---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 161

                            Headlines

5 STAR VALET: Ortiz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
ABBOTT VASCULAR: Gordon Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADVENIR@COCOPLUM LLC: Caban Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
AFA NYC LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALBEE BABY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Raslavich Suit Claims

APPLE INC: Charges Developers Default Commission, Suit Alleges
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in France Over Anticompetitive Scheme
APPLIED TEST: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Wage & Timekeeping Practices
APPROVED ROOFING: Sent Unauthorized Fax Ads, Baccaro Says
AVAYA INC: Fitch Lowers IDR to 'CCC-' & Secured Debt to 'CCC'

AW DISTRIBUTING: Inhaling 1-1, Difluoroethane Addictive, Suit Says
BASIC MASONRY: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Macias Claims
BAYVIEW HUNTERS: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEST BUY STORES: Coss Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
BGC 135: Faces Hill Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY: Winarski Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Rothberg Sues Over Sale of OTC Non-Drowsy Products
BLUE CROSS: Judge Approves $667-Mil. Attorney Fee in Antitrust Suit
BOOZ ALLEN: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Tullgren ERISA Suit Alleges
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid to Exclude Causation Opinion in Reed Suit

BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Eddlemon Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Bacs, Roubert File Bid for Class Certification
CAPITAL ONE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hall Suit Alleges
CARTER-YOUNG INC: Gayle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CENTENE CORP: Havrilla Sues Over Fraudulent Insurance Policies

CERES LLC: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Employees
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CLOVERLEAF APARTMENTS: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
CME CONSULTING: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
COCA-COLA: Warren Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices

COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 3 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Barfell Loses Bid to Certify Class
COMMUNITY PRODUCTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMPANA PET BRANDS: Goshert Files Suit in N.D. California

CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CORTEVA INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Claims in Cockerill Suit
CUSTOM METALCRAFTERS: Faces Pierre-Louis Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CVS PHARMACY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Doe One's 2nd Amended Complaint
D & I FASHION GROUP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DCB ELMWOOD: Murray Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
DIRECTV LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Biggs Suit Alleges
DOMENICS FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Alleges
DONE RIGHT: Rodwell Sues Over Traveling Merchandisers' Unpaid OT
DUNK & BRIGHT FURNITURE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ELK ENERGY SERVICES: Zack Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EQUIFAX INC: Baker Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
EQUIFAX INC: Rogers Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
FEDEX GROUND: Martinez Allowed to Amend Suit to Add New Class Rep.
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Sellers Sues Over FCRA Violation

FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Super. Court Affirms D'Happart Suit Dismissal
FLO HEALTH: Responds to Amended Privacy Class Action Complaint
GAMER ADVANTAGE: California Court Narrows Claims in Dawood Suit
GEM PAWNBROKERS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENE FOX: Osorio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

GOOGLE LLC: Stratford Sues Over Denied Free Workspace Service
GREEN ACRES NURSERY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREEN CITY: Faces Correa Suit Over Janitorial Staff's Unpaid Wages
GRENDENE GLOBAL: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRETNA, LA: App. Court Affirms Class Certification in Brantley Suit

HALLRICH INC: Majewski Hits Unpaid Reimbursements, Tip Credits
HARBOR FREIGHT: Sanger Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Assise Sues Over Motor Parts Monopoly
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Koller Alleges Unlawful Warranty Coverage
HENDRICKS REGIONAL: Underpays Hourly-Paid Employees, FLSA Suit Says

HOME DEPOT INC: Coss Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
HOMELAND SECURITY: Ordered to Restore Status Quo Ante in Al Otro
HYATT PLACE: Faces Hudson Suit Over Housekeepers' Unpaid Wages
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit From States Over Car Theft Possibility
I LOVE: Settles S-Trip Class Action for $450,000

ID.ME INC: Faces Biometric Data Privacy Class Action in Illinois
INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Sky Zone's Bid to Dismiss Stauffer Suit Granted
INOTIV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Aug. 22 Deadline
INSIDER INC: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Johnson Alleges
IOIP HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Follman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
JFI REDI-MIX: McAlister Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
K.R. WOLFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brandi Suit Alleges
KASPERSKY LAB: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
KEURIG DR PEPPER: January 9, 2023 K-Cup Claims Filing Deadline Set

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIA AMERICA: Faces Pue Suit Over Defective Motor Vehicles
KOHL'S INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Raslavich Suit Claims
KOLD TRANS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due January 18, 2023
KROGER CO: Avigne Sues Over Mislabeled Smoked Cheese Products

KTB COFFEE: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Liburd Says
LECHONERA POLLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
LEMONADE INC: Must Face Biometric Data Class Action
LILLY LASHES: Faces Montique Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LOMBARDIS ORIGINAL PIZZA: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MAC COSMETICS: Illegally Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Says
MARK ANTHONY BRANDS: Borovoy Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MARK CUBAN: Sued for Promoting Voyager Crypto Products
MARS INC: Faces Altoids False Advertising Class Action in Calif.

MASON TENDERS: Vandermark Files Suit in S.D. New York
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly May File Proposed 1st Amended Complaint
MCG HEALTH: W.D. Washington Allows Booth to Intervene in Saiki Suit
MCGRAW HILL: Court Denies Flynn's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
META PLATFORMS: PFA, Ohio as Co-Leads in Securities Class Action

METRO MOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayar Suit Alleges
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Branum Suit
MONARCH RECOVERY: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Response
MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: S.D. New York Denies Flores' Bid for Discovery

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: $3.8-Mil. Deal in Mostajo Suit Wins Prelim. OK
NEW FULTON: Capute Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW TREND: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
NEW YORK MEDIA: Kosak Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
NIAGARA BOTTLING: S.D. New York Dismisses Duchimaza Class Suit

NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Johnson Suit
NOMI HEALTH: Eltahir Files Bid to Certify Class
OHIO: BMV Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set on Nov. 6, 2023
OLD DOMINION: Conditional Class Certification in Mendez Suit Denied
OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET: Spoto Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York

OMNICOR INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ONTARIO: Former ARB Vice-Chair Files $80-M Termination Class Action
OPTIMUM NUTRITION: Products Artificially Flavored, Hacker Suit Says
PACIFIC COAST: Stein Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAT TUMILTY: Witvoet Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois

PERMANENT GENERAL: Hodge Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
PET FOOD EXPRESS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PINDROP SECURITY INC: Packbiers Suit Removed to C.D. California
PINERY CLEANERS: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Farez Says
PLATINUM CONVERTING: Magna Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION: Boyd Files Suit in W.D. Texas
RAZORS EDGE PIZZA: Miller Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
REGAL WARE INC: Terwilliger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Babanawo Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
RIO TINTO: Colbert Appeals Claim Dismissal in Securities Suit

ROLLING ROCK: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ROSEBUD ECONOMIC: Huntley Files Suit in S.D. California
SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Caban Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
SCUDDER LAW FIRM: Stein Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
SF-VIRGINIA LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SIXT RENT A CAR: Fails to Prevent Cyber-Attack, Estevez Alleges
SPANX INC: Raslavich TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
STARBUCKS CORP: Kominis Hits Deceptive Ads for Refresher Products
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Co-Lead Roles Named in Winter Securities Suit
SUIT-KOTE CORP: N.Y. Appeals Court Modifies Judgment in Vandee Suit

TENNESSEE: Court Gives Shirley 15 Days to File Amended Complaint
TILE SHOP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Shu Sues Over Deceptive Misrepresentations
TRAEGER PELLET: Seeks Leave to File Opposition to Class Cert Bid
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Brief

TW LATH-N-STUCCO: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class as Moot
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Produce Not Privileged Docs in L.D. Suit
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Sweet Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
UNITED STATES: Hospital Wins Summary Judgment on Fees and Costs

UNITED STATES: Stringfellow Sues Over Contaminated Water
VERIFIED MOVING: Misclassifies Sales Reps, Grajeda Suit Says
VERIZON CONNECT: Simms Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VERIZON WIRELESS: Depasquale Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
VI-JON LLC: Patora Files Suit Over Mislabeled Laxative Products

VSC GROUP: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in D. New Hampshire
WAG LABS: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
WALMART INC: Coss Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE: Janiak Seeks Proper Minimum Wages for Servers
WOODCRAFT SUPPLY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WPWM ADVISORY SOLUTIONS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WYNDHAM VACATION: Baker Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid OT
ZEROHOLDING LLC: Case Summary & Four Unsecured Creditors
[*] 2022 Class-Action Lawsuit Decisions in the U.S. Discussed
[*] Lincoln, Alabama to Join Class Action on Water Pollution


                            *********

5 STAR VALET: Ortiz Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5 Star Valet LLC, et
al. The case is styled as AnJaime Ortiz, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v.
5 Star Valet LLC, Brian "Doe", John "Doe", Case No. 1:22-cv-06871
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

5 Star Valet -- https://5starvalet.com/ -- specializes in provided
luxury valet parking services for hotels, restaurants, private
country clubs, hospitals and corporate or community.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0048
          Fax: (646) 786-3170
          Email: joshua@levinepstein.com


ABBOTT VASCULAR: Gordon Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Karen Elizabeth Gordon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Abbott Vascular Inc.,
Abbott Laboratories, Axelon Services Corporation, Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2202637 was removed from the Superior
Court of CA for the County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Aug. 12, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01438-MCS-SHK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Abbott -- https://www.cardiovascular.abbott/ -- develops
life-changing medical devices for cardiovascular conditions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 379-6250
          Fax: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
                 khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                 swong@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michele J Beilke, Esq.
          Julia Yenha Trankiem, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: mbeilke@huntonak.com
                 jtrankiem@huntonak.com

               - and -

          JeeHyun Yoon, Esq.
          JUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2627
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Fax: (213) 532-2020
          Email: jyoon@HuntonAK.com

               - and -

          Shaun J Voigt, Esq.
          FISHER AND PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 330-4500
          Fax: (213) 330-4501
          Email: svoigt@fisherphillips.com


ADVENIR@COCOPLUM LLC: Caban Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO CABAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVENIR@COCOPLUM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-011956 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 12, 2022) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

ADVENIR@COCOPLUM, LLC provides real estate investment and
management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AFA NYC LLC: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFA NYC, LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. AFA NYC, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06880 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

AFA Gallery -- https://www.afanyc.com/ -- offers a unique
collection of original paintings, drawings, prints and sculpture
from established and emerging artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALBEE BABY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Raslavich Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALBEE BABY CARRIAGE CO., INC., Defendant,
Case No. 154993827 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 9, 2022)
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

ALBEE BABY CARRIAGE CO., INC. markets and sells baby carriages and
strollers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Charges Developers Default Commission, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIETE DU FIGARO, SAS, a French simplified joint-stock company;
L'ÉQUIPE 24/24 SAS, a French simplified joint-stock company, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and LE
GESTE, a French association, on behalf of itself, its members, and
all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California
corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-04437 (Aug. 1, 2022) seeks monetary
and injunctive relief under U.S. federal and California state law
pursuant to the choice-of-law, forum, and venue terms contractually
specified by Apple.

According to the complaint, Apple's market, or monopoly, power has
allowed it to charge developers a default supracompetitive 30%
commission on the sale of paid apps for years now, despite the
inevitable accrual of experience and economies of scale. Similarly,
Apple has imposed the same default supracompetitive 30% commission
on digital in-app purchases for nearly as many years,
notwithstanding these accruals. Additionally, Apple collects a USD
$99 (or equivalent) annual fee from all iOS developers who wish
(and must) sell their products through the App Store, says the
suit.

Further, Apple dictates minimum and greater price points, such that
iOS developers cannot offer paid products at less than USD $.99 or
at price points ending in anything other than USD $.99 (or, in
general, their analogues/equivalents at foreign App Store digital
"storefronts," such as the French iOS App Store digital storefront.
Thus, while Apple is fond of pointing to impressive-sounding sales
numbers and dollars earned by developers, nonetheless, the
foregoing -- its exorbitant fee for distribution (or retail --
sales) and IAP services, coupled with its USD $99 (or equivalent)
annual fee and pricing mandates -- have cut unlawfully into what
would and should have been developers' earnings in a competitive
atmosphere, the suit added.

iOS developers create the applications and in-app add-ons that
bring Apple iPhones, iPads, and iPod touch music players to life.
Their apps allow users to socialize with others, to edit documents,
to make exercise more fun, to meditate, and so much more. And their
in-app products, including enhanced or extra features, game
add-ons, services, and content subscriptions, make their
applications more useful and fun. Because there are probably more
than one billion iOS devices in operation worldwide, the market for
apps and digital in-app products is colossal as well. So, then, is
the market for iOS app-distribution and in-app purchase (IAP)
services.

By Apple's design, there is one regular channel for the
distribution of iOS native  apps: its own App Store. Also, with
minor exceptions, Apple mandates the use of its IAP services for 15
digital add-ons to those apps, whether sold directly in the App
Store, or in apps acquired from the App Store. Thus, Apple has
willfully monopolized the market for iOS app-distribution and IAP
services, the suit further asserts.

Apple is a U.S. company, and the App Store is thoroughly
U.S.-based. As demonstrated in Sec. IX below and throughout this
complaint, Apple runs the App Store, contracts with developers,
takes in their products, sets and enforces policies and practices
for developers, and conducts other App Store-related business with
developers, from and in the U.S.

Apple solicits developers worldwide to fill the App Store with
their compatible digital products. To do so, and to sell their
in-app products, these developers, wherever they reside, buy
Apple's iOS app-distribution and IAP services in America. This suit
aims to remedy the harm that Apple has caused to France-resident
iOS developers -- purchaser-participants in the U.S. domestic
market for these services -- by way of its violations of U.S.
antitrust and California fair-competition law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert F. Lopez, Esq.
          Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
          Ben M. Harrington, 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
                  robl@hbsslaw.com
                  abigailp@hbsslaw.com
                  benh@hbsslaw.com

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in France Over Anticompetitive Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nehal Malik, writing for iPhone in Canada, reports that Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple
on behalf of France-based iOS developers, alleging that Apple's App
Store policies are anti-competitive. A key focus of the complaint
is Apple's 30% commission on all transactions made through the App
Store.

Hagens Berman is coming hot off a win against Apple last year,
wherein it bagged a $100 million USD settlement for U.S.-based
developers over the same issues. The law firm last month also filed
a class-action lawsuit against Apple over Apple Pay, on behalf of
financial institutions that issue payment cards in the U.S.

Plaintiffs named in the new App Store antitrust lawsuit include the
developers of the Figaro news app, the L'Équipe sports app, and le
GESTE, a French association of publishers of online content.

The class-action is being led by Hagens Berman's Steve Berman --
who previously secured a $560 million settlement against Apple for
eBook price-fixing -- and Paris-based antitrust lawyer Fayrouze
Masmi-Dazi.

"We're fresh off the heels of our hard-won settlement with Apple
and ready to get back in the ring," said Berman, who serves as
managing partner at Hagens Berman, in a statement to iPhone in
Canada.

"Our firm is happy to see iOS developers from other countries
seeking the same justice we were able to achieve for U.S.
developers. We believe they too have been wrongfully subjected to
the stifling policies of Apple's App Store, and we intend to hold
Apple to the law."

The antitrust lawsuit points out that a report released by the U.S.
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust in October 2020 found
Apple to be a "willful monopolist" in how it operates the App Store
and deals with in-app purchases.

"Apple has behaved as alleged herein in a willful attempt to obtain
a monopoly in the global market," the lawsuit argues. "There is no
valid business necessity or pro-competitive justification for
Apple's conduct."

The lawsuit is seeking reforms in Apple's App Store policies,
citing Apple's hefty commissions, annual App Store membership fees
for developers, closed-off app distribution ecosystem on iOS, and
more as evidence of anti-competitive practices.

"This suit aims to remedy the harm that Apple has caused to
France-resident iOS developers -- purchaser-participants in the
U.S. domestic market for these services -- by way of its violations
of U.S. antitrust and California fair-competition law," Hagens
Berman and Fayrouze Masmi-Dazi said in their complaint.

The class action wants to legally force Apple to end its abusive
monopoly, allow third-party app stores on iOS, discontinue pricing
mandates, and above all, reimburse developers for overcharges made
by leveraging its monopoly power. [GN]

APPLIED TEST: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Wage & Timekeeping Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SCHRECENGOST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. APPLIED TEST SYSTEMS, LLC, MICHAEL A. ASTI, and JOHN
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Case No. 2:22-cv-01118-NR (W.D. Pa., Aug. 1,
2022) alleges that the Defendants have perpetuated unlawful wage
and timekeeping practices upon their employees within the course of
their standard business policies and in doing so have
systematically violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minimum Wage Act.

The natural effect and intended result of the Defendants' conduct
is clear: to reduce labor and payroll costs borne by the Defendants
without diminishing the work output by Plaintiff and the Class
Members, the lawsuit says.

This Class Action is filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the
"Timeclock Class" and the "Lunch Deduction Class" and are defined
as follows:

  -- The Timeclock Class

     The Timeclock Class shall consist of all individuals who are
     currently employed by ATS or were employed by ATS at any time
     during the relevant statute of limitations period and
     submitted to ATS' agents and payroll personnel time records
     reflecting specific hours/time worked for ATS.

  -- The Lunch Deduction Class

     The Lunch Deduction Class shall consist of all individuals
who
     are currently employed by ATS or were employed by ATS at any
     time during the relevant statute of limitations period and had

     compensable hours worked for ATS reduced due to a meal break.

The Plaintiff is a member of each of the Classes as she regularly
submitted hours reflecting her time worked for ATS. Further, the
Defendants regularly reduced the Plaintiff's hours worked by a meal
period of one-half hour up to three quarters of one hour on a daily
basis.

ATS, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of
Pennsylvania and does business throughout the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as well as with various interstate entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle H. Steenland, Esq.
          THE WORKERS' RIGHTS LAW GROUP, LLP
          Foster Plaza 10
          680 Andersen Drive, Suite 230
          Pittsburgh, PA 15220
          Telephone: (412) 910-9592
          Facsimile: (412) 910-7510
          E-mail: kyle@workersrightslawgroup.com

APPROVED ROOFING: Sent Unauthorized Fax Ads, Baccaro Says
---------------------------------------------------------
FRANK L. BACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPROVED ROOFING LLC, a New Jersey
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04955
(D.N.J., Aug. 8, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's practices of
sending unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements, and to obtain
redress and recover damages for all persons and entities similarly
injured by Defendant's conduct pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the advertisements are sent to solicit
the recipients to purchase Defendant's roofing services. The
Defendant sent the faxes at issue to Plaintiff Baccaro and the
Class despite: (i) having no established business relationship with
them; (ii) never receiving the recipients' consent to receive such
faxes; and (iii) that none of the faxes sent contained requisite
opt-out notices, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants
to cease all unauthorized fax-based marketing activities, as well
as an award of actual and statutory damages, along with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Approved Roofing LLC provides residential and commercial roof
installation and repairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN
          1072 Madison Ave, Suite 1
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4  
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

AVAYA INC: Fitch Lowers IDR to 'CCC-' & Secured Debt to 'CCC'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded Avaya Inc.'s Issuer Default Rating to
'CCC-' from 'CCC+' and its senior secured term loans and notes to
'CCC'/'RR3' from 'B-'/'RR3. There is no Rating Outlook.

The downgrade incorporates a material level of market information
regarding the hiring of financial advisors and law firms, as well
as lenders hiring financial advisors. News sources report Avaya has
hired Kirkland & Ellis LLP and AlixPartners LLP. A creditor group
has reportedly hired law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
Avaya completed financing in July 2022 to provide to funds the
repurchase or repayment of $350 million of convertible notes in
June 2023. To date, $129 million of the convertible notes were
repaid, and the remaining approximately $221 million of the funds
remain in escrow.

The downgrade to 'CCC-' reflects substantial credit risk and that
the company has a very low margin for safety; default is a real
possibility. Also, Avaya has disclosed there is substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern, and that it is
conducting certain internal investigations.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Earnings and Cash Flows Pressured: Avaya's cash flows have been
under pressure as it transitions to a cloud/subscription-based
model. A cost reduction program slated to begin in FY 2023 should
partially mitigate the pressure on cash flow from this transition
and from recent declines in operating results.

Preliminary Results Below Guidance: Revenues in the fiscal 3Q22
were $577 million compared to prior guidance of $685 million to
$700 million and company reported adjusted EBITDA was $54 million
compared to guidance of $140 million to $150 million. Significant
non-cash impairment charges were also reported.

Fitch's ratings case assumes that there will be similar pressure in
the fiscal fourth quarter, but Avaya's forecast for fiscal 2022 and
beyond is subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

Sufficient Near-Term Liquidity: The company's readily available
cash balances on a pro forma basis of more than $400 million and
the $221 million of escrowed funds to repay its only near-term
maturity, the June 2023 convertible notes. However, the company is
currently assessing its options with respect to addressing the
convertible notes.

New CEO: The company appointed Alan Masarek CEO, previously CEO of
Vonage Holdings Corp. from 2014 to 2020, and who led Vonage's
transition to an enterprise-focused cloud communications services
provider from a residential phone provider. The new CEO has
initiated a comprehensive review of Avaya's strategic and business
operations. Fitch believes that there is material execution risk
associated with possible strategic changes and the company's cost
reduction plans. The new CEO's prior experience has the potential
to mitigate the execution risk as Avaya continues to transition to
the cloud/subscription-based model.

Cost Reduction Plans: To offset the pressure on cash flow, the
company has targeted cost reductions beginning in FY 2023 in the
range of $225 million to $250 million. Cuts are expected in
selling, general and administrative expenses, as well as
discretionary spending. The reductions are a material part of the
company's cost base, may be challenging to achieve, and could have
some impact on the customer sales and support. Fitch has assumed a
moderately lower level of cost savings in its forecast.

Market Position Evolving: Avaya's business continues to shift to a
recurring revenue and software- based model. However, it has
experienced working capital headwinds resulting from this shift in
the business model. OneCloud ARR, a key measure of this change, has
increased from $35 million at the end of fiscal 2019 to $838
million at the end of 3Q22 (and from $750 million at the end of
2Q22). Similarly, revenue from cloud, alliance partners and
subscription has increased from 14% in fiscal 2018 to 53% in 3Q22.
The ratings are limited by the competitiveness of the company's
markets, particularly for cloud-based solutions.

Near-Term Leverage Increasing: Gross leverage (total debt with
equity credit/operating EBITDA) at the parent was approximately was
5.1x for the LTM ending March 31, 2022. Fitch estimates gross
leverage and net leverage will exceed 8x at the end of fiscal 2022.
Fitch's forecast assumes the company's cost reductions in FY2023
mitigate some of impact on the company's EBITDA from lower
expectations for revenue, leading to improvements in leverage to
around 6x, in fiscal 2023.

Cash Generation Pressured in FY22: Fitch estimates CFO as a
percentage of revenues will be approximately (10%) in FY22. Fitch
expects CFO as a percentage of revenues along with FCF to improve
in FY23 but still remain negative, before turning positive in 2024,
as the company works its way through the shift to
subscription-based services. Fitch estimates the CFO deficit would
have to be less than approximately $30 million in FY23 in order to
maintain a minimum level of cash of $250 million.

DERIVATION SUMMARY

Avaya faces numerous competitors given its cloud-based, on-premise
and hybrid solutions for CC and UC applications. Avaya is a large
vendor in the global UC industry but is substantially smaller and
less diversified than its primary competitors in the enterprise
market: Cisco Systems, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation
(AAA/Stable).

Additional competitors in the enterprise market include NEC, Atos
Unify, Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise and Huawei. In the mid-market UC
industry, competitors include Mitel, NEC, Cisco and Microsoft.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

Fitch's Key Assumptions Within the Rating Case for the Issuer
Include:

-- Revenue declines in the low double digits in fiscal 2022 based

    on preliminary results for the third quarter of fiscal 2022
    and continuation through the fourth quarter of fiscal 2022.
    Revenue declines in the low single digits in fiscal 2023
    before returning to moderate growth as the effects of the
    transition to the cloud/subscription model tapers off;

-- EBITDA margin in the mid-teens in FY 2022, improving to the
    low 20% range as cost saving initiatives take hold;

-- Capital intensity in the low single digits;

-- Fitch forecasts FCF deficits during fiscals 2022 and 2023 due
    to the drag from the shift to subscription-based offerings. In

    fiscal 2023 the FCF deficit is less than $140 million and
    turns positive in fiscal 2024 as the working capital headwinds

    from the shift are overcome.

Recovery Rating (RR) Assumptions: The recovery analysis assumes the
enterprise value of Avaya is maximized in a going-concern scenario
versus liquidation. Fitch contemplates a scenario in which default
may be caused by continued secular pressure in premise-based
offerings, and setbacks in its recent success with
subscription/cloud-based products arising from heightened
competitive pressures. Additionally, while the strategic
partnership with RingCentral is successful, ACO sales are lower
than expected, and the company experiences EBITDA margin pressure.
Under this scenario, Fitch estimates a going-concern EBITDA of $515
million, which is approximately 14% below Fitch-calculated EBITDA
for the LTM ended March 31, 2022.

Fitch assumes Avaya will receive a going-concern recovery multiple
of 5.5x EBITDA under this scenario. The 5.5x multiple compares with
the bankruptcy exit multiple for Avaya of 8.1x, and the median
multiple of 8.4x for recent transactions for low-to-moderate growth
enterprise communications companies in the 8x-9x range, including
ShoreTel, Intrado, Polycom and Alcatel Lucent's enterprise
business, among others.

Fitch assumes $150 million of the $200 million secured ABL is drawn
(based on the current borrowing base) at the time of default and a
10% administrative claim through a restructuring. Fitch-forecasted
going-concern EBITDA of $515 million and recovery multiple of 5.5x
results in a post-reorganization enterprise value of $2.55 billion
after the deduction of expected administrative claims and the
assumed ABL drawn amount, resulting in 79% recovery for the $3.05
billion first-lien senior secured term loan and notes (including
the proposed term loan) which allows for notching of +2 from the
Issuer Default Rating of 'B' to 'BB-'/'RR2'.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- A successful resolution to the repayment of its June 2023
maturities without entering bankruptcy or conducting a DDE, while
maintaining a sufficient level of liquidity to meet debt service
and execute on its cost reduction plans;

-- Filing of its financial statements, without a going concern
qualification;

-- Successful execution of cost reductions while stabilizing the
revenue trajectory.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- A negative rating action could result from a comprehensive debt
restructuring or DDE;

-- An inability to maintain sufficient cash levels to operations
over the next 12 months.

LIQUIDITY AND DEBT STRUCTURE

Adequate Liquidity: Avaya has been facing pressure on cash from its
transition to cloud-based/subscription services. Fitch believes
Avaya has adequate liquidity in the near-term based on the $404
million pro forma cash balance as of June 30, 2022 and the $221
million cash in escrow. As of March 31, 2022, $171 million was held
outside the U.S. Liquidity is also supported by an undrawn $200
million ABL facility which matures in 2025.

As of March 31, 2022, Avaya had $118 million of availability on the
facility after $32 million of outstanding LOCs and guarantees as
the borrowing basis at the end of the quarter was $150 million. The
ABL facility was amended in September 2020, reducing its size from
$300 million to $200 million, and the maturity was extended to
September 2025 from December 2022.

In July 2022, the company closed on a $350 million senior secured
term loan and $250 million of 8% first lien exchangeable notes due
2027. Proceeds were used to repay $129 million of 2.25% senior
unsecured convertible notes due in June 2023 at the parent, with
the remainder escrowed to be used to repay the $221 million remain
convertibles outstanding and for general corporate purposes.

The debt structure, in addition to the ABL facility and the July
2023 refinancing, now consists of a $1.893 billion first-lien term
loan, consisting of three tranches, that mature in December 2027,
$1 billion of 6.125% senior secured first-lien notes due 2028, and
$250 million of first lien 8% exchangeable notes. Owing to a $250
million prepayment in November 2019, Fitch believes there will be
no further required amortization payments on the term loan prior to
maturity under the credit agreement.

ISSUER PROFILE

Avaya Inc. provides digital communications products, solutions and
services, including contact center and unified communications and
collaboration products and services. Its primary customers are
enterprises and midmarket businesses. Avaya operates in
approximately 190 countries and has about 90,000 customers.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

Avaya Inc. has an ESG Relevance Score of '4' for Governance
Structure due to the sudden departure of the CEO and uncertainties
regarding potential changes in strategy and operations, which has a
negative impact on the credit profile, and is relevant to the
ratings in conjunction with other factors.

Avaya Inc. has an ESG Relevance Score of '4' for Financial
Transparency due to preliminary third quarter results for revenue
and adjusted EBITDA that were materially lower than the most recent
guidance, which has a negative impact on the credit profile, and is
relevant to the ratings in conjunction with other factors.

Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of
ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are
credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity,
either due to their nature or the way in which they are being
managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch's ESG
Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg.

                       Rating               Prior
                       ------               -----
Avaya Inc.
                LT IDR  CCC- Downgrade        CCC+

senior secured  LT      CCC  Downgrade  RR3   B-

AW DISTRIBUTING: Inhaling 1-1, Difluoroethane Addictive, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbin Messerli, individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Decedent Kyle Messerli, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AW Distributing, Inc., AW Product Sales &
Marketing, Inc., Falcon Safety Products, Inc., and Norazza, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02305 (D. Kan., Aug. 1, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants failed to provide a warning that inhaling 1-1,
Difluoroethane (DFE) is extremely addictive, which increases the
risk of injury and death to inhalant users.

According to the complaint, the Defendants and their private-label
retail partners are complicit in creating the public health crisis
of inhalant abuse as they are aware of the extremely addictive
nature of DFE yet continue to promote these cheap computer dusters
for easy consumption by individuals addicted to huffing who
frequent stores again and again purchasing multipacks on each
visit. And they falsely warrant that a bitterant was added which
would help deter inhalant abuse.

One of the most accessible and frequently abused inhalants is
computer dusters. Dusters are intended to remove lint and debris
from computer keyboards and peripheral equipment. However, they are
composed almost entirely of 1-1, Difluoroethane (DFE), an odorless
gas listed as HFC-152a. When inhaled, DFE causes intense and
immediate intoxication. The intoxication is also short-lived and
undetectable in workplace drug tests, which makes dusters a prime
target for abuse. Huffing DFE also results in a loss of motor
control and impaired judgment, leading to numerous accidents or
death.

Dusters are cheap and readily available at most big-box and small
retailers. Three manufacturers -- AW, Falcon Safety Products, and
Norazza -- dominate the U.S. retail duster market. On information
and belief, they are responsible for selling over 100 million DFE
dusters every year -- feeding a growing public health crisis.

When an individual passes away from Sudden Sniffing Death Syndrome
their official cause of death is generally termed "acute
1,1-Difluoroethane intoxication." This was Kyle Messerli's official
cause of death after his family found him unconscious with empty
cans of Ultra Duster at his bedside. Leading up to his death and
over the course of more than a year, Kyle routinely huffed products
manufactured by each of the Defendants. Kyle visited numerous
retailers on a weekly and sometimes daily basis to purchase various
dusters to feed his addiction and to avoid suspicion of abusing
these dusters. Thus, each of the Defendants and their retail
partners played a role in causing his deadly addiction and
subsequent death, says the suit.

Kyle's death, and the deaths of many others, could have been
avoided had the Defendants not negligently and defectively
designed, tested, labeled, marketed, and distributed their dusters
knowing that:

    (1) DFE is extremely addictive and required a warning of its
        addictive nature;

    (2) the addition of DB did not deter abuse, and

    (3) the inclusion of DB in any amount presented a greater risk
        to the foreseeable misuse of huffing, the lawsuit says.

Inhalant abuse is a rampant yet underreported public health crisis
in the United States. A recent national survey found that 2.4
million people aged 12 and over reported using inhalants in the
last year alone. Of these individuals, 215,000 are estimated to
have an inhalant abuse disorder. Yet, inhalant abuse has been
termed "the forgotten epidemic."

Inhalants are extremely toxic to the human body and can have
profound effects on the nervous system and other organs. Scientific
research has shown that prolonged use can cause neurological
damage, resulting in cognitive abnormalities and permanent brain
damage. Chronic exposure to these toxins can also cause damage
other organs and bodily systems, particularly to the heart, lungs,
liver, and kidneys.

Despite carrying such extreme physiological risks, including death,
the chemicals used in some categories of inhalants would seem
innocuous to the average person. They may be colorless, odorless,
and tasteless. Yet looks can be deceiving. These are highly
addictive substances that can cause catastrophic injury, including
brain damage or death, even to a first-time user.

Moreover, inhalants are relatively inexpensive to manufacture and
thus highly accessible as a means to get intoxicated. Gram for
gram, inhalants may be the cheapest, easiest, and one of the
fastest ways for a user to get "high," and these products can be
purchased, in bulk, at the local hardware store, office supply
store, grocery store or, in some cases, even the gas station. The
most common cause of death from inhalants is cardiac arrest.

Plaintiff Robbin Messerli is an adult resident citizen of Johnson
County, Kansas. Plaintiff is decedent Kyle Messerli's father, legal
heir, and representative of his estate.

AW Defendants designed, manufactured, tested, labeled, marketed and
distributed Ultra Duster and private label versions of Ultra
Duster, including but not limited to Innovera and Office Depot
dusters, for sale and use in the United States including within the
State of Kansas.

Falcon Safety Falcon designed, manufactured, tested, labeled,
marketed and distributed Dust-Off and private label versions of
Dust-Off, including but not limited to Century Duster, Maxell and
Insignia dusters, for sale and use in the United States including
within the State of Kansas.

Norazza designed, manufactured, tested, labeled, marketed and
distributed Endust and private label versions of Endust, including
but not limited to surf onn. For Walmart, for sale and use in the
United States including within the State of Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Allison B. Waters, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 W. 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  awaters@midwest-law.com


BASIC MASONRY: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Macias Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose L. Gonzalez Macias and Joaquin Gomez, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tommy Grantland,
Basic Masonry, Inc., and Easthaven Incorporated, Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-02629 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 5, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay the overtime premiums to Plaintiff and
similarly situated hourly employees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Macias worked for Basic and Eastland as a bricklayer in
2015-2018 and then again from June 1, 2021 until July 5, 2022,
while Gomez worked for Basic and Eastland as a helper/operator in
from 2016 until July 5, 2022.

Basic Masonry, Inc.  is a masonry contractor based in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

BAYVIEW HUNTERS: Johnson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayview Hunters Point
Foundation For Community, et al. The case is styled as Antonio
Johnson, an individual and on behalf of, all others similarly
situated v. Bayview Hunters Point Foundation For Community,
Improvement, Does 1 Through 100, inclusive, James Bouquin, an
individual, Case No. CGC22601210 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Bayview Hunters Point Foundation For Community --
https://bayviewci.org/ -- is a social services organization in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean Hopkins Power, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
          Phone: 310-438-5555


BEST BUY STORES: Coss Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Best Buy Stores, L.P.
The case is styled as Adrian Coss, Maribel Ocampo, individually and
on behalf of all other Illinois citizens similarly situated v. Best
Buy Stores, L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-04280 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. was founded in 2004. The company"s line of
business includes the retail sale of products by television,
catalog, and mail-order..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


BGC 135: Faces Hill Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------
HOLLY HILL, for herself and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BGC 135 9th STREET, INC., d/b/a Rick's Cabaret; and
RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., formerly known as Rick's Cabaret
International, Inc., d/b/a Rick's Cabaret, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01143-CCW (W.D. Pa., Aug. 5. 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately April
1, 2021 to April 8, 2022 as a non-exempt bartender/server. She and
those similarly situated were not paid the proper minimum wage, as
required by the PMWA, because of Defendants' common policy and
practice of taking more money from bartenders' and servers' tips
than was charged to Defendants as credit card fees, says the suit.

BGC 135 9th Street, Inc. and RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. operate
under the same business name, "Rick's Cabaret," engaged in the
business of operating in the adult entertainment industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile: (954)-327-3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY: Winarski Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biblical Archaeology
Society, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas Winarski, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Biblical
Archaeology Society, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-11881-TLL-PTM (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 12, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Civil Miscellaneous
Case.

The Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) --
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to information about archaeology in the Bible lands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Rothberg Sues Over Sale of OTC Non-Drowsy Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ROTHBERG, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and
sale of the Berkley Jensen "Non-Drowsy" Daytime over-the-counter
cold and flu medicines that contain Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide
("the "Non-Drowsy Products").

The Non-Drowsy Products state prominently on the front of their
product packaging that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime"
products. By prominently labeling the products as "Non-Drowsy,"
Defendant led the Plaintiff and other consumers to believe that the
Non-Drowsy Products do not cause drowsiness, and that drowsiness is
not a side effect of the products. The Defendant also led Plaintiff
and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy Products are for
use during the "Daytime" and intended to be used during waking
hours, the lawsuit says.

However, one of the active ingredients in the Non-Drowsy Products
is Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide ("DM HBr"). While the average
consumer may not be aware, drowsiness is a documented side effect
of DM HBr at dosages recommended by Defendant in respect to the
Non-Drowsy Products. Authorities such as the National Library of
Medicine and Mayo Clinic list drowsiness as a side effect of this
ingredient, the lawsuit adds.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself
and the Class for equitable relief and to recover damages and
restitution for: breach of express warranty; violations of New York
General Business Law section 349; violations of New York General
Business Law section 350; unjust enrichment; negligent
misrepresentation; and intentional misrepresentation.

Mr. Rothberg purchased a Non-Drowsy Product because of the
representations that the Non-Drowsy Product was "non drowsy" and
for "daytime" use. When purchasing the Non-Drowsy Product,
Plaintiff Rothberg reviewed the accompanying labels and
disclosures, and understood them as representations and warranties
by Defendant that the "Non-Drowsy" "Daytime" product would not
cause drowsiness and could be used during the day.

BJ's Wholesale was engaged in manufacturing, marketing
distributing, and advertising the Non-Drowsy Products throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

BLUE CROSS: Judge Approves $667-Mil. Attorney Fee in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom and Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that
a federal judge has signed off on a $667 million fee for the
lawyers who spent nine years crafting a $2.67 billion antitrust
settlement with health insurance plans offered by Blue Cross Blue
Shield.

The final settlement was approved on Aug. 9 by federal judge R.
David Procter, who said the legal fee was reasonable and
represented 25% of the award for health insurance purchasers. The
health insurance company also agreed to stop business practices the
litigation argued were designed to limit competition between
various Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans.

The case was mainly shepherded by lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner
and Hausfeld LLP, who are poised to receive the largest share of
the nine-figure award.

David Boies, the co-founder of Boies Schiller who served as co-lead
counsel with Michael Hausfeld, said the settlement will increase
competition in the health insurance market.

"The dollar recovery and the historic competition-enhancing
injunctive relief is unprecedented in a private antitrust case
unrelated to government action," Boies said in a statement. "This
case illustrates the power and importance of private enforcement of
the antitrust laws."

Hausfeld did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Procter said class counsel had worked on the case for more than
430,000 hours through mid-2020 and heralded the work for bringing
"historic, transformative, procompetitive injunctive and equitable
relief."

In an earlier request for the lawyer fee, Boies and Hausfeld
compared the scope of the litigation to some of the most well-known
antitrust cases, including those brought against Standard Oil,
American Tobacco Co., and AT&T. Those cases were investigated and
brought by the U.S. government. Boies and Hausfeld noted there was
no government investigation in the Blue Cross case.

The parties briefed over 150 discovery motions that led to 91
discovery orders, Judge Procter noted in an earlier filing. He
wrote that lawyers conducted over 120 depositions and defended over
20 depositions of class representatives and experts.

The lawyers also wrote in their earlier fee application that the
defendants produced more than 75 million pages that were reviewed
by a team of 178 attorneys for the plaintiffs. The settlement
negotiations began in 2015 and included 158 in-person and virtual
meetings with mediators and 282 telephone conferences, they wrote.

The suit accused dozens of independent insurers affiliated with
BCBS of illegally carving up the US health insurance market into
regional "service areas" to avoid having to compete with one
another.

The settlement received preliminary approval in late 2020.

The case is In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., N.D.
Ala., No. 13-cv-20000. [GN]

BOOZ ALLEN: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Tullgren ERISA Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TULLGREN, individually and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
INC. EMPLOYEES' CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN, v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.; THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. EMPLOYEES'
CAPITAL ACCUMULATION PLAN, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00856-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va., Aug. 1, 2022) alleges that the
Defendants breach their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Defined contribution plans (e.g., 401(k) and 401(a) plans) that are
qualified as tax-deferred vehicles have become the primary form of
retirement saving in the United States and, as a result, America's
de facto retirement system. Unlike traditional defined benefit
retirement plans, in which the employer typically promises a
calculable benefit and assumes the risk with respect to high fees
or underperformance of pension plan assets used to fund defined
benefits, the participants in defined contribution plans bear the
risk of high fees and investment underperformance. The importance
of defined contribution plans to the United States retirement
system has become pronounced as employer-provided defined benefit
plans are increasingly rare as an offered and meaningful employee
benefit.

As of December 31, 2020, the Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. Employees'
Capital Accumulation Plan had 44,270 participants with account
balances and assets totaling approximately $6.76 billion, placing
it in the top 0.1% of all defined contribution plans by plan size.
Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Plan,
have significant bargaining power and the ability to demand
low-cost administrative and investment management services within
the marketplace for administration of defined contribution plans
and the investment of defined contribution assets. The marketplace
for defined contribution retirement plan services is
well-established and can be competitive when fiduciaries of defined
contribution retirement plans act in an informed and prudent
fashion, says the suit.

The Defendants maintain the Plan, and are responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that
provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative
services. The Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such,
owe specific duties to the Plan and its participants and
beneficiaries, including obligations to act for the exclusive
benefit of participants, ensure that the investment options offered
through the Plan are prudent and diverse, and ensure that Plan
expenses are fair and reasonable in relation the services obtained,
added the suit.

The Plaintiff specifically seeks the following relief on behalf of
the Plan and the Class:

  a. A declaratory judgment holding that the acts of Defendants
     described herein violate ERISA and applicable law;

  b. A permanent injunction against Defendants prohibiting the
     practices described herein and affirmatively requiring them to

     act in the best interests of the Plan and its participants;

  c. Equitable, legal or remedial relief for all losses and/or
     compensatory damages;

  d. Attorneys' fees, costs and other recoverable expenses of
     litigation; and

  e. Such other and additional legal or equitable relief that the
     Court deems appropriate and just under all of the
     circumstances.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Booz Allen and former
participant in the Plan under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7). Plaintiff
is a resident of Clovis, California. During the Class Period, the
Plaintiff maintained an investment through the Plan in the
BlackRock LifePath Index 2050 Fund and the BlackRock LifePath Index
Retirement Fund.

Booz Allen is a public Delaware corporation headquartered in
McLean, Virginia. Booz Allen is a management and information
technology consulting firm with expertise in analytics, digital,
engineering, and cyber, we help businesses, government, and
military organizations transform.

The Board appointed "authorized representatives" of Booz Allen,
including the Administrative Committee, as plan fiduciaries.  The
Administrative Committee is responsible for the general
administration of the Plan and is a fiduciary under ERISA pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. sections 1002 and 1102.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: gchappell@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                  lrubinow@millershah.com
                  jcshah@millershah.com
                  ajberin@millershah.com
                  kctang@millershah.com

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid to Exclude Causation Opinion in Reed Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion in
Limine to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert,
Dr. Jerald Cook, and Motion for Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's
Inability to Prove Medical Causation in the lawsuit styled CHESTER
C. REED v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL., SECTION: H(1),
Case No. 17-3603 (E.D. La.).

Both Motions were filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean
Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No.
10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This
bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due
to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response (e.g., dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana before Judge Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier
approved the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action
Settlement Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of
this agreement or were excluded from its class definition.
Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be
reallocated among the judges of this Court. This case was
reassigned to Section H.

Plaintiff Reed alleges continuous exposure to oil and dispersants
starting in June 2010 during the course of his work on skimmer
boats engaged in cleanup efforts in areas near Dauphin Island, New
Orleans, and Hopedale. He claims to suffer from a host of medical
conditions because of the exposure, including chest pain, shortness
of breath, abdominal pain, chronic sinusitis, joint paint, contact
dermatitis, dizziness, eye burning, and more. He asserts claims
under the general maritime law of negligence, negligence per se,
and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its cleanup.

Now before the Court are Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude
the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert and their Motion for
Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical
Causation. In the Motion in Limine, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff's expert on medical causation, Dr. Jerald Cook, fails to
satisfy the Fifth Circuit requirements for an admissible general
causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should, therefore, be
excluded as unreliable. In the Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Defendants argue that assuming their Motion in Limine is granted,
the Plaintiff lacks expert testimony on general causation and,
therefore, fails to present a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether his injuries were caused by exposure to oil and
dispersants. To date, the Plaintiff has filed no opposition to the
Defendants' Motions.

Having filed no opposition, the Plaintiff provides no response to
the Defendants' arguments in favor of excluding Dr. Cook and
dismissing all claims for failing to prove the causation element.
However, Judge Milazzo notes, a motion for summary judgment cannot
be granted simply because there is no opposition. The movant has
the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact and, unless he has done so, the court may not grant
the motion, regardless of whether any response was filed.

Judge Milazzo explains that B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal
cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other
chemicals used during the response. The Plaintiff's burden with
respect to causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both
general causation and specific causation. General causation is
whether a substance is capable of causing a particular injury or
condition in the general population, while specific causation is
whether a substance caused a particular individual's injury.

Dr. Cook is listed as the Plaintiff's only expert witness on
causation. On this topic, Dr. Cook produced a report dated March
14, 2022, and entitled "Health Effects Among Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A Cause and Effect Analysis."
The report is not unique to this case; another judge of the Court
has described it as "an omnibus, non-case specific general
causation expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."

Five other sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana have
excluded Dr. Cook based on this same report before the Court, Judge
Milazzo states. After carefully and thoroughly reviewing those
decisions, and for the same reasons articulated by Judges Ashe,
Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, the Court grants the
Defendants' Motion in Limine. Accordingly, the Court also grants
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Milazzo also holds that all of the Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ura33bpk from
Leagle.com.


BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Eddlemon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY is taking an appeal from a court ruling granting
class certification in the lawsuit entitled ORION EDDLEMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01264-MMM-JEH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois.

The Plaintiff's action arises out of Defendant Bradley's decision
during the Spring 2020 Semester to retain the full amount of
tuition and full amount of Activity and Course Surcharge Fees paid,
despite being unable to provide students, like Plaintiff, with the
entire 15 weeks of in-person and on-campus educational services
that they agreed to, contracted for, and paid for.

The Plaintiff paid for the Spring 2020 tuition, Activity Fee, and
Course Surcharge Fees in exchange for in-person and on-campus
educational services, experiences, and opportunities as detailed in
Bradley's marketing, advertisements, and other public
representations.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Bradley canceled all
in-person and on-campus educational services and then transitioned
to online only education. Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class did
not receive the benefit and services that they bargained for when
they paid Bradley tuition, the Activity Fee, and Course Surcharge
Fees, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 11, 2022, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
      and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      -- the Tuition Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made for
         tuition for on-campus classes for the Spring 2020
         Semester;"

      -- the Activity Fee Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made, for an
         Activity Fee for the Spring 2020 Semester;" and

      -- the Course Surcharge Class

         "All students and former students of Bradley University
         who paid, or on whose behalf payment was made for a
         Course Surcharge Fee for the Spring 2020 Semester;"

   2. appointing him as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel.

On July 22, 2022, Judge Michael M. Mihm ruled that Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED as to the Tuition Class,
GRANTED as to the Activity Fee Class, and DENIED as to the Course
Surcharge Fee Class. The Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Plaintiff as
Class Representative is GRANTED, as well as Plaintiff's Motion to
Appoint Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Bradley University v. Orion
Eddlemon, Case No. 22-8010, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on Aug. 5, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner BRADLEY UNIVERSITY is represented by:

         Kara Angeletti, Esq.
         Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq.
         Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.   
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         77 W. Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60601-0000
         Telephone: (312) 456-8400

Plaintiff-Respondent ORION EDDLEMON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

         Matthew Peterson, Esq.
         VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
         1101 E. Cumberland Avenue
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (352) 753-8600

CAPITAL ONE: Bacs, Roubert File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN BACS and JESSICA
ROUBERT, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No.
8:21-cv-02852-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying the case as class action for the
following class of similarly-situated individuals:

   National  Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
   (COBRA) Putative Class

   "All participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health
   Plan who were sent a COBRA notice by the Defendant, during
   the applicable four-year statute of limitations period,
   because of a "qualifying event" as determined by Defendant's
   records, who did not elect continuation coverage."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated 29 C.F.R. section
2590.606-4(b)(4) and (4)(b)(4)(viii) by failing to include in its
COBRA notice the specific date that coverage ends if elected.

The Plaintiff Roubert worked for Capital One for almost eleven
years, from November 2007 until October 28, 2018. At the time of
her separation from employment, both Jessica Roubert and her
disabled son were participants in the Capital One Dental Plan.

The Plaintiff Susan Bacs worked for Capital One for over six years,
from January 2013 until November 26, 2018. She participated in both
the Capital One Health and Dental Plans.

Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the
United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Aug. 3,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C6Hf7M
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Hall Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE HALL and JERMAINE MINITEE, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf
of the CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION SAVINGS PLAN v. CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION; THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION SAVINGS PLAN; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names
Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 1:22-cv-00857 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1,
2022) alleges that the Defendants breach their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Defined contribution plans (e.g., 401(k) and 401(a) plans) that are
qualified as tax-deferred vehicles have become the primary form of
retirement saving in the United States and, as a result, America's
de facto retirement system. Unlike traditional defined benefit
retirement plans, in which the employer typically promises a
calculable benefit and assumes the risk with respect to high fees
or underperformance of pension plan assets used to fund defined
benefits, the participants in defined contribution plans bear the
risk of high fees and investment underperformance.

As of December 31, 2020, the Capital One Financial Corporation
Savings Plan had 60,876 participants with account balances and
assets totaling approximately $7.85 billion, placing it in the top
0.1% of all defined contribution plans by plan size. Defined
contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Plan, have
significant bargaining power and the ability to demand low-cost
administrative and investment management services within the
marketplace for administration of defined contribution plans and
the investment of defined contribution assets. The marketplace for
defined contribution retirement plan services is well-established
and can be competitive when fiduciaries of defined contribution
retirement plans act in an informed and prudent fashion.

The Defendants maintain the Plan, and are responsible for
selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that
provide investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative
services. Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such, owe
specific duties to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries,
including obligations to act for the exclusive benefit of
participants, ensure that the investment options offered through
the Plan are prudent and diverse, and ensure that Plan expenses are
fair and reasonable in relation the services obtained.

The Defendants have allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the Plan by selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratified
poorly-performing investments instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments that were readily available at the time
Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class
Period, says the suit.

Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts,
headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations primarily in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          TZ LEGAL
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: gchappell@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
                  lrubinow@millershah.com
                  jcshah@millershah.com
                  ajberin@millershah.com
                  kctang@millershah.com

CARTER-YOUNG INC: Gayle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rayon Gayle, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Carter-Young, Inc., removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 12,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-61515-XXXX to
the proceeding.

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

Carter-Young, Inc. -- https://www.carter-young.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency based in Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ernest Henry Kohlmyer, III, Esq.
          SHEPARD, SMITH, KOHLMYER & HAND, P.A.
          2300 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 100
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Phone: (407) 622-1772
          Fax: (407) 622-1884
          Email: skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com


CENTENE CORP: Havrilla Sues Over Fraudulent Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HAVRILLA, CYNTHIA DAWSON, ALDEN HENRIKSEN, MELODY
DESCHEPPER, CHRISTOPHER TILTON, and MARK HACKETT, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTENE
CORPORATION; CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC; and CELTIC INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04126 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 5,
2022) arises from the Defendants' engagement in unlawful enterprise
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
selling fraudulent health-insurance policies under the brand name
"Ambetter" to millions of consumers across 26 states.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and millions of
consumers -- most of them low-income -- who have purchased the
Ambetter plans sold by Defendants and other members of the RICO
enterprise have been overcharged by hundreds of millions of dollars
a year because the plans don't deliver the benefits that are
represented to consumers and fail to satisfy the minimum
requirements imposed by the Affordable Care Act and other federal
and state laws and regulations.

This class action seeks to recover the overcharges incurred by
Plaintiffs and the millions of other similarly situated consumers
who paid premiums for Ambetter plans, and to enjoin Defendants from
further alleged unlawful conduct, says the suit.

Centene Corp. is a provider of health-insurance plans sold on the
exchanges established by the U.S. Affordable Care Act. The
company's many subsidiaries sell ACA plans under the brand name
"Ambetter."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Justin N. Boley, Esq.
          Zoran Tasic, Esqq.
          WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP  
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
                  jnb@wbe-llp.com
                  zt@wbe-llp.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Anthony J. Stauber, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  tstauber@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Sarah Sears, Esq.
          KLAFTER LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
                  sarah.sears@klafterlesser.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Alexander Barnett, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          40 Worth Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 201-6820
          Facsimile: (917) 398-7753
          E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com

CERES LLC: McDonald Seeks Unpaid Wages for Non-Exempt Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
BETH MCDONALD, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. CERES, LLC d/b/a PRIME HOSPITALITY GROUP, VISTA
(IN), LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, HOOSIER CITY LP d/b/a
RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, SIZZLE, LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK
HOUSE, ZZX, LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, CHESTERFIELD PRIME,
LLC d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, TERRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
RUTH'S CHRIS STEAK HOUSE, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, d/b/a RUTH'S CHRIS
STEAK HOUSE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01523-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Aug. 1,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
time-shaving, unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, illegally
retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and the Indiana
Wages Hours and Benefits.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all non-exempt front-of-house and back-of-house employees
(including delivery persons, bartenders, servers, runners, bussers,
cashiers, porters, cooks, line-cooks, food preparers, and
dishwashers) employed by the Defendants in Missouri, Indiana, and
Arkansas, on or after the date that is six years before the filing
of the Complaint in this case.

Ruth's Chris Steak House is a Restaurant chain of over 150
steakhouses across the United State, Canada and Mexico, owned by
various different corporate entities.

The Defendants, as Franchisee Owners, collectively own and operate
seven steak house and grill restaurants in the states of Missouri,
Indiana, and Arkansas under the common trade name "Ruth's Chris
Steak House."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST COMPANY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06706 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2022) is
brought against the Defendant for its failure to achieve best
execution in connection with trades it executed on March 18, 2022
that resulted in excess of $70 million in damages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant was engaged as broker by
LSTC and Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P., an investment advisory
firm, on March 18, 2022 to execute several large orders for LSTC,
as trustee to certain investments trusts, and Loomis clients for
whom Loomis serves as an investment adviser. Included with the
March 18 Orders were orders to buy 780,856 shares in Shopify, Inc.
and sell 5,236,139 shares in Colgate-Palmolive Company, referred
here as "Affected Orders." LSTC and Loomis directed Citigroup,
through its trader Joseph Chiomastro, to conduct appropriate market
liquidity analysis and use its discretion to execute the March 18
Orders in a manner that would not materially impact the prices at
which the securities were purchased or sold.

LSTC and Loomis expressed that the Affected Orders did not need to
be completed that day in the event that Citigroup determined that
there was insufficient liquidity to complete them without
materially impacting prevailing market prices. Citigroup accepted
the Affected Orders and agreed to execute as directed. Citigroup,
however, failed to comply with LSTC and Loomis' instructions and
breached its obligations, including its duty of best execution.
Citigroup, in violation of its obligations, failed to conduct any
meaningful liquidity analysis; placed the entirety of the Affected
Orders into the closing auction; flooded the market with those
orders; caused artificial price dislocation; made no attempt to
cancel or reduce the size of the Affected Orders pursuant to New
York Stock Exchange rules; and failed to involve the NYSE and/or
the Designated Market Maker to suspend the auction and supplement
it with more liquidity to ensure a reasonable closing price.
Citigroup placed the entirety of the Affected Orders into the
closing auction, which resulted in execution at artificially
dislocated prices, asserts the suit.

Citigroup's alleged breaches caused damages to Plaintiff and Loomis
Clients that participated in the trades of Shopify and/or
Colgate-Palmolive executed by Citigroup on March 18, 2022, which
are estimated in excess of $70 million, the suit adds.

Citigroup is a brokerage firm regulated by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority and is a member of the NYSE qualified to
purchase and sell securities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. Younger, Esq.
          Leah S. Rizkallah, Esq.
          Amanda Coleman, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          
               - and -

          Dean Richlin, Esq.
          Matthew C. Baltay, Esq.
          Natalie F. Panariello, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210

CLOVERLEAF APARTMENTS: Simpson Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dorothy Simpson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Cloverleaf Apartments Investors, LLC,
Stonebridge Global Partners, LLC, Seldin Company, Case No.
2116-CV11060 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on Aug. 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00520-BP to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.

Cloverleaf Apartments Investors is located in Kansas City,
Missouri, and is in the industry of lessors of real estate, real
estate, real estate and rental and leasing, apartment building
operators.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Leyh, Esq.
          Andrea M. Knernschield, Esq.
          Nicholas Leyh, Esq.
          GREGORY LEYH, P.C.
          1600 Genessee St., Suite 132
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 283-3380
          Fax: (816) 283-0489
          Email: gleyh@leyhlaw.com
                 aknernschield@leyhlaw.com
                 nleyh@leyhlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel R. Zmijewski, Esq.
          DRZ LAW - LEAWOOD
          8700 State Line Rd., Ste. 305
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Phone: (913) 400-2033
          Email: dan@drzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.
          Lauren E. Tucker McCubbin, Esq.
          POLSINELLI - KCMO
          900 W. 48th Place
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 753-1000
          Fax: (816) 753-1536
          Email: molthoff@polsinelli.com
                 ltucker@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Jeremy K Schrag, Esq.
          Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH-WICHITA
          1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Phone: (316) 609-7903
          Fax: (316) 462-5746
          Email: jeremy.schrag@lewisbrisbois.com
                 alan.rupe@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Karly Dorann Weigel, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH-KCMO
          4600 Madison Avenue, Suite 700
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 299-4260
          Fax: (816) 299-4245
          Email: karly.weigel@lewisbrisbois.com


CME CONSULTING: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan and Frida Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs V. CME CONSULTING LLC AND OM
SHEE SHIVSHAKTI HOSPITALITY USA, LLC collectively d/b/a COMFORT
SUITES OF MILLEDGEVILLE, and Individual Defendants Chirag Thakkar
and Manoj Patel, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03128-AT (N.D. Ga.,
Aug. 8, 2022) is a collective action against the Defendants for
failure to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated persons
minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
failure to pay at a rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Corporate Defendants starting
February 27, 2022, as a maintenance technician and a front office
employee.

CME Consulting LLC is a construction management and engineering
consulting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
          THE MIXON LAW FIRM
          3344 Peachtree Rd, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (770) 955-0100
          E-mail: steve@mixon-law.com

COCA-COLA: Warren Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Kari Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-06907
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to its alcoholic beverages described as "Margarita – Hard
Seltzer" under the Topo Chico Brand.

Relevant representations include "Topo Chico," "4.5% ALC/VOL,"
"Margarita Hard Seltzer," and a yellow backdrop of agave plants,
the source crop for tequila. The packaging contains the four
varieties of Margarita Hard Seltzer including the "Signature
Margarita." In smaller font beneath each variety, the label states
"Naturally Flavored With Other Natural Flavors."

The representations are misleading because the Product does not
contain tequila, absent from the ingredient list on the side panel
of the packaging. Instead of listing the alcohol source from a
fermented sugar base, the ingredients list only "alcohol." The
ingredients include "agave syrup," a sweetener from the agave
plant, instead of the liquor obtained from the distillation of the
agave plant and the essential tequila ingredient in a margarita.
That the front of the cans state "Naturally Flavored With Other
Natural Flavors" does not tell consumers the drinks they are
purchasing are flavored beers that purport to taste like a
margarita.

The "Margarita" representations including "Margarita," "Hard
Seltzer," and pictures of agave plants are misleading because the
Product does not contain tequila. Malt beverage products are
required to indicate the class of beverage they fit into. The
representation as "Hard Seltzer" does not indicate the class of
malt beverages the Product fits in, preventing consumers from
knowing the type of alcoholic drink they are buying. "Margarita –
Hard Seltzer" does not identify the Product's base class and/or
type designation, which is beer. The Product's use of the term
"Hard Seltzer" is false, deceptive and misleading because it does
not contain distilled spirits, but is made from a fermented sugar
base. The labeling is misleading because the Product does not
contain the sparkling mineral water sourced in Monterrey, Mexico,
which is an essential part of Topo Chico beverages.

The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. The value of
the Product that Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its
value as represented by the Defendant. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence
of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense
of consumers. Had Plaintiff known the truth, she would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$17.99 for a twelve-pack of 12 oz cans, excluding tax and sales,
higher than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way,
and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product between May 2022 and June 2022,
among other times.

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest seller of beverages
who manufactures, distributes, labels, markets,
and/or sells alcoholic beverages described as "Margarita – Hard
Seltzer" under the Topo Chico brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


COINBASE GLOBAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in Coinbase Global? If so, please
visit Coinbase Global, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to
discuss your rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase" or the "Company")
between April 14, 2021 and July 26, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Coinbase provides financial infrastructure and technology products
and services for the cryptocurrency economy (or "cryptoeconomy") in
the U.S. and internationally. The Company purportedly offers the
primary financial account in the cryptoeconomy for retailers, a
marketplace with a pool of liquidity for transacting in crypto
assets for institutions, and technology and services that enable
ecosystem partners to build crypto-based applications and securely
accept crypto assets as payment.

Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Coinbase custodially held
crypto assets on behalf of its customers, which assets Coinbase
knew or recklessly disregarded could qualify as the property of a
bankruptcy estate, making those assets potentially subject to
bankruptcy proceedings in which Coinbase's customers would be
treated as the Company's general unsecured creditors; (ii) Coinbase
allowed Americans to trade digital assets that Coinbase knew or
recklessly disregarded should have been registered as securities
with the SEC; and (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company
to a heightened risk of regulatory and governmental scrutiny and
enforcement action.

On May 10, 2022, in its quarterly report for the first quarter of
2022, released after the markets closed, Coinbase disclosed that
"because custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the
property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the
crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could
be subject to bankruptcy proceedings and such customers could be
treated as our general unsecured creditors."

Following this disclosure, the Company's stock price fell $19.27
per share to close at $53.72 per share on May 11, 2022.

In a subsequent tweet commenting on the disclosure, Coinbase's
Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Brian Armstrong, stated: "We
should have updated our retail terms sooner, and we didn't
communicate proactively when this risk disclosure was added. My
deepest apologies, and a good learning moment for us as we make
future changes."

Then, on May 12, 2022, Professor Adam J. Levitin, a professor of
law at Georgetown University Law Center, published a draft of an
article entitled "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins: Unpriced Credit
Risk in Cryptocurrency," set to appear in the Texas Law Review.
That draft article argued that in the event a cryptocurrency
exchange files for bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are likely to deem
custodial holdings of cryptocurrencies to be property of the
bankrupt exchange, rather than the property of its customers.

Finally, on July 25, 2022, after the markets closed, Bloomberg
reported that Coinbase is facing an SEC probe into whether it
improperly let Americans trade digital assets that should have been
registered as securities.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $14.14 per share to
close at $52.93 per share on July 26, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 3, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

COINBASE GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy J. Allen, writing for The Coin Republic, reports that the
tumbling cryptocurrency market has left no space for the crypto
exchanges to peek into the growing stages. In such a hard time, a
struggling crypto currency firm, Coinbase faces another
class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit describes the company as
misleading their users and investors on various fronts. The lawsuit
majorly focuses on the safety of assets stored by the customers on
the server.

Class Action Filed Against Coinbase Global Inc.
Bragar Eagel & Squire P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against
Coinbase Global Inc. in the U.S District Court, New Jersey. The
suit seeks enlisting customers who Either purchased or acquired
Coinbase securities. The case enlists the customers who were
involved with the crypto exchange between April 4th, 2021 to July
26th, 2022. The customers who tend to join the class can join till
October 3rd.

A recent report shows that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commision (SEC) was investigating the crypto exchange, Coinbase,
for failing to register a few digital assets as securities. The
crypto exchange firm was allowing the customers to trade these
digital assets without prior informing them. The customers were
unknowingly dealing in digital assets which were not registered
securities.

The tumbling cryptocurrency market has left no space for the crypto
exchanges to peek into the growing stages. In such a hard time, a
struggling crypto currency firm, Coinbase faces another
class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit describes the company as
misleading their users and investors on various fronts. The lawsuit
majorly focuses on the safety of assets stored by the customers on
the server.

Class Action Filed Against Coinbase Global Inc.
Bragar Eagel & Squire P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against
Coinbase Global Inc. in the U.S District Court, New Jersey. The
suit seeks enlisting customers who Either purchased or acquired
Coinbase securities. The case enlists the customers who were
involved with the crypto exchange between April 4th, 2021 to July
26th, 2022. The customers who tend to join the class can join till
October 3rd.

A recent report shows that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commision (SEC) was investigating the crypto exchange, Coinbase,
for failing to register a few digital assets as securities. The
crypto exchange firm was allowing the customers to trade these
digital assets without prior informing them. The customers were
unknowingly dealing in digital assets which were not registered
securities.

Bragar Eagel & Squire P.C. filed a representative action alleging
that Coinbase created a falsity in their statements about the
Company's business. They also made materially false statements
about 'Company Policies' and business operations. These actions
from Coinbase encircled them with regulatory and governmental
scrutiny and enforcement actions. The regulatory actions against
Coinbase from different entities compromised the assets stored on
the platform by their customers.

Coinbase – An Evergreen Convict
This is not the first time Coinbase is under the regulatory
spotlight. In June, a class action was filed alleging that Coinbase
didn't inform their customers of the risk of underpinning TerraUSD
stablecoin. Also, the company never disclosed to the customers that
the venture capital division of Coinbase backed Terraform Labs.
Another such case filed alleged Coinbase for being reckless on
listing the GYEN stablecoin that lost its peg to Japanese Yen.

The struggling crypto exchange, Coinbase, has faced several
lawsuits as of now. From passing the BTC token as bitcoins to
hiding crucial facts from the customers. Coinbase is continuously
hitting the nerve of financial regulatory bodies every now and
then. It's just a question of time now, what will the next phase of
this class action against Coinbase bring to us. [GN]

COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Barfell Loses Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS H. L. BARFELL, v.
SGT. ROCHA, NURSE ALT, OFFICER WEN, ZENK, KESSNIK, LLOYD, AMOSA,
HIBMA, JOHN AND JANE DOES, Officers and State Inspector, LARRY
FUCHS, Warden, MARY LEISER, SERGEANT OLSON, Unit Manager, FOFANA,
sued as HSM Fofana, RACHEL SNOW, and BOYER, ICE, Case No.
2:22-cv-00171-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered
an order:

   1. granting the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
      without prepaying the filing fee;

   2. denying the plaintiff's motion for preservation of
      evidence;

   3. denying the plaintiff's motion to certify class;

   4. denying the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel; and

   5. dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Court further entered an order that the plaintiff may file an
amended complaint that complies with the instructions in this order
within twenty-one days of the date of this order. If plaintiff
files an amended complaint by the deadline, the court will screen
the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915A. If plaintiff
does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, the court will
dismiss this case based on his failure to state a claim in his
original complaint and will issue him a "strike" under 28 U.S.C.
section 1915(g).

The Plaintiff Thomas Barfell, a former Wisconsin state prisoner,
filed a pro se "class action" complaint under 42 U.S.C. section
1983 along with four other prisoner-plaintiffs. The other
plaintiffs have withdrawn from the case; Barfell is the sole
remaining plaintiff. This order screens the second amended
complaint and resolves the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee. This order also addresses the
plaintiff's motion for preservation of evidence, motion to certify
class, and motion to appoint counsel.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) applies to this case
because plaintiff was a prisoner when he filed his complaint. The
PLRA allows the court to give a prisoner plaintiff the ability to
proceed with his case without prepaying the civil case filing fee.
When funds exist, the prisoner must pay an initial partial filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(1). He must then pay the balance of
the $350 filing fee over time, through deductions from his prisoner
account.

On March 31, 2022, the Court ordered the plaintiff to pay an
initial partial filing fee of $1.95. He paid that fee on April 26,
2022. I will grant plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee. He must pay the remainder of the filing
fee as stated at the end of this order.

The plaintiff was confined at Columbia Correctional Institution
(CCI) at all times relevant. He alleges that on February 4, 2022,
at about 9:00 p.m., an inmate confined near him was being
disruptive and defendants Officers Wen, Lloyd, Kessnik, Rocha,
Zenk, and Jane and John Doe arrived on the unit to conduct a cell
extraction. The plaintiff and the other former plaintiffs informed
the officers that they had respiratory issues and that using "O/C
spray" while they were present on the tier would cause their
medical conditions to worsen.

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

COMMUNITY PRODUCTS: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Products,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Community Products, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06813 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Community Playthings -- http://www.communityproducts.com/--
manufactures quality maple furniture and toys for early childhood
settings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMPANA PET BRANDS: Goshert Files Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compana Pet Brands.
The case is styled as Linda Goshert, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Compana Pet Brands, Case No.
3:22-cv-04617-JSC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Compana Pet Brands -- https://companapetbrands.com/ -- supplies a
wide range of high-quality nutrition, supplements, and food
products for dogs and cats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Email: slitteral@bursor.com


CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Spitzer Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constar Financial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Benjamin Spitzer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Constar Financial
Services, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-06844 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Constar Financial Services is a collection agency located in
Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORTEVA INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Claims in Cockerill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBERT F. COCKERILL and CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM
NEWTON, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT SPECIALITY
PRODUCTS USA, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; THE PENSION AND RETIREMENT PLAN; THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE, Case No. 21-3966 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in
their entirety.

The putative class action arises from the alleged denial of
retirement benefits to certain employees following the employer's
spin-off of these employees to a different entity. Plaintiffs
Robert F. Cockerill and Christopher W. Newton, individually and as
representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
bring various claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against Defendants Corteva, Inc.; Dupont
Specialty Products USA, LLC; DuPont de Nemours, Inc.; E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company; The Pension and Retirement Plan; and the
Administrative Committee.

On Dec. 11, 2015, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("Historical
DuPont"), which was founded over 200 years ago, announced its
intent to merge with Dow Chemical Co. On Aug. 31, 2017, the
Historical DuPont-Dow Chemical merger closed, to create a combined
entity, DowDuPont.

On June 1, 2019, DowDuPont spun-off into three separate entities:
Corteva, Inc. (focusing on agricultural chemicals); Dow, Inc.
(focusing on materials science); and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. ("New
DuPont") (focusing on specialty product industries). Corteva, which
has approximately 21,000 employees, is the parent company of what
remains of Historical DuPont (noting that Historical DuPont is a
"paper subsidiary" of Corteva). Most of what had been Historical
DuPont's businesses operate now under New DuPont.

Specialty Products USA, LLC had been a subsidiary of Historical
DuPont prior to the Historical DuPont-Dow Chemical merger, at which
point it became a subsidiary of DowDuPont. Following the spin-offs
in 2019, it became a subsidiary of New DuPont.

                       History of the Plan

The Pension and Retirement Plan, sponsored by E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company ("Historical DuPont"), was originally adopted
effective Sept. 1, 1904.

In November 2016, following the announcement of the Historical
DuPont-Dow Chemical merger, but prior to the merger, Plan
participants were notified of Historical DuPont's intent to freeze
the Plan "so that no new benefits would accrue to participants in
the Plan and no new employees would become eligible to participate
in the Plan." Plan participants received "frequently asked
questions" concerning the freeze, to include the following two
questions and answers: What is changing with the Pension Plan?
(Question 9); and How do I find out if early retirement reduction
factors will be applied to my Pension Plan benefit? (Question 10).

In 2018, following the announcement of DowDuPont's spin-off, a
"question and answer" concerning the spin-off's effect on Plan
participants, as to Specialty Products, asked: I am currently a
participant in DuPont's U.S. Pension Plan and will be an employee
of Specialty Products in the US. How does this affect my pension?

In March 2019, Plan participants who were "hired or rehired" as
"Full-Service Employees prior to January 1, 2007, and who had, or
would have, obtained at least age 50 with 15 years of service as of
May 31, 2019" received a presentation regarding their benefits
under the Plan in light of the spin-off. Pursuant to the
presentation, those qualifying individuals would be considered a
"retiree" as of June 1, 2019. Participants who were age 50 but who
would receive a reduced pension benefit as of June 1, 2019, could
wait until they reached an age where the benefit was no longer
reduced. No "similar presentation" was provided to "similar
participants who had not yet obtained age 50 as of May 31, 2019."

As of June 1, 2019, the Plan, including pension liabilities,
transferred to Corteva. Corteva maintains responsibility for
funding and administering the pension benefits for over 100,000
participants, most of whom have never worked for Corteva.
Historical DuPont, as a subsidiary of Corteva, remains the Plan
sponsor.

The applicable Plan provisions, as amended and restated effective
Dec. 16, 2015, and including certain amendments thereafter are
alleged as follows: Section III provides that normal retirement age
under the Plan is the later of age 65 or, for employees who
commence participation in the Plan after age 60, the 5th
anniversary of the time Plan participation commenced, among other
amendments.

                       Procedural History

On Sept. 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant action against
all Defendants, alleging that the merger and spin-offs allowed Dow
and New DuPont "to divest themselves of any future funding
obligations and liabilities of the Plan." The Plaintiffs, as
individuals and as representatives on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, brought five claims:

   * Count I: Claim for early retirement benefits pursuant to
     29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) by the Plaintiffs and the
     Class, against the Administrative Committee;

   * Count II: Claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C.
     Section 1132(a)(1)(B) by Newton and Sub-Class A, against the
     Administrative Committee, in the alternative to Count I;

   * Count III: Claim for breach of fiduciary duty pursuant to
     29 U.S.C. Section 1104 and breach of co-fiduciary duty
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1105, against all Defendants
     except the Plan, in the alternative to Count I;

   * Count IV: Claim for interference with protected rights
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1140, against all Defendants
     except the Plan, in the alternative to Counts I & II; and

   * Count V: Promissory Estoppel under Pennsylvania law, against
     all Defendants except the Plan, in the alternative to
     Counts I-III.

                       Motion to Dismiss

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on
Nov. 10, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed a response on Nov. 24, 2021,
and the Defendants filed a reply on Dec. 8, 2021.

As an initial matter, the Court must determine the appropriate
standard of review. The Plaintiffs allege that the Plan is a
"defined benefit pension plan" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1002(35), and the Administrative Committee is (1) the
"Administrator" of the Plan, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1002(16)(A)(i); (2) a fiduciary of the Plan, "with
discretionary authority to manage and administer the plan,"
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(21)(A); and (3) "a named
fiduciary of the Plan with the authority and control to manage the
operation and administration of the Plan within the meaning of 29
U.S.C. Section 1102(a)," The Defendants make no argument to the
contrary.

Judge Baylson finds that an arbitrary and capricious review of the
denial of Early Retirement benefits is appropriate, citing
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 489 U.S. at 108-09; Saltzman, 634 F.
Supp. 2d at 546-47.

Pursuant to Count I, the Plaintiffs seek a ruling under Section
1132(a)(1)(B) that the Administrative Committee "acted arbitrarily
and capriciously in interpreting the Plan to extinguish their right
to age into an Early Retirement or Rule of 85 unreduced early
retirement under the Plan."

According to Defendant Administrative Committee, the Plaintiffs'
claim should be dismissed with prejudice because the Plan's
language is "clear and unambiguous" that the Plaintiffs did not and
do not qualify for Early Retirement benefits. Specifically, the
Administrative Committee argues that the Plaintiffs have never
qualified for Early Retirement benefits because they: (1) are not
"employees" of the "Company," and (2) had not reached the age of 50
prior to the spin off.

The Plaintiffs counter that the Plan's definition of "employee" is
not "clear and unambiguous." They contend that the definition of
"employee" includes former employees. Additionally, the Plaintiffs
argue that, even if "employee" was clear and unambiguous in some
circumstances, the definition of "employee" suffers from a latent
ambiguity due to the Administrative Committee's prior allowances,
over the course of decades, for "employees who terminated prior to
age 50 to age into early retirement benefits."

For the reasons stated, the Court rejects, at the pleading stage,
the Defendants' argument that the Court can and should construe the
Plan as a matter of law in favor of the Defendants. Judge Baylson
notes that the Supreme Court has held that the word "employee" can
be subject to different interpretations, citing Nationwide Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992).

Given that term "employee" may be ambiguous under the Plan, the
next question is whether the Plan Administrator acted reasonably in
the denial of the Plaintiffs' Early Retirement benefits.

Judge Baylson finds that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts
to allege that the Administrative Committee did not act reasonably
in terminating their rights to Early Retirement or Rule of 85
unreduced early retirement under the Plan, and that they had a
legally enforceable right to benefits under the Plan.

The Court rules that the same conclusions are required as to the
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to: (a.) 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B), claim for benefits (Count II); (b.) 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104 and 29 U.S.C. Section 1105, breach of fiduciary duty
and co-fiduciary duty (Count III); and (c.) 29 U.S.C. Section 1140,
interference with protected rights (Count IV).

                           Conclusion

The Court will not discuss or rule on the Defendants' assertion
that the state law claims (Count V) are preempted, although this
result may be required at a later stage of the proceedings.
Likewise, the Court will not discuss or rule on Defendants'
arguments as to whether the Settlement Agreement and General
Release allegedly executed between Specialty Products and Newton
bars any of the claims, although, again, this result may be
required at a later stage.

Reading the Complaint fairly, Judge Baylson finds that the
Plaintiffs have alleged conduct by the Defendants that could be in
violation of ERISA, depending on the quality of proof, and rulings
on the interpretation of the Plan, after discovery. From Third
Circuit precedent, as cited by Plaintiffs, the Court must allow
discovery on ERISA allegations that suggest misleading conduct and
misrepresentations, as the Plaintiffs have done here. The so-called
"spin off" might have been a strategy to deprive long-term
employees of benefits they had reason to expect. ERISA provides for
equitable remedies if plaintiffs are able to prove their claims.

Reviewing the Defendants' Reply brief, the arguments which they
make may have validity, but only after the close of discovery,
Judge Baylson notes. Given the specific allegations, and the Third
Circuit jurisprudence on ERISA cases, the Plaintiffs deserve an
opportunity for discovery. There may be factual and/or legal issues
as to who is included as an "employee" and whether the Plaintiffs
have any claim for equitable relief based on statements and
representations made by the Defendants over the years.

However, the Court rejects the Defendants' arguments that the
Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege reasonable reliance
on representations and related arguments by the Defendants. Whether
the Plaintiffs are eligible for early retirement or for "optional
retirement benefits" may require interpretation of language in the
Plan and other issues which might benefit from discovery.

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss will be
denied. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/35msb4ud from Leagle.com.


CUSTOM METALCRAFTERS: Faces Pierre-Louis Suit Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gargy Pierre-Louis, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in this proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v.
Custom Metalcrafters, Inc., and Stephen Rosner, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06717 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2022) seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, and to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a manual worker,
window mechanic and glazier from August 2019 to, through and
including, the present date.

Custom Metalcrafters, Inc. is a construction company based in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CVS PHARMACY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Doe One's 2nd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE ONE, et al., Plaintiffs v. CVS PHARMACY,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01031-EMC, Docket No. 184
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denies the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action alleging that five
CVS entities -- Caremark, L.L.C., Caremark PCS Health, L.L.C, CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C., and Caremark California
Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C. -- have discriminatorily denied them
benefits under their employer-offered prescription drug benefit
plans. They allege that their benefit plans allow them to obtain
their HIV/AIDS medications at favorable "in-network" prices only
via mail or a CVS pharmacy. Compared to the non-CVS "community
pharmacies" from which they were previously able to obtain their
medications, the mail order and CVS Pharmacy pickup options do not
offer the same level of privacy, convenience, reliability, and
service.

The Plaintiffs received prescription drug coverage through health
plans sponsored by their employers, who once were, but no longer
are, Defendants in the case. They have brought a claim under
Section 1557 of the ACA based on the Defendants' allegedly
discriminatory benefits plans.

The SAC names both pharmacies and pharmacy benefit managers as
Defendants: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CSP, and Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C.
are pharmacies (collectively, the "Pharmacy Defendants"), and
Caremark, L.L.C. and Caremark PCS Health, L.L.C. are pharmacy
benefit managers, or PBMs (collectively, the "PBM Defendants").
According to the SAC, the Defendants "act as agents of one another
and operate as a single entity for purposes of administering
pharmacy benefits and providing prescription drugs to health plans
and health plan members." It alleges that the Pharmacy Defendants
and the PBM Defendants are both "directly responsible for the
discriminatory conduct at issue in the Complaint." The SAC alleges
that they collectively worked together to control and execute the
Program.

The SAC alleges that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. receives "Federal financial
assistance" as part of its participation in the Medicare Part D.
program. Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. owns and operates CVS retail
pharmacies in California and receives Federal financial assistance
under the Medicaid 340B program, which subsidizes the cost of
pharmaceuticals for low-income individuals. The Pharmacy Defendants
and PBM Defendants (as part of the Pharmacy Segment and Retail/LTC
Segment of CVS Health Corp.) are "the intended recipients of that
government funding for purposes of providing health care services
on behalf of government agencies to qualified individuals."

The Plaintiffs filed their original class action complaint on Feb.
16, 2018. On May 12, 2018, they voluntarily dismissed CVS
Healthcare Corp. and CaremarkRx, L.L.C. and subsequently filed an
amended complaint. On July 20, 2018, the original three CVS
Defendants (CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CSP, and Caremark, L.L.C.) moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. On Dec. 12, 2018, the Court
dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety and entered
judgment for the Defendants. On Jan. 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs
appealed.

On Dec. 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit vacated the dismissal of (1) the
ACA claim and (2) the UCL claim to the extent it is predicated on a
violation of the ACA, but affirmed dismissal of all other claims.
It remanded with instructions that the Court addresses in the first
instance whether the Plaintiffs had adequately alleged the
Defendants' receipt of "Federal financial assistance."

On March 21, 2021, the Defendants filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari, which was granted on July 2, 2021. On Nov. 12, 2021,
the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for a writ of
certiorari after the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal.

After remand, the Plaintiffs filed the operative SAC on March 31,
2021. The SAC added two additional CVS entities: Caremark PCS
Health, L.L.C., and Garfield Beach CVS, L.L.C. On March 2, 2022,
CVS moved to dismiss the SAC for failure to state a claim on the
basis that no single Defendant CVS entity receives the requisite
federal funding and is responsible for the allegedly discriminatory
health benefits program.

Judge Chen concludes that the SAC plausibly alleges that the
Defendant CVS entities function as a cohesive, integrated
enterprise in the provision of healthcare under the Program. All
four Defendant entities are plausibly part of the operations of
Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc., which receives federal funding.
Additionally, even under the more narrowly worded civil rights
statutes referenced in the ACA, Judge Chen finds that the Defendant
CVS entities would be considered direct or indirect recipients of
federal funding. As a result, he finds that the Plaintiffs have
plausibly stated a claim that each Defendant engages in a "health
program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal
financial assistance" under Section 1557.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied because the
Plaintiffs may plausibly succeed on their claims against the
Defendants based on the allegations in the SAC.

The Order disposes of Docket No. 184.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5dee7f59 from Leagle.com.


D & I FASHION GROUP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & I Fashion Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. D & I Fashion Group, Inc. d/b/a
Basix Black Label, Case No. 1:22-cv-06861-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11,
2022).

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

D & I Fashion Group, Inc. doing business as Basix Black Label --
https://www.basixblacklabel.com/ -- is clothing for women with the
largest online selection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DCB ELMWOOD: Murray Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN MURRAY, on behalf of himself, individually, and all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. DCB ELMWOOD LLC d/b/a SEL RROSE
MONTAUK, KRISTIN VINCENT, and WILLIAM VINCENT, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-04687 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, unlawfully
retained tips and gratuities, unfurnished accurate wage statements
for each pay period, unsupplied wage notices, unpaid wages owed no
later than the end of the pay period in which Plaintiff's
employment ended, and for claims of unjust enrichment, quantum
meruit, and any other claim(s) under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.

The Plaintiff commenced his employment in November 2020 as a
server, a position that he held until January 1, 2022.

DCB ELMWOOD LLC d/b/a SEL RROSE MONTAUK is a restaurant serving
seafood and other high-end cuisines situated in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

DIRECTV LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Biggs Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECTV LLC, Defendant, Case
4:22-cv-00072-BMM (D. Mont., Aug. 09, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Biggs was employed by the Defendant as technician.

DIRECTV, LLC provides digital television entertainment services.
The Company The Company delivers on demand TV streaming, sports,
and movies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Heenan, Esq.
          Joseph Cook, Esq.
          HEENAN & COOK
          1631 Zimmerman Trail
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839-9091
          Email: john@lawmontana.com
                 joe@lawmontana.com

               -and-

          Jason S. Ritchie, Esq.
          Michael Manning, Esq.
          RITCHIE MANNING KAUTZ PLLP
          175 N. 27th Street, Suite 1206
          Billings, MT 59101
          Telephone: (406) 601-1401
          Email: jritchie@rmkfirm.com
                 mmanning@rmkfirm.com

DOMENICS FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUDI REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOMENICS FAMILY PIZZA INC. (D/B/A EMILIO'S
ORIGINAL GOURMET PIZZA); and EMILIO PALMELI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06872 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
meals, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Reyes was employed by the Defendants as cook.

DOMENICS FAMILY PIZZA INC. owns and operates a pizzeria, located at
Bronx, New York, under the name "Emilio's Original Gourmet Pizza".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DONE RIGHT: Rodwell Sues Over Traveling Merchandisers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTRONE RODWELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. DONE RIGHT MERCHANDISING, INC. and
DOLGENCORP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00358 (W.D.N.C., Aug.
5, 2022) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act.

Plaintiff Rodwell worked for Done Right as a traveling merchandiser
performing Dollar General remodels for several years until
approximately March of 2021.

Done Right Merchandising, Inc. is a national merchandising
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

               - and -

          Bert J. Miano, Esq.
          MIANO LAW PC
          3116 Weddington Road Suite 900-1049
          Matthews, NC 28105-9407
          Telephone: (704) 275-7199  
          Facsimile: (704) 630-7199
          E-mail: bmiano@mianolaw.com

DUNK & BRIGHT FURNITURE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dunk & Bright
Furniture Co., Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dunk & Bright
Furniture Co., Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06858 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11,
2022).

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

Dunk & Bright Furniture -- https://www.dunkandbright.com/ -- is the
largest furniture mattress and carpet showroom in New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELK ENERGY SERVICES: Zack Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Zack, Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. ELK ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00132-KRG
(W.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime as required by
the FLSA. the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week.
But the Plaintiff never received overtime for the hours they worked
in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of receiving
overtime as required by the FLSA, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff
a flat amount for each day worked (a day-rate) without overtime
compensation. The Defendant's policy of paying these employees a
day rate with no overtime pay violates the FLSA. Notably, the
Defendant knowingly and willfully carried out their illegal pay
practice of failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members for their overtime hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Elk Energy as a Pipeline Inspector in
Pennsylvania during 2020.

Elk Energy is an inspection company that operates "in over 12
states" and involved in the transmission, storage, production,
distribution, exploration and construction of their natural gas
systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor Montgomery, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 tmontgomery@mybackwages.com

               - and –

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and –

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          William F. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST PC
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212
          Phone: 412-766-1455 – Telephone
          Facsimile: 412-766-0300 – Facsimile
          Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
                 bill@goodrichandgeist.com


EQUIFAX INC: Baker Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN BAKER, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03117-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 8, 2022) seeks to
hold Defendant accountable for its conduct and seeks recompense and
injunctive relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individual consumers who were harmed by Equifax's negligent and/or
willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Equifax publicly confirmed on August 2,
2022 that due to a "glitch" in its technology systems, the company
provided inaccurate credit scores to lenders about potentially
millions of individuals who applied for credit from mid-March
through early April. The damages that Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered as a result of the glitch cannot be rectified by merely
updating the affected credit reports. In addition, while credit
reporting agencies offer consumers one free credit report per year,
consumers who request more than one credit report per year from the
same credit reporting agency (such as Equifax) must pay a fee for
the additional report. Such fees constitute out-of-pocket costs to
Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit.

Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover FCRA statutory damages to the
fullest extent allowable by law. In addition, the Plaintiff also
seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to, inter alia, (i)
conduct a full-system audit to properly identify which consumers'
credit scores and consumer reports were affected by the glitch;
(ii) identify and notify each U.S. citizen who was affected by the
glitch; (iii) provide a sum of money sufficient to provide quality
credit repair services to each such person for each of their
respective lifetimes; (iv) establish a fund (in an amount to be
determined) to which such persons may apply for reimbursement of
the time and out-of-pocket expenses they incurred as a result of
the glitch; (iv) disgorge its gross revenue from transactions,
including but not limited to the revenue derived from selling
inaccurate consumer reports and credit scores to business clients
and the earnings on such gross revenue; and (vi) discontinue its
above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, want of
ordinary care, nondisclosures, and the causes of the glitch.

Plaintiff Benjamin Baker is and was a citizen and a resident of
Austin, Texas during the relevant time period. He refinanced the
mortgage on his residence around March or April of 2022. He
regularly monitored his credit score and anticipated that he would
receive a favorable interest rate as a result of his excellent
credit history, notes the complaint.

Equifax, Inc. is a global data, analytics, and technology company
recognized by consumers as one of the largest and most relied-upon
consumer reporting agencies in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.  
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Building 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 320-9979
          Facsimile: (404) 320-9978

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049   
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

EQUIFAX INC: Rogers Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick Rogers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03173-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 10, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Equifax Inc. -- http://www.equifax.com/-- is an American
multinational consumer credit reporting agency headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia and is one of the three largest consumer credit
reporting agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS, LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 981-4800
          Fax: (415) 981-4846
          Email: sgrille@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Chelsea Feagle, Esq.
          Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Phone: (404) 373-1970
          Email: cfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
                 cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                 jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-WOODSTOCK
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Phone: (770) 427-5600
          Fax: (404) 601-1855
          Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                 kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com


FEDEX GROUND: Martinez Allowed to Amend Suit to Add New Class Rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint to Add New Named Plaintiff to Serve as
Additional Class Representative in the lawsuit styled FERNANDEZ
MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-1052 SCY/LF (D.N.M.).

Martinez brings a putative class action suit against Defendant
FedEx, alleging violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. He
filed his complaint in federal court on Oct. 12, 2020. After the
Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the parties
conducted discovery from May 2021 through February 2022. The
Plaintiff's deadline to move to amend the complaint was July 9,
2021.

The Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Feb. 11, 2022.
The motion argues that the Plaintiff does not have a claim under
the NMMWA for two reasons. First, the Defendant argues, the
Plaintiff cannot pursue a claim under New Mexico law for work
performed in another state and the undisputed evidence confirms
that he did not work more than 40 hours a week in New Mexico.
Second, the Defendant argues that he was assigned "flat-rate hours"
to different delivery routes based on each route's difficulty and
volume, and so qualifies for the "flat rate" exemption under the
NMMWA.

The Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment, and on March
18, filed the present Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add
New Named Plaintiff to Serve as Additional Class Representative. He
requests leave to amend his complaint to add a second named class
representative, Shawnee Barrett. The proposed First Amended
Complaint alleges that Barrett was employed as a delivery driver
for FedEx and worked over 40 hours a week without premium pay.

Presumably, Judge Yarbrough notes, the Plaintiff moves for this
amendment because he believes that Barrett does not face the same
summary judgment issues the Defendant raised with respect to him.
The Plaintiff argues that "adding a new class representative, when
the adequacy of the incumbent representative is challenged, is
quite commonly permitted by district courts because it avoids
protracted litigation on an ancillary issue."

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has long missed the
amendment deadline, and cannot show good cause for the delay
because he should have known of the challenge to him as adequate
class representative as soon as it raised questions about his
employment in Colorado. It argues the additional class
representative could necessitate extensive additional discovery:
Barrett's deposition; written discovery related to Barrett's
employment; and depositions of the three companies that employed
Barrett during the relevant time period, the station manager of the
Albuquerque Station, and the relevant district manager.

Judge Yarbrough notes that the Plaintiff should have anticipated
the legal issue that served as the catalyst for his motion to
amend. Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiff argues that he could
not have foreseen the need to include a class representative, who
did not present a jurisdictional or choice-of-law issue, the Court
rejects the Plaintiff's contention.

The parties agree that granting the Plaintiff's motion to amend
will lead to additional discovery. Had he identified the legal
issue that motivated the motion to amend earlier, this discovery
likely already would have been completed. Thus, the Court agrees
with the Defendant that granting the Plaintiff's motion will create
a delay in the completion of discovery that need not have
occurred.

The Court disagrees with the Defendant, however, regarding the
degree of prejudice such a delay will cause it. First, although
adding Barrett as a plaintiff would require the completion of some
additional discovery related to Barrett, it does not appear that
adding a class representative plaintiff would significantly alter
the complexion of this case or cause the Defendant to retread a
significant amount of already-covered ground. Second, delay
associated with this additional discovery would create little
prejudice. Thus, it does not appear that previous delays about
which the Defendant complains will be an issue going forward. And,
allowing the Plaintiff to amend the complaint does not prevent the
Defendant from seeking an amended scheduling order with tight
deadlines from District Court Judge Laura Fashing.

Third, the Defendant's argument does not consider the tools Judge
Fashing has available to mitigate or remediate prejudice to the
Defendant, Judge Yarbrough states. Among those tools are her
ability to shift costs, set an aggressive discovery schedule, and
to limit the amount of additional discovery.

Consideration of the harsh consequences denying the Plaintiff's
motion to amend could have on the putative class militates in favor
of granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Judge
Yarbrough holds. If the Defendant's argument about Martinez not
being an adequate class representative is successful, denying the
Plaintiff's motion could wipe out potential claims of an entire
class for reasons that have nothing to do with the merit of the
claims or procedural deficiencies on the part of the class.

As the Plaintiff point out, if the Court were to deny his motion to
amend, Barrett could file another new, class action suit. Having
two nearly identical class actions pending simultaneously is
inefficient for several reasons, Judge Yarbrough holds. This is
particularly true where the new party is added before the motion
for class certification is filed, before all discovery is complete,
and before a trial date has been set.

In considering whether good cause exists to amend the scheduling
order under Rule 16, the Court first addresses the Defendant's
argument that the Court should deny the motion to amend because the
Plaintiff failed to specifically move to amend the scheduling
order. The Court rejects this argument because the Plaintiff
briefed the good cause standard necessary to amend the scheduling
order deadline at the same time he moved to amend the complaint.

The question of whether the Plaintiff has presented good cause for
moving to amend after the deadline to do so expired is a more
difficult question, Judge Yarbrough says.

The Court has already concluded that, although the Plaintiff might
not have anticipated the Defendant would challenge Martinez's
adequacy as a class representative, the Plaintiff, if he worked in
Colorado, would have been aware of it and could have anticipated
legal issues associated with going forward with his lawsuit in New
Mexico. In short, the Plaintiff has not adequately explained why he
delayed adding a class representative, who primarily worked in New
Mexico.

Nonetheless, Judge Yarbrough notes, courts in the Tenth Circuit
appear to find good cause when the party added to a lawsuit does
not add new class claims, does not add different individual claims,
more adequately represents the claims of the class, and avoids the
inefficiency of two nearly identical class action cases involving
the same attorneys proceeding simultaneously in the same district,
possibly in front of different judges.

The Court also has no reason to believe that the Plaintiff
intentionally delayed filing his motion for tactical advantage or
based on some other bad faith motive. That the Plaintiff appears to
be filing his motion in good faith also weighs in his favor.

Therefore, Judge Yarbrough grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to Amend Complaint to Add New Named Plaintiff to Serve as
Additional Class Representative. The Plaintiff will file his
proposed First Amended Complaint separately on the docket within 21
days of the date of this Order. The Court refers any new scheduling
issues arising from this Order to Judge Fashing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wzut8mw9 from Leagle.com.


FIRST ADVANTAGE: Sellers Sues Over FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Melissa Sellers, on behalf herself and others similarly situated v.
FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SCREENING CORP., Case No. 1:22-cv-00927
(E.D. Va., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, due to the Defendant's
failure to assure "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy" in the publication of the Plaintiff's consumer report.

The Plaintiff was charged with a criminal offense in Fairfax
County, but the charge was ultimately dismissed, and in accordance
with Virginia Code, the case ended "without entering a judgment of
guilt." Nevertheless, because the Defendant does not review and
consider the actual court files in researching Virginia criminal
cases, its agents or system superficially collected only the
incomplete docket index, which did not contain the substantive
details about a "251" dismissal. When First Advantage sold the
Plaintiff's background check to Plaintiff's employer, the potential
employer refused to hire the Plaintiff because of the supposed
Felony conviction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff Sellers alleges an individual, and a
class claim for those similarly situated due to the Defendant's
failure to assure "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy" in the publication of the Plaintiff's consumer report and
members of the putative class. She alleges this on a class basis
because Defendant's policies here were systemically flawed, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" as protected and governed by the
FCRA.

First Advantage is a for-profit corporation doing business in the
Commonwealth of Virginia who operates as a consumer reporting
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION
          ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                 craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLYGUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                 aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Scott Surovell, Esq.
          SUROVELL ISAACS & LEVY PLC
          4010 University Drive
          Second Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 719-4072
          Email: ssurovell@surovellfirm.com


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Super. Court Affirms D'Happart Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT A. D'HAPPART AND CHRISTINA M. D'HAPPART
Appellants v. FIRST COMMONWEALTH BANK, Case No. 580 WDA 2021 (Pa.
Super.), Judge John T. Bender of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
affirms the trial court's May 4, 2021 order sustaining Appellee's
preliminary objections and dismissing the Appellants' complaint
with prejudice.

The Appellants are natural persons and a married couple. FCB,
headquartered in Pennsylvania, is a local banking association that
is licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

On Oct. 15, 2015, the Appellants financed the purchase of a 2013
Ford Taurus from South Park Mitsubishi in Bethel Park,
Pennsylvania. They financed the purchase of the vehicle by entering
into a Retail Installment Sales Contract (RISC). Immediately
thereafter, FCB purchased the RISC for value and became the
creditor and secured party under the RISC. The Appellants purchased
the vehicle primarily for consumer use, and the RISC is a consumer
credit contract.

On Nov. 13, 2017, the Appellants filed a petition for Chapter 7
bankruptcy, which included the vehicle and related amounts still
due and owing under the RISC. After the bankruptcy petition, the
Appellants continued to pay the monthly loan amount for a brief
time period before they surrendered the vehicle to FCB when they no
longer made the monthly payments.

On March 7, 2018, the Appellants obtained a discharge order
pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. After the vehicle was
surrendered and repossessed by FCB, FCB sold it. FCB avers that
because of the discharge order, it did not send any post-sale
deficiency notice because it could not seek to collect any
deficiency based upon the prior discharge order.

While the Appellants surrendered the vehicle, it is clear by the
briefs and argument of counsel, the process is deemed a
repossession of the vehicle. Upon repossession, the vehicle was
transported to an auto auction in Altoona, Pennsylvania. On Oct.
15, 2018, FCB sent a Notice of Repossession and Plan to Sell
Vehicle to both Appellants, as co-borrowers.

The Appellants filed a class action complaint on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated on Oct. 13, 2020,
against FCB in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Civil
Division.

In their complaint, they allege five separate counts:

      Count I: statutory damages under 13 Pa.C.S. Section
9625(c)(2) on behalf of the pre-sale notice subclass for violation
of 13 Pa.C.S. Sections 9610, 9614, and 12 Pa.C.S. Section 6256(c);

      Count II: statutory damages under 13 Pa.C.S. Section
9625(c)(2) on behalf of the improper expenses subclass for
violation of 13 Pa.C.S. Sections 9610, 9614, and 12 Pa.C.S. Section
6256(c);

      Count III: statutory damages under 13 Pa.C.S. Section
9625(e)(5) on behalf of the disposition notice subclass for
violation of 13 Pa.C.S. Sections 9610 and 9616[, and 12 Pa.C.S.
Section 6261(d);

      Count IV: statutory damages for breach of contract on behalf
of the pre-sale notice subclass pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S. Sections
9610 and 9625;

      Count V: statutory damages for conversion on behalf of the
pre-sale notice subclass pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S. Sections 9610 and
9625. By order of court dated Nov. 19, 2020, the case was assigned
to the Commerce and Complex Litigation Center, to be overseen by
the Superior Court.

In response to the complaint, FCB filed preliminary objections on
Dec. 16, 2020, as well as a brief in support of preliminary
objections. The Appellants filed an answer to FCB's preliminary
objections on Feb. 5, 2021. FCB filed a reply brief on Feb. 26,
2021.

On March 11, 2021, the Superior Court heard the parties' arguments
on FCB's preliminary objections. On May 4, 2021, it issued an order
sustaining FCB's preliminary objections and dismissing the
Appellants' complaint with prejudice.

On May 5, 2021, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal, appealing
the order sustaining FCB's preliminary objections to the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania. On May 6, 2021, the Superior Court ordered
them to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). They filed their concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal on May 26, 2021.

On appeal, the Appellants raise the following questions for
review:

     1. Whether the trial court erred by considering FCB's
unverified factual allegations for which there is no support in the
record.

     2. Whether the trial court erred by ruling that FCB used a
form notice that entitled it to a statutory safe harbor defense.

     3. Whether the trial court erred by ruling that FCB had not
been required to issue a post-sale, deficiency notice to the
Appellants.

     4. Whether the trial court erred by ruling that the Appellants
could have no remedy through the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), 13
Pa.C.S. Section 1101 et seq., for FCB's violations of the Motor
Vehicle Sales Finance Act, 12 Pa.C.S. Section 6201 et seq.

     5. Whether the trial court erred by ruling that the Appellants
had failed to state claims for statutory damages under the UCC
based upon FCB's breach of contract and its unlawful conversion of
certain of the Appellants' rights in property.

     6. Whether the trial court erred by ruling that the gist of
the action doctrine precluded the Appellants' claim for statutory
damages under the UCC based upon FCB's unlawful conversion of
certain of the Appellants' rights in property.

     7. Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the complaint
with prejudice, without first permitting the Appellants an
opportunity to amend the complaint.

The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts
averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible.
Where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained,
this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it.

In the Appellants' first issue, they argue that the trial court
erred in "relying upon FCB's unverified allegations of facts
outside of the record." They claim that, "in so doing, the court
below ran afoul of the well-rooted principle that, for preliminary
objections in the nature of a demurrer, courts must constrain the
scope of review to the pleadings."

Judge Bender concludes that the trial court could take judicial
notice of the Appellants' bankruptcy petition and the discharge
order, as the facts contained therein were admitted by Appellants
and therefore not in dispute. However, to the extent that the trial
court considered other facts -- aside from those contained in the
bankruptcy petition and discharge order -- that were not alleged in
the Appellants' complaint, he deems the trial court's reliance on
those facts to be improper and will proceed in his review of the
Appellants' remaining issues accordingly.

In the Appellants' second issue, they claim that FCB's "pre-sale
notice did not meet the requirements of the UCC, and FCB is not
entitled to a 'safe harbor' defense because it did not use the
UCC's 'safe harbor' form."

No relief is due on this basis, Judge Bender holds. He finds that
(i) FCB's pre-sale notice complied with Section 9614(1); (ii)
because Appellants do not allege or otherwise establish that FCB
extended the privilege of reinstatement to them, FCB had no
notification obligation under Section 6254(c)(1); and (iii) FCB's
pre-sale notice meets the remaining requirements of Section 6254(c)
and ven if FCB was obligated to comply with Section 6254 of the
MVSFA, FCB still met its requirements.

In the Appellants' third issue, they argue that the trial court
"erred by determining that FCB had not been required to issue any
post-sale notice to the Appellants since it did not make any
attempt to collect a deficiency." They claim that this
determination was incorrect as "(i) the law plainly and
unambiguously required FCB to issue a post-sale notice to the
Appellants; (ii) the Appellants are entitled to the remedies under
the UCC for FCB's violations of the MVSFA; and (iii) FCB's
unverified allegation that it did not attempt to collect a
deficiency is unsupported by the record."

Based on Section 9616(b)'s plain language, Judge Bender discerns no
violation of it by Appellants. Because FCB could not collect any
deficiency due to the bankruptcy court's discharge order, it was
not obligated to send an explanation under Section 9616(b)(1). He
also disagrees with the Appellants' argument that, if the statutes
are construed in pari materia, FCB had to send a deficiency notice
under the MVSFA's Section 6261, where FCB did not try to collect
the deficiency. Lastly, the Appellants "made no allegation that FCB
ever attempted to collect the deficiency from them." Accordingly,
they are not entitled to relief on this claim.

In the Appellants' fourth issue, they advance that "the UCC
provides the remedy for FCB's violations of the MVSFA." They,
again, say that "courts must read the UCC and MVSFA in pari
materia, and the UCC provides the remedy for FCB's violations of
the MVSFA."

No relief is due on this issue, Judge Bender holds. Even upon his
attempt to read the UCC and the MVSFA in pari materia as the
Appellants urge him to do, he has uncovered no violations of the
MVSFA that would warrant relief under the UCC. Thus, he deems this
claim meritless.

In the Appellants' fifth issue, they claim that they "have fully
pleaded claims under the UCC for FCB's breach of contract, and its
conversion of their property." They contend that "those claims are
grounded in the requirement of Section 9610 of the UCC that 'every
aspect of a disposition of collateral, including the method,
manner, time, place and other terms, must be commercially
reasonable.'" As such, they argue that, "as with UCC remedies for
violations of the MVSFA, common law claims trigger violations of
the commercial reasonableness requirement under the UCC."

Judge Bender agrees with the trial court that the Appellants failed
to establish that FCB breached the RISC. The RISC and the pre-sale
notice likewise do not support that FCB breached the RISC in this
manner. Thus, all of the Appellants' breach-of-contract claims
fail. Regarding their conversion claim, the Appellants do not
convince Judge Bender that the trial court erred. He has already
determined that FCB's pre-sale notice was sufficient under the UCC,
the MVSFA, and the RISC. Thus, he rejects their legal conclusion
that FCB lacked lawful justification to dispose of the vehicle. No
relief is due on this basis.

In the Appellants' sixth issue, they argue that "the gist of action
doctrine does not preclude any of their causes of action." They
claim that the trial court erred as FCB's "duty to abstain from
unlawful interference with their property interests does not stem
from any contract," and they assert that "the gist of the action
doctrine can have no application when all of their claims are for
statutory damages under the UCC."

Because he has already concluded that Appellants failed to
establish FCB's conversion of their vehicle, Judge Bender need not
address whether that claim is barred by the gist of the action
doctrine. Accordingly, he does not delve into the Appellants' sixth
issue further.

In the Appellants' seventh and final issue, they argue that "the
trial court erred by dismissing their complaint without permitting
them an opportunity to amend." They say that, "even if dismissal
had been justifiable under the law, they should nevertheless have
been permitted to amend their pleading to cure any alleged
defect."

Judge Bender holds that the Appellants have waived this issue by
not seeking leave to amend their complaint with the trial court.

In sum, none of the Appellants' seven issues warrant relief.
Judgment entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc49bk79 from Leagle.com.


FLO HEALTH: Responds to Amended Privacy Class Action Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Heebink, writing for Law Street, reports that Flo Health,
Inc. filed an answer on Aug. 8 in the Northern District of
California to a complaint over user information on Flo Health's
app. The class action was filed against Flo as well as Google, LLC,
Facebook, Inc., AppsFlyer, Inc., and Flurry, Inc. alleging that Flo
shared the health information of its app users with third parties
for advertising purposes.

In June, the case was narrowed when some of the charges were
dismissed while the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend.
Concerning defendant Flo Health, the Court concluded that the class
failed to plausibly allege that Flo Health was an electronic
communication service provider under the Stored Communications
Act.

The plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim had also been dismissed
since the complaint did not properly contend that the non-Flo
defendants received a direct benefit from their misconduct. The
plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint.

Flo Health's response to the plaintiff's consolidated class action
complaint, filed on Aug. 8, maintained that Flo Health has never
shared user data with any other party for advertising purposes.
They explain that as noted in the Privacy Policy, which the
plaintiffs consented to, they collect user data to analyze user
trends and improve usability and efficiency.

The plaintiff's consolidated class action complaint cited a common
law invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), invasion of
privacy and violation of the California Constitution, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violations
of the Stored Communications Act, the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, the California Business and Professional
Code, the Federal Wiretap Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act. Defendant Flo denied all of the allegations
filed against them, asserting that the plaintiffs have not suffered
injury and that "Flo's privacy policy speaks for itself."

Defendant Flo Health cited 30 affirmative defenses in their
response. They conclude their response by seeking that all of the
relief requested in the plaintiff's consolidated class action
complaint be denied, that the class members take nothing from the
action, litigation fees, a trial by jury, and any other relief
deemed proper by the Court.

Flo Health is represented by Dechert LLP, while the class is
represented by Wagstaffe, Von Loewenfeldt, Busch & Radwick, Lowey
Dannenberg, Labaton Sucharow, the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron,
and Spector Roseman and Kodroff. [GN]

GAMER ADVANTAGE: California Court Narrows Claims in Dawood Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled MAHMOOD DAWOOD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
GAMER ADVANTAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00562 WBS KJN
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Dawood brought the putative class action against the
Defendant, alleging 15 claims in connection with its FogAway
Anti-Fog Spray. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Defendant formulates, designs, manufactures, advertises,
distributes, and sells FogAway across the United States, including
in California. FogAway is supposed to prevent foggy eyeglasses,
which have become a more common problem because of the use of face
masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the summer of 2021, the Plaintiff purchased FogAway from a
Walmart retail store in Lodi, California. Before purchasing
FogAway, he "reviewed the labeling, packaging, and marketing
materials" and saw the claims that FogAway is "Safe For Use." He
understood this to be a representation and warranty by the
Defendant that FogAway is "in fact safe for use."

The complaint alleges that FogAway contains unsafe per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") which "have been shown to have
a number of toxicological effects" and exposure can lead to
"cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of
asthma and thyroid disease." Based on a study done by the Nicholas
School of Environment at Duke University, FogAway allegedly exposes
consumers to PFAS at levels higher than the Environmental
Protection Agency health advisory limit for safe consumption and
contains more PFAS than its competitors.

The Defendant allegedly concealed the existence of PFAS in FogAway.
The Plaintiff claims that if he had known about the PFAS, he would
not have purchased, or would not have purchased on the same terms,
FogAway.

The Plaintiff alleges the following claims against the Defendant:
(1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation
of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3) breach of the
implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; (4) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; (5) fraud; (6) constructive
fraud; (7) fraudulent inducement; (8) money had and received; (9)
fraudulent concealment or omission; (10) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (11) negligent misrepresentation; (12)
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment; (13) breach of express warranty;
(14) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (15)
negligent failure to warn.

In his opposition, the Plaintiff conceded his claims for money had
and received and negligent failure to warn. Accordingly, these
claims will be dismissed, Judge Shubb states.

For the remaining claims, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's
complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because: (1) the
representations made by the Defendant about FogAway are different
from those the complaint alleges; (2) the complaint fails to allege
a causal relationship between the cost-of-purchase damages and the
alleged health-related dangers of FogAway; (3) the class claims
rely on conclusory allegations; and (4) the allegations for the
fraud-based claims do not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
9(b).

The complaint alleges that the advertisements and labeling of
FogAway represent the product is "Safe For Use." However, the
Plaintiff also submits screenshots and photographs of the following
actual representations on the advertisements and labeling, which
are: (1) "Safe to apply on all lenses, devices, & screens;" (2)
"Safe for use on all lenses and devices;" and (3) "Safe and
effective on all lens types even those with anti-reflective or
super hydrophobic coating."

Judge Shubb notes that dismissal is appropriate only in the "rare
situation" where the advertisement itself made it impossible for
the Plaintiff to prove that a reasonable consumer was likely to be
deceived, citing Morales v. Unilver U.S., Inc., No.
2:13-cv-2213-WBS, 2014 WL 1389613, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014).
This is not that rare situation, Judge Shubb points out.

How consumers would interpret these representations is a question
of fact, and not a question that the Court can resolve at this
stage, Judge Shubb holds. Accepting the allegations in the
complaint as true, Judge Shubb says the complaint sufficiently
alleges that consumers could interpret, and that the Plaintiff did
interpret, these representations to mean that the product was safe
for use as it relates to human exposure. Further, the Plaintiff's
claims are also based upon the Defendant's omissions regarding the
existence of PFAS in FogAway, and therefore, consumers could
interpret FogAway to be safe because of the Defendant's omissions
regardless of whether the Defendant explicitly stated FogAway is
safe. Accordingly, the complaint will not be dismissed based on
this argument.

The Defendant argues that the complaint does not allege any
"physical harm" or safety-related damages as a result of the
Plaintiff purchasing FogAway based on the alleged
misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Plaintiff's alleged injury
is that he purchased, paid a premium, or otherwise paid more for
FogAway when he otherwise would not have absent the Defendant's
misrepresentations and/or omissions" -- a purely economic injury.
The complaint also alleges in conclusory terms that the Defendant
"caused injuries and other damages" but does not provide any
supporting factual allegations.

The Court cannot conclude at this stage of the proceeding that the
Plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim is not of the type
that courts have allowed to go forward because it sounds in fraud,
for which economic loss is recoverable. Therefore, the Court will
not dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The remainder of the Plaintiff's claims does allow for recovery for
purely economic loss under these circumstances, and therefore, they
will not be dismissed, Judge Shubb holds. The complaint also
sufficiently pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw
the reasonable inference that the Plaintiff's economic loss was the
direct result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, Judge Shubb
adds.

The Defendant argues that the allegations in the complaint that all
the putative class members relied on the representations and/or
omissions in the same manner and suffered the same damages are
conclusory, and that the class claims should, therefore, be
dismissed.

Whether or not all the putative class members similarly relied on
and interpreted the representations made by the Defendant, or
suffered the same injuries are all premature questions that the
Defendant may instead raise at the class certification stage, Judge
Shubb holds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint will not be
dismissed based on this argument.

The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff's fraud-based claims
fail to meet the pleading standard under Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff must "state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake,"
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The Plaintiff must allege the "who, what,
where, when, and how of the misconduct charged" and "set forth what
is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false."

Judge Shubb finds that the complaint meets this heightened standard
under Rule 9(b) by providing detailed allegations. Further, the
complaint sufficiently pleads why and how the Defendant's
representations about FogAway are false by alleging the findings
from the study done on FogAway and other studies about PFAS
generally. The complaint alleges that the Defendant omitted or
mispresented the information about PFAS so that consumers would
purchase FogAway. The complaint also alleges that the Plaintiff
relied on the representations, or lack thereof, and would have
acted differently if he knew about the existence of PFAS in
FogAway.

Judge Shubb also finds that the complaint gives the Defendant
notice of the particular alleged misconduct and summarizes the
Plaintiff's allegations based on the Rule 9(b) standard.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's fraud-based claims will not be
dismissed based on a failure to satisfy Rule 9(b).

Therefore, Judge Shubb grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for money had and received
and negligent failure to warn (claims eight and fifteen) because he
concedes them, and denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/37s2z76k from
Leagle.com.


GEM PAWNBROKERS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gem Pawnbrokers Of NY
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gem Pawnbrokers
Of NY Inc., Gem Pawnbrokers Long Island Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-06881 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

GEM Pawnbrokers -- https://www.gempawnbrokers.com/ -- is the
largest New York pawn shop with convenient loans and cash for gold
in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Westchester, & Long Island
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENE FOX: Osorio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Luis Acquino Osorio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gene Fox d/b/a Gene's Landscaping,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06691 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) seeks to
recover from Defendant unpaid wages for overtime work for which the
Plaintiff did not receive premium pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Osorio worked at Gene Fox Landscaping from approximately
April 2014 until November 2020. He was employed by Defendant to
perform general landscaping work.

Gene Fox is a landscaping company based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOOGLE LLC: Stratford Sues Over Denied Free Workspace Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE STRATFORD COMPANY, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-04547-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, and violation of the California Business
& Professions Code.

The complaint challenges a systemic breach by Google of its promise
to provide Plaintiff and other early adopters of Google Workspace
with continuing free access to that service. Google made this
promise in order to entice early adopter customers to sign up so
that Google could then benefit from these customers' experiences
and use of the service to develop and fine-tune the service, thus
putting Google in a position to market the service to other
customers for a fee. Google promised Plaintiff and the proposed
Class of early adopters (including an express promise in Google's
form written contracts with these customers) that Google would
continue to provide them with a free version of Workspace as long
as Google offered the Workspace service. Google breached that
promise in 2022. Google continued to offer the Workspace service to
these customers and others but stopped honoring its promise to
provide Plaintiff and the proposed Class with a free version of the
service, says the suit.

By this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, seeks, inter alia, damages and restitution --
including for amounts paid by Plaintiff and the Class for the
Workspace service and for the value of the free service these
customers were contractually entitled to and are now being denied
-- and an order requiring specific performance and requiring Google
to stop its breaches and to restore free Workspace service for
Plaintiff and the Class.

The Plaintiff is a Washington-based limited liability company in
the real estate development and management business. Plaintiff
signed up for Workspace in 2008 as a free-for-life customer.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
focuses on search engine technology, online advertising, cloud
computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
artificial intelligence, and consumer electronics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rheller@lchb.com

               - and -

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

GREEN ACRES NURSERY: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Green Acres Nursery &
Supply LLC. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Green Acres Nursery & Supply
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06806 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Green Acres Nursery & Supply LLC -- https://idiggreenacres.com/ --
specialize in selling high quality trees, shrubs, annuals,
perennials, fruit & vegetables, along with soils, fertilizers and
garden supply.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREEN CITY: Faces Correa Suit Over Janitorial Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDY ANDREA GIL CORREA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN CITY CLEANER NYC LLC, a New
York limited liability company, and JONATHAN MORALES, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06742 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, for violations of
New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants for approximately two
years, from October 2020 through March 2022. She was employed to
perform janitorial services. Her job included cleaning high end
residential apartment units as well as office units.

Green City Cleaner NYC LLC is a cleaning company based in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          E-mail: klein@nklegal.com  

GRENDENE GLOBAL: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grendene Global
Brands USA, LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Grendene Global Brands
USA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06866 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Grendene Global Brands USA, LLC --
https://ri.grendene.com.br/EN/Company/Profile -- owns successful,
widely-known brands, including Melissa, Grendha, Zaxy, Rider,
Cartago and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRETNA, LA: App. Court Affirms Class Certification in Brantley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL BRANTLEY, JR., ET AL. v. CITY OF GRETNA &
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 21-CA-574 (La. App.), Judge
Susan M. Chehardy of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Fifth
Circuit affirms the trial court's March 30, 2021 judgment granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of
class representatives, and appointment of class counsel.

Defendants Gretna and Redflex appeal the trial court's March 30,
2021 judgment granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives, and
appointment of class counsel in their lawsuit challenging the
legality of an Electronic Speed Enforcement Ordinance adopted by
the Gretna City Counsel in 2008.

In April 2008, the city council of Gretna unanimously adopted
Ordinance 3678. This Ordinance amended Chapter 90 of the City of
Gretna's Code of Ordinances to add sections 505-511 in order to
establish and authorize the use of a photographic vehicle speed
enforcement system. The Ordinance provided that the Gretna Police
Department was responsible for its enforcement and administration,
but that "the department may enforce and administer [the Ordinance]
through one or more contractors." In this regard, the City of
Gretna contracted with Redflex for the enforcement of the
Ordinance, including the issuance of citations and collection of
fees. The Ordinance, codified as Gretna City Ordinances 90-505
through 90-511, became effective on Dec. 15, 2008, and thus began
the Defendants' operation of Gretna's Electronic Photo Enforcement
Program.

Pursuant to the Program, Redflex places mobile, photograph speed
enforcement equipment (including radar, cameras, and a computer
system) on the side of public roadways located within the city
limits of Gretna, Louisiana, which roadways include, but are not
limited to, Lafayette Street, Westbank Expressway, Gretna
Boulevard, LaPalco Boulevard, Franklin Avenue, and Whitney Avenue.
If the computer system records a vehicle traveling in excess of the
posted speed limit, it takes a short video and photographs the
vehicle. That information is then uploaded and transmitted to
Redflex's processing center in Phoenix, Arizona, via internet
transmission.

Using the license plate captured by the camera, Redflex then
gathers information concerning the vehicle and its registered owner
through the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System
("NLETS"), and Redflex's computer system then auto-fills a citation
form with the violation information. That citation is uploaded into
Redflex's proprietary "SuperScreen" software system, which contains
a photographic image of the vehicle captured by the cameras, the
license plate, and the name of the registered owner. Once the
citation is reviewed by a Gretna Police Department employee, and it
is determined that a violation has occurred, Redflex is then
authorized to issue a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to the vehicle's
registered owner, which includes the electronic signature and badge
number of the city's designated officer.

Civil penalties are assessed based upon the vehicle's speed as
recorded by the radar equipment, and payment of the stated fine is
due to the City of Gretna within thirty days. Regardless of the
person actually operating the vehicle and committing the violation,
the Ordinance imposes liability on the registered owner. The
Ordinance does provide, however, that the owner may shift liability
to the operator.

The Ordinance provides that a citation recipient may request an
administrative adjudication hearing, and states, "the decision of
the hearing officer will be the final decision by city government."
If the hearing officer determines the cited vehicle owner is
liable, the owner is assessed an additional $30.00 for requesting
the hearing. Additionally, the Ordinance provides that a person or
persons aggrieved by a hearing officer's decision may file a
petition for judicial review to the Mayor's Court of the City of
Gretna within thirty days of the entry of decision. Once a decision
by the Mayor's Court is issued, the aggrieved person may pursue
supervisory review and/or appellate review as provided by Louisiana
law.

In 2016, the City of Gretna adopted a revised Code of Ordinances
and Ordinance 90-505 through 90-511 was re-enacted as Ordinance
52-365 through 52-371. While the numbers associated with the
Ordinance changed, its substance remained the same.

In April 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action petition against
Gretna and Redflex, seeking damages (i.e., a refund of all fines
pursuant to La. C.C. art. 22995); a declaratory judgment finding
that Gretna Ordinance 52-365 et seq. (formerly Gretna Ordinance
90-505), which created the Electronic Photo Enforcement Program,
was "unlawful" as an ultra vires act and, therefore, void ab
initio; and, injunctive relief prohibiting continued operation of
the Program. They filed their first amended class action petition
in July 2016, adding additional plaintiffs/class representatives
and reiterating the same allegations and claims. In May 2020,
plaintiffs filed their second amended petition, and within 14 days
of service thereof, on May 29, 2020, filed a motion for class
certification, appointment of class representatives, and
appointment of class counsel. Defendants Gretna and Redflex opposed
class certification on various grounds.

At the close of the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion, the trial
court granted class certification. The trial court concluded the
common question is whether the Defendants' administrative
imposition of fines for moving violations in the City of Gretna is
in violation of a prohibitory law and an ultra vires act done
without authority. It also found the evidence showed: (1) the class
of individuals is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, (2)
the issue is common to the class, (3) the claims of the
representatives appointed are typical of the claims of the class,
and (4) the named representatives adequately represent the class.

Finding the class action procedure superior to any other available
method for resolving the single, paramount issue concerning the
Program, the trial court reasoned it would be imprudent to try the
cases individually as they may result in incompatible judgments,
and class action is appropriate due to the possibility that many of
the claims made by the class members may be small or nominal in
nature.

Accordingly, the trial court certified the following class: All
persons who received Notice of Violation from the Gretna Traffic
Enforcement Program, as set forth in Gretna Ordinance 31678,
originally codified as Ord. 90-505 through 90-511 and re-enacted as
Ord. 52-365 through 53-371, and who subsequently paid any fine,
fee, civil penalty, costs or other payments in full or partial
satisfaction of the Notice of Violation. Essentially, the proposed
class will consist of all persons who both received an NOV and
subsequently paid, either partially or in full, in satisfaction of
the NOV.

The court appointed the following as class representatives: Michael
Brantley, Jr.; Deborah Boudreaux, individually, and on behalf of
her late husband, Robert Boudreaux; Judith Traigle; Charles W.
Birson, Jr.; Patricia Cunningham; Delores Tortorich; Terence S.
Cooper, Sr.; and Erin Streva. The court further appointed Gordon L.
James, Robert M. Baldwin, G. Adam Cossey, and Margaret H. Pruit as
counsel for the class.

Gretna and Reflex timely appealed the trial court's judgment.

On appeal, Gretna alleges the following assignments of error: (1)
the trial court erred in determining that the Plaintiffs carried
their burden of proof under La. C.C.P. art. 591(A) for class
certification; (2) the trial court erred in failing to perform the
requisite rigorous analysis and erred as a matter of law in holding
that plaintiffs satisfied their burden of proof under La. C.C.P.
art. 591(B)(3); and (3) the trial court erred in failing to reach
the issue (deemed moot after certifying the class under La. C.C.P.
art. 591(B)(3)), and holding that La. C.C.P. arts. 591(B)(1) and
591(B)(2) are inapplicable to this case, and cannot be satisfied on
the face of the Plaintiffs' pleadings or the record in the case.
Redflex also appeals alleging the trial court erred in using the
wrong legal standard in certifying the Plaintiffs' proposed class,
and in finding that the Plaintiffs carried their burden of proof.

In Louisiana, the procedure for class certification is governed by
Article 591 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Article
591(A) provides that a class action must meet five threshold
prerequisites, often referred to as numerosity, commonality,
typicality, the adequacy of representation, and objective
definability of class. Once these five prerequisites have been met,
La. C.C.P. art. 591(B) lists three additional criteria, including
that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the
class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class is superior to other methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Only one of which
need be satisfied for certification depending on the type of class
action sought.

Judge Chehardy finds that the trial court found that the Plaintiffs
satisfied all of the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 591(A), and
the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 591(B)(3). She says, a trial
court has vast discretion regarding class certification. She finds
no manifest error in the trial court's findings and no abuse of
discretion in the trial court's determination that the matter meets
all of the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 591 for certification as
a class action. Thus, the trial court's judgment granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4wtcyh58 from Leagle.com.

Gordon L. James -- gjames@hpblaw.com -- Robert M. Baldwin --
rbaldwin@hpblaw.com -- G. Adam Cossey -- acossey@hpblaw.com --
Margaret H. Pruitt -- mpruitt@hpblaw.com -- COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE MICHAEL BRANTLEY, JR.; DEBRA BOUDREAUX,
INDIVIDUALLY AND, ON BEHALF OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND, ROBERT
BOUDREAUX;, JUDITH TRAIGLE; CHARLES W. BRISON, JR.; PATRICIA
CUNNINGHAM;, DELORES TORTORICH; TERENCE S. COOPER, SR.; AND ERIN
STREVA.

Leonard L. Levenson , Christian W. Helmke, Colleen B. Gannon --
cgannon@bdlaw.com -- Donna R. Barrios , E. John Litchfield --
jlitchfield@berriganlaw.net -- Michael J. Marsiglia --
mmarsiglia@berriganlaw.net -- COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE-2ND
APPELLANT, CITY OF GRETNA.

Nancy S. Degan -- ndegan@bakerdonelson.com -- Kent A. Lambert --
klambert@bakerdonelson.com -- Leopoldo J. Yanez --
lyanez@bakerdonelson.com --  Emily Olivier Kesler --
ekesler@bakerdonelson.com --  Kim M. Boyle -- kim.boyle@phelps.com
-- Allen C. Miller, Sr. -- allen.miller@phelps.com -- COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.


HALLRICH INC: Majewski Hits Unpaid Reimbursements, Tip Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Majewski, Jason Shell and Christopher Zoldak, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hallrich
Incorporated and Anthony E. Szambecki, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01391 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 5, 2022) arises from the Defendants'
unlawful labor policies, practices, and procedures relating to
payment of minimum wages, overtime wages, and reimbursement of
automobile and delivery related expenses in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs,
the Collective Members and the Class Members legally required
minimum wage and overtime wages because Defendants have failed to
adequately reimburse them for their automobile expenses or other
job-related expenses.

The Defendants also have a company policy of failing to ensure that
Plaintiff and the Collective Members and the Class Members were
properly notified and informed of all of the legal requirements
which must be met in order to take a tip credit against delivery
drivers' wages, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated current and former delivery drivers who worked
for Defendants at any point in the past three years.

Hallrich Incorporated operates fast food restaurants. The Company
operates fast food pizza restaurants throughout Northern Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road, Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com


               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

HARBOR FREIGHT: Sanger Sues Over Failure to Pay Timely Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SANGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04628 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violation of  New York Labor Law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a warehouse
supervisor from approximately 2016 to 2018 at a Harbor Freight
store located in Huntington Station, New York. Mr. Sanger asserts
that he and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendant the
amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest as provided for by NYLL.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. is a tools and equipment retail
chain with many locations throughout New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.  
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC: Assise Sues Over Motor Parts Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE ASSISE; and ROBERT ASSISE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00913 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 9, 2022) alleges
violation of the Sherman Act, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Harley-Davidson used
its warranty to try to force Harley owners to use its own parts, in
preference to the many quality aftermarket parts available for its
motorcycles. It did so in plain contravention of law, including the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Because Harley-Davidson illegally tied
its motorcycles and, specifically, the factory warranties that go
with them to its parts, Harley-Davidson's parts have been
overpriced, forcing the company's loyal following to pay this cost,
which they should not have, says the suit.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC. designs, manufactures, and sells motorcycles.
The Company's products include heavyweight touring, custom, and
performance motorcycles, as well as a line of motorcycle parts,
accessories, and general merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          Lillian R. Grinnell, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212)545-4653
          Email: burt@whafh.com
                 malmstrom@whafh.com
                 grinnell@whafh.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Koller Alleges Unlawful Warranty Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT KOLLER, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY
GROUP, LLC; and HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:22-cv-04534 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2022) is a class action
against Harley-Davidson relating to its sale of motorcycles with
warranties that fail to comply with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and its implementing regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's authorized dealers
provide service at a price premium compared to the cost of
independent service and the Defendant's authorized parts are also
sold at a price premium compared to the cost of non-Harley-Davidson
(generic) parts and supplies. The Defendant's noncompliance is
self-serving in that these misrepresentations help Defendant
develop and maintain a monopoly on repairing the goods they sell,
and on selling after-market parts because many purchasers will not
attempt even simple, inexpensive repairs -- or use inexpensive
third-party repair services -- if they believe doing so will void
the warranties they purchased with their motorcycle.

Thus, consumers, including Plaintiff and those similarly situated,
were (and are) unlawfully forced to pay for the more expensive
repairs, maintenance, and parts for their motorcycle from
authorized Harley-Davidson dealers in order to continue the
warranty coverage that was included with their original motorcycle
purchases. Had Plaintiff and Class members been aware that the
warranty included an unlawful repair restriction, they would not
have: (i) purchased the motorcycles, or would have paid
significantly less for them and (ii) paid a price premium for
Harley-Davidson authorized repairs and parts for the motorcycles,
says the suit.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie M. McCrary, 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

HENDRICKS REGIONAL: Underpays Hourly-Paid Employees, FLSA Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA S. JURGENS and MEGHAN SCHROCK, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HENDRICKS REGIONAL HEALTH, Case No.
1:22-cv-01524-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., Aug. 1, 2022) is a class and
collective action lawsuit against Hendricks to address class-wide
wage and hour violations committed by Hendricks against its
hourly-paid employees.

According to the complaint, Hendricks is and has been underpaying
its hourly-paid employees' wages and overtime on a systematic,
class-wide basis as a result of a series of employer-favoring rules
and illegal time card rounding. Those illegal practices include a
hospital rule that requires all hourly-paid employees who wear
scrubs for work to report to work early, travel to a work locker
room and change into hospital-provided scrubs before the employee
is allowed to clock in for work and can begin receiving hourly paid
wages. All of the changing time before work is unpaid time, says
the suit.

Ms. Jurgens will serve as representative for the FLSA collective
action. Ms. Schrock will serve as both FLSA collective action
representative and Rule 23 class representative for unpaid wage
claims brought under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

Jurgens is a is a Registered Nurse and has earned a Master's
Degree. Jurgens was hired by Hendricks to work as a nurse to work
in a position Hendricks called Operating Room Circulator. Jurgens
was terminated involuntarily on January 7, 2022 after a medical
leave.

Schrock is a Registered Nurse. Schrock was hired by Hendricks in
August 2020 to work as a nurse to work in a position Hendricks
called Operating Room Circulator. Schrock voluntarily resigned from
employment in June 2022.

Hendricks has a number of health facilities, including hospitals,
medical offices and surgery centers located in Hendricks County,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E 9th St, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

HOME DEPOT INC: Coss Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Home Depot, Inc.
The case is styled as Adrian Coss, Maribel Ocampo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06889 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable.

The Home Depot -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an American
multinational home improvement retail corporation that sells tools,
construction products, appliances, and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Ordered to Restore Status Quo Ante in Al Otro
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AL OTRO LADO, INC.; ABIGAIL DOE, BEATRICE DOE,
CAROLINA DOE, DINORA DOE, INGRID DOE, URSULA DOE, JOSE DOE, ROBERTO
DOE, MARIA DOE, JUAN DOE, VICTORIA DOE, BIANCA DOE, EMILIANA DOE,
AND CESAR DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; CHRIS
MAGNUS Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his
official capacity; PETE FLORES, Executive Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in
his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-2366-BAS-KSC
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California orders the Defendants to
restore the status quo ante for the named Plaintiffs prior to the
Defendants' unlawful conduct.

In its Sept. 2, 2021 decision, the Court held the right to access
the U.S. asylum process conferred vis a vis Section 1158(a)(1)
applies extraterritorially to noncitizens who are arriving at Class
A Ports of Entry ("POEs") along the U.S.-Mexico border, but who are
not yet within the jurisdiction of the United States, and is of a
constitutional dimension ("MSJ Opinion"). It further held that the
Defendants' systematic turnbacks of asylum seekers arriving at
Class A POEs amounted to an unlawful withholding by immigration
officials of their mandatory ministerial "inspection and referral
duties" detailed in 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, in violation of the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1) et seq., and
the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

In casting appropriate equitable relief to rectify the irreparable
injury the Defendants' unauthorized and constitutionally violative
Turnback Policy has inflicted upon members of the Plaintiff class,
the Court ordinarily would be guided by the fundamental principle
that an equitable remedy should be commensurate with the violations
it is designed to vindicate. Equitable relief should leave no stone
unturned: It should correct entirely the violations it is aimed at
vindicating. That cornerstone of Article III courts' equitable
powers generally is unfaltering, whether the party against whom an
injunction is sought is a private entity, a state actor, or, as in
the case, a federal official. Thus, in the ordinary course of
things, the Court would not hesitate to issue broad, programmatic
relief enjoining Defendants from now, or in the future, turning
back asylum seekers in the process of arriving at Class A POEs,
absent a valid statutory basis for doing so.

Yet the circumstances with which the Court is presented are not
ordinary because of the extraordinary, intervening decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 142
S.Ct. 2057 (2022). That decision takes a sledgehammer to the
premise that immigration enforcement agencies are bound to
implement their mandatory ministerial duties prescribed by
Congress, including their obligation to inspect and refer arriving
noncitizens for asylum, and that, when immigration enforcement
agencies deviate from those duties, lower courts have authority to
issue equitable relief to enjoin the resulting violations. It does
so through unprecedented expansion of a provision of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1989, 8
U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) et seq., which for years the Ninth
Circuit has interpreted as placing a relatively narrow limit on
injunctive relief.

In essence, Aleman Gonzalez holds that Section 1252(f)(1) prohibits
lower courts from issuing class-wide injunctions that "require
officials to take actions that (in the Government's view) are not
required" by certain removal statutes, including Section 1225, or
"to refrain from actions that (again in the Government's view) are
allowed" by those same provisions. Federal courts (except for the
Supreme Court) now may only issue injunctions enjoining federal
officials' unauthorized implementation of the removal statutes in
the individual cases of noncitizens against whom removal
proceedings have been initiated.

In no uncertain terms, the logical extension of Aleman Gonzalez
appears to bestow immigration enforcement agencies carte blanche to
implement immigration enforcement policies that clearly are
unauthorized by the statutes under which they operate because the
Government need only claim authority to implement to immunize
itself from the federal judiciary's oversight.

The Plaintiffs acknowledge Aleman Gonzalez has truncated the legal
ground for the injunctive relief they seek; however, they aver
there still exist paths forward to rectify in a single order the
systemic statutory and constitutional violations found in the MSJ
Opinion.

With acknowledgment that the decision will further contribute to
the human suffering of asylum seekers enduring squalid and
dangerous conditions in Mexican border communities as they await
entry to POEs, Judge Bashant finds the shadow of Aleman Gonzalez
inescapable in the case. Even the most narrow, meaningful equitable
relief would have the effect of interfering with the "operation" of
Section 1225, as that term is construed by the Aleman Gonzalez
Court, and, thus, would clash with Section 1252(f)(1)'s remedy
bar.

Aleman Gonzalez not only renders uneconomical vindication of the
Plaintiff class members' statutorily- and
constitutionally-protected right to apply for asylum, those
inefficiencies inevitably will lead to innumerable instances in
which the Plaintiff class members will be unable to vindicate their
rights at all. Thus, while the majority and dissent in Aleman
Gonzalez hash out their textual disagreements concerning Section
1252(f)(1)'s scope in terms of remedies, make no mistake, Aleman
Gonzalez leaves largely unrestrained immigration enforcement
agencies to rapaciously scale back rights.

Although it is no substitute for a permanent injunction, class-wide
declaratory relief is both available and warranted in the case. In
lieu of even a circumscribed injunction enjoining the Defendants
from again implementing a policy under which they turn back asylum
seekers presenting themselves at POEs along the U.S.-Mexico border,
Judge Bashant enters a declaration in accordance with the Court's
MSJ Opinion that turning back asylum seekers constitutes both an
unlawful withholding of the Defendants' mandatory ministerial
inspection and referral duties under Section 1158 and Section 1225
in violation of both the APA and the Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause. She also issues relief as necessary to named Plaintiff
Beatrice Doe.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bashant orders the Defendants to
restore the status quo ante for the named Plaintiffs prior to their
unlawful conduct. This includes taking the necessary steps to
facilitate Plaintiff Doe's entry into the United States, including
issuing any necessary travel documents to allow her to travel to
the United States (by air if necessary) and to ensure her
inspection and asylum processing upon arrival.

Judge Bashant declares that, absent any independent, express, and
lawful statutory authority, the Defendants' refusal to deny
inspection or asylum processing to noncitizens who have not been
admitted or paroled and who are in the process of arriving in the
United States at Class A POEs is unlawful regardless of the
purported justification for doing so.

Judge Bashant further orders the parties to meet and confer and
lodge a Proposed Final Judgment that incorporates the Court's
rulings in its MSJ Opinion and set forth by no later than Aug. 22,
2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Remedies Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49zwjht5 from Leagle.com.


HYATT PLACE: Faces Hudson Suit Over Housekeepers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LACRISE CRAIG HUDSON, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. HYATT PLACE
O'HARE, LLC , HOTEL MANNHEIM CHICAGO, LLC, HONGHAI WANG,
individually, ERIC CHANG, individually and JEAN MA, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04146 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 8, 2022) is a
class action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages.

The Plaintiff worked for Hyatt as a housekeeper in approximately
February 2022 until her separation in July or August of 2022.

Hyatt Place O'Hare, LLC operates a hotel which provides lodging and
hospitality services, event and meeting space rentals, catering and
sales of prepared food and beverages for consumption on its
premises, and other hospitality services for customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Suit From States Over Car Theft Possibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Lovelace, writing for The Shade Room, reports that Hyundai
and Kia vehicle owners are clapping back at the manufacturers after
issuing out hundreds of dollars after their cars have been stolen
at alarming rates due to a popular TikTok trend. The "Kia Boyz"
challenge encourages people to break into these cars and use a USB
cable to start the vehicles.

In St. Louis alone, police say in July, over 300 Hyundais and Kias
were stolen, and now they feel enough is enough. KSDK reports car
owners in at least seven states have filed lawsuits against the
companies saying their ignition systems can be compromised with USB
cords. Some of the Kia models built between 2011-2021 and Hyundai
built in 2015-2021 are affected.

Owners in Wisconsin filed a suit in June 2021. Recently owners in
Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Texas also filed
class action lawsuits. The automakers have responded to the claims
saying moving forward, immobilizing technology will be standard on
all new vehicles.

Attorneys for the automakers aren't taking the lawsuit easy and
have argued the vehicles are not defective. The filing states,
"Warranties do not cover situations in which a vehicle owner or
lessee simply prefers an alternative material or an alternative
design, as a different preference is not a defect."

It continued, "The so-called defect at issue here -- the
possibility of theft -- is simply not covered by either Kia or
Hyundai's express warranty. Plaintiffs pay lip service to the word
'defect.' Their complaint, at base, is simply that they would have
preferred an alternative security system for their vehicles, given
to them for free, without having to purchase it as an optional
upgrade."

While the automakers haven't responded to the class action lawsuit,
ABC 7 shared a statement from Hyundai's spokesperson about the
thefts stating, "Hyundai Motor America is concerned with the rise
in local auto thefts. The safety and well-being of our customers
and the community is and will remain our top priority. These
vehicles meet or exceed Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and
engine immobilizers are standard equipment on all new Hyundai
vehicles." [GN]

I LOVE: Settles S-Trip Class Action for $450,000
------------------------------------------------
Farrah Merali, writing for CBC News, reports that more than four
years after the launch of a class action lawsuit against a company
that ran student travel excursions, an Ontario court has approved a
settlement between the organization and former trip leaders who
argued they were not paid as employees.

The suit alleged trip leaders with travel firm S-Trip were
classified as volunteers while leading student trips, but in
reality were doing the work of employees.

The firm's Toronto-based parent company -- I Love Travel -- has now
agreed to a $450,000 settlement and to reclassify staff on future
trips as employees rather than volunteers.

"I was very relieved, very happy for it . . . just knowing that
something can be changed that is going to impact others and not
just myself," said D'Andra Montaque, the lead plaintiff on the case
who led a student trip to Cuba in 2017.

The settlement was approved by an Ontario Superior Court judge on
June 27, 2022, according to court documents.

The case is a victory for Montaque and other former trip leaders
who are now eligible to be compensated for the work they did. As
the first class action litigation of its kind in Canada, the case
has the potential to impact employment law moving forward, the
judge who presided over the litigation said.

Some experts say we can expect to hear more cases like this and the
settlement is a sign that the courts are adapting to the new
realities of some workplaces.

'It takes a lot of courage'
The class action suit followed a 2017 CBC Toronto investigative
story about the company's labour practices that detailed how
college-age students and recent graduates were explicitly told to
expect 14-hour workdays, yet signed a contract that designated them
a volunteer.

Montaque told CBC Toronto in 2018 her only payment for more than a
week of work was an honorarium of $150; more than half was used to
pay for her S-Trip uniform.

"I knew that I wasn't alone in my experience, and I wanted to see
if I could do something that would help others feel like they can
also take that step forward in similar situations that may arise,"
Montaque said.

"It's a really great feeling."

According to Montaque's lawyer, Joshua Mandryk with Goldblatt
Partners LLP in Toronto, there are 1,170 class members on record. A
notice will go out to them; anyone who led a trip between June 3,
2014, and Oct. 23, 2020, will be eligible to file a claim for
compensation.

The amount of money trip leaders will be entitled to depends on a
number of factors, including how many former staff put in a claim
for compensation and how many trips they took. Mandryk said it's
estimated that the compensation should cover the equivalent of
eight hours of work a day for each trip a claimant took.

As a labour lawyer, Mandryk said he handles many of these types of
cases, but what stands out about this one is that the company
actually agreed to change its policies.

"I thought it was really significant and a really positive
development to be able to get a class action settlement that
actually results in people being reclassified on a go forward
basis."

Mandryk believes the case will send a message to workers and
employers that there is recourse for employment misclassifications.
He acknowledged it's not always easy for workers to push back.

"It takes a lot of courage. And that's especially the case like in
D'Andra's situation, where she was a young worker, she was just
starting her career off just finishing school when this class
action was launched in 2018," said Mandryk.

"To come forward in those circumstances and to achieve what she was
able to achieve -- we're just tremendously proud of what's happened
here."

CBC News reached out to I Love Travel for comment on the settlement
but did not receive a response.

First in Canada
In the settlement approval, the Ontario Superior Court judge noted
the case was a "novel one" and the result was "somewhat
groundbreaking."

"This is the first volunteer misclassification class action in
Canada, and will have a significant impact on employment law going
forward," wrote Justice Edward Morgan.

The executive director of the Workers' Action Centre told CBC
Toronto it welcomes the settlement decision.

"I think what's really important for people to remember is that you
cannot sign away your rights," said Deena Ladd.

"You can still get support. You can still challenge those working
conditions."

Ladd said they're hearing about more and more worker
misclassification cases -- in particular, cases around workers
being classified as independent contractors rather than employees.


"Employers are trying to shed their responsibility to be an
employer," said Ladd.

Sunira Chaudhri, a partner at the employment law firm Workly who
was not involved in the litigation, believes the settlement sends a
clear message.

"This is a warning. This is a shot being made at employers that are
trying to engage or take advantage of this vehicle of hiring
interns or volunteers at no pay," said Chaudhri.

The lawyer called the decision "a breath of fresh air" because you
don't often see cases like these involving volunteers and young
people challenging their employer.

"This might be the future of where employment law is going in some
respects . . . because employment is beginning to look a lot
different these days. Whether you are an intern, whether you're a
gig worker, work is work," said Chaudhri.

"And the legal system is clearly catching up with how to provide
remedies to workers who may not be in traditional employment
relationships." [GN]

ID.ME INC: Faces Biometric Data Privacy Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges identity verification vendor ID.me,
Inc. violated an Illinois privacy law by failing to maintain a
legally compliant biometric data retention policy, which allowed it
to store collected information for years on end despite state
requirements.

The 12-page lawsuit more specifically claims that ID.me, who
provides biometric scanning services to various businesses for
identity verification purposes, maintained until March 24, 2021 a
data retention policy that allowed the company to store
individuals' biometric information for up to seven and a half years
after they closed their account.

Per the case, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
requires a company to maintain a policy that mandates that an
individual's biometric identifiers and information be permanently
destroyed when the initial purpose for collecting and storing the
data has been satisfied or within three years of their last
interaction with the company, whichever occurs first.

According to the case, ID.me implied that its data retention policy
was out of compliance with the BIPA when the company added
Illinois-specific language on March 24, 2021. Although the updated
policy still allows ID.me to retain consumers' biometric data for
up to seven and a half years, an exception has made for Illinois
residents, for whom the company has said it will destroy their
biometric data "when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or
within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with ID.me,
whichever occurs first," the lawsuit relays.

"All subsequent versions of Defendant's biometric policy have
included this Illinois-specific language," the complaint alleges.
"Thus, not only does Defendant admit that it must comply with BIPA,
it likewise implicitly admits that its pre-March 24, 2021 biometric
policy was not in compliance with [the BIPA]."

The plaintiff is an Illinois resident who says she was required to
register for an ID.me account when she began working at the Ann &
Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago in January 2020. Per
the case, the woman uploaded a photo of her face to the ID.me
platform, and the company's technology used the image to generate a
facial template for the plaintiff to be used for identity
verification purposes.

The suit says that at the time the plaintiff provided her biometric
information to ID.me, the company had in place a data retention
policy that stated it was allowed to store her data for up to seven
and a half years after she closed her account, which the lawsuit
argues is a direct violation of the BIPA's data retention policy
requirement.

The lawsuit looks to represent all Illinois residents who, prior to
March 24, 2021, used ID.me to scan their face in Illinois. [GN]

INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Sky Zone's Bid to Dismiss Stauffer Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois grants Defendant Sky Zone Franchise
Group, LLC's motion to dismiss the case, MADISYN STAUFFER, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v.
INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-CV-00046-MAB (S.D. Ill.).

The case was originally filed by Plaintiff Stauffer, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois on April 29, 2019 against one
Defendant, Innovative Heights, based on her allegations that
Innovative Heights violated the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

In the original complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Innovative
Heights (her employer) collected and stored her and the other
putative class members' fingerprints as part of their employment
for timekeeping purposes in violation of BIPA. While still in state
court, she sought leave to amend her complaint to include a second
Defendant, Pathfinder Software LLC, doing business as CenterEdge
Software, LLC, which she alleges controls and operates the system
and database where Innovative Heights' stores its employees'
fingerprints.

The Plaintiff alleged that both Innovative Heights and CenterEdge
violated Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA while scanning and
storing fingerprints for timekeeping and other purposes. She
explained that Innovative Heights and CenterEdge never informed
her, in writing, the specific purpose of and the period for which
her fingerprints were being collected, stored, or used in violation
of BIPA. She alleged two separate classes of individuals: Those who
were employed by Defendant Innovative Heights and worked at its Sky
Zone facility in Fairview Heights, Illinois, and those individuals
who had their fingerprints collected, captured, purchased, received
through trade, or otherwise obtained by CenterEdge.

After the Plaintiff filed her amended complaint, CenterEdge removed
the case on Jan. 10, 2020 to the Southern District of Illinois
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Soon after, ite filed a
motion to dismiss on Feb. 5, 2020 while the Plaintiff filed a
motion to remand this matter to state court on March 12, 2020. The
Court granted, in part, the Plaintiff's motion to remand, detailing
that the Court retains jurisdiction over her Section 15(b) BIPA
claims as they relate to both Innovative Heights and CenterEdge,
but that her Section 15(a) claims were remanded to state court for
lack of Article III standing. Additionally in this Aug. 19, 2020
Order, the Court denied CenterEdge's motion to dismiss.

The operative complaint was filed on Sept. 17, 2021 (Doc. 99). In
it, the Plaintiff added a third Defendant Sky Zone Franchise Group,
LLC, bringing a BIPA Section 15(b) claim against it as well. In
adding Sky Zone, she says she now seeks to represent three putative
classes. The first are individuals who were employed by Innovative
Heights, worked at its Sky Zone facility, and gave their
fingerprints as part of their employment. The second putative class
are individuals who had their fingerprints and/or information
collected and obtained by CenterEdge. The last class are
individuals who had their fingerprints and/or information collected
and obtained by Sky Zone.

In describing this new putative class, the Plaintiff details that
Sky Zone required Innovative Heights to use the CenterEdge system.
Furthermore, she explains that Sky Zone retained "unlimited right
to access all information contained in the system, including her
and the class members' fingerprints and/or information used to
identify such class members based on their fingerprints." She also
outlined that Sky Zone required other Illinois franchisees to use
the CenterEdge system and retained the "unlimited" right to access
all of the information contained in the system for these other
Illinois franchisees as well. To further explain this relationship,
the Plaintiff alleges that Sky Zone requires franchisees to enter
into a franchise agreement where each Illinois franchisee must
purchase equipment from certain companies designated by Sky Zone.

On Dec. 22, 2021, Sky Zone filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Section 15(b) claim. The Plaintiff filed her response
in opposition on Jan. 23, 2022. On April 6, 2022, Sky Zone filed a
motion for leave to file supplemental authority to support its
motion to dismiss. During the parties' May 4, 2022 status
conference, the Court granted the motion for leave. Additionally,
it granted the Plaintiff leave to submit a supplemental response,
which she filed the next day on May 5, 2022.

In its motion to dismiss, Sky Zone explains that its relationship
to the Plaintiff's biometric information is too attenuated to
sustain a Section 15(b) claim as it never took the necessary
"active step" required by Section 15(b) to collect class members'
biometric data. At most, it (potentially) had access to the
biometric information, but Sky Zone is adamant that this
information was never collected or stored by the company itself.

Sky Zone says "collection" would require it to have actually done
something, contrary to the Plaintiff's suggestion that collection
includes a potential, speculative ability to 'access' data
allegedly collected and used by a separate entity. Additionally, it
points to specific portions of her complaint to argue that she
concedes that her biometric information was, in fact, taken by
Innovative Heights and scanned into CenterEdge's system by
Innovative Heights.

Sky Zone argues the Plaintiff further concedes it did not operate
Innovative Height's park or the CenterEdge system used to track her
time. Most importantly, it points out that the Plaintiff never
asserts that Sky Zone did anything to extract or obtain her
biometric information from the Innovative Heights' CenterEdge
system.

The Plaintiff contends the complaint is clear that Sky Zone
retained an "unlimited right to access the computer systems" in
which biometric data was stored through Sky Zone's agreements with
its Illinois franchisees. Sky Zone's franchise agreement included a
provision in which it "retained complete control over all data that
Illinois Franchisees put into the CenterEdge system." The Plaintiff
argues that the relevant case law does not require a party to take
an "active step" to properly allege a Section 15(b) claim as Sky
Zone argues. But even so, she says Sky Zone did take an active
step, as it was "behind every step of the process in the collection
of Plaintiff's biometric data," which constitutes and "active
step."

Judge Beatty finds that nowhere in her complaint does the Plaintiff
allege that Sky Zone itself stored biometric information on its own
computers or servers, or that Sky Zone used the biometric
information for its own purposes. In fact, she does not allege that
Sky Zone actually accessed this information. The Plaintiff's
allegations are simply that Sky Zone could access the biometric
information one day. But equally as plausible as Sky Zone accessing
the information one day is that Sky Zone never accessed the
information.

The Plaintiff's allegations are more similar to those of the
plaintiff in Namuwonge v. Kronos, Inc., 418 F.Supp.3d 279, 285
(N.D. Ill. 2019). In Namuwonge, the plaintiff alleged Section 15(b)
claims against two defendants: A provider of workforce management
software and services, and the plaintiff's employer who used a
timekeeping system provided by the aforementioned defendants. The
Northern District held that the software provider simply supplied
the timekeeping system to the plaintiff's employer and it was the
employer, alone, who collected the biometric fingerprints.

The Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint do not take her
Section 15(b) claim against Sky Zone "across the line from
conceivable to plausible," as she failed to plead (or sufficiently
raise the inference) that Sky Zone ever did anything to extract or
obtain the biometric information from Innovative Heights'
CenterEdge System. Ultimately, she did not adequately allege that
Sky Zone took an active step to collect or obtain her data.

Accordingly, Sky Zone's motion to dismiss is granted as to the
Plaintiff's Section 15(b) claim. This dismissal is without
prejudice and the Plaintiff is given an opportunity to cure the
pleading deficiencies outlined. The Plaintiff was granted leave to
refile an amended complaint by Aug. 19, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3vvtnt from Leagle.com.


INOTIV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Aug. 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 10 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

NOTV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/inotiv-lawsuit-loss-submission-form?prid=30741&wire=1
AMZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-information-request-form?prid=30741&wire=1
CVNA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carvana-class-action-loss-submission-form?prid=30741&wire=1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW:

Inotiv, Inc.
NOTV
NOTV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 21,
2021 - June 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 22, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/inotiv-lawsuit-loss-submission-form?prid=30741&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Inotiv,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Inotiv's acquisition, Envigo RMS, LL
("Envigo"), and Inotiv's Cumberland, Virginia facility (the
"Cumberland Facility") engaged in widespread and flagrant
violations of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"); (2) Envigo and
Inotiv's Cumberland Facility continuously violated the AWA; (3)
Envigo and Inotiv did not properly remedy issues with regards to
animal welfare at the Cumberland Facility; (4) as a result, Inotiv
was likely to face increased scrutiny and governmental action; (5)
Inotiv would imminently shut down two facilities, including the
Cumberland Facility; (6) Inotiv did not engage in proper due
diligence; and (7) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Amazon.com, Inc.
AMZN
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired shares of Amazon common stock between July
30, 2021, and April 28, 2022, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 6, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amazon-com-inc-information-request-form?prid=30741&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, 1) defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company's infrastructure and fulfillment
network investments substantially outpaced demand; 2) those
investments were a massive, self-imposed, undue drain on Amazon's
financial condition; 3) contrary to defendants' public statements
and undisclosed to investors, defendants had already implemented
cutbacks to Amazon's fulfillment capacity by July 2021; and 4) as a
result of defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, Amazon's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
class period.

Carvana Co.
CVNA
CVNA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 6, 2020 -
June 24, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 3, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carvana-class-action-loss-submission-form?prid=30741&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Carvana
Co. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Carvana faced serious, ongoing issues
with documentation, registration, and title with many of its
vehicles; (2) as a result, Carvana was issuing unusually frequent
temporary plates; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana was
violating laws and regulations in many existing markets; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Carvana risked its ability to continue
business and/or expand its business in existing markets; (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Carvana was at an increased risk of
governmental investigation and action; (6) Carvana was in
discussion with state and local authorities regarding the
above-stated business tactics and issues; (7) Carvana was facing
imminent and ongoing regulatory actions including license
suspensions, business cessation, and probation in several states
and counties including in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and North Carolina; and (8) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Carvana's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

INSIDER INC: Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Johnson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANCHEZ JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSIDER INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06529 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1,
2022) is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons with
Facebook and Business Insider accounts who watch videos on
businessinsider.com.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information --
including a record of every video clip they view -- to Facebook
without consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA").

The Defendant allegedly violated the VPPA by knowingly transmitting
Plaintiff's and the putative class's personally identifiable
information to unrelated third parties, the suit says.

Insider develops, owns, and operates businessinsider.com, which is
"an online platform that offers the latest business, celebrity, and
technology news."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  creilly@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

IOIP HOLDINGS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ioip Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ioip Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06804 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Ioip Holdings, LLC offers all-purpose rust and stain remover for
use in toilet bowls, flush tanks, sinks and bowls, dishwashers and
washing machines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Follman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Mordechi Follman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-06860 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://myjcap.com/ -- is a debt
collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JFI REDI-MIX: McAlister Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY WADE MCALISTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. JFI REDI-MIX LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-03152 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 8, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of failing to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated individuals overtime compensation pursuant to
the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and terminating Plaintiff's
employment in retaliation for his internal complaints regarding
Defendant's improper deduction of pay for meal breaks not taken.

The Plaintiff first began his employment with Defendant in late
spring/early summer of 2020, when he was hired as a mixer driver.
He worked for approximately three months before separating from
Defendant. He was then rehired as a mixer driver on May 28, 2021.
The Plaintiff continued working for Defendant as a mixer driver
until May 20, 2022, when his employment was abruptly and unlawfully
terminated.

JFI Redi-Mix LLC is a concrete contractor based in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          Michael Groh, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                  mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

K.R. WOLFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brandi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BRANDI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K.R. WOLFE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01181-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Brandi was employed by the Defendant as field service
technician.

K.R. WOLFE, INC. was founded in 2007. The company's line of
business includes repairing radios and televisions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Lin, Esq.
          Eric Sands, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          Email: ben.lin@jtblawgroup.com
                 eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com

KASPERSKY LAB: Valenzuela Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KASPERSKY LAB, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV26119
(Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
for its illegal wiretapping of electronic communications with the
Defendant's website chatbot at usa.kaspersky.com (the "Website"),
in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").

Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed software that the Defendant uses to surreptitiously
intercept, monitor, record, and store the communications of all
visitors that use the chat feature on its website. Going from bad
to worse, the Defendant then shares the content of the customer
chats with a spyware company called "Clicktale" for data harvesting
purposes. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their
express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping, nor does the
Defendant inform visitors that it will be sharing the secretly
recorded transcripts with a spyware company. The Defendant has
violated and continues to violate the CIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of California.

The Defendant is a Massachusetts corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A Professional Corporation
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: January 9, 2023 K-Cup Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
DansDeals reports that Keurig is being sued in a class action
lawsuit for labeling their K-Cup single serving coffee pods as
recyclable while they were generally not. If you purchased one of
these between June 8, 2016, through August 8, 2022 you are eligible
for this class action.

You do not need to submit proof of purchase if you are submitting a
claim for Challenged Products. However, you will receive a minimum
of $6 and may be eligable to receive up to $36 if you have proof of
purchase, such as receipts, email order or shipping confirmations.

Cash Payments:

No Proof of Purchase - $5 per Household

If you elect to receive the Cash Payment and do not have any proof
of purchase, such as a receipt, you may be eligible to receive $5
per Household.

With Proof of Purchase - $36 Maximum Payment

If you elect to receive the Cash Payment and have proof of
purchase, you are eligible to receive $3.50 per 100 pods purchased.
The maximum Cash Payment is $36 per Household and the minimum total
payment is $6 if you have proof of purchase for your purchases.

You must file your claim, so that it is postmarked or submitted
online no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time on January 9, 2023.
[GN]

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KeyBank National
Association. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. KeyBank
National Association, Case No. 1:22-cv-06879 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12,
2022).

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

KeyBank -- https://www.key.com/personal/index.html -- the primary
subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank headquartered in
Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIA AMERICA: Faces Pue Suit Over Defective Motor Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------
JOANNA K. PUE; and SHANNON KOZMIC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC.;
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA; HYUNDAI KIA AMERICA TECHNICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendants, Case 6:22-cv-01440-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2022)
is a class action claim arising from a defect in Defendants'
vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less than
they should be, if they did not have the defect.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants did not
disclose the defects, which is a material fact, and a fact that a
reasonable person would rely on when purchasing a vehicle. During
the relevant class period, the Defendants manufactured, designed,
and put into the stream of commerce the Defective Vehicles. The
Defendants did so without disclosing the fact that these vehicles
had a defect which made them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth less
than they should be, if they did not have the defect, says the
suit.

The Defendants admit there is a theft problem with these vehicles
but refuse to fix them, compensate consumers, or otherwise take
actions to solve the problems their Defective Vehicles are causing,
added the suit.

KIA AMERICA, INC. operates as an automobile dealer. The Company
offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradford Rothwell Sohn, Esq.
          THE BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2990 Ponce De Leon Boulevard Suite 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-9750
          Facsimile: (305) 397-0650


KOHL'S INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Raslavich Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 154988104
(Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 09, 2022) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

KOHL'S, INC. retails merchandise. The Company focuses on apparel,
shoes, accessories, decorations, electronic, pet accessories, and
house wares targeting middle income customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KOLD TRANS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due January 18, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennie Hamilton v. Kold
Trans, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01859-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an amended order
granting stipulation to continue class certification motion
briefing schedule and hearing date as follows:

  -- Class Certification Motion            January 18, 2023
      (filing deadline):

  -- Opposition to Class Certification     March 27, 2023
     (filing deadline):

  -- Reply (filing deadline):              May 1, 2023

  -- Hearing on Class Certification        May 18, 2023
     Motion:

Kold Trans is a provider of truckload and logistics services.

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

KROGER CO: Avigne Sues Over Mislabeled Smoked Cheese Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANET AVIGNE; and LAUREN MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Case No.
2:22-cv-11889-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 13, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells mislabeled
slices of Gouda cheese purporting to get its smoked attributes
entirely from being smoked, under its Private Selection brand
("Product").

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, The Product is labeled
as "Smoked Gouda" and described as having a "distinctive, smoky
flavor." However, the front label does not disclose that the
Product's smoked flavor is from liquid smoke, prepared by pyrolysis
of hardwood sawdust, instead of being smoked over hardwoods, says
the suit.

Consumers are misled because the absence of required, qualifying
terms, i.e., "natural smoke flavored Gouda," "smoke flavored
Gouda," or "Gouda with natural added smoke flavor," gives them the
false impression that all the Product's smoked attributes -
including taste and color - are imparted by smoking, when none of
these attributes are, the suit added.

The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Product if they knew
the representations were false and misleading.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

KTB COFFEE: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Liburd Says
--------------------------------------------------
Alyn Liburd, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
this proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. KTB Coffee Shop,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06749-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2022)
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to recover from the
Defendant unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Plaintiff Liburd was employed as a cook, dishwasher, and general
worker at Defendant's coffee shop from November 2021 through
January 2022.

KTB Coffee Shop owns, operates and/or controls a coffee shop known
as "KTP Coffee" located in Arlington, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LECHONERA POLLO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIS FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LECHONERA POLLO SABROSO RESTAURANT CORP.
(D/B/A LECHONERA POLLO SABROSO); BASILIO BELLO; and RAFAEL VELASCO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06883 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, meals, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as waitress.

LECHONERA POLLO SABROSO RESTAURANT CORP. owns, and operates a Latin
American restaurant, located at Bronx, New York, under the name
"LechoneraPolloSabroso". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEMONADE INC: Must Face Biometric Data Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Lemonade
Inc. must still face claims that it collected customers' face
geometry and voiceprints without their consent, after a federal
judge in Manhattan refused to dismiss all of the claims.

Jose Gutierrez and John Barlow brought the proposed class action
against the insurance company, alleging it required them to submit
videos explaining their claims, then collected and analyzed their
face geometry, voiceprints, and non-verbal cues using artificial
intelligence.

The practice was in direct violation of the company's data privacy
policy, which says that customers' biometric data isn't collected,
Gutierrez and Barlow said. [GN]



LILLY LASHES: Faces Montique Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KHALIA MONTIQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LILLY LASHES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:22-cv-61468 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 8, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant sent unsolicited text
messages to promote its goods and services to those who have not
provided Defendant with their prior express written consent as
required by the FTSA. The Defendant also engaged in telemarketing
without the requisite policies and procedures and training required
under the TCPA and its implementing regulations, it adds.

The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the suit.

Lilly Lashes, LLC operates an online women's accessories
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

LOMBARDIS ORIGINAL PIZZA: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lombardis Original
Pizza Inc. The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Lombardis Original Pizza Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06859 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Lombardis Original Pizza Inc. -- http://www.lombardipizza.com/--
is Salisbury's oldest operating full-service restaurant, serving
authentic Stone-Baked Pizza, Stromboli, Pasta, Subs &
Sandwiches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMICO LIFE INSURANCE: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumico Life Insurance
Corporation. The case is styled as Terri Nichols, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumico Life Insurance
Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-06828 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Lumico Life Insurance Company -- https://lumico.com/ -- is a
top-rated insurance provider committed to providing consumers with
affordable life and health products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7127
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com



MAC COSMETICS: Illegally Wiretaps Website Visitors, Valenzuela Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Case No. 5:22-cv-01360 (C.D.
Cal.,Aug. 1, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and
on behalf of all other California citizens similarly situated
against the Defendant for its illegal wiretapping of all
communications with Defendant's website, www.maccosmetics.com.

Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed "keystroke monitoring" software that Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all visitors to its
Website. Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their express
or implied consent prior to this wiretapping, says the suit.

The Defendant has violated and continues to violate the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Penal Code section
631, entitling Plaintiff and Class Members to relief pursuant
thereto, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated (the “Class”) defined as follows:

   "All persons within California, who (1) within one year of the
   filing of this Complaint visited Defendant’s website, and (2)

   whose electronic communications were recorded or shared with
   third parties by Defendant without their prior, express
   consent."

MAC Cosmetics is an American cosmetics manufacturer founded in
Toronto, Canada in 1984 by Frank Toskan and Frank Angelo. The
company is headquartered in New York City after becoming a
subsidiary of Estee Lauder Companies in 1996. MAC is an acronym for
Make-Up Art Cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com

MARK ANTHONY BRANDS: Borovoy Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Anthony Brands
Inc. The case is styled as Christine Borovoy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mark Anthony Brands
Inc., Case No. 3 1:22-cv-04251 (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Mark Anthony Brands International --
https://www.markanthonyintl.com/ -- is an alcohol beverage
business, creates and develops a portfolio of brands in ready to
drink and premium craft spirits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARK CUBAN: Sued for Promoting Voyager Crypto Products
------------------------------------------------------
Prashan Jha, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that Mark Cuban,
the billionaire entrepreneur who has been quite active in the
crypto ecosystem for the past year, is facing a class-action
lawsuit over his promotions of the bankrupt crypto brokerage firm
Voyager Digital.

The Moskowitz Law Firm filed a civil suit in the United States
District Court in Southern Florida against Cuban for promoting
Voyager's unregulated crypto products. The lawsuit demanded a jury
hearing for the case.

The lawsuit alleged Cuban also misrepresented the firm on numerous
occasions, making dubious claims of it being cheaper than
competitors and offering "commission-free" trading services. Cuban,
along with Voyager Digital CEO Stephen Ehrlich, leveraged their
years of experience to lure inexperienced customers into investing
their life savings in what they called a Ponzi Scheme, the lawsuit
alleges.

An excerpt from the lawsuit read:

"Cuban and Ehrlich, went to great lengths to use their experience
as investors to dupe millions of Americans into investing -- in
many cases, their life savings -- into the Deceptive Voyager
Platform and purchasing Voyager Earn Program Accounts ('EPAs'),
which are unregistered securities."

The lawsuit further alleged that Cuban continued to hype Voyager's
products and push retail investors to invest in it despite knowing
it. Cuban went on record calling the Voyager platform "as close to
risk-free as you're gonna get in the crypto." The lawsuit read:

"Voyager Platform relied on Cuban's and the Dallas Maverick's vocal
support and Cuban's monetary investment in order to continue to
sustain itself until its implosion and Voyager's subsequent
bankruptcy."

Voyager was one of many crypto lenders to Three Arrows Capital
(3AC) that went bust after laters insolvency. The crypto lending
firm paused trading activity and withdrawals on July 1 and
eventually filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 5. Currently,
over 3.5 million American customers have nearly 5 billion dollars
in cryptocurrency assets on the platform frozen.

Voyager was cleared to return $270 million in customer funds held
at the Metropolitan Commercial Bank (MCB) by the judge presiding
over its bankruptcy proceedings in New York. A day later, the
lending firm announced that clients with U.S. dollars in their
accounts could withdraw up to $100,000 in a 24-hour period starting
as early as Aug. 11, with the funds received in 5–10 business
days. [GN]

MARS INC: Faces Altoids False Advertising Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action says that Mars, Inc. has falsely advertised
cinnamon-flavored Altoids mints given that the product contains no
actual cinnamon.

The 23-page lawsuit out of California contends that Mars' labeling
of the Altoids, with the word "cinnamon" in large bold font below
images of cinnamon sticks, leads reasonable consumers to believe
the product contains cinnamon.

Per the suit, Mars falsely and misleadingly advertises the Altoids
"to gain a competitive edge in the market, all at the expense of
unsuspecting consumers."

The belief among consumers that the Altoids contain cinnamon is
fortified by the fact that similar products made by Mars'
competitors, such as Mentos and Simply Mints, contain actual
cinnamon, the filing relays. In this light, it's not unreasonable
for a consumer to expect the Altoids to contain cinnamon, the suit
states.

According to the lawsuit, federal regulations stipulate that if a
food's labeling makes any direct or indirect representations about
its primary recognizable flavor, such as cinnamon, and the food
contains any artificial component that simulates that flavor, the
name of the flavor must be accompanied by the words "artificial" or
"artificially flavored" on the product's front label.

"For example, the Product should have represented the cinnamon as
'artificial cinnamon,' 'artificially flavored cinnamon,' or
'cinnamon artificially flavored,'" the case reads.

The filing says that the belief that the Altoids contained real
cinnamon is a "significant factor" in a consumer's decision to buy
the mints. Mars, as the product's manufacturer, "knew or should
have known" that the Altoids' labeling falsely and deceptively
represents the presence of cinnamon, the suit argues.

Had consumers been aware that the Altoids lacked real cinnamon,
they would not have bought the mints, or would have paid
significantly less for them, the lawsuit claims.

The suit looks to represent all persons who bought
cinnamon-flavored Altoids in California within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]

MASON TENDERS: Vandermark Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason Tenders
District Council Welfare Fund, et al. The case is styled as Kevin
Vandermark, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund,
Mason Tenders District Council Pension Fund, Mason Tenders District
Council Annuity Fund, Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New
York, Case No. 1:22-cv-06849-NRB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Mason Tenders' District Council Welfare Fund --
https://member.mtdctrustfunds.org/ -- is a multi-employer union
pension fund based in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: byagman@milberg.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Kelly May File Proposed 1st Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, signed
and approved a Stipulation and Order filed by the parties in the
lawsuit captioned ROBERT KELLY, ERYN LEARNED, and KERRY WANO, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. THE McCLATCHY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01960 KJM-JDP
(E.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 143,
Plaintiffs Robert Kelly, Eryn Learned and Kerry Wano and Defendant
The McClatchy Company, LLC, stipulate and agree as follows:

   A. The Plaintiffs may file Exhibit B, the proposed amended
      complaint; and

   B. McClatchy will file its responsive pleading within 44 days
      after the Plaintiffs file Exhibit B.

On June 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint - Class
Action, which was later transferred to the Court.

On May 26, 2022, the Court denied McClatchy's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. On June 29, 2022, the Court granted the Parties'
stipulation to extend the time for McClatchy to file a responsive
pleading to Aug. 1, 2022.

On July 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel notified McClatchy that
they intended to amend the Complaint to dismiss Plaintiff Robert
Kelly and his individual claims without prejudice, and add four
additional plaintiffs.

The Parties met and conferred regarding the Plaintiffs' proposed
amended complaint twice, on July 11 and 21, 2022.

On July 21, 2022, the Parties met and conferred regarding the
Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint during which the Plaintiff's
counsel confirmed that the amended complaint would also dismiss
Plaintiff Kerry Wano and his individual claims without prejudice. A
redline of the Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint is attached
as Exhibit A, and a clean version of the proposed amended complaint
is attached as Exhibit B.

McClatchy consents to the Plaintiffs' filing of the proposed
amended complaint in Exhibit B, and the Parties agree that by
stipulating to the filing, McClatchy makes no admissions, waives no
defenses and expressly reserves the right to challenge the proposed
amended complaint.

The Parties say this Stipulation is not being sought for any
improper purpose or for the reason of delay, and this is the
Plaintiffs' proposed first amendment to their complaint.

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, the Plaintiffs will file
Exhibit B, the proposed amended complaint. McClatchy will file its
responsive pleading within 14 days of the filing of Exhibit B.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fubenny from
Leagle.com.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Amy L. Pierce --
Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com -- Attorneys for the Defendant.

Kristin Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- KEMNITZER, BARRON &
KRIEG, in Mill Valley, California, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Adrienne D. McEntee -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.


MCG HEALTH: W.D. Washington Allows Booth to Intervene in Saiki Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David W. Christel of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, issued an order in the
lawsuit styled DIANA SAIKI, Plaintiff v. MCG HEALTH LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-CV-849-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.):

   (1) denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to
       Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel; and

   (2) granting in part Motion to Intervene filed by counsel in
       the related case of Booth, et al., v. MCG Health, LLC, No.
       2:22-cv-00879 (W.D. Wash., filed June 22, 2022).

On June 22, 2022, counsel for the Plaintiff (Saiki counsel) filed a
motion for an order appointing Jason T. Dennett of Tousley Brain
Stephens PLLC and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC, as interim co-lead counsel for Plaintiff
Saiki, as well as two other Plaintiffs in then-filed related
cases.

Since that time several additional related cases have been filed.
Accordingly, on July 25, 2022, the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez,
Chief United States District Judge, referred all such related cases
to Judge Christel because this case (originally referred to Judge
Christel on June 30, 2022) was the lowest numbered case of them. On
Aug. 3, 2022, the Court entered an order to show cause in this case
and eight other related cases whether they should be consolidated.

Meanwhile, counsel in the related case of Booth, et al., v. MCG
Health, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00879 (W.D. Wash., filed June 22, 2022)
(Booth counsel) moved to intervene for the limited purpose of
requesting that Saiki counsel's motion for appointment be held in
abeyance pending the Court's formal organization of this
litigation. Saiki Counsel filed a response reiterating their
position without objecting to Booth counsel's intervention.

The Court concurs with Booth counsel that Saiki counsel's motion is
premature and "would undermine the orderly, considered development
and organization of this litigation" because if the Court
consolidates the related cases then the Plaintiffs are entitled to
be represented by the applicant best able to represent the
interests of the class.

Saiki counsel's motion seeks to avoid "copycat cases" and
"competing leadership" issues but fails to address how appointing
them interim co-lead counsel would protect the interests of the
class during precertification activities, such as making and
responding to motions, conducting any necessary discovery, moving
for class certification, and negotiating settlement as the Manual
for Complex Litigation advises the Court to consider, Judge
Christel opines.

In the event the related cases should reach the point of
consolidation, the Court would institute a procedure and invite
submissions from all counsel and conduct an independent review to
ensure that counsel appointed to leading roles are qualified and
responsible, that they will fairly and adequately represent all of
the parties on their side, and that their charges will be
reasonable. Therefore, the Court finds no purpose in holding Saiki
counsel's motion in abeyance, as suggested by Booth counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3fhjma23 from Leagle.com.


MCGRAW HILL: Court Denies Flynn's Bid for Leave to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend complaint in the lawsuit entitled SEAN FLYNN, et
al., Plaintiffs v. MCGRAW HILL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21
Civ. 614 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Court issued an Opinion and Orderdismissing
the breach of contract claim and denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. Familiarity with the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint and the Opinion is assumed.

On Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the Complaint and attached a proposed Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (the "PAC"). They argue that the proposed
amendments cure deficiencies in the breach of contract claim. They
also argue that the motion is timely because they recently received
in discovery evidence supporting the proposed new allegations after
it had been withheld on privilege grounds. The Defendants oppose
the amendment.

The Plaintiffs are authors of textbooks that the Defendants publish
in print and also offer in electronic form through the Defendants'
"Connect" platform. The Complaint and the PAC allege that, from
approximately 2009 to 2020, the Defendants calculated royalties
owed to the Plaintiffs based on the full amount the Defendants
received from customers, who purchased electronic versions of
textbooks the Plaintiffs authored. The Complaint and PAC allege
that, in approximately 2020, the Defendants assigned itemized
values to three components of the product sold to customers via
Connect -- the Connect platform itself, the electronic version of
the textbook, and "Derivative Materials" produced by the Defendants
using the textbook -- and began paying royalties to the Plaintiffs
based only on the textbook component and part of the Derivative
Materials component.

The Complaint and the PAC both allege that the Defendants' actions
breach the provisions of the contracts that require the Defendants
to pay royalties on their "net receipts" from the Plaintiffs'
"Works." The contracts define "net receipts" as the "selling price"
of the Work less certain enumerated expenses. "Works" are defined
by the titles of the textbooks.

The Complaint alleges that deducting the purported prices
attributable to components other than the textbook from the
"selling price" when calculating "net receipts" breached the
Defendants' duty to pay royalties on "net receipts."

The PAC now alleges that defining "selling price" as the price
attributable only to the textbook -- excluding the prices of those
same non-textbook components -- breaches the Defendants' duty to
calculate "net receipts" (and hence royalties) based on the
"selling price."

Judge Schofield finds that this amendment would be futile because
the Plaintiffs' new theory is equally foreclosed by the Opinion,
which held that the "selling price" of the "Work" -- and hence the
"net receipts" derived from that selling price -- is only the sales
price of the textbook itself.

The PAC also alleges several new facts that the Plaintiffs assert
were uncovered recently in discovery. These new facts purportedly
show the Defendants' motivation to decrease royalties in order to
increase profits, the Defendants' internal discussions about how to
justify the decision publicly and deliberations about whether to
pursue that goal through the "Royalty Reduction Initiative" as
ultimately implemented or by other means.

Judge Schofield notes that extrinsic evidence of what the
Defendants thought the contracts mean or why the Defendants adopted
the interpretation they did cannot vary unambiguous contract terms.
The breach of contract claim in the Complaint was dismissed, and
the claim alleged in the PAC is futile, because both are foreclosed
by unambiguous contract language. Consequently, amending the
Complaint to plead extrinsic evidence would be futile.

The PAC's other proposed amendments are either superfluous or
insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract, Judge
Schofield holds.

Hence, Judge Schofield denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend, and denies as moot the parties' joint letter motion for oral
argument.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. Nos. 93
and 111.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2v45kynr from Leagle.com.


META PLATFORMS: PFA, Ohio as Co-Leads in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Poulsen and Lucas Cacioli, writing for AsianInvestor, report
that Denmark's largest commercial pension fund, PFA, and the US
state of Ohio, have been appointed as co-leads in the securities
class action case against Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook) by a
federal judge in California after he agreed to consolidate a series
of lawsuits against the social media company.

The complaint -- originally filed on November 12 by attorney
general of Ohio David Yost on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System (OPERS) and all investors -- contends that, from
April 21 through October 21 of last year, Facebook and its senior
executives intentionally misled the public about the protections
the social media platform provided users against harmful content
through its proprietary algorithm.  

The plaintiffs maintain that these misrepresentations led to an
artificially inflated Facebook share price which later fell by more
than 14% following revelations in leaked internal documents and
whistleblower testimony provided by the social media company's
company product manager Frances Haugen.

The drop in share price saw $150 billion wiped off Facebook's
market capitalisation in October 2021, resulting in around $3
million in losses for OPERS. The social media giant rebranded to
Meta Platforms Inc. in the weeks that followed.

"As investors, we must be able to trust that the listed companies
in which we invest our beneficiaries' money provide timely,
complete, and accurate information to us and the rest of the
market," Rasmus Bessing, chief operating officer at PFA Asset
Management, said in a statement.

"Facebook/Meta Inc., as one of the world's largest content
providers and social media, has a responsibility to comply with its
publicly stated commitments to apply its standards of behavior
equally to all users and take appropriate steps to prevent the
spread of misinformation or harmful content," he said.

A representative from PFA told AsianInvestor that the pension fund
currently holds 1,070,000 shares in Meta, worth just under $180
million (1.3 billion DKK).

RECOVERY CLAIMS

According to PFA's representative, all investors that suffered a
loss on their purchases of Facebook Class A common stock between
April 29, 2021 and October 21, 2021 are being represented in the
class action "unless they opt out" which means other pension funds
can file claims to participate in the recovery if the lawsuit is
successful.

PFA Pension of Denmark, which filed its motion to serve as lead
plaintiff jointly with Ohio state, was appointed by Judge Jon S.
Tigar "by virtue of having the largest financial interest"
according to the ruling.

The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), also
petitioned to serve as lead plaintiff but were unsuccessful. A
CalPERS representative declined to offer comment due to the ongoing
litigation, but told AsianInvestor that the fund held over 5.5
million shares in Facebook at the end of June 2021.

While it is unclear which investors will file claims to recover
their losses in the event of a ruling against Meta, institutional
investors currently own over 75% of the publicly traded company,
according to data from Morningstar.

These include some of the largest pension funds in the world
including Norges Bank Investment Management which is the tenth
largest shareholder with a 1.2% stake in Meta worth more than $4.6
billion.

In Asia, the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) of Japan had
a $2.6 billion investment in Meta, and as of March 2022, ranking
the social media firm ninth in terms of value size on its list of
overseas equity investments. [GN]

METRO MOTEL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayar Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
LUIS AYAR; and RAUL REYES SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. METRO MOTEL, LLC; BEN
BERGER; and TOUFIC SAIEH, Defendants, Case 1:22-cv-04694 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 9, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, meals, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Plaintiff Ayar was employed by the Defendants as janitor. Plaintiff
Reyes was employed as laundry worker.

METRO MOTEL, LLC owns, operates, or controls a homeless shelter and
motel located at Woodside, New York, operating under the name Metro
Motel. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 457-1699

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Branum Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Southeastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit titled REBECCA BRANUM, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MGMT., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-105 SNLJ (E.D.
Mo.).

Plaintiff Rebecca Branum filed the putative class action against
Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") alleging that MCM
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when it sent a
letter to her in an attempt to collect a debt that she owed on her
Lowes credit card, which was issued by Synchrony Bank.

Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., notes that this is
not the first time the Plaintiff has filed such a lawsuit. The
Plaintiff filed her first lawsuit, Branum I, on Oct. 13, 2020,
based on a letter MCM sent dated February 2020. This case, Branum
II, is based on a letter MCM sent dated July 2020.

The Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in
Branum I in August 2021 and dismissed the lawsuit. Now that the
Plaintiff has filed a second lawsuit, defendant moves for summary
judgment based on res judicata, or, in the alternative, to compel a
single arbitration of Branum I.

The Plaintiff concedes that this case should be arbitrated, but
that a separate parallel arbitration should be conducted based on
the second dunning letter. The Plaintiff also contends that this
Court should not reach the Defendant's arguments about res judicata
and claim splitting because the arbitrator is the proper tribunal
to decide those issues.

The Defendant asserts, and the Plaintiff does not dispute, that two
separate arbitrations would result in double the administrative
fees, duplication of attorney time and effort, and possibly
multiple damages awards for the same alleged conduct.

The Court will first address the Plaintiff's contention that the
arbitrator, and not the Court, should decide the matters of res
judicata and claim splitting. The Plaintiff suggests the Court rely
on the forum non conveniens doctrine to determine that the matter
is appropriately decided by the arbitrator. The Defendant maintains
the doctrine is inapplicable.

Judge Limbaugh notes that where trial will be held is not an issue
before the Court. Rather, the issue is whether the Court should
determine the res judicata effect of its own judgment before it
compels this case to arbitration. As a matter of law, claims of res
judicata based on a prior federal judgment must be decided by the
district court before compelling or enjoining arbitration. Thus,
the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not compel the Court to
refer the issue of the res judicata effect of its Nov. 18, 2021
judgment to the arbitrator.

Having determined the Court has the authority to reach the merits
of the Defendant's motion, the Court first addresses the
Defendant's argument that res judicata precludes the Plaintiff from
maintaining this separate lawsuit. Res judicata precludes
relitigation of claims or theories that were actually raised by a
party in a prior lawsuit, and it also precludes relitigation of
claims or theories that could have been raised.

To determine whether a final judgment bars a subsequent suit, the
Court considers whether four requirements are met: (1) the first
suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits; (2) the first suit
was based on proper jurisdiction; (3) both suits involved the same
parties or those in privity with them; and (4) both suits are based
upon the same claims or causes of action, which the Eighth Circuit
has held means that the claims arise out of the same nucleus of
operative facts. Here, there is no dispute that the first three
factors are met. The Plaintiff only disputes that the suits are not
based on the same claims or causes of action.

The Defendant contends that the two lawsuits are both based on its
attempt to collect on the Plaintiff's Lowes credit card account.
Even though the Defendant sent two letters--one in February 2020
and on in July 2020--the Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff
could have easily brought her FDCPA-based lawsuit on both letters
when she filed Branum I in October 2020.

The Plaintiff argues that her lawsuits are not based on the same
claim or causes of action because they rely on two "different
theories" of liability. The Plaintiff notes that the second dunning
letter, sent in July 2020, was sent after Missouri's governor had
declared a state of emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and
as a result the Defendant was legally unable to collect on the debt
then. The Plaintiff has no such argument with respect to the
February 2020 dunning letter on which Branum I was based.

But issues that were--or could have been--raised in a prior lawsuit
are precluded by res judicata, Judge Limbaugh says, citing Walton
v. Bilinski, No. 4:15-cv-36, 2018 WL 782990, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Feb.
8, 2018). The Plaintiff could have brought her claims regarding the
July 2020 dunning letter, which related to the same account as the
February 2020 dunning letter, in the October 2020 lawsuit. It is
clear that causes of action arise out of the same nucleus of
operative facts, as both cases revolve around the Defendant's
attempt to collect on the Plaintiff's Lowes credit account.

If the nucleus of operative facts is the effort to collect on the
account, then the lawsuit is barred by res judicata, Judge Limbaugh
holds. The Plaintiff essentially argues that the COVID-19 pandemic
adds a new wrinkle that changes the nucleus of operative facts. But
she still argues that the July letter violated the FDCPA.
Critically, the FDCPA allows for statutory damages of up to $1,000,
plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for a successful claim.
Those statutory damages are limited to $1,000 per action, not per
violation, Judge Limbaugh points out. Thus, it appears the
Plaintiff's tactic is at best an attempt to evade the statutory cap
on recovery and does not arise from a different nucleus of
operative fact.

Judge Limbaugh holds that res judicata applies to this matter
because this case and Branum I both arise from the same nucleus of
operative fact. The matter should, therefore, be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/vb23knrz from
Leagle.com.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICKIE MULLINS, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00120-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its consent
motion for extensions of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and motion for partial summary judgment to
August 22, 2022.

In this matter Mr. Mullins alleges that Monarch violated the North
Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA), the North Carolina Collection
Agency Act (NCCAA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) during Monarch's attempts to recover a debt obligation owed
by him.

On September 3, 2021 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint against Monarch advancing claims pursuant to the NCDCA,
the NCCAA and the FDCPA.

On September 17, 2021 Monarch filed an Answer to Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint with Affirmative Defenses denying each of
Plaintiff's claims.

On July 25, 2022 counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
supporting memorandum of law.

On July 25, 2022 counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and
supporting memorandum of law.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bRX6MT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald M. Metcho, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          220 Penn Avenue, Suite 305
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-4231 / (570) 342-4841
          E-mail: rmetcho@margolisedelstien.com

MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: MacDonald Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Movement Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as Darren MacDonald, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Movement Mortgage LLC,
Case No. 0:22-cv-02633-JFA (D.S.C., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Movement Mortgage -- https://movement.com/ -- is a financial
service provider company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Violet Elizabeth Wright, Esq.
          V ELIZABETH WRIGHT LAW OFFICE
          217 East Park Avenue
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Phone: (864) 326-5271
          Fax: (864) 233-4567
          Email: bethwrightattorney@gmail.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: S.D. New York Denies Flores' Bid for Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni denies the Plaintiffs' motion for discovery
filed in the lawsuit captioned BRIAN FLORES, STEVE WILKS, and RAY
HORTON, as Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL
LEAGUE; NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC. d/b/a NEW YORK GIANTS; MIAMI
DOLPHINS, LTD. d/b/a MIAMI DOLPHINS; DENVER BRONCOS FOOTBALL CLUB
d/b/a DENVER BRONCOS; HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a HOUSTON
TEXANS; ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC d/b/a ARIZONA
CARDINALS; TENNESSEE TITANS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a TENNESSEE,
TITANS and JOHN DOE TEAMS 1 through 26, Defendants, Case No.
22-CV-0871 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Three individuals, who have been coaches in the National Football
League, have sued the NFL and several of its teams for
discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendants moved to
compel arbitration and to stay the current proceedings. The
Plaintiffs moved for discovery in advance of their anticipated
response to the motion to compel arbitration, and the Defendants
opposed the motion.

Plaintiffs Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton are coaches in
the NFL. Each of them has allegedly experienced "systemic racial
discrimination" in the course of their employment relationship with
the NFL. On Feb. 1, 2022, Mr. Flores filed this putative class
action alleging that the NFL discriminates against minority
coaches, including by interviewing them for head coaching positions
solely to fulfill the "Rooney Rule," an internal requirement to
interview minority candidates for select leadership positions,
without intending to hire them. Mr. Flores further alleges that the
NFL retaliated against him for bringing this lawsuit.

In an amended complaint filed on April 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Steve
Wilks and Ray Horton brought additional claims of discrimination.
Mr. Wilks alleges that he "was not given any meaningful chance to
succeed" as a coach for the Arizona Cardinals and was
"discriminatorily fired." Mr. Horton alleges that, like Mr. Flores,
he was only offered head coach interviews to comply with the Rooney
Rule and was never actually considered as a candidate for head
coach.

On June 21, 2022, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration and to
stay the current proceedings based on arbitration agreements
contained in the Plaintiffs' employment contracts and in the NFL's
constitution, which was referenced in those contracts. On July 1,
2022, the Plaintiffs moved for discovery on the motion to compel
arbitration, seeking documents concerning the parties' agreement to
arbitrate and applicable arbitration policies, the arbitrator's
relationship with the NFL and his history of arbitration rulings,
as well as the NFL's relationship with NFL teams. The Defendants
opposed the Plaintiffs' motion for discovery.

Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their
burden of offering facts or evidence to place the validity of the
agreement to arbitrate in issue in their motion for discovery. The
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they agreed to be bound by the
arbitration agreement contained in their employment agreements. Nor
do the Plaintiffs allege any grounds on which the Court may find
their agreement to be invalid.

Instead, the Plaintiffs seek "agreements between Plaintiffs and
Defendants that might bear on the issue or arbitration" in part to
determine whether any subsequent contract invalidated their
agreement to arbitrate, Judge Caproni notes. Because the Plaintiffs
should know whether they entered into any other contracts or
agreements that would affect their agreement to arbitrate, the
Court can only assume that they are attempting to embark on an
impermissible fishing expedition.

Judge Caproni points out that the Plaintiffs may well be able to
argue that the proposed arbitrator is so biased against them that
the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted, but they do
not need discovery to do so.

The Plaintiffs also seek to compel the NFL to produce any contracts
containing dispute resolution terms, presumably so that they can
determine whether the arbitration rules demonstrate the type of
bias present in the Hooters line of cases; the Plaintiffs should
know whether they entered into any such agreements, Judge Caproni
holds (Hooters of Am., Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933 (4th Cir.
1999)).

The Plaintiffs' remaining discovery requests relating to arbitrator
bias, including their request for documents regarding Mr. Goodell's
history of arbitration decisions and his relationship with the NFL,
do not bear on the issue of whether the arbitration agreement is
contractually valid.

Judge Caproni also finds that the Plaintiffs do not cite a single
case in which the court ordered discovery focused on the dealings
and rulings of an individual arbitrator in the context of a motion
to compel arbitration. Instead, the cases upon which the Plaintiffs
rely concern challenges to arbitration decisions (Nat'l Hockey
League Players' Assoc. v. Bettman, 1994 WL 38130, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Feb. 4, 1994), et al.).

The parties in those cases all sought relief under the FAA's
failsafe provision that allows courts to set aside arbitration
awards rendered by biased arbitrators; they do not support the
Plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to discovery in order to
establish that they can avoid arbitration altogether because they
fear the arbitrator is biased, Judge Caproni points out.

The Plaintiff's final ground for seeking discovery -- the fact that
the NFL was not a direct party to the arbitration agreement -- does
not go to whether the Plaintiffs intended to be bound by the
arbitration agreement. While the Plaintiffs correctly note that
they must have actually consented to release their right to
adjudicate claims against the NFL in court, they do not dispute
that their agreement to arbitrate covered all disputes falling
within the scope of their arbitration agreement, whether that may
also include claims against the NFL.

The Plaintiffs argue that discovery is necessary because the Court
must consider the "relationship among the parties" as one factor in
determining whether the NFL, a non-signatory to the arbitration
agreements, can enforce those agreements. In evaluating whether the
NFL may compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration agreements to
which it is not itself a party, the Court must determine whether
the NFL teams were, or would predictably become, with the
Plaintiffs' knowledge and consent, affiliated or associated with
the NFL in such a manner as to make it unfair to allow the
Plaintiffs to avoid their commitment to arbitrate on the ground
that the NFL was not the very entity with which the Plaintiffs had
a contract.

Judge Caproni holds that the Plaintiffs' requested discovery of all
documents regarding, supporting or undermining the Defendants'
contention that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims
with the NFL is not required, nor would it be useful, for the Court
to evaluate whether the NFL may appropriately compel the Plaintiffs
to arbitrate the present dispute.

For these reasons, Judge Caproni denies the Plaintiffs' motion for
discovery. The Plaintiffs' response to the motion to compel
arbitration was to be filed on Aug. 19, 2022. The Defendants' reply
brief must be filed no later than Aug. 26, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/kby5hfm5 from
Leagle.com.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: $3.8-Mil. Deal in Mostajo Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Anthony Marc Mostajo, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00350-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Chief District Judge Kimberly J.
Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants the motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement, which provides for a maximum settlement amount of $3.8
million.

Lead Plaintiffs Anthony Marc Mostajo and Elaine Quedens move for
preliminary approval of class settlement. Mr. Mostajo filed this
putative class action on behalf of former commercial line claims
adjusters against their employer, Defendant Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company, alleging the Defendant reclassified the claims
adjusters from exempt to non-exempt employees, did not pay them for
all hours worked, and discouraged them from reporting overtime
under threat of termination. He later added claims for unpaid,
accrued vacation time under California Labor Code Section 227.3, as
well as a derivative representative claim under California's
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for the alleged underlying
Labor Code violations. Nationwide does not oppose the pending
motion.

Prior to 2004, the Defendant classified claims adjusters in
California as exempt employees. As a result, the Defendant did not
pay the claims adjusters overtime compensation. Following a civil
action filed in 2002, the Defendant conducted an analysis of the
claims adjuster position and, in 2004, reclassified the claims
adjusters working in California as non-exempt employees. The
Defendant told claims adjusters, as non-exempt employees, that they
would be eligible for overtime compensation. However, by employing
a policy and practice of not allowing claims adjusters to report
and/or receive compensation for all of the hours and overtime
worked, the Defendant did not pay claims adjusters for all hours
and/or overtime worked.

The Defendant also had a policy whereby it did not pay its
California employees for all vested and accrued vacation time. As a
result of these policies and actions, the Defendant also allegedly
failed to provide accurate wage statements to employees as required
by California Labor Code Section 226. The complaint is styled as a
putative Rule 23 class action and PAGA action.

In February 2020, the judge then presiding over this matter granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. Specifically, the
Court certified the following two subclasses:

   * Subclass A, a class of persons employed by the Defendant as
     commercial lines claims adjusters in California from
     Jan. 9, 2013, through the date of the preliminary approval;
     and

   * Subclass B, all former California employees employed by
     the Defendant since Jan. 9, 2013, through the date of
     preliminary approval who accrued vacation time for which
     the Defendant did not pay them.

The Court approved Plaintiffs Anthony Marc Mostajo and Elaine
Quedens as representatives for the class. The Defendant now
contends that many claims adjusters reported and were paid for
significant amounts of overtime. Likewise, the Defendant maintains
the Court erred in granting certification of Subclass A and has
conveyed an intent to file a motion for decertification and a
partial summary judgment motion and appeal any adverse judgment.

Following the Court's class certification order, the claims
administrator mailed notice to individuals within the subclasses,
providing them an opportunity to opt-out, which twenty individuals
did. The parties engaged in extensive discovery and motion practice
over approximately 18 months, during which time the Defendant
estimated that (1) for the period between Feb. 14, 2013, and March
30, 2021, 637 of the 1,098 individuals employed in California
forfeited $1,443,806.22 in vacation time at termination, and (2)
the Defendant did not allow another $1,665,699.14 in accrued
vacation time to carry over from year to year during the same time
period. Excluding counsel's estimated interest in the amount of
$1,523,056, the total value of the unpaid vacation time claim alone
is approximately $3,109,505.22.

Separately, the Plaintiffs retained experts to survey and calculate
the potential damages that flowed from the hours the Plaintiffs
contended claims adjusters worked but were not compensated. The
Plaintiffs' experts concluded the value of this claim totaled
$1,863,284, plus wage statement penalties of $212,500, waiting time
penalties of $647,769, and PAGA penalties of $109,100. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs estimated the total potential value of the Subclass
A claims to be $2,832,653, and the total value of both subclass
claims as $5,942,158.36. The Defendant disagreed with this estimate
and counter-designated an expert, who concluded the maximum
potential value of the uncompensated time was less than $900,000,
which would make the total estimated value of both subclass claims
closer to $4,000,000, excluding interest and penalties.

After conducting their respective assessments, on Jan. 6, 2022, the
parties participated in a day-long mediation with Tripper Ortman,
an experienced wage and hour class action mediator. Following
mediation, the parties were able to reach an agreement, which is
before the Court for approval. The settlement agreement covers the
two certified subclasses, as well as a PAGA Group, which
encompasses all class members employed by the Defendant in
California between Feb. 15, 2017, and Jan. 31, 2022.

Under the settlement, the Defendant agrees to pay a "Maximum
Settlement Amount" of $3,800,000, which includes all attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, claims administration fees, and incentive
payments to the class representatives. Several deductions would be
taken from the Maximum Settlement Amount before any funds are
distributed to the putative class. First, class counsel may seek up
to $950,000, or 25 percent of the Maximum Settlement Amount, and
actual litigation costs and expenses up to $630,000. This would
amount to 41.5 percent of the Maximum Settlement Agreement; the
Defendant agrees not to object, provided the fees and costs do not
exceed these set amounts and the requested expenses are
documented.

Second, class counsel may seek a service or "incentive" award not
to exceed $25,000 for each class representative. Third, class
counsel would deduct settlement administration expenses not to
exceed $15,000. Finally, $50,000 would be allocated to the PAGA
payment, of which 75 percent would go to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent to the PAGA Group
Payment. The PAGA Group Payment would be distributed evenly among
all members of the PAGA Group.

After these deductions, the Net Settlement Amount (NSA) for
distribution to class members is estimated to be no less than
$2,105,000. The payments to Subclass A will be distributed on a
prorated basis to participating class members, based on each
member's eligible workweeks as reflected on defendant's internal
records and according to the following formula: (Subclass A
Member's Eligible Workweeks ÷ Total Eligible Workweeks for all
Participating Subclass A Members) x (Subclass A Net Settlement
Fund) = Individual Settlement Payment. The parties have agreed to
allocate $750,0000 of the NSA to the Subclass A Net Settlement
Fund. There are approximately 120 members of Subclass A, so the
average amount each will receive is approximately $6,250.

The payments to Subclass B also will be distributed on a prorated
basis to participating class members and follow this formula:
(Subclass B Member's Amount of vacation time accrued for which they
were not paid ÷ Total Amount of vacation time earned by all
Participating Members of Subclass B for which they were not paid) x
(Subclass B Net Settlement Fund) = Individual Settlement Payment.
The parties have agreed to allocate $1,355,000 of the NSA to the
Subclass B Net Settlement Fund. There are approximately 1,200
members of Subclass B, and class counsel estimates the average
amount each will receive is $1,130.

If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement agreement, a
settlement administrator would distribute settlement notices and
payments to participating class members. Within 14 days after the
date of preliminary approval by the Court, the Defendant will
provide the settlement administrator with the name(s), last known
residence addresses, eligible workweeks worked for Subclass A
Members, and amount of vacation time accrued in California by
Subclass B Members during the class period for which Defendant did
not pay them.

Within 15 days after receiving this information from the Defendant,
the settlement administrator will run the class data list through
the National Change of Address database and use the most recent
address for each Class Member, either from the Defendant's records
or the National Change of Address database, before mailing the
Notice of Class Settlement. The settlement administrator will also
take reasonable steps to locate any class member whose notice is
thereafter returned as undeliverable. Notice will provide class
members with 45 days to object to or opt out of the settlement.

     A. Rule 23(e) -- Preliminary Certification and Approval

The Court finds class counsel's representation is adequate. The
Lead Plaintiffs also adequately represent class interests: both had
worked for the Defendant for a total of nearly three decades, and
both seek to ensure their long-time colleagues are compensated for
their work and vacation time.

The Court has already noted the arm's-length negotiations between
the parties and noted the adequacy of Ms. Workman's representation
of the Plaintiffs. The proposed settlement also appears fair,
reasonable, and adequate given the parties' understanding of the
strength and weaknesses of their positions after engaging in
significant negotiations with an experienced mediator. In order to
fully evaluate the reasonableness of the parties' understandings in
this respect, the Court will direct they file in camera their
mediation briefs with a motion for final approval.

Class members will have 180 days, a reasonable period of time to
cash their settlement checks. Any uncashed checks will be voided
after that time and paid by the Settlement Administrator to the
California State Controller's Office for Unclaimed Property in the
name of the class member, available for collection through the
Controller's established procedures. No settlement funds will
revert to Nationwide.

Other elements of the proposed settlement agreement, however, weigh
against preliminary approval under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Judge Mueller notes. First, a disproportionate
award to counsel can be a "subtle sign that class counsel have
allowed pursuit of their own self-interests and that of certain
class members to infect the negotiations." The benchmark for
attorney's fees in the Ninth Circuit is 25 percent. Such departures
from the lower benchmark, however, are possible only if they are
properly supported and justified.

Here, the proposed settlement includes an award of attorneys' fees
up to $950,000, or 25 percent of the Maximum Settlement Amount. At
first blush, Judge Mueller notes, this appears perfectly reasonable
and well within the Ninth Circuit's norms. However, a closer look
reveals some troubling facts. Counsel also seeks up to $630,000 in
actual litigation costs and expenses. Combined with the fees, this
amount could bring the total fees and expenses to $1,580,000, or
41.5 percent of the Maximum Settlement Amount.

Judge Mueller points out that if class counsel were awarded the
maximum fees plus expenses, the total dollar figure would exceed 75
percent of the $2,105,000 that the parties have agreed to allocate
to Subclasses A and B. Even awarding just the maximum attorneys'
fees allowable would equate to 45 percent of the total dollar
amount allocated to Subclasses A and B. Unless counsel ultimately
can point to authority showing that courts routinely approve
settlements where the fees plus expenses exceed both (1) 40 percent
of the total settlement value, and (2) 75 percent of the total
class payment, the Court is unlikely to approve this settlement
agreement.

Furthermore, counsel has not yet provided the court with
information to allow a cross-check of the proposed fee award
against the "lodestar" fee, Judge Mueller finds. Counsel represents
the lodestar information will be forthcoming in connection with a
motion for final approval. With a motion for final approval,
counsel also must be prepared to justify the amount in fees and
costs sought with reference to the case law, Judge Mueller states.

Second, the proposed $25,000 incentive award for each class
representative appears to be on the high end of such awards, Judge
Mueller observes. As described, a large incentive award sets the
Named Plaintiffs apart from the absent class members if the
settlement is approved; the Plaintiffs who stand to receive several
thousand dollars extra have an incentive to support agreements that
are unfair to absent class members. Before final approval, Judge
Mueller says the Plaintiffs must provide additional information to
allow the Court's full consideration of whether the proposed
incentive fees here are warranted under all the circumstances.

Third, as noted, the settlement agreement contains a "clear
sailing" provision, under which the Defendant agrees not to
challenge a motion for attorneys' fees up to $950,000 or expenses
up to $630,000, so long as these fees and expenses are documented.
In conjunction with the relatively large percentage of the award
proposed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses, the clear sailing
provision merits a higher degree of scrutiny before final approval,
given the potential inference of a collusive settlement, Judge
Mueller states. In considering any motion for final approval, the
Court will require a more robust showing that collusion is not an
actual concern.

Despite these concerns, the Court remains mindful of the strong
judicial policy favoring settlement of class actions. In light of
that policy and the positive indicators of overall fairness, the
Court concludes the settlement agreement is likely to be approved
under Rule 23(e)(2) if the concerns it has expressed can be
resolved at the final approval stage.

That said, the Court offers no assurance that the proposed fee and
incentive awards will be approved without the additional
information called for by this Order.

             B. Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

The Court next considers whether the settlement is fundamentally
fair, reasonable, and adequate with reference to the public
policies underlying the PAGA. Where PAGA penalties are compromised
for too small a percentage of their total value, a court may not
find a settlement meets fundamental fairness requirements.

Here, the Plaintiffs' expert estimated the value of the PAGA claims
to be $109,100, but this calculation is based solely on the unpaid
compensation claims for the 120 individuals in Subclass A, not the
unpaid, accrued vacation time claims for the 1,200 employees in
Subclass. Without additional information about the estimated value
of the PAGA claims for Subclass B, the Court cannot evaluate
whether the $50,000 allocated to the PAGA penalty is fundamentally
fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court also cautions counsel
that each member of the PAGA class would receive approximately only
$10 each under the proposed settlement agreement. Before approving
any final settlement agreement, the Court would require additional
authority supporting why $10 per class member is appropriate.

Parties seeking approval of a PAGA settlement must also submit the
proposed settlement to the California LWDA for comment at the same
time they submit their motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement. While the Plaintiffs' counsel has already submitted the
current proposed settlement to the LWDA, the parties will need to
submit a revised proposed settlement if the proposed PAGA penalty
changes.

                    C. Proposed Class Notice

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires that prior to
settlement of a class action, the court must direct notice in a
reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the
proposal. Notice must be the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and must provide individual notice to all members who
can be identified through reasonable effort.

The Plaintiffs provide two notices of class action settlement with
the settlement agreement here. The first is for new class members,
which includes anyone who became part of Subclass A and/or B after
the class certification notice was mailed in 2020. The second is
for existing class members but largely mirrors the notice for new
class members. The notices of class action settlement included with
the settlement agreement here generally satisfy Rule 23. The
notices adequately explain in plain language the parties to the
lawsuit, the claims at issue, and the terms of the settlement. The
notices provide instructions on how to object or opt out with
deadlines. The notices inform class members that they will be bound
by the release of claims if they do not opt out.

The Court notes two deficiencies, however, that must be remedied
before any final approval. In the section titled "THE COURT'S FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING," the notices state, "You may attend the hearing
and you may ask to speak, but you don't have to." Later in that
same section, it reads, "You may also pay another lawyer to attend,
but it is not required." This section of the proposed notice to
class members must "clarify class members' ability to appear at the
final approval hearing with an attorney" by adding "with or without
a lawyer" after "attend the hearing" in the second sentence under
the section title.

Additionally, Judge Mueller notes, the proposed notice requires
information from new class members seeking exclusion from the
class, including telephone numbers, addresses, and the last four
digits of Social Security numbers. This information exceeds the
minimum information requirement of a class member requesting
exclusion, which is "(1) the class member's name, (2) a statement
that the class member wishes to be excluded from the settlement
class . . ., and (3) the class member's signature."

Judge Mueller holds that the notice to new class members must be
remedied to require only the minimum information from these
employees, before the notice is distributed. In seeking final
approval, the Plaintiffs must submit the notices and verify that
they were modified as required here.

                   Conclusion and Instructions

For these reasons, the Court grants preliminary approval of class
settlement but cautions that the deficiencies identified must be
remedied before it will grant final approval.

Specifically, at the final approval hearing, the parties must be
prepared to address:

   1. The reasonableness of the proposed attorneys' fees,
      including in light of a lodestar analysis, and litigation
      expenses;

   2. The reasonableness of the incentive awards;

   3. The required amendments to the class notice; and

   4. Whether the PAGA requirements are satisfied.

The Court preliminarily approves the proposed class notices,
subject to the changes required in the body of this Order.

The Court orders the following schedule:

   * The Defendant will provide the contact information for the
     putative class to RG2 Claims Administration within 20 days
     from entry of this Order;

   * RG2 Claims Administration will mail Notice Packets to
     putative class within 40 days from entry of this Order;

   * Existing and new class members will have 45 days from the
     mailing of notice packets to opt-out;

   * Putative class members will submit objections, if any,
     within 45 days of the mailing of the notice; and

   * The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and attorney's
     fees and costs will be filed 40 days in advance of the final
     approval hearing. The parties will provide their mediation
     briefs in camera at the time they file the motion for final
     approval.

The Final Approval Hearing is set for Jan. 6, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

This Order resolves ECF No. 138.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckzs8rd from Leagle.com.


NEW FULTON: Capute Seeks to Recover Nurses' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY CAPUTE, DOROTHY LIMBACH and LATASHA WALLER, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
THE NEW FULTON COMMONS COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-04673 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Capute, Limbach, and Waller worked for Defendant as
nurses from 2018 to 2022, from March 2019 to February 2022, and
from July 2019 to October 2021, respectively. Throughout their
entire period of employment, Defendant required them to work, and
they did in fact work, more than 40 hours per week, all for
Defendant's benefit. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay them
overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in
violation of the FLSA, the Plaintiffs assert.

The New Fulton Commons Company LLC operates a 280-bed
rehabilitation facility in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

NEW TREND: Faces Espinoza Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
ODILIA ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW TREND FOODS, LLC d/b/a KUMORI, NEW
TREND FOODS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-00270
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Espinoza was employed by Defendants as a manager at their
McAllen location from approximately November of 2020 to February of
2022.

The Defendants operate a chain of sushi restaurants called Kumori
Sushi, which are located throughout South Texas and the Rio Grande
Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

NEW YORK MEDIA: Kosak Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Media
Holdings Corp. The case is styled as Arleen Kosak, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York Media
Holdings Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-11850-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug.
10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Civil Miscellaneous
Case.

New York Media Holdings, LLC owns interests in media companies. The
Conmpany is an entity controlled by Wasserstein family trusts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: epm@millerlawpc.com


NIAGARA BOTTLING: S.D. New York Dismisses Duchimaza Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELADIA DUCHIMAZA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIAGARA BOTTLING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21 Civ. 6434 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants Niagara's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

The case involves water bottles marketed as recyclable. Plaintiff
Duchimaza, a resident of New York City, brings the putative class
action under New York law against Niagara, a Delaware corporation.
Duchimaza alleges that Niagara's representation that its water
bottles are "100% Recyclable" is false and misleading. In fact, she
alleges, not all components of the Products are made of recyclable
material, and low recycling capacity in New York state makes the
other components effectively non-recyclable. Duchimaza brings
claims of (1) deceptive and unfair trade practices under New York
General Business Law Section 349, (2) false advertising under GBL
Section 350, (3) New York common law fraud, (4) breach of express
warranty, and (5) unjust enrichment.

Before the Court is Niagara's Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss Duchimaza's First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

Niagara is a corporation organized under Delaware laws, with its
principal place of business in Ontario, California. It
manufactures, markets, and sells beverages in the United States
under several brand names, including Niagara, Costco Kirkland, Save
Mart Sunny Select, and Save Mart Market Essentials, all of which
the FAC refers to as the "Products."

Ms. Duchimaza purchased numerous multi-bottle packs of Niagara's
Kirkland water bottles. Although the date of her first purchase is
not alleged, her most recent purchase was in July 2021. She made
her purchases at a Costco store located at 517 E. 117 Street, New
York, NY 10035. She paid approximately $4 for each pack of
Niagara's Kirkland bottled water.

On July 23, 2021, Duchimaza sent Niagara a letter demanding
corrective action. On July 28, 2021, Duchimaza filed her initial
complaint against Niagara. On Oct. 1, 2021, Niagara filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. On Oct. 4, 2021, the Court issued an
order directing Duchimaza to amend her complaint or file an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and advised that further
opportunities to amend would not likely be granted.

On Oct. 20, 2021, Duchimaza filed the FAC. The FAC alleges that in
buying these, Duchimaza relied on the bottles' labels, which stated
the Products were "100% Recyclable." It alleges that these labels
led Duchimaza to believe that the entire Product, including its cap
and label, was completely recyclable if she disposed of it in a
recycling bin. It further alleges that Niagara's claim is false
because the label is not recyclable in Duchimaza's geographic area
and because, based on national and statewide statistics, fewer than
half the bottles she purchased would be recycled.

On Nov. 12, 2021, Niagara filed its motion to dismiss the FAC, a
memorandum of law, and the declaration of Creighton R. Magid, Esq.,
and attached exhibits. On Dec. 2, 2021, Duchimaza filed her
opposition. On Dec. 10, 2021, Niagara filed its reply. On Jan. 25,
2022, the Court held a telephonic argument.

With respect to its 12(b)(1) Motion, Niagara makes three arguments
why Duchimaza lacks standing and the Court thus lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. These are that the FAC does not adequately
plead: (1) an injury-in-fact sufficient to support her damages
claims, (2) a risk of future injury sufficient to support her
claims for injunctive relief, and (3) standing as to her class
claims.

Judge Engelmayer opines that (1) the FAC plausibly alleges that
Duchimaza bought Products—bottled Niagara water whose price was
inflated; (2) because the FAC does not allege that Duchimaza
intends to purchase the product as currently labeled, it does not
allege an injury sufficient to supply standing to enjoin future
sales of the Products; and (3) he does not have any occasion to
address the extent to which she would otherwise have had standing
to represent a putative class, nor is there occasion to address the
issue, which the parties debate, whether Niagara's bid to prune the
class is better resolved on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion or later, on a
Rule 23 motion for class certification. He dismisses Duchimaza's
surviving (damages) claims for failure to state a claim.

As to its 12(b)(6) Motion, Niagara moves to dismiss the FAC's
damages claims, which are for violations of New York GBL Sections
349 and 350, and for fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

Judge Engelmayer finds that (1) FAC does not state a claim of under
GBL Sections 349 and 350, because the representation that the
Niagara Product is "100% recyclable" is not plausibly pled to be
false or misleading, so FAC's GBL claims are dismissed; (2) the FAC
does not plead facts sufficient to give rise to an inference of
fraudulent intent, so the common law fraud claim is dismissed; (3)
absent any allegation about when or how Duchimaza discovered the
breach, it is impossible to determine non-speculatively that notice
was timely, so dismissal of the FAC's breach of express warranty's
claim is required; (4) Duchimaza has not identified any comparable
circumstance, in which the fate of a companion claim may dictate
whether there is independent force to an unjust enrichment claim,
so  the FAC's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Engelmayer grants Niagara's motion
to dismiss in full, with prejudice to each of her GBL, fraud, and
unjust enrichment claims. Duchimaza's breach of express warranty
claim, however, is dismissed without prejudice. That is because, on
its first motion to dismiss, Niagara did not attack the original
complaint on the ground on which the Court dismissed that claim
today, and, given the nature of its defect, that claim may be
capable of successful repleading.

If Duchimaza chooses to replead the breach of express warranty
claim, Judge Engelmayer directs her to move to for leave to replead
on that claim only, explaining why it can be salvaged. Niagara's
opposition or other response was due Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motions pending at docket numbers 19 and 34.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/35r4e84t from Leagle.com.


NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Johnson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling
granting in part and denying in part a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled SHERIDA JOHNSON, SUBRINA
SEENARAIN, CHAD LOURY, LINDA SPRY, LISA SULLIVAN, and APRIL AHRENS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NISSAN
NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action purchased vehicles
made by Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. Those vehicles had a
premium feature: large panoramic sunroofs (PSRs). According to the
Plaintiffs, Nissan's PSRs are designed in a way that creates a
propensity to fracture and shatter under ordinary driving
conditions. The Plaintiffs brought this suit in February 2017
against Nissan under California, New York, Colorado, Florida, and
Illinois law. They claim that Nissan violated those states'
consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose the alleged
defect. And they claim that Nissan violated implied warranties of
merchantability because the alleged defect rendered the vehicles
unfit for ordinary use.

On February 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify state-based
classes for these claims; Nissan moved to exclude the Plaintiffs'
damages and technical experts and for summary judgment on June 15,
2021.

On July 21, 2022, Judge William H. Orrick entered an Order denying
Nissan's Daubert motions; granting in part Nissan's motion for
summary judgment to the extent the Plaintiffs seek restitution or
unjust enrichment for purchases of used cars from entities other
than Nissan, and denying in part that there are genuine disputes of
material fact about the existence of this alleged defect, whether
it would be material to reasonable consumers, whether they would
rely on it if it had been properly disclosed, and the handful of
other challenges Nissan makes. The motion to certify was granted on
the California, New York, Colorado, and Florida classes while
certification of the Illinois class and the plaintiffs' untimely
request for certification of an injunctive-relief class were
denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Sherida Johnson, et al. v.
Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 22-80075, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 5, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by:

          Andrew Chang, Esq.
          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900

Plaintiffs-Respondents SHERIDA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Mitchell Breit, Esq.
          Crystal Gayle Foley, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (347) 668-8445

               - and -

          Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080

NOMI HEALTH: Eltahir Files Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAA ELTAHIR, on behalf of
herself and all those similarly situated, v. NOMI HEALTH, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; MEDX STAFFING INC., a Florida Corporation;
MARK NEWMAN, an individual; JOSHUA WALKER, an individual; DANIEL
SCHWENDIMAN, an individual; Case No. 0:22-cv-61046-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff files a motion for collective action.

The Plaintiff and these similarly situated employees were all
denied overtime payments. They contend that their paystubs show
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week paid at their straight
time rate, a clear and undeniable Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
violation.

The suit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for all
licensed practical nurses (LPN), registered nurses (RN), medical
assistants (MA), and certified nursing assistants (CNA) who worked
for the Defendants performed the same, if not identical, work and
were subject to the same, if not identical, pay policy. As such,
this case should be conditionally certified as a collective action
and notice should be issued to putative class members.

Nomi Health is a healthcare services provider that supports medical
testing and self-insured healthcare plan administration.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 3,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pk90SC
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          www.ScottWagnerLaw.com
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  mail@scottwagnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Obeidy, Esq.
          OBEIDY & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2755 E. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 225
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
          Telephone: (305) 892-5454
          Facsimile: (954) 206-6955
          E-mail: andrew@obdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew M. McKinley, Esq.
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: amckinley@seyfarth.com

OHIO: BMV Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set on Nov. 6, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Dennis, writing for WTRF, reports that if you had your
driver's license laminated between July 2018 and July 2019, you may
be entitled to a free soda -- or a candy bar or something.

That was when Ohio deputy registrars unlawfully charged a $1.50 fee
to laminate driver's licenses and ID cards, as alleged by a
class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 against the Ohio Bureau of Motor
Vehicles, according to a news release from the Ohio BMV.

The lawsuit alleges state constitutional violations and unjust
enrichment that requires restitution. Attorneys are now working to
get Ohio motorists' hard-earned money back.

Ohio's Court of Claims certified the class in 2020. Anyone who paid
a lamination fee between July 2, 2018, and July 2, 2019, at one of
Ohio's 179 BMV locations -- or had someone pay it on their behalf
-- is part of the class.

The BMV disputes the claims. The court has not yet ruled on the
merits of the case.

The court-appointed attorneys, Marc Dann of Dann Law, can be
reached at 216-373-0539, and Thomas Zimmerman Jr. of Zimmerman Law
Offices, can be reached at 312-440-0020. Their services are free
for class members.

Class members who want to retain their own attorneys, however, need
to exclude themselves from the class-action lawsuit. The deadline
to file for exclusion is Nov. 6, 2023. [GN]

OLD DOMINION: Conditional Class Certification in Mendez Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUSBER GONZALEZ MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT
LINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-5289 (RPK) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York denies the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, without prejudice.

Plaintiff Mendez initiated the putative collective and class action
against Defendant Old Dominion on Sept. 23, 2021. He alleges claims
pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the New
York Labor Law, Sections 190 et seq. and 650 et seq., related to
his work for Old Dominion, one of the largest motor carriers in
North America. He alleges that he performed work for Old Dominion
that was covered under the FLSA and the NYLL, but that he was not
properly compensated for all of the hours he worked.  His complaint
also includes collective action and class action allegations.

According to the complaint, Old Dominion "is one of the largest
North American less-than-truckload ('LTL') motor carriers,
providing regional, inter-regional and national LTL services
through an expansive network of service centers located throughout
the continental United States." It is also a "foreign business
corporation" that "is authorized and regularly transacts business
in New York." The Plaintiff alleges that: "As of June 2021, Old
Dominion had more than 22,000 full time employees and operated
approximately 248 service centers across the United States."

The Plaintiff further alleges that Old Dominion employed him as a
"switcher" or a "yard switcher" from 2016 to November 2019. He
claims that during this time period, he "was required to work more
than 40 hours in a week" and worked "at least 55 hours per week."
He further claims that "in 2019, he was paid hourly at a rate of
approximately $26.60," but that "from 2016 to 2019, Old Dominion
failed to pay him overtime compensation at 1.5 times his regular
rate of pay for all workweeks in excess of 40 hours."

The Plaintiff also contends that Old Dominion "fabricated false
time records which understated the true number of hours he worked
each week." He further alleges that he was "regularly forced to
miss lunch breaks" because Old Dominion required him "to be working
during that time" but that he "was not compensated for such time
worked."

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff avers that Old Dominion
"failed to pay him all wages due and owing at the time of
termination of his employment, as required by NYLL Section 191" and
that "as a result of its failure to compensate for all hours worked
and all overtime compensation, Old Dominion failed to pay him for
all wages due and owing under the NYLL." He alleges the same facts
as the above for "similarly situated switchers" who were employed
by Old Dominion.

On the basis of the foregoing allegations, the Plaintiff asserts
claims against Old Dominion for violating the overtime pay
provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL and the meal period provision
of the NYLL, and for violating NYLL Section 191 by failing to pay
him "all wages due and owing at the time of termination of his
employment." He also includes allegations and claims on behalf of a
putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and as a
conditional collective action under the FLSA.

On Oct. 28, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a letter requesting a
pre-motion conference to discuss filing a motion for conditional
certification and Old Dominion filed a reply in opposition on Nov.
3, 2021. Judge Kovner found that a pre-motion conference was not
necessary and referred the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff
filed his motion to certify an FLSA collective action and
accompanying documents on Nov. 11, 2021.

On Nov. 12, 2021, however, the Defendant filed a motion requesting
a pre-motion conference to discuss filing a motion to dismiss and
requesting a stay of the briefing of the Plaintiff's conditional
certification motion. The Plaintiff filed a letter in opposition on
Nov. 15, 2021. On Nov. 19, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to
stay all proceedings, including briefing of the conditional
certification motion, until its motion to dismiss was briefed and
decided. On Nov. 22, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's motion
to stay, in part, and stayed briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.

On Nov. 24, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's decision on the Defendant's motion to stay. After
the Defendant's opposition and the Plaintiff's reply were filed,
the Court held a status conference on Jan. 11, 2022, during which
it denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and deferred
decision on his motion for certification of a collective action.

The parties filed the fully briefed motion to dismiss on Feb. 16,
2022. Judge Kovner later referred the motion to dismiss to Judge
Merkl. Because of the significant overlap in issues relevant to
consideration of Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiff's
motion for collective action certification, Judge Merkl ordered the
parties to appear for oral argument on Aug. 1, 2022, regarding both
motions.

Judge Merkl finds that a determination of the job duties and
applicable payment regulations of the named Plaintiff would require
a highly fact-intensive analysis. Accordingly, on the basis of the
current record, and in light of the questions as to whether he
suffered a wage and hour violation at all, she finds that the
Plaintiff has not made the modest factual showing necessary to
establish that he was similarly situated to the other workers "with
respect to their allegations that the law has been violated" at
this juncture. She also concludes that the Plaintiff has not made
the modest factual showing necessary to conclude that he was
similarly situated to the other employees of Old Dominion whom he
seeks to represent.

For these reasons, Judge Merkl denies the Plaintiff's motion for
collective certification without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43b4kz4h from Leagle.com.


OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET: Spoto Files FLSA Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ollie's Bargain
Outlet, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Spoto, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc.,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-LEK-ML (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Ollie's Bargain Outlet -- https://www.ollies.us/home.html -- is an
American chain of discount closeout retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          7030 East Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Phone: (315) 314-8000
          Fax: (315) 446-7521
          Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

               - and -

          James E. Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 943-9080
          Fax: (212) 943-9082
          Email: jmurphy@vandallp.com


OMNICOR INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omnicor Inc. The case
is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Omnicor Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06863
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Omnicor, Inc. was founded in 1985. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing of games and game sets for adults and
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTARIO: Former ARB Vice-Chair Files $80-M Termination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monkhouse Law on Aug. 10 disclosed that a former vice-chair of the
Ontario Assessment Review Board (ARB) has launched an $80 million
Class Action suit against the province claiming he and other
appointees were terminated "improperly and illegally" from their
full time positions without cause.

The Court File Number is CV-21-00667838-00CP and it is available
here
https://www.monkhouselaw.com/ontario-vicechair-and-members-of-adjudicative-tribunals-class-action/

This case speaks to the problems caused by the increasing
politicization of tribunals in Ontario, and how many hundreds of
Members, Vice Chairs and other adjudicators lost their opportunity
for renewal when the provincial government changed after the 2018
Ontario Provincial election.

Scott McAnsh, an Ottawa lawyer, has retained Monkhouse Law
Employment Lawyers in Toronto an experienced Class Action
litigation firm. He claims his term for the $140,000 a year
position and the terms of other appointees to provincial tribunals
were ended without explanation shortly after the change of
government in 2018.

"This is a somewhat unusual case," says Andrew Monkhouse.
"Appointees to provincial tribunals don't usually sue the
government. However, that is because we have never seen hundreds of
appointees denied reinstatement in the past for what appears to be
a political choice. Appointees have rights under the law, and all
citizens of Ontario should be concerned about the independence of
non-political adjudicators. Mr. McAnsh put his law practice on hold
to serve the people of Ontario and he deserves more than an abrupt
dismissal, both ethically and legally."

McAnsh agrees: "Numerous individuals like me were refused their
reappointments despite chair recommendations."

McAnsh served in various positions on the ARB, which hears property
tax assessment appeals, one of 14 tribunals in Ontario. He started
as a part-time Member in 2013 and rose to full time and to a
vice-chair position. His appointment was not renewed in February
2019.

"I'm bringing this Class Action because many others like me were
abruptly, unfairly and illegally terminated in what is a clear
breach of contract without any justification" says McAnsh. "I was
full time and I wasn't practicing law to meet the obligations of
the role. I had worked hard and been commended for my work."

He says all full-time and part-time vice-chairs or members of
Ontario adjudicative tribunals since June 2018 who may have
suffered a breach of contract because they were not reappointed to
adjudicative administrative tribunal should enquire with Monkhouse
Law Employment Lawyers as to their standing and their possible
participation in the Class Action.

Like all members or vice-chairs of adjudicative tribunals, McAnsh
was appointed initially to a two-year term. Having met the
performance standard, they are appointed twice more: first an
additional three-year term, and second for an additional five-year
term, for a total of 10 years.

McAnsh was appointed to a two-year term as a part time Member after
applying in 2013 and submitting to a public selection process based
on merit. After another merit based competition, he was appointed
to a two-year term as a full time Vice Chair in 2017.

However, instead of the expected three-year appointment in 2019,
the Attorney General wrote to him saying he wouldn't be renewed.

He says he'd been told by the Associate Chair that his high
standard of work and experience warranted a reappointment as a Vice
Chair at the ARB. However, it appears he was not renewed because
the new government wanted to replace the current Vice Chairs and
similar appointments.

"These were not meant to be political patronage appointments," says
Monkhouse. "All that ended in 2009, with the introduction of
legislation to remove politics from adjudicator appointments. In
2018, with the change in government, it seems that hundreds of
these qualified adjudicators were not reappointed. This should be
of concern to everyone in Ontario regarding the impartiality of
their adjudicators."

Monkhouse notes that "adjudicators do work that most citizens
assume would be done by judges, and thus should have a level of
political independence. But the action taken to not renew the
previous adjudicators, no matter their qualifications, can have an
immense impact on the perceived fairness of the tribunals."

He further notes: "When citizens of Ontario appear before a
tribunal, for instance the Ontario Assessment Review Board, they
expect to appear before fair, impartial, and qualified decision
makers. They do not expect to appear before partisan appointees,
and this decision by the government goes in the wrong direction on
independence."

McAnsh was also cut off from benefits, such as pension, health and
life insurance.

Any appointee to the ARB or other tribunals up to 2018 and who was
terminated or not renewed without cause maybe entitled to
compensation. For more information on this matter call 416-907-9249
extension 225.

For interviews about this Class Action or to talk about recent
developments in Ontario Employment Law contact:

Andrew Monkhouse
416-907-9249 ext. 225
andrew@monkhouselaw.com
Alexandra Monkhouse
Monkhouse Law [GN]

OPTIMUM NUTRITION: Products Artificially Flavored, Hacker Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HACKER, on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GLANBIA
PERFORMANCE NUTRITION dba OPTIMUM NUTRITION, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01119-L-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2022)
alleges that certain products manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant are misbranded
and falsely advertised in California and otherwise violate the
California law.

On October 29, 2021, Mr. Hacker purchased a 30-serving tub of
Optimum Nutrition's "Essential AMIN.O ENERGY" powder, Blue
Raspberry flavor, for $33.99, from a Sprouts market in San Diego,
California. The batch number of the Product that Mr. Hacker
purchased was 0001051559, with an expiration date of April 2023. To
appeal to consumers such as Mr. Hacker who seek out natural food
products, are concerned about weight loss and health, and are
willing to pay more for "clean" products, the Products' labels
stated that they contained "No Artificial Sweeteners or Colors" and
are "Naturally Flavored," says the suit.

Sometime between November 19, 2021 and January 14, 2022, after
counsel for Mr. Hacker brought these labelling and marketing claims
to Defendant's attention, the company changed the Products' labels
to remove the "no artificial sweeteners or colors" and "naturally
flavored" claims. These claims were false. The Products are
artificially flavored, the suit asserts.

Testing by an independent third-party laboratory, commissioned by
the undersigned, establishes that the Products contains an
ingredient identified as "malic acid." While there is a naturally
occurring form of malic acid, it is extremely expensive to
formulate in the large quantities and is almost never used in
mass-produced food products. Instead, testing performed by an
independent third-party laboratory, undertaken at the undersigned's
direction, has confirmed that the malic acid that Defendant uses in
these Products is DL malic acid, a synthetic substance derived from
petrochemicals, the suit further alleges.

Optimum Nutrition formulates, manufactures, and sells a line of
sugar-free, caffeinated "pre-workout" powders called "AMIN.O
ENERGY" ("the Products"). These 16 are sold in flavors, including
Blue Raspberry, Cotton Candy, Lemon Lime, and Strawberry Lime. They
are marketed to provide muscle recovery for workouts.

These products are distributed through the company's e-commerce
website, through retailing websites such as Amazon.co, and
BodyBuilding.com, and through national retailers such as Wal-Mart,
GNC, and Target.

Optimum Nutrition was founded in 1987 and later became a component
of the Glanbia Nutrition portfolio. Glanbia is an Irish global
conglomerate that manufactures and distributes foods and dietary
supplements globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
          E-mail: legal@cweller.com

PACIFIC COAST: Stein Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Coast
Psychiatric Associates, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Barry
Stein, an individual and on behalf of, all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Coast Psychiatric Associates, Inc., Lifestance
Health, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No. CGC22601246 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

Pacific Coast Psychiatric Associates -- https://www.pcpasf.com/ --
is a medical group practice located in San Francisco, California
that specializes in Psychiatry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan N Higday, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park E. Ste. 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
          Phone: 310-612-2627
          Email: mh@melmedlaw.com


PAT TUMILTY: Witvoet Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pat Tumilty. The case
is styled as Richard Witvoet, individually, an on behalf of all
others similarly situatedv. Pat Tumilty, Case No. 1:22-cv-04236
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Pat Tumilty is a State Farm Insurance Agent, an insurance agency in
Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha S. Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main Street, #200A
          Evanston, IL 60602
          Phone: (773) 741-3602
          Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com


PERMANENT GENERAL: Hodge Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Permanent General
Assurance Corporation. The case is styled as Jill Hodge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Permanent General Assurance Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00608
(M.D. Tenn., Aug. 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Personal Injury.

Permanent General Assurance Corporation --
http://www.thegeneral.com/-- provides insurance services. The
Company underwrites automobile insurance.[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

               - and -

          Chris Gold, Esq.
          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (786) 289-9471
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com
                 scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com


PET FOOD EXPRESS: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pet Food Express,
Ltd. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pet Food Express,
Ltd., Case No. 2:22-cv-04753 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

Pet Food Express -- https://www.petfood.express/ -- offers the best
pet supplies and pet products and the best selection of natural and
organic pet foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (718) 971-9474
          Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com


PINDROP SECURITY INC: Packbiers Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diana Packbiers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pindrop Security, Inc., Case No.
CIVSB2212635 was removed from the Superior Court of California, San
Bernardino Count, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on August 11, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01427 to the
proceeding.

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

Pindrop Security -- https://www.pindrop.com/ -- is an American
information security company that provides risk scoring for phone
calls to detect fraud and authenticate callers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael H Rubin, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: (213) 485-1234
          Fax: (213) 891-8763
          Email: michael.rubin@lw.com

               - and -

          Melanie M Blunschi, Esq.
          LATHAM AND WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 391-0600
          Fax: (415) 395-8095
          Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com



PINERY CLEANERS: Does Not Pay Proper Wages, Farez Says
------------------------------------------------------
LUIS FAREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PINERY CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A MADISON
CLEANERS/CROWN CLEANERS) and WON K. CHO AKA JAMES CHO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06728 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Farez worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage
and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
wages on a timely basis, says the suit.

Plaintiff Farez was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2008 until May 7, 2022, as a laundromat attendant and delivery
worker.

Pinery Cleaners Inc. operates laundromats located in the Gramercy
Park and Greenwich Village sections of Manhattan in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PLATINUM CONVERTING: Magna Sues Over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MAGANA, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. PLATINUM CONVERTING, INC., Case No. 2022LA000687 (Ill.
Cir., Dupage Cty., Aug. 1, 2022) seeks to obtain statutory damages
and other equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).

The Plaintiff contends that he and class members are subject to the
unlawful biometric scanning and storage practices of the Defendant.
As past and present employees of the Defendant, they were required
to provide it with their personalized biometric identifiers and the
biometric information derived therefrom. Specifically, the
Defendant collects and stores its employees' fingerprints and
requires all the employees to clock-in and clock-out by scanning
their fingerprints into a fingerprint-scanning machine, says the
suit.

Following the capture of their employees' biometric data, the
Defendant uses this data to compare the future scans of their
employees' fingerprints into a punch-clock device. The punch-clock
device scans each fingerprint and confirms that the employee
punching in to work is who 1they claim to be. The collection of the
punch-clock fingerprint entries is then used to confirm employees'
presence. They have not been notified where their fingerprints are
being stored, for how long Defendant will keep the fingerprints,
and what might happen to this valuable information, the Plaintiff
adds.

Platinum Converting provides finishing services. The company offers
die cutting, blanking, folding and gluing, film lamination,
coating, and hand assembly.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION: Boyd Files Suit in W.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Public Employees
Credit Union, et al. The case is styled as Scott Boyd, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Public Employees
Credit Union, Case No. 1:22-cv-00825 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

Public Employees Credit Union -- https://www.pecutx.org/ -- is a
non-profit organization that offers insurance and loan
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com


RAZORS EDGE PIZZA: Miller Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Razors Edge Pizza
Incorporated. The case is styled as Marquez Miller, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Razors Edge Pizza
Incorporated, Case No. 4:22-cv-00722-DPM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 12,
2022).

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

Razors Edge Pizza Incorporated is in the restaurants and other
eating places, food services and drinking places, accommodation and
food services, pizza restaurants business located in Little Rock,
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



REGAL WARE INC: Terwilliger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Terwilliger, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. REGAL WARE INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00922-WED
(E.D. Wis., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from
the Plaintiff's and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees'
weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or
work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the
benefit of the Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Operator working at its
Kewaskum, Wisconsin location in August 2021.

The Defendant is a cookware manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Babanawo Files FDCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services L.P., et al. The case is styled as Pierrot Babanawo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services L.P., LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02026-MEH (D. Colo., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

Resurgent Capital Services, LP -- https://www.resurgent.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company manages debt portfolios
for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


RIO TINTO: Colbert Appeals Claim Dismissal in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anton Colbert filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled ANTON COLBERT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIO TINTO PLC, RIO
TINTO LIMITED, THOMAS ALBANESE, and GUY ROBERT ELLIOTT, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-8169, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).

On Oct. 23, 2017, the Plaintiff brought the putative class action
against Defendants Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited Thomas
Albanese, and Guy Robert Elliott (Albanese and Elliott together,
the "Individual Defendants"), alleging violations of (1) Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, against all
Defendants; and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t, against the Individual Defendants.

By order dated June 3, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On July 29, 2019,
the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for
leave to file a second amended complaint, holding that the
Plaintiff had abandoned his claim regarding the "long-term
opportunity" statement because he failed to raise it in opposition
to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff timely appealed, and on Aug. 6, 2020, the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded the case to the Court to
consider whether the Plaintiff adequately pleaded his claim
regarding the "long-term opportunity" statement.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 28, 2022, Judge
Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York dismissed Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim regarding the
"long-term opportunity" statement for failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Colbert v. Rio Tinto PLC, Case
No. 22-1716, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on Aug. 8, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Anton Colbert, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000

Defendants-Appellees Rio Tinto PLC, Rio Tinto Limited, Thomas
Albanese, and Guy Robert Elliott are represented by:

          Jennifer Laurie Conn, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-4086

               - and -

          Kellam Conover, Esq.
          KELLAM CONOVER
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500

               - and -

          Sarah Levine, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 549-6285

               - and -

          James Borod, Esq.
          DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU LIMITED
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 492-4000

               - and -

          Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019

ROLLING ROCK: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ANTONIO ROSARIO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. ROLLING ROCK CONTRACTING INC. (D/B/A
MOGUL CONSTRUCTION), and PATRICK DAMATO, Case No. 1:22-cv-06519
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2022) seeks to recover for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Mr. Rosario contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for
the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay him
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. He was
employed as a construction worker at the construction corporation
which maintains its principal office at 133 Old Albany Post Road,
Ossining New York.

The Defendants own, operate, or control the Construction Company,
located in Ossining, New York under the name "Mogul
Contracting."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROSEBUD ECONOMIC: Huntley Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosebud Economic
Development Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Katey
Huntley, Gary Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rosebud Economic Development Corporation,
Rosebud Lending LZO doing business as: Zocaloans, Fintech
Financial, LLC, Tactical Marketing Partners, LLC, 777 Partners,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01172-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., Aug. 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Unsolicited Telephone Sales.

Rosebud Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) was established in
1999 to foster economic development under a politically neutral
economic development entity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
          BLC LAW CENTER, APC
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 894-8831
          Fax: (866) 444-7026
          Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com

               - and -

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


SCRATCH FINANCIAL: Caban Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Caban, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Scratch Financial, Case No. CACE-22-011963 (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Broward Cty., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On a date better known by the Defendant, the Defendant began
attempting to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt
is an obligation allegedly had by the Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, the Defendant and the Plaintiff. (the "Subject Service"). The
Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.

On June 18, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff (The "Communication"). The
communication was a communication in connection with the collection
of the consumer debt. The communication was sent by the Defendant
to the Plaintiff at 7:02:34 AM in the Plaintiff's zone.

The Defendant sent an electronic communication to the plaintiff in
connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The
communication was sent to the plaintiff between the hours of 9:00
PM and 8:00 AM. In the time zone of the plaintiff. The Defendant
did not have the consent of the plaintiff you communicate with the
plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. As such by and
through the communication defendant violated the FCCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Pasadena, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com
                 jibrael@jibraellaw.com


SCUDDER LAW FIRM: Stein Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lewis Stein, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Scudder Law Firm, Case No.
1:19CV98-TRM-CHS was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska on Aug. 11, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03163-JMG-CRZ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Scudder Law Firm -- https://www.scudderlaw.com/ -- is a premier
corporate and business transactions advisor to clients
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael G. Burnett, Esq.
          SCOTT, SCOTT LAW FIRM - CONNECTICUT
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 531-2663
          Email: mburnett@scott-scott.com


SF-VIRGINIA LLC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SF-Virginia, LLC. The
case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SF-Virginia, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06889 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

SF-Virginia, LLC doing business as Surplus Furniture and Mattress
Warehouse -- https://www.surplusfurniture.com/ -- offers premium
home furniture at affordable prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIXT RENT A CAR: Fails to Prevent Cyber-Attack, Estevez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ESTEVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
0:22-cv-61507-AHS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2022) is a class action
arising out of the recent targeted cyber-attack against the
Defendant that allowed a third party to access Defendant's computer
systems and data, resulting in the compromise of highly sensitive
personal information belonging to thousands of current and former
employees of Defendant (the "Cyber-Attack").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the
Cyber-Attack, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class suffered
ascertainable injury and damages in the form of the substantial and
present risk of fraud and identity theft from their unlawfully
accessed and compromised private and confidential information,
including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers,
passport numbers, and bank account numbers, lost value of their
private and confidential information, out-of-pocket expenses, and
the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the attack.

SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC provides car dealing services. The Company
retails new and used cars, financing, maintenance, and repairing
services, as well as parts and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: jcohen@milberg.com

                -and-

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

                -and-

          Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          Bryan A. Giribaldo, Esq.
          PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
          501 Congress Avenue, Suite 150
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (561) 726-8444
          Email: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
                 bgiribaldo@pkglegal.com

                -and-

          Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
          PARDELL KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
          433 Plaza Real Suite 275
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 726-8444
          Email: lpardell@pkglegal.com

SPANX INC: Raslavich TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anna Raslavich, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Spanx, Inc., Case No. 22-CA-005625
was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug. 12, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-01855-CEH-SPF to
the proceeding.

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

Spanx, Inc. -- https://spanx.com/ -- is an American underwear maker
focusing on shaping briefs and leggings, founded in Atlanta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan H Kaskel, Esq.
          Dentons US LLP
          1 Alhambra Plaza, Suite Penthouse
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 537-0009
          Fax: (305) 670-4846
          Email: jonathan.kaskel@dentons.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Kominis Hits Deceptive Ads for Refresher Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Kominis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06673-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) seeks to challenge
Defendant's false and deceptive practices in the marketing and sale
of a number of its Starbucks Refresher Products, which are marketed
as fruit-based beverages available for sale at Starbucks' brick and
mortar location.

Starbucks has allegedly marketed the Products with the name of
specific fruits, representing to its consumers that the Products,
which are supposed to be fruit-based beverages, contain those
advertised fruits. Specifically, the Products include the
following: (1) Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Starbucks Refreshers; (2)
Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers; (3) Strawberry Acai
Lemonade Starbucks Refreshers; (4) Strawberry Acai Starbucks
Refresher; (5) Pineapple Passionfruit Lemonade Starbucks
Refreshers; and (6) Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers.

Despite their names, and unbeknownst to consumers, the Mango
Dragonfruit and Mango Dragonfruit Lemonade Refreshers contain no
mango, the Pineapple Passionfruit and Pineapple Passionfruit
Lemonade Refreshers contain no passionfruit, and the Strawberry
Acai and Strawberry Acai Lemonade Refreshers contain no acai.
Further, all of the Products are predominantly made with water,
grape juice concentrate, and sugar, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and other consumers purchased the Products and paid a
premium price based upon their reliance on Defendant's naming of
the Products. Had Plaintiff and other consumers been aware that the
Products are missing one of the named fruits, they would not have
purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for
them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by
Defendant’s deceptive business practices, the suit asserts.

Starbucks Corp. operates one of the world's largest coffee and
beverage chains, which sell coffee, tea, and other beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Abiri, Esq.
          CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP
          445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 593-9095
          Facsimile: (213) 785-2899
          E-mail: abiri@cd-lawyers.com

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Co-Lead Roles Named in Winter Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
appoints co-lead plaintiffs and approves their selection of counsel
in the lawsuit captioned MARK WINTER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL
MINING, INC., GREGORY A. BEARD, RICARDO R. A LARROUDE, WILLIAM B.
SPENCE, B. RILEY SECURITIES, INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, TUDOR,
PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., COMPASS
POINT RESEARCH & TRADING, LLC, and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-3088 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.).

The securities class action has been filed against the Defendants
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, on April 14,
2022, a notice was issued to potential class members of the action
informing them of their right to move to serve as lead plaintiff
within 60 days of the date of the issuance of said notice.

On June 13, 2022, the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System
("ACERS") moved the Court to appoint it as Lead Plaintiff and to
approve its selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Lead Counsel.
On the same day, Gulzar Ahmed moved the Court to appoint him as
Lead Plaintiff and to approve his selection of Levi & Korsinsky,
LLP, to serve as Lead Counsel.

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Act of 1933, Gulzar Ahmed
and ACERS are appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for the class.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs' choice of counsel is approved and accordingly,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, are appointed
as Co-Lead Counsel.

Co-Lead Counsel will manage the prosecution of this litigation.
Co-Lead Counsel are to avoid duplicative or unproductive activities
and are vested by the Court with the responsibilities that include
the following: (1) to prepare all pleadings; (2) to direct and
coordinate the briefing and arguing of motions in accordance with
the schedules set by the orders and rules of this Court; (3) to
initiate and direct discovery; (4) to coordinate the examination of
any and all witnesses in depositions; (5) to coordinate the
selection of counsel to act as spokespersons at all pretrial
conferences; (6) to call meetings of the plaintiffs' counsel as
they deem necessary and appropriate from time to time; (7) to
prepare the case for trial; and (8) to engage in settlement
negotiations on behalf of Co-Lead Plaintiffs and the class.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at
docket numbers 13, 17, 20, and 23.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49upcxth from Leagle.com.


SUIT-KOTE CORP: N.Y. Appeals Court Modifies Judgment in Vandee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ANDREW G. VANDEE, JERRY PHALEN, JAMES
LYNCH, ROGER SLATER, RICHARD THOMAS, ELIJAH CLOSSON, WILLIAM
PRINDLE AND SHAWN KIRK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SUIT-KOTE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 454 CA 21-01696 (N.Y. App. Div.),
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department, modified in part the lower court's summary judgment
entered in favor of the Defendant-Respondent.

The matter is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,
Onondaga County (Joseph E. Lamendola, J.), entered June 29, 2021.
The order granted the motion of the Defendant for leave to reargue
and, upon reargument, granted the motion of the Defendant for
summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach of
contract cause of action.

The Appellate Court ordered that the order so appealed from is
unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion for summary
judgment insofar as it sought to dismiss the first cause of action
and reinstating that cause of action, and as modified the order is
affirmed without costs.

                           Memorandum

The Plaintiffs are members of a class of employees, who allege that
the Defendant failed to pay them prevailing supplemental (or
fringe) benefits for work they performed on various public works
contracts. In a prior appeal, the Appellate Court concluded, inter
alia, that the Supreme Court properly denied Defendant's cross
motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint
"inasmuch as triable issues of fact exist with respect to whether
defendant's payroll practices complied with Labor Law Section 220
(3) and the corresponding regulations" (Vandee v Suit-Kote Corp.,
162 A.D.3d 1620, 1621 [4th Dept 2018]).

After that appeal, the Defendant moved for summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiffs' "putative class action claims." The
court denied the motion with respect to the first cause of action,
for breach of contract, which cause of action is based on the
Plaintiffs' status as third-party beneficiaries of the public works
contracts entered into by the Defendant (Cox v NAP Constr. Co.,
Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 592, 601 [2008]). Thereafter, the Defendant sought
leave to reargue its motion with respect to the breach of contract
cause of action. The Plaintiffs now appeal from an order that
granted leave to reargue and, upon reargument, granted summary
judgment with respect to the breach of contract cause of action.

The Parties agree that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs
prevailing supplemental benefits for their work on the projects in
question. The Parties also agree that the Defendant properly
calculated the amount of the shortfall in benefits by using the
Department of Labor's "annualization regulation" set forth in 12
NYCRR 220.2(d), and then made an irrevocable contribution in that
amount to the Government Contractor's Benefit Trust, a pooled ERISA
plan that the Defendant uses to provide benefits to all of its
employees, including those who did not work on the public works
contracts in question.

The Parties disagree, however, as to whether the Defendant's
payment of the shortfall into the Trust satisfied its obligations
under Labor Law Section 220 (3) to pay prevailing supplemental
benefits to its employees, who worked on public works projects.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant did not comply with the
statute because its payment of funds into the pooled Trust diluted
the amount of money that was owed to the Plaintiffs as prevailing
wage workers. The dilution occurred because funds from the Trust
went to pay benefits for nonprevailing wage workers as well.

Although the Plaintiffs concede that the Defendant was not required
to pay them directly in cash for the shortage in supplemental
benefits, they contend that they are legally entitled to receive
from the Trust an amount of supplemental benefits that makes them
whole for the Defendant's acknowledged failure to provide them with
prevailing benefits. To achieve that result, the Plaintiffs assert,
the Defendant must conduct additional annualization calculations,
with corresponding contributions to the Trust, until the Plaintiffs
are made whole for the entire shortfall in supplemental benefits.

The Defendant asserts that it complied with Labor Law Section
220(3)(b) because it made up for the shortfall in benefits by
paying into the Trust an amount of money equal to the shortfall,
and that it is irrelevant whether that amount was received by or
credited to the Plaintiffs because the purpose of the prevailing
wage law is to equalize the labor costs for contractors who bid on
public works projects, not to increase the pay or benefits of
prevailing wage workers. The Defendant further contends that there
is no authority for the Plaintiffs' so-called "re-annualization"
theory.

The Appellate Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Defendant's
payment of the shortage of supplemental benefits into the pooled
Trust, as determined by the annualization regulation, does not
satisfy its obligation to provide prevailing supplemental benefits
to the Plaintiffs for their work on public works projects. As the
Defendant contends, the purpose of the amendment was to eliminate
the unfair advantage in bidding on public works contracts that
accrued to non-union contractors, who did not provide employees
with the same level of benefits afforded by union contractors,
i.e., prevailing supplemental benefits.

Nevertheless, the overall purpose of the prevailing wage statute,
which was amended to cover supplemental benefits as well, is to
hold the territorial subdivisions of the state "to a standard of
social justice in their dealings with laborers, workmen, and
mechanics," the Panel explains, citing Matter of Cayuga-Onondaga
Counties Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v Sweeney, 89 N.Y.2d 395, 402
[1996], rearg denied 89 N.Y.2d 1031 [1997]. That purpose is not
served unless prevailing wage workers are fully compensated, in
cash or otherwise, for any shortage in the payment to them of
supplemental benefits.

Due to the dilution of funds resulting from those funds also being
paid to the nonprevailing wage workers, the employees who worked on
the public works contracts would not receive the full wages they
would be entitled to for their work on the public works project,
the Appellate Court opines. Under that scenario, the contractor
would clearly have failed to comply with Labor Law Section
220(3)(a), notwithstanding that the contractor paid the same amount
in wages to a fund as it would have paid if the prevailing wage
workers had been paid directly according to scale.

The Appellate Court points out that it does not perceive any
justification in law or logic for treating supplemental benefits
differently from wages. In other words, regardless of whether the
employer pays the prevailing wage workers directly in cash for any
shortage in supplemental benefits or indirectly through an
ERISA-approved plan, each individual prevailing wage worker must
ultimately receive supplemental benefits equal to the value of
prevailing supplemental benefits as determined by the Department of
Labor.

Inasmuch as the Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of
establishing as a matter of law that its method of paying the
acknowledged shortfall of supplemental benefits into the pooled
Trust resulted in the Plaintiffs each receiving full prevailing
supplemental benefits, the Appellate Court concludes that the court
erred in, upon reargument, granting the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the breach of
contract cause of action. The failure of the Defendant to meet its
initial burden requires denial of the motion to that extent
regardless of the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' opposing papers.

The Appellate Court, therefore, modifies the order accordingly.

To the extent that the Plaintiffs on appeal request judgment on
their breach of contract cause of action, that request is not
properly before the Appellate Court on their appeal from the
court's order granting the Defendant leave to reargue and, upon
reargument, granting summary judgment dismissing that cause of
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/m3buha52 from Leagle.com.

FINN LAW OFFICES, in Albany, New York (RYAN M. FINN, OF COUNSEL),
for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING PLLC, in Syracuse, New York (BRIAN J. BUTLER
-- bbutler@bsk.com -- OF COUNSEL), for the Defendant-Respondent.


TENNESSEE: Court Gives Shirley 15 Days to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THOMAS SHIRLEY, Plaintiff v. AMANDA SIMMS,
MICHAEL PARRIS, DR. EMILY OLROID, JIM CASEY, and JERRY SPANGLER,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-CV-151-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Judge
Clifton L. Corker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Knoxville, has given the Plaintiff 15 days
to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff, an inmate of Morgan County Correctional Complex
("MCCX"), filed a pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 regarding various incidents during his confinement,
which the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
transferred to this Court. Before and after this transfer, the
Plaintiff filed various motions, two of which the Middle District
denied without prejudice in its order transferring the case.

Now before the Court are the Plaintiff's complaint, motion for
preliminary injunction and for United States Marshals Service
forms, a motion to amend the complaint to add Gary Combs as a
plaintiff, in which he also makes requests regarding classifying
this case as a class action and notifying attorneys from the
American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), two motions to add
Defendants, and second motion to add Mr. Combs as a plaintiff.

                    Requests to Add Plaintiff

The Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting to add Gary Combs as
a plaintiff in this action. However, subsequent to these requests,
Mr. Combs and another MCCX prisoner filed a separate civil action
based on issues similar to those Plaintiff raises in this action
(Combs, et al. v. Parris et al., No. 3:22-CV-209-KAC-JEM (E.D.
Tenn., filed May 26, 2022)). Moreover, Judge Corker notes, while
the joinder of parties is "strongly encouraged" where it is
appropriate, United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715,
724 (1966), courts have recognized that there are significant
practical problems with allowing multiple prisoners to proceed
together as plaintiffs in a single lawsuit.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's request to add Mr. Combs as a
plaintiff in this action will be denied.

                 Class Action and ACLU Requests

In his first motion to amend the complaint, the Plaintiff also
requests that "class-action" be named in this case and for ACLU to
be notified as "class-action: attorneys. However, Judge Corker
finds that the Plaintiff has not established that this case meets
the prerequisites for the Court to certify it as a class action.
And to the extent that the Plaintiff asks the Court to notify the
ACLU of this action on his behalf through this request, the Court
declines to do so. Additionally, to the extent that the Plaintiff
seeks appointment of counsel in this action through this statement,
he is not entitled to this relief.

Specifically, appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a
constitutional right, but a privilege justified only in exceptional
circumstances, Judge Corker points out, citing Lavado v. Keohane,
992 F.2d 601, 6056 (6th Cir. 1993). A district court has discretion
to determine whether to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff.
In exercising that discretion, the district court should consider
the nature of the case, whether the issues are legally or factually
complex, and the plaintiff's ability to present his claims.

As to the first two factors, this is a complaint for violation of
Section 1983 regarding incidents during the Plaintiff's
confinement, and the Plaintiff's filings present fairly standard
prisoner claims that are not overly factually or legally complex,
Judge Corker says. As to the third factor, it is apparent from his
filings that the Plaintiff can adequately present his claims. Thus,
the Plaintiff has not established that this is an exceptional
circumstance that justifies appointment of counsel in this action.

                     Preliminary Injunction

The Plaintiff also has a pending motion for preliminary injunction.
In determining whether to grant a request for preliminary
injunctive relief, courts balance four factors: (1) whether
plaintiff "has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits";
(2) whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the absence
of an injunction; (3) whether the injunction will cause substantial
harm to others; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the
public interest (Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't,
305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002)).

The Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction that provides as
follows: (1) Requires the Defendants to turn on the heat in cells;
(2) Requires monitoring of air temperature; (3) Requires Defendant
Spangler to stay one-thousand feet from the Plaintiff; (4) Requires
Defendant Warden Parris to allow one hour of recreation per day;
(5) Requires Defendants Dr. Olroid and Dr. Simms to allow for four
hours of out of cell therapy per day; (6) Requires Defendants Dr.
Simms and Warden Parris to close down a program, remove him from
it, or ship him; and (7) Allows any B pod inmate to have a
tiertender/rockman job.

However, the Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to
the requested preliminary injunction, Judge Corker holds.

Specifically, as to the first factor the Court must consider in
assessing whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary
injunction, the Plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood
that he will succeed on the merits in this case, Judge Corker
states. While the Plaintiff makes allegations to support his claims
in his filings, he has not presented any compelling, independent
evidence of his claims. As to the second factor, the Plaintiff has
not demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable injury without an
injunction. As to the third factor, nothing in the record suggests
that providing the Plaintiff injunctive relief would cause
substantial harm to others.

Finally, as to the fourth factor, Judge Corker finds that the
Plaintiff has not established a compelling reason the Court should
intervene in prison operations as he requests, and court
intervention in prison operations without a compelling reason is
against public policy.

Thus, the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction will be
denied.

                            Complaint

After filing his initial complaint, the Plaintiff filed various
motions for preliminary injunction and to add Defendants, as well
as an affidavit, and appears to seek to add allegations to his
complaint through at least some, if not all, of these filings.
However, Judge Corker notes, these filings to not comply with the
Court's Local Rule regarding motions to amend the complaint, as the
Plaintiff did not include a full proposed amended complaint with
any of them. Moreover, the Court declines to attempt to decipher
whether the Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint through his
various filings.

Accordingly, the Court will allow the Plaintiff 15 days from the
date of entry of this order to file an amended complaint setting
forth a short and plain statement of facts for each alleged
violation of his constitutional rights and the individual(s)
responsible.

The Plaintiff is notified that after he files this amended
complaint, the Court will not consider any amendments and/or
supplements to the amended complaint or any other kind of motion
for relief until after the Court has screened the amended complaint
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which the Court will
do as soon as practicable.

Accordingly, the Court will automatically deny any requests to
amend or supplement the complaint and/or motions filed before the
Court has completed its screening of the amended complaint.

                           Conclusion

For the reasons set forth:

   1. The Plaintiff's pending motions [Docs. 5, 9. 14, 16, 18]
      are denied;

   2. The Clerk is directed to send the Plaintiff a form Section
      1983 complaint;

   3. The Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days from the date of entry
      of this order to file an amended complaint in the manner
      set forth;

   4. The Plaintiff is notified that any amended complaint he
      files will completely replace the previous complaint;

   5. The Plaintiff is also notified that if he fails to timely
      comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for
      failure to prosecute and failure to follow the orders of
      the Court; and

   6. The Plaintiff is ordered to immediately inform the Court
      and the Defendants or their counsel of record of any
      address changes in writing.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to
promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings
of any change in his or her address, to monitor the progress of the
case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. Failure to
provide a correct address to the Court within 14 days of any change
in address may result in the dismissal of the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Aug. 4,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ff8ud3tt from
Leagle.com.


TILE SHOP: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Tile Shop, LLC.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Tile Shop, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06812 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

The Tile Shop -- https://www.tileshop.com/ -- is a specialty
retailer of manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and
maintenance materials, and related accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



TOYOTA MOTOR: Shu Sues Over Deceptive Misrepresentations
--------------------------------------------------------
Sharlene Shu, an individual, on behalf of herself, the general
public, and those similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA,
INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04661
(N.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; negligent misrepresentation;
unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices; breach of express
warranties; violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;
and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This case concerns certain 2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime vehicles,
including, without limitation, the XSE and XSE Hybrid models
(hereinafter, the "RAV4 vehicles"), sold in the United States whose
Monroney stickers contain false representations for which
Plaintiff, and similarly situated consumers, paid for certain
"optional" equipment, namely an "Adaptive Front Headlight System
– LED Projector Headlights with Auto Level Control and Auto
On/Off feature" (hereinafter, "AdaptiveHeadlights"), that the cars
did not have.

Toyota markets, advertises, and sells the upgraded RAV4 vehicles
with the representation that the vehicles' optional features
included the Adaptive Headlights. The Defendant specifically
represented, on standardized "Monroney" stickers affixed to
vehicles for sale and
product pamphlets, that certain models of RAV4 vehicles were
equipped with optional Adaptive Headlights that provided additional
features than the standard headlights listed on the Monroney
sticker.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime XSE AWD SUV from a
Toyota dealership in Daly City, California on or about January 18,
2022. The vehicle she purchased had affixed to it a Monroney
sticker representing that the vehicle had "optional" equipment,
including
the Adaptive Headlights. Eight months after Plaintiff's purchase,
Toyota informed Plaintiff that the information provided on the
Monroney sticker affixed to the RAV4 she purchased was false, and
that vehicle she purchased was not equipped with the Adaptive
Headlights. Other than informing her of the misrepresentation,
Toyota offered nothing--i.e., no refund or repair.

The Plaintiff was misled by the Defendant's advertising literature,
brochures, and Monroney labels that represented that the Adaptive
Headlights were in fact an available feature of the RAV4, and
thereby was caused to purchase a RAV4 and/or the upgraded RAV4
model because of Defendant's misrepresentations that the RAV4
contained that feature. The Monroney labels and marketing materials
resulted in an express warranty.

Toyota's advertisements concerning the RAV4 vehicles were false and
misleading, and were directed at inducing and did cause Plaintiff
and Class Members to purchase the RAV4 vehicles at higher prices
than they would otherwise have paid and/or to have purchased higher
end models that they believed contained this feature in order to
obtain the safety and functionality that such feature presented.
Despite knowing and admitting that its advertising was false, the
Defendant refused and failed to issue any recalls to add the
promised feature, fix or add the feature when requested by owners
and/or lessees, or to reimburse owners and lessees thereby causing
them damage. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to include the
Adaptive Headlights feature on the cars, as represented, has
resulted in unreasonable, undesired safety hazards associated with
driving at night, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff individual and a resident of San Francisco,
California.

The Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. is responsible for the marketing,
advertising and sales of the RAV4 vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 anthony@gutridesafier.com


TRAEGER PELLET: Seeks Leave to File Opposition to Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL YATES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
NORMAN L. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ (D. Utah), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to file overlength opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Traeger Pellet retails cooking equipment.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

         Julianne P. Blanch, Esq.
         Juliette P. White, Esq.
         PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
         201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2218
         Telephone: (801) 532-1234
         Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
         E-mail: JBlanch@parsonsbehle.com
                 JWhite@parsonsbehle.com

              - and -

         James F. Speyer, Esq.
         E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
         ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
         777 South Figueroa Street, Forty-Fourth Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
         Telephone: (213) 243-4000
         Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
         E-mail: james.speyer@arnoldporter.com
                alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Brief
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTHER HOFFMAN; et al., v.
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INCORPORATION; et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01132-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting motion for leave to file overlength brief
in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Trust Defendants and TSI intend on filing a joint brief in
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Trust
Defendants and TSI will endeavor to succinctly present all
necessary facts and legal arguments in support of the opposition to
the motion for class certification, but do not believe that they
will be able to adequately address the substance of the opposition
within the ordinary 24-page limitation set forth in LCR 7(e)(3).
The legal theories presented in this case are complex and the Trust
Defendants and TSI will need additional pages to address the legal
arguments regarding certification of a class.

Transworld Systems is an industry leader in delinquency and cash
flow management by providing fixed fee accounts receivable
solutions & collections.

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

The Attorneys for Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2004-2; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-2; National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3; National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2006-1; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3;
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, are:

          Gregory T. Casamento, Esq.
          R. James DeRose, III, Esq.
          J. Matthew Goodin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          Brookfield Place
          200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 812-8325
          E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com
                  rderose@lockelord.com
                  jmgoodin@lockelord.com

               - and -

          Tim J. Filer,Esq.
          FOSTER GARVEY PC
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 447-4400
          E-mail: tim.filer@foster.com

TW LATH-N-STUCCO: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cordova-Gonzalez et al.,
v. TW Lath-N-Stucco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01617 (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Christine M Arguello entered an order
denying as moot motion to certify class pursuant to the parties'
Joint Status Report.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

T.W. Lath-N-Stucco was founded in 1987. The company's line of
business includes providing concrete works, including portland
cement and asphalt.[CC]

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Produce Not Privileged Docs in L.D. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, L.D., et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02254-YGR (JCS) (N.D. Cal.),
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel and orders United to produce all documents that
are not privileged.

The parties filed a joint discovery letter on June 21, 2022 and a
supplemental discovery letter on July 1, 2022. The Court ordered
full briefing on the privilege disputes addressed in those letters
and the briefing is now complete. It also ordered Defendant United
to lodge the 24 documents that are the subject of it clawback
demand and the undersigned has reviewed some of those documents in
camera. A hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel was held on
July 29, 2022.

The Third Amended Complaint is the operative complaint in the
action. The Plaintiffs are participants in employer-sponsored
benefits plans, which are governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 28 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. The
Defendants are UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., United Behavioral
Health (collectively, United), and MultiPlan, Inc.

The Plaintiffs allege that United administered the Plans'
healthcare benefits. MultiPlan is a cost-management company that
allegedly helps insurers reduce the amounts they pay providers by
repricing claims based on comparable claims for similar providers
in the same geographical area. Each Plaintiff sought treatment at
Summit Health, Inc., an out-of-network behavioral health provider,
claims for which United allegedly underpaid.

Based on allegations that United worked with MultiPlan (through its
subsidiary Viant) to establish fraudulent rates to yield the lower,
repriced claims, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action for, inter
alia, violations of ERISA and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In the June 21 Letter, the Plaintiffs asked the Court to conduct an
in camera review of the documents the United Defendants in
correspondence to them on April 7, 2022 sought to "claw back" on
the basis of attorney-client privilege, "as well as those documents
identified by United in their 'Production 12' privilege log." They
argue generally that United's privilege logs are deficient.

According to them, United's "privilege logs" do not meet the
requirements of the Court's civil standing order and they fall
short because they: 1) contain only "conclusory assertions without
supporting facts regarding how United preserved the confidentiality
of documents over which it is claiming privilege;" 2) contain
descriptions that "are insufficiently detailed and specific to
evaluate United's claims of privilege"; and 3) "fail to identify
attachments to many emails that have been withheld or show,
individually why such attachments are privileged."

They further assert that (i) United attempts to use pretextual
claims of attorney-client privilege to shield business discussions
from discovery, pointing to Entry 1592 as an example; (ii) the
declaration offered by United in support of its claims of
attorney-client privilege, by Jolene Bradley, shows that United is
"misrepresenting the attorney-client privilege"; (iii) documents
withheld as privileged appear to be created for the primary purpose
of business decisions and are not protected by the attorney-client
privilege for that reason as well; (iv) the work product doctrine
does not protect the documents listed on the privilege log because
none was prepared specifically for litigation; and (v) the
crime-fraud exception applies to many of the documents United has
withheld as privileged, citing Bradley's statement in her
declaration that many of the documents involve company-wide
programs and asserting that these programs are the subject of the
Plaintiffs' RICO claims.

In its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion, United, among other
things, asserts that its "privilege logs comply with all of this
Court's requirements and show that the privileged communications
warrant protection." According to United, the Plaintiffs provide
nothing to the contrary other than conclusory broadside attacks. It
contends it has provided detailed descriptions of the withheld
documents and not boilerplate descriptions, which courts have found
to be insufficient. With respect to Entry 1592, United rejects the
Plaintiffs' challenge, arguing that privilege has been adequately
asserted as to that document.

United also argues that the Plaintiffs' arguments based on the
primary purpose test fail because as to all of the documents
withheld on the basis of privilege, the sole purpose of the
communication was to seek or provide legal advice. It contends, the
fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege does not apply to
the documents it has withheld. Even for communications that may be
relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims, it contends, "the key point is
that they did not involve any fiduciary functions, so the
Plaintiffs cannot be viewed as the 'true clients' and the fiduciary
exception does not apply."

United further (i) contends many of the withheld documents fall
outside of the fiduciary exception because they are defensive in
nature, involving actual and potential litigation (or government or
regulatory scrutiny) faced by the United Defendants; (ii) rejects
the Plaintiffs' assertion that it has improperly withheld documents
under the work product doctrine; (iii) asserts that the Plaintiffs
make only vague references to their RICO allegations; and asserts
the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that in camera review of
withheld documents is appropriate.

In their Reply, the Plaintiffs reiterate their position that United
has asserted claims of privilege and work product protection that
are suspect, that it has withheld documents that are subject to the
fiduciary duty and crime-fraud exception, and that in camera review
of a sample of documents is justified. They also represent that
"United's sole 30(b)(6) designee repeatedly testified in her July
13/14 deposition that she relied upon the advice and review of
United's in-house counsel on issues of plan terms, administrative
services agreements, and other matters and had no knowledge or
opinion on certain of these issues." In using the privilege as a
sword and a shield, they contend, United has waived attorney-client
privilege as to related communications.

Judge Spero finds that the privilege logs supplied by United
provide almost no specific information that would allow the
Plaintiffs to meet that burden -- if the burden is, indeed, the
Plaintiffs' to bear. He further finds that the Bradley Declaration
is not sufficient to establish that the fiduciary exception does
not apply to the documents United has withheld. Nor is he persuaded
by United's argument that the fiduciary doctrine can apply only to
communications that specifically relate to the Plaintiffs' plans
(sponsored by Apple and Tesla). United has not offered authority
for this narrow approach.

Likewise, Judge Spero holds that United has not established that
communications relating to "litigation or claims disputes" are
defensive because it is not clear how United defines "claims
disputes. It is not clear if the "claims disputes" referenced in
the privilege log were still the subject of appeals or if a final
determination had been made at the time of the communication.

Based on the Plaintiffs' representation that the 24 clawback
documents, which counsel had an opportunity to review before the
clawback demand was made, included documents that fell within the
fiduciary exception, the Court requested that those documents be
lodged for possible in camera review. In order to provide further
guidance, Judge Spero has reviewed the following documents:
UHC000010918, UHC00013597, UHC000013633, UHC000013642,
UHC000013785, UHC000014211 and UHC000014446.

UHC000010918 is described as "Email chain involving United in-house
counsel (Ellyn Fuchsteiner) requesting information from business
team to render legal advice in anticipation of litigation regarding
dispute with plan member and provider." Judge Spero holds that this
document was not properly withheld on the basis of privilege.

The description of UHC000013642 in United's privilege log is the
same as its description for the previous document. Judge Spero's
conclusions are the same, except to the extent that a small portion
of this email exchange addresses potential changes to the SPD
language, as to which United was acting as a settlor rather than a
fiduciary. That section of the email chain involves a discussion
with in-house counsel about a legal question related to
non-fiduciary conduct and was properly withheld.

UHC000013785 is described in the privilege log as "Email exchange
involving United in-house counsel (Courtney Lucas and Jessica Zuba)
providing information to assist in rendering legal advice regarding
litigation involving provider." It is not apparent from the content
of the document that this communication relates to pending or
imminent litigation; nor can the Court determine the nature of the
underlying dispute or whether it relates to plan administration.
This document requires an affidavit from an attorney involved in
the communication describing the nature of the litigation.

UHC000014211 document is described as "Email chain requesting
information at the behest of United in-house counsel (Chris Coxon
and Sharon Wakefield) for the purpose of providing legal advice in
connection with a pending dispute with a provider." On the current
record, Judge Spero holds that United has not established that this
communication was properly withheld.

UHC000014446 is described in the privilege log as "Email chain
reflecting legal advice from United in-house counsel Susan Tully
Abdo regarding response to complaint from NYDFS." To the extent
United seeks to withhold this communication on the basis of
privilege it needs to provide an affidavit from an attorney
involved in the communication establishing that it was not made in
connection with fiduciary acts or that there was actual or imminent
litigation related to the communication.

Finally, given the relatively high standard for this exception, at
this point, the Plaintiffs have not established that any particular
document is subject to disclosure under the crime-fraud exception.

Judge Spero orders United to review the documents in dispute,
produce all documents that are not privileged under the guidance
issued and produce to the Plaintiffs a new privilege log and
supplemental declarations to support its claims of privilege where
appropriate. This process was to be completed on Aug. 19, 2022. By
Aug. 26, 2022, the parties will meet and confer and propose a
schedule for briefing any remaining disputes related to United's
assertion of attorney-client privilege and work product protection
that were raised in the Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ej8yh9j from Leagle.com.


UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Taylor Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Taylor and Tonya Anderson, and similarly situated persons v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 220801591 (Pa. Ct. of Common
Please, PHILADELPHIA Cty., Aug. 12), for failure to pay all wages
owed, whether minimum wages or overtime wages, for unpaid pre-shift
and/or post-shift security screening in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and liquidated damages in the amount
of $500 per employee, for unpaid late wages due but not paid within
30 days of the regularly scheduled payday in violation of
Pennsylvania's wage payment and collection law.

The Defendant required Plaintiffs and Class Members to regularly
perform compensable work off-the-clock for which they did not
receive any compensation. Specifically, as part of their
employment, the Defendant required the Plaintiffs during the Class
Period to go through pre-shift security checks when entering the
premises at the start of their shifts. Although the Defendant
maintained a common policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiffs
to stand and wait in line for security checks and searched their
bags and subjected them to other security measures, the Defendant
failed to compensate Plaintiffs and Class Members for such time.

As a result of the Defendant's policy and practices described
above, Defendant regularly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and Class
Members for all compensable hours in violation of the PMWA and
failed to pay the Plaintiffs and Overtime Class Members for all
overtime hours worked at the applicable overtime rates for each and
every hour worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of UPS.

UPS has been an American multinational shipping and receiving and
supply chain management company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Phone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          Steven Arenson, Esq.
          ARENSON DITTMAR & KARBAN
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166, Suite 1700
          Phone: (212) 490-3600
          Facsimile: (212) 682-0278
          Email: steve@adklawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Class Settlement in Sweet Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement
in the lawsuit entitled THERESA SWEET, et al., Plaintiffs v. MIGUEL
CARDONA, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-03674 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Miguel Cardona is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of
Education.

For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, the Court
preliminarily approves the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the members of the class.

The form of notice is also approved. The Court directs the counsel
to provide a proposed schedule for final approval for the Court's
review. The class counsel should also proceed with distributing
notice immediately.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Aug. 4, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2m3t933t from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Hospital Wins Summary Judgment on Fees and Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Plaintiff v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00496 (Fed. Cl.),
Judge Eleni M. Roumel of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants
the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Attorneys'
Fees and Costs.

The Hospital and its predecessor by merger employed medical
residents and fellows enrolled in Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education at a medical college currently known as
the Hospital's Weill Cornell Campus (N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp. v.
United States, 152 Fed. Cl. 507, 510 (2021)).

In August 2013, two groups of Residents filed class action lawsuits
against the Hospital in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging (i) the Hospital failed to file
refund claims with the IRS to allow the Residents to recover FICA
taxes collected and paid by the Hospital on their behalf for tax
periods before April 1, 2005; and (ii) had the Hospital filed such
refund claims for the Residents, the Residents would have received
refunds of such FICA taxes collected and paid to the Government
during the class period.

As relief, the Residents sought damages in the amount of the FICA
tax withheld by the Hospital for the period at issue." The District
Court consolidated the class actions for pretrial purposes.

The Residents eventually entered into a settlement agreement with
the Hospital to resolve the consolidated class actions. Under the
settlement, the Hospital agreed to pay $6,632,000 to settle the
Residents' claims. The District Court approved the class action
settlement and dismissed the two consolidated cases.

Following settlement of the class actions, the Hospital filed suit
in the Court seeking indemnification from the Government for, inter
alia, the "full amount of any money paid by the Hospital stemming
from the claims and demands made in the Class Actions" and
"attorneys' fees, costs, and other expenses incurred by the
Hospital in defending against the 'claims and demands' of the
Residents for 'the amount of' FICA taxes demanded in the Class
Actions." The Government filed a motion to dismiss, and the Hon.
Nancy B. Firestone granted the Government's motion, "holding that
section 3102(b) is not a money-mandating source of substantive law,
as is required for the Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction
pursuant to the Tucker Act."

The Hospital appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit reversed. It "held that section 3102(b) was
reasonably amenable to a money-mandating reading for Tucker Act
jurisdiction." Relevant to the present Motion, in reaching its
holding the Federal Circuit examined several dictionaries published
around the time of section 3102's enactment and concluded "that
indemnified means 'reimburse.'" The Government unsuccessfully
petitioned for rehearing en banc, and the case was remanded to the
Court for further proceedings.

On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
the Hospital's entitlement to indemnification under Internal
Revenue Code Section 3102(b) for the Residents' claims in the
settled class action suits. After the action was transferred to the
undersigned judge, the Court granted the Hospital's motion for
summary judgment and denied the Government's cross-motion for
summary judgment. In doing so, it held "that the Residents' suit
was a suit for a FICA tax refund; therefore, the Hospital is
entitled to indemnification under section 3102(b)." The parties'
motions left for a later date resolution of how much the Government
would owe the Hospital.

On June 2, 2021, the parties filed a joint status report indicating
that they were discussing two categories of damages under section
3102(b): (1) the amount the Hospital paid to settle the claims
asserted in the class actions; and (2) the attorneys' fees and
costs the Hospital incurred in defending the class actions. Joint
Status Report, dated June 2, 2021. They jointly expressed a belief
that the latter category of damages presented a unique question of
law and accordingly requested the opportunity to present briefing
concerning whether attorneys' fees and costs the Hospital incurred
in defending against the class actions are recoverable under
section 3102(b).

Accordingly, the Court ordered the Hospital to file a motion for
partial summary judgment "concerning whether attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in the class actions are recoverable." The Hospital
timely filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and this
Court conducted oral argument on the pending Motion.

The Hospital contends "that, as a matter of law, the Government's
obligation to indemnify the Hospital pursuant to I.R.C. section
3102(b) includes reimbursing it for attorneys' fees and costs it
incurred in defending the claims and demands asserted against it in
the class actions." The Government argues that the statute's
"unambiguous language" limits the Hospital's reimbursement to "the
FICA tax it withheld, and no more." It further argues, inter alia,
that the Hospital's interpretation is inconsistent with broad legal
principles related to payment of attorneys' fees, the Federal
Circuit's previous decision in this case, and section 7430 of the
Internal Revenue Code.

Judge Roumel agrees with the Hospital that the plain text of
section 3102(b) includes reimbursement of its attorneys' fees and
costs as part of the Government's indemnity obligation. She agrees
with the Hospital that the plain meaning of the statute encompasses
indemnity of both the settlement amount and the costs and fees
incurred in defending against the claims and demands asserted in
the underlying cases. Indeed, section 3102(b) unambiguously
enumerates the type of claims for which the Government must
indemnify employers, and "indemnity" was understood to include
attorneys' fees and costs when Congress enacted the predecessor to
section 3102(b).

Notwithstanding the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
"indemnify," the Government argues that interpreting section
3102(b) to include attorneys' fees and costs conflicts with several
bodies of law. It contends that awarding the Hospital attorneys'
fees and costs under section 3102(b) violates the American Rule
regarding attorneys' fees. It further argues that the Hospital's
interpretation of section 3102(b) conflicts with the Internal
Revenue Code's mechanism for awarding litigation costs and with the
Federal Circuit's interpretation of section 3102(b). Finally, the
Government argues that Congress would not have adopted a statute
that would permit "open-ended" liability, as it asserts the
Hospital's interpretation might permit.

Judge Roumel finds the Government's concerns misplaced. She says,
the legislative history cited by the Government does not
demonstrate a "clear intent contrary to the plain meaning." At
most, the legislative history reflects that Congress sought to
place a monetary cap on the Government's indemnity obligation. A
monetary cap does not "provide an 'extraordinary showing of
contrary intentions'" that would lead to conclude that section
3102(b) excludes attorneys' fees and costs.

The case also does not implicate section 7430. First, it is an
indemnity action where the Hospital is asserting its "statutory
right to indemnity from the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
Section 3102(b)." As its prerequisites are not met, section 7430
lacks any relevance to the present Motion. Even if Judge Roumel
were to amalgamate the facts of the case with the facts of the
Residents' consolidated class actions to fulfill the requirements
of section 7430, section 7430 still would not preclude recovery of
attorneys' fees and costs because the Hospital does not seek to
recover expenses as a prevailing party in the present case. Hence,
Section 7430 does not alter the Government's stand-alone indemnity
obligation under section 3102(b).

For related reasons, Judge Roumel is unpersuaded that the American
Rule has any relevance to interpreting section 3102(b). The
American Rule governs fee shifting among parties in litigation as
opposed to payment under a statutory indemnity provision. The
Hospital does not seek to shift fees to the Government because the
Hospital prevailed over the Government; it merely seeks to enforce
the indemnity provision to the full extent enacted by Congress.
Accordingly, the case does not implicate the American Rule.

Judge Roumel is mindful of the responsibility bestowed upon the
Court by Congress, and scrupulously evaluates claims to ensure that
only "legitimate claims against the sovereign" prevail. But it is
also ultimately the Court's responsibility to ensure that the
Government "renders prompt justice against itself" where
appropriate. Justice in the case means enforcing the plain text of
Internal Revenue Code section 3102(b); the Government's indemnity
obligation includes the Hospital's attorneys' fees and costs.

Finally, Judge Roumel holds that to the extent the legislative
history of section 3102(b)'s predecessor offers any guidance on the
question before the Court, it at most sets a quantitative cap, not
a qualitative bar. The Hospital seeks indemnity for a sum far less
than the amount of FICA taxes it withheld. It withheld from the
Residents, and paid to the Government, approximately $9.1 million.
However, it only seeks indemnification for approximately $8.3
million -- approximately $6.6 million for the settlement funds paid
to the Residents and approximately $1.7 million in attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in litigating the claims and defenses in the
consolidated class actions. Thus, as the Hospital is seeking nearly
$800,000 less than any such monetary cap that the Government
contends exists, the Hospital does not seek "more than the correct
amount."

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Roumel grants the Plaintiff's
Motion. She orders the parties to (1) file a Joint Notice,
attaching a proposed public version of the Sealed Memorandum and
Order, with any competition-sensitive or otherwise protected
information redacted; and (2) file within 30 days of the Sealed
Memorandum and Order a Joint Status Report indicating whether they
consent to a value of judgment or, if the parties do not reach
agreement, providing a schedule for future proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/u423beus from Leagle.com.

Boris Bershteyn -- boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in New York City, for the Plaintiff.
With him on the briefs are Mollie Kornreich, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, in New York City; Fred T. Goldberg, Jr. --
fred.goldberg@skadden.com -- and Sylvia O. Tsakos --
sylvia.tsakos@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, in Washington, District of Columbia.

Matthew D. Lucey, United States Department of Justice, Tax
Division, Court of Federal Claims Section, in Washington, District
of Columbia for Defendant. With him on the briefs are David I.
Pincus, Chief, Court of Federal Claims Section; and David A.
Hubber, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division.


UNITED STATES: Stringfellow Sues Over Contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------
Donald Stringfellow, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United States of America, Case No. 7:22-cv-00145-M
(E.D.N.C., Aug. 14, 2022), is brought as the result of the
Defendant's failure and refusal to provide its knowledge and
information as it concerns the health consequences of exposure to
the contaminants to which the Plaintiffs were exposed.

For decades the water at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune was
contaminated with toxic chemicals known to cause cancer and a host
of other chronic--often deadly--diseases and conditions. Hundreds
of thousands of service members and civilians drank, bathed in,
cooked with, and swam in that water. Nevertheless, in violation of
governing orders and basic duties of decency, federal government
officials failed to ensure that toxic chemicals from industrial
facilities, fuel tanks, and dry-cleaning operations did not seep
into the water used by the men and women who were willing to lay
their lives on the line for our nation and their families. Indeed,
for decades the federal government did not even bother to test the
water.

When the truth about Camp Lejeune's water finally emerged in the
late 2000s, the United States faced thousands of claims for
compensation on behalf of the people injured or killed by its
conduct. But instead of compensating servicemembers and others for
their injuries, the United States steadfastly refused to pay their
claims. When lawsuits were filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA") in federal court, the United States escaped liability by
invoking North Carolina's ten-year statute of repose—which
operated to bar all claims even though the federal government's
misconduct had not come to light until well after the statutory
period had run.

The Plaintiff was exposed to amounts of water supplied by the
Defendant or its agents at Camp Lejeune. The water supplied to the
Plaintiff by or on behalf of the Defendant was polluted and
contaminated as described herein with chemicals including but not
limited to trichloroethylene ("TCE"), perchloroethylene ("PCE"),
vinyl chloride, and benzene. Subsequently, the Plaintiff has
suffered harm including, but not limited to, diagnosis with serious
illnesses, defects and other maladies, on a date before the
enactment of the Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff resided, worked or was otherwise exposed for not less
than 30 days to water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

United States of America is the party responsible for damages
caused by its military service components, including responsibility
for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps and
related facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric W. Flynn, Esq.
          J. Edward Bell, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Phone: (843) 546-2408
          Fax: (843) 546-9604
          Email: eflynn@belllegalgroup.com
                 jeb@belllegalgroup.com

          Robert Jackson, Esq.
          ROBERT B. JACKSON, IV, LLC
          260 Peachtree Street - Suite 2200
          Atlanta, Georgia 30303
          Phone: (404) 313-2039
          Email: rbj4law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Zina Bash, Esq.
          KELLER POSTMAN LLC
          111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 956-345-9462
          Email: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com

               - and -

          Aimee Wagstaff, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM
          940 Lincoln Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: 303-376-6360
          Email: awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Fax: (415) 956-1008
          Email: ecabraser@lchb.com

               - and -

          John. F. Bash, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          300 W. 6th St.
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (737) 667-6100
          Fax: (737) 667-6110
          Email: johnbash@quinnemanuel.com


VERIFIED MOVING: Misclassifies Sales Reps, Grajeda Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA GRAJEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERIFIED MOVING PROS, LLC, and DONALD LINA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-61471-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Aug. 8, 2022) is a class action brought against the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover all overtime
wages that Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated employees as a result of their misclassification
of sales and/or customer service representatives.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff
and all other similarly situated individuals as independent
contractors to avoid federal overtime wage obligations under the
FLSA. As a result of this intentional and willful
misclassification, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and dozens of
other employees of federal overtime wages during the course of the
previous three years, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales representative
employee at a call center in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from May 31,
2022, until August 5, 2022.

Verified Moving Pros, LLC is a moving and storage service provider
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

VERIZON CONNECT: Simms Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Simms, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VERIZON CONNECT FLEET USA LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03205-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 12, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay all overtime hours worked.

The Defendant has willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically,
the Plaintiff were not paid time and one half of their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, nor
paid a premium for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida who worked for the Defendant
as a Business Development Representative (BDR) from July 2019 to
May 2021.

The Defendant provides fleet operators (companies or businesses
with numerous vehicles) with an internet based system that enhances
workforce productivity through real time vehicle tracking, route
optimization, job dispatch, and fuel usage monitoring.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          1201 Peachtree St. N.E., Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: Depasquale Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER DEPASQUALE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-011969 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug.
12, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC offers wireless telecommunications
services, devices, and solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VI-JON LLC: Patora Files Suit Over Mislabeled Laxative Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie Patora, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vi-Jon, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-06678-VB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with
respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its Magnesium
Citrate Saline Laxative products in violation of the New York
General Business Law and various state warranty laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has improperly,
deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to
reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not
disclosing to consumers on its packaging that consumption of the
products may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections.
The Products allegedly contain Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens,
which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health
consequences.

The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions on the safety of the products and
what is in the products when they purchased them. Given that
Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the products,
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the
premium paid, says the suit.

Vi-Jon, LLC manufactures and retails beauty care & healthcare
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VSC GROUP: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in D. New Hampshire
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VSC Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Richard Daschbach, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VSC Group, LLC doing business as:
Complete Car, Case No. 1:22-cv-00313 (D.N.H., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

VSC Group, LLC doing business as Complete Car --
https://www.completecar.com/ -- offers extended auto warranties
that have no limits on the amount of vehicle repairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF V RICHARDS WARD JR PLLC
          98 Center Street
          PO Box 1117
          Wolfeboro, NH 03894
          Phone: (603) 569-9222
          Fax: (603) 569-9022
          Email: rick@vrwardlaw.com


WAG LABS: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wag Labs, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
22-003795-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., Aug. 5, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act as it engages in telephonic sales calls to
consumers, including Plaintiff, to promote its goods and services.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant's violation of the law was
willful or knowing, in that at all times material hereto Defendant
knew it was making, or knowingly allowing to be made, a telephonic
sales call involving an automated system for the selection or
dialing of telephone numbers, or the playing of a recorded message
when a connection is completed to a number called to Plaintiff and
the Class members without prior express written consent.

Wag Labs, Inc. is a retailer of consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WALMART INC: Coss Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Adrian Coss, Maribel Ocampo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No
1:22-cv-04277 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansa.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE: Janiak Seeks Proper Minimum Wages for Servers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JANIAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WOLF'S STEAKHOUSE, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61480 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 9,
2022) arises from the Defendant's conduct of claiming a
'tip-credit' for Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and for
paying these employees below the statutorily required minimum wage
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired as a server, a non-exempt employee, by the
Defendant on April 14, 2022 until and including May 8, 2022.

Wolf's Steakhouse, Inc. is a steakhouse restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  david@levylevylaw.com

WOODCRAFT SUPPLY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woodcraft Supply,
LLC. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Woodcraft Supply, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06886 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2022).

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

Woodcraft Supply, LLC -- https://www.woodcraft.com/ -- operates
woodworking specialty retail stores across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WPWM ADVISORY SOLUTIONS: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WPWM Advisory
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. WPWM Advisory
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06797 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2022).

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

PWM Advisory Group, ("PWM") -- http://pwm-nj.com/-- is a private
wealth management firm specializing in lifestyle planning,
personalized wealth counsel and tax-sensitive portfolio
management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Baker Sues Over Sales Associates' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
RASHARD BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00852 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 5, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff at a rate that is not
less than time-and-one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Baker was employed by Wyndham Vacation as a sales associate. He
asserts that Wyndham required him and others similarly situated to
clock out before they reached 40 hours, but required them to keep
working off the clock to avoid paying them overtime premiums.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. is in the business of selling time
shares at its various resort properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ZEROHOLDING LLC: Case Summary & Four Unsecured Creditors
--------------------------------------------------------
Debtor: Zeroholding, LLC
        11175 Cicero Drive, Ste 100
        Alpharetta, GA 30022

Business Description: The Debtor offers cleaning services to
                      buildings and dwellings.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: August 19, 2022

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
       Northern District of Georgia

Case No.: 22-56502

Judge: Hon. Jeffery W. Cavender

Debtor's Counsel: Will Geer, Esq.
                  ROUNTREE, LEITMAN, KLEIN & GEER, LLC
                  2987 Clairmont Road Suite 350
                  Atlanta, GA 30329
                  Tel: 678-587-8740
                  Email: wgeer@rlkglaw.com

Estimated Assets: $500,000 to $1 million

Estimated Liabilities: $1 million to $10 million

The petition was signed by Philip Miles as manager.

A full-text copy of the petition containing, among other items, a
list of the Debtor's four unsecured creditors is available for free
at PacerMonitor.com at:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/3KIICOI/Zeroholding_LLC__ganbke-22-56502__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA

[*] 2022 Class-Action Lawsuit Decisions in the U.S. Discussed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher S. Dodrill, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M.
Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq., and
Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, disclosed that
the law firm issued the GT Newsletter that summarizes recent
class-action decisions from across the United States.

Highlights from this issue include:

Supreme Court resolves circuit split, ruling courts need not
require prejudice to establish waiver of the right to arbitrate

Third Circuit clarifies when the time period for CAFA removal is
triggered.

Third Circuit finds typicality is met though named plaintiffs did
not invest in all of the funds at issue.

Fifth Circuit confirms CAFA does not provide jurisdiction to
consider non-CAFA grounds for removal when reviewing a CAFA remand
order.

Sixth Circuit addresses interested party's pre-certification and
post-certification communications with class members.

Western District of Washington applies new Ninth Circuit decision
to find class action plaintiffs with insufficient evidence of
injury lack standing to pursue claims.

Eleventh Circuit affirms denial of law firm's request for fees,
even though counsel conferred substantial benefit to the class,
when counsel acted against interests of the class.

Supreme Court
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 142 S. Ct. 1708 (2022)

Supreme Court resolves circuit split, declining to require
prejudice to find waiver of the right to arbitrate.

Petitioner Morgan was an employee at a restaurant franchise owned
by Sundance. When Morgan applied for the job, she signed an
agreement to "use confidential binding arbitration, instead of
going to court" to resolve any employment disputes. Despite this
agreement, Morgan filed a putative nationwide collective action
alleging that Sundance violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

For approximately eight months Sundance defended the lawsuit as if
no arbitration agreement existed. First, Sundance filed a motion to
dismiss the suit as duplicative of another collective action; the
court denied the motion. Second, Sundance answered the complaint
and engaged in a joint mediation. Sundance then moved to stay the
litigation and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA). Morgan opposed, arguing that Sundance waived its right to
arbitrate by litigating for nearly eight months without raising
this right. The lower court applied Eighth Circuit precedent, which
required prejudice to establish waiver. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari to resolve the question of whether federal courts may
adopt an arbitration-specific procedural rule demanding a showing
of prejudice for a party to waive arbitration. The Court held that
prejudice is not required.

In its decision, the Supreme Court explained that, outside the
arbitration context, federal courts assessing waiver generally do
not evaluate prejudice, and when determining waiver in other
contexts, courts focus on "the actions of the person who held the
right," not the effects of those actions on another party. By
demanding a finding of prejudice, the lower court incorrectly
applied a rule specific to arbitration. But "the FAA's policy
favoring arbitration does not authorize federal courts to invent
special, arbitration-preferring procedural rules," and courts must
hold parties to an arbitration contract the same as parties to any
other contract. The Court thus remanded the case to the Eighth
Circuit for further proceedings to evaluate whether Sundance
"knowingly relinquish[ed] the right to arbitrate by acting
inconsistently with that right.".

First Circuit
Sargent v. MaineHealth, No. 2:22-cv-00006-JAW, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 105621 (D. Me. June 14, 2022)

District court dismisses putative class action without prejudice
based on putative class representative's claim splitting.
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings argued that the
plaintiff could not maintain this lawsuit because she previously
filed an individual claim based on the same basic facts. In the
first-filed lawsuit, plaintiff sued defendant's subsidiary for
alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and state law. Slightly over a year later, and
shortly before the end of discovery in the first lawsuit, plaintiff
filed a putative class action against the parent company for
alleged retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act and state
law. The district court explained that, as a general principle, a
plaintiff with multiple related claims must not split them into
different, successive lawsuits. Rather, a plaintiff must include
all such claims in the first action. This is referred to as the
"doctrine against claims splitting." Whether a second action is
duplicative depends on whether the claims, parties, and available
relief do not significantly differ between the two actions. If they
do not, the claims-splitting doctrine applies.

In certain circumstances, however, a putative class action may be
an exception to the claims-splitting doctrine when, for example, a
putative class member later seeks to pursue a damages claim that
could not have been advanced in a prior class action or that was
expressly excluded from the class action. Although the district
court referred to the class-action exemption as unsettled, the
court did not find it necessary to address the exemption because
the plaintiff filed her initial individual claim before filing the
putative class action. As a remedy to prevent claims splitting, and
to protect the rights of the absent putative class members, the
district court dismissed plaintiff's second lawsuit without
prejudice..

Second Circuit
Wilson v. Triller, Inc., No. 21-cv-11228, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
71085 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2022)

District court dismisses in-app information sharing case, ruling
unjust enrichment claim was precluded by website terms and
conditions, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim failed because
it was based on information-misuse theory.
Plaintiff alleged that Triller's app retained personally
identifiable information about its users and unlawfully disclosed
that information to third parties, who allegedly combined the
disclosures with additional information to identify individual
users. Plaintiff, an Illinois citizen, alleged that she downloaded
the app, created an account, and used it for approximately six
months for one hour per day. Plaintiff asserted that during this
time, Triller violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act (ICFA), and she also asserted a claim for unjust
enrichment. Triller filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted in
its entirety.

First, the court dismissed the CFAA claim with prejudice, finding
that plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that Triller
"exceed[ed] its authorized access" within the meaning of the
statute. Plaintiff alleged that Triller exceeded its authorized
access by causing users to "download and install the App" without
first informing users that the app collected and disclosed the
users' information beyond what users expected the app to do. But
the court found that Triller did not obtain this information by
accessing "off limits" parts of the device. Contrary to other cases
where a plaintiff's information is stored on a third-party
cloud-based server, Triller accessed plaintiff's device and
collected information about how plaintiff interacted with Triller's
own servers. At most, plaintiff could only allege Triller "misused
the information collected about her," which is insufficient to
state a CFAA claim.

Second, the court dismissed plaintiff's VPPA claim without
prejudice. Plaintiff alleged that Triller violated the VPPA by: (1)
disclosing to others information regarding users' video watch
history, including other information that can allegedly be used to
associate the watch history with a particular individual; and (2)
by retaining a user's "personally identifiable information" (PII).
The court noted how the VPPA is "not well drafted." Adopting a
narrow definition of PII, the court found that plaintiff did not
allege that Triller disclosed any of her PII and that this claim
should be dismissed. Although plaintiff admitted that the
information Triller disclosed was "anonymized," the court found it
was not enough that a third party could combine it with other
information to deduce the true identity of the individual
associated with the data because the "scope of PII would be
limitless." The court also dismissed plaintiff's claim that Triller
violated the VPPA by not destroying PII as soon as practicable,
because the VPPA does not provide a private right of action for
violations of this provision.

Third, the court rejected plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim given
the app's terms of use. To create a Triller account, a user is
presented with a screen that has the terms of use at the bottom of
the signup page, which states that by signing up for an account the
user accepts the terms of service and privacy policy (providing a
link to both). The privacy policy explains that Triller collects
"Personal Information" and "Usage Information," describing each.
Triller argued that a valid agreement between the parties existed,
and its terms governed. Plaintiff responded that she was never
aware of the terms and that they were allegedly "hidden on the
sign-up page." The court found the terms conspicuous enough to put
the user on inquiry notice and create a valid contract, so the
unjust enrichment claim was barred.

Finally, the court dismissed the ICFA claim because this statute
does not have extraterritorial effect and applies only if the
circumstances that relate to the dispute occurred primarily and
substantially in Illinois. Here, the only connection to Illinois
was that plaintiff was a resident of the state.

Aponte v. Northeast Radiology, P.C., No. 21-cv-5883, 2022 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 87982 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2022)

District court finds plaintiffs did not have standing in alleged
information misuse case because they failed to show a risk of
future harm.
Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that
defendants failed to protect their electronic protected health
information (e-PHI) from unauthorized disclosure. The court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs did not have standing.

Plaintiffs alleged that, by being patients, they provided
defendants their names, addresses, dates of birth, gender, and
medical history information. Unauthorized individuals allegedly
accessed defendants' computer servers (the Picture Archiving and
Communications Systems (PACS)), and plaintiffs alleged that
defendants failed to include basic security features on its PACS
system such that the list of file names containing the e-PHI could
be downloaded and saved. Following the hack, defendants issued a
press release announcing unauthorized individuals gained access to
its systems and that at least 29 patients' information was
accessed.

The court ruled that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a
future risk of fraud or identity theft because they did not allege
they were among the 29 patients whose information was accessed,
they did not allege third parties misused or attempted to misuse
their data, and their allegations that an unauthorized user would
have viewed their e-PHI and downloaded a copy were too remote to
establish a risk of future harm from identity theft. In addition,
plaintiffs failed to show they were at a substantial risk of future
identity theft, so the time that they spent protecting themselves
against this "speculative threat" could not create an injury to
confer standing. Because plaintiffs did not allege any misuse or
attempted misuse of their data resulting from the breach, they had
not alleged any concrete harm from the alleged breach and also
could not obtain any "benefit of the bargain" injury.

On June 14, 2022, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Second
Circuit. That appeal remains pending.  

Garcia de Leon v. N.Y.U., No. 21-cv-05005, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
110787 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2022)

Court declines to certify a "fees class" based on NYU's decision to
cancel or modify in-person instruction and access to campus
facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This putative class action against New York University (NYU)
alleged that NYU breached its contractual obligations to provide
in-person instruction and access to campus facilities and
activities when NYU decided to modify, curtail, and/or cancel
activities for the spring 2020 semester due to the COVID-19
pandemic.

NYU charges enrolled students various fees for services and
programs, but not every student pays the same amount, as fees vary
depending on what school the student attends and the particular
program and courses he or she enrolls in. All students also pay
different Registration & Services fees (R&S Fees) based on a
school-by-school or program-by-program basis. After the COVID-19
pandemic began, NYU analyzed the course-based fees billed to
students and issued full or pro rata refunds. Like the original
fees, these refunds also varied. Although NYU did refund a portion
of housing and dining fees, it did not refund the R&S Fees because
it continued to provide certain services connected to those fees.
Plaintiff was a full-time graduate student enrolled in the Master
of Social Work program at NYU's Rockland campus in spring 2020. NYU
did not refund her R&S Fees or art supply fees, which were the only
two fees plaintiff paid for the spring 2020 semester.

At the outset of the case, NYU filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted in part. The court allowed claims related to the payment of
fees in exchange for services and access to the campus (the Fees
Claims) to proceed past the pleading stage. Plaintiff then brought
a motion to certify a proposed "fees class," defined as "all
persons who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled at
[NYU] who were charged for services, facilities, resources, events,
and/or activities for the spring 2020 Semester that were not
provided in whole or in part." The court denied plaintiff's
motion.

In considering the various Rule 23 factors, the court found that
plaintiff could not establish commonality and typicality. Among
other things, plaintiff did not demonstrate she suffered the same
injury as every other NYU student based on the school-specific
nature of the fees and because plaintiff did not take a single
class on the New York City campus. The evidence also showed that
plaintiff never came to or called the New York City campus after
her orientation in August 2019. Plaintiff's status as a student was
also not typical of the average NYU student, as she was one of just
88 candidates in the Rockland County branch and could not contend
her status as an occasional visitor to the main campus made her
typical of the extended class she proposed to represent. In
addition to NYU students paying different fees for different
services, all students could not be said to have suffered the same
injury by NYU having failed to refund those fees because NYU
continued to operate certain programs and services during the
shutdown. The court noted that determining "which members of a
class consisting of all students who paid fees to NYU actually
sought to avail themselves of services but were unable to do so is
an exercise that requires making a fact specific determination
about each putative class member."

The court also found plaintiff to be an inadequate class
representative. In addition to attending a small adjunct campus,
the court expressed concerns with the plaintiff's credibility given
her discovery conduct, including her conflicting deposition
testimony and refusal to answer certain inquiries. The court also
found plaintiff lacked a "firm grasp" of the facts of the case and
did not even know who her lawyers were. Relatedly, the court found
proposed class counsel inadequate given both a lack of experience
and a lack of candor to the court, among other things.

Third Circuit
McLaren v. UPS Store Inc., 32 F.4th 232 (3d Cir. 2022)

Third Circuit clarifies time period for CAFA removal is triggered
by what a defendant receives, not what knowledge it possesses
Customers filed two putative class actions in New Jersey state
court alleging that The UPS Store charged excessive fees for notary
services. Neither complaint alleged an amount in controversy over
$5 million, and one of the complaints stated that the amount in
controversy was less than $1 million. After unsuccessfully moving
to dismiss the complaints, UPS filed answers and in discovery
produced a spreadsheet that, together with the complaints, revealed
that each case had an amount in controversy that satisfied the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Days after the New Jersey
Appellate Division affirmed the denial of UPS's motions to dismiss,
UPS filed removal petitions. Plaintiffs moved to remand, and the
district court granted the motion, finding that the complaints and
the information available to UPS allowed UPS to "reasonably and
intelligently" calculate the amount in controversy and, thus, the
removal petition was untimely. UPS appealed.

The Third Circuit reversed. The panel observed that the 30-day
clock for removing a case under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446 "is triggered
only when the defendant receives a particular document: in (b)(1)
the initial pleading, and in (b)(3) an amended pleading, motion,
order, or other paper." The panel found that the initial pleadings
here did not trigger the 30-day clock because (1) one of the
complaints did not reveal the number of notary services provided at
the allegedly prohibited rate, and (2) the other complaint alleged
that the amount in controversy was far less than $5 million.
Plaintiffs argued that UPS possessed information at the time the
complaints were served that allowed it to determine that the amount
in controversy for CAFA jurisdiction was satisfied and thus the
30-day clock was triggered at that time. The Third Circuit rejected
that argument because "the text of § 1446(b) requires that courts
focus on what a defendant receives, and not on what knowledge it
possesses." "[T]he statute does not contemplate that the thirty-day
clock would be triggered by information that the defendant already
possesses or knows from its own records."

This "bright line rule" advances judicial economy because (1)
inquiring into what a defendant knew could "degenerate into a
mini-trial"; (2) it discourages defendants from prematurely
removing cases for fear of accidentally letting the 30-day window
close; and (3) it discourages plaintiffs from attempting to prevent
or delay removal by failing to reveal information showing
removability but later objecting to removal when the defendant
discovers the information on its own.

The panel recognized that this rule may allow defendants who
possess information regarding removability to delay removing until
a disadvantageous ruling from the state court. This concern,
however, did not justify ignoring the plain language of the
statute. And the panel found that this concern could be addressed
by a plaintiff conducting discovery and thereafter serving a paper
from which federal jurisdiction could be ascertained, thereby
starting the removal clock.

Boley v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 36 F.4th 124 (3d Cir.
2022)

Third Circuit finds typicality is met notwithstanding differences
among class member claims, including that named plaintiffs invested
in only certain of the funds at issue.
Three participants in a defined-contribution plan filed a putative
class action on behalf of all plan participants alleging that
Universal breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA. Universal
opposed class certification on the basis that the named plaintiffs
did not invest in 30 of the plan's 37 funds and, as such, (1)
lacked standing to bring claims relating to all the funds, and (2)
had claims that were atypical because they lacked incentive to
pursue claims as to the funds in which they did not invest. The
district court certified a class of all plan participants, and the
Third Circuit granted interlocutory review.

The Third Circuit first addressed plaintiffs' standing. Because
plaintiffs "allege concrete injuries traceable to the challenged
decisions and courses of conduct" that affected all of the funds in
the plan, they had standing. Universal argued that this
"straightforward standing inquiry should be adjusted in light of
the Supreme Court's decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., –––
U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1615, 207 L. Ed. 2d 85 (2020)," which
requires a "personal loss to a plaintiff's account" to have
standing for a breach of fiduciary duty claim, but the panel found
that plaintiffs alleged such a concrete injury.

As to typicality, Universal argued that plaintiffs "have no
incentive to focus their litigation efforts on the objective
imprudence of offering the funds in which they did not invest." The
panel rejected that argument because each plan participant's
potential recovery arose under the same legal theory – i.e.,
Universal's breach of fiduciary duty in managing the plan's
investment options – regardless of the funds in which they
invested. The panel found that "[t]ypicality does not require the
class representatives' claims be coterminous with those of the
class" and observed that "[w]e have held that typicality may be
satisfied even if the class representative must introduce
additional evidence to support the claims of absent class members."
Plaintiffs' "interests are sufficiently aligned with those of the
class because the common allegation for each class member. . . is
'comparably central to the claims of the named plaintiffs as to the
claims of the absentees.'" Thus, typicality was satisfied.

Fifth Circuit
Easom v. US Well Services, Incorporated, __ F.4th __, 2022 U.S.
App. LEXIS 16556 (5th Cir. June 15, 2022)

Fifth Circuit holds that COVID-19 does not qualify as a natural
disaster under the WARN Act's natural disaster exception.
Plaintiffs filed a class action against US Well Services, Inc.
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act,
claiming that their employment was terminated without notice. US
Well argued that the termination, which was caused by COVID-19, was
proper under the WARN Act's natural-disaster exception. The parties
cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court denied both
motions but concluded that COVID-19 was a natural disaster, and
that the natural disaster exception uses but-for causation
standards. The court reasoned that COVID-19 qualified as "natural"
because people did not start or consciously spread it, and it was a
"disaster" based on how many people were killed or infected by the
virus. But the court found that the record did not show that
COVID-19 was the but-for cause of the layoffs. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration but certified three
questions for interlocutory appeal.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court's reasoning and
held "that COVID-19 does not qualify as a natural disaster under
the WARN Act's natural-disaster exception." The Fifth Circuit
narrowly construed the WARN Act's language, which limited examples
of natural disasters to "flood, earthquake, or drought" and other
hydrological, geological, and meteorological events.

The court also examined whether the phrase "due to" in the natural
disaster exception requires but-for or proximate causation. The
Fifth Circuit pointed to the Supreme Court and other precedent
equating direct causation and proximate causation. Based on that
precedent, the court held that the WARN Act's natural-disaster
exception incorporates proximate causation.

Stewart v. Entergy Corp., 35 F.4th 930 (5th Cir. 2022)

Fifth Circuit holds that it did not have jurisdiction to consider
non-CAFA removal grounds when considering a remand order.
Plaintiffs filed a class action against their power company in
Louisiana state court complaining that defendants had negligently
designed, operated, and maintained the electricity transmission
system, which led to power outages in the wake of Hurricane Ida.
Defendants removed to federal court by asserting, among other
bases, jurisdiction under CAFA. Plaintiffs conceded that CAFA's
statutory requirements were met but asserted that the
local-controversy and home-state exceptions precluded federal
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand, and the district court
granted the motion.

Defendants appealed, but the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Based on the
class definition and facts alleged, the class consisted
overwhelmingly of Louisiana citizens and corporations. Thus, the
local-controversy and home-state exceptions applied.

The Fifth Circuit also affirmed its precedent that CAFA does not
provide jurisdiction to consider non-CAFA-related grounds for
removal when reviewing a CAFA remand order. Defendants
unsuccessfully argued the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in BP
P.L.C. v. Mayor of Baltimore overruled the Fifth Circuit prior
precedents. In BP, the Court held that, when a district court's
remand order rejects multiple grounds for removal, CAFA authorizes
a court of appeals to review each and every one of them because
"the statute allows courts of appeals to examine the whole of a
district court's 'order', not just some of its parts or pieces."
Although the Fifth Circuit acknowledged that some of its sister
circuits agreed with defendant's position, the court continued
following the rule "that [its] jurisdiction to review a CAFA remand
order stops at the edge of the CAFA portion of the order[.]"

Turner v. GoAuto Ins. Co., 33 F.4th 214 (5th Cir. 2022)

Fifth Circuit declines to evaluate state trial court's procedural
rulings before removal.
Mark Turner sued his car insurance carrier, GoAuto Insurance
Company, complaining that it underpaid policy benefits under his
policy and Louisiana law. Turner later amended and transformed the
suit into a class action by defining the class as similarly
situated "residents of Louisiana." Turner amended again to redefine
the class from "residents of Louisiana" to "citizens of Louisiana."
Two days later, GoAuto removed under CAFA. After removal, the
parties disputed which complaint controlled and the sufficiency of
removal. The district court remanded the case, holding that GoAuto,
as a Louisiana citizen, could not show minimal diversity.

GoAuto appealed to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the district
court ignored facts showing diversity and wrongly considered
plaintiff's amended class definition for jurisdictional purposes.
The Fifth Circuit disagreed. The court noted that the Louisiana
court accepted Turner's amended class definition before GoAuto
removed and declined to evaluate the state court's procedural
rulings before removal. The Fifth Circuit also rejected GoAuto's
other arguments that it was plausible that some of the class
members were not citizens of Louisiana and that plaintiff should be
barred from determining citizenship based on conclusory
allegations.

Sixth Circuit
Fox v. Saginaw County, Michigan, 35 F.4th 1042 (6th Cir. 2022)

Sixth Circuit affirms district court ruling on interested party's
post-certification communications with class members but vacates
injunction over pre-certification communications.
Plaintiffs sued Saginaw County, Michigan for failing to pay sale
proceeds to owners of foreclosed properties. During the litigation,
Asset Recovery Inc. (ARI) began contacting potential plaintiffs to
pursue relief for them. Believing this was an improper
solicitation, plaintiff asked the district court to prevent ARI
from contacting class members. The district court granted the
motion in part. Invoking its authority under Rule 23, the court
enjoined ARI from communicating with class members without court
approval and ordered ARI to send a curative notice to class members
that they could withdraw from their agreements with ARI and stay
part of the class. ARI appealed the ruling to the Sixth Circuit
under the collateral order doctrine.

After concluding it had jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit affirmed in
part and vacated in part. The Sixth Circuit began its decision by
recognizing the "broad authority" Rule 23 gives federal courts to
manage class actions. The court explained that the authority
includes the authority to restrict "abusive communications" to
class members. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court's
conclusion that ARI's communications with class members were
"abusive" because ARI (1) "distorted the facts surrounding the
claims process when it contacted potential claimants" and (2) "kept
soliciting clients from the class even after the court granted
certification and before class members received fair notice of the
class action."

The Sixth Circuit disagreed, however, with the scope of the
district court's remedy. The Sixth Circuit distinguished between
pre-certification and post-certification communications. It
explained that "the district court went a step too far in allowing
class members who hired ARI before the class was certified to
rescind their agreements." Thus, "it abused its discretion by not
explaining why pre-certification agreements should be abrogated."
The Sixth Circuit explained that "[t]here is nothing inherently
abusive about engaging clients who later ended up members of a
class," and "there is no evidence ARI knew the class action was
pending until after the district court certified the class." As a
result, the Sixth Circuit said it "will not penalize the company
for engaging clients before they were class members."  

Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Millionaire Entm't, LLC, 2022 U.S.
App. LEXIS 17746 (6th Cir. June 28, 2022)

Sixth Circuit reverses injunction of ongoing state court
proceedings under the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction"
exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.
Hanover American Insurance Company sued a recording-studio in
federal court in the Western District of Tennessee for submitting
fraudulent loss claims after a burglary. The jury found for
defendants, and Hanover challenged the jury award. The district
court granted Hanover's Rule 50(b) motion, but the ruling was
overturned on appeal. While the appeal was pending, one defendant
sued his co-defendants in Tennessee state court, and Hanover filed
a separate declaratory judgment and interpleader action in federal
court over the distribution of the $2.5 million federal jury award.
Hanover then asked the federal court to enjoin the state court
action under the Anti-Injunction Act "in aid of its jurisdiction."
The district court granted the injunction.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court erred
and that the "in aid of its jurisdiction" exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act did not apply. The Court of Appeals explained
that the exception applies only when a case is removed from state
court or when the federal court has "in rem" jurisdiction over
specific property. Here, the district court lacked in rem
jurisdiction because Hanover had never deposited the $2.5 million
award into the district court's registry. Thus, the district court
proceedings were not in rem, and "an injunction was not 'necessary'
to aid the district court's jurisdiction." The Sixth Circuit
emphasized that, "[i]t may be more efficient for the district court
to oversee this case without a concurrent state-court action";
however, "the law allows an injunction only for necessity, not
simply for efficiency."

Seventh Circuit
Ross v. Gossett, No. 20-1992, 2022 U.S. Dist. App. LEXIS 12177 (7th
Cir. May 5, 2022)

Seventh Circuit affirms class certification in case seeking relief
due to policy and procedure-based constitutional violations.
Plaintiffs, inmates in Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC),
alleged that defendants' prison-wide shakedowns violated their
constitutional and statutory rights. The district court
consolidated several cases, and plaintiffs moved for class
certification, seeking to certify a class of inmates incarcerated
at three facilities during specific periods when the shakedowns
occurred. Even though the claims sought relief against hundreds of
defendants, the certification related only to claims involving 22
defendants in supervisory roles. The district court granted
plaintiffs' certification request, and defendants appealed.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. On appeal, both parties agreed that
the shakedowns occurred and were executed according to a uniform
plan under certain defendants' supervision but disagreed on the
description of the plan itself. Defendants asserted that, because
plaintiffs' certification theory relied on an unconstitutional
policy or procedure, plaintiffs were required (and failed) to
present significant proof of that policy. The Seventh Circuit
rejected this argument, noting that, although such proof would be
necessary on the merits, it was not a "proper focus in a class
certification determination." Given the undisputed evidence that
defendants acted uniformly across the facilities and during the
shakedowns, there was no question that plaintiffs had met their
burden in establishing commonality for class certification. What
defendants ultimately challenged was the content of the uniform
policy, which amounted to a merits question and did not impact the
court's determination of commonality. For this same reason, the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that
predominance was met. The court noted that, when a common policy or
practice forms the basis of the complaint, predominance is likely
present, which was especially true here because the proposed class
allegations implicated only 22 supervisors out of the hundreds of
individual officer-defendants. Because of the purported shakedown
policy, damages could also likely be resolved on a classwide basis,
depending on each facility at issue.

Ali v. City of Chicago, No. 21-1536, 2022 U.S. Dist. App. LEXIS
13197 (7th Cir. May 17, 2022)

Seventh Circuit holds "stealth" class actions impermissible.
Plaintiff sued the City of Chicago, alleging police officers had
violated his constitutional rights. Every version of the complaint
plaintiff filed was drafted for a single plaintiff; there were no
class allegations. But two days before fact discovery closed,
plaintiff moved to certify a class without seeking leave to amend.
The district court granted defendant's motion to strike and denied
plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to include class allegations
because plaintiff's request "came too late in the case." On the
same day plaintiff stipulated to dismissal after settling with
defendant, a third-party (Miller) moved to intervene under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24, claiming to be part of the proposed
class. The district court denied the motion, and Miller appealed.

Affirming the district court's decision, the Seventh Circuit held
that Miller could not have reasonably relied on plaintiff to
protect Miller's interests because the case was never proceeding as
a class action. Though Miller asserted he should be permitted to
intervene because Rule 23 does not require a complaint to include
class allegations, the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument,
noting such "stealth" class actions are impermissible. Rule 23
requires the court to determine whether to certify a class "at an
early practicable time;" but if a plaintiff is allowed to "keep his
class-action intentions hidden," the district court is unable to
comply with Rule 23. "Stealth" class actions would not only hinder
the district court but also prejudice defendants entitled to fair
notice of plaintiff's claims. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed
and rejected Miller's intervention arguments.

In re Stericycle Sec. Litig., No. 20-2055, 2022 U.S. Dist. App.
LEXIS 13414 (7th Cir. May 18, 2022)

Seventh Circuit cuts class action fee award, requiring deeper
analysis from district court.
Plaintiffs filed a securities fraud class action suit against
defendant after its stock price had fallen, alleging defendant made
misleading statements about its billing practices. Following two
years of motion practice and while motions to dismiss were pending,
the parties settled the case, prompting a class member to object to
the attorney fee award of 25% and request discovery into potential
"pay-to-play" arrangements between class counsel and a lead
plaintiff. The class member argued that the fee award was too high
considering the low risk of litigation and the early stage at which
the case settled. The district court denied the class member's
requests, noting the award was reasonable based on the nature of
the case and that it amounted to a percentage of the settlement as
opposed to billable hours or a lodestar calculation. The court also
denied the discovery request because the class member had not
provided any evidence of wrongdoing.

Finding the district court's fee award analysis incomplete, the
Seventh Circuit reserved, pointing out that the district court (i)
failed to consider an ex ante fee agreement in place for one
plaintiff, (ii) did not properly account for the risk of nonpayment
due to prior litigation involving the defendant, and (iii) gave
inadequate weight to the early stage at which the case settled.
Without proper analysis of these considerations, the district court
failed to abide by the market-based approach for calculating fee
awards, warranting remand. The Seventh Circuit did not, however,
reverse the district court's discovery ruling. Although securities
litigation "involves unique pay-to-play concerns," the Seventh
Circuit determined that the value of the discovery the class member
sought did not outweigh the intrusiveness of the request,
especially because the class member's claims turned on political
contributions, which lawyers are free to make.

Sorkin v. Target Corp., No. 21-C-3546 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 2, 2022)

Northern District of Illinois clarifies standing requirements for
consumer fraud class actions.
After purchasing a product labeled "oil free," plaintiff allegedly
discovered the product was mislabeled and filed a class action
against the defendant-retailer for common law fraud, unjust
enrichment, breach of warranties, and violation of various states'
consumer fraud statutes. Despite having bought only one product,
plaintiff included in his complaint 12 other products he believed
were similarly mislabeled. Defendant filed a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings, asserting plaintiff lacked standing to
bring some of his claims.

The district court agreed that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue
claims for products he had not purchased. Noting that standing
requires a personal stake in the case, the court highlighted that
plaintiff had not suffered any injury as to products he had not
purchased. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that standing
should extend to products similar to the product actually
purchased, holding that similarity of possible injury is distinct
from the concrete injury requirement for standing. The court also
denied plaintiff's attempt to alter standing requirements when the
claim is on behalf of a putative class, finding that "someone else
might have been injured by overpayment for th[e] other products
does not matter." The court also noted that plaintiff could not
establish standing by buying the other products now because
standing must be present at the time the suit is filed and "cannot
[be] manufacture[d] [] afterwards," thus precluding an amendment.
The court did, however, allow plaintiff to continue pursuing claims
on behalf of class members who bought the product in nine other
states.

Eighth Circuit
Jones v. Monsanto Co., No. 21-2292, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 17937 (8th
Cir. June 29, 2022)

Eighth Circuit affirms district court decision overruling
objections about the sufficiency of class notice, settlement
amount, and cy pres provision.
The proposed settlement at issue included a $2,500 incentive
payment to each plaintiff, provided for a narrow scope for the
class members' release of claims, named the National Consumer Law
Center and the National Advertising Division of the Better Business
Bureau as cy pres recipients, and provided for an extended notice
period and opt-out deadline. The claims administrator reported that
the Parties' notice efforts reached 82% of class members with an
average of 2.51 contacts. Following the claim period, the valid
claims represented approximately 2-3% of total sales. The parties
estimated that the value of the valid claims will be $11.72 to
$13.34 million, with an attorneys' fee award of $9.89 million, and
administrator's fees of $1.8 million. The remaining $14-16 million
will be distributed cy pres.

Anna St. John objected on the ground that class notice was
insufficient, the amount per claim was insufficient, the donation
to cy pres organizations constitutes compelled speech, and the cy
pres amount should be excluded from the calculation of the
attorneys' fee under a proposed class-wide settlement.

The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by not requiring the parties to subpoena purchase
records from large retailers and sending individual notice to
potential class members identified that way. The court noted the
only evidence in the record suggested that the notice approach
taken was more effective than a listed mailing. The Eighth Circuit
also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding that class members had no equitable claim to funds beyond
50% of the value of the product as such an amount fully compensated
class members.

With regard to cy pres amounts, the Eighth Circuit held that
because cy pres funds are only distributed after class members who
have filed claims are fully compensated, those funds are not taken
from any member of the class and, as such, cannot constitute
compelled speech by any individual class member. The court thus
ruled that the cy pres award cannot be found to infringe on their
first amendment rights. Finally, the Eighth Circuit determined that
using a lodestar analysis which included time spent on prior,
related litigation was appropriate and that including cy pres funds
in the calculation of attorneys' fees was also appropriate.

Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc., 33 F.4th 504 (8th Cir. 2022)

Eighth Circuit rules that district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction under Spokeo.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the decision of the district court and
ruled that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing where an
employer offered plaintiff a job, gave her a start date, and then
revoked the job offer based upon a consumer report without being
given a chance to see or respond to the report. The court ruled
that there is no requirement in the Fair Credit Reporting Act that
an employer offer a prospective employee an opportunity to dispute
or explain the contents of such a consumer credit report.
Similarly, a technical defect in the disclosure form -- in this
case that the font was small and did not use the words "consumer
report" -- was insufficient to confer standing on plaintiff. While
plaintiff did not give a specific authorization regarding her
consumer report, she did authorize defendant to conduct a
background search. Such an authorization was sufficient to allow
searches related to her criminal history and the sex offender
registry.

The Eighth Circuit thus found that plaintiff failed to allege
anything more than technical violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and, as a result, lacked standing. Therefore, the
court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to approve a
settlement. Because the case had been removed to federal court, the
Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with
instructions to return the case to state court.

Monday Restaurants v. Intrepid Insurance Co., 32 F.4th 656, 658
(8th Cir. 2022)

Eighth Circuit affirms district court dismissal of a claim under an
insurance policy providing coverage for "direct physical loss of or
damage to property" relating to the business interruption caused by
COVID-19.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action brought
on behalf of a class of businesses with identical insurance
policies with defendant. Plaintiffs' policies provided coverage for
"direct physical loss of or damage to property." The Eighth Circuit
noted that plaintiffs did not allege that COVID-19 was physically
present on their premises or that any physical damage occurred at
their properties. As such, applying their policies as written, the
Eighth Circuit held that their claims were appropriately dismissed
unless plaintiffs allege a physical loss.

Ninth Circuit
Kellman v. Spokeo, No. 3:21-cv-08976-WHO, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
71985 (N.D. Cal. April 19, 2022)

The injury caused by misappropriating rights of publicity by using
names and likenesses without plaintiffs' consent is sufficient to
confer Article III standing.
Defendant runs a website that provides information about particular
individuals aggregated from various sources. To advertise paid
subscriptions to the site, defendant uses "teasers" – profiles of
real people with some information redacted. Plaintiffs filed a
putative class action alleging that defendant's teasers violated
their rights of publicity by misappropriating their names and
likenesses in violation of California, Ohio, and Indiana law.

Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs lacked Article
III standing because they could not show cognizable injury. The
district court disagreed and denied the motion. Finding that injury
caused by misappropriating rights of publicity are sufficiently
concrete to confer standing, the court explained that this was "a
direct wrong of a personal character resulting in injury to the
feelings without regard to any effect which the publication may
have on the property, business, pecuniary interest, or the standing
of the individual in the community." The district court also found
that misappropriating names, likenesses, and personas is a harm
long recognized at common law before being codified by various
states.

Hogan v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., No. 5:21-cv-00782-JWH-SPX, 2022
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83470 (C.D. Cal. April 7, 2022)

Costs of postage borne by attorneys and attorneys' fees "incurred"
in a contingency fee arrangement do not constitute actual damages
required to sue under California's Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendant alleging
a single claim for alleged violation of California's Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), based on the contention that
plaintiffs requested but did not receive audio recordings of oral
communications with defendant.

In moving to dismiss, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to
allege they sustained actual damages, an essential element of a
RESPA claim and a prerequisite for statutory damages in the Ninth
Circuit. Plaintiffs responded by argued that the mailing costs to
send follow-up letters to defendant constituted actual damages. The
district court sided with defendant and granted the motion, noting
that plaintiffs conceded their counsel transmitted the follow-up
letters, not plaintiffs, and plaintiffs did not sufficiently
establish that they bore the costs. The district court also
rejected plaintiffs' argument that the attorneys' fees they
allegedly incurred in transmitting follow-up letters did not
constitute actual damages because they would not be "incurring"
attorneys' fees if their fee arrangement was on a contingency
basis, and plaintiffs did not specify the type of fee arrangement
they had with their lawyers.

Lohr v. Nissan North America, No. C16-1023RSM, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 83552 (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2022)

Safe harbor provision in Washington's Consumer Protection Act only
shields conduct affirmatively authorized by a government agency,
but plaintiffs cannot rely on what a survey expert may prove in the
future to show the injury required under the statute.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that panoramic
sunroofs for various vehicle models shattered and exploded over
occupants while driving. Plaintiffs alleged claims under Washington
State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA), as well as breach of express
warranty, breach of the warranty of merchantability, and violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court first addressed
defendant's argument that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the
CPA's "safe harbor provision," which provides that the statute does
not apply to "actions or transactions permitted by any . . .
regulatory body or officer acting under statutory authority of this
state or of the United States." Plaintiffs contended that the
sunroofs at issue were defective and unsafe because defendant used
tempered rather than laminated glass. Defendant argued that because
using tempered glass is expressly permitted by federal safety
regulations, neither its use nor a failure to disclose that use can
support a CPA claim. On this issue, the court held that the safe
harbor provision shields only conduct affirmatively authorized by a
government agency and did not apply to plaintiffs' "more nuanced
claim" that defendant violated the CPA in how the tempered glass
was applied to the vehicles in question. Thus, the court found the
safe harbor provision did not preclude plaintiffs' claim that
defendant violated the CPA in how the tempered glass was applied to
the vehicles at issue.

But as to the requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate an unfair or
deceptive act or practice under the CPA, the court found that
plaintiffs failed to make a sufficient showing that defendant knew
of and failed to disclose a potential defect in their panoramic
sunroofs and dismissed the claim on that basis.

As to the CPA's requirement that plaintiffs show some injury,
plaintiffs argued that they overpaid for their vehicles, and that
their experts would calculate the difference between the value of
the defective vehicles as purchased and non-defective vehicles they
believed they were receiving. The court found this evidence "had
not been created yet," and that it would not simply take
plaintiffs' word that their experts would conclude that plaintiffs
overpaid for their vehicles after conducting a class-wide survey.
The court also found that "bizarrely," plaintiffs had not offered
more traditional evidence of injury such as medical bills or repair
expenses.

Ngethpharat v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 80979, No. C20-454 MJP (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2022)

New Ninth Circuit decision Lara v. First Nat'l Insurance Co. of Am.
makes clear that class action plaintiffs with insufficient evidence
of injury lack standing to pursue claims.
Plaintiffs filed a class action against State Farm for allegedly
using an improper method to determine the actual cash value (ACV)
of an insured's total loss. The parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment, with State Farm arguing that under the recent
Ninth Circuit decision in Lara v. First National Insurance Company
of America, 25 F.4th 1134 (9th Cir. 2022), plaintiffs offered
insufficient evidence of injury and thus lacked standing to pursue
their claims.

The court agreed with State Farm, holding that under Lara, 1) to
show an injury for breach of contract, plaintiff must demonstrate
that they received less than the ACV, 2) plaintiff cannot show
injury merely by proving that the insurer failed to follow a
state's regulatory process for determining ACV, and 3) simply
calling defendants' adjustments illegal is insufficient to
demonstrate injury because deviation from the regulatory process
may still lead to the correct ACV. Plaintiffs put forth no evidence
that they received less than the ACV. Rather, they alleged that
State Farm's process for determining ACV was improper, and that
they would have received a higher amount if State Farm used a
proper process. The court held that "[t]his position is fatal under
Lara because Plaintiffs bear the burden of providing evidence that
what State Farm offered is less than the actual ACV for each loss
vehicle." And even though plaintiffs put forth evidence that State
Farm's adjustments "could never be allowed under insurance
regulations," a regulatory violation is not evidence of injury.

Ramirez v. Pac. Bay Masonry, Inc., 2022 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS
4005, No. A163316 (Cal. App. June 27, 2022)

Arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable when
examples of claims in the contract are one-sided.
Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging various wage-and-hour
claims and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
against defendant Pacific Bay. Pacific Bay moved to compel
arbitration. Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement was
procedurally unconscionable because the lead plaintiff did not read
or speak English. On substantive unconscionability, plaintiffs
argued that the agreement was one-sided and lacked mutuality
because the three categories of claims listed "appear[] to
emphasize its application to claims that employees bring to
employers but not . . . claims employers bring to employees." The
court denied the motion to compel and agreed that it was
"minimally" substantively unconscionable, but highly procedurally
unconscionable as Pacific Bay had a "strong suspicion or knowledge
that he did not understand English and did not understand that the
contract would waive his access to the courts regarding employment
related claims."

On appeal, Pacific Bay argued it had no obligation to explain the
provisions to plaintiff, but the court held that California courts
"have made clear that an arbitration provision in an employment
agreement is procedurally unconscionable when presented in English
without explanation to an employee who cannot read English."
Pacific Bay further argued there was insufficient evidence that it
knew plaintiff could not speak English, but the court held that,
because Pacific Bay went through the onboarding documents with
plaintiff in both English and Spanish, there was sufficient
evidence that Pacific Bay had knowledge that plaintiff did not
understand English.

As for substantive unconscionability, the court held that the
agreement was not one-sided, and even though the three categories
of claims described in the arbitration provision were claims an
employee would bring, did not mean the provision did not apply
equally to both the employer and employee, particularly when the
categories were only examples, and the language stated that "both
agree" to arbitration. Thus, because there was no substantive
unconscionability, the court reversed the trial court's denial of
Pacific Bay's motion to compel arbitration.

Tenth Circuit
Fullmer v. A-1 Collection Agency, LLC, No. 4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88090 (D. Utah May 16, 2022)

Claims under Utah's Consumer Sales Practice Act are not preempted
by FRCP 23 because the statute contains substantive provisions that
significantly affect the outcome of litigation by providing for
claims for actual and statutory damages.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action based on defendants'
alleged improper disclosure of confidential personal and protected
health information in state court debt collection proceedings.
Plaintiffs alleged a variety of claims, including under the Utah
Consumer Sales Practice Act (UCSPA).

The UCSPA permits class actions for damages only for consumers who
can show they suffered "actual damages caused by an act or
practice." In opposing defendant's motion to dismiss, plaintiffs
argued that their UCSPA claim was not precluded or limited by the
UCSPA because the statute is preempted by Rule 23.

The court disagreed, applying the two-part test set forth by
Justice Stevens in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010). The court found that under
the first part of the test, there was no direct conflict between
the UCSPA and Rule 23 because the UCSPA does not preclude class
actions, but rather provides substantive requirements for
maintaining class actions seeking actual damages. The court also
ruled that, under the second part of the test, an Erie analysis
showed that the UCSPA subsections at issue were substantive
provisions that significantly affected the outcome of the
litigation by providing claims for actual and statutory damages,
rather than procedural laws. Thus, Rule 23 did not preempt these
claims. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts
to support a plausible claim for damages under the UCSPA, because
although the alleged unauthorized disclosure of medical information
may have amounted to a breach of contract, such disclosure, alone,
was insufficient to allow for a reasonable inference that defendant
impermissibly amended the parties' contracts in violation of the
UCSPA.

Eleventh Circuit
Steven Arkin, Anderson & Wanca v. Pressman, Inc. No. 21-11502 (11th
Cir. 2022)

Eleventh Circuit denies law firm bid for payment of fees from a
common fund when counsel acted against interests of the class.
In this TCPA class action, the Eleventh Circuit rejected an
Illinois law firm's request for an award of attorney's fees from a
common fund, holding that the Illinois law firm Anderson + Wanca
(Wanca) had placed its own interests before those of class
members.

Dr. Steven Arkin, a Florida resident, received an unsolicited fax
from Smith Medical Partners in September 2017. Dr. Arkin filed suit
in the Middle District of Florida individually and on behalf of a
putative class of persons or companies that allegedly received
unsolicited advertisements via fax from Smith Medical in violation
of the TCPA. Wanca represented Arkin and filed suit on behalf of
the putative class. In the ensuing litigation, the parties became
embroiled in a discovery dispute that resulted in an order
requiring Smith Medical to produce various documents for review and
the parties to mediate and report back to the court.

In mediation, the parties reached a settlement that would create a
$21 million common fund to pay verified claims. Wanca would receive
a third of the common fund, i.e., $7 million as a fee award pending
court approval. In the Eleventh Circuit, 25% of a common fund award
is presumptively reasonable. Anything above 25% requires the
district court to analyze 12 factors prior to awarding a higher
percentage award from a common fund.

In an apparent attempt to reap the benefit of more favorable
Illinois law, Wanca dismissed the Florida lawsuit before the
deadline to notify the district court of the outcome of mediation
and instead filed another lawsuit in Illinois state court,
apparently because "Illinois precedent allows state trial courts to
award one-third of the common fund as attorneys' fees in class
actions." The settlement achieved in Florida and taken to Illinois
provided that either party could terminate the settlement at any
time for any reason. If terminated, the lawsuit would return to the
Middle District of Florida.

One of the putative class members, Pressman Inc., objected to the
settlement and retained independent counsel, Bock, Hatch, Lewis
&Oppenheim, LLC (Boch). Smith Medical terminated the settlement,
presumably due to the objection. Dr. Arkin refiled in the Middle
District of Florida and Pressman filed suit in Illinois. The
Illinois suit was later transferred to the Middle District of
Florida and consolidated with the Arkin suit. The second Florida
lawsuit was settled through the efforts of Boch with the creation
of a $4.5 million common fund. The Boch settlement was approved
with each class member receiving $1,100.00 and the Boch firm
receiving $1.125 million in fees as a 25% fee award from the common
fund.

The district court denied a motion filed by Dr. Arkin and Wanca
seeking attorneys' fees out of the common fund. The Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the denial, noting that "only those lawyers who
'recover a common fund' for the plaintiffs are entitled to a
portion of the common fund as a reasonable attorneys' fee." The
court acknowledged that non-class counsel could be awarded
attorney's fees under Rule 23(h) if it conferred a substantial and
independent benefit to the class. But unlike the ordinary case,
"the record clearly shows that Wanca subordinated the interests of
the class to its own interests" and raised ethical issues. The only
reason for Wanca's dismissal of the Florida action and the refiling
in Illinois state court was to benefit the law firm. Moreover, the
court was also troubled by the rather one-sided terms of the
initial settlement that allowed defendant to terminate the
settlement for no reason at all.

Aaron Van Nostrand, Kara E. Angeletti, Angela C. Bunnell, Andrea N.
Chidyllo, Gregory Franklin, and Brian D. Straw also contributed to
this article. [GN]

[*] Lincoln, Alabama to Join Class Action on Water Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Mitchell, writing for Taylor Home, reports that The Lincoln
City Council has approved a contract for legal representation for a
class action lawsuit dealing with water pollution.

During its regular meeting on Aug. 9, the council approved
retaining Beasley, Allen, Crow, Melvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. to
represent the city in a class-action lawsuit. The council approved
the contact after an executive session, which city attorney Micheal
O'Brien said was to talk about potential litigation. He also
introduced Gavin King of Beasley Allen, who attended the meeting to
discuss the matter with the council.[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 ***