/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220728.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 144

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, McMillion Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Longoria Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
3M COMPANY: Gordon Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McDuffie Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Silvestri Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS

ACCUMED CENTER: Underpays Covid Test Employees, Amaya Suit Claims
ADVOCATE AURORA: Sued Over Monopoly in Eastern Wisconsin
ALABAMA: Appeal in Culley v. Attorney General Affirmed in Part
AMAZON.COM INC: Hit With Class Suit Over Minimum Margin Agreements
AMBROSIA NUTRACEUTICALS: Musa Sues Over Planta's Gluten Free Label

AMERIMARK DIRECT: Smith Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
APCO INSULATION: Fails to Pay General Laborers' OT, Carabajo Says
APPLE INC: Monopolizes iOS Mobile Wallet Market, Credit Union Says
ARDELYX INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
BASS PRO: Hit With Class Action Over Lifetime Warranty on Socks

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Junks Bell Class Action
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Corsi Sues Over Hidden Administrative Charge
CELSIUS NETWORKS: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges 'Ponzi Scheme'
DOCTOR'S BEST: Court Approves Settlement in Casey Class Suit
DOCUSIGN INC: Lawsuits Against D&Os Consolidated, Stayed

DPCM CAPITAL: Monteverde Probing Proposed D-Wave Merger
DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Class Cert Bid Withdrawn
EDGIO INC: Undermines Stockholder Franchise, Botelho Suit Claims
EVLUTION NUTRITION: Hit With Class Action Over BCAA Energy Powders
FACE AMUSEMENT: Underpays Waiters, Armstrong Suit Claims

FLATOUT INC: Rausch Sues Over Flatbread's Protein Per Serving Label
GEICO INDEMNITY: To Settle Personal Injury Protection Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 1
GOYA FOODS: Can Send Pre-Certification Communication in Mejias Suit
IBM CORP: Secures Dismissal of Age Discrimination Class Action

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
JAGUAR LAND: Hit With Class Action Over Defective Windshields
KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Court Overrules Rule 72 Objection in Outzen Suit
KODA HOLDINGS: Reherman FLSA Suit Moved From D. Del. to D. Colo.
LABRADA NUTRITION: Reaches $625K Class Action Settlement

LE GENERAL: Perez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Cleaning Services Staff
MAJOR LEAGUE: Settles Wage Class Action Suit for $185 Million
MARS INC: Hit With Class Action Suit Over Toxins in Skittles
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered
MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Files RICO Suit in D. Mass.

MDL 2785: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Wins Final Approval
MISSFRESH LTD: Investors Notified of Securities Class Action Suit
MISSFRESH LTD: Investors Reminded of Sept. 12 Lead Plaintiff Due
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over False Offering Documents
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Bid to Strike Class Action Allegations OK'd

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Johnson Fistel Announces Securities Class Action
NIBCO INC: W.D. Texas Remands Blappert Suit to Bexar State Court
NORTH ALLEGHENY: Denial of Bid for Atty. Fees in ADA Suit Appealed
NV COMMUNICATIONS: McGarity Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REALPAGE INC: Patti Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Declarations of Edward Coleman Excluded
ROBINHOOD GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $20-M
ROOF DOCTORS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
SAMSARA INC: BIPA Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
SECURE LENDING: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Culbertson Alleges

SHARPS COMPLIANCE: Monteverde Probing Aurora Capital Tender Offer
SMOSH DOT COM: E.D. California Dismisses Hall's TCPA Class Suit
SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Schaefer Claims
SOLANA LABS: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SOMEONE CARES: White Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification

SPRING HOMECARE: Underpays Personal Care Assistants, Rasoli Claims
SPROUT FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Davidson Consumer Class Suit
STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Briggs Sues Over Consumer Fraud in N.D. Ill.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Brewster Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
THRIVE RESTAURANT: Faces Merriweather FLSA Suit in M.D. Tenn.

TRUDY GILMOND: Court Refuses to Set Aside Judgment in Orso Suit
UNITED STATES: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
UNITY SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
USAA CASUALTY: Smith Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
USAA GENERAL: Berardi Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal

VAALCO ENERGY: Monteverde Probing TransGlobe Acquisition
WASTE CONNECTIONS: More Time to Exchange Expert Reports Sought
ZILLOW GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, McMillion Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MCMILLION, 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-02287-RMG
(D.S.C., July 15, 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 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 colon 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: Faces Longoria Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN LONGORIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02279-RMG (D.S.C., July 15, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
nephrectomy.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

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

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

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (888) 215-7834
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Gordon Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GORDON, 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-02293-RMG
(D.S.C., July 17, 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 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 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: McDuffie Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK MCDUFFIE, 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.; AGC, INC.,
f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; individually and
as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually
and as successor-in-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont
Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02294-RMG (D.S.C.,
July 18, 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, wantonness, and constructive fraudulent transfer.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his 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 bladder 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 Management, LLC is a specialty chemicals company
headquartered near Basel, Switzerland.

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.

BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company, headquartered
in Ludwigshafen, Germany.

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.

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.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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:                
      
         James L. Ferraro, Esq.
         James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
         THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A.
         600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 375-0111
         E-mail: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com
                 james@ferrarolaw.com

3M COMPANY: Silvestri Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SILVESTRI, 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-02288-RMG
(D.S.C., July 15, 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 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 pancreatic 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

ACCUMED CENTER: Underpays Covid Test Employees, Amaya Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YIRA AMAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ACCUMED CENTER, S.C. d/b/a MIDWEST COVID TESTING and
SATISH PATEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03711 (N.D. Ill., July
18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a Covid test employee at the Defendants'
Covid-19 testing center located in Streamwood, Illinois from
September 5, 2021 and until January 13, 2022.

Accumed Center, SC, doing business as Midwest Covid Testing, is an
owner and operator of various medical centers located in Illinois.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
         Mark A. Bulgarelli, Esq.
         PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
         1570 Oak Avenue, Suite 103
         Evanston, IL 60201
         Telephone: (312) 787-2717

ADVOCATE AURORA: Sued Over Monopoly in Eastern Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------
Dave Muoio of Fierce Healthcare reports that Advocate Aurora Health
has been hit with a class-action antitrust lawsuit alleging the
system has used its market strength in eastern Wisconsin to
suppress competition and drive "unreasonably high prices."

Filed Tuesday, the case was brought by Uriel Pharmacy, based in
Wisconsin, and its self-funded health plan.

"Our complaint alleges that Advocate Aurora's anticompetitive
conduct has unlawfully taken huge sums of money from the pockets of
Wisconsin employers to fund the hospital system's never-ending
expansion across the country," Jamie Crooks, managing partner of
Fairmark Partners, LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs,
said in a statement. "Advocate Aurora's actions in recent years
look more like that of a ruthless Wall Street institution that
happens to own Wisconsin hospitals instead of a non-profit charity
focused on the delivery of healthcare."

Among the anticompetitive strategies plaintiffs alleged the large
nonprofit employed were "all-or-nothing" clauses that require
commercial health plans to include all Advocate Aurora facilities
in their networks.

Advocate Aurora "aggressively" blocks employers and payers from
directing patients to competing facilities, according to the
complaint, and "has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress
innovative insurance products, such as tiered plans, that would
reduce costs for employers."

Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged Advocate Aurora suppressed
competition from other eastern Wisconsin providers through "a
combination of acquisitions, referral restraints, non-competes and
gag clauses."

The result, plaintiffs wrote, is that the system is able to charge
and receive higher rates for healthcare procedures.

The $62,538 negotiated price of a knee replacement at Advocate
Aurora, for instance, is more than $21,000 higher than that of a
nearby hospital competitor. A colonoscopy with biopsy would run
employer health plans $10,700 at the large system compared to
roughly $4,700 at Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin, "a
facility that is about 15 minutes away and has generally higher
quality and safety ratings," they wrote in the complaint.

Plaintiffs asked the court to recognize Advocate Aurora's
monopolization of certain healthcare markets and the damages and
injuries it caused. They also sought an injunction preventing
further anticompetitive behavior and restitution.

"Although we were just made aware of this complaint, we are already
mounting what will be a vigorous defense as all of our decisions
are guided by a relentless pursuit to provide the highest quality,
affordable care for our patients," Advocate Aurora told Fierce
Healthcare in an emailed statement. "Our data continues to
demonstrate the added value we provide for our patients,
communities and team members by growing as a system. Through our
population health model, we drive efficiency and quality
improvements, enhance health outcomes and bend the cost curve."

Formed from the 2018 merger of Advocate Health Care and Aurora
Health Care, Advocate Aurora operates more than 500 ambulatory
locations and 27 hospitals in Illinois and Wisconsin. It treats 2.6
million unique patients, employs 75,000 people and logged just
under $14.1 billion in total revenue during 2021 as well as a net
income of more than $1.8 billion.

Citing academic literature linking provider consolidation to higher
prices, the lawsuit also drew attention to Advocate Aurora's
recently announced plans to merge with Atrium Health. That deal
would yield a 67-hospital nonprofit juggernaut with combined
revenues exceeding $27 billion.

"If permitted to go through, this merger would further increase
[Advocate Aurora's] market power with Network Vendors, especially
the Network Vendors who operate in both the existing [Advocate
Aurora] and Atrium markets, according to healthcare economists,"
the plaintiffs wrote. [GN]

ALABAMA: Appeal in Culley v. Attorney General Affirmed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HALIMA TARIFFA CULLEY, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE 13TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT (Mobile County), CITY OF SATSUMA, ALABAMA,
Defendants-Appellees. LENA SUTTON, On behalf of herself and those
similarly situated as described below, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
LEESBURG, ALABAMA, TOWN OF, Defendant-Appellee, STATE OF ALABAMA,
Intervenor-Appellee, Case Nos. 21-13805, 21-484 (11th Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismisses
in part and affirms in part the Plaintiffs-Appellants' appeal.

The appeal is consolidated from two cases, one brought by Ms.
Halima Culley, and the other by Ms. Lena Sutton. Both Appellants
seek monetary damages for alleged violations of, and conspiracy to
violate, their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Ms. Culley
also seeks injunctive relief.

After careful review, the Court of Appeals finds it lack
jurisdiction to consider the claims for injunctive relief because
they are moot. And as to the remaining claims, the district courts
correctly held that they are foreclosed by binding precedent. The
Appellees offer several additional reasons to affirm: claim
preclusion, issue preclusion, and the abstention doctrine of
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971). The Court of Appeals,
thus, affirms.

I

The Court of Appeals begins with the Culley Action. On Feb. 17,
2019, Ms. Culley's son was pulled over by police while driving a
car registered to his mother. Police arrested him and charged him
with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in Satsuma,
Alabama. The City of Satsuma also seized the vehicle incident to
the arrest. Ms. Culley tried to retrieve the vehicle, but to no
avail. On Feb. 27, 2019, the State of Alabama filed a civil asset
forfeiture action in state court. After 20 months, the state court
granted Ms. Culley summary judgment, finding that she was entitled
to the return of her vehicle under Alabama's innocent-owner
defense.

Next, the Sutton Action. In February 2019, a friend of Ms. Sutton's
took her car to run an errand. While he was en route, the town of
Leesburg police pulled him over. After a search of the vehicle
turned up methamphetamine, the police arrested the driver and
seized Ms. Sutton's vehicle. Ms. Sutton, like Ms. Culley,
eventually obtained summary judgment in a civil forfeiture case
based on the innocent-owner defense--but not until more than a year
after the seizure of her vehicle.

Ms. Culley and Ms. Sutton each filed class actions in federal
district court. Ms. Culley sued three Defendants in the Southern
District of Alabama: the Attorney General of the State of Alabama,
the District Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit of Alabama
(together, the State or the State Defendants), and the City of
Satsuma. Ms. Sutton sued the Town of Leesburg in the Northern
District of Alabama, after which the State of Alabama intervened in
the action. Both Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
claiming, as relevant here, that the Defendants' failure to provide
a prompt post-deprivation hearing violated their rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also brought Section 1983
conspiracy claims.

The Defendants prevailed in both actions. In the Culley Action, the
district court granted the State Defendants' motions for judgment
on the pleadings, and granted the City of Satsuma's motion to
dismiss. In the Sutton Action, the district court dismissed Ms.
Sutton's Eighth Amendment claim and later granted summary judgment
to the Town of Leesburg on her Fourteenth Amendment claim. On the
Fourteenth Amendment claim, both district courts held that binding
Eleventh Circuit precedent--particularly the Court of Appeals'
decision in Gonzales v. Rivkind, 858 F.2d 657 (11th Cir. 1988),
required the application of the test set forth in Barker v. Wingo,
407 U.S. 514 (1972). And under that test, the courts held that the
Plaintiffs' claims failed. Neither Plaintiff contended that she
could prevail under the Barker test--only that it should not apply.
As to the Eighth Amendment claims, the courts held that the
retention pendente lite--that is, during litigation--of a vehicle
seized under Alabama's Civil Asset Forfeiture Statute was not a
"fine" and, thus, could not violate the Eighth Amendment's
Excessive Fines Clause.

II

The Panel reviews de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss, a
motion for judgment on the pleadings, and a motion for summary
judgment. See Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Imperial Premium
Fin., LLC, 904 F.3d 1197, 1207 (11th Cir. 2018).

III

Before reaching the merits, the Court of Appeals must satisfy
itself that it has jurisdiction over all of the issues before it.
Under Article III of the Constitution, the Court of Appeals lacks
jurisdiction to decide questions that have become moot. The State
Defendants argue that Ms. Culley's claims against them for
prospective injunctive relief are moot. Once she obtained the
return of her vehicle, they argue, no further prospective
injunctive relief could be granted, and thus there is no live
controversy.

Ms. Culley counters that her class claims fall within an exception
to mootness for claims that are "inherently transitory," meaning
they are so fleeting that they are bound to become moot before
class certification. In such cases, where the transitory nature of
the conduct giving rise to the suit would effectively insulate
defendants' conduct from review, certification can potentially
'relate back' to the filing of the complaint.

The Court of Appeals finds, however, that this exception to
mootness does not apply here. Ms. Culley's state forfeiture
proceedings began in February 2019. She filed this suit seven
months later. Thirteen months after that, her state forfeiture
proceedings finally concluded and her vehicle was returned to her.
If Ms. Culley were correct that the Defendants had no right to hold
her vehicle during the state forfeiture proceedings without a
probable cause hearing, her claims for injunctive relief would have
been live during the lengthy pendency of the state court
litigation. Her claims for injunctive relief, then, are not the
sort of fleeting claims that could trigger the
inherently-transitory exception to mootness. As a result, these
claims are moot, and the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to
address them.

The Court of Appeals states that a live controversy remains,
however, as to Ms. Culley's claim for monetary damages against the
City of Satsuma, and as to Ms. Sutton's claim for monetary damages
against the Town of Leesburg. The Appellants make two arguments on
appeal: one under the Fourteenth Amendment and one under the Eighth
Amendment.

A

The first argument raised by the Appellants is that the Appellees
violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by
retaining their vehicles during litigation without a showing of
probable cause that the vehicles were forfeitable. The Panel has
addressed the requirements of due process in the context of a
post-seizure challenge pending a final forfeiture trial.

Here, the Appellants say that the district court erred by analyzing
due process under Barker rather than Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S.
319 (1975). They argue that while the Barker test governs the
timeliness of a merits hearing on forfeiture, they are seeking
something different—a probable cause hearing to determine whether
they can retain their property during the pendency of litigation.
The Appellants note that at least one circuit has taken their
view.

The Court of Appeals opines that it remains bound, however, by its
prior precedent unless and until it is overruled by the Court
sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. And in Gonzales v.
Rivkind, 629 F.Supp. 236, 240 (M.D. Fla. 1986), the Court of
Appeals rejected the argument that due process requires the sort of
probable cause hearing the Appellants seek. The Court of Appeals
held instead that a timely merits hearing affords a claimant all
the process to which he is due, and that the timeliness analysis is
governed by Barker. That precedent is dispositive here, and the
Court of Appeals, thus, affirms the holdings of the district
courts.

B

The Appellants argue next, without any on-point authority, that the
temporary forfeiture of their vehicles violates the Eighth
Amendment's provision that excessive fines will not be imposed. At
the founding, a "fine" meant "a payment to a sovereign as
punishment for some offense," citing United States v. Bajakajian,
524 U.S. 321, 327 (1998). As a result, a forfeiture can constitute
a fine when it is at least partially punitive. Temporary retention
of property, on the other hand, cannot be a payment at all because
it is not permanent. Only after property is permanently forfeited
and ownership changes can a claimant challenge the forfeiture as an
excessive fine. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirms in this
regard.

IV

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals holds that it lacks
jurisdiction to hear Ms. Culley's claim against the State
Defendants for injunctive relief because that controversy is no
longer live. As to the Appellants' monetary damages claims under
the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, binding precedent forecloses
those claims.

And consequently, the Appellants' conspiracy claims must also fail.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals dismisses the appeal in part and
affirms in part.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvhh5n9f from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Hit With Class Suit Over Minimum Margin Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.Org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Amazon has wielded minimum margin agreements
(MMAs) with suppliers to prevent other online retailers from
offering the same products Amazon sells at a lower price.

According to the 55-page complaint out of Washington, Amazon's MMAs
violate the federal prohibition on price fixing in that they
essentially set a minimum retail price for products. By restraining
competition among online rivals, the suit claims, Amazon has harmed
consumers by artificially raising the online prices for thousands
of retail brands the company sells.

The filing states that under an Amazon MMA, a supplier guarantees
both that Amazon will be able to price the supplier's product
competitively against other online retailers "at least 95% of the
time" and that Amazon will receive a minimum margin on each sale
regardless of the actual price at which a particular item is sold
by the defendant. Per the complaint, Amazon enforces its MMAs by
requiring suppliers to compensate it monthly for any lost margins
stemming from the lowering of its retail price to match that of a
competitor.

"To illustrate how the MMAs work, a supplier may agree, for
example, to sell its product at a wholesale price of $5 per unit
and that it will compensate Amazon if it receives less than $4 over
its marginal cost. If Amazon sells at least 95% of the supplier's
product for $9 or more, the supplier owes Amazon no money. But if,
in this example, Amazon lowers its price to $8 to match a
competitor's price that month, then the supplier will owe Amazon $1
for every product sold at $8 beyond the 5% threshold."  

Instead of risking its own profit margins to compete with retail
rivals on price, Amazon ultimately shifts this risk onto its
suppliers, the lawsuit alleges. As a result, Amazon has ensured
that its suppliers adopt a de facto minimum retail price, or floor
price, for their items market-wide.

"By requiring suppliers to compensate Amazon whenever their
products sell below the agreed floor price, the MMA agreements fix
prices by penalizing suppliers unless they suppress competitive
pricing from Amazon's rivals," the case contends.

Moreover, the MMAs add to a supplier's cost of doing business and
exist merely to accommodate Amazon, not as a means of promoting the
supplier's products or fostering price competition in the
marketplace, the lawsuit says. In a competitive market, the suit
expands, a supplier would benefit by rotating price promotions with
different retailers to ensure a broad range of distribution
options. The case, citing former senior Amazon category manager
Martin Heubel, says that providing margin support to the defendant
is "ineffective" for suppliers and leads to higher consumer prices.


A supplier who refuses Amazon's demand for "back-margin funding,"
the lawsuit alleges, will find its product "delisted, no longer on
order, or suppressed from most consumer searches."

The lawsuit looks to represent all persons who, on or after July
13, 2018, purchased goods from Amazon subject to its minimum margin
agreements. [GN]

AMBROSIA NUTRACEUTICALS: Musa Sues Over Planta's Gluten Free Label
------------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN MUSA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMBROSIA NUTRACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01330 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and violations of
State Consumer Protection Statutes, California's Unfair Competition
Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Planta
products. The Defendant represents and advertises the products as
gluten free. However, this is not true, and the Defendant fails to
adequately inform consumers that the products contain gluten. Had
the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth, they would not
have purchased the products at a premium price, the suit alleges.

Ambrosia Nutraceuticals, LLC is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its headquarters in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
         Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
         GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
         2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 274-4663
         E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com

AMERIMARK DIRECT: Smith Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerimark Direct,
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Masi Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amerimark Direct, LLC,
Case No. 9:22-cv-81032-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2022).

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

AmeriMark Direct -- https://www.amerimark.com/ -- is an American
privately held mail order and direct marketing company founded in
1969 and based in Cleveland, Ohio.[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


APCO INSULATION: Fails to Pay General Laborers' OT, Carabajo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL CARABAJO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APCO INSULATION CO INC. and KRESCO
BEAMALINDRIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04175 (E.D.N.Y., July
15, 2022) is a collective and class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged flagrant and willful
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an insulation prep
and installer from on or about May 1, 2015 until on or about
November 30, 2021.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he and
other similarly situated general laborers worked more than 40 hours
per week. However, the Defendants did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In
addition, the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate wage
statements that reflected the amount of hours that they worked.
Moreover, the Defendants paid them on a bi-weekly basis, says the
suit.

APCO Insulation Co. Inc. operates a building insulation and
construction company owned by Kresco Beamalindric. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com

APPLE INC: Monopolizes iOS Mobile Wallet Market, Credit Union Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-04174 (N.D. Cal., July 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Sherman Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged monopolization of tap
and pay iOS mobile wallet market. Specifically, the Defendant
violates the Sherman Act through its Apple Pay service by: (1)
unlawfully tied two of its products together, its mobile devices
and its mobile wallet, by compelling iOS users to use its mobile
wallet product exclusively and foreclosing rival iOS tap and pay
solutions; and (2) foreclosing all competitors. As a result of
Apple's exclusionary conduct, the Plaintiff and other issuers pay,
and have paid, fees they would not have incurred in a competitive
market, says the suit.

Affinity Credit Union is a chartered credit union with its
principal place of business in Des Moines, Iowa.

Apple, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of
business in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Steve W. Berman, 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

                 - and –

         Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (510) 725-3000
         Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
         E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com

                 - and –

         Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
         Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
         Jeffrey H. Bergman, Esq.
         SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
         55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 676-5845
         Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
         E-mail: ekelly@sperling-law.com
                 jvanek@sperling-law.com
                 jbergman@sperling-law.com

ARDELYX INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, STEVEN STREZSAK, Plaintiff, v. ARDELYX INC., et al.,
Defendants. JEFFREY SIEGEL, Plaintiff, v. ARDELYX, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 21-cv-05868-HSG, 21-cv-06228-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California appointed Jatin Malhotra as the
Lead Plaintiff and Scott+Scott as the Lead Counsel.

On July 30, 2021, Plaintiff Strezsak filed a securities class
action lawsuit bringing claims individually and on behalf of others
who acquired common stock of Ardelyx during the period between Aug.
6, 2020 and July 19, 2021 and consequently suffered damages. The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. It names the following
Defendants: Ardelyx; Ardelyx's President and CEO, Mike Raab; and
Ardelyx's CFO, Justin Renz.  

On Aug. 12, 2021, Plaintiff Siegel filed a nearly identical
complaint alleging the same violations of law for the same date
range against the same defendants.  

Six competing motions to consolidate cases, for appointment as lead
plaintiff, and for approval of lead counsel were filed by:

     (1) Chad Bryant and Richard Bryant, seeking approval of
Johnston Fistel as lead counsel;

     (2) City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System,
seeking approval of Robbins Geller as lead counsel;

     (3) Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund, seeking
approval of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky as lead counsel;

     (4) Mark Allen, seeking approval of Roche Freedman as lead
counsel;

     (5) Peifa Xu, seeking approval of Pomerantz as lead counsel;
and

     (6) Jatin Malhotra, seeking approval of Scott+Scott as lead
counsel.

Subsequently, the Pontiac Pension Fund, Mark Allen and the Bryant
Brothers withdrew their motions. The Miami Pension Fund and Peifa
Xu filed notices of non-opposition, explaining that they did not
appear to have the largest financial interest in the litigation
within the meaning of the PSLRA.

On Oct. 19, 2021, Jatin Malhotra filed a brief in further support
of his initial motion, representing that his motion is unopposed
and thus he is the presumptive lead plaintiff.  

Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. In June 2020, the Defendants submitted a
New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with CKD on dialysis. The Defendants allegedly made
materially false or misleading statements regarding tenapanor and
the likelihood that it would be approved by the FDA.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants "knew (or had reason to know)
that the data submitted to support the NDA was insufficient in that
it showed a lack of clinical relevance of the drug's treatment
effect, making it foreseeably likely (if not certain) that the FDA
would not approve the drug." They allege that after it came to
light that the FDA had found deficiencies in the size and clinical
relevance of the drug's treatment effect, the share price
"plunged," falling 74% in a single day.

A. Consolidation

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), a court may
consolidate actions if they "involve a common question of law or
fact." The district court enjoys "broad discretion under this rule
to consolidate cases pending in the same district." In exercising
this "broad discretion," the district court "weighs the saving of
time and effort consolidation would produce against any
inconvenience, delay, or expense that it would cause."  

Judge Gilliam finds that the two captioned cases involve common
questions of law and fact. He says, the two cases allege the same
violations of the federal securities laws against the same
Defendants on behalf of the same classes. Due to the similarities
between the cases, discovery obtained in one lawsuit will
undoubtedly be relevant to the other, and common questions of law
and fact will predominate. Moreover, Judge Gilliam does not
anticipate that consolidation would cause significant
inconvenience, delay, or additional expense. Accordingly, he grants
Jatin Malhotra's motion to consolidate the cases.

B. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act "instructs district
courts to select as lead plaintiff the one 'most capable of
adequately representing the interests of class members.'" "The
'most capable' plaintiff -- and hence the lead plaintiff -- is the
one who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the
case, so long as he meets the requirements of Rule 23." The Ninth
Circuit interprets the PSLRA as establishing "a simple three-step
process for identifying the lead plaintiff pursuant to these
criteria.

1. Step One

Step One consists of meeting the PSLRA's notice requirement. "The
first plaintiff to file an action covered by the PSLRA must post
this notice 'in a widely circulated national business-oriented
publication or wire service.'" The notice must be published within
20 days of the complaint's filing. The notice must also alert
putative class members "(I) of the pendency of the action, the
claims asserted therein, and the purported class period; and (II)
that, not later than 60 days after the date on which the notice is
published, any member of the purported class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff of the purported class."  

In the case, the notice was published in Business Wire on the same
day that the complaint was filed. Finally, the notice announced the
filing of the class action, described the asserted claims,
specified the putative class period, and explained that any motion
to be appointed lead plaintiff had to be filed by Sept. 28, 2021.
For these reasons, Judge Gilliam finds that Step One's requirements
are met.

2. Step Two

Step Two consists of identifying the presumptive lead plaintiff.
There is a rebuttable presumption that the "most adequate
plaintiff" is the one who "(aa) has either filed the complaint or
made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i);
(bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class; and (cc) otherwise
satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure."

Judge Gilliam finds that Jatin Malhotra timely filed his motion to
be appointed lead plaintiff on Sept. 28, 2021, satisfying
subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii)(I)(aa). Moreover, he suffered alleged
losses totaling $877,458 as a result of his transactions in Ardelyx
during the Class Period. Since Jatin Malhotra's motion is unopposed
and no other class members besides those just described filed
motions, no one claims to have suffered greater losses than Jatin
Malhotra. Jatin Malhotra thus has "the most to gain from the
lawsuit."

In addition, Jatin Malhotra's motion represents that no antagonism
exists between Malhotra's interests and those of other class
members. And given that the motion is unopposed, Judge Gilliam has
no reason to doubt this representation. He also finds that
"adequacy" is satisfied because Jatin Malhotra "will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."

Consequently, Judge Gilliam finds that Step Two's requirements are
met.

3. Step Three

Step Three consists of "giving other plaintiffs an opportunity to
rebut the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that it satisfies
Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements." Jatin Malhotra's
motion is unopposed. Since his presumptive lead plaintiff status is
not rebutted, Step Three's requirements are met, and Jatin
Malhotra's appointment as lead plaintiff is appropriate.

C. Appointment of Lead Counsel

Judge Gilliam defers to Jatin Malhotra's choice of lead counsel,
saying his choice is not "so irrational, or so tainted by
self-dealing or conflict of interest, as to cast genuine and
serious doubt on his willingness or ability to perform the
functions of lead plaintiff." Approval of Jatin Malhotra's
selection of counsel is therefore merited.

The case captioned Strezsak v. Ardelyx Inc. et al, Case No.
21-cv-05868-HSG, is consolidated with Siegel v. Ardelyx, Inc. et
al, Case No. 21-cv-06228-HSG. The earlier filed civil action, Case
No. 21-cv-05868-HSG, will serve as the lead case. The clerk is
directed to administratively close the later-filed civil action,
Case No. 21-cv-06228-HSG. All future filings should be done in the
lead case only and should be captioned "In re Ardelyx, Inc.".

Within 10 days of the Order the parties will meet and confer and
submit a stipulation and proposed order setting a schedule for the
filing of a consolidated or amended complaint and the filing of the
Defendants' responses.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2bjrf8j5 from Leagle.com.


BASS PRO: Hit With Class Action Over Lifetime Warranty on Socks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield News-Leader reports that a Springfield, Missouri man
has filed a class action lawsuit against Bass Pro, claiming they
refused to honor a lifetime warranty on socks he purchased.

The lawsuit, which Kent Slaughter filed in July 2022, says Bass Pro
has uniformly misrepresented to consumers that its apparel product
"Redhead Lifetime Guarantee All- Purpose Wool Socks" is sold with a
lifetime guarantee.

The lawsuit states that Slaughter purchased socks from Bass Pro in
hopes of a lifetime warranty, and that the warranty was a major
factor in his decision to purchase the socks.

Springfield-based Bass Pro Shops specializes in hunting, fishing,
camping and other outdoor recreation merchandise.

The lawsuit states that at one time, Bass Pro would replace the
socks with a free replacement each time the socks would wear out,
but that now Bass Pro replaces the socks with a new, different pair
of socks that only comes with a limited 60-day warranty. The suit
states that Bass Pro has now added a stripe design to the 60-day
socks so that employees know that no warranty will be honored for
those socks beyond the limited warranty period.

According to the lawsuit, between 2014 and 2021, Slaughter
purchased a total of 12 socks from the Bass Pro superstore in
Springfield. It says Slaughter returned multiple pairs of socks
starting in 2015 and got a no-charge exchange under the lifetime
warranty. But according to Slaughter, things changed in 2021 when
he attempted to return four pairs of socks. The suit says he was
told that the store clerk could not assist with the exchange.
Eventually he was given the distinctively-marked 60-day socks.

The lawsuit alleges that Bass Pro designs, manufactures, markets,
advertises, and sells the product with the following statements
displayed: "The last sock you'll ever need to buy." [GN]

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Junks Bell Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2022, that on
September 20, 2021, the US District Court for the Western District
of Texas, Austin Division dismissed the case captioned "Bell et al.
v. Cal-Maine Foods et al.," without prejudice.

On April 30, 2020, the company was named as one of several
defendants in "Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foods et al." The
defendants include numerous grocery stores, retailers, producers,
and farms.

Plaintiffs assert that defendants violated the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act by allegedly demanding
exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state
of emergency. Plaintiffs request certification of a class of all
consumers who purchased eggs in Texas, old, distributed, produced,
or handled by any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of
emergency. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other
defendants from selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than
the price of eggs prior to the declaration of the state of
emergency and damages in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or
$250,000 for each violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On
December 1, 2020, the company and certain other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the
motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United
States magistrate judge. On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation to the court that the
defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On September 20, 2021, the court dismissed the case without
prejudice. On July 13, 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to set aside or amend the judgment to amend their
complaint.

Cal-Maine Foods is the largest producer and distributor of shell
eggs in the United States.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Corsi Sues Over Hidden Administrative Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINTIA CORSI, KARYN CHALLENDER, ANGELA GREEN, KAREN HUDSON, and
JERRY HUNT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS;
and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-04621-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J., July 18, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the New
York General Business Law, the Washington Consumer Protection Act,
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, and the Hawaii Deceptive
Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged bait-and-switch scheme
which deceives customers by prominently advertising certain flat
monthly rates for Verizon post-paid wireless service plans. After
customers sign up, however, Verizon uniformly charges them higher
monthly rates than it advertised and promised by padding customers'
bills each month with a so-called administrative charge on top of
the advertised and promised price. The administrative charge is not
disclosed to customers either before or when they agree to purchase
wireless service from Verizon, and in fact the charge is never
adequately or honestly disclosed to customers. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct and omissions, the Plaintiffs and Class
members have sustained damages, says the suit.

Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Verizon Communications Inc., with its
principal place of business in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.

Verizon Communications Inc. is a telecommunications company,
headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
         Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
         Shane T. Prince, Esq.
         DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
         525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Telephone: (856) 797-9951
         Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
         E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
                 josefchen@denittislaw.com
                 sprince@denittislaw.com

                   - and –

         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
         E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

CELSIUS NETWORKS: Class Action Lawsuit Alleges 'Ponzi Scheme'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Nicenko of Finbold reports that following its filing for
bankruptcy just weeks after freezing customer withdrawals, troubled
cryptocurrency lending firm Celsius Network LLC has been slapped
with a proposed class action suit accusing the company of a
Ponzi-like con job.

Indeed, the class action, proposed to a federal court in the U.S.
state of New Jersey, alleges that Celsius incurred $10 billion by
selling unregistered securities in a Ponzi scheme and convinced
investors to purchase its financial products at inflated rates,
Law360 reported on July 14.

The class action suit document was made available by former U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement attorney John
Reed Stark, who posted it on his Twitter account on July 15.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Taylor Goines "purchased
Celsius Financial Products during the Relevant Period and suffered
investment losses" as a result of the conduct of the defendants,
including Celsius Network, two related entities, CEO Alexander
Mashinsky, and three executive directors - David Barse, Alan
Jeffrey Carr, and Shlomi Danier Leon.

Furthermore, the complaint stated that the recent crypto collapse
revealed the fragility of the Celsius ecosystem and the fact that
Celsius didn't have enough assets on hand to meet its withdrawal
obligations to the investors. In fact:

"Much like a literal Ponzi scheme, Celsius could only maintain its
yield rate promises by continually bringing in new investors whose
new influx of money would be used to pay off the yield for old
investors."

As per the class action text, Celsius held billions of dollars in
leveraged positions on decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols that
were threatened with liquidation during the crypto market decline.


To avoid liquidation, Celsius appeared to be forced to deploy over
$750 million of liquid assets that could no longer be used to meet
withdrawal obligations, resulting in the company freezing user
withdrawals, swaps, and transfers.

False promises and further accusations

Moreover, the plaintiff said that Celsius sold "earn rewards
accounts' to clients who lent crypto assets to the company in
exchange for the company's guarantee to provide a variable monthly
interest payment.

Celsius's interest was generated by loaning crypto to institutions
and corporations, lending U.S. dollars and stablecoins to retail
investors, and investing in "other highly speculative
cryptocurrency ventures.

Then, the company pooled these assets together to fund its lending
operations and proprietary trading. As the lawsuit explains:

"Despite the additional risk, and lack of safeguards and regulatory
oversight, as of March 2021, Celsius held the equivalent of $10
billion from the sale of these unregistered securities in violation
of federal and state securities laws, which peaked at over $25
million later that year."

Meanwhile, Celsius's former investment manager Jason Stone also
launched a lawsuit against his one-time employer on July 7,
claiming it was involved in crypto market manipulation without
implementing basic accounting measures to protect customer
deposits, as Finbold earlier reported. [GN]

DOCTOR'S BEST: Court Approves Settlement in Casey Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARAE CASEY V. DOCTOR'S
BEST, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's request to approve the
      settlement;

   2. granting the Plaintiff's request for a $5,000 service
      award;

   3. granting the request for costs and attorney fees; and

   4. approving litigation costs in the amount of $16,630.21 and
      attorney fees in the amount of $458,369.79 for a total
      award of $475,000.

Doctor's Best manufactures and distributes dietary and nutritional
supplements.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwxYew at no extra charge.[CC]

DOCUSIGN INC: Lawsuits Against D&Os Consolidated, Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, grants a
stipulation to consolidate for all purposes, including pre-trial
proceedings and trial, under Case No. 3:22-cv-02980-WHO:

     -- BENJAMIN LAPIN, derivatively on behalf of DOCUSIGN, INC.,
Plaintiffs, v. DANIEL D. SPRINGER, ENRIQUE SALEM, PETER SOLVIK,
INHI CHO SUH, MARY AGNES WILDEROTTER, TERESA BRIGGS, BLAKE J.
IRVING, JAMES BEER, CAIN A. HAYES, CYNTHIA GAYLOR, MICHAEL J.
SHERIDAN, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Defendants, and DOCUSIGN, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-02980-WHO (N.D. Cal., May
19, 2022); and

     -- PETER VOTTO, derivatively on behalf of DOCUSIGN INC.,
Plaintiff, v. DANIEL SPRINGER, MICHAEL SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA GAYLOR,
SCOTT OLRICH, ENRIQUE SALEM, PETER SOLVIK, INHI CHO SUH, MARY AGNES
WILDEROTTER, TERESA BRIGGS, BLAKE IRVING, JAMES BEER, and CAIN
HAYES, Defendants, DOCUSIGN, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-02987-WHO (N.D.
Cal., May 20, 2022).

The consolidated action is stayed.

On Feb. 8, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weston
v. DocuSign, Inc., et al., 3:22-cv-00824 (N.D. Cal.), was filed in
the Court against DocuSign and certain of its officers, alleging
federal securities laws violations.

On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff Lapin filed a putative stockholder
derivative action, purportedly on behalf of DocuSign, based on
substantially the same allegations as Weston, and asserting claims
for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against certain
directors and officers of DocuSign, premising federal court
jurisdiction on alleged diversity of the parties.

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff Votto filed a putative stockholder
derivative action, also purportedly on behalf of DocuSign, seeking
contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on the alleged
claims in Weston and asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against certain directors and officers of the Company.

On June 27, 2022, the Court deemed the Derivative Actions related
to Weston and reassigned them to the Court. The Parties have
conferred and agree that the Derivative Actions should be
consolidated because of their overlapping allegations, without
prejudice and reserving the Defendants' right to challenge subject
matter jurisdiction or to enforce a mandatory forum bylaw provision
requiring certain claims be litigated exclusively in Delaware.

Weston will be subject to motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, the outcome of which will be informative to the litigation
of the Derivative Actions, and is also presently subject to a
mandatory stay of discovery under the Reform Act.

The Parties further agree that, given the overlapping allegations
in Weston and the Derivative Actions, and because plaintiffs seek
damages on DocuSign's behalf arising from, among other things, the
outcome of Weston; Votto, it is currently in the best interest of
DocuSign (the real party in interest on whose behalf the Derivative
Actions are brought) to stay the Derivative Actions to avoid
inefficiencies and duplicative efforts, and to better preserve the
resources of the Parties and the Court.

To the extent the Derivative Actions assert federal securities laws
claims, they too are subject to the provisions of the Reform Act,
including the mandatory stay of discovery.

The Parties agree that no answer, motion, or other response to the
Complaints in the Derivative Actions will be due in light of the
proposed agreement to stay.

The Court's Order will apply to each stockholder derivative action
arising out of the same, or substantially the same, transactions or
events as these cases, which is subsequently filed in, removed to,
reassigned to, or transferred to the Northern District of
California District Court. When a shareholder derivative action
that properly belongs as part of In Re DocuSign Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Lead Case 3:22-cv-02980-WHO is hereafter filed in the
Court, removed to the Court, reassigned to the Court, or
transferred here from another court, the Court requests the
assistance of counsel in calling to the attention of the clerk of
the Court the filing, removal, reassignment, or transfer of any
case that might properly be consolidated as part of In Re DocuSign,
Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:22-cv-02980-WHO, and
counsel are to assist in assuring that counsel in such subsequent
actions receive notice of the Order. Unless otherwise ordered, the
terms of all orders, rulings, and decisions in the Consolidated
Action will apply to all later shareholder derivative actions
involving DocuSign filed in the Court.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Rowley Law PLLC, and Moore Kuehn PLLC
are appointed as the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for the
Consolidated Action. Defendants take no position on the propriety
of such appointment.

Co-Lead Counsel will set policy for the Plaintiffs for the
prosecution of the litigation, ensure that there is no duplication
of effort or unnecessary expense, coordinate on behalf of the
Plaintiffs the initiation and conduct of discovery proceedings,
provide direction, supervision, and coordination of all activities
of the Plaintiffs' counsel, and have the authority to negotiate a
settlement, subject to approval of the Plaintiffs and the Court.
Any agreement reached between the counsel for the Defendants and
the Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel will be binding on all other
Plaintiffs in any action subsequently consolidated as part of In Re
DocuSign, Inc. Derivative Litigation.

No answer, motion or other response to the Complaints will be due
from the Defendants in the Derivative Actions. The Parties
acknowledge that, in entering into the Stipulation, the Defendants
are preserving their right to assert that subject matter
jurisdiction is lacking or to enforce a mandatory forum bylaw
requiring litigation of certain claims exclusively in Delaware0

Within 14 days of resolution or dismissal of Weston with prejudice,
the Parties will meet and confer and submit to the Court a proposed
schedule for resuming proceedings in the Consolidated Action,
including dates by which the Plaintiffs must file a consolidated
amended complaint, if one has not yet been filed, and a date by
which Defendants must answer, move against or otherwise respond to
the consolidated amended complaint, and any associated briefing
schedules, and including the timing for resetting an initial case
management conference and the resumption of all associated case
management and ADR program deadlines.

In the event that a mediation or Court-ordered settlement
conference is held in an effort to settle Weston, or any Related
Derivative Action, the counsel for the Defendants will provide the
Co-Lead Counsel with reasonable advance notice of said mediation
and will invite the Plaintiffs to participate in such mediation
(subject to the Defendants seeking permission from the Court and/or
other parties to the mediation and/or settlement conference, as
well as any insurers). In the event that the Plaintiffs are not
permitted to attend such mediation and/or settlement conference,
Defendants will mediate separately with the Plaintiffs shortly
thereafter.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8yaumb from Leagle.com.

DEAN S. KRISTY -- dkristy@fenwick.com -- JENNIFER C. BRETAN --
jbretan@fenwick.com -- KATHERINE A. MARSHALL --
kmarshall@fenwick.com -- SOFIA RITALA -- sritala@fenwick.com --
FENWICK & WEST LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


DPCM CAPITAL: Monteverde Probing Proposed D-Wave Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating DPCM
Capital, Inc. (XPOA), relating to its proposed merger with D-Wave
Systems, Inc. Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/dpcm-capital-inc.

It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

If you own common stock in XPOA and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. The
firm was listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Its lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions.

Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. The
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, the firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 the firm recovered or secured six cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE: Migyanko Class Cert Bid Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGYANKO v. DUNHAM'S
ATHLEISURE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00514 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting consent motion to
withdraw the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is withdrawn without
prejudice, Judge Scott says.

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

Dunham's Athleisure operates a sporting goods chain.[CC]

EDGIO INC: Undermines Stockholder Franchise, Botelho Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANNE BOTELHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALTER D. AMARAL, DOUG BEWSHER, SCOTT A.
GENEREUX, PATRICIA PARRA HADDEN, BOB LYONS, DAVID C. PETERSCHMIDT,
and EDGIO, INC. f/k/a LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2022-0626 (Del. Ch., July 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties.

The case arises from the Defendants' use of a stockholders'
agreement to take control over Limelight's future elections and
other voting decisions. The stockholders' agreement not only
imposed a fairly typical, three-year standstill, but also prevents
the holder (for so long as it owns a meaningful bloc) from: (a)
voting its shares for any director candidate not nominated by the
incumbents; (b) voting its shares against a Board recommendation on
non-routine matters unless the majority of the other stockholders
oppose that recommendation as well; or (c) selling any of its
company shares to any of the top 50 activist stockholders. These
restrictions materially undermine the stockholder franchise, says
the suit.

Edgio, Inc., formerly known as Limelight Networks, Inc., is a
network service provider, with its headquarters in Tempe, Arizona.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
         Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 364-3601

                 - and –

         Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400

                 - and –

         Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
         David Tejtel, Esq.
         FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
         493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
         Bedford Hills, NY 10507
         Telephone: (888) 529-1108

EVLUTION NUTRITION: Hit With Class Action Over BCAA Energy Powders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that in Weinholtz v.
Evlution Nutrition LLC, a class action alleges Evlution Nutrition's
BCAA Energy powders are falsely advertised and labeled as
"naturally flavored" supplements.

The 22-page complaint out of California contends that contrary to
Evlution's marketing, the pre-workout and dietary supplement
powders, in acai berry and lemon-lime flavors, contain synthetic
flavoring agents. Included in each powder for flavoring purposes is
a synthetic version of malic acid that's manufactured "in
petrochemical plants" from benzene or butane, the lawsuit says.

The suit claims that Evlution misleadingly labels its energy
powders "[t]o appeal to consumers who seek out natural food
products and are willing to pay more for them."

According to the filing, the malic acid in the Evlution powders,
called DL malic acid, serves to "create, enhance, simulate, and/or
reinforce" a sweet and tart taste that consumers associate with the
products' characterizing acai berry and lemon-lime flavors, in
particular by changing the ratio between acids and sugars.

The filing argues that the ingredients in the BCAA Energy powders
are declared on product labels in a way that is "misleading and
contrary to law" in that Evlution designates the synthetic
flavoring agent by its generic name, malic acid, and not by its
specific name, DL malic acid.

"Even if the malic acid used in the Products is not DL malic acid
but is instead 'L malic acid,' it is still not a 'natural'
flavoring," the case contests.

Per the complaint, almost all of the L malic acid used in
mass-produced food products uses a substrate derived from petroleum
products. It's for this reason, the lawsuit says, that organic food
producers, for instance, have sought to have L malic acid struck
from the list of additives that can be used in foods labeled
"organic" or "natural."

California food labeling regulations require product labels to
accurately describe the nature of a food product and its
characterizing flavors, the case stresses. According to the suit,
if a product's characterizing flavor is not created exclusively by
the named flavor ingredient, the item's front label must disclose
that the flavor was simulated or reinforced with either natural or
artificial flavorings, or both.

"Because the Products contain artificial flavoring, California law
requires the products to display both front- and back-label
disclosures to inform consumers that the Products are artificially
flavored," the case reads.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in California who bought
Evlution's ECAA Energy powders, in either acai berry or lemon-lime
flavors, within the last four years. [GN]

FACE AMUSEMENT: Underpays Waiters, Armstrong Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FACE AMUSEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00245 (E.D. Tenn., July 15, 2022) brings this complaint
as a collective action seeking damages for the Defendant's alleged
illegal pay pattern and/or practice that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waiter at the
Defendant's restaurant located in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee from
approximately February 15, 2022 to April 1, 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated waiters
were required by the Defendant to perform non-tip producing side
work unrelated to their tipped occupation, thereby spending a
substantial amount of time that is more than 20% of their working
time. However, the Defendant compensated them below the applicable
federal, state, or local minimum wage plus tips. The Defendant is
allegedly taking advantage of a tip credit which allows the
Defendant to include in its calculation of wages a portion of the
amounts its waters receive as tips, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated waiters have suffered
damages by being denied minimum wages in accordance with the FLSA.
Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
waiters, the Plaintiff seeks all damages allowed by the FLSA,
liquidated damages in an amount equal to FLSA-mandated back wages,
legal fees, costs, post-judgment interest, and all other relief to
which they may be justly entitled, the suit asserts.

Face Amusement Group, Inc. operates a restaurant known as Downtown
Flavortown. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel P. Hull, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Tel: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
                  danielh@bsjfirm.com

FLATOUT INC: Rausch Sues Over Flatbread's Protein Per Serving Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA RAUSCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLATOUT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-04157-KAW (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation; unfair business practices; and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Flatout
brand flatbread products. The Defendant prominently labels its
flatbread products as providing specific amounts of protein per
serving depending on the product, such as "6g PROTEIN" per serving
on the front label of its Flatout Light Italian Herb Flatbread.
Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each product will
actually provide the amount of protein per serving claimed on the
front of the product package in a form the body can use. In
reality, it actually provides, in a form that humans can use, as
little as 2 grams of protein. Had the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers been informed of the true amount of protein that
the products provided through a statement of the corrected amount
of protein per serving, as required by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations, they would not have purchased or
would have paid less for the products, says the suit.

Flatout, Inc. is a manufacturer of food products, with its
principal place of business in Westerville, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
         Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 639-9090
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
         E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 hayley@gutridesafier.com

GEICO INDEMNITY: To Settle Personal Injury Protection Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco of Insurance Business Mag reports that settlement
class members have until November 28 this year to submit their
valid claim forms after GEICO agreed to a class action lawsuit
settlement involving personal injury protection (PIP) policies and
healthcare providers in Florida.

The class action lawsuit, as reported by Top Class Actions, accused
GEICO of misinterpreting PIP terms and underpaying at a rate of 80%
- instead of 100% payment - per claim. With GEICO agreeing to
settle without admitting any wrongdoing, claimants can receive the
remaining 20%.

Benefits from the settlement also include an enhanced payment of
10%, as well as $9 per submitted claim form. Class members who wish
to speak to the court about the settlement have until November 02,
to send their notice to appear during the final approval hearing
slated on December 02.

The pertinent entities are GEICO Indemnity Co., GEICO General
Insurance Co., GEICO Casualty Co., and Government Employees
Insurance Co. The case centred on GEICO's alleged misinterpretation
of the so-called "billed amount" in relation to medical charges
submitted by treatment providers under PIP or other no-fault
coverages in motor vehicle insurance policies. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 1
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COUNTS et al., v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-12541-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to reinstate case schedule and set briefing
schedule for class certification:

              Event                            Deadline

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class           August 1, 2022
     Certification:

  -- Defendants' Responses to Motion        September 26, 2022
     for Class Certification

  -- Plaintiffs' Replies to Motion          October 31, 2022
     for Class Certification:

The General Motors Company is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, United
States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ISZ6Aq at no extra charge.[CC]

GOYA FOODS: Can Send Pre-Certification Communication in Mejias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion for Approval
of Proposed Pre-Certification Communications to Putative Class
Members in the lawsuit styled ANIBAL MEJIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
GOYA FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-12365 (BRM) (JRA)
(D.N.J.).

I. Background

Plaintiffs Anibal Mejias, Jerry Fuller, Dennis Minter, and Jose
Pena bring this Putative Class action against Goya. Goya is a New
Jersey-based company manufacturing food products. The Plaintiffs
worked for Goya as truck drivers for various periods between 2010
and 2019. The four Plaintiffs were named as class representatives,
who formerly contracted with Goya to deliver food products in
various states. The Plaintiffs allege they signed a form agreement
with GFI labeled Independent Contractor's Service Agreement.

On Dec. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint against Goya. The Second Amended Complaint alleges Goya
unlawfully designated the Plaintiffs and other truck drivers as
independent contractors and withheld compensation. The Plaintiffs
allege two Putative Classes under New Jersey state law: (1) a New
Jersey Wage Deduction Class; and (2) a New Jersey Overtime Class.
Minter, Fuller, and Pena serve as class representatives for both
Putative Classes.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges: (1) violation of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
34:11-4.1, et seq., for making improper deductions from the
Plaintiffs' wages (on behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New
Jersey Wage Deduction Class) under Count One; (2) violation of the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
34:11-56, et seq., for failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime (on
behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New Jersey Overtime Class)
under Count Two; and (3) violations of the South Carolina Payment
of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-10, et seq., on behalf
of Mejias individually for making improper deductions from his
wages (Count Five).

On March 11, 2022, Goya filed a Motion for Approval, seeking to
communicate with Putative Class members. Goya proposes to notify
certain Putative Class Members of a proposed amendment to the
agreement that offers a monetary incentive and includes an
arbitration agreement and class action waiver (the "Proposed
Amendment") along with a written explanation of the Proposed
Amendment (the "Written Explanation") (collectively "Proposed
Communication").

On April 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition, requesting
the Court deny Goya's motion, or, in the alternative, compel Goya
to produce the Putative Class Members' contact information and
approve a notice that the Plaintiffs' counsels are available to
provide legal advice regarding the Proposed Amendment and to
represent the class members if they decide to enter individual
arbitration.

II. Decision

Generally, parties are permitted to engage in pre-certification
communications with potential class members; see Gulf Oil Co. v.
Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102-04 (1981). Consequently, Judge Martinotti
notes, an order limiting communications between parties and
potential class members should be based on a clear record and
specific findings that reflect a weighing of the need for a
limitation and the potential interference with the rights of the
parties. Under Rule 23(d), a district court has a duty to safeguard
class members from unauthorized and misleading communications from
the parties and their counsel.

Goya is essentially attempting to arbitrate individual claims by
way of contracting with Putative Class Members via the Proposed
Amendment, Judge Martinotti states. Here, in its Written
Explanation, Goya invites Putative Class Members to arbitrate by
claiming arbitration procedures will "provide a faster and less
expensive way to resolve any claims or disputes between" parties,
but underscores a Putative Class Member is not required to waive
his or her right to bring disputes in court or participate in the
pending Mejias action and there will be no retaliation against the
class member in any way. Goya's notice also advises Putative Class
Members to consult with a financial adviser or legal
advisor/attorney before determining whether to sign.

The Court finds Goya's Proposed Communication does not undermine
"the integrity of the litigation" because the arbitration does not
alter remedies available to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs are
free to decline Goya's invitation.

The Plaintiffs object to Goya's Proposed Communication because they
argue Putative Class Members are vulnerable and need protection
from waiving their right to proceed as a class via the Proposed
Amendment. Nonetheless, Judge Martinotti opines that the right to
proceed as a class is procedural and may be waived by agreeing to
an arbitration clause, citing Johnson v. W. Suburban Bank, 225 F.3d
366, 369 (3d Cir. 2000).

In addition, the Plaintiffs' assertion that Goya's Proposed
Amendment is unenforceable because it is "impossible for a
layperson to sort through" also lacks sound legal basis, Judge
Martinotti finds. Therefore, the Court concludes Goya should be
allowed to attempt to invite Putative Class Members to arbitrate
their claims.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to compel production of the
contact information of the Putative Class Members to the
Plaintiffs' counsel, and approve their proposed communication in
place of Goya's. Goya counters the Plaintiffs' proposed
communication is false and misleading on its face and accuses the
Plaintiffs of essentially soliciting clients by offering to
represent them in arbitration.

Judge Martinotti states that the Plaintiffs' proposed communication
that seeks to replace Goya's Written Explanation merely repeats
what Goya stated in a different form, but adds language that
advises the Putative Class Members that if they choose to sign
Goya's arbitration agreement that the Plaintiffs' Counsel is
available to represent them.

While the Court will not declare the Plaintiffs' proposed
communication is misleading, the Court declines to impose a burden
of production on Goya to allow the Plaintiffs to identify potential
new clients.

Accordingly, Judge Martinotti rules that Goya's Motion for Approval
of Proposed Pre-Certification Communications to Putative Class
Members is granted, and the Plaintiffs' request to compel discovery
and to approve the Plaintiffs' pre-certification notice is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Goya's Motion for Approval is granted,
and the Plaintiffs' request to compel discovery and to approve the
Plaintiffs' pre-certification notice is denied. An appropriate
Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/573dxu6h from Leagle.com.


IBM CORP: Secures Dismissal of Age Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco at Law Street Media reports that the Southern
District of New York issued a ruling effectively ending an Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case brought by just over
two dozen former International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
employees. On Thursday, Judge Jesse M. Furman declined to exercise
jurisdiction over the dispute, citing the lack of an actual
controversy.

As previously reported, the consolidated cases involve former
workers 40-years-of-age and older who allege that IBM ousted them
as part of a company-wide overhaul intended to introduce younger
talent. They also signed severance agreements and in exchange,
agreed to bring ADEA claims against IBM in arbitration.

All but two of the plaintiffs in the action did so, leading Judge
Furman to describe them as "Post-Arbitration Plaintiffs." In each
case, the arbitrator dismissed the claims as untimely.

In this suit, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that two
provisions of their arbitration agreements were unenforceable: a
provision that governs the timeliness of their arbitration claims
and a confidentiality clause. Last November, IBM moved to dismiss
while the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and additionally,
asked for leave to amend their complaints to add a claim for
fraudulent inducement.

Assessing the claims, the court concluded that "as an exercise of
its discretion, [] it is not appropriate to entertain jurisdiction
over the Post-Arbitration Plaintiffs' claims." Judge Furman pointed
to the Post-Arbitration Plaintiffs' concession that they already
arbitrated their ADEA claims, lost, chose not to file any motions
to vacate the arbitral decisions within the Federal Arbitration
Act's three-month deadline, but instead, waited two years to
initiate the declaratory relief action.

Under Second Circuit precedent, the court said factors weighed
against an exercise of jurisdiction. "There is no 'useful purpose'
that a declaratory judgment would serve at this point; nor is there
any 'uncertainty' in the parties' legal relations for the Court to
resolve," the opinion said. Lastly, Judge Furman dismissed the two
remaining plaintiffs' claims for lack of ripeness. The court
explained that the contingency that would make their claims
justiciable is unlikely to ever occur, yet dismissed them without
prejudice should their claims ripen.

The decision follows several others issued earlier this month in
favor of IBM in the age discrimination claim realm. In one
decision, Judge Valerie Caproni granted partial summary judgment in
favor of IBM, limiting the plaintiffs' arguments going forward in a
parallel case.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. and
IBM by Jones Day. [GN]

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DARYL B. MILLER, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, INC.
(ALABAMA) d/b/a INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02789-SEG (N.D. Ga., July 15, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff has served as an intrastate class-b driver while
working at the Defendant Industrial Chemical's Jonesboro location
hauling chemicals from approximately April 1, 2019 to June 28,
2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees consistently worked more than 40 hours per week
throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover the Defendant's unpaid wages for himself and all other
similarly situated employees, as well as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and other
relief as the Honorable Court or the Finder of Fact deems equitable
and just.

Industrial Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie H. Burke, Esq.
          HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP
          3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Tel: (770) 953-0995
          Fax: (770) 953-1358
          E-mail: jb@hkw-law.com

JAGUAR LAND: Hit With Class Action Over Defective Windshields
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rains of glassBYTEs.com reports that two plaintiffs are
bringing a class action lawsuit against Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC, based on allegations of defective windshields on
2020-2022 Defender vehicles.

The lawsuit argues that Land Rover will not cover the repair or
replacement of those windshields under warranty, and that replaced
windshields are also defective.

According to court documents filed at the end of June 2022, it is
alleged that Land Rover "knew" that Defenders "contained one or
more defects in the way the vehicles are manufactured and/or made
that can cause the windshield to crack, chip and/or fracture."
According to the complaint, Land Rover would have known of the
alleged defect through pre-production testing, pre-production
design failure mode and analysis data, production design failure
mode and analysis data, early consumer complaints and more.

The plaintiffs propose the alleged issue results from the usage of
deficient materials in the construction of the windshield or a
deficiency in the structure of the vehicle itself. The lawsuit
argues that Land Rover will not cover the repair or replacement of
those windshields under warranty, and that replaced windshields are
also defective. According to the complaint, a replacement
windshield can cost more than $2,000.

"Class Vehicle owners report that their windshields failed for no
reason at all," the document reads. "Others have reported
windshield failure as a result of circumstances that would not
cause a non-defective windshield to fail, such as a very slight
impact."

One of the plaintiffs argues in the complaint that his windshield
cracked solely from going through a carwash.

A failing windshield, plaintiffs argue, results in numerous
additional safety hazards for motorists as well as pedestrians. The
complaint notes that plaintiffs are seeking damages and restitution
from Land Rover, as well as notification to vehicle owners
regarding the alleged defect. [GN]

KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM: Court Overrules Rule 72 Objection in Outzen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
overrules the Defendant's Rule 72 Objection to the Magistrate
Judge's Sanctions Order in the lawsuit entitled MONIQUE OUTZEN,
ROBERT ARDAIOLO, and MELISSA BARKER, Plaintiffs v. KAPSCH
TRAFFICCOM USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01286-TWP-MJD
(S.D. Ind.).

I. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs Monique Outzen, Robert Ardaiolo, and Melissa Barker
initiated the action against Kapsch and co-defendant Gila, LLC
(collectively, "Defendants"), asserting putative class action
allegations that Defendants unlawfully issued administrative fees
and/or penalties to drivers crossing the RiverLink toll bridges
that connect Southern Indiana and Northern Kentucky.

Central to the case is whether the Defendants issued subsequent
notices to drivers without first providing the statutorily-required
First Notice of Toll or whether they provided late notice. The case
initially was brought as two separate actions--Melissa Barker v.
Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, Case Number
1:19-cv-00987-TWP-MJD (the "Barker case"); and Monique Outzen and
Robert Ardaiolo v. Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc. and Gila, LLC, Case
Number 1:20-cv-01286-TWP-MJD—but was later consolidated as one
action under Case Number 1:20-cv-01286-TWP-MJD on July 29, 2020.
The Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court
denied.

The parties have engaged in significant discovery and discovery
disputes. They have filed with the Court numerous discovery status
reports, and the Magistrate Judge has conducted numerous discovery
conferences with the parties. Prior to consolidation of the cases,
in May 2020 in the Barker case, a motion to compel was filed
against Kapsch, and the Magistrate Judge granted1 that motion on
July 1, 2020, ordering responses by July 31, 2020.

After consolidation of the cases, on March 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Compel and for Sanctions Against Defendant
Kapsch, and the Motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a
decision. On Aug. 19, 2021, the Magistrate Judge compelled Kapsch
to respond to discovery and awarded a sanction of attorney fees,
directing the Plaintiffs to file a motion for attorney fees.

Kapsch then filed the Rule 72 Objection that is before the Court,
objecting only to the imposition of sanctions.

II. Legal Standard

A district court may refer for decision a non-dispositive pretrial
motion to a magistrate judge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a).

Judge Pratt notes that after reviewing objections to a magistrate
judge's order, the district court will modify or set aside the
order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The clear
error standard is highly differential, permitting reversal of the
magistrate judge's ruling only when "the district court is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made," citing Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926, 943
(7th Cir. 1997).

III. Discussion

On March 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel and for
Sanctions Against Defendant Kapsch, asking that Kapsch be compelled
to produce complete and unequivocal responses to interrogatories
and requests for production of documents and that Kapsch be
sanctioned for its discovery misconduct. The Motion to Compel and
for Sanctions was fully briefed by the parties and referred to the
Magistrate Judge for decision.

On Aug. 19, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order. While the
Magistrate Judge agreed with Kapsch concerning some of its
arguments about discovery responses, he nonetheless granted the
Motion and ordered Kapsch to supplement its privilege log, to
supplement its interrogatory responses with sufficient and detailed
answers, and to ensure that the Plaintiffs could fully access a
database of documents that contains voluminous data.

The Magistrate Judge determined that the more severe sanctions of
default judgment, privilege waiver, and striking affirmative
defenses were not warranted, but an award of attorney fees was an
appropriate sanction, and he directed the Plaintiffs to file a
motion for attorney fees.

On Sept. 2, 2021, Kapsch timely filed a Rule 72 Objection to the
Magistrate Judge's Sanction Order. The bulk of Kapsch's objection
repeats the factual history and arguments it presented in its
response brief opposing the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions,
which was largely rejected by the Magistrate Judge. Kapsch employs
a similar approach that it advanced in its opposition to the Motion
to Compel and for Sanctions where it points the finger at the
Plaintiffs for requesting time-consuming discovery and attributes
much of its discovery shortcomings on the Plaintiffs; the
Magistrate Judge viewed this approach as "unfortunate."

Kapsch portrays the Magistrate Judge's Sanctions Order as largely
providing a win to Kapsch and denying the requests of the
Plaintiffs. Kapsch's only objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order
is to the imposition of a sanction of attorney fees. Kapsch argues,
"The magistrate judge effectively punished Kapsch for seeking to
remedy the very concerns with the September 2020 production that
Plaintiffs raised when Kapsch's current counsel first appeared."

Kapsch argues that Rule 37(a)(5)(A) does not apply because the
Order on the Motion to Compel and for Sanctions rejected a number
of the requests made by the Plaintiffs, and, therefore, the Motion
was denied in part. Kapsch asserts that where a motion to compel is
granted in part and denied in part, a fee award may be issued under
Rule 37(a)(5)(C), but the Magistrate Judge did not rely on that
Rule or analyze the issue under that Rule. Kapsch contends that it
did not act in bad faith, its actions were substantially justified,
and a fee award would be unjust; thus, the Magistrate Judge's
Sanctions Order is erroneous and contrary to law.

Kapsch next argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to mention or
analyze the relevant factors when determining a fee award sanction
was appropriate under Rule 37(b)(2)(C). Kapsch explains that courts
are guided by several factors in deciding whether to impose
sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(C): "(1) the offending party's
culpability, (2) the prejudice or surprise to the party against
whom the evidence is offered, (3) the ability of the party to cure
the prejudice, and (4) the likelihood of disruption to the trial,"
citing Nat. Pack, Inc. v. Syndicate Sales, Inc., 2021 WL 1225936,
at *3 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2021). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's
failure to mention or analyze these factors before imposing a
sanction was clear error. In any event, Kapsch asserts, if a
sanctions award was warranted, the four-part attorney fees sanction
is disproportional and not justified under the circumstances.

The Court is not persuaded by these arguments. The Natural Pack
case, upon which Kapsch relies for its argument about the Rule
37(b)(2)(C) factors, relied upon the Seventh Circuit's opinion in
David v. Caterpillar, Inc., which explained, the "district court
need not make explicit findings concerning the existence of a
substantial justification or the harmlessness of a failure to
disclose," 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Kapsch
acknowledges that there are no specific factors that a court must
analyze to impose sanctions under Rule 37, but courts generally
consider the egregiousness of the conduct by evaluating the
frequency and magnitude of the party's failure to comply with court
deadlines, the effect of these failures on the court's time and
schedules, the prejudice to other litigants, and the possible
merits of the plaintiff's suit.

In its argument, Kapsch removes from the equation the July 1, 2020
Barker discovery Order (Dkt. 248 in Case Number
1:19-cv-00987-TWP-MJD) to focus solely on the August 19, 2021
Sanctions Order. However, Judge Pratt opines, ignoring the Barker
discovery Order is improper. That discovery Order is part of this
consolidated case, and that Order pertains to the discovery
disputes that have beleaguered this case.

Judge Pratt points out that it is clear that the Magistrate Judge
considered the Barker discovery Order is his analysis and that the
imposition of a sanction was based upon Kapsch's failure to comply
with that discovery Order and Kapsch's continuing failure to fully
respond to discovery. It was entirely appropriate for the
Magistrate Judge to include the Barker discovery Order in his
analysis.

The Magistrate Judge's Sanctions Order sufficiently and correctly
explained Kapsch's discovery failures and the reasoning for a
sanction, Judge Pratt holds.

The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge's application of Rule
37(a)(5)(A) was appropriate. The July 1, 2020 Barker discovery
Order was granted in full with only one request being deemed moot
because Kapsch agreed at the hearing on the motion to supplement
its interrogatory responses the day after the hearing. Rule
37(b)(2)(C) also applies because Kapsch has failed to comply with
the Court's discovery Orders.

The Court further notes that Kapsch's current arguments concerning
"substantial justification for discovery failures" and "an award of
expenses is unjust" are more appropriately raised and addressed in
the context of a motion for attorney fees rather than in this Rule
72 Objection where the Court concludes such arguments are
premature. Kapsch has failed to convince the Court that the
Magistrate Judge committed clear error in the Sanctions Order that
would warrant setting aside or modifying that Order.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, Defendant Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc.'s Rule 72
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Sanctions Order is overruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2euvpb2n from Leagle.com.


KODA HOLDINGS: Reherman FLSA Suit Moved From D. Del. to D. Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JIM REHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KODA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a KODA
RESOURCES, Case No. 22-cv-00129-RGA, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on July 15, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-01753-REB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Koda Holdings, LLC, doing business as Koda Resources, is an oil and
gas acquisition and development company doing business throughout
the Rocky Mountain Region. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
         Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
         Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
         FARNAN LLP
         919 North Market St., 12th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 777-0300
         Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
         E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
                 bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

                 - and –

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rrustmann@mybackwages.com

                 - and –

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

LABRADA NUTRITION: Reaches $625K Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in the case of Woodard v.
Labrada, a class action lawsuit. The proposed settlement
establishes a $625,000 settlement fund.

On July 7, 2021, United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Judge Jesus G. Bernal, preliminarily
approved a settlement of a lawsuit between Labrada and California
purchasers of Labrada's Green Coffee Bean Extract and Labrada
Garcinia Cambogia. The class action claims that Labrada violated
California's consumer protection laws with misleading marketing of
these products. The defendant denies this, and the Court has made
no decision on these issues. Rather than continue litigating the
case in court, the two sides have agreed to a class action
settlement.

The proposed settlement establishes a $625,000 settlement fund and
eligible class members may be eligible for estimated cash payments
of up to $5 for each product purchased up to a maximum of ten
products if they have a proof of purchase, and with a maximum of
four products if they have no proof of purchase.

You are a Class Member if you purchased, in California, the Labrada
Green Coffee Bean Extract product and/or the Labrada Garcinia
Cambogia product, for personal or household use and not for resale,
during the time period between February 2, 2012 until July 15,
2022.

You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class and participate
in the Settlement or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay
in the Class, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments
of the Court, and you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue
Labrada as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that
are in this lawsuit. This is true even if you do nothing by not
submitting a claim. You can exclude yourself from the class, in
which case you get no settlement payment but keep the right to sue
over these claims at your own expense. You can object to the
settlement and tell the judge why you do not want the settlement to
be approved.

You can file a claim to receive payment from the settlement fund at
LabradaClassAction.com, as well as get more detailed information
about this case, the settlement, and your options. If you need
help, you can also ask questions by mail by writing to Labrada
Products Class Action Settlement, c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St
NW #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309 or call 1-800-801-7097

Your rights and options – and the deadlines to exercise them –
are only summarized in this press release. A Longform Notice
describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information. For more
information and to obtain a Longform Notice, claim form or other
documents, visit http://www.LabradaClassAction.com/[GN]

LE GENERAL: Perez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Cleaning Services Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS TIRIQUIZ PEREZ, BYRON FERNANDO TIRIQUIZ PEREZ, and ISAIAS
TIRIQUIZ PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LE GENERAL SERVICES INC. and EXCEL CLEANING
NY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04613 (D.N.J., July 16, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.

The Plaintiffs were engaged in cleaning and sanitation services for
the Defendants' clients at any time between February 2021 and May
2022.

Le General Services Inc. is a cleaning and sanitation services
provider based in New York.

Excel Cleaning NY LLC is a cleaning and sanitation services
provider based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
         JUSTICIA LABORAL, LLC
         6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 300
         Chicago, IL 60646
         Telephone: (773) 550-3775
         E-mail: dschlade@justicialaboral.com
                 danschlade@gmail.com

MAJOR LEAGUE: Settles Wage Class Action Suit for $185 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN's Jeff Passan reported that Major League Baseball has agreed
to pay $185 million in a settlement to end a federal class-action
lawsuit filed by minor-league players who were seeking compensation
for minimum-wage and overtime violations. The settlement is pending
a judge's approval.

Mr. Passan adds that the settlement will stipulate that MLB issues
a memo to teams allowing them to pay minor-league players during
spring training, extended spring training and instructional league
play. Teams had not been permitted to pay players during those
periods.

According to CBS, the lawsuit was filed by Aaron Senne and 42 other
minor-league players in 2014 on the basis of the belief that MLB
had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. As a website for the
lawsuit notes, the players made the following contentions about
which state wage and hour laws MLB violated:

      * minimum wage, overtime and other remedies available under
California law on behalf of the California Class;

      * minimum wage under Arizona law on behalf of the Arizona
Class; and

      * minimum wage under Florida law on behalf of the Florida
Class.

The Athletic's Evan Drellich originally reported that the two sides
had reached a settlement in May. Terms were not revealed at that
time, however, and the plaintiffs had requested until July 11 to
"file motion for preliminary approval of settlement."

The players' counsel issued the following statement at the time:
"We are pleased to report that the parties have reached a
settlement in principle in this over 8-year-old case, subject to
court approval. We look forward to filing preliminary approval
papers with the court and cannot comment further until then."

Back in February, Drellich reported on the argument made by an
attorney representing MLB -- and noted that the league had
suggested that the minor-league players, though unpaid during those
periods, were receiving more than $2,000 a week in value per week
based on what amateurs pay for training.

"It is the players that obtain the greater benefit from the
training opportunities that they are afforded than the clubs, who
actually just incur the cost of having to provide that training,"
said Elise Bloom of Proskauer Rose, per Drellich. "During the
training season, the players are not employees, and would not be
subject to either the Fair Labor Standards Act or any state minimum
wage act."

The Supreme Court denied MLB's request to dismiss the lawsuit in
October 2020.

In response to today's news, Advocates for Minor Leaguers' director
Harry Marino issued the following statement:

Marino has been asked to provide insight on the impact MLB's
anti-trust exemption has on minor leaguers by the United States
Senate Judiciary Committee, suggesting MLB might not be done
addressing its treatment of minor-league players in legal settings.
[GN]

MARS INC: Hit With Class Action Suit Over Toxins in Skittles
------------------------------------------------------------
Times of San Diego reports that candy maker Mars has been sued by a
consumer who claims that Skittles candies are unfit to eat because
they contain a known toxin that the company had pledged six years
ago to phase out.

In a proposed class action filed in federal court in Oakland,
Jenile Thames accused Mars of endangering unsuspecting Skittles
eaters by using "heightened levels" of titanium dioxide, or TiO2,
as a food additive.

The lawsuit also said titanium dioxide will be banned in the
European Union next month after a food safety regulator there
deemed it unsafe because of "genotoxicity," or the ability to
change DNA.

"A reasonable consumer would expect that [Skittles] can be safely
purchased and consumed as marketed and sold," the complaint said.
"However, the products are not safe."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for fraud and violations of
California consumer protection laws.

Mars did not immediately respond on Friday to requests for
comment.

The McLean, Virginia-based company, which is privately held, had
pledged in February 2016 to remove artificial colors from its food
products over the next five years.

In October 2016, it confirmed that titanium dioxide was among the
colorants being removed, according to the nonprofit Center for Food
Safety, citing an email from Mars.

According to the lawsuit, titanium dioxide is used in paint,
adhesives, plastics and roofing materials, and can cause DNA, brain
and organ damage, and well as lesions in the liver and kidneys.

Thames, of San Leandro, California, said he bought Skittles at a
local QuikStop in April, and would not have done so had he known
their contents.

He said checking the label would not have helped because the
ingredients on Skittles' bright-red packages are hard to read.

The case is Thames v Mars Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, No. 22-04145. [GN]

MARTEN TRANSPORT: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LINMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. MARTEN TRANSPORT,
LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:

-- Motion & Briefs To Certify Classes:     April 14, 2023

-- Deadline for filing dispositive         October 27, 2023
    motions:

-- Discovery Cutoff:                       March 15, 2024

-- Settlement Letters:                     March 15, 2024

-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and           March 22, 2024
    all motions in limine:

                Objections:                 April 5, 2024

-- First Final Pretrial Conference:        April 17, 2024

-- Second Final Pretrial Conference:       April 24, 2024

-- Trial:                                  April 29, 2024

Marten is a temperature-sensitive truckload carrier company focused
on transporting and distributing food and other consumer-packaged
goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IXyL44 at no extra charge.[CC]

MASSACHUSETTS: Kifor Files RICO Suit in D. Mass.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, et al. The case is styled as Imre Kifor
Individually and behalf of all other similarly situated v. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex Probate and Family Court,
Mass Dor Child Support Enforcement Division, Yale School of
Medicine Yale University, The Counseling Center of New England,
Case No. 1:22-cv-11141-PBS (D. Mass., July 15, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for Racketeer/Corrupt
Organization.

Massachusetts -- https://www.mass.gov/ -- officially the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is the most populous state in the
New England region of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MDL 2785: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Epipen (Epinephrine Injection, USP)
Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree
entered an order granting the Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement, Approval of Plan of Allocation, and Award
of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards.

This Document Applies to Consumer Class Cases, MDL 2785.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v0xq75 at no extra charge.[CC]

MISSFRESH LTD: Investors Notified of Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Missfresh Limited (NASDAQ:
MF) and certain of its officers, on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Missfresh securities 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"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mf.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act").

The Complaint alleges the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose
the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operational and financial results. Specifically, the Registration
Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company provided false financial
figures in its Registration Statement; (2) the Company would need
to amend its financial figures; (3) the Company, 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mf or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Missfresh you have until September 12, 2022, to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

MISSFRESH LTD: Investors Reminded of Sept. 12 Lead Plaintiff Due
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Missfresh Limited investors who purchased
American Depositary Shares in Missfresh's June 25, 2021 initial
public offering and who have suffered significant losses to submit
your losses now.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 12, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/MF
Contact An Attorney Now: MF@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The litigation is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
Missfresh securities in connection with the Company's June 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering").

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Missfresh's IPO
Registration Statement misrepresented and failed to disclose that:
(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.

The false Registration Statement allowed Missfresh to go public,
offering approximately 21 million American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") to the investing public at $13.00 per share, and raising
$273 million in net proceeds.

But on Apr. 29, 2022, Missfresh announced it would not timely file
its annual financial statements and that it was conducting an
internal investigation into transactions between it and certain
third parties.

Then, on July 1, 2022, Missfresh announced it identified certain
transactions carried out by its Next-Day Delivery business unit
"that exhibited 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." The
company also revealed that it overstated revenues for the period
ended March 31, 2021, as well as during subsequent interim
periods.

Significantly, the price of Missfresh's ADSs now trade 99% below
the $13 IPO price.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Missfresh cooked
its books to go public," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman
partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Missfresh and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Missfresh should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email MF@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN]

MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over False Offering Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Molecular Partners AG
(NASDAQ: MOLN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Molecular Partners American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about June 16, 2021 (the "IPO");
and/or (b) Molecular Partners securities between June 16, 2021 and
April 26, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/moln.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
ensovibep was less effective at treating COVID-19 than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (2) accordingly, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require an additional Phase 3 study of
ensovibep before granting the drug EUA; (3) waning global rates of
COVID-19 significantly reduced the Company's chances of securing
EUA for ensovibep; (4) as a product candidate, MP0310 was less
attractive to Amgen than Defendants had led investors to believe;
(5) accordingly, there was a significant likelihood that Amgen
would return global rights of MP0310 to Molecular Partners; (6) as
a result of all the foregoing, the clinical and commercial
prospects of ensovibep and MP0310 were overstated; and (7) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/moln or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Molecular Partners you have until September 12, 2022, to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide.

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com [GN]

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Bid to Strike Class Action Allegations OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alana Harrison v.
Montgomery County, Ohio, Case No. 3:19-cv-00288-TMR (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered an order:

   1. granting defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental
      memorandum;

   2. granting defendant's motion to strike class action
      allegations; and

   3. finding moot defendant's motion to stay class-based
      discovery.

Montgomery County is located in the southwestern portion of the
U.S. state of Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RK9Hln at no extra charge.[CC]

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Johnson Fistel Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
purchased Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc. ( MULN,
NETE) securities during the period between June 15, 2020 and April
6, 2022, inclusive (the "Class").

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

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/mullen-complaint-filed-submit-your-muln-losses-to-johnson-fistel

There is no cost or obligation to you.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Mullen overstates its ability and timeline regarding
production; (2) Mullen overstates its deals with business partners,
including Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen overstates its battery
technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen overstates its ability to
sell its branded products; (5) Net Element did not conduct proper
due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50 was
not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Mullen class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Mullen class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lead
plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines. To serve as
lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no
later than July 5, 2022.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 [GN]

NIBCO INC: W.D. Texas Remands Blappert Suit to Bexar State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division, grants the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand to state court their lawsuit captioned TROY
BLAPPERT, ELIZABETH A. COLGAN, KEVIN COLGAN, LAURIE DAVIS, ISABEL
ERMIS, MICHAEL P. GARCIA, SYLVIA GREENWOOD, FREDY GUZMAN, RONDA
MARS HOLT, CHAJUANN CHAMBERS LITTLEFIELD, YVETTE MONIQUE LUCERO,
STEVE LUCERO, MARY MENDEZ-LOPEZ, MICAH J. OSER, MARGARET OSER,
MEREDITH PLY, DOLORES C. ROBINSON, ROGELIO V. ROSAS, KRISTEN STAY,
HECTOR SIGALA, SHIRLEY JEAN WOOTEN, Plaintiffs v. NIBCO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. SA-22-CV-00487-XR (W.D. Tex.).

Background

On April 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs initiated the action by filing
suit in the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas.
The Plaintiffs, all Texas residents, allege that they own
residences which are or were equipped with Defendant NIBCO's PEX
plumbing systems. However, they claim to have suffered damages due
to NIBCO's faulty products and negligent conduct, including
property damage, repair costs, diminished home value of their
homes, out-of-pocket expenses, inconvenience, etc.

The Plaintiffs assert five causes of action against NIBCO: breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular use,
violations of the Texas Product Liability Act, and negligence and
gross negligence based on the theories of failure to warn and
negligent design and manufacture. In their petition, the Plaintiffs
allege that they each seek damages under $75,000.

The Plaintiffs were all part of a class action against NIBCO
asserting claims for the same allegations underlying this action.
See generally Matson v. NIBCO, No. 5:19-CV-00717-RBF (W.D. Tex.
2021). The Plaintiffs in this case, however, opted out of the
settlement in Matson.

On May 17, 2022, NIBCO removed the action to the Court on the basis
of diversity jurisdiction.

On June 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, asserting
that NIBCO has failed to establish diversity jurisdiction.

Analysis

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity
jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and
the claim is between citizens of different states. For removal to
be proper, complete diversity among the parties must exist. Here,
no party disputes that they are completely diverse from each
other.

Diversity jurisdiction also requires that the amount in controversy
exceed $75,000. NIBCO claims that the amount in controversy in this
case exceeds the $75,000 threshold for federal subject matter
jurisdiction. It premises its assertion on calculations derived
from a previous lawsuit against NIBCO, as well as affidavits and
advertisements from the Plaintiffs' counsel, George M. Fleming, in
that prior lawsuit. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, maintain the
amount in controversy is less than $75,000 because they each seek
damages under $75,000 for all claims, including exemplary damages
and attorney's fees.

The Plaintiffs specifically and repeatedly allege in their petition
that they each seek less than $75,000 in total damages. Their
allegations under the damages section of their petition again
confirm that the total damage amount of each Plaintiff is under
$75,000, including actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's
fees.

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs reallege that they seek
damages, which will be a sum per Plaintiff within the
jurisdictional limits of the Court, under $75,000, including actual
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

NIBCO contends that the following sentence in Plaintiffs' petition
establishes an amount in controversy greater than $75,000:
"Plaintiffs further plead for costs of suit; interest on the
judgment; pre-judgment interest; and, other and further relief, in
law or in equity."

The Court disagrees. The consistent allegations described supra
show that the Plaintiffs each seek less than $75,000. NIBCO further
counters that "Texas neither permits a 'demand for a specific sum'
like attempted by Plaintiffs nor prohibits recovery of more than
what was requested in the complaint." But that is also incorrect,
Judge Rodriguez holds. In Texas, the Plaintiffs may demand damages
up to but no higher than a stated amount.

In short, Judge Rodriguez says, it is well established that the
Plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint and may obtain a
remand to state court, by stipulating to amounts at issue that fall
below the federal jurisdictional requirement, citing Standard Fire
Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588, 595 (2013).

Thus, the Court regards the clear allegations in the Plaintiffs'
petition concerning the amount of total damages that they each seek
in this action as judicial admissions. In so doing, the Court
further finds that these formal concessions undoubtedly establish
that amount in controversy in this action is below the requisite
$75,000. Consequently, the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the case.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is granted. The Court
remands the case to the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar
County, Texas, where the action was originally filed. The Clerk's
Office is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckcp43u from Leagle.com.


NORTH ALLEGHENY: Denial of Bid for Atty. Fees in ADA Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Doe 1, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE 1; JANE DOE 1, in their
own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, in her own
capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 2 and CHILD DOE 3; JANE DOE 3,
in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 4 and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. North Allegheny School District, a
Pennsylvania governmental entity; Richard McCLure, Elizabeth
Blackburn, Marcie Crow, Leslie Britton Dozier, Paige Hardy, Kevin
Mahler, Vidya Szymhowiak, Elizabeth Werner, Shannon Yeakel, all
individual elected officials sued in their official capacity as
members of the North Allegheny School District Board of Directors;
North Allegheny School District Board of Directors, a Pennsylvania
elected legislative body; Case No. 2:22-cv-00055-MJH, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the parents of four
children filed the class action lawsuit on Jan. 11, alleging the
mask policy forces parents of medically vulnerable students to
choose between keeping them at home where "they will likely suffer
continued learning loss" or sending them to school in "an
environment that presents a serious risk to their health and
safety."

District officials acknowledged the court order in an email to
parents on Jan. 17. Officials declined further comment citing the
pending litigation.

The lawsuit does not identify the four students but indicated all
have medical conditions that leave them particularly vulnerable to
covid-19, according to the lawsuit. It also claims that there are
as many as 1,557 district students who are "medically fragile
disabled students who require the protection afforded by universal
masking."

On Jan. 17, 2022, Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered a temporary
restraining order sought by pro-mask parents in North Allegheny
School District, meaning all students, staffers and visitors in
district buildings must wear masks when classes resume Tuesday,
Jan. 18.

The restraining order was requested by parents seeking to overturn
the district's mask-optional policy that they say violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant previously sought a review of the temporary
restraining order.

On February 4, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' motion dissolve
the temporary restraining order.

On March 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs which the Court denied on June 9, 2022 through an
Opinion and Order signed by Judge Horan.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as John Doe 1, et al. v. North
Allegheny School District, et al., Case No. 22-2245, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 8,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOE 1, et al., are represented by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          BEHREND LAW GROUP
          Fort Pitt Commons
          425 Fort Pitt Boulevard, Suite 220
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-4460

               - and -

          Alexander W. Saksen, Esq.
          GOLDBERG KAMIN & GARVIN
          437 Grant Street
          1806 Frick Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1119

Defendants-Appellees NORTH ALLEGHENY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
Pennsylvania governmental entity, et al., are represented by:

          Steven P. Engel, Esq.
          Christina L. Lane, Esq.
          MAIELLO BRUNGO & MAIELLO
          Southside Works
          424 South 27th Street, Room 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15235
          Telephone: (412) 242-4400

NV COMMUNICATIONS: McGarity Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NV Communications, et
al. The case is styled as Donald McGarity, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NV Communications, Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2022-00323514-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
15, 2022).

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

NV Communications -- http://www.nvcommunications.com/-- specialize
in public relations, direct marketing, traditional and new media,
publications, and conference and event management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


REALPAGE INC: Patti Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PATTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE INC. D/B/A REALPAGE UTILITY
MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-010379 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., July 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent thousands
electronic mail communication to Florida consumers in connection
with the collection of a consumer debt between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM,
which allegedly violates the FCCPA.

RealPage Inc., doing business as RealPage Utility Management Inc.,
is a software company, with its principal place of business located
in Richardson, Texas. [BN]

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

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Declarations of Edward Coleman Excluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf on
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Melissa damian entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to exclude Declarations of Edward Coleman in Support of
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The First and Third Coleman Declarations, filed in support of the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, are stricken and will
not be considered in review of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an American multinational
company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The
Ritz-Carlton. The company has 108 luxury hotels and resorts in 30
countries and territories with 29,158 rooms, in addition to 46
hotels with 8,755 rooms planned for the future.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cqf2xX at no extra charge.[CC]

ROBINHOOD GROUP: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $20-M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrons reports that online brokerage Robinhood has reached a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving the company's
alleged negligence relating to a data breach that potentially made
thousands of customers' sensitive personal information accessible
to hackers. The agreement could cost Robinhood up to $20
million—including payouts of up to $260 per affected client. The
settlement also requires the company to boost its cybersecurity
controls. [GN]

ROOF DOCTORS: Aussieker Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK AUSSIEKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROOF DOCTORS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01256-WBS-AC (E.D. Cal., July 15, 2022) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an
unsolicited text message on November 10, 2021 in an attempt to
solicit contractors services. The Defendant allegedly has sent the
same telemarketing text messages to other individuals residing
within this judicial district. The Defendant did not obtain their
prior express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS). Accordingly, the Defendant's
message utilized an "artificial voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(A), says the suit.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals have
suffered a concrete and particularized injury as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing text messages, which has
invaded their privacy and has caused annoyance. The Plaintiff
brings this complaint for himself and all other similarly situated
individuals seeking an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
all unsolicited text messaging activity using an ATDS. The
Plaintiff also seeks actual and statutory damages, and other relief
as the Court deems necessary, added the suit.

Roof Doctors USA, Inc. operates as a full service roofing repair
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          4455 E. Camelback Road, Suite C250
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Tel: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com

SAMSARA INC: BIPA Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
----------------------------------------------------
Tactical Law Group LLP wrote on MONDAQ.com that in David Karling,
et. Al. v. Samsara, Inc., a federal court in the Northern District
of Illinois has declined to dismiss a class action complaint
brought under the Illinois Biometric Information & Privacy Act
("BIPA"), by a truck driver against a maker of facial recognition
camera technology. The plaintiff alleged that Samsara was liable
because the dash cam installed by his employer took facial scans,
and Samsara collected those scans and shared them with the employer
without complying with BIPA's requirements. Plaintiff David
Karling, on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleges that
Defendant Samsara Inc. ("Samsara"), violated BIPA by collecting his
information from facial scans without notice or release;
disseminating that information to third parties; failing to create,
disclose and adhere to a written policy for data retention and
destruction; and profiting from these actions.
What is the Case About?

The court describes the facts of the case as follows:

"Samsara provides facial recognition software and sensors to
commercial fleets and industrial operations. The Samsara cameras
capture the actions of the drivers to monitor for fatigue and
distraction. Karling worked in Illinois as a driver for Lily
Transportation, a customer of Samsara. In 2021, Lily Transportation
installed an AI Dash Camera, provided by Samsara, in Karling's
truck. The AI Dashcam extracted biometric identifiers from
Karling's face while he drove and sent them to the Samsara Cloud
Dashboard, where Samsara stored the images. The Samsara Camera
includes a feature called Camera ID, which automatically performed
facial recognition to identify Karling by extracting biometric
identifiers and comparing those to the stored data. Karling never
gave permission for the collection and storage of his biometric
data. Samsara never provided Karling with a written release, the
required statutory disclosures, or a retention and destruction
policy. Karling never signed a written release or had an
opportunity to prevent this collection and use of his biometric
data."

Samsara moved to dismiss the Complaint on a number of grounds
including that federal law governing truck safety technology
preempted the state law-based BIPA claims. Samsara also argued that
BIPA as applied to it, violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, as
BIPA places a great burden on "interstate motor carriers and their
technology providers and would substantially interfere with
interstate commerce" by unconstitutionally projecting Illinois law
onto other states and placing a significant burden on interstate
commerce.

Court Rules That Preemption Defense Can't Be Decided on a Motion to
Dismiss on These Facts

Citing Cap. Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 699 (1984)
the court noted that "[f]ederal law may preempt state law in three
situations: when Congress expressly states so, when a federal
regulatory scheme implies exclusive congressional legislative
power, and in cases of "actual conflict". Samsara did not argue
that BIPA conflicts with a particular federal statute but rather
urged "the Court to find "a uniform scheme of federal regulation of
truck safety technology" disrupted by BIPA's Illinois-specific
requirements." But this the court declined to do. Instead, the
court reasoned that:

"The scattershot nature of Samsara's cited agency statements and
proposed rulemaking hardly qualifies as a uniform federal scheme to
regulate truck safety technology. The Court cannot find "a clear
and manifest" Congressional purpose to preempt state regulation of
"truck safety technology" from these disparate sources, which range
from a law that directed DOT [Department of Transportation] to
conduct research and rulemaking on driver monitoring systems to a
recent federal initiative to incentivize driver-safety
technologies. Although these sources potentially touch on
biometrics and privacy concerns, their overwhelming aim is traffic
safety, while BIPA targets "disclosure, consent, and recordkeeping
requirements" for biometric identifiers."

The court did not find the preemption issue appropriate for
deciding on a motion to dismiss, and denied the motion.

The Court Can't Decide Whether BIPA Violates the Dormant Commerce
Clause on the Motion to Dismiss

Samsara moved to dismiss the complaint under the Dormant Commerce
Clause, arguing that:

"BIPA, as applied to it, places a great burden on "interstate motor
carriers and their technology providers and would substantially
interfere with interstate commerce." [citation omitted] According
to Samsara, BIPA unconstitutionally projects Illinois law onto
other states and would place a significant burden on it because it
would "require Samsara either to ensure compliance with BIPA
everywhere Samsara does business or, absurdly, to prohibit its
customers from using Samsara technology while driving in Illinois
due to risk of noncompliance." [citation omitted] Karling argues
that, again, the Court should decide this issue on a full factual
record. The Court agrees."

Noting that "courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that the
Dormant Commerce Clause prevents BIPA's application to out-of-state
defendants at the motion to dismiss stage" and holding that the
"issue is more properly addressed on a motion for summary judgment"
the court dismissed Samsara's argument. Instead, the court reasoned
that "[w]ithout discovery into Samsara's processes for scanning,
storing, and using biometrics with its dashcam system and the
alleged burden of compliance with BIPA, the Court cannot determine
whether there is a Dormant Commerce Clause violation."

The Complaint Adequately Alleged Other BIPA Violations

The court next analyzed whether the Complaint adequately alleged
BIPA violations under Sections 15(a) through 15 (d) and found that
it did. In making such findings the court rejected arguments that:
(1) Samsara's website adequately provided a written policy
regarding retention and destruction of biometric data (Section
15(a); (2) the release requirement applies only to employers
(Section 15 (b); (3) Samsara is not liable because it only
possessed and did not collect the biometric data (Section 15 (c);
and (4) the Complaint inadequately alleged that Samsara profited
from the collection of the biometric data (Section 15(d). Finally,
the court found that the Complaint adequately alleged facts
supporting an award of enhanced damages for Samsara's intentional
or reckless disregard of compliance with the requirements of BIPA.

What Does This Mean For Companies Collecting Biometric Data?

Companies collecting or using biometric data in their businesses
need to understand and comply with the requirements of BIPA if they
are doing business in Illinois or collecting the biometric data of
Illinois consumers. BIPA continues to be a trap for the unwary
company, and class actions filed in Illinois under BIPA cannot
easily be defeated on a motion to dismiss, but instead will likely
require the investment of time and money in expensive and
burdensome discovery, and the development of a factual record in
order to dispose of the case.

The case is David Karling et al. v. Samsara Inc., case number
1:22-cv-00295, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. Tactical Law will continue to monitor the case. [GN]

SECURE LENDING: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Culbertson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARREK CULBERTSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SECURE LENDING INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case
No. 8:22-cv-01625-CEH-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 18, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitations
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sends pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the telephone numbers of Florida residents
in an attempt to market it services without obtaining prior express
written consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed including, but not
limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of
time, the use of their telephone power and network bandwidth, and
the intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving
legitimate communications, says the suit.

Secure Lending Incorporated is a mortgage services company based in
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
         Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
         KAUFMAN P.A.
         237 S. Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 469-5881
         E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                 rachel@kaufmanpa.com

SHARPS COMPLIANCE: Monteverde Probing Aurora Capital Tender Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Sharps
Compliance Corp. (SMED), relating to its proposed tender offer by
an affiliate of Aurora Capital Partners. Under the terms of the
agreement, SMED shareholders are expected to receive $8.75 in cash
per share they own. Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/sharps-compliance-corp

If you own common stock in SMED and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit the firm's website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either
via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at
(212) 971-1341.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. The
firm was listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Its lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions.

Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. The
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, the firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 the firm recovered or secured six cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

SMOSH DOT COM: E.D. California Dismisses Hall's TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled KRISTEN HALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMOSH DOT COM, INC., d/b/a
SMOSH, and MYTHICAL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01997-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.).

I. Background

Plaintiff Hall brings the putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Defendants are Smosh, an
online entertainment and merchandise company, and Mythical, Smosh's
parent company.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants sent at least five text
messages soliciting Smosh merchandise to the phone number used by
her minor son. In response, she filed this lawsuit. She asserts
claims against the Defendants for violations of the TCPA and
Section 302.101 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

II. Opinion

A. Legal Standard

A defendant may move to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
If the plaintiff lacks standing under Article III of the United
States Constitution, then the court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed.

B. Analysis

The Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing. Specifically,
the Defendants argue the Plaintiff does not have standing because
she did not plead she was the actual user of the phone number to
which the Defendants sent the text messages nor the actual
recipient of those messages. Her son was.

The Plaintiff insists she does have standing because (1) she
received text messages to her cell phone number which was
registered on the Do-Not-Call list; and (2) the messages invaded
her right to be left alone. She downplays her son's use of the
number by citing to the allegations that her minor son only used
the phone "at times" and that she registered the number on the
Do-Not-Call list to protect her son from advertisers.

But as Defendants argue, the Plaintiff's attempts to rewrite the
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in her opposition brief are
improper, Judge Mendez holds. The FAC clearly indicates the
Plaintiff's son was the phone user and the recipient of the
messages. The Plaintiff's new contention -- that actually she
received the text messages -- fails because a complaint cannot be
amended through an opposition to a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff
did not plead she received any of the Defendants' text messages.
She pled only that she was "the subscriber and owner of the
phone."

The Plaintiff also does not bring forward any binding authority
supporting the proposition that she has standing merely as the
subscriber/owner of the phone, Judge Mendez notes. First, the
Plaintiff cites to a FCC Decision, In the Matter of Rules and
Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 30 F.C.C.R. 7961 (2015).
Then she cites to Miholich v. Senior Life Ins. Co., Case No.
21-cv-1123-WQH-AGS, 2022 WL 410945 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022), which
is readily distinguishable. The first standing issue in Miholich
was whether the Plaintiff's telephone was used for business and,
thus, fell outside the protection of the do-not-call provisions of
the TCPA, which only protect residential telephone subscribers not
businesses.

Here, that issue is not present because it is undisputed the phone
number was residential, Judge Mendez says. The other standing issue
in Miholich was whether plaintiff sufficiently pled that defendant
sent the TCPA-violative messages or that defendant had a
relationship with a third-party sender of the messages, such that
plaintiff's injury was fairly traceable to defendant's conduct or
redressable by defendant. Again, that issue is not present here. In
sum, Miholich does not support the Plaintiff's argument that she
has standing merely by owning the phone, Judge Mendez points out.

Further, Judge Mendez notes that the Plaintiff does not address
Agne v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 559, 565 (W.D. Wash.
2012), the case the Defendants cite in their motion in support of
their argument it is the actual user of the number that the TCPA is
intended to protect. Nor does the Plaintiff address Breslow v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2012),
relied on by the Defendants to support their position that the
"called party" language of the TCPA means the actual recipient of
the calls or texts and not the owner.

For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has
not carried her burden to show she has standing. The Defendants'
motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted. Because the Court
dismisses for lack of standing, the Court does not reach the
parties' additional 12(b)(6) arguments.

C. Sanctions

A violation of the Court's standing order requires the offending
counsel, not the client, to pay $50 per page over the page limit to
the Clerk of Court. Moreover, the Court did not consider arguments
made past the page limit.

Judge Mendez states that the Plaintiff's opposition exceeds the
Court's page limit by 8 pages. The Plaintiff's counsel must,
therefore, send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern
District of California for $400 no later than seven days from the
date of this Order.

The Defendants' reply exceeds the Court's page limit by 3.5 pages.
The Defendants' counsel must, therefore, send a check payable to
the Clerk for the Eastern District of California for $175 no later
than seven days from the date of the Order.

III. Order

For the reasons set forth, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2tc8ehcp from Leagle.com.


SOCLEAN INC: CPAP Cleaning Device Emits Ozone, Schaefer Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAREN SCHAEFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01254-CEF (N.D. Ohio, July 15, 2022) is a class action
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 Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising and marketing of its
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaning device. The
Defendant advertised that its device used activated oxygen and was
safe and healthy. However, the Defendant failed to disclose to
consumers that the device emits ozone. Had the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have
purchased the device or paid a premium for it, says the suit.

SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45242
         Telephone: (513) 345-8297
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.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

                  - 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

SOLANA LABS: Rosen Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of SOL
tokens ("SOL securities") between March 24, 2020 and the present,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Solana Labs, Inc., the
Solana Foundation, Anatoly Yakovenko, Multicoin Capital Management
LLC, Kyle Samani, and FalconX LLC (together, "Defendants"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6,
2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SOL class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7539 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 6, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Solana issues
securities that are required to be, but are not, registered with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout the Class
Period, Defendants promoted SOL securities (SOL tokens) and sold
them to investors, who has suffered losses from purchasing SOL
securities.

To join the SOL class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7539 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

SOMEONE CARES: White Files Bid for Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAKEEM WHITE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. SOMEONE CARES INC. OF
ATLANTA, RONNIE E. BASS, and WINSTON LIBURD, Case No.
1:22-cv-00141-ELR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs Hakeem White and
Jerome McIntosh ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b);

   2. authorizing dissemination of the suggested notice to
      potential members of this collective action;

   3. directing the Defendants to provide the names, addresses,
      email addresses, and telephone numbers of all current and
      outreach personnel who have worked for the Defendant
      during the "Relevant Time Period" from January 12, 2019
      through the present; and

   4. awarding Plaintiffs all other relief to which they may be
      justly entitled.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aXR1Oz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Hayden N. Wyatt, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          Four Oaks Place
          1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: 713-425-7100
          Facsimile: 713-425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  hwyatt@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Mills, Esq.
          MICHAEL A. MILLS, P.C.
          1349 W. Peachtree Street, NW., Suite 1995
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-9220
          Facsimile: (678) 317-0956
          E-mail: mike@millslegal.net


SPRING HOMECARE: Underpays Personal Care Assistants, Rasoli Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WAHID RASOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING HOMECARE CORPORATION, and SHAKIBA
HAKAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00801 (E.D. Va., July 15,
2022) brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime compensation
from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Home Health Aide
and/or Personal Care Assistant for several years until May 16,
2022.

The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours in workweeks, the Defendants deprived him and other similarly
situated HHAs/PCAs of overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.

Spring Homecare Corporation is a home health care agency that
provides in-home health care services and related personal care
assistant services for children and adults primarily in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Shakiba Hakami was the most senior
officer and manager of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Powers, Esq.
          Steven Anderson, Esq.
          MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
          3160 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 410
          Falls Church, VA 22042
          Tel: (703) 520-1326
          Fax: (703) 828-0205
          E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com
                  sanderson@mcplegal.com

SPROUT FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Davidson Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled GILLIAN
DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPROUT FOODS INC., Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-01050-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Introduction

Plaintiffs Gillian and Samuel Davidson, a married couple, bring the
putative class action against Defendant Sprout, which sells baby
and toddler food products. Defendant brings a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss the Complaint. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs aver
various violations of California law based on the inclusion of
statements on Sprout products touting the nutrients included in its
products, such as "3g of Protein" or "4g of Fiber."

For the reasons explained here, the Plaintiffs aver nutrient
content claims potentially violative of federal Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regulations prohibiting such claims on
products made specifically for children under two years of age. The
Plaintiffs have, therefore, stated a claim under the "unlawful"
prong of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and have also
stated a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs have not, however, stated a claim for violation of
the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the
California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), common law fraud, or the
"fraudulent" prong of their UCL claim, Judge Seeborg notes. The
motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted in part and denied in
part. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable
for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing scheduled
for July 14, 2022, was vacated.

Discussion

A. Standing

As a threshold matter, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs
lack Article III and statutory standing to challenge label
statements on products they did not see or buy. The Plaintiffs
purchased two products from Sprout, but challenge the labeling on
26 Sprout products.

For Article III standing, a plaintiff must allege an
injury-in-fact, and for statutory standing under the UCL and FAL,
the Plaintiffs must show they suffered injury in fact and lost
money or property as a result of the unfair competition. Similarly,
for the CLRA, the plaintiff must show economic injury.

Judge Seeborg notes that Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs' complaint is
a chart listing each challenged product and the nutrient content
claim. Each of these claims is similar in nature and includes the
amount in grams of at least one of the following nutrients:
protein, fiber, or Omega-3.

Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have Article III and
statutory standing to pursue their claims despite not having seen
or purchased all of the challenged products.

B. UCL Unlawfulness Claim

The UCL provides for a cause of action to challenge any unlawful,
unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair,
deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. For the "unlawful"
theory, the Plaintiffs argue that the labels contained nutrient
content claims in violation of state laws and FDA regulation, and
thus, Sprout engaged in an unlawful business act or practice.

The Defendant argues that its labels did not violate FDA
regulations, and thus, there was no unlawful practice. Whether the
labels are in violation of FDA regulations depends on whether the
statements on labels such as "2g of Plant Protein Power from White
Beans," "3g of Fiber," and "300mg Omega-3 from Chia ALA" are
nutrient content claims as defined by FDA regulations, Judge
Seeborg notes.

While permitted for products for older children and adults,
nutrient content claims are not permitted for products intended for
specific use by children below two years of age, Judge Seeborg
opines. Thus, FDA regulation prohibits nutrient content claims on
the challenged products.

As to Defendant's argument about guidance from the FDA on its
website, even though the FDA website appears to suggest that
Sprout's statements about the levels of nutrients are not nutrient
content claims, the clear text of the regulation and Ninth Circuit
decisions state otherwise, Judge Seeborg explains.

Those authorities cannot be ignored, Judge Seeborg points out.
Since the labels contain nutrient content claims in violation of
FDA regulation, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
Defendant engaged in an unlawful practice.

C. CLRA, FAL, Common Law Fraud, and UCL Fraudulent Practice Claims

The CLRA, FAL, UCL "fraudulent" prong, and common law fraud claims
all require establishing that the Defendant's practices would
mislead a reasonable consumer. Judge Seeborg notes that that
general principle, however, does not mean granting a motion to
dismiss as to whether the reasonable consumer requirement is met
may never happen.

Here, no reasonable consumer would be misled by the inclusion of
truthful statements about nutrient contents on the front of the
challenged labels, and thus, the Plaintiffs have not stated a claim
for the violation of any of these laws, Judge Seeborg finds.

The Plaintiffs have two theories of how a consumer would be misled
by the inclusion of nutrient content claims. First, the Plaintiffs
argue that the claims lead consumers to believe that an increased
intake of the advertised nutrients is important for their child
when, in fact, such claims are prohibited because of the lack of
evidence to support such a claim. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that
the claims mislead consumers to believe that the Products were
superior to competitor products that did not contain unlawful
nutrient content claims.

Neither of these theories is compelling, Judge Seeborg holds.

As for the first theory, there is no support in the Complaint for
the proposition that there is a lack of evidence as to whether the
nutrients touted on the label provide a benefit to children, Judge
Seeborg opines. The second theory is no more compelling. The
statements about the nutrient contents are facially true, and do
not invoke comparisons to other products, Judge Seeborg adds.

In short, Judge Seeborg points out, the Plaintiffs have failed to
show at the pleading stage that a reasonable consumer would be
misled by the challenged statements on the Sprout product labels.
The motion to dismiss is granted as to the FAL, CLRA, and common
law fraud claims, as well as the "fraudulent" prong of the UCL
claim.

D. Unjust Enrichment

In California, there is not a standalone cause of action for
"unjust enrichment," which is synonymous with "restitution," Judge
Seeborg notes, citing Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783
F.3d 753, 762 (9th Cir. 2015). Further, at the pleading stage, an
unjust enrichment claim may be duplicative of other claims.

The Plaintiffs, however, have adequately stated a claim for their
UCL "unlawful" claim, Judge Seeborg holds. Further, the Defendant
does not make any argument about the substance of the unjust
enrichment claim itself. Thus, at this stage, the unjust enrichment
claim may proceed.
E. Equitable Relief

The Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff must establish that she
lacks an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable
restitution for past harm.

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' FAL and UCL claims must
be dismissed because they only allow for equitable relief, and the
Complaint makes clear that legal remedies pleaded under the CLRA
and common law fraud in the form of money damages are adequate.

As explained, however, the FAL, CLRA and common law fraud claims
have not been adequately pled, Judge Seeborg notes. Thus, as the
Complaint currently stands, the UCL claim and the unjust enrichment
claims are the only viable claims, and Defendant's arguments
concerning the availability of legal remedies under the CLRA and
common law fraud claims are moot.

V. Conclusion

For all these reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied as to the
"unlawful" theory of the UCL claim and the unjust enrichment claim.
The motion to dismiss is granted in all other respects.

The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend. Should the Plaintiffs
choose to amend their complaint, the amended complaint is due
within 30 days of the filing of this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2jvu29wt from Leagle.com.


STRATEGIC FINANCIAL: Briggs Sues Over Consumer Fraud in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA BRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, VERSARA
LENDING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03705 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for fraud, violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' fraudulent practice of billing
clients for services as debt relief consultants. The Defendants'
business relationship is carefully constructed to maximize their
billing opportunities while obscuring the relationship between
Strategic Financial Solutions (SFS) and its affiliates. SFS (1)
uses fictional intermediaries to locate debtors and offers services
other than debt relief to entice them; (2) recruits lawyers or law
firms to act as client interfaces without disclosing SFS's role;
(3) initiates and controls the billing relationship with the
client; and (4) causes all communications with the client to be
directed to SFS's own employees at its own call center, again
without disclosure to the client. As a result of the Defendants'
omissions of material facts, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
been damaged, says the suit.

Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered in Amherst, New York.

Versara Lending, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Strategic
Financial Solutions, located at 115 Lawrence Bell Drive, Amherst,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
         111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 984-0000
         Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
         E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

                 - and –

         Scott Priz, Esq.
         PRIZ LAW LLC
         3230 S. Harlem Ave., Suite 221B
         Riverside, IL 60546
         Telephone: (708) 762-3143
         E-mail: priz@priz-law.com

TENET HEALTHCARE: Brewster Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rob Brewster, Anita Goffman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Tenet Healthcare
Corporation, Case No. CACE-22-008510 was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on July 15, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-61327-JEM to the
proceeding.

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

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- https://www.tenethealth.com/ -- is
a multinational healthcare services company based in Dallas, Texas,
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick A Barthle, II
          MORGAN, MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 229-4023
          Fax: (813) 222-4708
          Email: pbarthle@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          1201 W Peachtree Street, NE
          One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Phone: (404) 881-7584
          Fax: (404) 253-8497
          Email: kristy.brown@alston.com


THRIVE RESTAURANT: Faces Merriweather FLSA Suit in M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH MERRIWEATHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRIVE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC and APPLEBEE'S
RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00538 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 16, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract and unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a trainer at Applebee’s Restaurant in
Clarksville, Tennessee.

Thrive Restaurant Group, LLC is a restaurant company, with its
corporate headquarters located at 1877 N. Rock Road, Wichita,
Kansas.

Applebee's Restaurants, LLC is a restaurant company, with its
corporate headquarters located at Floor 7, 480 N. Brand Blvd.,
Glendale, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
         Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
         JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

TRUDY GILMOND: Court Refuses to Set Aside Judgment in Orso Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, denies the Motion to Set Aside Judgment in the
lawsuit styled MATTHEW ORSO, in his capacity as court-appointed
Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, and
NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., as successor in Interest to the
Final Judgments entered against Net Winners, Plaintiff v. TODD
DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee
for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust; TRUDY GILMOND; TRUDY GILMOND, LLC;
JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA GATES; DAVID SORRELLS;
INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS; SHARA ANDREWS; GLOBAL
INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER; KAREN SILVER; MICHAEL VAN
LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER; MARY KETTNER; P.A.W.S.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and a Defendant Class of
Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-91
(W.D.N.C.).

The matter is before the Court upon Net Winner James K. Larson's
pro se Motion to Set Aside Judgment. The successor in interest to
the Final Judgments entered against Net Winners, National Judgment
Recovery, has responded to Mr. Larson's motion and no Reply has
been filed.

Mr. Larson seeks to have the Final Judgment issued against him five
years ago set aside, claiming that he never received notice. After
the Net Winner Class in this case was certified, the Court entered
a Process Order designed to (1) provide Net Winners with notice
that they were members of the Net Winner class; and (2) to provide
Net Winners with the opportunity to contest the amount of their
winnings.

The Process Order required the Receiver to provide notice to all
persons that he believed were part of the Net Winner Class with
notice "by email to the email address provided by the net winner in
connection with any account" with ZeekRewards "as well as any other
email address that has been provided by the net winner." "In the
event that the notice could not be delivered to any email address
provided by the Net Winner," the Receiver was required to "send a
letter to the last known physical address of the Net Winner
informing the Net Winner of the proceedings and the availability of
the amount of his or her Net Winnings."

The Receiver was also required to "post a link on the Receivership
website" that allowed Net Winners to access all this information.
All Net Winners were provided with an opportunity to contest their
membership in the Net Winner class as well as the Receiver's
calculation of their Net Winnings. The Fourth Circuit approved of
the Process Order, concluding that it "provided a process by which
damages could be individually challenged and litigated."

Mr. Larson's motion does not cite to any authority justifying the
relief he seeks, but because he denies ever receiving notice, the
Court will consider his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
Section (b)(4) permits a "void" judgment to be set aside upon a
showing of extraordinary circumstances, citing Gonzalez v. Crosby,
545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005).

District Judge Graham C. Mullen notes that in a defendant class
action, neither personal service nor actual notice to members of
the defendant class is required, citing In re Integra Realty
Resources, Inc., 262 F.3d 1089, 1110 (10th Cir. 2001). Instead, the
court in a defendant class action must ensure that notice is
"reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
opportunity to present their objections," citing Mullane v. Cent.
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1950).

Here, the Court required the Receiver to effect notice in three
separate ways: via email, via mail, and via the receivership
website. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this approach, holding that it
"provided a process by which damages could be individually
challenged and litigated," Bell, 922 F.3d at 514 n.8.

Judge Mullen states that it is undisputed that the Receiver
complied with the Process Order. By all measures, this was an
effort to provide notice that was "reasonably calculated, under all
the circumstances," to apprise Larson of the proceedings and
provide him an opportunity to present evidence concerning the
claims he now seeks to make. As the Fourth Circuit recognized,
these procedures satisfied due process requirements.

Mr. Larson is, therefore, bound by the Judgment, Judge Mullen
holds.

Judge Mullen, hence, denies the Motion to Set Aside Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 11, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya7xyjbc from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: More Time to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. at., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order extending the deadlines for the Defendants to file the
certified administrative record and Plaintiffs to file their reply
in support of their class certification motion to July 25, 2022.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A), by and
through undersigned counsel, the Parties respectfully move this
Court for an extension of time to July 25, 2022, for the Defendants
to file their certified administrative record index and for the
Plaintiffs to file their reply to Defendants' opposition to class
certification.

These deadlines have been extended by the Court several times
previously in order to accommodate the Parties' discussions
regarding a possible resolution of this matter as well as the
Parties' discussions regarding next steps for continuing the
litigation of this matter. The Defendants' certified administrative
record index and the Plaintiffs' reply currently are due on July
11, 2022.

The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oiHrZk at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (202) 739-5313
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
                  douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Bernard J. Garbutt III, Esq.
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: bernard.garbutt@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Taylor C. Day, Esq.
          Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: taylor.day@morganlewis.com
                  megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John B. Haberland, Esq.
          SPECIAL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          601 D Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2574
          E-mail: john.haberland@usdoj.gov

UNITY SOFTWARE: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Unity
Software, Inc. (NYSE: U) securities between March 5, 2021 and May
10, 2022 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 6,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Unity provides software solutions, offering graphic tools to
create, run, and monetize real-time 2D and 3D content for mobile
phones, tablets, PCs, consoles, and augmented and virtual reality
devices.

On May 10, 2022, after the market closed, Unity announced its first
quarter 2022 financial results. The Company also reduced its fiscal
2022 guidance "due to challenges with monetization products."
Specifically, "a fault in [Unity's] platform . . . resulted in
reduced accuracy for [its] Audience Pinpointer tool, a revenue
expensive issue given that [the] Pinpointer tool experienced
significant growth post the IDFA changes." On this news, the price
of Unity shares declined by $17.83, or approximately 37%, from
$48.13 per share to close at $30.30 on May 11, 2022.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) deficiencies in Unity's
product platform reduced the accuracy of the Company's machine
learning technology; (2) the foregoing was likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's revenues; (3)
accordingly, Unity had overstated its commercial and/or financial
prospects for 2022; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

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

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

Contact:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

USAA CASUALTY: Smith Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SAMANTHA SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing the lawsuits entitled ERNEST J. BERARDI, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA
GENERAL INDEMINTY COMPANY. SAMANTHA SMITH, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA CASUALTY
COMPANY, Civil Action Nos. 22-813, 22-832 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The class suits seek recovery of premiums paid by the Plaintiffs
and members of the class for stacked coverage under single vehicle
motor vehicle policies issued in accordance with the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75
Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., where such coverage is actually
not available under these single vehicle policies since there were
no other policies in the household which would permit stacking of
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages.

The lawsuits were filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
and Defendants, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, removed
both cases to federal court.

Although Berardi and Smith have brought separate actions, the cases
are virtually identical; the Defendant in each case is essentially
the same, the Plaintiff in each case is represented by the same
counsel, and the briefs contain the exact same arguments and
assertions.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2022, Judge
Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted Defendants USAA General Indemnity
Co. and USAA Casualty Insurance Co.'s motions to dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Samantha Smith v. USAA General
Indemnity Co., Case No. 22-2232, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SAMANTHA SMITH, Individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT KRAMER
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 232-6300

               - and -

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-4663

               - and -

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
          1801 Market Street, Suite 100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350-6633

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW
          134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200  

Defendant-Appellee USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE CO is represented by:

          Robert E. Dapper, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas M. Pohl, Esq.
          Daniel J. Twilla, Esq.
          Lyle Washowich, Esq.     
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          48 26th Street
          Burns White Center
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 995-3250

USAA GENERAL: Berardi Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ERNEST J. BERARDI filed an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing the lawsuits entitled ERNEST J. BERARDI, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA
GENERAL INDEMINTY COMPANY. SAMANTHA SMITH, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. USAA CASUALTY
COMPANY, Civil Action Nos. 22-813, 22-832 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The class suits seek recovery of premiums paid by the Plaintiffs
and members of the class for stacked coverage under single vehicle
motor vehicle policies issued in accordance with the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75
Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701 et seq., where such coverage is actually
not available under these single vehicle policies since there were
no other policies in the household which would permit stacking of
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages.

The lawsuits were filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
and Defendants, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, removed
both cases to federal court.

Although Berardi and Smith have brought separate actions, the cases
are virtually identical; the Defendant in each case is essentially
the same, the Plaintiff in each case is represented by the same
counsel, and the briefs contain the exact same arguments and
assertions.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2022, Judge
Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted Defendants USAA General Indemnity
Co. and USAA Casualty Insurance Co.'s motions to dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Ernest Berardi v. USAA General
Indemnity Co., Case No. 22-2231, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ERNEST J. BERARDI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, is represented by:

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT KRAMER
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 232-6300

               - and -

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-4663

               - and -

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
          1801 Market Street, Suite 100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350-6633

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW
          134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200  

Defendant-Appellee USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY CO is represented by:

          Robert E. Dapper, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas M. Pohl, Esq.
          Daniel J. Twilla, Esq.
          Lyle Washowich, Esq.     
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          48 26th Street
          Burns White Center
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 995-3250

VAALCO ENERGY: Monteverde Probing TransGlobe Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating VAALCO
Energy, Inc. (EGY), relating to its proposed acquisition of
TransGlobe Energy Corp. Under the terms of the agreement,
TransGlobe shareholders are expected to receive 0.6727 shares of
EGY per share they own. Click here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/vaalco-energy-inc

It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

If you own common stock in EGY and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. The
firm was listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Its lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions.

Mr. Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. The
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, the firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 the firm recovered or secured six cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

WASTE CONNECTIONS: More Time to Exchange Expert Reports Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sunshine Children's
Learning Center, LLC v. Waste Connections of Florida, Inc., Case
No. 0:21-cv-62123-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Parties file a joint motion
for extension of time to exchange expert reports regarding class
certification and to meet other deadlines.

On May 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Valle entered an order granting in
part Plaintiff's motion to compel. Magistrate Judge Valle ordered
the Defendant to produce complete files (i.e., contracts,
correspondence, billing data, etc.) for the sample customers
identified by the Plaintiff as statistically significant.

The Parties also met and conferred on numerous occasions on the
search queries that would be run on Defendant's electronically
stored information. After much back-and-forth, they reached
agreement on search queries, which Defendant has since run.

The Parties also met and conferred on Plaintiff's responses to
Defendant's discovery on several occasions. They were unable to
resolve all differences and on May 27, 2022, the Defendant filed a
motion to compel Plaintiff to produce certain documents Defendant
requested in its March 2022 request to produce to Plaintiff.

Waste Connections is a North American integrated waste services
company that provides waste collection, transfer, disposal and
recycling services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yUsC49 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
                    1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 444-0271
          E-mail: adam@webbllc.com
                  matt@webbllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel L. Felker, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          1 Financial Plaza, Suite 1620
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 768-1600
          Facsimile: (954) 337-7636
          E-mail: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com
                  FLLService@bakerdonelson.com

ZILLOW GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Goode of National Mortgage Professional reports that Zillow
Group Inc. is seeking to have dismissed a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed against the company last November.

In a motion filed this week in federal court in the Western
District of Washington, attorneys argued that it is axiomatic that
securities laws do not insulate investors from stock downturns
caused by unforeseeable events, nor do they provide insurance
against risks that have been disclosed to investors at the time
they purchased securities.

The plaintiffs have alleged in their suit against Zillow and its
top executives that the company made false and misleading
statements, failed to disclose risks, and caused the plaintiffs to
suffer significant losses and damages as a result of the failed
Zillow Offers instant-buying venture.

The plaintiffs said that when the company announced in October that
it was going to pause buying any more homes in October 2021, Class
A stocks fell 9.4% to close at $85.46 a share and that Class C
stocks fell the same percentage and closed at $86 per share.

Then in November, when the company announced it would exit the
program and take a $304 million write-down on inventory and reduce
its workforce by 25%, the Class A stocks fell an additional 23% to
$65.86 a share and Class C stocks fell 25% to $65.47 a share.

In its motion for dismissal, Zillow's attorneys argued that the
company made it clear from the beginning of Zillow Offers in 2018
that the program was inherently risky and that, with the onset of
the global pandemic in 2020, risk became even greater with the
unforeseen and unprecedented volatility in home values.

Still, the lawyers argued, Zillow officials consistently disclosed
the challenges, inherent price risks, the difficulty to accurately
price homes, and the shortage of labor and materials for needed
improvements to homes the company had purchased.

As a result, lawyers said, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that
the company deliberately overpaid for houses, made misstatements
concerning operational improvements, and other allegations made in
the complaint.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 14. [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 ***