Judge
Quattlebaum notes. That phrase is likewise not defined in the
agreements.

Both parties cite dictionary definitions in support of their
interpretations. Morrow and Le Flore also look to definitions for
"point-of-sale," a term from the Fee Schedule.

While the definitions of "point-of-sale" arguably trend more in the
direction of the seller's location than the buyer's, they still
seem to refer to traditional in-person transactions, not online
transactions, Judge Quattlebaum opines. As described, the question
is more complicated in the online context.

In summary, Judge Quattlebaum says the contracts could have been
drafted to clearly explain whether online transactions were "made
in foreign countries" if they were between account holders
physically in the United States and foreign sellers. But they were
not. As drafted, the contracts are capable of more than one
reasonable interpretation.

Thus, under Virginia law, the language is ambiguous, Judge
Quattlebaum holds. Finding ambiguity, the Court of Appeals vacates
the district court's order and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. Although whether the language of a
contract is ambiguous is a question of law, the resolution of that
ambiguity is a question of fact.

But as noted, the Court of Appeals' resolution is narrow. It is
necessarily limited by the procedural posture of the case, the
focused question presented to the Panel and the specific documents
described here.

III.

Because the contract language here is capable of more than one
reasonable meaning, one of which is supported by the allegations of
the complaint, the Court of Appeals vacates the judgment of the
district court, and remands the case for further proceedings.

Vacated and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wuzfzvf6 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Sophia Goren Gold -- sgold@kalielgold.com -- KALIELGOLD
PLLC, in Berkeley, California, for the Appellants.

Michael Julian Gottlieb -- mgottlieb@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR &
GALLAGHER LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Jason H. Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com --
Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ
OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida;
David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com -- THE VAN WINKLE
FIRM, in Asheville, North Carolina, for the Appellants.

Nicholas Reddick -- nreddick@willkie.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Meryl Conant Governski -- mgovernski@willkie.com --
Aaron E. Nathan -- anathan@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER
LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellee.


NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Faces Product Litigation Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2022, that since February 2021,
several putative consumer class action lawsuits have been brought
against its brand "Sprout" alleging that its products contain
unsafe and undisclosed levels of various naturally occurring heavy
metals, namely lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury.

There are currently two active putative class action lawsuits,
which allege that Sprout violated various state consumer protection
laws and make other state and common law warranty and for unjust
enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the
presence of these metals, whereas consumers would have allegedly
either not purchased the products or would have paid less had
Sprout made adequate disclosures.

These putative class actions seek to certify a nationwide class of
consumers as well as various state subclasses. These kinds of class
actions have also been separately filed against all of the major
baby food manufacturers in federal courts across the country.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation declined a
request to centralize all of the consumer class action lawsuits
against all of the baby food manufacturers into a single
multidistrict proceeding.

One of the class actions is currently pending in New Jersey
Superior Court. The other class action is currently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, but has
been ordered to be transferred to the U.S. District for the
District of New Jersey. Sprout denies the allegations in these
lawsuits and contends that its baby foods are safe and properly
labeled.

Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. is a consumer packaged good company
based in Canada.


NEW HORIZON: Sartori Sues Over Misrepresented Terms of Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sartori Properties, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
Talita Sar Tori, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES, LLC, PRIVATE
EQUITY FUNDING LLC, Florida Limited Liability Companies, and TODD
SORRIN, an individual, Case No. CACE-22-009251 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., June 22, 2022), is brought addressing a
multi-year scheme to deceive borrowers and consumers using the
Florida real estate market, as a result of the Defendants scheme of
materially misrepresenting the terms of the agreements between the
parties, thus misleading borrowers, charging interest rates and
fees beyond agreed upon terms, and, among other things, violated
state debt collection laws, unjustly enriched the Defendants, and
breached the terms of the Borrowers' loan agreements.

The Defendants routinely charge consumers fees and charges not
permitted by the mortgage and note contracts, the fees and debts
improperly charged and collected, are in practice and practical
effect additional finance charges, prepayment penalties,
refinancing penalties and payoff fees levied by the Defendants onto
consumers that pay-off mortgages prior to maturity.

The Defendants do not tell their mortgage consumers that Defendant
PEF receives an "origination fee" from its private investor
customers, like New Horizons, Sorrin Investments, and/or Sorrin
Developments. Nor do Defendants inform Plaintiffs and Class when
Defendants charge and collect improper and unlawful fees. The
Defendants routinely make affirmative misrepresentations about such
fees and seemingly arbitrarily select which fees to charge and how
much those fees would be.

The Defendant PEF abuses the financial system at the expense of
borrowers and consumers, who are the Plaintiffs and Class Members,
to unjustly enrich itself and the other the Defendants. The
Defendants uses vague and conflicting terms in its mortgage
documents as a means to charge borrowers (and lenders) an
unnecessary fee and to enhance its own servicing profits.
Furthermore, the Defendants abuse of the loose regulatory schemes
surrounding private, "hard money" loans is believed to be a
systemic, widespread practice impacting thousands of homeowners,
limited liability corporations, and private investors says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff Sartori Properties, LLC obtained a "money first
purchase mortgage" from the Defendant.

The Defendants provide "monthly interest only first mortgage"
financing to Corporations or Land Trusts formed by consumers with a
personal guarantee" using short term "hard money" mortgage loans
provided by private investors/lenders, such as Defendants New
Horizon Enterprises and Todd Sorin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GRP.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Floor 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Phone: (813) 275 -5272
          Fax: (813) 222-2496
          Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com


NEW YORK, NY: Court Denies Jeffery's Bid for Partial Final Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAMEL JEFFERY, THADDEUS BLAKE, and CHAYSE PENA, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ERIC ADAMS, Mayor of New York City, in his
Official Capacity, BILL DE BLASIO, Former Mayor of New York City,
Individually, ANDREW CUOMO, Former Governor of the State of New
York, Individually, and P.O.s JOHN DOE #1-50, Individually and in
their Official Capacity, (the name John Doe being fictitious, as
the true names are presently unknown), Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-2843 (NGG) (RML) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denies
the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of partial final judgment.

I. Introduction

Following the partial dismissal of their claims, the Plaintiffs
moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), for an
entry of partial final judgment on the dismissed curfew validity,
unlawful arrest, and false imprisonment claims. Defendants New York
City (the "City"); Eric Adams, Mayor of New York City, in his
Official Capacity; and Bill De Blasio, former Mayor of New York
City, Individually (together with the City, the "City Defendants")
oppose the motion.

II. Background

In late spring 2020, New York City experienced ongoing protests
against racial discrimination and police brutality. Though
predominantly peaceful, these demonstrations included isolated
incidences of violence, looting, and property damage. In response
to the protests, a citywide curfew was imposed on June 1, 2020. The
curfew remained in place until its repeal on June 6, 2022.

Before the curfew was repealed, the Plaintiffs were allegedly
outside in New York City in violation of the curfew, and as a
result, were apprehended by the New York City Police Department
("NYPD") officers and taken into custody.

On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action
against the City Defendants; Andrew Cuomo, former Governor of the
State of New York, Individually; and 50 unnamed NYPD officers,
Individually and in their Official Capacities, challenging the
temporary curfew and its execution.

On March 17, 2021, the former Governor filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. The same day, the City Defendants
filed a partial motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 24, 2022, the Court dismissed the claims against the former
Mayor in his individual capacity and against the former Governor,
as well as the claims that the curfew was facially
unconstitutional, that the arrests were unlawful, and the claims
alleging false imprisonment. It sustained the selective enforcement
and municipal liability claims.

Following the partial dismissal, the Plaintiffs moved pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for an entry of partial final
judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims related to, and contingent on,
the curfew's validity. The City Defendants oppose the motion.

III. Discussion

Certification of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) is a
"permissive, not mandatory, mechanism." "In the federal district
courts, the entry of a final judgment is generally appropriate only
after all claims have been adjudicated." However, Rule 54(b)
"authorizes a district court to enter partial final judgment when
three requirements have been satisfied: (1) there are multiple
claims or parties, (2) at least one claim or the rights and
liabilities of at least one party has been finally determined, and
(3) the court makes an express determination that there is no just
reason for delay."

Judge Garaufis finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the first two Rule
54(b) requirements, as there are multiple claims and parties, and
several of the claims have been finally determined. Thus, the
availability of Rule 54(b) certification turns on whether there is
no just reason for delay.

Judge Garaufis finds that the Plaintiffs' arguments with respect to
equity unpersuasive. Delay resulting from the wait until after
final judgment has been entered is inherent in every denial of Rule
54(b) certification. Likewise, the possibility of fading memories
due to delay is not unique and does not rise to the level of
"unusual hardship" required for Rule 54(b) entry of partial final
judgment. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' "desire for finality, while
understandable, does not justify granting a Rule 54(b) motion."
Since the Plaintiffs have not shown any unusual hardship or
injustice if a partial final judgment is not entered, the equitable
interests do not favor Rule 54(b) certification.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Judge Garaufis denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for entry of partial final judgment and issuance of a
certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 54(b).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p846fur from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Court Wants Supplemental Filing in Thompson v. Carter
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MITCHELL THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. WARDEN
CARTER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21 Civ. 8982 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York reserves judgment on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss pending receipt of any supplemental submission by
the Plaintiff.

Pro se Plaintiff Mitchell Thompson brings this action against the
Defendants, who are four officials of the Vernon C. Bain Center
("VCBC") at Rikers Island, for alleged violations of his rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Plaintiff is one of several individuals, who joined a putative
pro se class action complaint dated Oct. 12, 2021, filed by lead
plaintiff Michael Lee on Oct. 20, 2021. See Lee v. Carter, No. 21
Civ. 8629 (S.D.N.Y). In an order dated Nov. 1, 2021, Chief Judge
Swain severed the claims of all plaintiffs other than Mr. Lee into
separate actions, including this one. The Lee Complaint is the
operative Complaint in this action.

I. Background

The Plaintiff and several others housed at VCBC, Housing Unit 3-AA,
were deprived of toilet paper, soap, and toothbrushes for
approximately two to three days. After the individuals brought this
to the attention of facility staff, the Plaintiff was allegedly
placed in hand restraints and taken to the facility's Intake
Holding Cells, where he was subjected to corporal punishment and
not fed or given water or access to a working toilet for 7 to 8
hours. The Defendants are the officials responsible for ensuring
that the Plaintiff and others detained in his housing unit have
access to essential goods, and are responsible for placing the
Plaintiff in the Intake Holding Cells and for the harsh conditions
experienced there.

II. Standard

On a motion to dismiss, a court accepts as true all well-pleaded
factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of
the non-moving party but does not consider "conclusory allegations
or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations" (Dixon v. von
Blanckensee, 994 F.3d 95, 101 (2d Cir. 2021)).

III. Discussion

The Complaint is dismissed because it is apparent from the face of
the Complaint that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, Judge Schofield holds. The Prison
Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") provides that no action will be
brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of
this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any
jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

At Rikers Island, grievance procedures are governed by the Inmate
Grievance and Request Program ('IGRP'). Courts in this Circuit
routinely take judicial notice of the IGRP.

The version of the IGRP effective as of Dec. 10, 2018, requires the
following steps: First, the aggrieved person may submit a grievance
to the Office of Constituent and Grievance Services ("OCGS").
Second, if the aggrieved person is not satisfied with OCGS's
proposed resolution, the aggrieved person may appeal to the
facility's Commanding Officer. Third, if the aggrieved person is
not satisfied with the Commanding Officer's disposition, the
aggrieved person may appeal to the facility's Division Chief within
two days. Fourth, if the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the
Division Chief's disposition, the aggrieved person may appeal to
the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC") within two days. OCGS
must forward the appeal to the Director of Constituent and
Grievance Services within one business day, and the CORC must
generally render a disposition within five business days of
receiving it.

Here, it is apparent that the Plaintiff did not exhaust
administrative remedies given the duration of the exhaustion
process and the time between the events alleged and the filing of
the Complaint, Judge Schofield says. The Complaint alleges that the
incident at issue took place on Oct. 5, 2021. The Complaint was
delivered to jail officials on Oct. 12, 2021, and the Complaint was
received by the Court on Oct. 20, 2021.

Thus, only 15 days elapsed between the incident and the filing of
the Complaint. Even assuming that the Plaintiff filed a grievance
the same day as the incident and immediately appealed every adverse
decision, he could not have exhausted his appeals, Judge Schofield
points out. The facility was entitled to take twenty-five days or
more to resolve all levels of appeal.

The Plaintiff has not suggested in response to this motion that the
administrative procedures of the IGRP were unavailable to him,
Judge Schofield notes. Had he done so, the Court likely would have
converted the motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 12(d)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because the Plaintiff is pro se, Judge Schofield rules that he is
granted leave to respond to the Defendants' motion by filing a
letter with the Court alleging any facts showing that the IGRP
grievance process was de facto unavailable to him, for example, in
one of the three ways listed. Should he choose to do so, he will
file such letter with the Court no later than July 28, 2022.

If the Plaintiff chooses not to file such a letter, the case will
be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, Judge Schofield points out. In other
words, the Plaintiff would be permitted to exhaust his
administrative remedies and then file a new action based on the
same underlying facts.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court reserves judgment on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss pending receipt of any supplemental submission by
the Plaintiff by July 28, 2022, as outlined.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 7,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8j656f from
Leagle.com.


NURTURE INC: Court Asks Clerk to Amend Caption of Cullors Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asks
the Clerk of Court to amend the caption of the lawsuit captioned
STACIA CULLORS, an individual; L.P., a minor, N.B., a minor, and
V.B., a minor, through their guardian ad litem STACIA CULLORS;
ANTHONY BACANI, an individual; D.B., a minor and E.B., a minor,
through their guardian ad litem ANTHONY BACANI; JENNIFER CULLORS,
an individual; A.C., a minor, and J.C., a minor, through their
guardian ad litem JENNIFER CULLORS, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NURTURE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05402 (S.D.N.Y.).

On Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against Defendants Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., Nurture, Plum, Inc.
d.b.a. Plum Organics, Gerber Products Co., Walmart, Inc., and
Sprout Foods, Inc., in Los Angeles Superior Court. That case was
timely removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

On June 22, 2022, the District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Defendants' Motion to Sever Claims and
Transfer Venue. As a result, the claims asserted against Nurture
only were transferred to the Southern District of New York.

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is requested to amend the caption
of the case to reflect that only those claims asserted against
Nurture have been transferred to the Southern District of New
York.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3z2dp4ec from Leagle.com.


OUTSET MEDICAL: Lieff Cabraser Notes of Sept. 6 Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased the common stock of Outset Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: OM)
from September 15, 2020 through June 13, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased Outset common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later
than September 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be
affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as
your counsel in the action.

Outset investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/securities/outset-medical/

or text or email investorinfo@lchb.com, or call Sharon M. Lee of
Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Outset Securities Class Litigation

Outset, headquartered in San Jose, California, is a medical
technology company whose chief product, the Tablo Hemodialysis
System ("Tablo"), is used for the treatment of acute and chronic
kidney failure.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Outset misled
investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
"continuously made improvements and updates to Tablo over time
since its original clearance," which required further studies and
potentially new applications to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"); (2) in the absence of such studies and FDA
approval, the Company could not conduct a human factors study on
the Tablo pursuant to FDA protocols; and (3) Outset's inability to
conduct the human factors study exposed the Company to the risk of
FDA actions, including a shipping hold and marketing suspension,
rendering Outset incapable of selling Tablo for home use.

On May 4, 2022, after markets closed, Outset announced
disappointing financial results for the first quarter of 2022,
which analysts attributed in part to Tablo's untested performance
in the home setting. On this news, the price of Outset common stock
fell $16.88, or 2.26% over the next three trading days, from a
closing price of $39.94 per share on Wednesday, May 4, 2022, to
close at $23.06 per share on Monday, May 9, 2022, on elevated
trading volume.

On June 13, 2022, after markets closed, Outset announced that the
FDA compelled the Company to suspend all shipments of Tablo for
home use until Outset obtained the requisite regulatory clearance.
On this news, the price of Outset stock fell $6.95, or 34.05%, from
a closing price of $20.41 per share on June 13, 2022, to close at
$13.46 per share on June 14, 2022, on extremely heavy trading
volume.

                    About Lieff Cabraser

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

PARISON INC: Galarce Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parison, Inc. The
case is styled as Fabio Galarce, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Parison, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-22112-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2022).

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

Parison primarily operates in the Management Consulting Services
business located in Colorado Springs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


PARKER RESTAURANT: Boukardougha Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parker Restaurant
Group LLC. The case is styled as Abderraouf Boukardougha,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Parker Restaurant Group LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-01207 (S.D. Fla.,
July 12, 2022).

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

Parker Restaurant Group -- https://www.parkerrestaurantgroup.com/
-- is a privately held company based that conceptualizes, develops,
manages and operates a portfolio of restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:22-cv-03235, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on July
13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-01229-DAP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged invasion of privacy,
unlawful and unfair business practices, and violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act and Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act by failing to secure the personally identifiable
information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation is an American corporation specializing
in motion and control technologies, headquartered in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
         16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (619) 308-5034
         Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
         E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

                 - and –

         Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
         Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
         Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
         152 W. 57th Street, 41st Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 447-7060
         Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
         E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                 ekallas@whatleykallas.com
                 psheehan@whatleykallas.com

                 - and –

         April M. Strauss, Esq.
         APRIL M. STRAUSS, A PC
         2500 Hospital Drive, Bldg. 3
         Mountain View, CA 94040
         Telephone: (650) 281-7081
         E-mail: astrauss@sfaclp.com

                 - and –

         William J. Doyle, Esq.
         DOYLE APC
         550 West B. Street, 4th Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 736-0000
         Facsimile: (619) 736-1111
         E-mail: bill@doyleapc.com

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Court Enters Final Judgment in Alfred Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAYMOND ALFRED, MARVIN BARRISH, and ASHLEY ALVES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., a Connecticut Corporation, and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Lead Case No. LA CV14-07086-JAK
(SKx), Consolidated with Case No. LA CV19-01660-JAK (SKx)., LA
CV19-01998-JAK (SKx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Kronstadt of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters
Judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

The Parties reached a settlement subject to Court approval as
represented in the Settlement Agreement that was filed previously
with the Court. The Court conducted a final approval hearing
pursuant to the Court's Order re Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (the "Preliminary
Approval Order") and granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement Judgment and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards (the "Final Approval
Order").

In accordance with the Final Approval Order and the Court's Order
re Final Approval Order and Stipulation Regarding Attorneys' Fees
and Costs, Objections, and Agreement Forgoing Appeal, Judge
Kronstadt enters Judgment in the matter in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement. The stay of the Final Approval Order is
lifted.

The parties will effect the Settlement Agreement according to its
terms and according to the terms of the prior orders.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ys5u7dup from Leagle.com.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Settlement in Remick Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS REMICK, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Defendants-Respondents, Civil Action No.
20-1959 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the parties'
Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

A fairness hearing was conducted on July 6, 2022. Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(e), upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion,
and following the fairness hearing, Judge Schiller grants the Joint
Motion.

By Order dated March 11, 2022, the Court previously certified a
class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of: All
persons who are currently or will be in the future confined in the
Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and are or will be subjected to
illegal or unconstitutional conditions of confinement as a result
of policies and restrictions implemented in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, and the PDP's staffing shortage. Judge Schiller
recertifies that class -- which also comprises the certified
subclass-- as the Settlement Class.

All Settlement Class members are bound by the Settlement Agreement
and the Final Order.

Judge Schiller finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and approves the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendants are instructed to withdraw their pending Petition
for Permission to Appeal this Court's Class Certification Order
with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as agreed in the Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Schiller finds that $340,000 to the class counsel is a
reasonable award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement are incorporated into the
Order. The Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal
without prejudice of the claims in the action.

The Court retains jurisdiction over any matter which may arise in
connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement as
agreed in the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Schiller dismisses as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case for statistical
purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9b3yzs from Leagle.com.


PLYMOUTH ROCK ENERGY: 300 West End Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plymouth Rock Energy,
LLC. The case is styled as 300 West End Ave. Associates Corp.,
General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States, 293-299 Knickerbocker LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plymouth Rock Energy,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03664-LDH-SIL (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.

Plymouth Rock Energy, LLC operates as an energy supplier. The
Company offers natural gas and electricity to residential,
industrial, and commercial sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James DeMay, Esq.
          Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (704) 941-4648
          Fax: (919) 600-5035
          Email: jdemay@milberg.com
                 pwallace@milberg.com

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com


POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC disclosed in its Form F-1, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 12, 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 the Polestar
Norway issued misleading statements regarding the range of the PS2
vehicle, which Polestar Norway rejects.

As of the date these financial statements were issued, 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.

Polestar is a pure play, premium electric performance car brand
headquartered in Sweden.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, LLC. The case is styled as Anat Gordon, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional
Claims Bureau, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04084 (E.D.N.Y., July 12,
2022).

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

Professional Claims Bureau (PCB) -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- is
the leading full service healthcare revenue cycle management
solutions provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Mouynivong Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gary Mouynivong, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Case No. 220502208 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 24, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-10992-RWZ to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Progressive Advanced Insurance Company --
http://www.progressive.com/-- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 261-4663

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: ecf@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1801 Market Street, Suite 100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6633
          Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel J Twilla, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          Burns White Center
          48 26th Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 995-3286
          Email: djtwilla@burnswhite.com


QUANTUM 3 MEDIA: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quantum 3 Media, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Vivian Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quantum 3 Media, LLC,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-01207 (C.D. Cal.,
July 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Q3M -- https://quantum3media.com/ -- delivers qualified prospects
and sales for the top insurance brands and agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Court OKs Settlement of Derr Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ra Medical Systems, 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 July 13, 2022, that on November 12,
2021, following a private settlement mediation with the lead
plaintiffs, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement that
resolved the claims asserted in a putative securities class action
complaint captioned "Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et al.,"
Civil Action no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California in June 7, 2019 against the
company, certain current and former officers and directors, and
certain underwriters of the company's initial public offering.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made material misstatements
or omissions in the company's registration statement in violation
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between
September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriter defendants without prejudice. On March 13, 2020,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On
March 24, 2021, the court issued an order granting defendants"
motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Act in full and
certain claims under the Exchange Act and denying defendants"
motion to dismiss certain Exchange Act claims. Plaintiffs filed
their second amended complaint on April 19, 2021, re-alleging the
Securities Act claims and certain of the previously dismissed
Exchange Act claims. In June 10, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint. In November 12, 2021, following a
private settlement mediation with the lead plaintiffs, the parties
executed a stipulation of settlement that resolved the claims
asserted in the securities class action. The settlement provides
for a payment to the plaintiff class of $10.0 million. The proposed
settlement requires both preliminary and final approval by the
court. In February 11, 2022, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement, scheduled a hearing on final approval of the
settlement for June 13, 2022, and denied the pending motion to
dismiss without prejudice.

Ra Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical device company leveraging its
advanced excimer laser-based platform for use in the treatment of
vascular immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.


RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Court Stays Borg Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ra Medical Systems, 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 July 13, 2022, that on October 1, 2019,
a shareholder derivative complaint captioned "Noel Borg v. Dean
Irwin, et. al.," Civil Action No. 1:99-cm-09999, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against certain
current and former officers and directors, purportedly on behalf of
the company, which is named as a nominal defendant in the action.

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, waste, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act. In October 21, 2019, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the
court stayed the derivative lawsuit.

Ra Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical device company leveraging its
advanced excimer laser-based platform for use in the treatment of
vascular immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.


REBEL CREAMERY: Davis Sues Over Ice Cream's False Healthy Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA DAVIS and BONNIE BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REBEL CREAMERY LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04111-TSH (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express warranties, breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Rebel ice
cream products. The Defendant represents the products as nutritious
and healthful to consume. The Defendant's marketing stresses the
importance of fat consumption, the health benefits of high fat
diets, and the healthy nature of its products. In reality, the
products contain high amounts of unsafe fats which increase the
risk of severe health issues. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
the products at a premium price, says the suit.

Rebel Creamery LLC is a manufacturer of consumer food products,
with its principal place of business in Midway, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
         GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP
         2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 274-4663
         E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com

                 - and –

         Amir Shenaq, Esq.
         SHENAQ PC
         3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
         Atlanta GA 30326
         Telephone: (888) 909-9993
         E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com

                 - and –

         Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
         THE KEETON FIRM LLC
         100 S. Commons, Ste. 102
         Pittsburgh PA 15212
         Telephone: (888) 412-5291
         E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

RITE AID CORP: Consumer Suit Stayed Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended May 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 6, 2022, that the company is a
defendant in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
captioned "Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp." A separate lawsuit,
"Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp.," was consolidated with this
lawsuit in November, 2019.

The lawsuit contains allegations that the company was obligated to
charge the plaintiffs' insurance companies its usual and customary
prices for their prescription drugs and the company failed to do so
because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to
account for the prices that Rite Aid offered to uninsured and
underinsured customers through its "Rx Savings Program."

Although a stay pending the company's unsuccessful attempt to
compel arbitration has been lifted, the cases are now stayed
pending mediation of these matters and another lawsuit raising
usual and customary pricing allegations filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.


ROCKET MORTGAGE: Wins Arbitration Bid; Shirley TCPA Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In  the lawsuit entitled Dustin Shirley, Plaintiff v. Rocket
Mortgage LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-13007 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order:

   (1) granting the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
       Dismiss the Complaint;

   (2) denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
       First Amended Complaint as moot; and

   (3) dismisses the action in its entirety.

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Dustin Shirley alleges
that Defendant Rocket Mortgage violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by texting his cellphone while his phone
number was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

Background

On Dec. 27, 2021, Shirley initiated this putative class action on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated. On Feb. 28, 2022,
Rocket Mortgage filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss
the Complaint. On that same day, Rocket Mortgage filed its Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
12(b)(6). The Court allowed Shirley to file an amended complaint in
response, and on March 24, 2022, Shirley filed his First Amended
Class Action Complaint. As such, that pleading superseded the
original complaint, and rendered Rocket Mortgage's motion to
dismiss moot. On April 7, 2022, Rocket Mortgage filed its Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

In the Amended Complaint, Shirley alleges two TCPA claims: (1)
"Violations of the TCPA (47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., and 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2) & (d)(3))" (Count 1); and (2) "Willful
Violations of the [TCPA], (47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., and 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2) & (d)(3)" (Count 2).

Mr. Shirley alleges that his cellular number has been registered
with the National Do-Not-Call Registry since Feb. 19, 2013. He uses
his cellular telephone as his residential telephone number.

On Aug. 15, 2021, Shirley visited LowerMyBills.com ("LMB") seeking
mortgage refinance information for a property he owned. LMB's
General Counsel described the company as: LMB operates a free
online financial resource center for consumers, and also offers a
free referral service for consumers seeking home mortgage and
refinance loans. As part of its free referral service for home
mortgage financing, LMB identifies consumers who have indicated
they are interested in or inquired about home mortgage or refinance
loan options through LMB's website, LowerMyBills.com. LMB will then
match consumers to one or more mortgage loan providers, such as
Rocket Mortgage, LLC (Rocket Mortgage). Since prior to August 2021,
LMB and Rocket Mortgage (f/k/a Quicken Loans, LLC) have been
affiliated companies, and shared the same parent company, RKT
Holdings, LLC.

While on the LMB website, Shirley entered his name, phone number,
email, and property address. LMB's business records demonstrate the
Shirley clicked a submission button confirming that he consented
and agreed to LMB's Terms of Use on two separate occasions.

In the Amended Complaint, Shirley alleges that in or around the
summer of 2020, Shirley advised Rocket Mortgage that he was not
interested in its services. However, Rocket Mortgage initiated
repeated telephone solicitations to his cellular telephone by
placing calls and sending repeated text messages marketing,
advertising and promoting Rocket Mortgage's business and services.

Mr. Shirley states that on Nov. 23, 2021, he messaged "Stop" in
response. However, Rocket Mortgage did not cease sending him
messages. Instead, Shirley alleges that Rocket Mortgage
deliberately programmed its telephone dialing systems to continue
sending telemarketing messages to consumers for more than three
weeks after receiving a "Stop" request. Rocket Mortgage sent
Shirley at least eleven additional telemarketing text messages from
Nov. 29, 2021, until Dec. 16, 2021.

Analysis

I. Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No.
9)

Rocket Mortgage argues that the texts Shirley received were sent in
response to his online submission of his contact information and
consent to receive text messages as a part of his request for
mortgage refinance information from Rocket Mortgage (and others).
As a part of that submission, Shirley repeatedly agreed, among
other things, to arbitrate all claims against Rocket Mortgage
arising out of his submission.

Rocket Mortgage contends that Shirley has violated those
arbitration agreements by filing this lawsuit, and it asks the
Court to enforce the arbitration agreements and compel Shirley's
individual claim to arbitration. Shirley argues that because the
website fails to provide inquiry of constructive notice of either
the LMB or Rocket Mortgage Terms of Use or the arbitration clauses
contained therein, there is not an arbitration agreement for Rocket
Mortgage to enforce. Therefore, the Court must address whether the
parties agreed to arbitrate.

Rocket Mortgage has provided the Court with both LMB's and Rocket
Mortgage's Terms of Use, which both included a mandatory
arbitration provision. The question at issue is whether Shirley
agreed to Rocket Mortgage's and LMB's Terms of Use, Judge Cox
notes.

Courts have routinely found "clickwrap" agreements enforceable
because by checking a box explicitly stating "I agree" in order to
proceed, the "consumer has received notice of the terms being
offered and, in the words of the Restatement, "knows or has reason
to know that the other party may infer from his conduct that he
assents" to those terms." However, courts are "more reluctant to
enforce 'browsewrap' agreements" because in those agreements, the
website only offers terms that are "disclosed through a hyperlink
and the user supposedly manifests asset to those terms simply by
continuing to use the website," Judge Cox states.

The Ninth Circuit recently explained how to determine whether a
consumer gave meaningful assent in such online contracts: "Unless
the website operator can show that a consumer has actual knowledge
of the agreement, an enforceable contract will be found based on an
inquiry notice theory only if: (1) the website provides reasonably
conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be
bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a
button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her
assent to those terms."

A. Actual Knowledge

Judge Cox notes that the parties do not substantively address
actual knowledge in their briefs. In Shirley's response, he argues
that Rocket Mortgage argues only that he was on inquiry notice of
the LMB and Rocket Mortgage Terms of Use, not that he had any
actual notice of the terms. In its reply, Rocket Mortgage argues
that Shirley had actual notice of the Terms of Use and twice
affirmatively agreed to them by clicking the 'Calculate' and
'Calculate your FREE results' buttons.

Courts have found that parties to online agreements have actual
knowledge when the parties either admit they had knowledge or where
they were notified of the terms in a subsequent letter and
continued to use the website. Here, Judge Cox finds that the
parties have not presented evidence that Shirley had actual
knowledge of the Terms of Use via either admission or an alternate
source.

B. Inquiry Notice

The Court must analyze whether Shirley had inquiry notice, which is
established if: (1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous
notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2)
the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or
checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to
those terms.

Judge Cox says Rocket Mortgage provided a helpful video of the
website's functionality at the time Shirley accessed it. Rocket
Mortgage also played the video at the hearing. The video
demonstrates how a user would navigate through LMB's website on an
iPhone as Shirley did.

Here, Judge Cox finds, Shirley clicked three buttons. Under the
first button, there was no explicit textual notice with Rocket
Mortgage's and LMB's Terms of Use. Therefore, the first button may
not indicate a user's unambiguous manifestation of assent. However,
under the second and third buttons, there was an explicit textual
notice that said "By clicking the button above" the user agreed to
LMB's Terms of Use.

Judge Cox explains that this is analogous to the online agreement
in Lee v. Ticketmaster, LLC, 817 Fed. App'x 393, 394-95 (9th Cir.
2020), which the Ninth Circuit found that the user validly assented
to the terms of use.

This is similar to Shirley clicking the second and third buttons
because they came with a notice directly underneath them that
stated by continuing to click the buttons, Shirley was agreeing to
LMB's Terms of Use, Judge Cox points out.

Therefore, the Court finds that Shirley unambiguously manifested
his assent to LMB's Terms of Use by clicking the second and third
buttons.

Rocket Mortgage's Terms of Use were only under the first button,
which as stated, may not meet the requirements for inquiry notice.
However, at the hearing, Shirley stated that he agrees that Rocket
Mortgage can enforce LMB's arbitration agreement with Shirley as an
intended third-party beneficiary.

In sum, the Court finds that Shirley had inquiry notice of LMB's
Terms of Use and holds that the mandatory arbitration provision
contained within those Terms of Use are enforceable. As such, the
Court grants Rocket Mortgage's motion to compel arbitration.
Because Shirley does not dispute that his claims pled in this case
fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the Court
dismisses this action.

II. Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21)

In light of these findings, the Court denies Rocket Mortgage's
motion to dismiss as moot.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained:

   (1) Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the
       Complaint (ECF No. 9) is granted;

   (2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
       Complaint (ECF No. 21) is denied as moot; and

   (3) the action is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 7,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc898pa5 from
Leagle.com.


SAFE BOX: Scheduling Order Entered in Gilmore Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE GILMORE, v. SAFE
BOX LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Case No. 21-cv-06917-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order
as follows:

                      Event                 Deadline

  -- Expert Disclosures                  April 26, 2023

  -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:        May 10, 2023

  -- Class Certification Discovery       May 26, 2023
     Completion:

  -- The Plaintiff's Motion for          June 22, 2023
     Class Certification:

  -- The Defendants' Oppositions         August 3, 2023
     to Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- The Plaintiff's Reply               September 4, 2023
     regarding Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Class Certification Hearing:        October 5, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3csmf0A at no extra charge.[CC]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: O'Connor Sues Over Defective Game Apps
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMBER O'CONNOR; and JUSTIN O'CONNOR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC.; and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case
2:22-cv-04557-ES-JSA (D.N.J., July 13, 2022) is a class action suit
against the Defendants for the design, manufacturing, marketing,
and sale of of various smartphone models containing the Game
Optimizing Service ("GOS") app, including, but not limited to,
models and versions of the S10, S20, S21, and S22, and versions
designated as "FE," "Ultra," "Plus," or the like (collectively,
"Devices").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Samsung Devices at
issue contain a mobile application ("app")1 called Game Optimizing
Service ("GOS") that artificially and selectively limits - or
"throttles" - access to the Devices' processing power and other
resources, purportedly with the intention of preventing overheating
to and extending battery life of the Devices. Specifically, Samsung
has programmed these Devices to run at faster than normal speeds,
or higher speeds than apps operating in the real world, when they
detect certain "benchmarking" apps; i.e., performance-measuring
tools used by reviewers and consumers to test and compare the speed
and performance of smartphones and tablets, says the suit.

According to the complaint, Samsung's deception is quite simple: in
an effort to remain competitive, Samsung promises to deliver both
better, faster performance and better, longer battery life.
However, knowing it cannot deliver as promised, Samsung
intentionally programmed its Devices to cheat benchmark apps, and
to create false perceptions regarding the speed, performance, and
battery life of these Devices. Samsung's throttling manipulation
was intended to address a defect in the design of its Devices: the
fact that the Devices' batteries lacked the capacity and power
delivery to keep up with the demands placed upon them by Samsung's
hardware and software (hereafter, "the Defect"), the suit alleges.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. manufactures electronic products.
The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones,
storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches,
and computer products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
           SEEGER WEISS LLP
           55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
           Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
           Telephone: (973) 639-9100
           Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

SCION GROUP: Giles Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Scion Group LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Giles, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Scion Group LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03249 (N.D. Ill., June 22, 2022).

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

The Scion Group -- https://thesciongroup.com/ -- is the largest
owner/operator of off-campus student housing communities
globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

               - and -

          David L. Lee, Esq.
          542 S. Dearborn St., #660
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (312) 347-4400
          Email: d-lee@davidleelaw.com


SCWORX CORP: Court OKs Settlement of Yannes Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCWorx Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated December 31,
2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6,
2022, that a class action settlement has been approved by the
court.

In April 29, May 27, June 23, 2020 and December 27, 2021, a series
of securities class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and
its former CEO. All three lawsuits alleged that the company and
former CEO misled investors in connection with our April 13, 2020
press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits.
These three class actions were consolidated on September 18, 2020
and a Daniel Yannes was designated lead plaintiff. A consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed on October 19, 2020. The action was
captioned Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel.

On December 20, 2021, the company and Mr. Schessel entered into a
binding agreement with the Plaintiff to settle the litigation.
Under the terms of this agreement, the insurers for the Company and
Schessel will make a cash payment to the Plaintiff and the company
will issue $600,000 worth of common stock to the class Plaintiffs,
in exchange for which all parties will be released from all claims
related to the securities class action litigation. This agreement
provides that the parties will negotiate in good faith to enter
into a definitive settlement agreement within thirty days, which
agreement will be subject to court approval.

On June 29, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York gave final approval of the settlement resolving the
class action litigation involving the company.

SCWorx Corp. is into miscellaneous amusement & recreation services
based in New York.


SHAHID INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shahid, Inc. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Shahid, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-05912
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Shahid, Inc. doing business as Shahid Kraus --
https://www.shahidkraus.com/ -- is a full service design, branding,
and advertising agency, renowned for creating new brands as well as
reinventing existing ones.[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


SHANNON BALDERAS: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shannon Balderas, et
al. The case is styled as Anali R. Rodriguez, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated. and the general public v.
Shannon Lane Balderas, a natural person, doing business as
CHICK-FIL-A/MONTEREY ROAD & TULLY ROAD; Chick-Fil-A Monterey &
Tully; Chick-Fil-A at Monterey & Tully; Does 1-50, Case No.
22CV399410 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Labor Code Violation.

Shannon Lane Balderas doing business as Chick-Fil-A --
https://www.chick-fil-a.com/ -- is a Fast-food chain serving
chicken sandwiches & nuggets along with salads & sides..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Christina J. Prejean, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          8605 Santa Monica Bivd., PMB 42554
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Phone: (213) 725-9094
          Fax: (213) 634-2485
          Email: david@spivaklaw.com
                 christina@spivaklaw.com


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY: Cabreja Sues Over Hidden 4% Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIMY CABREJA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 0:22-cv-61313 (S.D. Fla., July 13, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged use of a deceptive
bait-and-switch scheme which adds a so-called 4 percent supply
chain charge on sales receipts after purchases are consummated.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's in-store displays are
not the true prices for its products. In fact, the true prices are
4 percent higher than listed because after consumers select
in-store items based on listed prices and customize those in-store
items with colors and other specifications, the Defendant imposes a
so-called supply chain charge as a line item on receipts, amounting
to an additional 4 percent added to the in-store prices on all
purchases. As a result of the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading representations, the Plaintiff and Class members have
sustained damages, says the suit.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is an owner and operator of retail
stores, with its principal business offices in Cleveland, Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
         14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 edwine@shamisgentile.com

                 - and –

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         Christopher Gold, Esq.
         Edelsberg Law, PA
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com

SHIELDS HEALTH: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Provide Timely Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elsie Diaz, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-11002-AK (D. Mass., June 24, 2022), is brought on behalf of
those current or former patients of Defendant to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that Defendant collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third party.

As part of the services Shields provides, Shields requires patients
to provide personally identifiable information ("PII"), including
full name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number, as
well as protected health information ("PHI"), including provider
information, diagnosis, billing information, insurance number and
information, medical record number(s) patient ID, and other medical
or treatment information (collectively, "Private Information").

Between March 7, 2022 and March 21, 2022, an unauthorized
individual or individuals acquired "certain data" from the computer
systems and network of Defendant and/or its agents. The Notice of
Data Security Incident (hereinafter, the "Notice"), however, is
unclear – it states that Shields became aware of suspicious
activity on March 28, 2022, while the Notice also states that
Shields "had identified a security alert on or around March 18,
2022," which is when the Data Breach was actively occurring. Either
way, Shields did not post a notice regarding the Data Breach until
June of 2022 – months after it first became clear that a data
incident or breach had occurred with respect to Shields' network of
providers (who were also affected).

The Defendant also failed to notify consumers for two full months
from when their investigation was complete, waiting from March of
2022 to June of 2022 until the Notice was posted on its website.
Further, if Defendant had been monitoring its servers for the
presence of hackers, malware, ransomware, or whatever type of
cyberattack occurred here (Plaintiff and the Class Members have no
way of knowing because the Notice does not provide this
information), Defendant would have detected the presence of the
unauthorized individual(s) sooner.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients' Private Information. As a
result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff have been exposed to a
substantial and present risk of fraud and identity theft. The
Plaintiff must now and in the future closely monitor their
financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a patient of the Defendant for approximately
twenty-nine years and on multiple occasions has been required to
provide her Private Information.

Shields is a health-care provider that provides "high-field
open-bore MRI machines" and "provides other MRI, PET/CT and
ambulatory surgery services to patients at more than 30 locations
in New England."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borelli (to be admitted Pro Hac)
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, Wisconsin 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


SHIELDS HEALTH: Monette Sues Over Alleged Info Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA MONETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case 1:22-cv-11131 (D. Mass., July 13, 2022) Is a class action by
the Plaintiff and a class of individuals who used Shields's
services whose personally identifying information and/or protected
health information were accessed and exposed to unauthorized third
parties during a data breach of Shields's system, which Shields
states occurred between March 7, 2022 and March 28, 2022 (the "Data
Breach") and involved the "management and imaging services" Shields
provides for approximately 56 distinct "Facility Partners."

According to the complaint, on March 28, 2022, Shields was alerted
to suspicious activity that may have involved a breach of its
systems. Shields admitted that an unknown actor gained access to
certain Shields systems from March 7, 2022 to March 21, 2022, and
that certain data was exfiltered by the unknown actor. The data
breach impacted two million people and more than 50 of Shields's
health care facilities.

According to the complaint, the harm resulting from a data breach
manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and
financial fraud. The exposure of a person's PII or PHI through a
data breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially
increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes
compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of
their lives. Mitigating that risk -- to the extent it is even
possible to do so -- requires individuals to devote significant
time and money to closely monitor their credit, financial accounts,
health records, and email accounts, and take a number of additional
prophylactic measures, says the suit.

SHIELDS HEALTH CARE GROUP, INC. provides imaging equipment and
technologies. The Company offers medical imaging, radiation
oncology, MRI, pet and CT scans, and other related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Carey Alexander, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                 calexander@scott-scott.com

               -and-

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 S. Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 531-2632
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com

SLASHDOT MEDIA: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Slashdot Media, LLC. The case
is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Slashdot Media, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05899
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

Slashdot Media -- https://slashdotmedia.com/ -- is the global
leader in professional technology communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOCLEAN INC: Williams-Redding Sues Over Unsafe CPAP Cleaning Device
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDDA D. WILLIAMS-REDDING, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-11518-LJM-JJCG (E.D. Mich., July 6, 2022) is brought
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, SoClean's marketing materials fail to
disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a longstanding
requirement of federal law. Instead, SoClean falsely represents
that its devices use "activated oxygen" to clean continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) machines. SoClean markets the
devices as "safe" and "healthy," which is false given that they
generate toxic ozone gas at levels that substantially exceed
federal regulations, asserts the complaint.

Moreover, SoClean falsely represents that its devices use "no water
or chemicals" or "no harsh chemicals" to clean CPAP machines,
despite using ozone gas - a harsh chemical that causes respiratory
problems in humans, notes the complaint. SoClean represents that
its devices use the same sanitizing process found in "hospital
sanitizing," however, hospitals cannot and do not use ozone
sanitizers in spaces occupied by patients. SoClean also claims that
separately sold filters convert "activated oxygen" into "regular
oxygen," which is false because SoClean's filters have no
measurable effect on the device's ozone output. Finally, SoClean
falsely claims that its devices are "sealed" such that "activated
oxygen" (i.e., ozone) does not escape the devices, says the suit.

SoClean's misrepresentations, omissions, concealment, and
half-truths lead consumers, including Plaintiff, to purchase
SoClean's products when they would not otherwise do so, the
complaint says.

SoClean, Inc. manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces
automated CPAP cleaners and sanitizers. SoClean serves customers in
the State of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam G. Taub, Esq.
          ADAM G. TAUB & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER
           LAW GROUP PLC
          17200 West 10 Mile Road, Suite 200
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 746-3790
          E-mail: adamgtaub@clgplc.net

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
          SHARP LAW FIRM
          4820 W. 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
                  sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

SONY CORPORATION: Hit With Class Action Over PS5 Defects
--------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action
lawsuit says that the PlayStation 5 (PS5) is hampered by a defect
that can cause the console to suddenly crash and power down during
gameplay.

The 17-page suit out of Illinois charges that Sony Corporation of
America knew of the defect as early as the summer of 2021, yet has
failed to disclose the problem to consumers or take any substantial
action to address it. The filing claims that the crash problem
occurs more often with new-generation PS5 games (as opposed to
older games) and renders the console unfit for its ordinary
purpose.

According to the case, consumers would not have bought the PS5,
which retails for up to $499.99, had they known of its propensity
to crash and power down.

Worth the wait?

The lawsuit stresses that Sony's marketing amid the console's
launch was "aggressive," with the company reportedly spending three
times as much as Microsoft did for the release of its Xbox Series
X. Throughout its marketing, Sony has touted the PS5 as a
next-generation console equipped with "Lightning Speed,
Breathtaking Immersion, [and] Stunning Games," the suit states.

The case points out that the PS5 is the only system in existence
that can handle the "all-new generation" of games for the console.
Per the case, Sony partnered with a number of popular game creators
to release exclusive titles that can be played only on the PS5,
making the console "a more coveted purchase for consumers."

Although the PS5 has done well in the market, the console "has, and
remains, an extremely exclusive purchase" given that many retailers
quickly sell out of the device, the filing relays.

To that end, Sony has admitted that the PS5 will be in short supply
until 2023.

The complaint relays that consumers who have been able to lock down
a PS5 have unfortunately been met with the "ironic truth" that the
ostensibly "limitless" console is plagued by a design defect that
severely limits a player's expected use of the system.
Crashing and powering down, the lawsuit shares, is indeed a "common
and significant" issue among PS5 users that "materially interferes
with a user's gameplay and enjoyment of the PS5."

Often, when the crash defect causes a PS5 to power down, the
complaint says, a user will lose their game progress. Once the user
is finally able to turn their console back on, they're warned that
the manner in which the PS5 turned off is dangerous and can cause
data loss, corruption or overall system damage, according to the
case.

Per the suit, players are often required to downgrade next-gen PS5
games to the PS4 version to avoid the defect.
Who's covered by the lawsuit?

The case looks to represent all individuals in the United States
who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought a
PlayStation 5.

I own a PS5. How do I sign up?

When a class action case is initially filed, there's usually
nothing you need to do to join or sign up for the lawsuit. For
these kinds of cases, it's typically only if and when a lawsuit
settles that the people who are covered, called "class members,"
would need to act, usually by filling out and submitting a claim
form online or by mail.

If this lawsuit were to settle, those who are covered by the case
would most likely receive a notice about it by mail and/or email
(or read about it here on ClassAction.org). A settlement notice
generally contains information on how, where and by when to file a
claim, your legal rights and other pertinent details on the
litigation.

Class action lawsuits tend to take some time to work through the
legal process, usually toward a settlement, dismissal or
arbitration. So, if you're a PS5 owner, or just want to stay
informed on class action lawsuit and settlement news, sign up for
ClassAction.org's free weekly newsletter. [GN]

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LOUIS C. BERREYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:22-cv-00464, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on July 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01223-SSS-SP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
owed, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to authorize
and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure to pay
reporting time wages, knowing and intentional failure to comply
with itemized wage statement provisions, and unfair competition.

Southern California Gas Company is a utility company with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles County,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
         Richard B. Azada, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
         Telephone: (213) 620-1780
         Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
         E-mail: dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
                 razada@sheppardmullin.com

STEEP HILL: Plumlee Files RICO Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steep Hill Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Don Plumlee, Jakie Hanan, Pete Edwards,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Steep
Hill Inc., Steep Hill Arkansas, Brent Whittington, Brandon
Thornton, Bold Team LLC, NSMC-OPCO LLC doing business as: Natural
State Medicinal, Osage Creek Cultivation LLC, John Does 1-10, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00638-KGB (E.D. Ark., July 12, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeering
(RICO) Act for Racketeer/Corrupt Organization.

Steep Hill -- https://www.steephill.com/ -- offers accurate and
reliable cannabis and hemp testing services via our licensed
laboratories across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018
          Phone: (501) 315-1910
          Fax: (501) 315-1916
          Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc42ndjb from Leagle.com.


SWIFT PORK COMPANY: Vail Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swift Pork Company.
The case is styled as Nicholas Vail, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Swift Pork Company doing business as:
JBS USA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH (W.D. Ky., July 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Swift Pork Company -- https://swiftmeats.com/ -- produces and
processes meat products. The Company offers savory beef, pork,
poultry, chicken, and lamb products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Phone: (313) 392-0015
          Fax: (313) 392-0025
          Email: sliddle@mldclassaction.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. White, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          2301 River Road, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Phone: (502) 805-1800
          Email: mwhite@grayandwhitelaw.com


TAPESTRY INC: Reed Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Reed, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Tapestry, Inc. which will do
business in California as Coach Leatherware California Inc., a
Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
22CV399419 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 23, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants for California Labor Code
violations, unfair business practices, and civil penalties stemming
from Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, minimum wages,
and/or meal and rest period premiums, within permissible time
periods.

The Defendants knew or should have known that the Plaintiff, and
the Class, were entitled to be paid a regular rate of pay, and
corresponding rates of pay for overtime wages and/or meal and resy
period premiums, all income derive from incentive pay,
nondiscretionary bonuses, and/or ither forms of compensations but
failed to include all forms of renumeration in calculating the
regular rate f=of pay for the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly paid
non-exempt Supervisor and Assistant Store Manager from 2016 to May
2021.

The Defendants are a leading house of modern luxury accessories and
lifestyle brands including Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart
Weitzman.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, California 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          Email: bevin.pike@capstonelawyers.com
                 daniel.jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
                 trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com


TESCO CONTROLS: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tesco Controls LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Leroy Merced Torres, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tesco Controls LLC, Does 1–10,
Case No. 34-2022-00323172-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., July 11, 2022).

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

Tesco Controls, Inc. -- https://tescocontrols.com/ -- is a leading
full-service systems integrator and original equipment manufacturer
(OEM).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


THERANOS INC: Faces Suit Over Unreliable Blood Testing Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration announces a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Defendants
Theranos, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. and Walgreen Arizona
Drug Company (together called "Walgreens"), Elizabeth Holmes, and
Ramesh Balwani (collectively, "Defendants"). The lawsuit is called
In re Arizona Theranos, Inc., Litigation, Case No.
2:16-cv-2138-DGC.

This notice does not imply that there has been any violation of law
or wrongdoing by Defendants or that there will be recovery after
trial. Defendants contend that they did not do anything wrong, and
they are not liable for any harm alleged by the Plaintiffs. There
is no money available now, and there is no guarantee that there
will be. Even if money does become available, you will not be
allowed to recover for any amounts that Defendants have already
paid you. However, your legal rights may be affected, and you may
have a choice to make now.

What is this lawsuit about? The claims in the lawsuit arise out of
Theranos blood testing services offered in Walgreens and Theranos
stores. The lawsuit claims, among other things, that these blood
testing services were not capable of producing reliable results,
that the Defendants concealed the blood testing services'
unreliability, that Walgreens knew that the blood testing services
were unreliable and not market-ready, that the Defendants conspired
to commit fraud on consumers, that Theranos's "tiny" blood testing
technology (blood drawn with fingerpricks) was still in
development, and that the customers who were subject to "tiny"
Theranos blood draws by Walgreens employees gave their consent to
those blood draws under false pretenses.

The Defendants deny these claims. Walgreens maintains it did not
know that Theranos's blood testing services "were unreliable and
not market-ready," and that it therefore did not conspire to commit
fraud on consumers. Walgreens further maintains that it was, in
fact, a victim of Theranos's fraud. Holmes and Balwani, on the
other hand, contend that Theranos's test results were generally
accurate and reliable, and that consumers were neither deceived nor
injured. Defendants also assert that most class members have
already been fully reimbursed for amounts paid for the tests
through the Arizona Attorney General Consent Decree or otherwise,
and so no other recovery is necessary or available to those class
members. Plaintiffs claim that some class members have not been
refunded or fully refunded for the tests and that other damages,
beyond refunds for the tests, are due to class members.

The Court has not decided whether the Defendants have done anything
wrong. That will not happen until the trial. The Court appointed
two law firms--Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Keller
Rohrback LLP--as "Class Counsel" to represent the Class and
Subclasses.

This lawsuit does not seek damages or other relief for personal
injury, emotional distress, retesting costs, or medical care costs.
If you wish to pursue any of that relief, you need to exclude
yourself ("opt out") from this lawsuit.

More information about the claims in this case can be found in the
operative Second Amended Complaint and in other key case documents
which may be viewed at www.TheranosLawsuit.com.

Am I part of the Class?  The Court has certified a Class and three
Subclasses. You are in the Class and/or the Subclasses if you fit
within the definition(s) below:

Class: All purchasers of Theranos testing services, including
consumers who paid out-of-pocket, through health insurance, or
through any other collateral source between November 2013 and June
2016.

Arizona Subclass: All purchasers of Theranos testing services in
Arizona between November 2013 and June 2016.

California Subclass: All purchasers of Theranos testing services in
California, between September 2013 and June 2016.

Walgreens Edison Subclass: All purchasers of Theranos testing
services who were subjected to "tiny" blood draws (fingerpricks) by
a Walgreens employee between November 2013 and March 2015.

What are my options? If you are a class member, you have the option
to do nothing or exclude yourself.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you remain a member of the Class
and/or Subclasses, and are therefore bound by the outcome of the
lawsuit regardless of who wins.

If Defendants are found liable, you may get money or benefits that
may come from the lawsuit.

If Defendants are not found liable, you will receive no benefits,
you give up any right to sue Defendants on your own about the same
legal claims in this lawsuit, and will be bound by the result of
this lawsuit.

Exclude Yourself ("Opt Out"): If you ask to be excluded from this
lawsuit, and money or benefits are later awarded, you will not
share in the money or benefits. If you ask to be excluded from this
lawsuit, you will keep your right to hire your own lawyer to sue
Defendants on your own about the same legal claims in this
lawsuit.

If you ask to be excluded, you will not be bound by the results of
any trial of the Class Action, and also not entitled to any damages
(money or benefits), if any, that are later awarded. The deadline
to request exclusion is SEPTEMBER 12, 2022.

For details about your rights and options and how to exclude
yourself, go to www.TheranosLawsuit.com.

When is the trial? The Court has not yet scheduled the trial in
this case, but it is expected that the trial will occur in 2023,
and will take place in the United States District Court Courthouse,
401 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85003. Once the trial is scheduled,
the date and location will be posted on www.TheranosLawsuit.com.
You do not need to attend any trial. Class Counsel will present the
case for the Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses, and lawyers
for Defendants will present on their behalf. If there is a trial,
you or your own lawyer is welcome to attend at your own expense.

How do I get more information? For additional information, to
review key case documents, and to register for case updates, visit
www.TheranosLawsuit.com. You can also get more information by
calling the Administrator toll-free at 1-866-615-0978, contacting
Class Counsel (for their contact information visit
www.TheranosLawsuit.com), or writing the Administrator via email at
info@TheranosLawsuit.com or by mail at: In re Arizona Theranos,
Inc., Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91214,
Seattle, WA 98111. [GN]

TIDAL CREEK: American Builders Files Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tidal Creek Builders,
Inc. The case is styled as American Builders Insurance Company
formerly known as: Association Insurance Company v. Tidal Creek
Builders, Inc., Lakeview Commons HOA, Inc., Southwind Homes, LLC,
Carolina Siding Services, LLC, Rodrigues Jose, Albert Quinn, Edward
Cumbee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02193-BHH (D.S.C., July 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Tidal Creek Builders, Inc. doing business as Tidal Creekins --
https://www.tidalcreekins.com/ -- is an insurance agency in
Summerville, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison Leigh Amatuzzo, Esq.
          Mary Skahan Willis, Esq.
          ETHRIDGE LAW GROUP LLC
          1100 Queensborough Boulevard, Suite 200
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Phone: (843) 614-0007
          Email: aamatuzzo@ethridgelawgroup.com
                 mwillis@ethridgelawgroup.com


TOTAL LIFE: Partial Motion to Dismiss Santiago Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss
the lawsuit titled RICARDO SANTIAGO, VAUGHN FREDERICK, on their own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TOTAL LIFE CHANGES LLC and "JOHN DOES 1-5," fictitious name used to
identify presently unknown entities, Defendants, Case No.
20-18581(SDW)(LDW) (D.N.J.).

Before the Court is Defendant Total Life Changes, LLC's
("Defendant") Partial Motion to Dismiss certain counts of
Plaintiffs Ricardo Santiago and Vaughn Frederick's putative class
action Second Amended Complaint, ("SAC"), pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and the Defendant's Motion to
Strike the class allegations from the SAC, pursuant to Rules 12(f)
and 23.

I. Background and Procedural History

In September 2020, Santiago purchased "IASO TEA INSTANT with
Broad-Spectrum Hemp Extract 0.0% THC" manufactured by the Defendant
("the Product"), and in April 2020, July 2020, and January 2021,
Frederick purchased the Product. The Defendant is a multi-level
marketing company that sells its products directly through its
website, through third-party distributors, and through its
representatives known as "Life Changers." Santiago purchased the
Product directly from one of the Defendant's "Life Changers," via
her page on the Defendant's website. Frederick purchased the
Product from the Defendant's website twice, and then bought it from
a "Life Changer" once.

The Product's packaging claimed that the Product contained no THC,
a cannabinoid in marijuana. Santiago purchased the Product to
"improve his overall health and wellness" and was apparently
satisfied with its effect, even recommending the Product to his
parole officer. Frederick intended to use the Product as an
"appetite suppressant" and after an initial purchase, bought the
Product twice more.

The Plaintiffs were each subject to routine drug testing--Santiago
as a parolee and Frederick as a New Jersey Transit ("NJT") bus
operator--and, therefore, desired to purchase a product that did
not contain THC. After ingesting the Product, however, the
Plaintiffs each tested positive for THC, an outcome they assert can
only be attributed to the Product. To confirm their suspicions, the
Plaintiffs each sent samples of the Product to laboratories for
independent testing, the results of which indicated that the
Product contained small, but measurable, amounts of THC.

Upon Santiago's positive test, he was given a period of time to
confirm his suspicions about the Product without penalty. After he
gave the lab test results to his parole officer, Santiago was
informed that his positive test for THC would not be considered a
violation of his parole. He claims, however, that he sustained
significant emotional distress because of the failed drug test.

After Frederick failed the drug test, he lost his job as a NJT bus
operator, which included his salary, overtime, pension, health
insurance, and bonuses. Frederick does not, however, specifically
plead that he was fired because of his failed drug test. The
Plaintiffs also allege that they suffered economic harm because
they paid a premium for a product that did not conform to the
Defendant's warranties.

On Dec. 9, 2020, Santiago filed an eight-count Complaint against
the Defendant. Sometime after testing the Product, Santiago mailed
notice of the alleged defects in the Product to the Defendant. In
April 2021, Frederick also mailed notice of the alleged defect to
the Defendant.

An Amended Complaint was then filed on June 4, 2021, adding
Frederick as a Plaintiff and asserting claims for: 1) violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301,
et seq., (Counts One and Two); 2) breach of express warranty (Count
Three); 3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count
Four); 4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose (Count Five); 5) unjust enrichment (Count Six); 6)
deceptive trade practices pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act ("NJCFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 56:8-1, et seq., (Count
Seven); 7) negligent misrepresentation (Count Eight); and 8) fraud
(Count Nine).

The Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss, and the parties
submitted briefs. The Court issued an opinion on Nov. 2, 2021, in
which it dismissed all Counts as to Santiago, and Counts Two, Four,
Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine as to Frederick. The Court
permitted Frederick's MMWA claim (Count One) and express warranty
claim (Count Three) to proceed.

On Dec. 2, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed an SAC asserting claims for:
1) violation of the MMWA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq., (Count
One); 2) breach of express warranty, N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
12A:2-313, (Count Two); 3) unjust enrichment, (Count Three); and 4)
deceptive trade practices pursuant to the NJFCA, N.J. Stat. Ann.
Section 56:8-2, (Count Four). The Defendant thereafter filed the
instant Partial Motion to Dismiss, and the parties submitted timely
briefing.

II. Legal Standard

District Judge Susan D. Wigenton notes that when considering a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court must "accept all
factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any
reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief," citing Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224,
231 (3d Cir. 2008).

III. Discussion

The Defendant seeks to dismiss Santiago's MMWA claim (Count One),
the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (Count Three), and the
Plaintiffs' NJCFA claims (Count Four). The Defendant also requests
that the Court strike the Plaintiffs' class action allegations.

A. Sufficiency of the Claims

1. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Count One)

The MMWA provides a private right of action in federal court for
consumers who are damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor,
or service contractor to comply with any obligation under a written
warranty, or implied warranty, Trexler v. Dodge City, Inc., No.
20-6983, 2021 WL 754004, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 26, 2021).

As discussed in the Court's previous opinion, Santiago's individual
state law warranty claims fail; therefore, so too must his
individual MMWA claims. The Court notes that the FAC included that
Santiago mailed notice about the alleged defect to the Defendant
"on or about Feb. 1, 2021," yet the notice date has been left out
of the SAC.

Judge Wigenton notes that it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs
intended to make such an alteration to obfuscate the importance of
the delinquent notice, or whether doing so was a genuine oversight.
Regardless, the Court has already held that the notice Santiago
provided was untimely and could, therefore, not sustain an
individual state-law claim. Consequently, Santiago's individual
MMWA claim remains dismissed and cannot be resurrected. Frederick's
MMWA express warranty claim may proceed, as noted in the Court's
prior decision.

2. Unjust Enrichment (Count Three)

Unjust enrichment is an equitable cause of action that imposes
liability when a defendant received a benefit and retention of that
benefit without payment would be unjust.

The Court already dismissed the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claims, noting that the claims were identical to their claims for
breach of warranty, and that the Plaintiffs had an adequate remedy
at law and, therefore, the unjust enrichment claim must be
dismissed.

The Plaintiffs argue that they may reassert the already dismissed
unjust enrichment claim and plead in the alternative to the already
dismissed breach of warranty claim.

The Court has already addressed the feasibility of the unjust
enrichment claim and will not breathe new life into the claim, as
the SAC does not provide additional, compelling information capable
of reviving it. The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim (Count
Three), therefore, remains dismissed.

3. Deceptive Trade Practices--NJCFA, N.J. Stat. Ann. Section 56:8-2
(Count Four)

To bring a successful claim under the NJCFA, a plaintiff must show:
1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by
plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful
conduct and the ascertainable loss; see Majdipour v. Jaguar Land
Rover N. Am., LLC, No. 12-7829, 2013 WL 5574626, at *7 (D.N.J. Oct.
9, 2013).

As with the Plaintiffs' FAC, Judge Wigenton finds that the SAC does
not provide sufficient specificity to comport with Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard. The Plaintiffs continue to make
generalized, conclusory allegations of fraudulent practices,
alleging that the Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices by
marketing, advertising, and promoting its product as containing
0.0% THC, when in fact the product contained greater than 0.0% THC,
among other allegations.

Judge Wigenton opines that these allegations do not indicate what
specific actions were taken, when they were taken, or where they
occurred, and rather echo and repeat allegations like those that
were insufficient in the FAC, adding some wording for good measure
but falling short of satisfying Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
standard. Specificity is required when raising fraud claims, but is
absent here, Judge Wigenton points out.

Thus, the Plaintiffs' deceptive trade practices claim (Count Four),
remains dismissed.

B. Sufficiency of the Class Allegations

Judge Wigenton finds that the record is not adequately developed
for the Court to determine whether the matter should proceed on a
representative basis. The factual record in this matter is not yet
sufficiently developed to perform such a vetting. While Rule
23(c)(1)(a) requires that the Court determine whether class
allegations are sufficient at an early practicable time after a
person sues or is sued as a class representative, because the class
allegations in the SAC depend on factual information that will
likely come to light during discovery, the Court will not strike
the allegations at this time and will instead perform a rigorous
review if and when this matter proceeds to summary judgment.

The Defendant's Motion to Strike is, therefore, denied.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part, with prejudice, and denied in part. An appropriate
order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2b93bj from Leagle.com.


TRUTHFINDER LLC: Mejia Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Abraham Mejia, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Truthfinder, LLC, Case No.
37-02022-00022488-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the San Diego State
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on July 12, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01010-CAB-AGS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

TruthFinder -- https://www.truthfinder.com/ -- is a public records
search service.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          LOKER LAW, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Phone: (805) 994-0177
          Email: matt@loker.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hannah E. Brown, Esq.
          Sean Flaherty, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 230-7423
          Fax: (619) 696-7124
          Email: hbrown@grsm.com
                 sflaherty@gordonrees.com

               - and -

          Rachel Erika Waters, Esq.
          TYZ LAW GROUP PC
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA
          Phone: (215) 285-1736
          Email: rachel@tyzlaw.com


TURNING POINT: Court Refuses to Approve Settlement in Reynolds Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania refuses to issue preliminary approval to
the parties' settlement agreement in the lawsuit captioned
CHRISTINA M. REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs v. TURNING POINT HOLDING
COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01935-JDW (E.D.
Pa.).

Judge Wolson states that the Fair Labor Standards Act is unique
among federal statutes, in that it offers non-parties whose
interests are affected the choice to opt in and participate in
litigation. To give effect to that provision, the choice must be
real, and the non-parties who have the choice must be free to make
it without any sort of compulsion or gun to their head. The
settlement that the Parties propose in this case does not honor
that freedom of choice. It offers members of a proposed class a
chance to recover under Pennsylvania and New Jersey wage-and-hour
laws, but only if they also exercise their "choice" to opt in as
FLSA plaintiffs.

But only in The Matrix is "choice an illusion," and this isn't the
Matrix, Judge Wolson notes, citing The Matrix Reloaded (Warner
Bros. Pictures 2003). Because the Parties would tie the choice to
opt in to the right to participate in a class settlement, their
proposed settlement is not fair and reasonable, and the Court will
not grant them preliminary approval.

I. Background

A. The Claims in This and Related Matters

Christina Reynolds filed this case, alleging that Turning Point
restaurants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey did not provide adequate
notice of a tip credit and required excessive amounts of side work.
She asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state
wage and payment laws. In February 2020, the Court dismissed her
claims against New Jersey entities for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

In December 2020, the Court denied Ms. Reynolds's request for class
certification as to her Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act claims and
denied her request to certify a collective under the Fair Labor
Standards Act based on her claims concerning insufficient notice of
a tip credit. However, the Court granted conditional certification
of an FLSA collective as to Ms. Reynolds' claims about untipped
side work.

The Court's two decisions led to additional litigation. Christina
Nulph filed an action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Case No. 20-cv-6089, asserting claims under
the FLSA and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Ms. Nulph asserted
claims based on unpaid side work and lack of notice of a tip
credit. Ms. Nulph filed a motion for class and collective
certification in that matter, but the Parties agreed to suspend
briefing on the motion in order to explore settlement. In addition,
the Plaintiffs' Counsel prepared to file another action on behalf
of Rosemary Barba, asserting violations of the FLSA and PMWA on the
notice issue. However, the Parties agreed to hold the Barba matter
in abeyance while they explored mediation.

B. The Settlement Agreement

The Parties in the Reynolds, Nulph, and Barba matters engaged in
omnibus settlement discussions. Following mediation before the Hon.
Diane M. Welsh (Ret.), the Parties finalized a Joint Stipulation Of
Settlement And Release Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to
resolve the claims in all three cases, covering the period of May
19, 2017, through Aug. 31, 2021. In order to effectuate the
settlement, the Parties seek to certify a settlement class
comprised of three subclasses: 1) the FLSA Class, 2) the PA Class,
and the 3) NJ Class.

The FLSA Class is:

     Any current or former Tipped Employees who elect to opt-in
     to the Litigation who were employed by Defendants at a
     Turning Point restaurant in Pennsylvania or New Jersey
     [during the relevant time period] to which Turning Point did
     not pay the full federal minimum wage because it claimed a
     tip credit for that employee pursuant to Section 203(m) of
     the FLSA.

The PA Class and NJ Class include:

     Any current or former Tipped Employees who were employed by
     Defendants at a Turning Point restaurant in Pennsylvania at
     any time [during the relevant time period] to which Turning
     Point did not pay the full state minimum wage because it
     claimed a tip credit for that employee pursuant to
     applicable state laws.

The PA Class relies on the PMWA, while the NJ Class relies on the
NJWHL. Class members can exclude themselves from the PA and NJ
Classes by submitting a timely exclusion request.

The Settlement Agreement utilizes a claims-made process to
distribute the settlement proceeds. Thus, in order to recover
compensation pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a class member
must submit a timely Claim Form. Pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, submission of a Claim Form also constitutes
an opt-in to the FLSA collective action. Those who submit a Claim
Form release all of their FLSA and state law wage claims. Only
Participating Settlement Class Members receive compensation under
the Settlement Agreement. Members of the PA and NJ Classes who do
not opt out and do not submit a Claim Form just release their
respective state law claims, and they do not receive any
compensation.

C. The Preliminary Approval Motion

On Feb. 7, 2022, Ms. Reynolds filed an Unopposed Motion To
Preliminarily Approve Class And Collective Action Settlement,
Certify The Settlement Class, Appoint Class Counsel, Approve
Proposed Class Notice, And Schedule A Final Approval Hearing. In
her Motion, Ms. Reynolds seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint
that will consolidate the Reynolds, Nulph, and Barba claims before
this Court. In addition, the Motion asks the Court to: 1) grant
preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed settlement; 2)
certify the proposed Settlement Class for settlement purposes; 3)
appoint Plaintiffs as the class/collective representatives and
their Counsel as "Class Counsel;" 4) approve the form and manner of
class notice; 5) set a Bar Date of sixty days after dissemination
of the notice; and 6) set a date for a Final Approval Hearing.

On March 24, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Motion and
raised concerns about the Parties' selection of a claims-made
settlement process, as well as the legality of requiring class
members to opt in to the FLSA collective to recover as part of a
certified state law class. Following the hearing, the Court
provided the Parties with the options of: 1) filing supplemental
briefing on these issues, 2) submitting a revised settlement for
approval, or 3) filing a motion to decertify the
conditionally-certified FLSA collective. The Parties filed a
supplemental brief in further support of the Motion, which is now
ripe for disposition.

II. Legal Standard

Review of proposed Rule 23 class settlement typically proceeds in
two steps: (1) a preliminary fairness evaluation and (2) a formal
fairness hearing following a notice period. The Rule 23 process
governs class action settlements but not FLSA collective actions.
Nonetheless, courts in this Circuit apply the two-step process to
FLSA claims as well.

III. Analysis

A. The Opt-In Requirement

In wage-and-hour cases like this one, two different mechanisms
govern collective litigation. For claims under state laws, Rule
23's opt-out class action provisions apply. Rule 23 presumes that a
judgment or settlement will apply to absent class members who
receive notice of the action, unless they request exclusion. The
FLSA prohibits traditional, opt-out class actions. Instead, it
provides, "No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such
action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a
party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action
is brought," 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Judge Wolson notes that these conflicting provisions make
settlement of wage-and-hour classes "tricky," citing Wyms v.
Staffing Sols. Se., Inc., No. 15-cv-643, 2016 WL 3682858, at *2
(S.D. Ill. July 12, 2016). A defendant, understandably, wants its
settlement payment to buy as broad a release as possible, but it
cannot use Rule 23 to compel the release of unasserted FLSA claims,
Judge Wolson points out. Faced with that problem, Turning Point
seeks to compel any member of the class to opt in to the FLSA
collective before getting something of value under the settlement.
Any class member that does not agree to opt in will release his
claims but receive nothing, unless he affirmatively opts out.

The Court concludes that the structure of the Parties' proposed
settlement would violate the FLSA, for at least two reasons. First,
the FLSA's opt-in requirement gives individuals a choice whether to
become party plaintiffs in an FLSA action. The terms of the
proposed settlement undermine that choice by imposing a
penalty--forfeiture of the right to participate in the settlement
of state law claims--for exercising that choice. Second, the
release of FLSA claims would be illusory. The FLSA's opt-in
structure means that there must be specific compensation for the
release of an FLSA claim. But under the Parties' settlement, a
class member would not receive anything extra for releasing his
FLSA claims; he would just avoid a penalty.

The Court concludes that the FLSA does not permit the Parties to
use Rule 23 to compel class members to opt into the FLSA collective
because that structure renders illusory the choice that the FLSA
guarantees.

None of the Parties' arguments salvages their proposed settlement,
Judge Wolson points out. To the extent the Parties argue that there
might be a double recovery in a separate FLSA action, that issue is
for the future, when a court can decide whether and by how much to
reduce the damages at stake.

Judge Wolson also opines that the Parties suggest that the issue
here is one of notice, but it is not. The structure of the
settlement tries to compel class members to give up an additional
claim--their FLSA claim--in exchange for participating in the
settlement of a state law claim. No amount of notice can cure that
problem. That flaw renders this case unlike the settlement that the
Court approved in Caddick v. Tasty Baking Co., No. 19-cv-02106-JDW,
2021 WL 4989587 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 27, 2021), in which the issue before
the Court was how to ensure that those who made the choice to opt
in understood the significance of the settlement to which they were
agreeing.

And, because there is no scenario in which a settlement that
imposes the compulsive choice that the Parties propose here will be
fair and reasonable, the Court need not wait for a final approval
hearing to reject this proposed settlement.

B. The Claims Made Process

During the hearing on this Motion, the Court also asked about the
Parties' decision to employ a claims-made process, even though
Turning Point presumably has each class member's name and contact
information. As the Parties point out, there is some authority that
supports their proposed use of a claims made process here. And,
unlike with the question of the opt-in requirement, the Court could
wait until after the claims process, when the Parties would have
information about participation rates, to determine whether the
claims made process posed a problem.

In any event, given the Court's decision concerning the opt-in
requirement, the Court need not resolve that question now.

IV. Conclusion

The Court cannot grant preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement because the terms of the agreement are coercive, meaning
they are neither fair nor reasonable. Because the Court could not
approve the settlement at final approval, it need not address other
issues--such as class certification and notice--that the Parties'
Motion raises. An appropriate Order denying the Parties' Motion
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2swwj97 from Leagle.com.


U.S. SPECIALTY: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Egg and I Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EGG AND I, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; EGG WORKS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EGG
WORKS 2, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; EGG WORKS 3, LLC,
a Nevada limited liability company; EGG WORKS 4, LCC, a Nevada
limited liability company; EGG WORKS 5, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; EGG WORKS 6, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; EW COMMISSARY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas
Corporation; PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY AGENCY, INC., DBA Tokio Marine,
HCC-Specialty Group, a New Jersey corporation,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-15545 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the
underlying class action lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are a group of affiliated corporations
that operate family-style restaurants in Clark County, Nevada. On
March 20, 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Nevada
Governor Steve Sisolak issued an emergency order prohibiting
in-person dining at all restaurants in the State. The Plaintiffs,
who are insureds under a "restaurant recovery insurance" policy
issued by Defendants-Appellants U.S. Specialty Insurance Company
and Professional Indemnity Agency, claimed that, as a result of the
Governor's order, they had incurred covered "business interruption"
losses under this policy.

Alleging that the Defendants refused to cover the losses, the
Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the district court
challenging the denial of coverage under a variety of state-law
theories and seeking, inter alia, damages and declaratory relief.
The district court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, holding that, as a matter of law, the
"alleged losses are not covered" by the policy's terms. The
district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

Reviewing the district court's construction of the insurance policy
de novo, see Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1147
(9th Cir. 1998), the Court of Appeals affirms.

The parties agree that the insurance policy at issue is governed by
Nevada law. Under Nevada law, courts must interpret insurance
policy language "according to the plain meaning of its terms;" see
Century Sur. Co. v. Casino West, Inc., 329 P.3d 614, 616 (Nev.
2014).

Here, the district court correctly held that, under the plain
language of the policy, the Plaintiffs' alleged losses are not
covered, the Court of Appeals holds.

The policy limits covered losses (including business interruption
losses) to specified losses "incurred by the Insured directly and
solely as the result of a covered Insured Event." The Plaintiffs'
claim of a covered "Insured Event" rests solely on their allegation
that an "Accidental Contamination" has occurred.

The Plaintiffs contend that "in-person food service" qualifies as
an "Insured Product" under the policy and that, as a result, all of
the elements of an "Accidental Contamination" are met: the
Governor's order and the pandemic resulted in "impairment" of that
product; that impairment occurred "during" the "production,
preparation, manufacture, packaging or distribution" of that
product; and use of that product--i.e., in-person food
service--"would result in . . . physical symptoms of bodily injury,
sickness, disease or death of any person" within a year of such
use.

According to the Court of Appeals, this theory fails, because the
Plaintiffs' effort to define the "insured product" as "in-person
food service"--as opposed to the food items served--contradicts the
plain language of the policy. The policy's express definition of
"Insured Product(s)" limits that term to "ingestible products for
human consumption, or any of their ingredients or components."

The Plaintiffs' reliance on the further statement in the
declarations page is unavailing, because "restaurant offerings"
that are "served" likewise plainly refers to ingestible items. If
any further confirmation were needed, that understanding of the
declarations page's language is confirmed by the referenced
application, which explicitly describes various categories of
ingestible items as the "Insured Products."

The Plaintiffs argue that the policy's inclusion of a specific
"Avian Flu" exclusion proves that the policy covers more than
contamination and impairment of food products, because Avian Flu
assertedly "cannot spread through food."

The Court of Appeals holds that this exclusion is irrelevant. As it
recently held in construing Nevada insurance law, "exclusions to
coverage are not considered unless the court first concludes that
there is coverage under the coverage clauses of the policy," and
exclusions therefore cannot be used to "expand the policy's
coverage beyond its underlying coverage terms;" see American Nat'l
Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Gardineer, 25 F.4th 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2022)
(concluding that Nevada law would follow California law on this
point).

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated July 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4cwyjb2u from Leagle.com.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Over 500 Women Join Sexual Assault Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAG 24 reports that ride-sharing giant Uber is facing a class
action lawsuit from 550 women who say the company has not done
enough to address sexual assault and violent behavior by drivers.

The plaintiffs have accused the company of failing to address the
issue for years, despite being made aware of the scale of the
problem since 2014.

Since then, there have been many more cases of passenger assault,
ranging from harassment to abduction and rape, according to Slater
Slater Schulman, the US law firm representing some 550 female Uber
clients. The firm also said it was investigating at least 150 other
cases as it announced the class action Wednesday.

When contacted by the Italian Data Protection Authority for a
response, Uber said it could not comment on pending litigation,
though it did confirm that the class action had been ongoing since
February 2022.

Uber recently published the results of its own investigation into
the problem, according to which there were reports of 3,824 sexual
assaults by drivers in 2019 and 2020 alone.

The company has faced lawsuits in the past. In 2018, Uber settled
out of court with two women.

The company has stressed that it takes the problem seriously and is
taking measures to combat it. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bids for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEEPTHI WARRIER EDAKUNNI,
et al., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 2:21-cv-00393-TL
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' and Defendant's motions for summary judgment.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion is denied with prejudice
with respect to the argument regarding the existence of explicit
timelines for adjudication of the applications at hand. The
remainder of the cross-motions are denied without prejudice pending
appropriate supplementation of the administrative record. The Court
also strikes the pending motion for class certification, to be
re-filed if appropriate after it rules on any renewed motions for
summary judgment."

This Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case centers on claims that
the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
unlawfully delayed adjudicating the Plaintiffs' applications for
change or extension of their visa status and for work
authorization.

This putative class action suit concerns nonimmigrants seeking to
extend their H-4 or L-2 visa statuses (or change to H-4 or L-2
status) and to seek or renew Employment Authorization Documents
(EADs). The Plaintiffs are spouses of H-1B and L-1 visa holders,
and, as such, are derivative beneficiaries of the H-1B and L-1
programs.

The H1-B program allows foreign nationals to temporarily work in
the United States in a "specialty occupation" that requires
"theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized
knowledge" and "attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the
specific specialty or its equivalent)."

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aHlujO at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action, Issues TRO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Edwards Baker of FOX 19 Now reports that a federal judge
in Cincinnati has certified a national class action lawsuit against
the entire U.S. Air Force worldwide and issued a temporary
restraining order preventing the Biden administration from
enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on any servicemembers who
requested religious exemptions.

In this local case that has now gone global, U.S. District Court
Judge Matthew McFarland's order Thursday stops the Air Force from
discharging or disciplining servicemembers for 14 days.

This impacts 80 to 100 plaintiffs stationed at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base in Dayton, who filed the lawsuit against top military
leaders back in February, and now 9,000 to 10,000 service members
nationally, according to the attorney for the local plaintiffs,
Chris Wiest of northern Kentucky.

Biden's Secretary of the Air Force was ordered to file a
supplementary notice no later than July 21 and "no more than ten
(10) pages in length identifying why this Court should not grant a
class-wide preliminary injunction," McFarland wrote.

The plaintiffs' response, also limited to 10 pages, can be filed by
July 25, 2022.

Wiest says it's likely if there is a hearing it will be in
Cincinnati. Or, the judge could decide the case in a written
decision.

"We are pleased by the judge's decision protecting the
constitutional rights of service members who have dedicated their
lives to protecting our constitutional rights," Wiest tells FOX19
NOW.

"We will continue to litigate this case to its conclusion and look
forward to continuing this battle with the federal government."

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew McFarland was appointed by former
President Donald Trump in late 2019 on the recommendation of a
bipartisan commission created by Ohio senators Rob Portman, a
Republican, and Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.(U.S. District Court of
Southern Ohio).

The case is Hunter Doster, et al., plaintiffs, vs. Hon. Frank
Kendall, et al., defendants, No. 1:22-cv-84, S.D. Ohio. [GN]

VITRO FLAT: Court Approves Voluntary Dismissal of Romero Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California directs the Clerk of the Court
to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of the case,
AARON ROMERO, Plaintiff v. VITRO FLAT GLASS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01573-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Romero filed the wage and hour class action on Oct. 5,
2020, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Fresno. On Nov. 6, 2020, the Defendant removed the matter to the
present Court. No motion for class certification has been filed.

On Dec. 15, 2020, the Court granted the parties' request to
continue the scheduling conference to allow the parties to
participate in mediation. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a case
against the Defendant under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA"), in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Kern County. The parties attended a global mediation of both cases,
which was successful.

On Aug. 6, 2021, the Court granted the parties' request to stay the
action to allow the parties to request approval of the global
settlement of the action and the PAGA action in the Kern County
Superior Court. On June 14, 2022, the Kern County Superior Court
granted final approval of the global settlement and entered
judgment, dispensing with the claims alleged in the action and the
PAGA action. On June 11, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated
request to dismiss the action, without prejudice.  

Rule 41 provides that the parties may voluntarily dismiss an action
by a stipulation of dismissal signed by all who have appeared, but
this is subject to Rule 23(e). Pursuant to Rule 23(e) the claims,
issues or defenses of a class that has been certified or is
proposed to be certified for the purposes of settlement can only be
settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised with the court's
approval. On Dec. 1, 2003, Rule 23(e) was amended to allow the
"parties to a proposed class action to stipulate to dismissal of
the action without any judicial approval where the class has not
yet been certified." While the voluntary dismissal has been
considered problematic, the revised rule does allow the parties to
voluntarily dismiss the action without court approval where the
class has not been certified.

In the case, Judge Boone finds that no class has been certified and
the matter is being dismissed as to all parties without prejudice.
Further, the California state court has already approved a
settlement of the class claims underlying the action. Therefore, he
finds that dismissal does not require approval of the Court under
Rule 23(e).

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to adjust the
docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to
Rule 41(a).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 12, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bde6vvkt from Leagle.com.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mishkin Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Jeffrey Mishkin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00666-JMB (E.D. Mo., June 23,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
http://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/-- markets and distributes
automobiles and auto parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT LLP - St Louis
          500 North Broadway, Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Phone: (314) 226-1015
          Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
                 charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Alexandra Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT LLP - DC
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 789-3960
          Fax: (202) 789-1813


VOYA RETIREMENT: S.D. New York Issues Final Judgment in Hanks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment in the lawsuit
captioned HELEN HANKS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOYA RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY COMPANY, formerly known as Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity
Company, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-6399 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Hanks, on behalf of herself and the certified class,
entered into a settlement with Defendant Voya Retirement Insurance
and Annuity Co. and Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of New York.

On Feb. 3, 2022, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Action Settlement. Among other things, the
Preliminary Approval Order authorized the Class Counsel to
disseminate notice of the Settlement, the fairness hearing, and
related matters to the Class. Notice was provided to the Class
pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court held a
fairness hearing on June 29, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.

On June 29, 2022, the Court approved the Class Action Settlement
and awarded attorneys' fees, costs, and Settlement Administration
Expenses ("Final Approval Order").

Judge Castel holds that the Final Judgment will apply to and bind
the Releasing Parties as defined and set forth in Section 30 of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Final Judgment will apply to the Settlement Class with the
exception of the following four policies that submitted timely and
valid requests to be excluded from the Settlement Class: F1516575;
F1516576; G1122526; G1595655. The individuals or entities that own
these policies are not included in or bound by this Final Judgment,
solely as it relates to the policies, and are not entitled to any
recovery from the settlement proceeds obtained through this
Settlement with respect to the above policies. To the extent an
individual or entity owns both a policy that is excluded from the
Settlement Class and a policy that is included in the Settlement
Class, such individual or entity will be bound by this Final
Judgment in connection with any policies included in the Settlement
Class.

The Final Judgment will operate as a complete and permanent bar
order that discharges and releases the Released Claims by the
Releasing Parties as to all the Released Parties. The Released
Claims do not include the Excluded Claims.

Within 30 calendar days after the Final Settlement Date, the
Settlement Administrator will calculate each Settlement Class
Member's distribution pursuant to the plan of allocation proposed
by Class Counsel and approved by the Court and send for delivery by
U.S. mail a settlement check in the amount of the share of the Net
Settlement Fund to which he/she/it is entitled.

The Releasing Parties are permanently barred, enjoined and
restrained from making any claims against the Settlement Fund,
including the Final and Net Settlement Funds, and all persons,
including the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiff and Class
Counsel, Defendant, Lincoln, and their Counsel, are released and
discharged from any claims arising out of the administration,
management or distribution of the Settlement Fund.

The Settlement Fund Account into which Defendant and/or Lincoln
will deposit the amount of the Final Settlement Fund is approved as
a Qualified Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code
Section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Settlement Administration Expenses may be paid out of the Final
Settlement Fund as they become due, subject to the terms of the
Settlement.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendant and,
except as provided in the Final Approval Order, without costs to
either party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated July 7, 2022,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xamtc3v from Leagle.com.


WAFFLE HOUSE INC: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waffle House, Inc.
The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Waffle House, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05976 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2022).

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

Waffle House, Inc. -- https://www.wafflehouse.com/ -- is an
American restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WELLSPACE HEALTH: Gueths Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellspace Health, et
al. The case is styled as Lawrence Robert Gueths, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Wellspace Health, Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00323160-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., July 11, 2022).

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

Wellspace Health -- https://www.wellspacehealth.org/ -- offer a
full range of quality medical care, dental care, mental health and
behavioral health services, and enabling services to underserved
people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com


WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Defers Ruling on Bid for Extension
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COURTNEY MILLIGAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01411-RJC (W.D.
Pa.),  the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order on
unopposed motion to defer ruling on plaintiff's motion for
extension of time to file motion for class certification.

The Court said, "Having considered the Motion, all attendant
briefing, and the Plaintiff's reasoning, and being otherwise fully
advised, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be
granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that on July 7, 2022,
the Plaintiff file either a motion to amend her Complaint or her
Reply in support of her motion for extension. The Court will defer
ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension until after that date."

Wexford Health provides health care management services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IHYvRX at no extra charge.[CC]

WISH GROUP 1: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wish Group 1, LLC.
The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Wish Group 1, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2022).

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

WISH Group, LLC founded in 2012 designs, develops and publishes
unique and stylish websites and mobile apps for startups and
enterprise clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


Y.M.I. JEANSWEAR: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Y.M.I. Jeanswear,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Y.M.I. Jeanswear, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-05913 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2022).

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

YMI Jeans -- https://ymijeans.com/ -- is one of the leading
nationally advertised junior/young contemporary brands offering
denim fashion jeans for women, plus size & kid.[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: Sarabia Suit Removed to D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juanita Sarabia, Megan Kircher, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional Medical
Center, Unknown Parties John and Jane Does I-X; ABC Corporations
I-X; Def LLCs I-X; and XYZ Partnerships I-X, Case No.
S1400CV202200332 was removed from the Yuma County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on July 12,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01161-JAT to the
proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Ave. S, Ste. 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401

               - and -

          Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
          7508 N 59th Ave.
          Glendale, AZ 85301
          Phone: (623) 826-5593
          Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle Marie Buckley, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC - PHOENIX, AZ
          1 E Washington St., Ste. 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: (602) 650-2000
          Fax: (602) 264-7033
          Email: mmbuckley@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO
          1801 California St., Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Fax: (303) 861-7805
          Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com


ZOOM VIDEO: Seeks to Toss Foreigners' Data Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco of Law Street Media reports that Zoom Video
Communications Inc. leveled arguments at several foreign plaintiffs
in a suit they filed over concerns about Zoom video conferencing
software's touted security and user privacy protections. The
company's dismissal motion urged the court to reject the
allegations for several reasons, including that they improperly
attempt to relitigate matters that arose in the settled In re Zoom
Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation.

The case dates to late May when several non-Americans of residents
of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom sued Zoom
over allegations parallel to, or as Zoom alleges, identical to, the
misconduct complained of in the class action that settled for $85
million.

They argued that Zoom disclosed users' personal information to
unauthorized third parties, including Facebook and Google, failed
to implement and maintain adequate data security measures,
represented that Zoom's video conferences were end-to-end encrypted
when they were not, and failed to timely notify users that their
personal information was disclosed.

The complaint said that the four plaintiffs and the class they seek
to represent were expressly excluded from the other action,
enabling them to now vindicate the rights of non-American residents
of the aforementioned "Five Eyes" privacy agreement countries.

Zoom's dismissal motion first argued that the court should strike
allegations they say plaintiffs' counsel copied from the settled In
re Zoom Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation complaint.
Accordingly, Zoom urges the court to dismiss the stripped complaint
for failure to state a claim owing to counsel's failure to satisfy
their obligation to investigate and certify pleading allegations
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b).

"It is clear from their Complaint that neither Plaintiffs nor their
counsel investigated the allegations underlying Zoom Privacy and
instead merely regurgitate scattershot allegations from that
litigation, admitting in the process that they copied the work of
counsel in that case and that they did not purchase a Zoom
subscription until after that case was filed," the motion said.

Further, Zoom asserted a forum non conveniens defense, contending
that the case should have been brought abroad. "In fact, if this
case proceeds past the pleadings stage, it will present serious due
process and practical concerns stemming from the need to obtain
discovery in different countries and the uncertainty related to
whether a judgment in this case would bind non-U.S. users or have a
preclusive effect on claims in foreign jurisdictions," Zoom said.

The motion also attacked the claims' substance, arguing that the
fraud-based assertion, invasion of privacy, implied contract,
implied covenant, and California Unfair Competition claims fail to
satisfy their respective elements.

The case is before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers in Oakland, Calif.

The plaintiffs and putative class are represented by Law Offices of
David J. Gallo and Zoom by Cooley LLP, the same firm that
represented it in the now-settled class action. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***