/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220823.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 23, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 162

                            Headlines

#1 BROOKLYN FURNITURE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Hindi Says
1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Easton Files Suit in E.D. New York
360 FINANCIAL GROUP: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
3M COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content

A. & M. PIZZA: Brewster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
A.B.C. CARPET CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ABC CORPS 1-3: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
AERO LTD: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTO PHARMACY: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Antitrust, Consumer Suits in California Court
ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement in Class Suit Gets Final Nod
ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Smoking Hazards in Canadian Courts
ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Vaping Products
AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends Must Provide Copy of Distribution Accords

AMERICAN BOTANICAL: Moree Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Personal Rep Substitution in Benacquisto Affirmed
ANIMATION SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: $30M Deal in Mandatory Bag Check Suit Wins Final OK

ARBORWORKS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California
ARIZONA: Faces Garza Suit Over Unlawful Seizure of Private Property
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 8th Cir.
AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle e-Toll Fees Class Suit for $45M
BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bloom et al. Claim

BUILT USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pariseau Suit Under TCPA & FTSA
CARVANA CO: Faces Brent Suit Over 21% Decline of Stock Price
CHICAGO BRIDGE: $14.7M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN: Highpoint Sues over Rent Payments
CONCENTRA HEALTH: Burgoin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California

CORE HOME: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Brown Alleges
DESIGN MASONRY: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Sues Over Ambiguous Electric Pricing Scheme
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Negligence Raps in California Court
EQUIFAX INC: Jenkins Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Score Reporting

EXXONMOBIL CORP: Misclassifies Security Advisors, Tullis Claims
FASHION NOVA: Places Unwanted Telephone Calls, DeLaRosa Suit Says
FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Class Cert. Case Schedule in Chapman
FORD MOTOR: Hagens Berman Sues Over Defect Causing Underhood Fires
GOYA FOODS: Court Junks Ortiz Class Certification Bid

GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Nasseri Suit in California Court
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Suit in California Court
GREETINGQUBE LLC: DeLaRosa Suit Alleges Unsolicited Telephone Calls
HAND IN HAND: Colbert Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
HAWAII: E.R.K. Cross Appeals Ruling on Bid for Add'l. Prof. Fees

HONEYWELL INT'L: Court OKs Settlement of Kanefsky Securities Suit
HYATT CORPORATION: Ct. Vacates all Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines
IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Muhammad Suit Claims
INDEPENDENT BANK: Review of Summary Judgment Denial in Grice Upheld
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Markos Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Overtime

JOOVY HOLDING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Middle Bucks Suit Says
JUUL LABS: River Forest Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Ads
KIA AMERICA: Faces Brady Suit Over Undisclosed Vehicles' Defect
KIRKLAND'S STORES: Court Stays Miles Case Pending Appeal

KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Karp Sues Over False Registration Statements
LIFE TIME: Howard Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir.
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $875,000
LJ DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Encarnacion Claims

LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Antoine Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MASSACHUSETTS: Bucca Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MCDONALD'S USA: Turner Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Antitrust Case
MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice

MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice
MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Denied w/o Prejudice
MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Junked
MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed
MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Tossed w/o Prejudice

META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Claims Deadline Set for $90M Class Deal
MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
MITCHELL MANAGEMENT: Faces Fuelberth FLSA Suit in D. Nebraska
MORGAN STANLEY: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Approved
MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Offers $4M to Settle Data Breach Suit

NABORS COMPLETION: Court Awards $263.9K in Damages in Cisneros Suit
NETWORK TRAVEL: Ex-Employees Sue Pollen's US Unit for Unpaid Wages
NORDSTROM INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
OREGON: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action Over Foster Care
PERFORMANCE ONE: Richards et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces Cooley Suit Over Miscalculation of ACV
PROVENTION BIO: D.N.J. Dismisses Securities Class Action
QUALITY LIFE: Golden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers
RITE AID: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Byars Suit Claims
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rocket Suit

ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Garcia Claims
ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Kearney Claims
RVJ PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Lewis Suit Says
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Underpays Customer Service Staff, Alvaran Says
SNAP INC: Collects Snapchat App Users' Biometrics, Boone Says

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Hurster Suit
STRATEGIC CLEANING: Delgado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
TEXAS: Class Settlement in Roppolo v. Criminal Justice Dept. Upheld
THANK YOU: Catzin Cross-Appeals Attorney Fees' Ruling to 2nd Cir.
THINK FINANCE: Settles Suit Over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme for $44M

UNITED STATES: Angel Sues for Breach of COD Contract Provisions
VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Injunction Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
ZACHARY HOLDINGS: $1.88MM Class Deal in Blackmon Suit Gets Final OK
ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Final Approval & Judgment Issued in Blackmon Suit

                            *********

#1 BROOKLYN FURNITURE: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against #1 Brooklyn
Furniture, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. #1 Brooklyn
Furniture, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04796-KAM-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15,
2022).

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

#1 Brooklyn Furniture Inc. -- https://onebrooklynfurniture.com/ --
is in the Mattresses business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


1-800-FLOWERS.COM INC: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Hindi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-011416 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., August
3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including
the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As
a result, the Plaintiff and Class members are harmed including
violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, says the suit.

1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. is a floral and foods gift retailer and
distribution company, headquartered in Carle Place, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO PA
         401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 400-4713
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                  - and –

         Michael Eisenband, Esq.
         EISENBAND LAW, PA
         515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-4092
         E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Easton Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1StopBedrooms, Inc.
The case is styled as Jennifer Easton, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. 1StopBedrooms, Inc., Payless
Furniture, Inc., Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:22-cv-03763-PKC-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 27, 2022).

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

1StopBedrooms -- https://www.1stopbedrooms.com/ -- stands out for
its vast variety of high-quality furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (646) 979-3642
          Fax: (856) 797-9978
          Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


360 FINANCIAL GROUP: Nichols Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 360 Financial Group
LLC. The case is styled as Terri Lee Nichols, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. 360 Financial Group LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-03899-RS (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2022).

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

360 Financial Group -- https://360financialgroup.com/ -- is an
independently owned national financial & insurance marketing
organization & brokerage agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02544-RMG (D.S.C., August 3, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

               - and –

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

               - and –

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

A. & M. PIZZA: Brewster Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE BREWSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A. & M. PIZZA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:22-cv-03201-MDH (W.D. Mo., August 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Missouri Revised Statutes.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately December of 2020 until October
of 2021.

A. & M. Pizza, Inc. is an owner and operator of Domino's franchises
in Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Courtney Harness, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com

A.B.C. CARPET CO: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.B.C. Carpet Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. A.B.C. Carpet Co. doing
business as ABC Carpet & Home, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04800
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022).

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

A.B.C. Carpet Co. doing business as ABC Carpet & Home, Inc. --
https://abchome.com/ -- is a fine decor and furniture retailer
known for our craftsmanship, quality and integrity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABC CORPS 1-3: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC CORPS. 1-3, et
al. The case is styled as Javier Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. ABC CORPS. 1-3 doing business as:
A & J BISTRO, Hsiao Wei Lin, individually, Case No.
2:22-cv-04366-ES-ESK (D.N.J., June 30, 2022).

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

ABC CORPS. 1-3 doing business as A & J BISTRO offers noodle dishes,
soups & other traditional Taiwanese entrees are the draw at this
informal restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 323-6980
          Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


AERO LTD: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aero LTD. The case is
styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Aero LTD, Case No. 1:22-cv-04799 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2022).

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

Aero LTD. -- https://aero.com/ -- is a semi-private jet flights to
the world's most in-demand destinations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ALTO PHARMACY: Faces Curry Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATOSHA CURRY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. ALTO PHARMACY
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022)
brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking to recover
unpaid wages owed to him and other similarly situated employees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a delivery worker
from on or around May 2022 through and including July 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week,
approximately 80.5 hours during each of the weeks. However, the
Defendant paid her an hourly rate of $21 per hour only for all
hours worked. The Defendant did not pay her overtime premium at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the
Defendant failed to provide her with wage statement and any notice
of her rate of pay, the Plaintiff says.

Alto Pharmacy, LLC operates a pharmacy. [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
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Antitrust, Consumer Suits in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, 17
putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Altria and
JUUL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The lawsuits initially named, in addition to the two
companies, certain senior executives and certain members of the
board of directors of both companies as defendants; however, those
individuals currently or formerly affiliated with Altria were later
dismissed.

In November 2020 these lawsuits were consolidated into three
complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of
indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers). The
consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative
complaint and allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2
and/or 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment
laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening
competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market.


Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages,
attorneys' fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria
and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of our minority investment in
JUUL and rescission of the transaction. We filed a motion to
dismiss these lawsuits in January 2021.

In August 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied our motion to dismiss except with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and equitable relief. However,
plaintiffs were granted the opportunity to re-plead such claims by
the trial court, which plaintiffs did in September 2021.

In January 2022, the trial court ordered that the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs' claims against JUUL be sent to arbitration pursuant to
an arbitration provision in JUUL's online purchase agreement. The
court granted plaintiffs' leave to re-plead the complaint with new
direct-purchaser plaintiffs, which plaintiffs did in February 2022,
substituting in four new plaintiffs.

Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based
in Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Settlement in Class Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that the final approval of a
settlement for a class action was granted in March 2022.

In October and December 2019, two purported Altria shareholders
filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A.
Willard III, the company's former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, and William F. Gifford, Jr., its former Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In December 2019, the court consolidated the two lawsuits into a
single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and under
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. In April 2020, JUUL, its founders
and some of its current and former executives were added to the
lawsuit. The claims allege false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to its investment in JUUL.

Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys'
fees. In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims, which the district court denied in March 2021.
In the fourth quarter of 2021, plaintiffs and defendants agreed
upon a class action settlement under which, among other things, (i)
all claims asserted against Altria and the other named defendants
are resolved without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them
personally or to Altria and (ii) Altria will pay the class an
aggregate amount of $90 million, which amount includes attorneys'
fees.

The class is defined to include persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares of Altria between October 25, 2018
through April 2, 2020, subject to certain exclusions. The trial
court preliminarily approved the settlement in December 2021 and
granted final approval in March 2022.

Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based
in Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Smoking Hazards in Canadian Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, PM
USA and Altria are named as defendants, along with other cigarette
manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian
provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British
Columbia and Ontario.

In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario,
plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who
suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer,
after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in
Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of
classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes.

Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based
in Virginia.


ALTRIA GROUP: Sued Over Vaping Products
---------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that as of July 25, 2022, the
company is a defendant in 58 class action lawsuits relating to its
JUUL e-vapor products.

JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits.
The theories of recovery include violation of the RICO Act, fraud,
failure to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade
practices. Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory
and punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales.
The 58 class action lawsuits include 32 cases involving plaintiffs
whose claims were previously included in other class action
complaints but were refiled as separate stand-alone class actions
for procedural and other reasons. Three of the class action
lawsuits are pending in Canada.

Altria Group, Inc. is into manufacture and sale of cigarettes based
in Virginia.


AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends Must Provide Copy of Distribution Accords
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOOKENDS & BEGINNINGS, LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C.;
MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON &
SCHUSTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-02584 (GHW) (VF)
(S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York orders the Plaintiffs
to provide a copy of each of the distribution agreements between
the Publishers and Amazon, they reference in the amended class
action complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sbvz595z from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN BOTANICAL: Moree Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACOB MOREE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BOTANICAL LLC, and
AVRAHAM KALATSKY, individually, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01850
(M.D. Fla., August 12, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff alleging
the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time
hourly-paid Foreman from September 2019 to April 2022.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants has a practice of
changing employees' timesheets to reflect less hours than the hours
they actually worked. Despite working more than 40 hours a week
during the course of the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant did
not compensate him at the rate of at least one and a half times his
regular hourly rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA for all hours
worked over 40 in the workweek, says the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendants of retaliation since he
was terminated on the same day when he texted Defendant on April
28, 2022 regarding the improper deductions on his timesheet. As a
result of the retaliatory actions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
has suffered damages including lost wages, benefits, and other
remuneration, emotional distress and humiliation.

Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff respectfully requests all legal and
equitable relief allowed by law including judgment against the
Defendant for back pay, unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in the prosecution of the claim and such other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

American Botanical LLC is a supplier of wholesale organic spices,
herbs, and botanicals. Avraham Kalatsky is the director, owner
and/or operator of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZA OWEN, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Tel: (727) 220-4000
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
                  cgray@fgbolaw.com

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hobbs Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Express
Company. The case is styled as Alexandra Hobbs, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. American
Express Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-06942 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022).

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

American Express Company -- http://www.americanexpress.com/-- is
an American multinational corporation specialized in payment card
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
          michael@gottlieb.legal


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Personal Rep Substitution in Benacquisto Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lesa Benacquisto; Daniel Benacquisto; Richard
Thoresen; Elizabeth Thoresen; Arnold Mork; Isabella Mork; Ronald
Melchert; Susan Melchert, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Steven A. Creaturo; Paul Russell; Tyva Russell,
Plaintiffs. Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent,
Plaintiff-Appellant. Richard Osborn, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Marjory Gail Thomas Osborn-Vincent, Movant-Appellant v.
American Express Financial Corporation, Sued as: American Express
Financial Service Corp.; American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.;
American Centurion Life Assurance Company of New York, Sued as:
American Centurion Life Assurance Company; American Enterprise Life
Insurance Company; American Partners Life Insurance Company; IDS
Life Insurance Company; IDS Life Insurance Company of New York,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-2210 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the district court's
judgment granting the Defendants' motion to substitute Richard
Osborn as the Estate's personal representative, denying the
Estate's motion to dismiss, and granting the Defendants' motion to
enforce the settlement agreement.

Ms. Osborn-Vincent was an unnamed class member in an action settled
in the District of Minnesota involving alleged misrepresentations
made by the Defendants while marketing, selling, administering, and
servicing various life insurance and annuity products --
Benacquisto v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., Civil No.
0:00-cv-1980-DSD/DTS (D. Minn. 2001). After Osborn-Vincent died in
March 2016, her Estate commenced an action in Oregon asserting
various contract, fraud, and elder abuse claims pertaining to
Osborn-Vincent's 1989 purchase of a purported "single-premium
universal life insurance policy." Her Estate alleges that beginning
in 2010, the Defendants started charging monthly premiums and costs
that eventually led to the depletion of the policy's funds, which
ultimately caused it to lapse. The district court granted the
Defendants' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and enjoined
the Estate from pursuing the Oregon claims.

In a prior appeal, the Eighth Circuit found personal jurisdiction
lacking because the Defendants had not served the party they sought
to enjoin (the Estate's personal representative), nor had they
moved to substitute the personal representative as a party. On
remand, the district court addressed the Eighth Circuit's concerns
and granted the Defendants' motion to substitute Richard Osborn as
the Estate's personal representative, denied the Estate's motion to
dismiss, and granted the Defendants' motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.

The Estate again appeals, contending the district court erred by
making insufficient and erroneous findings relating to jurisdiction
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a), by misapplying the facts
and circumstances when it enforced the settlement agreement and
enjoined the Estate from pursuing claims in Oregon, and by
declining to apply the equitable doctrines of laches and unclean
hands.

The Estate asserts the defendants failed to properly serve the
personal representative under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and that substitution of the personal representative was
untimely and improper under Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Eighth Circuit finds both arguments unavailing. "Rule 25(a) is
a procedural rule setting forth the proper method for the
substitution of parties, and federal courts must apply federal
rules, rather than state law, in determining the proper procedure
for substitution following a party's death." Because the decision
to allow the substitution of a party lies within the sound
discretion of the district court, the Eighth Circuit reviews the
district court's determination to substitute a party for an abuse
of discretion.

According to the Estate, service was deficient because the
Defendants served the personal representative with their motions to
enforce the settlement agreement and for party substitution, but
not a summons and complaint. While Rule 25(a)(1) could be clearer,
a careful reading of the rule coupled with an understanding of its
purposes leads to two conclusions. First, to trigger the 90-day
limitation period set forth in the rule, a party must serve a
statement noting death. The rule, however, was not intended to
mandate a statement noting death. And, second, a motion to
substitute a party and/or a suggestion of death must be served on
other parties as provided in Rule 5 and on non-parties in the
manner provided by Rule 4.

To effectuate service under Rule 4, a party may either follow state
law where service is made or fulfill one of the following: (a)
deliver a copy to the individual personally; (b) leave a copy at
the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of
suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (c) deliver a
copy to an authorized agent. The personal representative (a
non-party) was served with the motion to substitute in a manner
provided by Rule 4, received notice in compliance with Rule 25(a),
and was properly brought within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota
district court. Under these circumstances, service of a summons and
complaint contemporaneously with service of the motion to
substitute party was neither required by Rule 25(a) nor caused
service to be deficient for purposes of substitution of a deceased
party following the Eighth Circuit's remand.

The Estate also contends the district court erred because the
request to substitute was untimely since it was made more than 90
days after the Estate filed a formal notice of death. It argues two
statements in its 15-page brief in opposition to the Defendants'
first motion to enforce the settlement, which does nothing more
than make a passing reference to "Decedent's death" and "records at
her death," is the equivalent to a formal notice of death. The
Estate's interpretation of the meaning of formal notice is
inconsistent with the common understanding of the term and the
Eighth Circuit's precedent.

The Estate next argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction
because the personal representative has no contacts to Minnesota.
Despite the personal representative's purported lack of contacts
with Minnesota, Osborn-Vincent did not opt out of the Benacquisto
class action, and the district court explicitly retained
jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court has
explained the lesser need for external protections of class
plaintiffs in certain situations.

The district court approved the minimally required procedural due
process safeguards in the class action, including notice of the
Benacquisto class action and an opportunity for class members to
participate in the litigation and be heard. Beyond the Estate's
self-serving statements, the Eighth Circuit finds no evidence
suggesting the Defendants did not follow the approved procedures
when notifying Osborn-Vincent or that Osborn-Vincent did not
receive a benefit -- free accidental death benefit insurance -- in
exchange for release of the identified claims. The district court
did not err in finding it had personal jurisdiction over Richard
Osborn, as the personal representative of the Estate, who is bound
by the terms of the Benacquisto settlement agreement.

Lastly, the Estate seeks review of the district court's decision
declining to apply the doctrines of laches or unclean hands. The
Eighth Circuit reviews the district court's determination relating
to equitable defenses for abuse of discretion. Upon careful review
of the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding the doctrines of laches and unclean hands were inapplicable
under the facts and circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's judgment is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wdbxtmt from Leagle.com.


ANIMATION SHOPS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Animation Shops, Inc.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Animation Shops, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06934 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2022).

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

AnimationShops.com -- https://www.animationshops.com/ -- has the
largest collection of Movie T-Shirts, Superhero T-Shirts and
Cartoon T-Shirts.[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


APPLE INC: $30M Deal in Mandatory Bag Check Suit Wins Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher and Jessy Edwards of topclassactions.com report that
U.S. District Judge William Alsup on Aug. 13 granted final approval
of a $30.4 million settlement to end claims Apple Inc. illegally
forced employees to submit to off-the-clock security bag checks
when they left the workplace after or during their shifts.  Class
members will be compensated at about $2.95 net value per shift, the
settlement says. About $9 million will go to lawyers' fees.

A group of employees filed the Apple class action lawsuit back in
2013, according to Bloomberg, and accused the company of violating
California law by not paying them for the time spent waiting for
their bags to be checked.

"The court finds that the settlement offers significant monetary
recovery to all participating settlement class members and finds
that such recovery is fair, reasonable and adequate when balanced
against the risk of further litigation related to damages issues,"
Judge Alsup says in his approval.

The Apple security bag check lawsuit was dismissed in 2015, but the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case in 2020 and
ruled Apple must pay employees for the time it took to complete a
security bag check.

Apple argued the security bag checks were to ensure workers were
not stealing electronic goods by hiding them in their bags. The
tech giant said that employees could simply choose not to bring
bags to work if they did not like the security bag check policy.

Apple reportedly stopped its bag check policy in December 2015.

Class members of the proposed Apple security bag check settlement
include 14,683 workers who were employed at Apple stores in
California. Each class member will reportedly receive an average
settlement payment of $1,286.

The Apple settlement documents note class members were owed about
$800 in unpaid wages on average, assuming they underwent five
minutes of unpaid security search time each day they worked.

The Apple security bag check class action settlement was
preliminarily approved Dec. 28, 2021.

Eligible class members will not be required to submit a claim form
to receive their Apple settlement payment, according to the class
action settlement documents.

The deadline for class members to object to or exclude themselves
from the Apple bag check settlement was April 26. A final approval
hearing was held July 7.

More information about the Apple class action settlement is
available at AppleBagCheckSettlement.com.

Class Members are represented by Lee Shalov, Brett Gallaway and
Jason Scott Giaimo of McLaughlin & Stern LLP and Kimberly Kralowec
and Kathleen Styles Rogers of Kralowec Law PC.

The Apple security bag check class action lawsuit is Amanda
Frlekin, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03451, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.[GN]

ARBORWORKS LLC: Gonzalez Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ramon Tovar Gonzalez, an individual, and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ArborWorks,
LLC, Case No. MCV087349 was removed from the Madera County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Aug. 15, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01030-DAD-SKO to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

ArborWorks, LLC -- https://arborworksinc.com/ -- is a professional
tree care service that specializes in Utility Line Clearance and
Vegetation Management across the West Coast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan N. Higday, Esq.
          WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
          7700 Irvive Center Dr., Suite 930
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 674-4922
          Email: mhigday@jnwpc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 824-3828
          Fax: (310) 862-6851
          Email: jm@melmedlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nina Montazeri, Esq.
          Keahn Noble Morris, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Floor 17
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 774-3136
          Fax: (415) 403-6210
          Email: nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com
                 kmorris@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Greg Stephen Labate, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER, AND HAMPTON
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (714) 424-2823
          Fax: (714) 513-5130
          Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com



ARIZONA: Faces Garza Suit Over Unlawful Seizure of Private Property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GARZA and KEVIN TERRELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROB WOODS, in his
individual and official capacities as Director of Arizona
Department of Revenue, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01310-JJT (D.
Ariz., August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Arizona Revised Unclaimed Property Act, the
Arizona Constitution, and the United States Constitution.

The case arises from the Defendant's actions in taking possession
of private property without adequate notice to Plaintiffs and
putative Class members, and then selling property without notice to
the property owners, or without their consent. The Defendant is
disregarding the requirements of the UPA so he can seize private
property from citizens, use it to generate interest income for the
State, and then convert it for use as revenue for the State. The
Defendant breached his fiduciary duties to the private property
owners as custodian of their property by failing to render an
accounting and otherwise mishandling the private property. The
Plaintiffs seek restitution and just compensation for the property
seized for public use as a result of the Defendant's actions, says
the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         William M. Fischbach, Esq.
         TIFFANY & BOSCO PA
         Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
         2525 East Camelback Road
         Phoenix, AZ 85016-4237
         Telephone: (602) 255-6000
         Facsimile: (602) 255-0103
         E-mail: wmf@tblaw.com

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court
ruling granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled Mason's Auto Collision
Center, Plaintiff, v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment
premised on allegations that the Defendant overinflated Coinsurance
premiums by wrongfully including the value of foundations which
were otherwise excluded from insurance coverage when determining
the value of a covered property.

On May 6, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
multi-state class or, in the alternative, an Arkansas-only class
under Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The multi-state class is proposed to include the 20
states in which Defendant does business: Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

On June 2, 2022, the Defendant filed a response in opposition to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On July 13, 2022, District Judge P.K. Holmes III granted in part
the Plaintiff's motion, certifying an Arkansas-only class. The
Court declined to certify a multi-state class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) saying that declaratory judgment on a multi-state basis is
inappropriate.

The appellate case is captioned as Mason's Auto Collision Center v.
Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Case No. 22-8014, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent MASON'S AUTOMOTIVE COLLISION CENTER, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

           William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
            Thomas Thrash, Esq.
            THRASH LAW FIRM
            1101 Garland Street
            Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
            Telephone: (501) 374-1058

                   - and -

            Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
            MILLIGAN LAW OFFICES
            500 S. 16th Street
            P.O. Box 2347
            Fort Smith, AR 72901

Defendant-Petitioner AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, is represented
by:

            Jamie Huffman Jones, Esq.
            FRIDAY & ELDREDGE
            2000 Regions Center
            400 W. Capitol Avenue
            Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
            Telephone: (501) 376-2011

                   - and -

            Lori McAllister, Esq.
            201 Townsend Street
            Lansing, MI 48933
            Telephone: (517) 374-9150

                   - and -

            Todd Noteboom, Esq.
            STINSON, LLP
            Suite 2600
            50 S. Sixth Street
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 335-1500

                   - and -

            William D. Thomson, Esq.
            STINSON, LLP
            Suite 2600
            50 S. Sixth Street
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 335-1605

AVIS BUDGET: Agrees to Settle e-Toll Fees Class Suit for $45M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of topclassactions.com reports that Avis Budget
Group has agreed to pay $45 million as part of a settlement
resolving class action claims it charged its rental car customers
secret extra fees when using its electronic toll-payment service.

Avis Budget -- which was doing business as Avis Rent A Car System
LLC and Budget Rent A Car System Inc. -- along with its private
contractor Highway Toll Administration LLC made the agreement with
a class of customers led by Jose Mendez.  The company has agreed to
pay as much as $45 million to resolve the claims and cover all of
the associated costs with the complaint originally filed by Mendez
in November 2011.

Mendez, in his class action lawsuit, argued he had not been
informed that he would automatically be enrolled in an e-Toll
subscription and subsequently be charged a "convenience fee" of
$2.50 per day and up to $10 per week, reports Law360.  The fees,
Mendez claimed, were charged to him regardless of whether or not he
made payments on any tolls he incurred while driving on the
highway.

Class certification was granted for the class action lawsuit in
November 2017, while a subsequent challenge by Avis Budget was
denied and then later upheld in August 2018 by the judge overseeing
the complaint, reports Law360. Avis Budget had attempted to make a
defense based on a statute of limitations, with the company
unsuccessfully arguing more time had passed than would be allowed
for certain class members claims. Multiple mediation and settlement
sessions preceded the current proposed class action settlement,
reports Law360.

This is not the first time Avis has been the target of a class
action lawsuit.  In 2019, Avis rental car drivers asked for class
certification for a separate class action lawsuit accusing the
company of charging drivers undisclosed fines and fees for traffic
violations.

The plaintiff is represented by Joseph J. DePalma and Jeremy Nash
of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC and Judith L. Spanier of Abbey
Spanier LLP.

The Avis e-Toll fees class action lawsuit is Mendez v. Avis Budget
Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06537, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.[GN]

BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bloom et al. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
TORI BLOOM, JUAN JOSE “CHARLIE” GERS, ADAM KING, MATTHEW
KUEHLER, CONNOR MCBRIDE, WILLIAM POMROY, STEVEN SCHROEDER, AND
LENELL WYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE-GRACE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 523378/2022 (N.Y. SUP. CT., August 12, 2022) seek to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages as a result of the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Business
Development Executives and Account Executives, claim that while
employed by the Defendant, they consistently worked more than 40
hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees have been victims
of the Defendant's common policy and plan that have violated their
rights under the FLSA by improperly classifying Sales
Representatives as overtime exempt, requiring them to work over 40
hours a week, and denying them overtime compensation, the
Plaintiffs assert.

Blue-Grace Logistics, LLC is a transportation logistics company.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 245-1000
          Fax: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com
                  rpattiz@outtengolden.com

BUILT USA: Court Refuses to Dismiss Pariseau Suit Under TCPA & FTSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven D. Merryday of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case, TARAZ PARISEAU, Plaintiff v. BUILT USA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-2902-SDM-JSS (M.D Fla.).

In this putative class action, Pariseau sues Built USA under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 277(c)(5), and
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Florida Statutes Section
501.059(10)(a).

Ms. Pariseau, an Oklahoma resident, owns a cellular telephone that
she uses exclusively "for residential purposes." On May 11, 2021,
she registered her cellphone number in the National Do-Not-Call
Registry.

Built USA, a limited liability company in Palm Harbor, Florida,
hosts sweepstakes that a person can enter by paying a fee. Built
USA advertises by sending a person a text message and a link to
enter. It delivers the text-message advertisement by using "an
automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers."

On Nov. 16, 2021, Built USA sent a text-message advertisement to
the phone number that Pariseau listed in the Do-Not-Call Registry.
Pariseau never invited or consented to the text message. She
quickly responded "stop" to the unsolicited text, but Built USA
failed to honor the request and continued sending Pariseau
unsolicited text messages advertising a Built USA sweepstakes.
Although Pariseau respond "stop" to each new text message, Built
USA never complied with her request. From Nov. 16, 2021, through
Dec. 2, 2021, Built USA sent Pariseau six unsolicited text
messages.

In a four-count complaint asserting individual and putative class
claims, Pariseau sues Built USA under the TCPA and under the FTSA.
Built USA moves to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Pariseau responds in
opposition.

Counts I and II claim that Built USA's unsolicited and persistent
text messages violate the "do-not-call" protections of the TCPA
under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5). In Section 227(c), the TCPA
directs the FCC to implement regulations protecting a residential
telephone subscriber's "right to avoid receiving telephone
solicitations to which they object." To enforce these regulations,
Section 227(c)(5) confers a private right of action on a person
who, within any 12 months, receives "more than one telephone call
by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations
prescribed under Section 227(c)."

Ms. Pariseau alleges that each of Built USA's text messages
violates two regulations "prescribed under" Section 227(c). Moving
to dismiss Counts I and II, Built USA argues that Counts I and II
fail to state a claim because 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) confers a
claim on a recipient of at least two "telephone calls" -- not text
messages. Because Pariseau alleges the receipt of text messages
only, it argues that Counts I and II warrant dismissal.

Judge Merryday holds that in several rules, the FCC reiterates that
the TCPA affords text messages "the same consumer protections as
voice calls." To that end, the FCC interprets "call" and "telephone
call" in Section 227(b) to include both a voice call and a text
message. Because Pariseau in Counts I and II alleges the receipt of
"more than one" text message violating 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)
and (d), Counts I and II state a claim.

Counts III and IV assert a claim under the FTSA, which regulates a
"telephonic sales call" either originating in Florida or directed
to "consumers located in Florida." Section 501.059(10)(a) confers a
private right of action on "a called party who is aggrieved by a
violation of the FTSA."

Pariseau alleges that Built USA's text messages violate two
subsections of the FTSA. In Count III, she alleges that Built USA
violated Section 501.059(8)(a) by sending each text message using
"an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers." And in Count IV, she alleges that each text message
violates Section 501.059(2) by failing to identify the first and
last name of the person sending the text and by failing to identify
the business on whose behalf a text was sent.

Moving to dismiss, Built USA urges that Counts III and IV warrant
dismissal because the FTSA violates the United States Constitution
and the Florida Constitution. It argues both that the FTSA
unconstitutionally restricts speech and that the phrase "automated
system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" is
unconstitutionally vague. In response, however, Pariseau persuades
that the FTSA satisfies the United States Constitution and the
Florida Constitution.

As Pariseau demonstrates in response, the FTSA "directly advances"
Florida's interest in protecting "residential privacy and
tranquility" and "leaves open alternative channels for
communication." Thus, the FTSA satisfies intermediate scrutiny and
Built USA's challenge fails. Moreover, Built USA's claims better
support an argument for a specific interpretation of the section --
not an argument that the section so completely evades
interpretation as to render the FTSA unconstitutional. Because the
phrase "automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone
numbers" "conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to" the
regulated methods of transmitting a sales call, the vagueness
challenge fails.

For these reasons and for other reasons asserted in Pariseau's
response, Built USA fails to successfully challenge any claim in
the complaint. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/p9psfaym from Leagle.com.


CARVANA CO: Faces Brent Suit Over 21% Decline of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARVANA CO., ERNEST GARCIA III, and MARK
JENKINS, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04870 (D.N.J., August 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission pertaining to Carvana's business, operations and
prospects to trade Carvana securities at artificially inflated
prices between May 6, 2020 and June 24, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants 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, the Defendants'
statements about Carvana's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times, says the suit.

When the truth emerged, the company's share price fell $6.78 per
share, or 21 percent, over the next two trading days, to close at
$24.74 per share on June 28, 2022, damaging investors.

Carvana Co. is an operator of e-commerce platform for buying and
selling used cars, with its head office is located at 1930 W. Rio
Salado Parkway, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, PA
         One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 313-1887
         Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

CHICAGO BRIDGE: $14.7M in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:17-CV-1580 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses.

The matter came before the Court upon a Final Approval Hearing on
July 25, 2022. During the Final Approval hearing, the Court
considered, among other things, the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. At the Final Approval Hearing, it
instructed the Plaintiffs to submit certain supplemental
information regarding, inter alia, their request for attorneys'
fees. The motion is unopposed by the Defendants and no objections
were made to it.

Having considered the motion papers, the Plaintiffs' supplemental
submission, the Stipulation of Settlement which the Court
preliminarily approved on Feb. 7, 2022, and has now finally
approved, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Judge
Schofield approves the Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award
of $14,666,667 in attorneys' fees, plus accrued interest on that
amount. Fifty percent of the awarded attorneys' fees will be
payable upon entry of the Order, with the remaining 50% to be
payable after substantially all of the Recognized Claims have been
paid from the Settlement Fund upon application to the Court.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation
expenses in the amount of $3,462,683.78, plus accrued interest on
that amount, is approved. Judge Schofield has reviewed these
expenses and finds that they are reasonable and appropriate. The
awarded expenses will be payable to the Plaintiffs' Counsel upon
entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/fh39wujp from Leagle.com.


COLUMBUS METROPOLITAN: Highpoint Sues over Rent Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rantala of abc6onyourside.com reports that after a series of
ABC 6 On Your Side Problem Solvers investigations into the Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Authority, CMHA and its third-party vendor CGI
are subject to a class-action lawsuit filed within Franklin County
Common Pleas Court.

The plaintiff, Highpoint Asset Management, claims the housing
authority owes them money due to not making Section 8 rent payments
for tenants. That along with delayed housing inspections now
conducted by CGI are being cited as a breach of contract, breach of
duties, and acting in a wanton and reckless manner.  Multiple calls
on CMHA issues continue to come into Problem Solvers from both
tenants and landlords. In July 2022, Paulette Clark was still
waiting for an inspection to move into new housing. She cannot
receive federal rent assistance without it. Due to the delay, she
said she's slept in both motels and her sister's car since
January.

After Clark's story was featured on ABC 6/FOX 28, Highpoint Asset
Property Manager Amber Corbett called Problem Solvers to say she's
not received rent for many of her Section 8 tenants from CMHA for
months. Corbett said she needed help to expose the matter in
attempts not to evict them.

"We're in a housing crisis, right now," Corbett said last month.
"If we're expected to take certain organizations in, somebody needs
to be accountable to make sure we're getting paid."

Highpoint Asset Management Attorney Alex Castle said the lack of
payments is adding up as well as the stress for their Section 8
tenants worried about eviction. He is listed on the suit filed on
behalf of affected tenants and landlords of 13,000 Section 8
properties in Columbus. The suit states CMHA continues to take
applications for its Section 8 program while not fulfilling duties.
Allegations claim, "As a direct and proximate cause of this
inequity, CMHA has been unjustly enriched."

Representatives for CMHA first told Problem Solvers this week that
they were unaware of the lawsuit. They then responded that they do
not comment on matters subject to pending litigation. Last month,
CMHA administration said that they had laid off dozens of employees
and hired third-party vendor CGI. They admit the transition was
rocky and caused a 10-day window of no inspections and created a
backlog of 1,300 cases.

The next court date scheduled for the lawsuit is scheduled for
October.[GN]

CONCENTRA HEALTH: Burgoin Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMANTHA BURGOIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.;
SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 37-2022-00024622-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
August 4, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01152-L-MSB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, meal period violations, rest period violations,
failure to pay paid sick leave and supplemental paid sick leave
wages, untimely payment of wages, wage statement violations,
waiting time penalties, unfair competition, civil penalties for
failure to pay all wages, civil penalties for failure to pay all
overtime, civil penalties for meal period violations, civil
penalties for rest period violations, civil penalties for untimely
payment of wages, civil penalties for wage statement violations,
failure to timely pay all wages upon separation, civil penalties
for paid sick leave violations, and civil penalties recordkeeping
violations.

Concentra Health Services, Inc. is a national health care company
doing business in California.

Select Employment Services, Inc. is a staffing firm doing business
in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jared L. Palmer, Esq.
         Ryan C. Finn, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 442-4810
         Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
         E-mail: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
                 ryan.finn@ogltree.com

                  - and –

         Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com

CORE HOME: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Brown Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE HOME SECURITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:22-cv-81224-AMC (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Florida Do Not Call Act, and the Florida
Telemarketing Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telephone calls on
the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers using an artificial or prerecorded voice in an attempt to
sell home security without obtaining prior express written consent.
As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members seek to recover statutory damages and injunctive and
equitable relief, says the suit.

Core Home Security, LLC is a security system supplier, with a
principal place of business at 949 A Clint Moore Road, Boca Raton,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
         Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33131-2800
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
         E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                 sbeck@bursor.com

DESIGN MASONRY: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGN MASONRY, INC. and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV25106 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., August 3, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code including
failure to keep accurate records, failure to provide rest period,
failure to provide meal period, failure to provide recovery period,
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, statutory wage
violations, refusal to make payment, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, sick leave
violations, untimely payment of final wages, unlawful inquiries
into salary history, and unlawful agreements/unlawful criminal
history inquiries.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee until November 2021.

Design Masonry, Inc. is a masonry contractor in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
         Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
         Blake R. Jones, Esq.
         Jonathan Stilz, Esq.
         CROSNER LEGAL, PC
         9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 496-5818
         Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
         E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 blake@crosnerlegal.com
                 jon@crosnerlegal.com

DIRECT ENERGY: Gant Sues Over Ambiguous Electric Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and NRG ENERGY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04906 (D.N.J., August 4, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Truth-In-Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discretionary and
deceptive pricing scheme for electricity and/or natural gas. Direct
Energy failed to abide by the regulations by setting forth an
ambiguous pricing mechanism. The ambiguity of the pricing term set
the parameters which allowed Direct Energy unfettered discretion to
charge whatever it wished. As a result of Direct Energy's unlawful
and bad faith pricing scheme, New Jersey consumers are being
fleeced millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity
and/or natural gas, says the suit.

Direct Energy Services, LLC is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.,
with its corporate headquarters located in Houston, Texas.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy company, with its corporate
headquarters located in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

                - and –

         Marc Edelson, Esq.
         Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                 elechtzin@edelson-law.com

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Negligence Raps in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edison International disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that it is facing one lawsuit
filed in the superior courts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties
alleging, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation,
personal injury, wrongful death, trespass, private nuisance, and
violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes.

Edison International is the parent holding company of Edison Energy
based in California.


EQUIFAX INC: Jenkins Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Score Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------
NYDIA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03072-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga., August 3, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant provided inaccurate
credit scores to lenders about potentially millions of individuals
who applied for credit from mid-March through early April 2022 due
to a glitch in its technology systems. As a result of the
inaccurate reporting of their consumer credit information, the
Plaintiff and Class Members have experienced damages including loss
of use of and access to financial accounts and/or credit; money and
time expended to avail themselves of assets and/or credit frozen or
flagged due to inaccuracies; and impairment of their credit scores,
ability to borrow, and/or ability to obtain credit. The Plaintiff
seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for its conduct and seeks
vindication and recompense on behalf of the individual consumers
who were harmed by Equifax's negligent and/or willful violations of
the FCRA, says the suit.

Equifax, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency, with its principal
place of business located at 1550 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gregory J. Bosseler, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN ATLANTA, PLLC
         191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200,
         Atlanta, GA 30303
         Telephone: (404) 496-7254
         Facsimile: (404) 720-3835
         E-mail: GBosseler@forthepeople.com

                  - and –

         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
         Patrick Barthle, Esq.
         Hope V. Whalen, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 559-4908
         Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
         E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                 pbarthle@forthepeople.com
                 hwhalen@forthepeople.com

EXXONMOBIL CORP: Misclassifies Security Advisors, Tullis Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN TULLIS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00192 (S.D. Tex., August 12, 2022) brings this complaint as
a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a security advisor
from approximately February 2019 until December 2020.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he and
other similarly situated Security Advisors were improperly
classified by the Defendant as an independent contractor exempt
form overtime. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, they were paid a day-rate for each day worked, regardless
of how many hours they worked in a day or week, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Security
Advisors, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses, attorneys' fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

Exxonmobil Corporation engages in the production and provisions of
energy, fuel, lubricants, and chemicals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Alyssa White, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  awhite@mybackwages.com

                - and –

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

FASHION NOVA: Places Unwanted Telephone Calls, DeLaRosa Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER DELAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 154670953 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including
the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As
a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, the
suit says.

Fashion Nova, LLC is a consumer goods retailer doing business in
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
         KUHN RASLAVICH, PA
         2110 West Platt Street
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 422–7782
         Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
         E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com

FEDEX GROUND: Court Amends Class Cert. Case Schedule in Chapman
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS CHAPMAN and JOHN
CHURCHWELL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as representatives of the State of California on
behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a FedEx Home Delivery, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-00410-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order amending case
schedule as follows:

            Event                           Deadline

  -- Expert disclosures re class        February 17, 2023
     certification:

  -- Rebuttal Expert disclosures        March 17, 2023
     re class certification:

  -- Class Certification Discovery      April 26, 2023
     Completion Date:

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class       May 22, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Defendant's Opposition to          August 4, 2023
     Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply re Class         September 18, 2023
     Certification:

Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel V. Santiago, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V.
          SANTIAGO, PC
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (760) 652-9801
          E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D.
          GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

               - and -

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310 A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999-4225
          E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brandy T. Cody, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 242-4262
          Facsimile: (503) 242-4263
          E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Usama Kahf, Esq.
          Sunny H. Huynh, Esq.
          E-mail: ukahf@fisherphillips.com
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-2424
          Facsimile: (949) 851-0152

FORD MOTOR: Hagens Berman Sues Over Defect Causing Underhood Fires
------------------------------------------------------------------
A new class-action lawsuit aimed at Ford accuses the automaker of
knowingly mishandling a purported "fix" for a defect causing
underhood fires, localized melting of components or smoke in more
than 100,000 recalled hybrid Ford Escape, Maverick and Lincoln
Corsair vehicles, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

According to the lawsuit, Ford's official response for the defect
-- which has led to at least 23 reported instances of smoke,
ignition and fire -- has been to drill holes in the under-engine
shield and to remove four blinds from the active grille shutter
system. Ford's response does nothing to address the manufacturing
defect -- which can cause the engine to leak flammable fluids and
vapors -- the lawsuit says, and creates an environmental hazard,
setting the stage for future property damage and possible injury.

If you purchased or leased a 2020-2022 Ford Escape, 2022 Ford
Maverick or 2021-2022 Lincoln Corsair, contact Hagens Berman to
find out more about this issue and your consumer rights against
Ford.

"Ford admits that the Fire Defect Vehicles suffer from engine
manufacturing issues that can cause engine failures involving
engine block or oil pan breach. But Ford's fix is wholly silent as
to this admittedly affected component," the lawsuit states. "Ford
leaves the engines exactly as they are and instead drills holes
into the under-engine shield and removes blinds from the active
grille shutter to prevent oil and gas from pooling in the car. This
'fix' does not live up to its name because the engines in the Fire
Defect Vehicles may still leak flammable fluids and vapors -- a
problem Ford does not address."

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan and stems from a defect affecting Ford's
2.5-liter hybrid electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle engines that can cause engine oil and fuel vapor to
accumulate near ignition sources, resulting in underhood smoke and
fires.

Attorneys say that instead of meaningfully fixing the defect, Ford
has chosen instead to drill holes into the under-engine shield,
allowing any pooled fluids or vapors to leak out. Ford's meager
response comes even though the affected vehicles are nearly all
still covered under Ford's new vehicle and powertrain warranties.

"Ford's fix is essentially rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,"
said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman co-founder and managing partner.
"While drivers, their families and others on the road attend to the
real crisis of a potential vehicle fire due to this manufacturing
defect, Ford's solution does nothing to address the issue at hand
and will mean an unknowable amount of engine fluids will be spilled
onto roads, leaching into groundwater and soil."

What Ford Knew

According to the suit, Ford puts its vehicles through a Total
Durability Cycle, described by Ford as "sped-up evaluation runs
around the clock, day and night, to simulate 10 years, or
240,000km, of severe customer usage in just a few weeks."

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration documents reveal
that an issue pertaining to underhood fires was brought to Ford's
Critical Concern Review Group for review on May 4, 2022. During the
Review Group's analysis from May 4 through June 8, 2022, the Group
included data from 19 field reports of underhood fire or smoke
pertaining to the affected hybrids. Ford's investigation continued
up until the recall and uncovered four more reports of underhood
smoke or fires in the affected vehicles, according to the lawsuit.
Attorneys say Ford has yet to address these manufacturing issues.

"We find Ford's response to this frightening issue to be both
irresponsible and ineffectual," Berman said.

The lawsuit says owners are left with vehicles that may still leak
highly flammable oil if their engines succumb to the manufacturing
issues identified.

Not as Advertised

The lawsuit details multiple advertisements for the affected Ford
Escape, Maverick and Lincoln Corsair hybrids in which Ford touts
the family-friendly qualities of the vehicles, their reliability
and the confidence owners can have in their safety and other
features.

The lawsuit's named plaintiff representing the class of consumers
uses the vehicle to take his two children to school and to run
errands, and the California father says at no point did Ford or its
agents or representatives disclose the defect to him before he
purchased his Ford Maverick.

The lawsuit seeks damages and a repair, and brings claims of
warranty violation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and
violations of state consumer protection laws based on Ford's
omissions regarding the defect and its failure to act quickly in
disclosing and providing a remedy.

Hagens Berman has brought dozens of class-action lawsuits against
automakers, including an additional class action filed against Ford
in July 2022 for spontaneous fires in its luxury SUVs. Hagens
Berman has helped successfully secure the largest automotive
settlements in history.

Additional information on the class-action lawsuit is available
at:

    
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ford-escape-maverick-and-lincoln-corsair-hybrid-fires

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.

Media Contact:

Ashley Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
206-268-9363 [GN]

GOYA FOODS: Court Junks Ortiz Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTIZ and SAUL
HERNANDEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. GOYA FOODS, INC., and A.N.E. SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-19003-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Stanley R. Chesler
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Goya Foods is an American producer of a brand of foods sold in the
United States and many Spanish-speaking countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3rwCN at no extra charge.[CC]


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Nasseri Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Construction Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that a class
action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations
under the Securities Act of 1933 where a motion for class
certification has been granted by the court in May 2021.

On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, titled
"Nasseri v. Granite Construction Incorporated, et. al.," was filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against
the Company, James H. Roberts, its former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Laurel Krzeminski, its former Chief Financial
Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of
persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the
company's June 2018 merger with Layne Christensen Company.

The complaint asserted causes of action under the Securities Act of
1933 and alleged that the registration statement and prospectus
were negligently prepared and included materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be
disclosed and seeks monetary damages based on the allegations.

On August 10, 2020, the court sustained our demurrer dismissing the
complaint with leave to amend. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer seeking to
dismiss the amended complaint. On April 9, 2021, the court entered
an order overruling a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Granite Construction is into infrastructure solutions for public
and private clients based in California.


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Securities Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Construction Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that a class
action lawsuit was filed against the company alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, the
motion for class certification has been granted by the court in
January 2021.

On  August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, James H. Roberts, its former
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, its
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer.

An amended complaint was filed on  February 20, 2020 that, among
other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, its former Chief Financial
Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint was brought on
behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired our
common stock between  April 30, 2018 and  October 24, 2019, and
alleged claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

After the filing of the amended complaint, this case was re-titled
"Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite Construction
Incorporated, et. al." The amended complaint sought damages based
on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts in the
company's SEC filings about its business, operations and prospects.


On May 20, 2020, the court denied, in part, the company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. On January 21, 2021, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Granite Construction is into infrastructure solutions for public
and private clients based in California.


GREETINGQUBE LLC: DeLaRosa Suit Alleges Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER DELAROSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREETINGQUBE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 154679673 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty.,
August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful
practice of sending telephonic sales calls to consumers, including
the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. As
a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages, the
suit says.

GreetingQUBE, LLC is a consumer goods retailer doing business in
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
         KUHN RASLAVICH, PA
         2110 West Platt Street
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 422–7782
         Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
         E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com

HAND IN HAND: Colbert Sues Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA COLBERT and LORI BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAND IN HAND GROUP INC.
D/B/A CARING MATTERS HOME CARE; ROMAR CORPORATION D/B/A CARING
MATTERS HOME CARE; and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-03055 (E.D. Pa., August 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Ms. Colbert and Ms. Brown were employed by the Defendants as home
health aides from about 2016 until approximately January 2022 and
from approximately March 2022 through May 2022, respectively.

Hand in Hand Group Inc., doing business as Caring Matters Home
Care, is a home health agency, with its principal place of business
at 151 Lincoln Road, Collegeville, Pennsylvania.

Romar Corporation, doing business as Caring Matters Home Care, is a
home health agency, with its principal place of business and
headquarters at 430 Kenhorst Boulevard, Reading, Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
         LEMBERG LAW, LLC
         43 Danbury Road
         Wilton, CT 06897
         Telephone: (203) 653-2250
         Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

                - and –

         William Coudert Rand, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
         501 Fifth Avenue 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 286-1425
         Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
         E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

HAWAII: E.R.K. Cross Appeals Ruling on Bid for Add'l. Prof. Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a cross appeal from
a court ruling denying the Defendant's motion for reconsideration
of an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for additional attorney
fees in the lawsuit entitled E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, Defendant,
Case No. 1:10-cv-00436-SOM-RT, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Hawaii.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged violation of civil rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

On February 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for additional
attorneys' fees, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Magistrate Judge Rom Trader April 28, 2022. On May 12, 2022, the
Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court
denied on June 13, 2022. The Court held that the Defendant failed
to meet its burden to establish any manifest error of law or fact,
and all arguments in the motion either could have been brought
previously or repeat the arguments the Defendant made in opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees.

The appellate case is captioned as E. K., et al v. EDU-HI, Case No.
22-16126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on July 28, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants R. T. D., Hawai'i Disability Rights Center and E.
R. K. Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 4, 2022;

   -- First cross appeal brief for State of Hawaii Department of
Education is due on October 10, 2022;

   -- Second brief on cross appeal for R. T. D., Hawai'i Disability
Rights Center and E. R. K is due on November 23, 2022;

   -- Third brief on cross appeal for State of Hawaii Department of
Education is due on December 23, 2022;

   -- Optional cross appeal reply brief is due within 21 days of
service of third brief on cross appeal. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants E. R. K., by his legal guardian R.K., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

            Paul D. Alston, Esq.
            Erika L. Amatore, Esq.
            Kristin Liisa Holland, Esq.
            DENTONS US, LLP
            1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
            Honolulu, HI 96813
            Telephone: (808) 524-1800

Defendant-Appellee STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, is
represented by:

            Kevin M. Richardson, Esq.
            Ryan W. Roylo, Esq.
            Carter K. Siu, Esq.
            AGHI - Office of the Attorney General Hawaii
            235 S. Beretania Street
            Honolulu, HI 96813-2406
            Telephone: (808) 586-1255

HONEYWELL INT'L: Court OKs Settlement of Kanefsky Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2022, that the class action
complaint was dismissed after the court entered a final judgment
and order approving the settlement agreement.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (the Court) alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.

An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on
February 7, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 18,
2020, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss. On December 7, 2021,
the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement (Settlement
Agreement) and

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement, which included payment by Honeywell of $10 million to
settle the claims in dispute. On January 18, 2022, the Court
approved the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement. On May 3, 2022, the Court entered a final judgment and
order approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissed the action.


Honeywell International Inc. invents and commercializes
technologies based in North Carolina.


HYATT CORPORATION: Ct. Vacates all Discovery, Class Cert Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELI BICKERTON v. HYATT
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00397-RSL-TLF (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Fricke entered an order vacating all
pending discovery and class certification deadlines, including all
deadlines associated with the Court's July 25, 2022 Order Amending
Pretrial Schedule, for the purpose of allowing Plaintiff to seek
approval of the proposed class action settlement, consistent with
CR 23.

The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement on or before September 30, 2022. The Court
will set a preliminary approval hearing after plaintiff files the
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, the
Court says.

Hyatt Corporation is a global hospitality company.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          Brian Denlinger, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, #205
          Tacoma, WA 98406
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  bd@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF INDIA BODIEN, ESQ.
          2522 North Proctor Street, #387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212-7913
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Helen M. McFarland, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          999 Third Avenue, Ste. 3000
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 946-4923
          E-mail: hmcfarland@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Ryan McCoy, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: rmccoy@seyfarth.com

IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Muhammad Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
YADULLAHI MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v.
IMPERIEX CONSTRUCTION INC. and TOMASZ KORASADOWICZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06904 (S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief to recover unpaid overtime wages, untimely pay, and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a fire guard and
manual worker at the Defendants' construction company from
approximately June 2020 to through and including February 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendant, he and other similarly situated manual workers regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant paid
them less than prevailing wages on public works projects by paying
them a flat rate of $20 per hour only. The Defendant willfully
failed to pay them overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to
timely pay wages, says the Plaintiff.

Imperiex Construction Inc. is a construction company owned by
Tomasz Korasadowicz. [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
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

INDEPENDENT BANK: Review of Summary Judgment Denial in Grice Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jamila Grice, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Independent Bank, Defendant, Case
Action No. 7:20-cv-01948-JD (D.S.C.), Judge Joseph Dawson, III, of
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Spartanburg Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's Feb. 18, 2002 Order denying its
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The Defendant contends "the Court misinterprets and misapplies the
Door Closing Statute by failing to recognize that each individual
member of the proposed classes must satisfy the statute. It is not
enough that the named Plaintiff is a resident of South Carolina or
that the subject of her personal action may be situated in South
Carolina." It further contends "the Court appears to determine,
without any factual analysis or support, that every member of the
proposed class has a contract with it that was either made or was
intended to be performed in South Carolina."

The Defendant relies on a South Carolina Supreme Court case for the
proposition that "the class cannot include members who would not be
able to bring the action in their individual capacities under the
door-closing statute. And Section 15-5-150 controls the eligibility
of class members in a class action where the Defendant is a foreign
corporation." Furthermore, it relies on two Federal District Court
opinions for the proposition that "the Door Closing Statute bars a
nationwide class action," citing Hart v. Navy Fed. Credit Union,
2021 WL 2418459, at *3, DE 101, p. 12, citing Tomczak v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 2022 WL 1022647, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 31,
2022)).

As an initial matter, Judge Dawson opines that the Defendant's
strained interpretation of the Court's Order is specious at best.
While it suggests "the Court appears to determine that every member
of the proposed class has a contract with it that was either made
or was intended to be performed in South Carolina," the Court has
neither entertained nor decided the same. Rather, it has determined
that "the Statute does not prevent a nationwide class under the
facts and the Court's previous decisions." No finding was made that
the Plaintiff was entitled to class certification.

Neither party has offered any evidence to support or refute whether
the Plaintiff's three separate proposed nationwide classes, whose
members may include residents from other states, will satisfy Rule
23 (or the Door Closing Statute). Therefore, Judge Dawson declines
to do so on the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Since the Defendant fails to demonstrate a clear error of law or
manifest injustice, nor has there been a change in controlling law
or new evidence to consider since the ruling, there is no basis to
reconsider the Court's prior Order. For these reasons, Judge Dawson
denies Defendant's Motion to Reconsider.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7mhbk3 from Leagle.com.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Markos Sues Over Electricians' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARKOS, JOEL CORTES, VINCENT FAMIGHETTI, TYLAN GREEN, and
MICHAEL BYRNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06600 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and breach of
third-party beneficiary contract.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as electricians in New
York.

Johnson Controls Inc. is a with a principal place of business in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jason J. Rozgeger, Esq.
         MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
         80 Pine Street, 33nd Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 509-1616
         Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
         E-mail: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com

JOOVY HOLDING: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joovy Holding Co. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Joovy Holding Co., Case No. 1:22-cv-06856
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2022).

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

Joovy -- https://joovy.com/ -- is an American company with
facilities in Dallas, Texas and Orange County, California offering
strollers, highchairs, playards, toys.[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



JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Middle Bucks Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIDDLE BUCKS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04494-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 3, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Middle Bucks Institute of Technology is a school district located
in Jamison, Pennsylvania.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

                 - and –

         Sean M. Gresh, Esq.
         BEGLEY CARLIN & MANDIO, LLP
         680 Middletown Blvd.
         Langhorne, PA 19047
         Telephone: (215) 750-0110
         Facsimile: (215) 750-0954
         E-mail: sgresh@begleycarlin.com

JUUL LABS: River Forest Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIVER FOREST COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04490 (N.D. Cal., August 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

River Forest Community School Corporation is a public school
corporation with its administrative offices located in Hobart,
Indiana.

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

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

KIA AMERICA: Faces Brady Suit Over Undisclosed Vehicles' Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANN BRADY and LEAH PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIA AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, and HYUNDAI KIA AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-00252-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, August 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, strict liability,
and violations of the Private Right of Action for Consumer Frauds
Act and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose a defect
in their vehicles which make them easy to steal, unsafe, and worth
less than they should be, if they did not have the defect. The
Defendants sold the defective vehicles at multiple locations
throughout the state of Iowa and the United States without
disclosing to consumers about the defect. The Plaintiffs and Class
members seek a refund for monies paid as a result of their
purchases of the defective vehicles, compensation for other losses
incurred as a result of the defect, and further seek injunctive
relief, enjoining the Defendants from selling the defective
vehicles, and requiring the Defendants to fix the defect, says the
suit.

Kia America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal
place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California.

Hyundai Motor America is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business at 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain
Valley, California.

Hyundai Kia America Technical Center, Inc. is a research and
development company, with its principal place of business at 6800
Geddes Road, Superior Township, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jay M. Smith, Esq.
         SMITH AND MCELWAIN
         505 - 5th Street, Suite 530
         P.O. Box 1194
         Sioux City, IA 51102
         Telephone: (712) 255-8094

                 - and –

         Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
         Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
         Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
         Chelsea M. Pierce, Esq.
         HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
         221 West Lexington Ave., Ste. 400
         Independence, MO 64051
         Telephone: (816) 836-5050
         Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
         E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                 jms@hfmlegal.com
                 kds@hfmlegal.com

KIRKLAND'S STORES: Court Stays Miles Case Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA MILES,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, v.
KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-01559-JWH-SHK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting the
plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay case pending appeal of the
order denying class certification.

Kirkland's is an American retail chain that sells home decor,
furniture, textiles, accessories and gifts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3C1rjUb at no extra charge.[CC]



KIROMIC BIOPHARMA: Karp Sues Over False Registration Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD H. KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIROMIC BIOPHARMA, INC., MAURIZIO
CHIRIVA-INTERNATI, TONY TONTAT, GIANLUCA ROTINO, PIETRO BERSANI,
AMERICO CICCHETTI, MICHAEL NAGEL, JERRY SCHNEIDER and THINKEQUITY
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06690 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2022) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
class consisting of all persons and entities (other than
Defendants) that purchased or otherwise acquired Kiromic common
stock pursuant to the Offering Documents and/or Kiromic common
stock between June 25, 2021 and August 13, 2021, both dates
inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Company's public offering closed on
July 2, 2021 and was conducted pursuant to a registration statement
filed with the SEC on June 25, 2021 and a final prospectus dated
June 29, 2021, referred here as the "Prospectus," with the
Registration Statement or the "Offering Documents."

The Plaintiff purchased Kiromic shares priced at $5.00 per share on
the Offering. At the time of the Offering, the Company presented
itself as a target discovery and gene-editing company which
utilized artificial intelligence to create immunotherapy products.
While the Company had no immunotherapy products on the market at
the time, it had applications to begin human clinical trials for
two new drug candidates, known as Investigational New Drug
applications, pending with the Food and Drug Administration. The
Offering Documents stated that the Company could commence clinical
trials within 30 days of those IND applications unless the FDA
imposed a clinical hold.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents failed to
disclose that the FDA had, prior to the filing of the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, imposed a clinical hold, and in fact,
contained statements indicating that it had not. The Offering
Documents contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained in them
not misleading, and/or failed to make adequate disclosures
otherwise required regarding the status of those applications, says
the suit.

As a result of these untrue and misleading statements and
omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of the
Company's stock, Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered
significant losses, the suit added.

Kiromic BioPharma, Inc. is a preclinical stage biopharmaceutical
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIFE TIME: Howard Appeals Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, is taking an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Maura Howard, Plaintiff, v. Life
Time Fitness, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00574-WMW,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants for
alleged unpaid wages. The Plaintiff worked as a group fitness
instructor at Life Time's Bloomington (North) Minnesota location.

On November 2, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration, which Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright granted on
June 30, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Maura Howard v. Life Time
Fitness, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-2581, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript was due on or before August 6, 2022;

   -- Appendix was due August 15, 2022;

   -- Appellant Maura Howard brief was due August 15, 2022;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MAURA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

           Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
            Brant D. Penney, Esq.
            Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
            REINHARDT & WENDORF
            W1050 First National Bank Building
            332 Minnesota Street
            Saint Paul, MN 55101-0000
            Telephone: (651) 287-2100

                   - and –

            Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
            Christopher Paul Renz, Esq.
            CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE
            100 Washington Avenue, S.
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 339-7300

                   - and –

            Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
            GOLDMAN & SCARLATO
            Suite 1500
            55 Public Square
            Cleveland, OH 44113-0000
            Telephone: (216) 622-1851

Defendants-Appellees LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., et al., are
represented by:

            Joel O'Malley Andersen, Esq.
            Courtney M. Blanchard, Esq.
            Joseph George Schmitt, Esq.
            NILAN & JOHNSON
            Suite 800
            250 Marquette Avenue, S.
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 305-7500

LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP says a federal securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeStance Health Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LFST) ("LifeStance" or the "Company") common stock issued
in connection with LifeStance Health's June 10, 2021 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO").

All investors who purchased the shares of LifeStance Health Group,
Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately
at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of LifeStance Health
Group, Inc., you may, no later than October 11, 2022, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of LifeStance Health Group, Inc.

Please click https://bit.ly/3QyuVl4 to join case.

LifeStance is one of the nation's largest providers of virtual and
in-person outpatient mental health care. At the time of its IPO,
the Company operated 370 centers and employed 3,300 psychiatrists,
advanced practice nurses, psychologists, and therapists across 27
states. The Company provides virtual and in-person outpatient
mental health care for children, adolescents, and adults
experiencing a variety of mental health conditions including
depression, anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and post-traumatic
stress disorder.

Due to Covid lockdowns, total patient visits increased from
1,353,285 in 2019 to 2,290,728 in 2020. Meanwhile, the Company's
total revenue grew from $212.5 million in 2019 to $377.2 million in
2020 on a pro forma basis.

The approval and introduction of Covid vaccines beginning in
December 2021 increased demand for in-person services and fewer
patients would be seeking virtual care. In-patient services are
also inherently more expensive as they require office space, etc.
Many physicians were also burned out at this point and were
resigning, resulting in a shortage and a need for new physicians to
be hired and trained, increasing costs.

On February 16, 2021, LifeStance filed a Registration Statement on
Form S-1, which, after several amendments made pursuant to comments
from the SEC, would later be utilized for the IPO. Initially, the
defendants stated they intended to sell a total of 40 million
shares at a price range of between $15.00 and $17.00 per share,
however, based on the defendants' strong marketing efforts to sell
the IPO, they were able to price the shares sold in the IPO at
$18.00 per share and to sell 46 million shares in the IPO. In the
Registration Statement, the Company highlighted its aforementioned
growth numbers while claiming it currently had exciting growth
opportunities on its horizon. It then claimed that Covid had had no
material impact on its business, instead pointing to decreased
stigmatization of mental health, though it allowed that the
pandemic had shown a "spotlight" on mental health that would cause
its business to continue to increase.

On August 11, 2021, less than two months after the IPO, LifeStance
announced its second quarter 2021 ("2Q21") financial results for
the period ended June 30, 2021 disclosing a net loss of $70
million, compared to net loss of just $27.6 million for the period
from April 1, 2020 to May 14, 2020 (Predecessor) and $4.3 million
for the period from April 13, 2020 to June 30, 2020 (Successor).
The company also now disclosed a decrease in its clinician
retention levels.

On November 8, 2021, the Company reported its third quarter 2021
results, announcing that its clinician retention had "stabilized"
at around 80%. Defendants reported LifeStance's fiscal 2021 results
on March 10, 2022, and during a conference call with investors
admitted that a recent Stanford study had shown that 75% of
patients prefer in-person treatment. It also said that it would be
reducing its number of brick and mortar facilities that it was
planning on building to increase profitability.

LifeStance common stock currently trades at $8.11 per share, over
50% below the IPO price of $18.00 per share.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation. [GN]

Contact:

     Patrick Donovan, Esq.
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
     Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
     Email: gstone@whafh.com
            donovan@whafh.com
            classmember@whafh.com
     Tel: (800) 575-0735
          (212) 545-4774

LINCARE HOLDINGS: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $875,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Sweeney of fiercehealthcare.com reports that the country's
largest provider of home respiratory supplies has agreed to pay
$875,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit from former employees
whose information was exposed during a 2017 data breach.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed last fall that claimed
Lincare failed to implement "the most basic security safeguards" to
prevent a breach. A human resources employee fell victim to a
phishing scam in February 2017 in which the sender claimed to be a
Lincare executive asking for employee W-2s.

The Florida-based company provides in-home respiratory therapy
equipment for customers suffering from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. Lincare has more than 14,000 employees across
more than 1,000 locations.

A Lincare spokesperson declined to comment.

Although the breach did not involve patient information, it served
as a reminder that healthcare organizations are also susceptible to
breaches involving employees, with significant liability in some
cases.

Lincare offered credit monitoring to employees after the breach was
discovered, but plaintiffs described that as a "minor half-measure
that did not safeguard and protect the [information] already
released."

As part of the settlement, Lincare did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The $875,000 will be divvied up into two funds, with $550,000 to
compensate class members that suffered an out-of-pocket loss and
$325,000 reserved for members that experienced an "eligible
incident," such as a fraudulent tax return, or a fraudulent loan or
credit card.

The settlement comes as healthcare data breaches are drawing more
scrutiny from federal and state regulators. Healthcare companies
are also finding themselves in legal hot water as hacker groups
continue to prey on long-standing vulnerabilities.

A case brought by employees of the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center has made its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The
state court will weigh in on whether the provider is responsible
for safeguarding employee information after a 2014 breach exposed
information for 62,000 employees.[GN]

LJ DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Encarnacion Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LI ENCARNACION, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. LJ
DELIVERY, INC. and LYDIA COSME, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06903
(S.D.N.Y., August 13, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged
willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver's
assistant and manual worker from approximately September 2018 to,
through and including, March 2022.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, the
Defendant paid him a flat $650 per week despite working
approximately 77.5 hours during each of the weeks. The Defendant
did not pay him any overtime premium at the rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendant allegedly did not keep
track of the Plaintiff's time that accurately reflected his actual
hours worked. The Defendant also failed to provide him with any
notice of his rate of pay and with any wage statement, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, for
himself and all other similarly situated delivery drivers'
assistant and manual workers, seeking to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, spread of hours wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs and disbursements, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

LJ Delivery, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Hartsdale,
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
          Tel: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

LYONS MAGNUS: Deringer Sues Over Products' Bacterial Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTY DERINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00968-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., August 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its supplements, additives, and drinks. The Defendant failed to
disclose the possible exposure of its products to the bacteria
Cronobacter Sakazakii. On August 1, 2022, the Defendant recalled 53
products due to potential bacterial contamination. Despite the
known risks of Cronobacter Sakazakii, the Defendant has recklessly
and/or knowingly sold its products without disclosing the possible
contamination. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the
Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that they
have purchased products that are worth less than the price they
paid and that they would not have purchased at all had they known
of the presence or risk of Cronobacter Sakazakii and/or other
ingredients, says the suit.

Lyons Magnus, Inc. is a manufacturer of supplements, additives, and
drinks, with its headquarters in Fresno, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
         Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
         Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
         Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
         POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
         32 Ann Street
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 614-8888
         E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
                 roy@akimlawfirm.com
                 blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Antoine Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRETTA ANTOINE, SHANNON CAVE, CHRISTINA FORNEY and JUDY GALLEGOS,
individually and as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, on behalf of the MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES
401(K) SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES, INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARSH & MCLENNAN
COMPANIES, INC.; THE MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE; THE MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES BENEFITS
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and DOES No. 1-30, Whose Names Are Currently
Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06637 (S.D.N.Y., August 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches,
and liability for knowing breach of trust.

The case arises from the Defendants' breach of their fiduciary
duties to the Marsh & McLennan Companies 401(k) Savings and
Investment Plan. The Defendants selected, retained, and/or
otherwise ratified poorly-performing investments instead of
offering more prudent alternative investments that were readily
available at the time they selected and retained the funds at issue
and throughout the Class Period. Moreover, Marsh & McLennan failed
to perform its fiduciary responsibility to monitor the performance
of the committees and their members, which would have alerted a
prudent fiduciary to the breaches of fiduciary duties, says the
suit.

As a direct result of the Defendants' breaches of duties, the Plan
has suffered losses and damages.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. is a financial services firm,
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: lrubinow@millershah.com

                 - and –

         James E. Miller, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com

                 - and –

         James C. Shah, Esq.
         Alec J. Berin, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                 ajberin@millershah.com

                 - and –

         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         MILLER SHAH LLP
         19712 MacArthur Blvd.
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (866) 540-5505
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: kctang@millershah.com

MASSACHUSETTS: Bucca Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA BUCCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS including
the Department of Health and Human Services and all subdivisions,
Defendants, Case No. 2277CV00743-B (Mass. Commw. Ct., August 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
all of earned wages and other benefits until after the next regular
pay date in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Ms. Bucca was employed by the Commonwealth in its Executive Office
of Health and Human Services for over twenty-two years at its
Boston, Massachusetts office until she retired from employment on
July 8, 2022. She last worked as an Assisted Living Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England
region of the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Anthony S. Augeri, Esq.
         THE AUGERI LAW GROUP, LLC
         7 Twin Oaks Drive
         Atkinson, NH 03811
         Telephone: (603) 401-7528
         E-mail: tony@augerilaw.com

MCDONALD'S USA: Turner Files 7th Cir. Appeal in Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is taking an appeal from a court judgment in
her the lawsuit entitled Stephanie Turner, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's
USA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05524, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Stephanie Turner brought this suit against the Defendants for
alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In 2017, Leinani Deslandes also filed a three-count amended
complaint under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the
lawsuit styled Leinani Deslandes, Plaintiff, v. McDonald's USA,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04857.

Plaintiffs alleged that the franchise agreement, from at least 1973
to 2017, had contained a no-poach
provision that violated the Sherman Act and suppressed their wages.
Former workers Leinani Deslandes and Stephanie Turner sought to
represent a nationwide class of former McDonald's employees during
a five-year period. In March 2017-just months before the private
Deslandes class action was filed-McDonald's announced it would
discontinue enforcing the same no-poach provision at issue and, in
July 2018, entered an agreement with the Washington State Attorney
General that the provision would no longer be included in future
agreements or enforced in existing agreements.

The Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs, too,
have filed a motion for summary judgment.

On June 28, 2022, the Court stated that both Deslandes and Turner
failed to include facts necessary to render plausible a claim that
a restraint is unlawful under rule-of-reason analysis. Neither
Plaintiff alleged, in her respective complaint, a relevant market
or that the Defendants had market power in that relevant market.
Due to this, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings with respect to Count I of both Plaintiffs'
amended complaint. The Defendants' motions to exclude experts and
the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment were also denied as
moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephanie Turner v. McDonald's
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-2334, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due on August 10, 2022;

   -- Appellant's brief is due on September 6, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHANIE TURNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

           Derek Yeats Brandt, Esq.
            Connor Patrick Lemire, Esq.
            Leigh Michele Perica, Esq.
            MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
            231 North Main Street, Suite 20
            Edwardsville, IL 62025
            Telephone: (618) 307-6116
            E-mail: dyb@mccunewright.com
                    CPL@mccunewright.com
                    Lmp@mccunewright.com

                   - and -

            Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
            Dean Michael Harvey, Esq.
            Jalle Habte Dafa, Esq.
            Lin Yee Chan, Esq.
            LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
            29th floor
            275 Battery Street
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 956-1000
            E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com
                    dharvey@lchb.com
                    jdafa@lchb.com
                    lchan@lchb.com

                   - and -

            Michelle E. Conston, Esq.
            SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
            The Helmsley Building
            230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
            New York, NY 10169
            Telephone: (212) 233-6444
            E-mail: mconston@scott-scott.com

                   - and -

            Walter W. Noss, Esq.
            SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
            600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 233-4565
            E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com

Defendants-Appellees MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, et al., are represented
by:

            Caeli A. Higney, Esq.
            Rachel Susan Brass, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            555 Mission Street
            Suite 3000
            San Francisco, CA 94105
            Telephone: (415) 393-8248
            E-mail: chigney@gibsondunn.com
                    rbrass@gibsondunn.com

                   - and -

            David Jarrett Arp, Esq.
            GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            1050 Connecticut Avenue NW
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (202) 955-8678
            E-mail: jarp@gibsondunn.com

                   - and -

            Kristin T. Opal, Esq.
            Robert M. Andalman, Esq.
            A & G LAW LLC
            542 S. Dearborn St., 10th Floor
            Chicago, IL 60605
            Telephone: (312) 348-7627
            E-mail: kopal@AandGlaw.com
                    randalman@aandglaw.com

                   - and -

            Matthew Cameron Parrott, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            Suite 1200
            3161 Michelson Drive
            Irvine, CA 92612
            Telephone: (949) 451-3800
            E-mail: mparrott@gibsondunn.com

                   - and -

            Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn, Esq.
            A & G Law LLC
            542 S. Dearborn St., 10th Floor
            Chicago, IL 60605-1508
            Telephone: (312) 341-1356
            E-mail: rblackburn@aandglaw.com

MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HENSLEY, as legal
guardian of R.H., Case No. 2:22-cv-00978-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without
prejudice, Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the the cases
have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health,
each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel
facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.

MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3r9YK at no extra charge.[CC]

MCG HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO THORBECKE and
MARJORITA DEAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-00870-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying without
prejudice Saiki's Bid to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the the cases
have filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health,
each alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel
facts. Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above-captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.


MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

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

MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Denied w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA BOOTH, MARY NAPIER,
and CANDACE DAUGHERTY, v. MCG HEALTH LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00879-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W.
Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Diana Saiki's
motion to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have
filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each
alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts.
Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.


MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

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


MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Junked
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE MACK, JOANNE
MULLINS, and INGRID COX, Case No. 2:22-cv-00935-RSM-DWC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge David W. Christel entered an order denying
without prejudice Diana Saiki's motion to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have
filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each
alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts.
Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.

MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w3r0Vc at no extra charge.[CC]


MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Cases Tossed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA CRAWFORD and MICHAEL
PRICE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00894-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
David W. Christel entered an order denying without prejudice Diana
Saiki's motion to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have
filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each
alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts.
Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.

MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

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


MCG HEALTH: Saiki Bid to Consolidate Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY TAYLOR and SHELLEY
TAYLOR, Case No. 2:22-cv-00925-RSM-DWC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
David W. Christel entered an order denying without
prejudice.Saiki's motion to consolidate cases.

The Court said, "On June 22, 2022 Plaintiff's counsel in Saiki v.
MCG Health, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00849-DWC (W.D. Wash., filed June
16, 2022) filed a motion to consolidate three cases. However, since
that time several additional cases have been filed. Therefore,
Saiki's Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice."

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 provides the Court discretion to
consolidate actions that involve a common question of law or fact.
The Court's review reveals that the Plaintiffs in the cases have
filed virtually identical Complaints against the MCG Health, each
alleging similar causes of action predicated on parallel facts.
Under the circumstances, consolidation appears to be in the
interest of judicial efficiency and appropriate to promote the fair
and just resolution of these disputes.

Accordingly, all parties are hereby ordered to meet-and-confer in
accordance with Local Civil Rule 42(b) and either file a
stipulation to consolidate or file a response of no more than five
pages (excluding supporting declarations) showing cause why the
cases should not be consolidated (without prejudice to later
bifurcation, as appropriate) on or before August 22, 2022. Either
way, all parties must employ and file their stipulation or response
in each of the cases.

At this time the Court will not hear argument regarding appointment
of interim lead counsel or any other matters preliminary to a
motion for class certification. The Clerk is directed to file this
order in all above captioned cases and to send uncertified copies
of this Order to all counsel of record, the Court says.


MCG Health is part of the Hearst Health network, is an industry
leader in evidence-based care guidelines, analytics, and software.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pgg6Ym at no extra charge.[CC]


META PLATFORMS: Sept. 22 Claims Deadline Set for $90M Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery of cnet.com reports that Facebook users, who had a
profile on the social media site in 2010 or 2011, may be eligible
for part of a $90 million payout from a lawsuit accusing Facebook
of illicitly tracking users across other websites.  The deadline
for filing a claim is Sept. 22, 2022.

The plaintiffs in the case, Davis v. Facebook, allege the company
was aware it violated privacy, communications and wiretap laws --
and its own contract -- by tracking logged-out users to sites that
had a Facebook "Like" button on them.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals determined in 2020 that
Facebook profiting from the sale of users' data constituted a
breach of privacy causing economic harm. When the US Supreme Court
declined to review the case in March 2021, settlement negotiations
began.

In June, a district court in California gave preliminary approval
for a class-action settlement that includes the $90 million payout
and a promise by Facebook that it would delete any improperly
collected data.

What is Facebook accused of in the data-tracking lawsuit?

The plaintiffs allege that Facebook tracked people's activities on
external websites, even when they were signed out of their Facebook
accounts, by installing cookies on users' computers.

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

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

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

Facebook parent Meta Platforms didn't respond to a request for
comment though, according to the settlement, it "expressly denies
any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever."

Who is eligible to receive money in the Facebook settlement?

US Facebook users who, between April 22, 2010, and Sept. 25, 2011,
visited websites that displayed the Facebook "Like" button are
eligible to be recipients, or "class members," in the case.

When is the deadline to file a claim in the Facebook settlement?

The claims administrator, Angeion, has already emailed eligible
class members. If you received a personalized notice in the mail or
via email, go to the claims site and enter the Notice ID and
Confirmation Code you were provided with.

If you believe you're eligible but weren't contacted, you can also
file a claim on your own -- but the deadline is Sept. 22, 2022.

Individuals who want to reserve the right to file their own lawsuit
have until Sept. 12 to opt out of the settlement. If you do
nothing, you won't get a payment and you'll give up the right to
sue or be part of another lawsuit relating to the case.

How much money could you receive?

The court has scheduled a final approval hearing on Oct. 27, 2022,
in San Jose, California, where it will consider whether the $90
million settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate."  It isn't
yet clear how many class members there will be or how much each
individual will receive.

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

When will Facebook settlement checks go out?

Checks will go out at some point after the court makes a final
decision about the settlement in the final hearing on Oct. 27. But
there may be appeals that delay the process.

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

MINISO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP says a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of MINISO Group
Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise, acquired MINISO pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). Investors are notified that they have
until October 17, 2022 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
in this action.

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

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser: https://bit.ly/3K5QwPr

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and
controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously
stated; (2) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (3) the
Company did not represent its true business model; (4) defendants,
including the Company and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual
and unclear transactions; (5) as a result of at least one of these
transactions, the Company is at risk of breaching contracts with
Chinese authorities; (6) the Company would imminently and
drastically drop its franchise fees; and (7) as a result,
Defendant's statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

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

                    About Johnson Fistel, LLP

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

Contact:

Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com

                    Robbins Geller Announcement

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO) publicly
traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with MINISO's October 15, 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO") have until October 17, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action
lawsuit. Captioned Ashraf v. MINISO Group Holding Limited, No.
22-cv-05815 (C.D. Cal.), the MINISO class action lawsuit charges
MINISO, certain of its top executives and directors, its
representative in the United States, as well as the IPO's
underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-miniso-group-holding-limited-class-action-lawsuit-mnso.html

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

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Headquartered in the People's Republic of China
("PRC"), MINISO purports to be a fast-growing global value retailer
which serves consumers primarily through its large network of
MINISO stores. On October 15, 2020, defendants held the IPO,
issuing approximately 30.4 million American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") to the investing public at $20.00 per ADS, pursuant to the
Registration Statement.

The MINISO class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's Registration
Statement was false and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned
and controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than
previously stated; (ii) as a result, MINISO concealed its true
costs; (iii) MINISO did not represent its true business model; (iv)
defendants, including MINISO and its Chairman, engaged in planned
unusual and unclear transactions; (v) as a result of at least one
of these transactions, MINISO is at risk of breaching contracts
with PRC authorities; and (vi) MINISO would imminently and
drastically drop its franchise fees.

On July 26, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital published a
report on MINISO which alleged several issues with MINISO,
including that "contrary to [MINISO]'s claims, many MINISO stores
are secretly owned by [MINISO] executives or insiders closely
connected to the chairman" and "[u]ltimately, we believe that there
is overwhelming evidence that MINISO misleads the market about its
core business." As Blue Orca explained, "[o]ur suspicion is that
MINISO realized early in the pre-IPO process that a
brick-and-mortar retailer would be far less attractive to investors
than an asset-light franchise business, so we think that [MINISO]
simply lied about these stores." Blue Orca added that "Chinese
corporate filings also indicate, in our view, that the chairman
siphoned hundreds of millions from the public company through
opaque Caribbean jurisdictions as the middleman in a crooked
headquarters deal." Blue Orca further concluded that "[i]ndependent
evidence, including archived disclosures on MINISO's Chinese
website, reports in Chinese media and interviews with former
employees, indicate that MINISO is a brand in serious peril,"
noting that "MINISO lowered its franchising fee by 63% over the
past two years in a desperate effort to attract franchisees." On
this news, MINISO's ADS price fell nearly 15%.

As of July 27, 2022, MINISO ADSs closed at $5.66 per ADS,
representing more than a 70% decline from the $20.00 IPO price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser or acquirer of MINISO
publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the MINISO class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the MINISO class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the MINISO class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the MINISO
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9
billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount
recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Contacts

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com

                 Rosen Law Announcement

Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of MINISO Group Holding Limited (NYSE: MNSO) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with MINISO's October 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MINISO investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the MINISO class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7814 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendants and other undisclosed related parties owned and
controlled a much larger amount of MINISO stores than previously
stated; (2) as a result, MINISO concealed its true costs; (3) the
Company did not represent its true business model; (4) defendants,
including the Company and its Chairman, engaged in planned unusual
and unclear transactions; (5) as a result of at least one of these
transactions, the Company is at risk of breaching contracts with
Chinese authorities; (6) the Company would imminently and
drastically drop its franchise fees; and (7) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
17, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=7814 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Contacts

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

MITCHELL MANAGEMENT: Faces Fuelberth FLSA Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FUELBERTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MITCHELL MANAGEMENT CO., Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-00281-SMB (D. Neb., August 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated delivery drivers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from approximately April of 2020 until June of
2021.

Mitchell Management Co. is an owner and operator of Jimmy John’s
franchises in Nebraska. [BN]

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

MORGAN STANLEY: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Case
No. 20 Civ. 5914 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approves:

   (1) the proposed class action settlement; and
   (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards.

The Court has issued separate orders as to these subjects.

The Clerk of the Court is therefore respectfully directed to
terminate the motions pending at dockets 92, 100, 123, 127, 130 and
133, and to close the case.

The Court also directed, as a condition of settlement approval,
that the parties jointly submit a quarterly status update letter
reporting the work by and progress of Kroll Inc., which Morgan
Stanley, pursuant to the parties' Settlement Agreement, has
retained to retrieve the decommissioned devices at issue. The first
such letter is due Nov. 1, 2022. Subsequent letters are due every
three months thereafter, with the last due on Nov. 1, 2023.

The Court retains jurisdiction to assure that vigorous and good
faith efforts are made toward this end, and will reopen the case if
the need to enforce this provision of the settlement agreement
arises. The counsel is authorized to file the status update letters
under seal, subject to the Court's review of whether such is
justified.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8k3628 from Leagle.com.


MUSCULOSKELETAL INSTITUTE: Offers $4M to Settle Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that Florida Orthopaedic Institute has
proposed a $4 million settlement to resolve claims from patients
affected by a 2020 data breach. In April 2020, Musculoskeletal
Institute, dba Florida Orthopaedic Institute, discovered an
unauthorized third party had gained access to a server that
contained patients' protected health information (PHI) and used
ransomware to encrypt files.

The forensic investigation determined the PHI of 640,000
individuals had been exposed and potentially stolen in the attack,
including names, contact information, birth dates, Social Security
numbers, health insurance information, medical information, and
other types of data. Notifications were sent to affected
individuals in July 2020 and a 12-month membership to a credit
monitoring service was offered to affected individuals.
Shortly after sending notifications, a lawsuit -- Stoll et al. v.
Musculoskeletal Institute -- was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida that alleged Florida Orthopaedic
Institute was "lackadaisical, cavalier, reckless, or in the very
least, negligent" with respect to maintaining the privacy of its
patients and had not followed basic cybersecurity best practices.
The lawsuit also alleged invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The lawsuit alleged the sensitive protected health information of
patients was now in the hands of cybercriminals and patients now
faced a substantial risk of identity theft and fraud. Florida
Orthopaedic Institute has admitted no wrongdoing but decided to
settle the lawsuit to avoid further legal costs and the uncertainty
of trial.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, current and former
patients who were notified about the data breach are entitled to
submit a claim for a cash payment of up to $15,000 to cover
out-of-pocket expenses and up to 5 hours of time that was lost
remedying the data breach at $25 per hour.

Attorneys argued that a 12-month membership to credit monitoring
services was insufficient. All individuals affected by the data
breach will now be eligible to receive 3 years of identity theft
protection, credit monitoring, and identity restoration services,
regardless of whether a claim is submitted. Parents or guardians of
minors that have been affected by the data breach are entitled to
enroll the affected children in these services for 3 years if their
children are minors at the time of the settlement. These services
include a $1,000,000 identity theft insurance policy. The services
retail for around $196 per individual.

All claims must be submitted no later than September 16, 2022. The
final approval hearing for the settlement is September 29,
2022.[GN]

NABORS COMPLETION: Court Awards $263.9K in Damages in Cisneros Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN CISNEROS, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION &
PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No. 2:22-cv-01871-DDP-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California issued a judgment on the amounts
Cisneros can recover against NABORS, including $263,873 in
damages.

On April 2, 2015, two former employees of NABORS, Brandyn Ridgeway
and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action alleging, among other
things, claims under Labor Code Section 1194(a) and 1771 for
failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and overtime, under
Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a), and for related
interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, (CACD
Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx; "Ridgeway class action").

On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act, and a written arbitration agreement
that included a class action waiver.

On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court denied NABORS' motion to compel
arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions.

On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Cisneros, a putative class member in
the Ridgeway class action, commenced an individual arbitration at
JAMS. His individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator
Hon. Richard D. Aldrich (Ret.) resulting in a Phase I Final Award
issued Jan. 5, 2022 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Feb. 28,
2022, in favor of him.

On March 22, 2022, Cisneros filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.

On Aug. 4, 2022, the Court granted Cisneros' motion and confirmed
the Final JAMS Arbitration Award, and denied NABORS' request to
vacate the award.

Therefore, Cisneros will recover against NABORS in the following
amounts: in the amount of $263,873.95 in damages, including
statutory interest thru Dec. 24, 2021, and continuing at $33.25 per
day on the unpaid wages and interest at the rate of 10% per annum
until all wages and interest thereon are paid in full, $281,235 in
attorneys' fees and $4,983.63 in costs as awarded by the
Arbitrator. Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the
amount of $6,861.10 and for costs in the amount of $402 will be
recovered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8yrwsw from Leagle.com.

Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES,
Tustin, CA.


NETWORK TRAVEL: Ex-Employees Sue Pollen's US Unit for Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Destination events company Pollen is entering administration in the
UK. Now its US subsidiaries face a class action lawsuit from former
employees, Ashley King reports for Digital Music News.

Sergio Giancaspro is suing Network Travel Experiences, Inc., and
StreetTeam Software LLC., which are the US subsidiaries of Pollen.
The lawsuit filing, shared with Digital Music News, alleges
Pollen's wealthy founding brothers mismanaged the company to ruin.

"It touts itself as 'pair[ing] world-class entertainment with
exciting destinations,' and offers employees a chance to 'live a
bigger life.' Pollen proclaims that it is backed by prominent
investors and has raised over $200 million in VC funding," the
lawsuit reads.

"The party ended in August 2022. Pollen's executives severely
mismanaged the hundreds of millions with which they were entrusted.
Shortly after completing a massive funding round, Pollen cancelled
a series of widely-publicized festivals. It announced in mid-August
that it was entering administration, the UK equivalent of
bankruptcy."

"This left Pollen's US subsidiaries and their employees adrift.
After a series of late payroll payments, the subsidiaries stopped
paying employees altogether as of July 1, 2022. They then laid off
all employees -- without notice or warning -- on August 10, 2022
effective immediately. Employees were left with millions of dollars
in unpaid wages and expense reimbursements."

"Giancaspro brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated former employees for failure to pay earned wages and
reimburse expenses, and for failure to provide mandatory advanced
notice of the layoffs under federal and state labor laws."

The lawsuit continues alleging that Pollen was aware in early 2022
that it was facing financial difficulties. The company 'repeatedly'
missed payroll to its US workforce, which executives blamed on
their payroll processor and 'human error.' Employees' pay
reimbursements for most of 2022 were late until they weren't paid
at all, starting July 1.

In April and May 2022, NTE began laying off employees without
advanced notice. The plaintiff of the lawsuit alleges that around
200 employees were laid off during this period.  When NTE missed
payroll again on June 30, Pollen's Co-Founder and CEO Callum
Negus-Fancey said the issue was due to "closing a transaction with
a large, well-known entertainment company" and the difficulty was
an "isolated, one-off event." When asked directly if Pollen could
continue to meet its payroll obligations going forward,
Negus-Fancey replied, "Yes, we absolutely can."

On August 10, 2022 NTE notified its employees they were terminated
effective immediately. They did not receive the 60 days' notice
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
(WARN Act). Nor did NTE or Pollen pay the employees their final
wages due upon termination, including vacation and other time
compensated.

Jason Heffler, writing for EDM.com, reports the company also drew
the ire of a number of its partners, like Drumcode Malta, whose
organizers said Pollen's highly publicized struggles forced them to
pull the plug on the festival.

As the news circulated, Pollen released a statement attributing its
pitfalls to a number of factors, including COVID-19 restrictions
and a global economic downtick. The statement arrived days after
Live Nation released its Q2 financials, reporting $4.43 billion in
revenue, up from $575.9 million last year.

"Despite strong growth since Streetteam Software Ltd.'s inception
eight years ago, the knock-on effects of COVID-19 over the last two
years, which decimated much of the travel sector, together with the
tech stock crash and current consumer uncertainty in light of
global economic conditions, put too much pressure on the business
whilst at a critical stage of a scale-up's maturity," reads
Pollen's statement.

The suit is the latest development in the saga of Pollen, which had
raised $150 million to curate destination travel experiences.
Founded in 2014, the company reportedly laid off over 150 members
of its staff in May, just one month after the funding round.[GN]


NORDSTROM INC: Faces Murphy Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVANIE MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 22STCV25014 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay
for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failure to
include nondiscretionary bonuses in regular rate of pay to
calculate overtime and penalty pay; failure to properly calculate
and pay sick leave wages; failure to pay wages due upon
termination; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide
uninterrupted meal breaks and second meal breaks; failure to
provide suitable seating and; failure to provide accurate wage
statements and maintain accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed as a nonexempt employee of the
Defendants until April of 2022.

Nordstrom, Inc. is an American luxury department store chain,
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
         KOUL LAW FIRM
         3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 761-5484
         Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
         E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

                  - and –

         Garen Majarian, Esq.
         MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
         18250 Ventura Blvd.
         Tarzana, CA 91356
         Telephone: (818) 609-0807
         Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
         E-mail: garen@majarianlawgroup.com

OREGON: Federal Judge Certifies Class Action Over Foster Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Borrud of The Oregonian's OregonLive reports that a lawsuit
filed on behalf of children in Oregon's foster system will proceed
as a class action on behalf of all the state's foster children,
after a federal judge expanded it beyond its 10 specific plaintiffs
on August 17.

The lawsuit is an effort by Oregon advocates for people with
disabilities and a national group that has filed similar legal
actions in other states to force systemic improvements in the
state's foster care system.

In 2019, Disability Rights Oregon, the New York City-based
nonprofit A Better Childhood and lawyers from the firm Davis Wright
Tremaine filed a lawsuit outlining horrific examples of how 10
children, ranging in age from 18 months to 17 years old,
experienced harm while in state care.

The plaintiffs included a 17-year-old Native American boy who had
lived in at least 50 different foster placements, none with tribal
members, and was about to age out of the system without a stable
living arrangement; 15-year-old transgender boy for whom the state
had failed to find a supportive home and at one point, sent to an
all-girls program; and a 9-year-old girl who was sent to a program
in Montana where she was drugged to "induce calming effects" and
physically restrained by up to four staff at a time.

The class action that U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken approved on
Wednesday includes "all children for whom the Oregon Department of
Human Services ("DHS") has or will have legal responsibility and
who are or will be in the legal or physical custody of DHS." Aiken
also approved subclasses for groups of children whose attorneys
alleged they experienced specific harms: children with physical,
intellectual, cognitive or mental health disabilities; children who
are sexual or gender minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual,
queer, transgender, intersex, gender non-conforming and non-binary
children; and children ages 14 and up, plus young adults in the
foster system, who are eligible for transition services and lack an
appropriate reunification or permanency plan.

In order to qualify for class action status, lawyers for the young
plaintiffs had to demonstrate to Aiken that the number of children
potentially wronged by Oregon's foster care system was large
enough, that the state's alleged mishandling of the specific
plaintiff's care was common and the harm they were at risk of
suffering was typical, and that the lawyers for the children are
equipped to adequately represent them in a class action case.

Lawyers for the state argued against the class action
certification, citing the fact that multiple child plaintiffs had
aged out of foster care or otherwise exited the system in the more
than three years since the lawsuit was filed. However, Aiken ruled
against the state because she said the plaintiffs had demonstrated
that the harms they allegedly experienced in Oregon's foster care
system "are certain to recur" for other children in state care,
regardless of the fact that none of the young plaintiffs will
remain in state care indefinitely.

"On an even more fundamental level . . . children grow up," Aiken
wrote. "At a certain point, they will age out of the care of foster
system. These changes in circumstances may happen before the court
has an opportunity to rule on the motion to certify the class. The
injuries claimed by the challenged plaintiffs are repeatable to the
class, if not necessarily to the named plaintiffs themselves, and
the court concludes that plaintiff has shown that the injuries
claimed by the named plaintiffs are certain to recur on other
similarly situated individuals."

The number of children in Oregon foster care has fluctuated over
the years, from nearly 10,000 in 2006 to 5,500 last fall.

"We know that every child needs a stable home environment where
their potential can be nurtured," said Tom Stenson, deputy legal
director of Disability Rights Oregon, in a statement. "For at least
half of the thousands of children in Oregon's foster care system
who experience a disability, the current system does not meet their
needs, so they're being bounced around from institution to
institution and home to home. Children with disabilities deserve
real homes where their needs are met, not refurbished jail cells,
hotel rooms, and homeless shelters."

Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of A Better Childhood,
said in a statement that Oregon "has simply failed to address the
overwhelming needs of its most vulnerable children . . . Foster
care is supposed to help kids, not make them worse, but that is
exactly what foster care in Oregon is doing."

A spokesperson for Gov. Kate Brown, who has identified improving
Oregon's foster care system as a priority since she took office in
2015, declined to comment. "Our office generally does not comment
on matters of pending litigation," Liz Merah wrote in an email.

Jake Sunderland, press secretary for the Oregon Department of Human
Services, also declined to comment.[GN]

PERFORMANCE ONE: Richards et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRA RICHARDS and SPENCER WHITE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERFORMANCE ONE SECURITY,
LLC, a limited liability company, HENSON SECURITY SERVICES LLC, a
limited liability company, and ROBERT HENSON JR., an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00701-Y (N.D. Tex., August 12, 2022)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-aid and
non-exempt security officers - Plaintiff Richards was from
approximately October 2001 through the present, and Plaintiff White
was from approximately September 2019 through June 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked more
than 40 hours in a given workweek throughout his employment with
the Defendants. However, the Defendants regularly failed to pay
them premium overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover the full amount of damages and
liquidated damages, for themselves and for other similarly situated
security officers. The Plaintiffs also seek reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs incurred by them filing this complaint, as well as
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court
deems appropriate.                            

Performance One Security, LLC and Henson Security Services LLC
provide security services. Accordingly, Defendant Henson Security
Services LLC acquired the business operations and employees of
Performance One Security, LLC. Robert Henson Jr. is the managing
member of Defendant Henson Security Services LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Buchholz, Esq.
          ROBERT W. BUCHHOLZ, P.C.
          5220 Spring Valley Rd., Ste. 618
          Dallas, TX 75254-2431
          Tel: 214-754-5500
          E-mail: bob@attorneybob.com

                - and -

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Tel: 248-355-0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Faces Cooley Suit Over Miscalculation of ACV
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES COOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00651-SLP (W.D. Okla., August 4, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systemically employs a
routine total loss settlement process in calculating its valuations
and claims payments for first-party property damage under its
collision and/or comprehensive coverage. The Defendant relied on a
Vehicle Valuation Report provided by Mitchell to calculate the
actual cash value (ACV) amount owed under its insurance policy.
However, the valuation reports used by the Defendant make a further
adjustment to each loss vehicle called a Projected Sold Adjustment,
which does not reflect market realities and run contrary to
customary automobile dealer practices and inventory management. The
Plaintiff and Class members were damaged by the Defendant's
application of these Projected Sold Adjustments because they were
not paid the ACV they would have received had the Defendant applied
proper methodologies and appraisal standards, says the suit.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
         14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479-2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

                 - and –

         Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
         Christopher Gold, Esq.
         EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (786) 289-9471
         Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
         E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 chris@edelsberglaw.com

PROVENTION BIO: D.N.J. Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a putative
securities class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain
of its executives. Paxton v. Provention Bio, Inc., No.
3:21-cv-11613, slip op. (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2022), ECF No. 57.
Plaintiffs alleged the company made misrepresentations in
connection with the company's candidate drug intended to delay or
prevent the progression of Type One Diabetes. The Court held that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege actionable
misrepresentations, scienter, or loss causation.

Plaintiffs' allegations concerned the company's efforts to obtain
FDA approval of the drug after the company acquired the drug from
another company that had manufactured the drug in Ireland and had
positive initial results in a clinical trial. Because the company
wanted to manufacture the drug in Seattle, it conducted a "bridging
study" in an attempt to demonstrate that the formulation
manufactured in Seattle would be "biocomparable" -- i.e., that it
would have "a similar lasting impact on a patient's body in both
time and effect." Id. at 4-5. Ultimately, the FDA concluded that
the new formulation was not biocomparable and observed
"deficiencies" in the company's manufacturing facility. Id. at 17
18. Plaintiffs alleged that the company made statements that were
misleading because they omitted information regarding (1) the
comparability results of the bridging study; (2) the enrollment
size of the Stage 2 clinical trial; (3) ongoing safety data from
the Stage 2 clinical trial; and (4) manufacturing progress.

With respect to the comparability study, the Court rejected
plaintiffs' argument that omitting the risk that the study might
produce negative results made the company's statements misleading.
Id. at 22. The Court explained that, while speaking on an issue can
give rise to a duty to disclose additional material facts, the
company "did not speak on the issue" of the comparability results
in the statements challenged in this regard, and in fact, made
clear that the FDA was the ultimate decision-maker. Id. at 22-23.
The Court further concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
that the company was aware of the comparability results or believed
that there was a significant risk that FDA approval would be
negatively impacted by those results. Id. at 23. Moreover, the
Court determined that the company's statements regarding "its
alternative view of the results" -- after it chose to speak on the
issue -- were not actionable because "[i]nterpretations of clinical
trial data" were nonactionable opinions, and plaintiffs did not
allege that the company did not honestly believe its
interpretation. Id. at 24-27. The Court also explained that the
company had no duty to provide updates regarding interim
discussions with the FDA about the comparability study because the
FDA's feedback did not express a binding decision and was subject
to change. Id. at 28.

With respect to the enrollment size of the clinical trial, the
Court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the company failed to
disclose that the trial "did not meet the enrollment specified in
the original protocol." Id. at 31. To the contrary, the Court
observed that both the company and the entity conducting the
clinical trial had disclosed the enrollment size. Id. The Court
further rejected the allegation that the safety data from the trial
was insufficient due to a design flaw, noting that these
allegations were based solely on comments from FDA Advisory
Committee members -- who ultimately voted in favor of the drug --
and that there was no allegation that plaintiffs did not honestly
believe that the drug was safe. Id. at 32. And with respect to
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the company's manufacturing
facilities, the Court observed that the company had disclosed "the
FDA's perceived manufacturing deficiency" within days and that
plaintiffs failed to allege any facts indicating that the company
learned of such deficiencies previously, the severity of those
deficiencies, or whether these deficiencies caused a delay in FDA
approval. Id. at 33.

The Court then assessed plaintiffs' allegations regarding scienter
and concluded that they did not give rise to a strong inference of
scienter as to any defendant. Id. at 35. Plaintiffs asserted that
the drug was "centrally important" to the company, that the CEO and
CFO held themselves out as knowledgeable about the FDA, that the
CEO and CFO had extensive experience in the pharmaceutical
industry, that the company had a common stock offering while these
events unfolded, and that the CEO and CFO are senior executives who
signed the company's annual reports. Id. But the Court explained
that none of these allegations were sufficient to support a strong
inference of scienter in the absence of other particularized
allegations. Id. at 36–38. The Court further rejected that
scienter should be imputed from the allegation that the FDA had
previously communicated that it had found "certain deficiencies" at
a company facility, as plaintiffs failed to allege facts linking
any such deficiencies to the challenged statements. Id. at 39-40.
Moreover, while plaintiffs argued that scienter was supported by
the fact that the company spoke about the bridging study, the Court
concluded that "the content and context cut the other way" because
the company also "discussed purported issues" with the study that
plaintiffs alleged were concealed. Id. at 39-40.

The Court also considered motive and opportunity as "relevant to a
court's holistic analysis," but held that plaintiffs' allegations
regarding defendants' supposed desire to raise capital and ensure
the survival of the company was too generic to be actionable and is
shared by all executives. Id. at 42. The Court further emphasized
that the company had, in fact, disclosed "a crucial fact that
[p]laintiffs allege [d]efendants were concealing" regarding a
potential negative interpretation of the comparability data and
that "[t]he FDA could disagree with [the company's] analysis and
interpretation." Id. at 43. Thus, the Court concluded that the
opposing inference was more compelling -- that the company "thought
and hoped" it would obtain FDA approval, disclosed obstacles when
they arose, and disclosed that the company's initial views on the
timeline and the comparability data were ultimately incorrect. Id.
at 43-44.

Finally, the Court concluded that, because plaintiffs failed to
adequately allege any actionable misrepresentations, plaintiffs
also failed to allege that defendants caused plaintiffs' alleged
losses. Id. at 45.[GN]

QUALITY LIFE: Golden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY LIFE SERVICES, LLC, APRIL LINCON,
and SALLY CHAVEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00579 (D.N.M.,
August 3, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
caregivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver from
approximately May 1, 2019 through July 5, 2022.

Quality Life Services, LLC is a post-acute healthcare services
provider doing business in New Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
         WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
         409 North Fredonia, Suite 118
         Longview, TX 75601
         Telephone: (512) 799-2048

RITE AID: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Byars Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORP. and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-01377-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal.,
August 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose to the
users of its website, www.riteaid.com, that it deployed a keystroke
monitoring software to intercept, monitor, and record the
communications of all visitors to its website. The Plaintiff and
Class members did not consent to any of the Defendant's actions in
implementing wiretaps on its website, nor did they consent to the
Defendant's intentional access, interception, recording,
monitoring, reading, learning and collection of their electronic
communications with the website, says the suit.

Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]

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

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Rocket Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.C. SNYDER v. ROCKET
MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03840-MCS-AS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling order as
follows:

                Event                              Date

  -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:              July 7, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Initial):               April 7, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):              May 5, 2023

  -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                  August 11, 2023

  -- Deadline to File a Motion for              Nov. 21, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Deadline to File an Opposition             Dec. 12, 2022
     to the Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Deadline to File a Reply in                Jan. 3, 2023
     Support of the Motion for
     Class Certification:

  -- Hearing Date on Motion for                 Jan. 23, 2023
     Class Certification:

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


ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Garcia Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOLORES GARCIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, D/B/A MARIANO'S,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04056 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Ms. Garcia has worked for the Defendant as a Process Safety
Management (PSM) staff from approximately September 2014 until the
present.

Roundy's Illinois, LLC, doing business as Mariano's, is an operator
of a chain of grocery stores within Illinois. [BN]

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

ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS: Underpays Grocery Store Staff, Kearney Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA KEARNEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, D/B/A MARIANO'S,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04051 (N.D. Ill., August 3, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Ms. Kearney worked for the Defendant as a Process Safety Management
(PSM) staff from approximately July 2017 to December 2019.

Roundy's Illinois, LLC, doing business as Mariano's, is an operator
of a chain of grocery stores within Illinois. [BN]

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

RVJ PIZZA: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Lewis Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDON LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RVJ PIZZA, INC. and ROBERT W. JONES,
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00650-D (W.D. Okla., August 3, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reimburse
business expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store located in Seminole, Oklahoma from approximately
August 2021 to May 2022.

RVJ Pizza, Inc. is an owner and operator of numerous Domino's
franchise stores in Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         400 N. St Paul, Suite 700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
         E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Underpays Customer Service Staff, Alvaran Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ALVARAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06897 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 2022) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has started working for the Defendant as a customer
service associate at one of its retail stores in October 2013 until
October 2021. He was transferred to work as a Warehouse Manager at
one of the Defendant's warehouse in October 2021 until the end of
his employment on July 25, 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was underpaid throughout
his employment as a Customer Service Associate. While working as a
Warehouse Manager, the Defendant paid him $21.73 per hour on a
bi-weekly basis. Despite regularly working 12 hours shifts, the
Plaintiff was never paid the required spread of hours pay for days
when he worked more than 10 hours at a time. The Defendant also
failed to pay him any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for
the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Defendant allegedly deducted
the Plaintiff's uniform from his wages. Moreover, the Defendant
willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff with wage notices and
wage statements, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for compensatory
damages for himself and all other similarly situated Customer
Service Associate, as well as unpaid spread of hours pay, unpaid
uniform maintenance pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties
for failure to provide wages notices and wage statements, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
costs, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.

Sherwin-Williams International Company sells volumes of paint to
commercial clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

SNAP INC: Collects Snapchat App Users' Biometrics, Boone Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA BOONE, ASHLEY MCCLINTON, and K.F.C., a minor by and through
her guardian, ERIN RENTFRO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNAP INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2022LA000708 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial., Dupage Cty., August 4,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to disclose to
the users of its camera application, Snapchat, including the
Plaintiffs, that it collects their biometric identifiers without
their informed, written consent.

Snap, Inc. is a mobile application developer, with its principal
place of business located at 2772 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa
Monica, California. [BN]

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

                - and –

         Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         3833 Central Ave.
         St. Petersburg, FL 33713
         Telephone: (813) 786-8622
         E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com

SPECIALIZED LOAN: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Hurster Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HURSTER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-CV-00318 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A.
Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, grants SLS' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Mr. Hurster brings the putative class action against SLS for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. 227
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692,
et seq. He alleges SLS made numerous unsolicited, pre-recorded debt
collection calls to his cellular telephone, all of which failed to
disclose that the communication was from a debt collector in an
attempt to collect a debt.

U.S. Bank N.A. was the original lender and servicer of the
Plaintiff's home mortgage loan. In 2019, U.S. Bank transferred his
mortgage and deed of trust to Selene Finance, LP. The Plaintiff
subsequently defaulted on his mortgage debt. Effective Aug. 1,
2020, Selene Finance, LP transferred the Plaintiff's defaulted
mortgage debt to SLS while he was in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Beginning in August 2020, the Plaintiff received the following
voicemail message from SLS: "This message is from Specialized Loan
Servicing. During this time of the recently announced national
emergency relating to COVID-19, we are contacting you to remind you
of alternative methods to receive information about your account,
or to make payments. You may make payments via our website at
www.sls.net or calling our Payment IVR service at (800) 981-9963.
You can receive account information via our website at www.sls.net
or through our automated phone system at (800) 315-4757. Thank
you."

The Court notes that it is undisputed that the voicemail message
does not mention the character, amount, or status of the
Plaintiff's debt. SLS' records document 10 attempts to contact the
Plaintiff between Aug. 11, 2020, and Feb. 11, 2021.

The Plaintiff now moves to dismiss his TCPA claim without
prejudice. His stated reason for dismissal is that recent discovery
indicates he expressly consented to be contacted on his cell phone
through SLS' website. Because this is fatal to the Plaintiff's TCPA
claim, Judge Ross grants the Plaintiff's motion, but dismisses the
claim with prejudice.

The matter is now before the Court on SLS' Motion for Summary
Judgment; the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff's claim arises under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which
prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt. He asserts that SLS violated this
provision by failing to disclose in its pre-recorded voice messages
to Plaintiff that it was a debt collector attempting to collect a
debt, in violation of Section 1692e(11), which requires that in any
communication, the debt collector must disclose that the
communication is from a debt collector.

SLS argues it is not liable under the FDCPA because informational
communications like its voicemail messages, that do not demand
payment or discuss the specifics of an underlying debt, are not
communications "in connection with the collection" of a debt. It
argues that its voicemail message was intended to convey general
information about alternative methods of contacting SLS instead of
calling its Customer Service Center. It was directed to all of its
customers during the COVID-19 pandemic and was not restricted to
customers who were in default on their mortgage loans. It did not
ask for, or demand payment from Plaintiff or discuss the specifics
of his debt or any collection efforts.

In response to SLS' motion (and as the basis for his own motion for
summary judgment), the Plaintiff argues that he understood the
purpose of the voicemail was to induce him to pay his mortgage
debt. Specifically, he asserts that when the voicemail referred to
"your account," SLS was referring to his mortgage debt and telling
him where to make payment in an attempt to collect a debt.  It was
his testimony that he assumed SLS was referencing his mortgage debt
because they were calling him on the phone number they had on file
associated with his particular debt.

The Plaintiff further argues that SLS admitted it expected
customers to make payments from the voicemail it sent. He cites
several cases in support of his contention that SLS' voicemail
message violates the FDCPA.

Based on the record before the Court, Judge Ross holds that no
reasonable jury could find that an animating purpose of SLS'
voicemail message was to induce payment. Nothing in SLS'
informational message is specific to the Plaintiff's debt; in fact,
there is no mention of his debt. No part of the message requests or
demands payment from him. It does not threaten consequences for
nonpayment.

Thus, SLS' voicemail message was not a "communication in connection
with the collection of a debt" as required to establish liability
under the FDCPA. For this reason, its motion for summary judgment
will be granted; the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is
denied; and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/35eskx94 from Leagle.com.


STRATEGIC CLEANING: Delgado Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VIVAS DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRATEGIC CLEANING CORP. and EDGAR
STEFFENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04560 (E.D.N.Y., August 3,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide proper wage notice,
and failure to provide wage statements.

Mr. Delgado was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker, demolition worker and cleaner from June 2019 until in or
around August 2019.

Strategic Cleaning Corp. is a provider of cleaning services, with a
principal executive office located in Flushing, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

TEXAS: Class Settlement in Roppolo v. Criminal Justice Dept. Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Matthew Roppolo, et al., Plaintiffs v. Medical
Director Lannette Linthicum; Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
Ben Raimer; Cynthia Jumper; Rodney Burrow; F. Parker Hudson III;
Erin Wyrick; John Burruss; Preston Johnson, Jr.; Kelly Garcia; Owen
Murray; University of Texas Medical Branch Correctional Managed
Care; Dee Budgewater; Philip Keiser, Defendants-Appellees v. Julian
Dominguez, Appellant, Case No. 21-40414 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's
approval of the class-action settlement.

Mr. Dominguez, former Texas prisoner No. 497927, is a class member
in a class action alleging that inmates received inadequate medical
treatment while in state custody. He now appeals the district
court's approval of the class-action settlement. He has also filed
a motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal, or, in the
alternative, for a stay of the appeal until he is able to hire an
attorney.

Because Dominguez has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel, the Fifth Circuit denies his
request. It also denies his alternative motion to stay the appeal.

The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court's approval of a
class-action settlement for abuse of discretion. It finds that
Dominguez has not presented any argument that the district court's
ruling was an abuse of discretion. He has therefore abandoned, by
failure to brief, any challenge to the approval of the settlement.

Hence, the district court's judgment is affirmed, and Dominguez's
motions are denied.

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


THANK YOU: Catzin Cross-Appeals Attorney Fees' Ruling to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA LOPEZ CATZIN, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, have filed a cross-appeal from a judgment
entered in the lawsuit entitled Lucia Lopez Catzin, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07109, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendants --
a group of laundromats and their owners -- for violations of the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours payments, and failure to
provide wage notices and wage statements.

On November 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed motions for attorney's
fees and to set aside the jury's finding and enter judgment against
Defendant Dimitri Berezovsky. On January 10, 2022, the Defendants
filed a memorandum of law in opposition of the Plaintiffs' motions
for attorney's fees and judgment.

District Judge Andrew L. Carter granted the Plaintiffs' motions on
June 13, 2022. The Court ruled that as an employer, Defendant
Berezovsky is jointly and severally liable for any recovery awarded
to the Plaintiffs. The Court ordered to award a total of
$140,250.36 in attorneys' fees and $4,064.86 in costs.

The appellate case is captioned as Lopez Catzin v. Thank You & Good
Luck Corp., Case No. 22-1655, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on July 26, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCIA LOPEZ CATZIN, et al., individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Alan Gerald Serrins, Esq.
            SERRINS & ASSOCIATES LLC
            The Woolworth Building
            233 Broadway
            New York, NY 10279
            Telephone: (212) 384-0202

                   - and -

            Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
            FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
            225 Broadway
            New York, NY 10007
            Telephone: (212) 571-0700

Defendants-Appellees THANK YOU & GOOD LUCK CORP., et al., are
represented by:

            Mark Kook, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF MARK R. KOOK
            270 Madison Avenue
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 766-4100

THINK FINANCE: Settles Suit Over Rent-a-Tribe Scheme for $44M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jakob Cordes of wric.com reports that a loan company in Virginia
accused of lending at illegally high interest rates reached a $44
million settlement Aug. 16 in a scheme that used affiliation with
two Native American Tribes to evade state laws.

"The litigation stopped most of the illegal internet lenders, and
legislation kicked out the payday and car title lenders," said Jay
Speer, Executive Director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, which
represented some of the plaintiffs, in a press release.

"But a few illegal internet predators continue to target Virginians
over the internet."

In an initial complaint dated to 2018, which set off the four-year
legal battle, plaintiffs alleged that a Texas-based company called
"Think Finance," operating through the shell companies Plain Green
LLC and Great Plains Lending LLC, used a spurious affiliation with
two Native American tribes to circumvent Virginia laws limiting the
amount of interest that could be charged on loans.

According to the complaint, the company paid the Chippewa Cree and
Otoe-Missouria tribes a flat fee to use their names -- and tribal
sovereignty -- to claim exemption from Virginia's laws, when in
fact the tribes had no involvement in the operations of the company
and had no stake in the loan companies themselves.

The plaintiffs say they were charged annual interest rates as high
as 400%. In Virginia, lenders are barred from charging an APR of
more than 12%.

Now, the companies have reached a class-action settlement with the
plaintiffs, which means anyone who fell victim to the illegal
lending practices can be eligible for a cash payment.

"Payouts benefit consumers with loans from companies identified as
Great Plains Lending at any time, loans with Plain Green before
June 1, 2016, or cash advances or lines of credit from MobiLoans
before May 6, 2017," the Judge's order reads.

The companies will now be required to pay $44,530,000 into an
escrow account, from which it will be distributed to those who
qualify for the settlement.[GN]

UNITED STATES: Angel Sues for Breach of COD Contract Provisions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua J. Angel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00867-MMS (Fed. Cl., Aug. 8, 2022) is a class
action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
owners of non-cumulative preferred shares of the Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and/or the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac, and collectively with Fannie
Mae, the "GSEs" and/or the "Companies") against the United States
due to the United States Department of Treasury's alleged
misconduct.

According to the complaint, the Department of Treasury (a) breaches
the contract obligations created by the Certificates of Designation
(CODs) of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; (b) breaches the federal
government's guaranty of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac
non-cumulative preferred quarterly dividend rights; and (c)
breaches Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 "Federal Agency"
authorization in directing quarterly sweep of approximately $500
million (i.e. $2 billion annual) of GSE's funds which by contract
should have remained with the GSEs for post-conservatorship
dividend payment to Junior Preferred shareholders, in major
question doctrine violative payments to Senior Preferred shares
payments from January 1, 2013 to date.

The complaint is anchored in Treasury's alleged wrongful actions,
each and every quarter beginning first quarter of 2013, of
preventing the Companies' boards of directors from declaring Junior
Preferred share dividends. Those quarterly wrongful actions were in
breach of CODs contract provisions regarding Junior Preferred
dividends, and the Implicit Guaranty of Junior Preferred share
dividend rights in their quarterly sweeping GSE's funds which by
contract should have remained with the Companies for
post-conservatorship allocation to Junior Preferred, notes the
complaint. Those quarterly wrongful actions resulted in
approximately $20 billion of GSEs Junior Preferred share dividend
entitlement to Defendant, it adds.

Plaintiff Angel is a resident of New York, and owns Junior
Preferred Shares of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in excess of $1
million face amount.

United States Department of Treasury is an agency or
instrumentality of the United States, having its headquarters in
Washington, DC.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Injunction Bid Denial to 10th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are taking an appeal from a court ruling
denying their motion for permanent injunction in the lawsuit
entitled Randy Dean Quint, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Vail Resorts,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-03569-DDD-GPG, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On November 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for permanent
injunction under the All Writs Act.

On March 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion for an
injunction be denied.

On March 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an objection/appeal to the
District Court of the Magistrate Judge's decision denying their
motion for an injunction.

On June 27, 2022, Judge Daniel D. Domenico overruled the
Plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. Judge Domenico accepted and adopted the Report and
Recommendation, and accordingly, denied the Plaintiffs' Emergency
Motion for Permanent Injunction under the All Writs Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Quint, et al. v. Vail Resorts,
Inc., Case No. 22-1226, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on July 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and notice of
appearance were due August 10, 2022 for John Linn, Mark Molina and
Randy Dean Quint;

   -- Notice of appearance was due on August 10, 2022 for Vail
Resorts, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

           Edward P. Dietrich, Esq.
            EDWARD DIETRICH, APC
            9595 Wilshire Boulevard
            Suite 900
            Beverly Hills, CA 90212
            Telephone: (310) 300-8450

                   - and -

            Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
            BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
            12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
            San Diego, CA 92130-3582
            Telephone: (858) 793-0070

Defendant-Appellee VAIL RESORTS, INC., is represented by:

            Michael H. Bell, Esq.
            Steven R. Reid, Esq.
            OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART
            2000 South Colorado Boulevard
            Tower 3, Suite 900
            Denver, CO 80222
            Telephone: (303) 764-6800

ZACHARY HOLDINGS: $1.88MM Class Deal in Blackmon Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES R. BLACKMON, JUSTIN M. ROZELLE, ERIC A. MYERS,
JARED MUNSON, Plaintiffs v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, WHOSE NAMES
ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-00988-JKP
(W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, recommends that the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement be granted.

The case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. The Plaintiffs filed the action on
behalf of themselves, the ZHI 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, and
all other former and present participants in the Plan. They allege
that the Defendants, who are the alleged Plan fiduciaries, breached
their fiduciary duties to the Plan by: (1) selecting and retaining
imprudent investments in the Plan; (2) causing the Plan to pay
unreasonable investment management fees; and (3) causing the Plan
to pay unreasonable recordkeeping and administrative fees. Their
Second Amended Complaint, the live pleading, seeks a declaratory
judgment that the acts of Defendants violate ERISA, a permanent
injunction against Defendants, and compensatory damages.

After the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the
parties commenced discovery, including the exchange of discovery
requests and production of more than 13,000 pages of documents
related to Plan administration, relationships between and among
fiduciaries, and the Defendants' investment and service provider
monitoring processes. Prior to the filing of any motion to certify
the class action or additional dispositive motions practice, the
parties reached a settlement.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on behalf of Plan participants and the Plan, and the
Court granted the motion on Feb. 18, 2022, after holding a
hearing.

The Order preliminarily approving of the settlement conditionally
certified the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes:
All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the
Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who
participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and
any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated
in the Plan at any time during the Class Period.

The Order also preliminarily approved the parties' proposed
settlement as fair and reasonable; established a qualified
settlement fund; scheduled a fairness hearing for final review of
the settlement; approved the appointment of Strategic Claims
Services as settlement administrator; provided a deadline of May
30, 2022, for any motion for attorneys' fees and briefs in support
of final approval of settlement; and set a deadline of June 14,
2022, for objections to the settlement by the class members.

SCS thereafter disseminated the settlement notice via electronic
and first-class mail to 33,690 class members and former plan
participants in March 2022, established a website and other contact
information for the settlement, and followed other notice
procedures mandated by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28
U.S.C. Sections 1711-1715, Rule 23, and the Court's Order. Of the
33,690 class members, 19,031 were identified as non-active Plan
participants and were mailed the Court-approved Settlement Notice
along with a Former Participant Claim Form. The remaining 14,659
active Plan participants received the Court-approved Settlement
Notice.

The Plaintiffs now request final approval of the settlement, as
well as approval of the requested attorneys' fees, expenses, and
service awards, and the entry of final judgment.

The Court held a fairness hearing on the motion on July 14, 2022,
at which the parties appeared through counsel and reviewed the key
components of the parties' agreement. The Settlement Agreement
provides that the Defendants will make payment in an aggregate
amount of $1,875,000 into a Qualified Settlement Fund, and will
take certain actions in connection with monitoring the Plan's
investments and fees, in exchange for the Settlement Class' release
of its claims described in the Agreement.

The Settlement Fund will be used to pay the following amounts
associated with the Settlement: (1) compensation to members of the
Settlement Class in accordance with the proposed Plan of
Allocation; (2) any Case Contribution Award approved by the Court;
(3) all Attorneys' Fees and Expenses approved by the Court; (4)
Independent Fiduciary Fees and Costs; (5) Administration Costs; and
(6) Taxes and Tax-Related Costs.

The amount to be paid to each Class Member will be determined by
the Plan of Allocation, which provides for pro rata allocation of
settlement proceeds based on the average size of each Class
Member's account during the Class Period. The 14,659 Class Members
who are active participants in the Plan will automatically receive
the benefit of the Settlement, and SCS has received 3,418 Former
Participant Claim Forms for participation by former Plan
participants. After payments have been issued to the Class members,
any amount remaining in the Settlement Fund from uncashed checks
after 180 days will be distributed back to the Settlement Fund to
be utilized as set forth in the Plan of Allocation. There will be
no reversion to the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of attorneys' fees for
Class Counsel in the amount of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund
($625,000), reimbursement of expenses actually incurred in the
prosecution of this case in the amount of $43,372.06, and Case
Contribution Awards for each Class Representative (each of the four
Plaintiffs) in the amount of $12,500. SCS has not received any
objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement, any terms therein, or to the proposed Administrative
Expenses, Attorneys' Fees, or the Plaintiffs' Case Contribution
Awards.

To further ensure that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, as well as compliance with ERISA's
prohibited transaction provisions, the Parties retained the
independent fiduciary, Fiduciary Counselors, to approve and
authorize the Settlement on behalf of the Plan and Class Members.
The independent fiduciary filed a report with the Court authorizing
the proposed settlement on behalf of the Plan and asserting no
objections to the terms of the parties' agreement.

The Court has already preliminarily approved the Settlement Class
and appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel, Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi
Adler, P.C., as the Class Counsel. None of the circumstances
warranting certification at the preliminary approval level have
changed. For the reasons stated in the previous order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, Judge Chestney again finds
that the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and (b) and that the Class Counsel satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(g).

Additionally, Judge Chestney finds that the settlement warrants
final approval, concluding that the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)
have been satisfied. She also finds that the requested fees,
expenses, and case contribution awards are reasonable.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' motion, the proposed settlement
agreement, the parties' related filings, and the presentation of
counsel at the live hearing, Judge Chestney grants the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. She
enters the Plaintiffs' Proposed Final Approval Order and Judgment
by separate Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yznejyv3 from Leagle.com.


ZACHARY HOLDINGS: Final Approval & Judgment Issued in Blackmon Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES R. BLACKMON, JUSTIN M. ROZELLE, ERIC A. MYERS,
JARED MUNSON, Plaintiffs v. ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF ZACHARY HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, WHOSE NAMES
ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN, Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-00988-ESC
(W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, grants the Motion for Final Settlement Approval.

The Class Action came before the Court for hearing on July 14,
2022, to determine the fairness of the proposed settlement.

For the sole purpose of settling and resolving the Class Action,
Judge Chestney certifies the Class Action as a class action
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons who participated in
the Plan at any time during the Class Period (August 21, 2014
through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the
Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who
participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and
any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the
Class Period.

Judge Chestney appoints James R. Blackmon, Justin M. Rozelle, Eric
A. Myers, and Jered Munson as the Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class; and Capozzi Adler, P.C. and Miller Shah LLP as
the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Judge Chestney approves the Settlement and orders that the
Settlement will be consummated and implemented in accordance with
its terms and conditions.

The Plan of Allocation is finally approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the Net
Settlement Amount in accordance with the Plan of Allocation and the
Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Administrator will have final
authority to determine the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be
allocated to each Class Member in accordance with the Plan of
Allocation approved by the Court.

The Releases are effective as of the Settlement Effective Date.
Accordingly, Judge Chestney orders that, as of the Settlement
Effective Date, the Plan, the Class Representatives, and the Class
Members (and their respective heirs, beneficiaries, executors,
administrators, fiduciaries, estates, past and present partners,
officers, directors, predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, and
attorneys) fully, finally, and forever settle, release, relinquish,
waive, and discharge all Released Parties (including Defendants)
from all Released Claims, regardless of whether or not such Class
Member may discover facts in addition to or different from those
which the Class Members or the Class Counsel now know or believe to
be true with respect to the Class Action and the Released Claims
and regardless of whether such Class Member receives a monetary
benefit from the Settlement, actually received the Settlement
Notice, filed an objection to the Settlement or to any application
by the Class Counsel for an award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
whether or not the objections or claims for distribution of such
Class Member have been approved or allowed.

The Class Representatives, the Class Members, and the Plan, acting
individually or together, or in combination with others, are
permanently and finally barred and enjoined from suing the Released
Parties in any action or proceeding alleging any of the Released
Claims.

The operative complaint and all claims asserted therein in the
Class Action are dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any
of the Settling Parties and Released Parties other than as provided
for in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court will retain exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any
disputes or challenges that may arise as to the performance of the
Settlement Agreement or any challenges as to the performance,
validity, interpretation, administration, enforcement, or
enforceability of the Settlement Notice, Plan of Allocation, the
Final Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement or the termination
of the Settlement Agreement. It will also retain exclusive
jurisdiction and will rule by separate Order with respect to all
applications for awards of attorneys' fees and Case Contribution
Awards to the Class Representatives, and reimbursements of
litigation costs, submitted pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

In the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, in
accordance with its terms, the Final Approval Order will be
rendered null and void, ab initio, and will be vacated nunc pro
tunc, and the Class Action will for all purposes with respect to
the Parties revert to its status as of the day immediately before
the day the Settlement was reached. The Parties will be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to negotiate a new case management
schedule.

With respect to any matters that arise concerning the
implementation of distributions to Class Members who have an Active
Account (after allocation decisions have been made by the
Settlement Administrator in its sole discretion), all questions not
resolved by the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the Plan
administrator or other fiduciaries of the Plan, in accordance with
applicable law and the governing terms of the Plan.

Within 21 calendar days following the issuance of all settlement
payments to the Class Members as provided by the Plan of Allocation
approved by the Court, the Settlement Administrator will prepare
and provide to the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel a list of
each person who received a settlement payment or contribution from
the Qualified Settlement Fund and the amount of such payment or
contribution.

Upon entry of the Final Approval Order, all Settling Parties, the
Settlement Class, and the Plan will be bound by the Settlement
Agreement and the Final Approval Order.

Judge Chestney enters judgment on all claims, counts and causes of
action alleged in the Class Action. Notwithstanding the reservation
of jurisdiction, it is a final and appealable judgment that ends
the litigation of the Class Action. The Clerk is directed to enter
the judgment in the civil docket forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 5, 2022 Final Approval Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/nc569bxj from
Leagle.com.



                            *********

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 ***