/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220825.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 164

                            Headlines

3 RIVERS TELEPHONE: Court Narrows Claims in Barnes' Amended Suit
3M COMPANY: Coletti Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Tylock Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Wright Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
ALBERTONS COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice

ALL SECURE: Fails to Properly Pay Security Guards, White Suit Says
AMERICAN MODERN: Ferri Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: New York Court Denies Martinek's Spoliation Bid
APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: Connecticut Court Dismisses Yankovich Suit
ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING: Polk Sues Over Gender-Based Pay Discrimination

BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Guzman Alleges Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
BECTON AND DICKINSON: Underpays Packaging Operators, Aguila Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Hicks Suit
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Street Suit
C3.AI INC: Court Issues Stipulated Order on Amended Reckstin Suit

CARVANA CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
CBDMD INC: Class Settlement in Warshawsky Suit Wins Final Approval
CENTERRA GROUP: Faces Putnam Wage-and-Hour Suit in Maryland
CENTRIC BRANDS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Zachary Suit Claims
CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gaul's Class Claims

CHELSEA 7 CORP: Brown Files Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
CLASSY CLOSETS: Stever Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Installers
COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Kattula Suit Over Cryptocurrency Breach
CONTROL GROUP: Illegally Used Identities, Fissinger-Figueroa Says
COOK COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Sims v. Sheriff

CVS PHARMACY: Class Suits Allege Overcharging, Kickbacks to PBMs
CYCLONE SEPTIC: Misclassifies Helpers, Havens Suit Claims
DEAN A. SPINOGATTI: Keegan Files Suit in D. New Jersey
DOLEX DOLLAR: Cornejo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
ELEVATED HOSPITALITY: Faces Saechao Suit Over Forced Tip Sharing

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stovall Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
FCA US: Reilman Suit Moved From C.D. California to E.D. Michigan
FOUR SEASONS: Staley Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
GOLDMAN SACHS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hobbs Alleges
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Service Repair Warranty

HUANG'S MEAT: Faces Yuyuan Zhu Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
JOHN C. HEATH: Transmits Unsolicited Robocalls, Tanner Claims
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ariz., Pima County Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Jefferson County Says
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Dieringer School Says

JUUL LABS: Faces Davenport Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Edge Schools Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Jennings Suit Alleges
JUUL LABS: Perry Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Flowing Wells Claims

KIA CORP: Ohio Residents Sue Over Unsafe, Easy to Steal Vehicles
KIMBERLY CLARK: Faces Mia Suit Over Trafficking, Forced Labor
KIN INSURANCE: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Raslavich Says
LAZER SPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sang Suit Says
LENDING TREE: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Lin Says

LENOX COFFEE: Faces Basurto Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 11
LOOMIS ARMORED: Ligorria FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
MH PLUMBING: Christian Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
MLMLM CORP: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Suit for $1.5-Mil.

MONROE COUNTY, PA: Bid to Dismiss Alford v. MCCF Granted in Part
NATIONAL GAS: Metzler Files Bid to Compel Discovery in TCPA Suit
NESTLE CORP: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Stuckey Suit
NEVADA: Quintero's Bids to Join Counts II & VI to Stickney Denied
NEW YORK, NY: Disla Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Special Officers

R. R. DONNELLEY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kelly Suit Alleges
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Ortiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
RELIANCE VITAMIN: Costa Sues Over Mislabeled Power Supplements
RELX INC: Wilens Sues Over Unfair Research Subscription Service
RIVERSTONE COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Suit

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Halting Meme Stock Trading
SICILIAN SAGE: De Rosa Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Johal's Bid to Reopen Chavez Suit
STRUCTURETECH NEW YORK: Faces Quezada Suit Over WARN Act Violation
SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Soliman Appeals Ruling Dismissing TCPA Suit

SUEZ WTS: Bulnes Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
TAPESTRY INC: Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Brooks Suit
TAPESTRY INC: Reed Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
TARGET CORP: Kahn Files Suit Over Deceptive Shelf Prices
TPUSA INC: Underpays Tech Support Representatives, Doyle Claims

TRB ACQUISITIONS: Faces Cakir Suit Over Trademark Infringement
TUYA INC: Faces Lian Suit Over False Registration Statements
TUYA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
TWITTER INC: Collects Personal Info Without Consent, Suit Says
UBS AG: Prelim. Approval Hearing on Fund Class Deals Set for Oct. 4

UNDERLINING INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
UNITED COLLECTION: Meisels Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
UNITY SOFTWARE: Assad Seeks More Info re ironSource Merger Deal
UPFIELD US: Reyes Sues Over Deceptive Vegetable Oil Spreads' Label
USF REDDAWAY: Bid to Remand Rodriguez Suit to Superior Court Denied

WASHINGTON: $2.15MM Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in D.S. v. DCYF
WHOLE FOODS: Flowers Sues Over Failure to Pay Uniform Maintenance
WINCO HOLDINGS: King Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California

                            *********

3 RIVERS TELEPHONE: Court Narrows Claims in Barnes' Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HARRY BARNES, JOHN MURRAY, ROBERT DESROSIER, KENNETH
HOYT, and JUDY WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3 RIVERS TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE,
INC, Defendants, Case No. CV-21-118-GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Judge Brian
Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana,
Billings Division, grants in part and denies in part 3 Rivers'
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

3 Rivers operates as a Montana non-profit rural telecommunications
membership corporation owned by the residential and commercial
consumers to whom it sells telecommunication services, called
cooperative "members." The Plaintiffs are Native American former
members of 3 Rivers who make up the Browning Telephone/Internet
Exchange. The cooperative allocates a percentage of any revenues
earned above operating expenses ("the margins") at the end of each
fiscal year to each member on a pro-rata basis according to the
total amount paid or produced for services. These allocations to
patrons are known as capital credits. Upon approval of the Board of
Trustees, these allocations are retired to cooperative members.

The bylaws that govern 3 Rivers oblige the Cooperative to allocate
and record capital credits to a capital account for each member all
such amounts in excess of operating costs and expenses. If, at any
time before dissolution or liquidation, the Board will determine
that the financial condition of the Cooperative will not be
impaired, thereby, and in conformance with the concept of
"non-profit" operation, the capital credited to members' accounts
may be retired in full or in part, provided that any such
retirement of capital will be made in accordance with the capital
credits policy of the Cooperative.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action on behalf of former members
of 3 Rivers. They claim that it discriminated against its Native
American cooperative members by denying Native American members the
retirement of their capital credits. They claim that it improperly
determined that it would not retire the capital credits of members
who comprise the Browning Exchange following its sale of the
Browning Exchange to Siyeh Communications in December of 2019. They
claim that 3 Rivers retained the capital credits for the benefit of
itself and its predominantly non-Native American members.

The Browning Exchange included the largest proportion Native
American population that 3 Rivers served. The Plaintiffs allege
that 3 Rivers decided not to include the capital credits belonging
to the Browning Exchange members in the sale to Siyeh
Communications to allow Siyeh Communications to afford the purchase
of the Browning Exchange. They claim that it valued the capital
credits retained from the Browning Exchange members at $8.88
million.

The Plaintiffs allege that 3 Rivers also decided not to retire the
capital credits, at or before the sale, to benefit itself and its
predominantly non-Native American remaining membership. They
further allege that 3 Rivers possesses sufficient capital reserves
in excess of operating costs and expenses in an amount sufficient
to retire the capital credits of the former members of the Browning
Exchange, pursuant to the terms of its bylaws, without impairing
its financial condition.

The Plaintiffs claim that the failure by 3 Rivers to retire the
capital credits "is but one example of disparate treatment" by it
of its members of the Browning Exchange. They claim that 3 Rivers
failed to use federal funding for new broadband construction in
unserved areas to upgrade services for members of the Browning
Exchange.

The Plaintiffs also allege that 3 Rivers benefitted from financial
manipulation through the sale of the Browning Exchange to Siyeh
Communications. They claim that it took advantage of new FCC rules
pertaining to accounting for consumer broadband-only loops before
the completion of the sale of the Browning Exchange to Siyeh
Communications. This action resulted in 3 Rivers receiving a
windfall of excess revenue totaling approximately $18 to $20
million. The Plaintiffs maintain that 3 Rivers obtained this excess
revenue partly by including the Browning Exchange members in its
accounting calculations.

Plaintiff Barnes served as the Browning Exchange's representative
on the 3 Rivers Board before the sale to Siyeh Communications. He
was the only Native American on the board. The Plaintiffs allege
that 3 Rivers removed him from the Board at a special meeting after
Plaintiff Barnes urged 3 Rivers to retire the credits. The Board
claimed that Plaintiff Barnes no longer qualified as "a bona fide
resident of the area served or to be served by the Cooperative." It
voted to not retire the capital credits for the Browning Exchange
after his removal.

The Plaintiffs allege the following claims in their Amended
Complaint: 1) violation of the Federal Communications Act; 2)
violation of the Civil Rights Act; 3) violation of the Montana
Consumer Protection Act; 4) breach of contract; 5) breach of
fiduciary duty; 6) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; 7) unjust enrichment; and 8) the Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief to preserve the funds allegedly owed to Browning
Exchange members.

First, 3 Rivers argues that the Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim
under the Federal Communications Act because the FCA is limited to
oversight of rates and charges imposed by "common carrier"
telecommunications companies rather than governing "the
relationship between a rural cooperative and its members/owners
with respect to the retirement of patronage capital." It also
argues that the FCA does not address racial discrimination between
owners of a cooperative and cooperative members regarding
allocation or retirement of patronage capital.

Judge Morris finds that the inclusion of race as race as a
protected "class" under federal law, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(a),
leads him to deem it reasonable that the FCA's text would cover
discrimination on the basis of race as it pertains to these
credits.

Second, 3 Rivers argues that a discrimination claim under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act should require pleading with particularity.
It argues that, regardless of the pleading standard, the Plaintiffs
have failed to allege sufficient facts regarding discrimination to
allege a plausible discrimination claim.

Judge Morris finds that the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
demonstrates circumstantial evidence that 3 Rivers engaged in
racial discrimination. He says, they allege that 3 Rivers withheld
the capital credits due to their race and that it removed the only
Native American board member before voting not to retire the
Browning Collective's capital credits. The Plaintiffs also alleged
multiple instances where the Browning Collective membership
received service inferior to surrounding collectives with a greater
proportion of non-Native American populations. They allege
sufficient facts to maintain a Title VI claim.

Third, 3 Rivers argues that the Plaintiffs are not "consumers" for
the purpose of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MPCA).  It
argues that their claims arise from their status as owners of the
cooperative and not from their use of services provided by the
cooperative. The Plaintiffs argue that, without their purchase of 3
Rivers' telecommunications services, they would not have been
member/owners of the cooperative and would not have accrued capital
credits.

Judge Morris holds that the capital credits arose from the
Plaintiffs' purchase of services from 3 Rivers. They qualify as
consumers under the MPCA. Hence, they allege sufficient facts to
state a plausible MPCA claim.

Fourth, 3 Rivers argues that the Plaintiffs fail to establish a
breach of contract claim. The Plaintiffs allege that 3 Rivers
breached the explicit terms of its bylaws when it 1) failed to
obtain the authorization of its members before selling the Browning
Exchange to Siyeh Communications; and 2) sold a substantial portion
of its property without an affirmative vote from two-thirds of all
members at a duly held meeting of the members.

Judge Morris finds that actions that affect greater than 10% of a
utility's membership represent a sufficient portion of the
membership to survive at the pleadings stage. Additional facts also
support the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the bylaws, including
statements on 3 Rivers' website that "as a cooperative member, you
will be allocated capital credits based on your patronage." Hence,
the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to state a plausible breach
of contract claim.

Fifth, 3 Rivers bases its argument that the fiduciary duty claim
should be dismissed on recent decisions from the Montana Supreme
Court. The Montana Supreme Court determined in Wolfe v. Flathead
Electric Cooperative., Inc., that no fiduciary relationship exists
between a utility cooperative and its members absent a special
relationship.

The Plaintiffs admit that they have not established facts that give
rise to a "special relationship" to support their breach of
fiduciary duty claim. Judge Morris determines that no facts alleged
in the Amended Complaint, even taken in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiffs, could establish a plausible special relationship.
The Plaintiffs do not allege that 3 Rivers undertook efforts to
advise any of the Browning Exchange members of their rights. Their
fiduciary duty claim must be dismissed.

Sixth, the Plaintiffs allege that 3 Rivers and its members stood in
inherently unequal bargaining positions because 3 Rivers maintained
a monopoly over its service area, thereby "compelling its members
to contract with it for telecommunications services, or go
without." 3 Rivers argues that these allegations purport to
establish a right to recover tort, as opposed to contract, damages
in the breach of covenant claim. It further maintains that the
Plaintiffs have failed to set forth the necessary criteria to
establish the elements of a special relationship that would entitle
them to recovery for contract damages, "let alone a breach that
would entitle them to tort damages.

Judge Morris holds that the Amended Complaint fails to allege
sufficient facts to establish a special relationship. A breach of
the covenant of good faith claim requires that ordinary contract
damages are an insufficient remedy. Ordinary contract damages
provide a sufficient remedy to make the Plaintiffs whole, as all of
their claims are best remedied with a damages award. They do not
allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Seventh, 3 Rivers stipulates that its bylaws constitute a binding
contract that governs the obligations for payment of the patronage
capital credits. The Plaintiffs claim that an exception to that
rule permits an unjust enrichment claim.

An unjust enrichment claim requires the following elements: "(1) a
benefit was conferred upon the recipient by the claimant; (2) the
recipient knew about or appreciated the benefit; and (3) the
recipient accepted or retained the benefit under circumstances
rendering it inequitable for the recipient to do so."

Judge Morris holds that the Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to
establish these elements and thus should also be able to maintain
alternative arguments: Either that the bylaws were ineffective to
regulate the parties' obligations and 3 Rivers received a windfall
by retaining the Browning Collective's credits; or that the bylaws
were binding and required retirement of the capital credits. The
Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to state a plausible unjust
enrichment claim.

Finally, the Plaintiffs agree that injunctive relief is not
warranted and stipulate to dismissing this claim. Judge Morris
agrees and dismisses this claim accordingly.

Accordingly, the Court rules that 3 Rivers' Motion to Dismiss
Complaint is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Counts 5, 6 and
8 against 3 Rivers are dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4u9zvvsx from Leagle.com.


3M COMPANY: Coletti Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VANCE COLETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02580-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Tylock Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TYLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02579-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Wright Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS ANN WRIGHT, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of ROBERT
EDWARD WRIGHT, deceased, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02578-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALBERTONS COMPANIES: Court Dismisses Lewis Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismisses the case, CLIVE LEWIS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ALBERTONS COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02453-ODW
(RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), without prejudice.

Plaintiff Lewis filed the putative class action against Defendant
Albertsons, alleging that Albertsons understated the sodium content
in its Signature Select brand of club soda. On April 15, 2022, the
Court announced a facial and factual inquiry into subject matter
jurisdiction and ordered Lewis to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court
directed Lewis to submit evidence demonstrating that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million as is required for jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Court received and
reviewed Lewis' Response to the OSC.

Mr. Lewis alleges that Albertsons's 12-pack of the Product has
fraudulent and misleading outer packaging because the packaging
states that the Product has 0 mg of sodium while the individual
cans state the Product contains 40 mg of sodium per can. He asserts
Albertsons is misleading consumers because they cannot see the true
sodium content until after they purchase the Product and remove the
outer packaging. Accordingly, he contends, the misleading packaging
induced consumers to purchase the Product over competitor products
because they "believed they were getting a product without sodium,
which millions of American consumers, either on the advice of their
physicians or otherwise, need to limit or omit from their diet." He
alleges that the Product was sold with this misleading packaging
"during most of 2021" until it was discontinued in September 2021.

Mr. Lewis asserts five counts against Albertsons, under California
law: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2)
violation of state false advertising law; (3) violation of state
unfair competition law; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5)
fraud and deceit. He seeks relief on behalf of himself and a
nationwide class.

Judge Wright explains that jurisdictional inquiry is about whether
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, as required by CAFA.
The amount in controversy is simply "the amount at stake in the
underlying litigation." It "does not mean likely or probable
liability; rather, it refers to possible liability."

Mr. Lewis fails to make a sufficient factual showing of the amount
in controversy, Judge Wright holds. He says, Lewis incorrectly
bases his estimated damages on the total purchase price of the
Product rather than the fraction of the purchase price that
consumers overpaid when buying soda that contained 40 mg of sodium
rather than 0 mg of sodium. Moreover, his conclusory reference to
attorneys' fees and punitive damages is vague and unsubstantiated
and wholly fails to fill the gap between the actual damages Lewis
does place in controversy, on the one hand, and the requisite $5
million amount in controversy, on the other.

For these reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA and dismisses the action without prejudice. Judge Wright
vacates all dates and deadlines in the matter and denies as moot
the pending Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk of the Court will close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/397a732k from Leagle.com.


ALL SECURE: Fails to Properly Pay Security Guards, White Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL SECURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02501-TLP-CGC (W.D. Tenn., August 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a security guard in
Tennessee.

All Secure, LLC is a provider of safety/security services in
Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
         Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

AMERICAN MODERN: Ferri Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FERRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04679-SK (Pa. Com.
Pleas., Aug. 15, 2022) seeks declaratory relief, compensatory
underinsured motorist benefits on behalf of similarly situated
persons under policies of insurance issued by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has
systematically and wrongfully denied uninsured and underinsured
motorist coverage under Collector Vehicle Policies on the basis of
the illegally restrictive definition of insured in Collector
Vehicle Policies issued in Pennsylvania.

AMERICAN MODERN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is an
insurance firm. The Company provides property and casualty
insurance services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER
          & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 350-6600
          Facsimile: (215) 665-8197

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jack Goodrich, Esq.
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-4663

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: New York Court Denies Martinek's Spoliation Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAN MARTINEK, Plaintiff v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, and LEAH KARFUNKEL,
Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine
Folk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's for a spoliation
finding and an adverse inference to be utilized at summary judgment
and trial.

On Jan. 14, 2022, Martinek filed the instant motion. More recently,
on July 21, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Plaintiff's proposed class action settlement pursuant to Rule
23(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and scheduled a
final review hearing for Nov. 16, 2022, at 3:00 p.m.

Judge Failla understands from her communications with the Plaintiff
that he intends to pursue his pending spoliation motion only in the
event that the Court does not grant final approval of the proposed
class action settlement. Accordingly, for administrative purposes,
she denies the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice to its renewal
following the Court's decision on whether to approve the proposed
settlement.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at docket
entries 64 and 76.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/nhd2kuya from Leagle.com.


APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: Connecticut Court Dismisses Yankovich Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut dismisses the case, YANKOVICH, et al., Plaintiffs v.
APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-CV-00720 (KAD)
(D. Conn.), without prejudice.

The class action arises out of a malware attack against the
Defendant which allegedly resulted in the compromise of personal
identifying information ("PII") belonging to Plaintiffs Amelia
Yankovich and Joseph Allen, and those similarly situated. In a
two-count Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert state law claims for
negligence and breach of implied contract, alleging that the
malware attack provided cybercriminals with access to their
confidential, sensitive, "non-public" PII which could be used to
perpetrate identity theft or other fraud.

The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that manages vehicle
inspections and emission testing and services for Connecticut
drivers on behalf of the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
("CT DMV"). The Plaintiff class members consist of Connecticut
motorists who have registered their vehicles with the CT DMV. Their
PII was provided to the Defendant as a condition of them
registering their vehicles with the CT DMV and utilizing vehicle
emissions testing it managed.

On March 30, 2021, the Defendant learned that it was the victim of
a malware attack perpetrated by cybercriminals, which resulted in a
data breach that provided these cybercriminals with access to the
Plaintiffs' PII. Following the data breach, it temporarily shut
down its vehicle emissions testing programs in eight states,
including Connecticut. It retained computer forensic experts to
determine the nature of the malware attack and extent of PII that
had been compromised.

The Plaintiffs do not know with certainty the specific type of
malware used during the attack or the extent to which Connecticut
vehicle owners' PII was impacted. They rely upon news reports that
suggest that the Defendant "was likely targeted by a ransomware
attack" and the extent of compromised PII "could include
information about vehicles and their owners." They allege that the
PII that was likely compromised in the malware attack was
confidential, sensitive, "non-public" information.

The Plaintiffs do not allege that they, or anyone, have experienced
identity theft or fraud as a result of the data breach. Rather,
they allege that, as a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
maintain the security and confidentiality of their PII and because
their PII is now readily available on the internet, they and others
similarly situated "now and for the rest of their lives face an
imminent, heightened, and substantial risk of identity theft and
other fraud." It is this heightened risk of injury which the
Plaintiffs rely upon to establish an injury in fact.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss both
counts of the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for
lack of Article III standing. It argues that all of the Plaintiffs'
PII compromised in the malware attack was publicly available
information, and as such they have not sufficiently established an
injury in fact for purposes of demonstrating Article III standing.

Judge Dooley finds no allegations, nor evidence that any of the
data compromised by the malware attack has been put to any
nefarious purposes, or any purposes at all for that matter.
Specifically, there is no allegation that the Plaintiffs or any
other putative class members have experienced identity theft or
fraud, or that their information has been disseminated without
their authorization following the malware attack.

Thus, on the present record, Judge Dooley holds that the Plaintiffs
did not meet their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the
evidence that they suffered an injury in fact. Accordingly, she
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses the case
without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Memorandum of Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/49uw7fh6 from Leagle.com.


ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING: Polk Sues Over Gender-Based Pay Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BAYLI POLK and ALYSSA SPRINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING GP,
LLC and ATWOOD DISTRIBUTING, L.P., Defendants, Case No.
7:22-cv-00072-O (N.D. Tex., August 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discriminatory
practice of paying female store managers substantially lower wages
than male store managers under substantially equal working
conditions. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated female
store managers were subjected to a hostile work environment based
upon their gender, says the suit.

Ms. Polk and Ms. Springer were promoted as store managers in
October 2020 and February 2020, respectively.

Atwood Distributing GP, LLC is an owner and operator of farm and
ranch supply stores, headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Atwood Distributing, LP is an owner and operator of farm and ranch
supply stores, headquartered in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Rochelle Owens, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre 440
         Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
         Houston, TX 77002-1063
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 rochelle@mooreandassociates.net

BACTOLAC PHARMACEUTICAL: Guzman Alleges Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GUZMAN and MANUEL DE JESUS VASQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BACTOLAC
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., CHOICE LONG ISLAND, INC., STEVEN KLEIN, and
HAROLD ROBBINS, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04651-JMA-ST
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

On February 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced an action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk sub nom
Guzman v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc., Index No. 60227/2021 (the
"State Action") for various violations of the New York Labor Law
and the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and
Occupations.

On March 3, 2021, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint in the
State Action as a matter of right to include claims under the FLSA.


On June 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to
dismiss the State Action without prejudice in order to proceed in
federal court. The defendants opposed that motion.

On July 19, 2022, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted
Plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the State Action without prejudice
"so that the plaintiffs may proceed in federal court."

The Plaintiffs' federal claims arise out of willful violations of
the FLSA. More specifically, Bactolac flagrantly violated its
recordkeeping and overtime obligations by paying overtime wages
"off the books" in cash, says the complaint.

Mr. Guzman was jointly employed by Bactolac and Choice from
approximately January 7, 2019, until approximately April 2019. His
duties included filling a hopper with whey protein powder.

Mr. Vasquez was hired by Bactolac more than 10 years ago. His
duties include cleaning the floors and the bathrooms. He asserts
that the Defendants retaliated against him by denying him the
ability to work overtime hours and demanding production of his
passport.

Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a dietary supplement manufacturer
with manufacturing facilities in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 East Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com

BECTON AND DICKINSON: Underpays Packaging Operators, Aguila Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON AGUILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BECTON AND DICKINSON, APIDEL TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV401816
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., August 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, failure to pay reporting time, and
unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a packaging
operator from November 20, 2020 until August 30, 2021.

Becton and Dickinson is a medical device manufacturer,
headquartered in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.

Apidel Technologies, LLC is an operator of a medical device
business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Gregory Mauro, Esq.
         Michael Calvo, Esq.
         Lauren Falk, Esq.
         Ava Issary, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
         E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

BP EXPLORATION: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Hicks Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEUNDRA HICKS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET
AL., SECTION: H(5), Civil Action No. 17-4356 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production
Co.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Transocean
Holdings LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; and Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of the Court. The case was reassigned to Section H.

Ms. Hicks alleges continuous exposure to harmful substances and
chemicals that occurred in June of 2010 in Pascagoula, Mississippi
as a result of the oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts. She
claims to suffer from "headaches, shortness of breath, sinus
symptoms, nausea, and heat exhaustion," among other symptoms,
because of the exposure. She asserts claims under the general
maritime law of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence
with respect to the spill and its cleanup.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of her alleged injuries. They argue that the Plaintiff
cannot do so because she produced no expert testimony to support
her claims before the deadline to do so, and in a toxic tort case
such as this, expert testimony as to causation is required. The
Plaintiff counters that despite missing the deadline, the expert
reports would be exchanged soon.

Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiff's deadline for expert
disclosures and reports was March 6, 2022. The Plaintiff neither
met this deadline nor moved for its extension. Almost two months
after this deadline, she filed a list of witnesses that included
Jerald Cook, M.D. as an expert on causation. However, she failed to
produce Dr. Cook's report by the deadline to do so. Therefore, the
Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against
the Defendants. Additionally, this section of the Court, as well as
other sections, has excluded Dr. Cook's report, even when produced
timely.

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and and dismisses the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2nfkdbck from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Street Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DON STREET v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET
AL., SECTION: H(2), Civil Action No. 17-4300 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane
Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production
Co.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Transocean
Holdings LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; and Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before
Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of the Court. The case was reassigned to Section H.

Mr. Street alleges continuous exposure to harmful substances and
chemicals that occurred in April of 2010 in Bay St. Louis,
Gulfport, and Biloxi as a result of the oil spill and subsequent
cleanup efforts. He claims to suffer from "rashes, headaches, high
blood pressure, loss weight, bumps on ear and other injuries as may
be shown by further evidence" because of the exposure. He asserts
claims under the general maritime law of negligence, negligence per
se, and gross negligence with respect to the spill and its
cleanup.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of his alleged injuries. They argue that the Plaintiff
cannot do so because he produced no expert testimony to support his
claims before the deadline to do so, and in a toxic tort case such
as this, expert testimony as to causation is required.

The Plaintiff counters that despite missing the deadline, the
expert reports would be exchanged soon.

Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiff's deadline for expert
disclosures and reports was March 6, 2022. The Plaintiff neither
met this deadline nor moved for its extension. Almost two months
after this deadline, he filed a list of witnesses that included
Jerald Cook, M.D. as an expert on causation. However, he failed to
produce Dr. Cook's report by the deadline to do so. Therefore, the
Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims against
the Defendants. Additionally, this section of the Court, as well as
other sections, has excluded Dr. Cook's report, even when produced
timely.

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismisses the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ehrhe4b from Leagle.com.


C3.AI INC: Court Issues Stipulated Order on Amended Reckstin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE RECKSTIN FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff v. C3.AI, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issues a Stipulated Order regarding
the amended complaint and the Defendants' response.

Lead Plaintiff movant Mark Samarghandi and Defendant C3 AI
stipulate, through their respective counsel of record, subject to
approval of the Court, as follows:

The initial complaint in the putative class action was filed on
March 4, 2022. A Lead Plaintiff has not yet been appointed.

Lead Plaintiff movant Mark Samarghandi's pending motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of his selection of Lead
Counsel is now unopposed.

Mr. Samarghandi expects that his Motion will be granted. The Movant
and C3 AI are not aware of service having been effected on any
Defendant.

An initial Case Management Conference has been set for Aug. 18,
2022. C3 AI, and perhaps other defendants, plan to file a motion or
motions to dismiss any amended complaint, and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 stays all discovery
pending resolution of all motions to dismiss. No party has
previously requested or received time for an extension to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint.

Mr. Samarghandi and C3 AI, subject to approval of the Court,
stipulate that:

     1. With the Lead Plaintiff motion now unopposed, the Aug. 18,
2022 conference will be adjourned and rescheduled for a date after
the resolution of the Defendants' forthcoming motion(s) to
dismiss;

     2. Mr. Samarghandi will have 60 days after appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint;

     3. The Defendants will answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the amended complaint within 60 days of Lead Plaintiff's filing of
the amended complaint;

     4. If the Defendants move to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff's
opposition papers will be filed within 60 days of the motion(s) to
dismiss;

     5. The Defendants' reply brief(s) in support of the motion(s)
to dismiss will be filed within 30 days of Lead Plaintiff's
opposition; and

     6. This schedule may be modified by agreement of the parties,
as approved by the Court.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Gilliam so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Stipulation & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uvks5tv from Leagle.com.

Reed R. Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP, in Berkeley, California, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Movant
Mark Samarghandi.

Harry A. Olivar, Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, in Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for C3.ai, Inc.


CARVANA CO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due October 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Carvana Co. ("Carvana" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CVNA) and certain of its officers, on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Carvana securities between May 6, 2020 and June
24, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cvna.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Carvana faced serious, ongoing issues with documentation,
registration, and title with many of its vehicles; (2) as a result,
Carvana was issuing unusually frequent temporary plates; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Carvana was violating laws and regulations
in many existing markets; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana
risked its ability to continue business and/or expand its business
in existing markets; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Carvana was
at an increased risk of governmental investigation and action; (6)
Carvana was in discussion with state and local authorities
regarding the above-stated business tactics and issues; (7) Carvana
was facing imminent and ongoing regulatory actions including
license suspensions, business cessation, and probation in several
states and counties including in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and North Carolina; and (8) as a result, defendants'
statements about Carvana's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. 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
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cvna or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Carvana you have until October 3, 2022, to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

CBDMD INC: Class Settlement in Warshawsky Suit Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL WARSHAWSKY and MICHAEL STEINHAUSER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CBDMD, INC. and CBD INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00562 (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of the Class Action Settlement and their Unopposed Motion
for an Award of Attorneys Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses, and Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs.

On Jan. 3, 2022, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order
which among other things: (a) conditionally certified this matter
as a class action, including defining the class and class claims,
appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing
Proposed Counsel as Class Counsel; (b) preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement; (c) approved the form and manner of Notice to
the Settlement Class; (d) set deadlines for opt-outs and
objections; (e) approved and appointed the claims administrator;
and (f) set the date for the Final Fairness Hearing;

On Feb. 2, 2022, the Settlement Class was notified of the terms of
the proposed Settlement Agreement, of the right of Settlement Class
Members to opt-out, and the right of Settlement Class Members to
object to the Settlement Agreement and to be heard at a Final
Fairness Hearing.

On Aug. 9, 2022, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing.

The Settlement involves allegations in the Plaintiffs' Class Action
Complaint and Jury Demand against the Defendants for failure to
implement or maintain adequate data security measures for customer
information, including Card Information, directly and proximately
caused injuries to the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability by
Defendants, and the Court expressly does not make any finding of
liability or wrongdoing by the Defendants.

Having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement submitted by
the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2),
Judge Conrad grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement and
for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval
Order and Judgment only.

Judge Conrad finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All
persons residing in the United States who made a purchase online
with cbdMD between March 30, 2020 at 00:03:12 UTC (Coordinated
Universal Time) and the end of May 8, 2020, and between May 14,
2020 at 21:02:57 UTC through the end of May 18, 2020."

The parties, their respective attorneys, and the Claims
Administrator are directed to consummate the settlement in
accordance with this Order and the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants, the Claims
Administrator, and the Class Counsel will implement the settlement
in the manner and time frame as set forth therein.

Within the time period set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the
relief provided for in the Settlement Agreement will be made
available to the various Settlement Class Members submitting valid
Claim Forms, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement.

Released Claims will not include the right of any Settlement Class
Member or any of the Released Persons to enforce the terms of the
settlement contained in the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, and in recognition of their
efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, Judge Conrad approves
payments to the Plaintiffs in the total amount of $2,500 each as a
service award for their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class.
The Class Counsel will make such payment in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court has appointed Jean Martin of Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group and M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, P.C. as
the Class Counsel.

After careful review of the time entries and rates requested by the
Class Counsel, and after applying the appropriate standards
required by relevant case law, Judge Conrad grants the Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in
the amount of $135,000, and grants the request for service awards
to each of the Representative Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,500.
Payment will be made pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Order resolves all claims against all parties in the action and
is a final order.

The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except
that the Court reserves jurisdiction over the consummation and
enforcement of the settlement, without affecting the finality of
the Final Approval Order and Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9h6d2d from Leagle.com.


CENTERRA GROUP: Faces Putnam Wage-and-Hour Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADAM PUTNAM, CLINTON TURNER, JEFFERY DIXON, and LORENZO KING,
Plaintiffs v. CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01984-GLS (D. Md., Aug. 9, 2022) arises out of Defendant's
systemic, company-wide failure to pay Plaintiffs and dozens of
similarly situated Officers the minimum wages, overtime wages, and
compensation to which they are or were entitled for work performed
for Defendant.

The Plaintiffs are or were regular full-time and part-time
Protective Force, which includes Security Officers, Security Police
Officers, Fixed Post Readiness/Security Police Officers, Central
Alarm Station Operators/Monitors, Badging Specialists, Senior
Badging Specialists, Security Receptionists, Logistic Specialists,
and Classified Destruction Facility Operators, referred to
collectively as "Officers", who are or were employed by Defendant,
at the Department of Energy Headquarters, Forrestal, Portals III,
and Germantown facilities. They bring this action as a collective
action in accordance to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District
of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law

Centerra Group, LLC is an international government solutions group,
specializing in business processes in sectors where security and
safety risks are considered a strategic threat.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Kamins, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN P.A.
          8850 Stanford Blvd. Suite 2900
          Columbia, MD 21045
          Telephone: (301) 575-0347
          Facsimile: (301) 575-0335
          E-mail: skamins@offitkurman.com

               - and -

          Daniel Trujillo Esmeral, Esq.
          OFFIT KURMAN P.A.
          7501 Wisconsin Avenue Suite 1000W
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (240) 507 1700
          E-mail: Daniel.trujillo@offitkurman.com

CENTRIC BRANDS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Zachary Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER ZACHARY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRIC BRANDS HOLDING LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-06940 (S.D.N.Y., August 15, 2022) is a class and
collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law to recover damages for delinquent wage payments.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since May 2022 at
the Defendant's 644 Bluebird Court, Central Valley location as a
non-exempt, hourly-paid employee.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to timely pay her
wages. Throughout the entirety of her employment with the
Defendant, she has been compensated every other week or on a
bi-weekly basis. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful pay
practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were injured by routinely depriving them on a temporary basis of
monies owed to them, says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the Defendant in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief the Court may
deem appropriate.

Centric Brands Holding LLC designs, develops, and markets apparel
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Tel: (516) 873-9550

CHECKPEOPLE LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Gaul's Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERRY GAUL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHECKPEOPLE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 21-cv-1313-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), Judge James E. Shadid of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The matter is now before the Court on the Defendant's Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Response.

The Plaintiff asserts an action under the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act which prohibits the "use of an individual's identity
for commercial purposes" without consent. She claims that Defendant
CheckPeople violated the IRPA when it allegedly used her personal
information, without her consent, on its internet platform.

The Defendant owns and operates CheckPeople.com, a site accessible
by the public. A visitor to the site may, without charge, obtain
preliminary information on an individual by entering that person's
first and last name into the search engine. The viewer will receive
information related to others with that same name, including age,
residence, and family members. The viewer can choose which
particular individual they wish to search from the list. When a
specific name is chosen, the viewer receives an "Open Report"
prompt. If "Open Report" is clicked, the viewer is taken to a
"Continue to Report" screen and separate webpage. There, the viewer
is to enter his own personal information before being taken to
Defendant's "Pay Screen."

The Plaintiff asserts, and the Defendant does not dispute, that the
pay screen does not offer the option to purchase a report on the
individual who is the subject of the search. Rather, the viewer
must agree to enroll in a monthly subscription service to obtain
unlimited access to information on the identified individual as
well as all others in the Defendant's database. There is no
mechanism for purchasing a single report.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached the IRPA when it
displayed her name, age, city and state of residence, and known
relatives, without her consent. She asserts that displaying this
information which was "accessible to anyone with an Internet
connection," was an unconsented public use of her identity under
the IRPA. She also asserts that this information was used for a
commercial purpose, that her identity was used to induce viewers to
pay for a monthly subscription service. She asserts the claims on
behalf of herself, and a putative class of other similarly situated
individuals residing in Illinois.

The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint,
asserting that she has failed to plead a public use of her identity
where she has only alleged that she, not others, viewed her
identifying information. It explains that one would not see her
name or information merely by accessing the site. Rather, an
individual would have to type in her first and last name before
seeing her information. It asserts that this is not a public use of
the Plaintiff's identity, and she has only pled a "self-generated
non-public use." It also argues that if it were found that advising
viewers of available searchable information violated the IRPA, it
would have a "dire effect" on many free and paid services including
Westlaw, LexisNexis and Google.

Lastly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's class
allegations must be dismissed as the purported class is not
ascertainable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). It claims that it does
not have a means of identifying those individuals whose information
was accessed in the free previews. In addition, it cannot determine
whether a name used in a search is that of an Illinois resident and
potential class member, or a resident of another state who shares
the same name. The Defendant claims that as a result, there is no
"precise, objective criteria" by which the Plaintiff could identify
potential class members. The Plaintiff responds that consideration
of the sufficiency of the class allegations at this juncture is
premature and unwarranted.

With respect to Count I, the issue before the Court is whether the
Plaintiff has satisfied the pleading standards for her IRPA claim.
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot establish a public
use of her identity where only she, and perhaps her attorney, are
known to have accessed her information. It claims that without
alleging that others have viewed it, the Plaintiff cannot establish
that her identity was disseminated to the public.

Judge Shadid opines that the Plaintiff does not particularly plead
that the public at large viewed the free preview information
attached to her name, but cites caselaw to support that at the
pleadings stage, she need not identify those who searched her name.
In addition, she successfully pleads a "holding out" under the
IRPA. That is, "the representation -- of an individual's identity
on or in connection with certain activities." So, the Plaintiff's
allegations regarding the the Defendant's use of her identity on
its website are sufficient to satisfy the "public use" and "holding
out" requirements of IRPA, at least at this stage of the
proceedings.

With respect to Count II, the Plaintiff needs to establish that the
Defendant made a public use of her identity for a commercial
purpose. The Defendant denies that the site's initial previews
amount to a commercial purpose as, in response to a viewer query,
it simply identifies individuals by that name whose records are
contained in the database.

In support, the Defendant cites, among other things, Dobrowolski v.
Intelius, No. 17-1406, 2018 WL 11185289, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 21,
2018). There, plaintiff's name was used on defendant's "marketing
page." The marketing page displayed a listing of those individuals
who matched the name entered by the viewer. A preview was provided
which gave some information as to each individual, with the
opportunity to purchase a report as to each. There, the court found
that the plaintiffs' identities were not used for a commercial
purpose, to promote a product, but rather to directly sell
plaintiffs' identifying information.

The Plaintiff distinguishes the Dobrowolski line of cases, pointing
out that they only concerned circumstances where the image of a
product was used to sell the product itself. She gives the example
of a photo of a book being used to sell that book and asserts that
her identity was not used to sell a more detailed report of her
information but, rather, to sell a different product, Defendant's
subscription services.

Judge Shadid holds that the Plaintiff has successfully pled that
her name was used to entice anyone entering that name into buying a
monthly subscription to the Defendant's services. In fact, she
makes the unchallenged claim that there is no option for a viewer
to purchase a report related only to her, but only to subscribe to
the Defendant's services for access to reports on all individuals
in the database. This clearly distinguishes the case from those
cited by the Defendant. Judge Shadid finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently pled an IRPA claim.

Lastly, with respect to its motion to strike class allegations, the
Defendant claims that the Plaintiff cannot identify "precise,
objective criteria" to identify the prospective class of "all
Illinois residents who have appeared in an advertisement preview
for a CheckPeople report." In support, it provides the sworn
declaration of Kurt Johnson, Senior Software Engineering Manager
for the company which manages the CheckPeople website. Mr. Johnson
attests that the "dynamic" elements of a search, such as the name
of the individual being searched, is not kept in recorded form. The
Defendant claims that as a result, there is no way to identify
those who have been the subject of CheckPeople preview reports.

The Plaintiff responds that, generally, a court should only decide
the sufficiency of class allegations after "rigorous analysis." She
asserts that her identification of a putative class of Illinois
residents featured in the CheckPeople previews sufficiently alleges
an ascertainable class.

Judge Shadid holds that class allegations should not be dismissed
unless "facially and inherently deficient." Where the dispute "is
factual in nature and 'discovery is needed to determine whether a
class should be certified,' a motion to strike the class
allegations at the pleading stage is premature." The Plaintiff
asserts that she should be allowed to conduct discovery to
determine whether Defendant's business records might yet be used to
identify class members. Judge Shadid agrees, as he does not find
that Mr. Johnson's declaration necessarily forecloses the
possibility that an ascertainable class could be identified through
discovery or further investigation. So, he denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the class allegations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytzjpakx from Leagle.com.


CHELSEA 7 CORP: Brown Files Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAL BROWN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. CHELSEA 7
CORPORATION, RAINBOW STATION 7 INC., DUMESH KANKANAMALAGE, and
INDIKA SUBEAPPA KANKANAMALAGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04776
(E.D.N.Y., August 15, 2022) brings this complaint against the
Defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff has worked as a general worker at the Defendants'
adult bookstores from on or around October 2021 to through and
including July 21, 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week, approximately 72 hours during each of the week,
throughout his employment with the Defendants. However, the
Defendants denied him of overtime premium at one and one-half times
his regular rate of pat for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Although the Plaintiff also work during meal breaks or
rest periods, since the Defendants never granted him with meal
breaks or rest periods of any length, his wages did not vary
regardless of how may additional hours he worked in a week. The
Defendants also failed to pay additional compensation of one hour's
pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate for each day during which
the Plaintiff's shifts spread over more than 10 hours. Moreover,
the Defendants did not provide him with a wage statement, and with
any notice regarding his rate of pay and other information as
required by NYLL, says the Plaintiff.

Chelsea 7 Corporation and Rainbow Station 7 Inc. operate adult
bookstores that are owned by the Individual Defendants. [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

CLASSY CLOSETS: Stever Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Installers
------------------------------------------------------------------
IVOL STEVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLASSY CLOSETS, ETC., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01337-SPL (D. Ariz., August 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an installer until April
2021.

Classy Closets, Etc., Inc. is an operator of showrooms, with its
corporate headquarters in Chandler, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
         Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
         JACKSON WHITE
         40 North Center Street, Suite 200
         Mesa, AZ 85201
         Telephone: (480) 464-1111
         Facsimile: (480) 464-5692
         E-mail: mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                 nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com

COINBASE GLOBAL: Faces Kattula Suit Over Cryptocurrency Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE KATTULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC.; and COINBASE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03250-TWT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 15, 2022) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all Coinbase
"wallet" and account holders who have had their accounts breached
and incurred losses arising from the unauthorized transfer of
assets including the unauthorized transfer of "crypto" securities
listed on Coinbase's platform without a registration statement,
without Coinbase having registered as a broker or dealer, and
without Coinbase having registered as a securities exchange.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that contrary to its
representations, Coinbase does not properly employ standard
practices to keep consumers' accounts secure. And Coinbase
improperly and unreasonably locks out its consumers from accessing
their accounts and funds, either for extended periods of time or
permanently. Because of the extreme volatility of cryptocurrencies'
value - with freefalls of 40% within 24 hours not unheard of - the
inability to access an account to sell, buy, or trade
cryptocurrency leads to severe financial loss to account holders,
says the suit.

Making matters worse, Coinbase fails to timely respond to customer
pleas for support and help, and also fails to preserve and
safeguard customer assets as it promises. Coinbase's failures have
prevented the Plaintiff and Class Members from having "full control
of their crypto" and from being able to "invest, spend, save, earn,
and use," or withdraw their funds as Coinbase promises, the suit
alleges.

COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. provides financial solutions. The Company
offers platform to buy and sell cryptocurrencies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          Serina M. Vash, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
          Email: jherman@hermanjones.com
                 svash@hermanjones.com

CONTROL GROUP: Illegally Used Identities, Fissinger-Figueroa Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALESSANDRA FISSINGER-FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CONTROL GROUP MEDIA
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PEOPLECONNECT,
INC., a Delaware corporation, TRUTHFINDER, LLC., a Delaware limited
liability company, and INTELIUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04184 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 9,
2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Illinois Right
of Publicity Act by using the full names and other aspects of the
identities of Illinois residents, including Plaintiff, in
Defendants' advertisements without consent and for Defendants'
commercial gain.

According to the complaint, the Defendants encourage consumers to
perform a free "people search" on their respective websites to
market their services. When consumers perform a free search for an
individual -- by typing the individual's first and last name into
the search bar -- Defendants display webpages featuring the
searched individual's full name alongside certain uniquely
identifying information, including age, location, and names of
relatives. The purpose of these pages is twofold: first, they show
potential customers that Defendants' databases contain detailed
reports for the specific individual who is the subject of a search
and represent that the detailed report contains much more
information about the individual than the "free" report, and
second, they offer to sell them a paid subscription to their
services, where they can access detailed reports about anybody in
their database. In other words, Defendants do not offer to sell
detailed reports about the individuals searched on their websites,
but rather, use those individuals' identities to sell subscriptions
to Defendants' paid services, says the suit.

Unsurprisingly, the people appearing in these advertisements never
provided Defendants with their consent (written or otherwise) to
use their identities for any reason, let alone for Defendants' own
marketing and commercial purposes, asserts the suit.

Based upon Defendants' alleged violation of the IRPA, Plaintiff and
the members of the Class allege that they are entitled to (1) an
injunction requiring Defendants to cease using Plaintiff's and
Class members' names and any attributes of their identities to
advertise their products and services, (2) the greater of an award
of actual damages (including profits derived from the unauthorized
use of Plaintiff's and Class members' names and identities) or
statutory damages of $1,000 per violation to the members of the
Class, (3) an award of punitive damages, and (4) an award of costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Control Group Media Company, LLC is an online development and
web marketing company based in San Diego, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin Thomassen, Esq.
          Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          Michael Ovca, Esq.
          EDELSON PC  
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  ewadescott@edelson.com
                  movca@edelson.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Sims v. Sheriff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SIMS and JOHN GARCIA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. THOMAS
J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, and the COUNTY OF COOK,
ILLINOIS, as indemnitor, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 1-21-0890
(Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,
Second Division, affirms the trial court's dismissal of the
complaint.

Plaintiffs Sims and Garcia appeal the dismissal of their complaint
purporting to assert a class action for underpayment of wages in
violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by
Defendants Thomas J. Dart, in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Cook County, and the County of Cook, as indemnitor. The trial
court's bases for dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint were that
the claims asserted were preempted by the Illinois Public Labor
Relations Act and that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their
administrative remedies.

The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendants as deputy sheriffs in
the Cook County Sheriff's Office. As such, they are covered by a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Defendants and
the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council (FOP Labor
Council). Several provisions of that CBA are pertinent to the
appeal.

The instant dispute concerning wages arises out of a staffing
shortage among correctional officers that occurred within the
Sheriff's Office in 2020, due to the spread of COVID-19 within the
Cook County Jail and the efforts undertaken by the Sheriff's Office
to mitigate it. To address these staffing shortages, the Sheriff
temporarily reassigned certain deputy sheriffs to work in the jail
despite the fact that they did not hold assignments to work there.
The parties agree that the Sheriff did this pursuant to its
emergency authority under section 2.1(G) of the CBA, and there is
no dispute that a civil emergency did exist under that section.

On Oct. 15, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint,
seeking to assert a class action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated deputy sheriffs who had been reassigned to
duties within the Cook County Department of Corrections. The
complaint alleged that, prior to approximately March 2020, their
assignment had been to work "street units" performing duties such
as service of civil process and warrant execution. In working such
positions, they received wages and salaries in accordance with
payroll grade D2B and "had been earning such pay for multiple pay
periods" as of that time.

The complaint went on to allege that, in or about March 2020, the
Sheriff "unilaterally suspended" the CBA applicable to deputy
sheriffs such as the plaintiffs "under an emergency clause
provision therein." The Sheriff then temporarily reassigned the
plaintiffs to work within the Department of Corrections and began
paying them at the lower rate of pay earned by correctional
officers instead of paying them according to the D2B payroll grade
scale.

The complaint alleged that, despite the suspension of the CBA, each
plaintiff had an implicit employment agreement with the defendants
that they would continue to be paid according to the D2B payroll
grade scale, at which each of them had been paid for multiple pay
periods. It alleged that, prior to their temporary reassignment,
the Plaintiffs had been paid "according to a demonstrable formula"
(i.e., the D2B payroll grade scale), and they and the Defendants
had "mutually assented" to their receipt of such rate of pay "by
virtue of the fact that each was so paid for multiple pay periods"
preceding their temporary reassignment. Finally, it alleged that
the defendants' payment of the plaintiffs at the correctional
officers' pay rate instead of the D2B rate established in their
implicit employment agreement violated the Wage Act. It sought
class certification, damages in the amount that each plaintiff was
owed at the D2B rate for each hour of underpaid work since the
reassignment, 2% of the amount of such underpayment for each month
it occurred, and reasonable attorney fees.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint
on multiple grounds. The Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion
to dismiss. The trial court conducted oral argument on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, at which time it questioned the
Plaintiffs' counsel about the Plaintiffs' basis for asserting that
the CBA had been suspended in its entirety.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. It reasoned that it would be
required to interpret the emergency provision of the CBA to make
any determination about whether its language meant that the CBA had
in fact been suspended in its entirety. Because it would need to
analyze the CBA, the trial court concluded that the claim was
preempted and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. It
further stated that it agreed with the Defendants that the
Plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies under
the CBA and had failed to do so. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a
timely notice of appeal.

The Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred in concluding
that the Public Labor Relations Act preempted their claim by
vesting jurisdiction with the ILRB instead of the circuit court.
Their contention is that the trial court incorrectly viewed their
claim as arising solely under the CBA.

The Appellate Court holds that (i) the claim raised by the
Plaintiffs cannot be resolved without undertaking some substantive
interpretation of the terms of the applicable CBA, and for this
reason their claim is preempted; (ii) for a court even to resolve
the issue of whether an implied agreement existed that was
independent of the CBA and controlled over the express terms of the
CBA addressing the same subject matter, it would have to interpret
the terms of the CBA; (iii) none of the cases cited by the
Plaintiffs involves preemption of circuit court jurisdiction in
favor of the ILRB under the Public Labor Relations Act; and (iv)
the Plaintiffs' claim requires a level of interpretation of the CBA
that the district court found not to be necessary in Barlett v.
City of Chicago, No. 14 C 7225, 2015 WL 135286 (N.D. Ill. Jan 9,
2015), the last case relied upon by them.

As an additional basis for dismissal of the Plaintiffs' cause of
action, the trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction because
the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies
under the grievance provisions of the CBA. On appeal, the
Plaintiffs argue that this finding by the trial court was
erroneous. They argue that the grievance requirements of the CBA do
not apply to their claim because the Sheriff suspended the CBA
prior to the time their claim arose. Thus, they argue that their
claim arises under the Wage Act and not under the CBA. The
Plaintiffs acknowledge that this issue of exhaustion of remedies is
"directly tied" to the issue of preemption.

For largely the same reasons discussed above, the Appellate Court
finds that the claim presented by the Plaintiffs is subject to the
grievance and arbitration requirements of the CBA. On its face,
their claim that they are entitled to be paid according to the D2B
payroll grade scale presents a matter governed by the parties' CBA.
Any dispute about whether they are entitled to continue to receive
pay on the D2B scale notwithstanding their reassignment from street
units to duties within the Department of Corrections presents a
question requiring interpretation of the CBA.

Further, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs' argument
that the CBA does not apply because it had been "suspended" by the
Sheriff necessarily presents an issue pertaining to "the
interpretation or application of" the terms of the CBA. These are
questions clearly vested by the CBA and the statute in the
grievance and arbitration process.

As there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs did not exhaust their
administrative remedies prior to filing an action in circuit court,
the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' cause of action for
this reason was proper.

For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4px6d2bh from Leagle.com.


CVS PHARMACY: Class Suits Allege Overcharging, Kickbacks to PBMs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Sagonowsky of fiercepharma.com reports that even as the
generic drug industry works through challenging pricing dynamics,
new lawsuits say consumers aren't realizing all of the benefits
from the low prices dragging on the industry's players. Instead,
top retail pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens have been overcharging
consumers and passing some proceeds to industry middlemen,
according to the suits.

According to the class-action lawsuits, CVS and Walgreens
overcharged consumers who bought certain generic drugs with their
insurance. The pharmacy chains then kicked some of the proceeds
back to third-party pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). Those
consumers would have been better off buying the drugs without using
their insurance, the suits argue.

The lawsuits come as consumers are up in arms about the rising
costs of some medications and, conversely, as generics makers post
financial results burdened by pricing pressures. Pharma has caught
much of the blame for those costs, but the industry has blamed PBMs
for pushing discounts for themselves while consumers pay their
share based on list price.

The named plaintiff in the CVS lawsuit is Megan Schultz, who
through her insurance paid $165 for a generic drug at a CVS
pharmacy. Had she paid in cash, according to the lawsuit, the drug
would've cost $92. The 51-page suit said the charges are called
"copays" but are in fact designed to be payments for PBMs. CVS also
makes more from consumers who buy the drugs with insurance, the
suit contends.

David Grabstald is the named plaintiff in the Walgreens action. The
suit says that, by using his insurance, he paid nearly double the
cash price for his generic medication.

Confidential agreements between the pharmacy giants and PBMs
establish the terms of the alleged kickbacks, according to the
lawsuits, which add that the arrangements created a conflict of
interest and harmed consumers.

A CVS spokesman pushed back, writing in a statement that the
"allegations against us made in this proposed class action suit are
built on a false premise and are completely without merit."

"Copays for prescription medications are determined by a patient's
prescription coverage plan, not by the pharmacy," he wrote in a
statement. "Pharmacies collect the copays that are set by the
coverage plans. Our pharmacists work hard to help patients obtain
the lowest out-of-pocket cost available for their prescriptions."

CVS' spokesman said the company's internal PBM, CVS Caremark, "does
not engage in the practice of copay clawbacks." He added that CVS
has not overcharged patients for their prescription copays.

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

If the allegations prove true, it's another look into a complex
drug pricing environment governed by private agreements between
drugmakers and middlemen. As U.S. pricing pressure has ramped up in
recent years, so too has lobbying among segments of the drug
business who are looking to avoid blame for high costs.

The drug industry has hit at PBMs in recent months by arguing that
growing rebates are driving up list prices. PBMs, for their part,
say drugmakers always set prices and that tough negotiations help
limit spending.

The class-action lawsuit comes at a time when top generic drug
players suffer from lower pricing in the U.S., hurting sales and
share prices in recent quarters. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries'
struggles have been the worst lately, forcing the company to
significantly shake up manufacturing and take a $6.1 billion
impairment charge for the second quarter.[GN]

CYCLONE SEPTIC: Misclassifies Helpers, Havens Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HAVENS, Plaintiff v. CYCLONE SEPTIC SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-02768 (S.D. Tex., August 15, 2022)
brings this complaint for himself and on behalf of all current
and/or former non-exempt employees of the Defendant seeking to
recover damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a helper from
approximately September 2021 to April 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts claim that he and other similarly situated
helpers were misclassified by the Defendant as independent
contractors. The Defendant required them to work up to 18 hours a
day without any rest. However, despite regularly working more than
40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, they were only paid straight time without overtime,
regardless of the number of hours he worked, says the Plaintiff.

Cyclone Septic Services, LLC provides residential septic pump out,
septic services, septic cleaning services, and more in Montgomery,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          SPACE CITY LAW FIRM
          3603 Sierra Pines Drive
          Houston, TX 77068
          Tel: (713) 397-6075
          Fax: (713) 583-1107
          E-mail: bdavidson@spacecitylaw.com

DEAN A. SPINOGATTI: Keegan Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dean A. Spinogatti,
et al. The case is styled as Brian Keegan, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Dean A Spinogatti, Ballzack
Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04283-JMV-MAH (D.N.J., June 27,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Dean A. Spinogatti is the direction of Ballzack Associates
LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Phone: (201) 569-0086
          Fax: (201) 221-7890
          Email: hoffman.esq@verizon.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Merrill Ayers, Esq.
          ANDREW M. AYERS, P.C.
          6800 France Avenue South, Suite 190
          Edina, MN 55435
          Phone: (612) 294-6982
          Fax: (612) 294-6988
          Email: Ayers@AndrewMAyers.com



DOLEX DOLLAR: Cornejo Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSICA I. CORNEJO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DOLEX DOLLAR EXPRESS, INC. and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18361, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on August 8, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05565 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked
and/or failure to pay overtime wages at the proper overtime rate of
pay, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to
authorize or permit rest periods, failure to indemnify employees or
employment-related losses/expenditures, failure to timely pay
earned wages during employment, and unfair business practices.

DolEx Dollar Express, Inc. is a financial services firm based in
Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
         Min K. Kim, Esq.
         FORD & HARRISON LLP
         350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 237-2400
         Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
         E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
                 mkim@fordharrison.com

ELEVATED HOSPITALITY: Faces Saechao Suit Over Forced Tip Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Saechao and Kiana Ramsey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELEVATED HOSPITALITY
SERVICES, LLC, DALLAS EHS VENTURE, LLC, PETAL PROPERTY VENTURE,
LLC, and DRAMON GLOVER AND ADAM GANS, individually, Case No.
3:22-cv-01717-C (N.D. Tex., Aug. 9, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' conduct of requiring Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated to relinquish/share their tips to managers in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Saechao and Ramsey were employed by Defendant Elevated
from approximately March 2021 through July 27, 2022 and June 2022
through August 5, 2022, respectively, as waitresses making $2.13
per hour plus tips.

Elevated Hospitality Services, LLC owns and operates an American
chain of adult entertainment venues with two locations in Dallas
County which operate under the name Spearmint Rhino.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clay A. Hartmann, Esq.
          THE HARTMANN FIRM
          400 N. St. Paul, Suite 1420
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 828-1822
          E-mail: clay.hartmann@thehart

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Stovall Sues Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA STOVALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01267-JAD-DJA (D. Nev., August 8, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant issued inaccurate and
misleading credit scores on millions of consumers to third party
lenders from mid-March to early April 2022. The Defendant violated
its duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy when preparing a consumer report. As a result, the
Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed, causing them to be
denied credit, approved at a higher interest rate or with less
favorable terms, says the suit.

Equifax Information Services LLC is a credit reporting agency,
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael Kind, Esq.
         KIND LAW
         8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
         Las Vegas, NV 89123
         Telephone: (702) 337-2322
         Facsimile: (702) 329-5881
         E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com

               - and –

         George Haines Esq.
         Gerardo Avalos Esq.
         FREEDOM LAW FIRM
         8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
         Las Vegas, NV 89123
         Telephone: (702) 880-5554
         Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
         E-mail: Ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com

FCA US: Reilman Suit Moved From C.D. California to E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBYN REILMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-00811,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on August 8, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Michigan assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-11804-DML to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
written warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and violations of the California Unfair Business
Practices Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

FCA US, LLC is an automobile manufacturer, headquartered in Auburn
Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
         Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq.
         BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
         7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
         La Jolla, CA 92037
         Telephone: (858) 914-2001
         Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
         E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                 nwoltering@bottinilaw.com

FOUR SEASONS: Staley Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELENA STALEY, VIVIAN HOLMES, and OLIVE IVEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOUR
SEASONS HOTELS AND RESORTS, HOTEL 57 SERVICES, LLC, HOTEL 57, LLC,
TY WARNER HOTELS & RESORTS LLC, and H. TY WARNER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06781 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2022) is brought against the
Defendants to remedy violations of the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act, the New York State Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and tortious interference with a contract.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees that were working at the Defendants' hotel were placed on
furlough for an indefinite period of time beginning approximately
March 20, 2020, and continuing for thirty days thereafter. Because
the furloughs/layoffs extended more than six months and proper
notice for extension was never provided by any of the Defendants,
Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees were
effectively terminated from their employment when their furloughs
began, says the suit.

The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs as well as other
employees similarly situated with 90 days' advance written notice
of their terminations of employment, as required under the NY WARN
Act when there is a plant closing or mass layoff, the suit
alleges.

Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts is an operator of a chain of
hotels, resorts, and residence clubs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maya Risman, Esq.
          RISMAN & RISMAN, P.C.
          299 Broadway, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 233-6400
          E-mail: mrisman@risman-law.com

               - and -

          Evan Brustein, Esq.
          BRUSTEIN LAW PLLC
          299 Broadway, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 233-3900
          E-mail: evan@brusteinlaw.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hobbs Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; and THE GOLDMAN
SACHS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06944 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 15, 2022) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.goldmansachs.com/index.html, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers investment banking, securities, asset
management, capital market, valuation, bonds, funds, financial
analysis, investment strategies, and advisory services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Service Repair Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00936 (E.D. Wis., Aug. 15, 2022)
alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant markets,
manufactures, and sell motorcycles, parts, accessories, and other
products sold under the Harley-Davidson brand name (the
"Products"), the warranties of which include statements that
condition the continued validity of the warranty on the use of only
an authorized repair service and authorized replacement parts (a
"tying arrangement" or "unlawful repair restriction").

Tying arrangements that condition a consumer product's warranty on
the use of a specific repair service in this manner violate state
and federal law. Had the Plaintiff been aware that the repair
restriction was unlawful, he would not have purchased the Product,
or would have paid significantly less for it, says the suit.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com

               -and-

          Neal Deckant, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jsmith@bursor.com

HUANG'S MEAT: Faces Yuyuan Zhu Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
YUYUAN ZHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUANG'S MEAT TRADING INC., SU FONG LI, and
AWEI DOE (Last Name Unknown) a.k.a. AWEI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04647 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Right's Law including disability
discrimination, failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to comply with wage notice
requirement, failure to provide detailed paystub information,
failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, and failure to timely pay
wages.

The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer and deliveryman at the
Defendants' store located at 4114 3rd Ave., Brooklyn, New York from
June 5, 2022 to July 1, 2022.

Huang's Meat Trading Inc. is an operator of a meat selling and
delivery shop at 4114 3rd Ave., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Guofeng Li, Esq.
         HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
         Flushing, NY 11354
         Telephone: (718) 353-8588
         E-mail: gli@hanglaw.com

JOHN C. HEATH: Transmits Unsolicited Robocalls, Tanner Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHITNEY TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC d/b/a
LEXINGTON LAW; PROGREXION MARKETING, INC.; and EFOLKS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00861 (M.D. Fla., August 8, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants placed telephone calls
on the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers using prerecorded voice message in an attempt to promote
their products and/or services without obtaining prior express
written consent. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including statutory
damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, says
the suit.

John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PC, doing business as Lexington
Law, is a credit repair law firm, with its principal office located
at 360 North Cutler Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Progrexion Marketing, Inc. is a marketing company, headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah.

Efolks, LLC is a subsidiary of Progrexion Marketing, Inc.,
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN]

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

                - and –

         Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
         DAPEER LAW, P.A.
         20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
         Aventura, FL 33180
         Telephone: (305) 610-5223
         E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Ariz., Pima County Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
PIMA COUNTY JOINT TECHNICAL EDUCATION DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.,
ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES,
ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04543-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of 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.

Pima County Joint Technical Education District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick.

Pima County Joint Technical Education District is a career and
technical education school district with its offices located at
2855 W. Master Pieces Drive in Tucson, Arizona.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Jefferson County Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1, 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-04524 (N.D. Cal., August 5,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Colorado 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.

Jefferson County Public School District R-1 is a public school
district with its administrative offices in Golden, Colorado.

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

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Dieringer School Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIERINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-04536 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
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.

Dieringer School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Dieringer School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1320 178th Avenue in Lake Tapps, Washington.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Davenport Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-04531 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
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.

Davenport Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Davenport Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 417 Broadway Avenue in Davenport, Oklahoma.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Edge Schools Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGE SCHOOLS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER,
HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04541
(N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
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.

Edge Schools, Inc. case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN
RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.

Edge Schools, Inc. is a charter school with its offices located at
2555 East 1st Street in Tucson, Arizona.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Jennings Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP,
INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS
PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-04532 (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of
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.

Jennings Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2913,
IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
William H. Orrick.

Jennings Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 475 North Oak Street in Jennings, Oklahoma.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Perry Central Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY CENTRAL 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-04526-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
August 5, 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.

Perry Central Community School Corporation is a public school
corporation with its administrative offices in Leopold, 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

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Flowing Wells Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOWING WELLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA
GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN,
NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-04540-WHO (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of 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, the suit alleges.

Flowing Wells Unified School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Flowing Wells Unified School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 1556 West Prince Road in Tucson,
Arizona.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KIA CORP: Ohio Residents Sue Over Unsafe, Easy to Steal Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whio.com reports that Ohio residents have filed a class action
lawsuit against car manufactures Kia and Hyundai, alleging that
some of their vehicles are unsafe and easy to steal.

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month in the Southern District of
Ohio in Cincinnati, the manufacturers are accused of manufacturing,
designing and selling defective vehicles "at multiple locations
throughout the state of Ohio and the United States."

The lawsuit describes the defective vehicles as "all Kia models
from 2011-2021, and all Hyundai models from 2011-2021," claiming
that when the "key is removed from the starting system, neither
steering nor forward self-mobility is prevented." Allegations
against the companies detail that the vehicles were made without
engine immobilizers, which are electronic security devices that
make it more difficult to start and steal vehicles without a key.

"In selling the defective vehicles, defendants engaged in the
deceptive and/or unconscionable acts or practices by misrepresented
material facts, either expressively or by implication by concealing
or otherwise failing to disclose, reveal, or provide notice to
customers," the lawsuit states.

Kia and Hyundai are accused of representing the defective vehicles
as "high quality, properly designed, in conformance with applicable
federal standards, and at a minimum, would work properly."

The lawsuit comes as Dayton police issued a warning regarding a
TikTok challenge that created an increase in Kia and Hyundai
thefts. The challenge discloses the security flaw highlighted in
the lawsuit.

Dayton police say if you drive a Hyundai or a Kia, the best thing
to do is like any crime prevention, make yourself a tough target.
That means making sure the keys are in your pocket, not in the
vehicle, the vehicle is locked up and parked in a well-lighted
area.

In a statement to News Center 7, a Hyundai spokesperson said the
company is "concerned about the recent rise in auto thefts of
certain Hyundai model vehicles."

"While all of our vehicles meet or exceed Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, unfortunately, our vehicles have been targeted in
a coordinated effort on social media. Criminals are targeting our
vehicles without engine immobilizers. Immobilizers became standard
on all vehicles produced after November 1, 2021. In order to assist
customers with earlier model year vehicles without an immobilizer,
Hyundai has been working with and will continue to support local
police departments to make steering wheel locks available for
affected Hyundai owners. Additionally, Hyundai has identified a
Firstech/Compustar security kit that targets the method of entry
thieves are using to access these vehicles," the statement reads.

On Oct. 1, Hyundai will begin selling and installing security kits
at Hyundai dealerships and Compustar authorized installers across
the country.[GN]

KIMBERLY CLARK: Faces Mia Suit Over Trafficking, Forced Labor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Forhad Mia, Billal, Jaker Hossen, Shuvo, Mia Masum,
Mohammed Kamruzzaman, Mohammed Sha Alam Sarker, Sohel, Mohammed
Sumon, Nurul Amin, Mohammed Habibullah Mia, Mohammed Akhhruzzaman
Sardar, and Mohammed Imamul Hossain, individually and on behalf of
proposed class members, Plaintiffs v. Kimberly Clark Corporation,
Ansell Corporation, and Ansell Healthcare Products LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02353-CJN (D.D.C., Aug. 9, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs asserting claims for trafficking and
forced labor in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act, and seeking relief based on common law claims
of negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and unjust enrichment.

The thirteen Plaintiffs are all former forced laborers of
Bangladeshi origin who were subject to forced labor in one of the
factories of Brightway Group, a disposable glove manufacturer
located in Malaysia and a major supplier of gloves to Defendants.
All of the plaintiffs paid high recruitment fees; were forced to
work 12+ hour days often with restricted access to food, water, and
restrooms; were physically and/or verbally abused; received delayed
or incomplete compensation; resided in overcrowded and unclean
accommodations; had their passports seized by Brightway; and noted
restricted ability to leave the facilities. Several of them were
threatened by management and punished for protesting working
conditions. They all endured the specific conditions found by the
United States Customs and Border Protection to constitute "forced
labor" in the Brightway-specific withhold release orders. The
former forced laborers bring this action on behalf of themselves,
and all other similarly situated former forced laborers, against
Defendants Ansell and KCC for the forced labor they endured because
of the wrongful conduct caused and aided and abetted by these
corporate entities, says the suit.

Further, the former forced laborers have concerns about whether
they will face retaliation against themselves and their families by
those persons who trafficked them into Malaysia, the BioPro
management team, and members of the greater Brightway organization.
The Plaintiffs' case not only threatens to expose criminalized
elements within the glove manufacturing sector, but to dismantle
the source of its significant profits: cheap labor through forced
human trafficking. However, these 13 Plaintiffs hope that by
speaking out publicly about the horrors they endured, they can
better educate the public, consumers, and government regulators so
they can directly work to end these abhorrent practices, the suit
adds.

Kimberly Clark Corp. is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.

Ansell is an Australian company which manufactures protective
industrial and medical gloves.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence P. Collingsworth, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          621 Maryland Ave. NE
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 543-5811
          E-mail: tc@iradvocates.org

KIN INSURANCE: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Raslavich Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN RASLAVICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIN INSURANCE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 154891944 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough
Cty., August 8, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telephone calls on
the telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers in an attempt to promote its products and/or services
without obtaining prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members seek
statutory damages and injunctive relief, says the suit.

Kin Insurance, Inc. is an insurance firm in Florida. [BN]

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

LAZER SPOT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Sang Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SANG, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAZER SPOT, INC. D/B/A LAZER SPOT,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03134-WMR (N.D. Ga., Aug. 9, 2022) is
an action by the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees, against Defendant, her former
employer, for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Sang was employed by the Defendant as a "yard driver/yard
jockey" at an International Paper facility in Savanah, Georgia from
August 2021 through April 14, 2022. She asserts that throughout her
employment, Lazer Spot has failed to pay her an overtime premium
for work she performed in excess of 40 hours during each work
week.

Lazer Spot provides "yard management services" to warehouse and
distribution companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adeash A.J. Lakraj, Esq.
          Carlos Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Ave, Suite 300
          Wells Fargo Building
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (770) 728-8478
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: alakraj@theleachfirm.com

LENDING TREE: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Lin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMABEL LIN, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDING TREE, LLC; Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00370 (W.D.N.C., Aug. 9, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act and the Hawaii Unfair Practices and Unfair
Competition Act, arising from the 2022 data breach involving the
Defendant.

In a "Notice of Data Breach" letter dated June 29, 2022, the
Defendant informed Plaintiff that on June 3, 2022, the Defendant
"determined that a code vulnerability likely resulted in the
unauthorized disclosure of . . . sensitive personal information."
According to Defendant, "the unauthorized disclosure began in
mid-February 2022."

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to reasonably
secure, monitor, and maintain private and sensitive personal
information provided by consumers and potential consumers
including, and without limitation: full names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, and street addresses, collectively
referred as personal identifiable information (PII). This PII was
stored on Defendant's private network and was compromised by way of
a "code vulnerability" that allowed an unauthorized third party to
access the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members' PII. As a result,
Plaintiff and other consumers suffered present injury and damages
in the form of identity theft, loss of value of their PII,
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the unauthorized
access, exfiltration, and subsequent criminal misuse of their
sensitive and highly personal information.

The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the data breach and remains at risk due to
inadequate data security.

Lending Tree, LLC is an online loan marketplace for various
financial borrowing needs including auto loans, small business
loans, personal loans, credit cards and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com

               - and -

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

LENOX COFFEE: Faces Basurto Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO BASURTO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENOX COFFEE LLC (d/b/a LENOX COFFEE
ROASTER), ROSA PRADO, MONICA PRADO, and ARTURO VIRAMONTES,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06915 (S.D.N.Y., August 15, 2022) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 2017 until on or about June 17, 2022 as a cook, dishwasher,
and a coffee server at the Defendants' coffee shop located at 60 W
129th St., New York, NY 10027.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees to work without paying them appropriate minimum
wage as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff claims that he
was never granted any breaks or meal periods of any kind by the
Defendants. In addition, the Defendants did not provide the
Plaintiff with notification, either in the form of posted notices
or other means regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and
NYLL. The Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff with an
accurate wage statement at the time of payment of wages, says the
suit.

Lenox Coffee LLC operates a coffee shop located in the neighborhood
of Harlem in Manhattan. Rosa Prado, Monica Prado, and Arturo
Viramontes serve as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NasdaqGS:
LFST), if they purchased the Company's Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). Shareholders have until October 11, 2022 to
file lead plaintiff applications in the securities class action
lawsuit.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqgs-lfst/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).

Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
Kuznicki Law PLLC
445 Central Avenue, Suite 344
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
Phone: (347) 696-1134
Cell: (347) 690-0692
Fax: (347) 348-0967
https://kclasslaw.com [GN]

LOOMIS ARMORED: Ligorria FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEC LIGORRIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV21516, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on August 5, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05532 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by routinely acquiring consumer
reports to conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other
prospective, current, and former employees, and use information
from consumer reports in connection with their hiring process
without providing proper disclosures and without obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law.

Loomis Armored US, LLC is a cash handling company headquartered in
Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 433-1940
         Facsimile: (415) 399-8490

                 - and –

         Jennifer A. Goldberg, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583

MH PLUMBING: Christian Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HIDALGO CHRISTIAN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action,
Plaintiff v. MH PLUMBING & MECHANICAL CORP., and FERNANDO MARTIN
HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04774 (E.D.N.Y., August 15,
2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful and intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a plumber and manual
worker from approximately May 2021 through and including July
2021.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants did not compensate him for
the work he performed in July 2021 at the applicable minimum hourly
wage. The Defendants also failed to provide him with a wage
statement and with any written notice of his rate of pay,
employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required
by NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants did not pay him at the rate of
one and one-half times his hourly wage rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief, for himself and all other similarly situated
individuals, and to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

MH Plumbing & Mechanical Corp. provides plumbing and other related
construction services. Fernando Martin Hernandez is an owner,
officer and/or agent of the Corporate Defendant. [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

MLMLM CORP: Settles Sexual Harassment Class Suit for $1.5-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Murphy of fox47news.com reports that a class-action lawsuit
waged against a local McDonald's restaurant for ignoring years of
sexual harassment now has the green light from a Michigan judge to
payout over a million dollars to victims.

The case was first filed back in 2019 when a single worker from the
McDonald's on north Cedar Street in Mason, Mich., came forward with
details of how a shift manager treated her while she worked at the
restaurant.

That former employee, Jenna Ries, says the man called her names,
groped her breasts and private area. She wasn't the only one.  From
November 2016 to March 2019, the shift manager continued his reign
of terror victimizing women and teen girls.

"It takes a really brave person to make those allegations publicly,
so we definitely want to give credit to the named plaintiffs in
this case who were very courageous and acted on behalf of these
other survivors," said attorney Darcie Brault.

On August 16, 2022, Judge Hala Jarbou approved the settlement
amount of $1.5 million.

The ruling marks the final step in the process of the victims
getting recompensed for the sexual harassment they endured while
working at the franchise.  But attorneys have been working for
months to find all the victims.

"They tend to be workers who've changed their residences since they
worked there or maybe got new phones and email addresses, so it
does present some challenges getting a hold of people," said
Brault.

Brault says 102 people worked at least one shift with the shift
leader.  Of that number, 51 came forward to file claims.

Within 30 days, payments from the lawsuit will go out to victims
ranging anywhere from $3,000 to $30,000 depending on the severity
of the harassment.

The case was originally filed against the owners of the franchise,
MLMLM, however they were released from the lawsuit in 2021.[GN]

MONROE COUNTY, PA: Bid to Dismiss Alford v. MCCF Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG ALFORD, Plaintiff v. LEA BAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-CV-01787 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W.
Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Presently before the Court is Alford's pro se amended complaint
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging constitutional violations
during his pretrial detention at Monroe County Correctional
Facility (MCCF) in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. He claims that both
his criminal arraignment and his pretrial detainment exceeded
statutorily permissible time limits. The Defendants move to dismiss
the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

The civil action was originally commenced on Oct. 1, 2020, by eight
Plaintiffs who -- at that time -- were pretrial detainees at MCCF.
The complaint was styled as a "class action," seeking to bring
collective Section 1983 claims against four Defendants -- three
prison officials at MCCF and the Monroe County prothonotary (or
clerk of court).

The gravamen of the complaint was that the Plaintiffs were being
unlawfully held in pretrial detention and without arraignment
longer than permitted by various Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
Procedure, thus violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
According to the allegations, some Plaintiffs were being held in
pretrial detention longer than allowed after the filing of a
criminal complaint (in violation of Rule 600), and others were
being held in pretrial detention too long without formal
arraignment (in violation of Rule 571).  The Plaintiffs
specifically noted that they were not "seeking release from
custody," only monetary damages for the purported illegal pretrial
confinement.

On Oct. 13, 2020, the Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), finding that the Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims were barred by the Supreme Court's decision in
Heck v. Humphrey. Only one Plaintiff, Alford, appealed. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the Oct. 13, 2020
judgment and remanded for further proceedings as to Alford's
Section 1983 claim involving failure to timely arraign, holding
only that it was not barred by the favorable termination rule in
Heck v. Humphrey.

On remand, the Court reviewed the complaint to determine if it
stated a claim for relief absent any Heck v. Humphrey bar. On Dec.
8, 2021, it dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it
determined that the complaint did not plead facts plausibly
establishing how the named Defendants had violated the Fourteenth
Amendment. It dismissed the complaint but granted leave to amend.

In late December 2021, Alford filed an amended complaint. He again
attempted to file on his own behalf and on the behalf of other
plaintiffs, but those other plaintiffs were dismissed from this
action on Jan. 14, 2022 for failure to file amended complaints. In
that January 14 dismissal order, the Court also explicitly noted
that "non-lawyer pro se litigants like Alford cannot represent
other parties in federal court," and that because the "amended
complaint is signed only by Alford, it applies only to his own
claims."

The Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing,
in part, that Alford has not corrected the deficiencies identified
in the Court's Dec. 8, 2021 dismissal.

As in the original complaint, Alford contends that his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was held in
pretrial detention without timely arraignment or release on nominal
bail before trial. And, as previously explained, because Alford is
alleging a pretrial deprivation by state actors, his claim
implicates only the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth.

Mr. Alford avers that the following Defendants are liable for his
allegedly unlawful pretrial detainment: Garry Haidle, Warden of
Monroe County Correctional Facility; Gregory Armond, a Sergeant at
Monroe County Correctional Facility; Lea Baylor, "Director" at
Monroe County Correctional Facility; and George Warden, the Monroe
County Prothonotary and Clerk of Courts. He sues all the Defendants
in their individual and official capacities.

First, Alford alleges that his criminal information was filed on
June 29, 2020; that, according to Rule 571(A), he should have been
arraigned by July 9, 2020; and that he was not arraigned until
Sept. 2, 2020.

Judge Brann finds that Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600
establishes, among other things, the timing for criminal trials and
specific limitations on pretrial detainment. Pursuant to Rule
600(B)(1), upon which Alford relies, "Except in cases in which the
defendant is not entitled to release on bail as provided by law, no
defendant will be held in pretrial incarceration in excess of 180
days from the date on which the complaint is filed."

Second, Alford alleges that he notified the prison-official
Defendants through the formal grievance process about the alleged
excessive detention and the violations of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Criminal Procedure. To establish liability for the Defendants,
Alford primarily relies on a single case from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Oviatt ex rel. Waugh v. Pearce, 954
F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992).

In Oviatt, the plaintiff was arrested on a bench warrant on March
8, 1986, and was scheduled for arraignment on March 10. However,
due to a clerical error (the court clerk who prepared the docket
sheet for March 10 had inadvertently failed to place the
plaintiff's name on the arraignment docket), the plaintiff spent
114 days in jail without an arraignment, a bail hearing, or a
trial. The plaintiff sued the county and the county's sheriff (as a
policymaker), alleging, inter alia, violations of 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, and he eventually won a jury verdict.

As relevant to the instant case, the county defendants appealed the
district court's denial of their motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict on the Section 1983 claims, contending
that the plaintiff had "failed to establish a policy of deliberate
indifference and the deprivation of a constitutional right." The
Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments. First, the panel found that
the plaintiff had a protected liberty interest "in freedom from
incarceration without speedy pretrial procedures" created by state
statutes governing criminal proceedings. The Oviatt panel also
determined that the county sheriff was a "final policymaker" with
respect to internal procedures at the county detention center.

Third, Judge Brann opines that Alford's case is immediately
distinguishable from Oviatt because his allegations primarily
assert individual liability for the Defendants' purported inaction
in response to his requests for relief. Alford does not name Monroe
County as a defendant, but he does sue each Defendant in his or her
official capacity, which is akin to suing the municipality itself.
He has failed to plausibly plead facts showing that most of the
named Defendants are decisionmakers endowed with authority to
promulgate or establish an official custom or policy.

The only named Defendant against which Alford has plausibly stated
an official capacity claim is defendant Haidle, the warden at MCCF.
Although Alford does not so specify, it can be inferred that
Haidle, as warden, had decisionmaking authority to establish policy
at MCCF and could be responsible for creating or adopting "a policy
of inaction that did not detect missed arraignments and trials."
The deficient official capacity claims against Baylor, Armond, and
Warden, on the other hand, will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Fourth, Alford also seeks individual liability for each Defendant.
The gravamen of his individual liability claims is that he alerted
the prison-official Defendants through the grievance process to his
alleged lack of arraignment and prolonged pretrial detention and
received no relief.

As to defendant Warden, Judge Brann holds that Alford's allegations
fall short. Alford's claims are frivolous in light of the public
docket and Pennsylvania's prohibition on hybrid representation. His
criminal docket establishes that his habeas petition and motion for
relief under Rule 600(D) were received, noted on the docket, and
forwarded to counsel. But because Alford was represented by an
attorney at that time, Pennsylvania law barred court consideration
of these pro se filings and they are essentially "legal nullities."
Judge Brann further notes that Warden was not a prison official and
he played no "role" in the "life of the prison." Alford's
additional allegation, that Warden "is to keep track of all
confined and their court appearances," is both conclusory and lacks
plausibility. Consequently, Alford's individual capacity claim
against Warden will be dismissed.

Based on the foregoing, the case will proceed only on Alford's
official capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against
Haidle and his individual capacity Fourteenth Amendment due process
claims against Baylor, Armond, and Haidle. An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/r2evv7by from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL GAS: Metzler Files Bid to Compel Discovery in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as MARK METZLER and
JEREMY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL GAS & ELECTRIC, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:22-mc-00033-TPB-AAS, the Plaintiffs filed a motion with
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Aug.
8, 2022 for an order compelling the production of documents
subpoenaed from LAR Energy Options, LLC and awarding Plaintiffs
their reasonable costs and fees associated with the preparation and
filing of this motion.

In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant National Gas &
Electric, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending unsolicited prerecorded marketing messages in violation of
consumers' privacy rights. Through discovery, the Plaintiffs have
learned that LAR, a Florida LLC, was involved with the marketing
campaign that resulted in prerecorded messages being sent without
prior express written consent.

On May 30, 2022, Global Process Service Corp., a third-party
process server, served LAR with a Subpoena to Produce Documents.
LAR failed to comply with Plaintiff's properly issued subpoena. The
Plaintiffs seek discovery from LAR that is relevant and
proportional to the needs of Plaintiffs' claims under the TCPA.

National Gas & Electric, LLC supplies electricity and natural gas.
The Company offers renewable energy, electricity, and natural gas
for home and business users. National Gas & Electric serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191 st St., Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

NESTLE CORP: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Stuckey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends the dismissal of the
case, ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Plaintiff v. NESTLE CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

Mr. Stuckey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He filed
this action on April 10, 2020. Following the Court's first
screening order on Sept. 25, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a third
amended complaint on Oct. 5, 2020.

On Aug. 25, 2021, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the case as a class action and for leave to file a class
action complaint. On Oct. 14, 2021, the Court issued a second
screening order finding that the Plaintiff's third amended
complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It directed the Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint curing
the deficiencies in his pleading or a notice of voluntary
dismissal, within 21 days.

On Nov. 24, 2021, when the Plaintiff failed to file his fourth
amended complaint, an Order to Show Cause (OSC) issued. He was
given 21 days within which to respond in writing.

On Dec. 17, 2021, the Court discharged the OSC following the
Plaintiff's motion for a 30-day extension of time, to comply with
the second screening order. The Plaintiff was ordered to file the
fourth amended complaint no later than Jan. 12, 2022.

On Jan. 10, 2022, the Plaintiff moved for a second extension of
time of 30 days. The Court granted the motion and directed the
Plaintiff to file his fourth amended complaint no later than Feb.
11, 2022.

On Feb. 9, 2022, the Plaintiff moved for a third extension of time.
The Court granted the extension and ordered the Plaintiff to file
his fourth amended complaint by March 25, 2022. On March 30, 2022,
the Plaintiff filed a document titled "Plaintiff's Motion for Nunc
Pro Tunc Order to Stay this Case Pending the Plaintiff's Upcoming
Release."

On April 5, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for stay,
and granted a fourth extension of time within which to file a
fourth amended complaint. It provided him an additional 90 days
from the date of service of the order within which to file his
fourth amended complaint. He was cautioned that his failure to file
an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this
action be dismissed for a failure to prosecute and a failure to
obey court orders.

After more than 90 days passed without the Plaintiff filing his
fourth amended complaint, the Court issued another OSC, requiring
him to respond in writing to show cause why the action should not
be dismissed for his failure to comply. He was afforded 21 days
within which to reply to the OSC.

More than 21 days have passed without a response from the
Plaintiff. The Court's docket reflects that mail directed to the
Plaintiff at Pelican Bay State Prison was returned to this Court
marked "Undeliverable, RTS, Not Deliverable" as of July 29, 2022.

Judge Oberto recommends the action be dismissed without prejudice.
He says, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the applicable
Local Rules and the Court's specific orders. In so doing, the
Plaintiff fails to prosecute the action.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a District Judge to
the action.

The Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the U.S.
District Judge assigned, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these
Findings and Recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned,
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
Plaintiff's failure to file objections within the specified time
may result in waiver of his rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr4a2ahx from
Leagle.com.


NEVADA: Quintero's Bids to Join Counts II & VI to Stickney Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN QUINTERO, Plaintiff v. ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV-00066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge Carla Baldwin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada denies Quintero's motions to "join" Counts II and VI of
instant lawsuit to Stickney v. List 3:79-cv-00011.

The Stickney case arose out of inadequate staffing at the Northern
Nevada Correctional Center ("NNCC"). In 1979, Plaintiff Robert
Stickney filed the action, arguing that various conditions at NNCC
violated the Eighth Amendment. District Judge Reed certified the
case as a class action in 1981 and entered judgment in 1982 after a
bench trial, wherein Judge Reed found that violence at NNCC
"exceeded constitutional standards" and was due "essentially to
understaffing," and ultimately ordered injunctive relief related to
staffing ratios.

Mr. Quintero now seeks to "remove" Counts II and VI of his
complaint in the present case to have the supervising judge of
Stickney v. List determine the "legal question regarding
constitutionality of NNCC's change in the practical withdrawal of
the staffing ratios from units that are not specifically named in
the suit because they were not yet built."

As an initial matter, Judge Baldwin holds that the presiding judge
in Stickney, has already determined that it cannot "re-litigate the
underlying constitutional question" in that case. Additionally,
Quintero's request for "joinder" is not in line with what the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow. Further, removing claims
from the instant case to join them to a different case, does not
"secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this
action and proceeding." For these reasons, Quintero's motions are
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n6d5sdh from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK, NY: Disla Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Special Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELVY DISLA, RONNELL DUSAUZAY, JUSTIN CAPOTE, and JERMAINE
DICKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06693 (S.D.N.Y., August 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to
properly calculate the regular rate of pay in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant
who work or have worked as special officers in the Department of
Citywide Administrative Services in New York.

The City of New York is a public agency with its principal place of
business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Hope Pordy, Esq.
         Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq.
         SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
         1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 765-2100
         E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com
                 esprotzer@spivaklipton.com

                - and –

         Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
         Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
         Sarah M. Block, Esq.
         McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
         1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 833-8855
         E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                 slf@mselaborlaw.com
                 smb@mselaborlaw.com

R. R. DONNELLEY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kelly Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04301 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII"), including
names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and
driver's license numbers.

According to the complaint, on or about mid-January 2022, the
Defendant became aware certain corporate data was accessed and
exfiltrated by a ransomware group. It was not until on or around
August 5, 2022, that the Defendant finally began notifying Class
Members that their PII had been accessed by an unauthorized
intruder, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and, tens of
thousands of other individuals ("Class Members") have had their
most sensitive personal information stolen by malicious
cybercriminals. The information that was compromised is one-stop
shopping for identity thieves to wreak complete havoc on their
victims' lives. Moreover, given the sensitivity and static nature
of the information involved (such as names, Social Security
numbers, dates of birth, etc.), Plaintiff and Class Members will be
forced to live in fear and constantly monitor for misuse of the
stolen data, forever, the suit alleges.

R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY provides commercial printing and
information services. The Company provides solutions that include
commercial printing, direct mail, financial printing, print
fulfillment, labels, forms, logistics, call centers, transactional
print-and-mail, print management, online services, digital
photography, color services, and content and database management.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               -and-

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
          MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com

RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Ortiz Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADAN ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC;
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS,
LLC; XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CIV-SB-2204491, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 8, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-01399 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 provide meal periods, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to indemnify,
failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to
timely pay all final wages, unfair competition, and civil
penalties.

Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC is a human resources services firm,
with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

Randstad North America, Inc. is a sole member of Randstad Inhouse
Services, LLC.

XPO Logistics, Inc. is an American freight transportation company,
headquartered in Connecticut.

XPO Logistics, LLC is a provider of transportation and logistics
solutions, headquartered in Connecticut.

XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. is a provider of logistics support
services, headquartered in North Carolina. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
         Jessica C. Koenig, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com
                 jkoenig@seyfarth.com

RELIANCE VITAMIN: Costa Sues Over Mislabeled Power Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. RELIANCE VITAMIN CO. INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04679-SK (N.D. Cal., Aug.
15, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful marketing of the
PlantFusion powder supplements products as containing a quantity
fit for the size of its container to avoid or mitigate the risk of
deceiving the public, and requiring the Defendant to change its
unlawful practices.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in an effort to
increase profits and to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over
its lawfully acting competitors, the Defendant deceptively sells
its powder supplements in oversized packaging, leading reasonable
consumers, including the Plaintiff, to believe that they are
purchasing more product than they receive.

The Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to all flavors, sizes, and
varieties of PlantFusion powder supplements sold in opaque
containers. The Defendant markets the Products in a systematically
misleading manner by representing them as adequately filled when,
in fact, they contain an unlawful amount of empty space or
"slack-fill." The Defendant underfills the Products for no lawful
reason. The front of the Products' packaging does not include any
information that would reasonably apprise the Plaintiff of the
quantity of product relative to the size of the container, such as
a fill line, says the suit.

RELIANCE VITAMIN COMPANY INC. manufactures dietary supplementary
products. The Company offers vitamins, minerals, nutritional oils,
lecithin, plant based nutritional powders, and herbal supplements.
Reliance Vitamin serves customers in the State of New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com

RELX INC: Wilens Sues Over Unfair Research Subscription Service
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY WILENS, individually, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELX Inc. and DOES 1 THROUGH 100
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022-01274235-CU-BT-CXC (Cal.
Super., Orange Cty., Aug. 9, 2022) is brought against the
Defendants for breach of contract and for violation of the Ohio
Uniform Trade Practices Act arising from the wrongful conduct of
the Defendants' Lexis + legal research subscription service.

The Plaintiff operates a law firm called Lakeshore Law Center. Over
the years of its operation, the Plaintiff routinely used online
databases of court opinions, annotated statutes and treatises on
the law hosted by companies such as Westlaw and LexisNexis.
Defendant RELX operates the popular LexisNexis online legal
research database.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff entered into a
subscription agreement with Defendant for the use of the Lexis +
online services and material available therein. The agreement
purports to include a non-disclosure provision.

The Defendant allegedly violated the UDTPA by representing in the
addendum and in operation of the Lexis service (website) that the
Transactional Discount Program had characteristic uses, benefits
and quantities it did not have. Specifically, Defendant represented
that subscribers to the program would be able to pay a flat monthly
rate {such as $25) to access out plan material up to a specified
quota or amount (typically $250) and that they would be charged
against this limit at a 90% discount to the normal list rate for
the material. In many cases, the normal charge was $53 for a
chapter and the discounted rate was $5.30. However, as Defendant
actually implemented the program, Plaintiff and class members could
only access less than 10% of the out of plan material before
exceeding their quota with the next usage, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a member of a class defined as "All persons who,
within the past four years or six years, subscribed to Defendant's
Transactional Discount Program after executing an addendum
substantially similar to that executed by Plaintiff, and who paid
the fee for that program." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          SPENCER LAW FIRM  
          2 Venture, Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 377-3727
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

RIVERSTONE COMMUNITIES: Court Narrows Claims in Rodriguez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Denver, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case,
IRMA RODRIGUEZ, and ETHEL DOLORES LAWSON, Plaintiffs v. RIVERSTONE
COMMUNITIES, LLC, INDIAN CREEK PARENT, LLC, INDIAN CREEK MHP, LLC,
INDIAN CREEK DEALER, LLC, and INDIAN CREEK ASSOCIATION, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-CV-486-D (E.D.N.C.).

On Oct. 15, 2021, Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Lawson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action against the Defendants in Wake County Superior Court
alleging nine North Carolina law claims concerning their operation
of a mobile home park in Wake County, North Carolina. On Nov. 23,
2021, the Defendants removed the action to the present Court based
on diversity jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants violated various
provisions of North Carolina law while operating the Indian Creek
Overlook Mobile Home Park in Wake County, North Carolina. They
allege nine causes of action under North Carolina law and seek
damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Claims one and two allege violations of Chapter 47H of the North
Carolina General Statutes, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 47H-1, et seq.,
which governs "Contracts for Deed." Claim three alleges violations
of North Carolina Manufactured Home Warranties Act, N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sections 143-143.8, et seq. Claims four and five allege violations
of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 75-1.1, et seq., based on the same factual
allegations as claims one, two, and three. Claims six and seven
allege violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C.
Gen. Stat. Sections 75-50, et seq. Claim eight alleges that the
Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy. In claim nine, the
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment.

On Dec. 20, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted (1) claims one, two,
and three in their entirety, (2) claims four, five, eight, and nine
in part, (3) all claims of Plaintiff Lawson (i.e. claims two, five,
seven, and part of claim nine), and (4) all claims against the
Defendants and filed a memorandum in support.

On Jan. 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs responded in opposition except as
to claim three and any other claims that rely on an underlying
violation of the North Carolina Manufactured Home Warranties Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 143-143.8, et seq., and asked the Court to
remand those claims to Wake County Superior Court. On Feb. 7, 2022,
the Defendants replied. On April 18, 2022, with the Court's
permission, the Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply.

The Defendants argue that Lawson's claims in claims two, five,
seven, and part of nine all arise out of her ejectment action and
were compulsory counterclaims in the ejectment action and,
therefore, are barred by res judicata. They also argue that
collateral estoppel bars her claims because each of "her claims
boil down to the theory that the Defendants did not have the
authority to institute the Ejectment Action against her, and they
were not legally entitled to recover the rent and damages IC MHP
was awarded in the Ejectment Action." Lawson responds that under
North Carolina law her claims are not barred by res judicata or
collateral estoppel because of the nature of the summary ejectment
action.

Judge Denver holds that res judicata does not bar Lawson from
pursuing her claims. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 7A-219 expressly
states that "notwithstanding G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13, failure by a
defendant to filed a counterclaim in a small claims action assigned
to a magistrate, or failure to appeal a judgment in a small claims
action in district court, will not bar such claims in a separate
action." Additionally, Lawson's aggregated claims would have
exceeded the small claims jurisdictional threshold of $10,000. As
for the Defendants' collateral estoppel argument, section 7A-219
defeats the argument.

For these reasons, Judge Denver rejects the Defendants' argument
and declines to dismiss Lawson' claims based on res judicata or
collateral estoppel and considers the claims on the merits.

As for the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims one and two on the
merits, Judge Denver rules that the Plaintiffs plausibly allege
that the form contracts are "contracts for deeds" under N.C. Gen.
Stat. Sections 47H-1, et seq. Moreover, no condition precedent is
necessary to bring a claim under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 47H-8.

As for claim three, the Plaintiffs agree that they lack Article IQ
standing to assert this claim. Thus, Judge Denver dismisses without
prejudice claim three. Likewise, he dismisses without prejudice any
part of any other claim that relies on claim three, including the
UDTPA claims in claim four and claim five, the civil conspiracy
claim in claim eight, and the declaratory judgment claim in claim
nine.

As for the motion to dismiss all Defendants other than Indian Creek
MHP, LLC, the Plaintiffs plausibly allege a civil conspiracy among
all Defendants. Thus, Judge Denver declines to dismiss the four
defendants other than Indian Creek MHP, LLC.

In sum, Judge Denver grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. He grants in part and dismisses
without prejudice claim three and any part of any other claim
relying on claim three, including the portions of the UDTPA claims
in claim four and claim five, the civil conspiracy claim in claim
eight, and the declaratory judgment claim in claim nine that rely
on allegations of violations of the North Carolina Manufactured
Home Warranties Act. He denies the motion as to the other claims of
the Plaintiffs and declines to dismiss the claims against all
Defendants. Whether specific claims or specific Defendants will
survive the inevitable motion for summary judgment is an issue for
another day.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2hmn3jjf from Leagle.com.


ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Suit Over Halting Meme Stock Trading
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Saul at Forbes reports that Topline a federal judge ruled
that Robinhood must defend itself in court against a class action
lawsuit related to the online brokerage's January 2021 decision to
halt trading in exploding "meme stocks" like AMC and GameStop,
several outlets reported, though Robinhood vows to "vigorously
defend" itself in the case.

                               Key Facts

Robinhood's decision to temporarily bar the purchase of surging
stocks like AMC, Bed Bath & Beyond and GameStop clears the
"particularized threshold" of "market manipulation" for the suit to
move forward, according to Cecilia Altonaga, the chief judge at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Bloomberg reported.

Altonaga dismissed several of the allegations against Robinhood,
according to Bloomberg, and noted the case presents "interesting
legal questions, convoluted by the novelty of Robinhood's
platform."

The suit was brought forward by investors in the nine halted
stocks, per Reuters.

Robinhood continues to support its decision as the meme stock
frenzy represented "an extraordinary, once in a generation event
that stressed every stakeholder in the market," Cheryl Crumpton,
Robinhood's associate general counsel of litigation and regulatory
enforcement, said in a statement to Forbes.

                         Crucial Quote

Robinhood plans to "vigorously defend ourselves" in the lawsuit,
Crumpton said in the statement, explaining: "We continue to stand
by our actions during this period, which we believe were
appropriate and necessary to protect and support our customers."

                         Key Background

Robinhood blocked the purchase of several securities that soared in
price backed by a rally from Reddit's WallStreetBets community on
January 28, 2021, citing market volatility, but allowing customers
to sell their positions in the affected stocks. GameStop shares
rose roughly 1,700% in January 2021, while AMC shares jumped about
840% in the period. Robinhood's decision to partially halt trading
met intense bipartisan backlash, leading to several class-action
lawsuits. The company has paid $165 million to government agencies
since 2020 related to penalties for misleading customers and
failing to meet compliance regulations. Robinhood's stock is down
more than 70% from its initial public offering price last July,
though it has rallied more than 10% over the last month. [GN]

SICILIAN SAGE: De Rosa Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURIZIO DE ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SICILIAN SAGE LLC, SALVATORE
FRATERRIGO and EMMANUELA PACIFICO, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06733 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 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 provide the required
minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hour wages, unlawful retention of all tips and
gratuities, and failure to provide wage payment statements and
hiring wage rate notifications.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at Norma Gastronomia
Siciliana as a dining room assistant from June 1, 2021 through
January 5, 2022.

Sicilian Sage LLC is an owner and operator of a Sicilian restaurant
known as Norma Gastronomia Siciliana, located at 801 9th Avenue,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
         BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         116 Jackson Avenue
         Syosset, NY 11791
         Telephone: (516) 280-3008
         E-mail: Matthew.M@Belllg.com

STELLAR MANAGEMENT: Court Denies Johal's Bid to Reopen Chavez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge John C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denies Raman Singh Johal's
motion to reopen the case, DAVID CHAVEZ, Plaintiff v. STELLAR
MANAGEMENT GROUP VII, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01353-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Original Plaintiff Chavez filed this wage-and-hour case on March
13, 2019, asserting state-law claims on a class basis under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Fair Labor Standards
Act claims on a collective basis. On March 9, 2020, Johal signed a
form agreement opting into the FLSA collective action, consenting
"to become a Plaintiff herein and be bound by any judgment of the
Court or any settlement of this action," consenting to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes, and
authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP to prosecute the case and negotiate a
settlement on his behalf. The Plaintiffs' counsel filed Johal's
opt-in form in the record on March 13, 2019.

On March 18, 2022, the Court entered final judgment based on the
parties' agreement to settle the claims at issue on a class and
collective basis. According to a declaration submitted in
conjunction with the motion for final approval, no class members
submitted timely objections or requests to be excluded from the
class.

On May 18, 2022, Johal, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to reopen
the case and to award the entire classwide and collective-wide
gross settlement fund of $4.25 million to him personally. Documents
attached to his motion indicate that he received a check for
$198.06 after the settlement was finalized and approved. Johal
asserts that he "hired an attorney to open a lawsuit against his
previous employer," but the attorney instead "opened a class action
lawsuit with 7,000 people, without Johal's knowledge."

Nothing in Johal's motion indicates there is any legal basis to set
aside the parties' settlement, reopen the case after judgment has
been entered, or award Johal all of the funds that Defendants
agreed to pay the class and collective as a whole. To the contrary,
Johal affirmatively opted into the case, and there is no indication
that he objected to the terms of the settlement or sought to
exclude himself from it within the time allotted to do so. If he
takes issue with the manner in which hi counsel prosecuted the case
to a settlement or explained the nature of the representation to
him, any potential remaining dispute is with his attorneys, not
with his former employers who were the defendants in the action.
The motion to reopen is therefore denied.

The Clerk is instructed to add Johal to the docket of this closed
case as a plaintiff and to mail a copy of the Order to him at the
address listed on his motion to reopen.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yawtfkey from Leagle.com.


STRUCTURETECH NEW YORK: Faces Quezada Suit Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
HOLGER QUEZADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRUCTURETECH NEW YORK, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:22-cv-06747 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and the New York
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant terminated the employment
of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees without cause, as
part of, or as the result of, a mass layoff or plant closing
ordered by the Defendant on or about July 15, 2022 and without
providing 60 days advance written notice of their terminations as
required by the federal WARN Act and 90 days advance written notice
as required by the New York WARN Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a full-time construction
employee from July 2015, until his termination as part of a mass
layoff and/or plant closing that began on or about July 15, 2022.

StructureTech New York, Inc. is a construction firm, with its
principal place of business located at 90 West Sandford Blvd., Mt.
Vernon, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
         Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
         PELTON GRAHAM LLC
         111 Broadway, Suite 1503
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 385-9700
         E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                 graham@peltongraham.com

SUBWAY FRANCHISEE: Soliman Appeals Ruling Dismissing TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marina Soliman is taking an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Soliman v. Subway Franchisee
Advertising, Case No. 19-cv-592, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).

Plaintiff Marina Soliman alleges that Subway has violated Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and has invaded her privacy rights through
its marketing communications that use an automatic telephone
dialing system. Plaintiff Soliman also alleges that Subway did not
have prior express written consent to send the marketing text
messages to her cell phone, especially after she had clearly and
expressly requested that Subway cease sending text messages.
Through Subway's aforementioned conduct, Soliman suffered an
invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is
specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, the complaint
says.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 29, 2020, the
Defendant filed an appeal after the Court entered an Order denying
its motion to compel arbitration.

On August 30, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint filed in the case.

On July 18, 2022, Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer signed an order granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Judgment was further entered in
favor of Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd. and against
Plaintiff.

The appellate case is captioned as Soliman v. Subway Franchisee
Advertising Fund Trust, Ltd., Case No. 22-1726, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Aug. 9,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marina Soliman, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN
          21031 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234

               - and -

          Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
          WOCL LEYDON LLC
          77 Old Wagon Road
          Stamford, CT 06903
          Telephone: (203) 333-3339  

Defendant-Appellee Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, LTD.
is represented by:

          Brian T. Feeney, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7812

SUEZ WTS: Bulnes Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARTIN BULNES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SUEZ WTS SERVICES USA, INC.; GE MOBILE
WATER, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00021906-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on August 5, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01154-BAS-AHG 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair competition.

Suez WTS Services USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of specialty chemical
products, with its principal place of business located in Norfolk,
Virginia.

GE Mobile Water, Inc. is an operator of water testing service in
Norfolk, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Ryan McCoy, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 397-2823
         Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
         E-mail: rmccoy@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Michelle Zakarian, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: mzakarian@seyfarth.com

TAPESTRY INC: Court Strikes Affirmative Defenses in Brooks Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC. d/b/a KATE
SPADE, a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00156-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion
to strike affirmative defenses 1 and 3-22.

The Plaintiff is visually impaired and legally blind. She alleges
the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its website in a manner fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff
and other people who are visually impaired.

The Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint on Jan. 26, 2021,
alleging class action claims under Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The
Defendant filed its Answer, which includes 23 affirmative defenses,
on Feb. 19, 2021.

On March 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike
affirmative defenses 1 and 3-22 because they are inappropriate,
legally insufficient, or not pleaded with sufficient facts to
support them. In opposition, the Defendant argues the affirmative
defenses are both legally sufficient and adequately pleaded under
the Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), standard, and thus, the motion
should not be granted.

In Wyshak, the Ninth Circuit stated: "the key to determining the
sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives
plaintiff fair notice of the defense." Under the fair notice
standard, a defendant is only required to "state the nature and
grounds for the affirmative defense" rather than plead a detailed
statement of the facts upon which the defense is based. "On the
other hand, an affirmative defense is legally insufficient only if
it clearly lacks merit 'under any set of facts the defendant might
allege.'" The pleadings are only required to describe each defense
in "general terms" if it gives the plaintiff fair notice of the
nature of the defense. For well-established defenses, merely naming
them may be sufficient.

First, the Plaintiff argues the first affirmative defense (lack of
standing) is not valid because "a defense which demonstrates that
plaintiff has not met its burden of proof is not an affirmative
defense." In opposition, the Defendant argues lack of standing can
be used as an affirmative defense because discovery will reveal the
extent of her injury and her claims will not succeed if she does
not show injury.

Judge Nunley denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike the first
affirmative defense. He says, in a recent case, the Court declined
to strike lack of standing as an affirmative defense, citing
Peacock v. Pabst Brewing Co., LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00568-TLN-CKD, 2022
WL 446201, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022).

Second, the Plaintiff argues the thirteenth affirmative defense
(good faith) is not valid because there is no state of mind
requirement for her claims. She also argues the Defendant failed to
connect good faith to the facts. In response, the Defendant argues
"to the extent the Plaintiff is not relying exclusively on the ADA
to prove her state law claims, good faith is a legitimate defense
to causes of action under the Unruh Act." It does not address the
Plaintiff's fair notice arguments.

Judge Nunley denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike the thirteenth
affirmative defense. Although the Defendant did not directly
address fair notice, he finds its allegation that it "acted
reasonably and in good faith at all times material, based on all
relevant facts, law, and circumstances known by them at the time
that they acted" is sufficient to give fair notice of the defense.

Third, the Plaintiff argues the fourteenth affirmative defense
(mootness) is "an improper negative defense, in as much as it
questions whether Plaintiff has an actual case or controversy under
Article III, which she must prove." She also argues this defense
does not meet the fair notice standard. In opposition, the
Defendant argues the defense is well-recognized in ADA access cases
and its voluntary removal of alleged barriers would moot her
claim.

Judge Nunley denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike the fourteenth
affirmative defense. He holds that mootness is commonly upheld as
an affirmative defense. Additionally, he finds the Defendant
sufficiently pleaded this defense because the Answer does more than
simply state the doctrine. Rather, it specifically alleges
"Defendant's website complies with all applicable standards, if
any."

Fourth, the Plaintiff argues the Defendant's ADA-specific
affirmative defenses (3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 19-20) should be
stricken as they do not provide fair notice under the Wyshak
standard. In opposition, the Defendant argues it met this standard
because the standard only requires a defendant to "state the nature
and grounds for the affirmative defense.

Judge Nunley denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative
defenses 3-5, 7-9, 11-12, 15, and 19-20. He says, for the
Defendant's ADA-specific defenses in the case, the Plaintiff can
access the text of the ADA and inquire further regarding the
affirmative defenses, which he finds provides sufficient notice.
This applies to the following affirmative defenses: 3 (effective
access); 4 (readily achievable); 5 (alternative methods); 7
(technical infeasibility); 8 (undue burden); 9 (reasonable
modification); 11 (fundamental alteration); 12 (legitimate business
justifications); 15 (equivalent facilitation); 19 (47 U.S.C Section
230); and 20 (effective communication).

In addition to fair notice arguments, the Plaintiff argues
affirmative defenses 9, 19, and 20 lack legal sufficiency. Judge
Nunley finds her argument unpersuasive. As he previously stated,
"if the Court is in doubt as to whether the challenged matter may
raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be
denied, leaving assessment of the sufficiency of the allegations
for adjudication on the merits."

Fifth, the Plaintiff asserts affirmative defenses 6 (unclean
hands), 10 (failure to mitigate), and 22 (failure to name an
indispensable party) do not provide fair notice. In opposition, the
Defendant argues it pleaded each defense sufficiently.

Judge Nunley agrees with the Defendant, finding that (i) the
doctrine of unclean hands is a well-established, self-explanatory
defense; and (ii) the Defendant provided enough factual support to
survive a motion to strike. Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiff's
motion to strike affirmative defenses 6, 10, and 22.

Sixth, the Plaintiff next moves to strike the Defendant's sixteenth
affirmative defense (ripeness), seventeenth affirmative defense
(primary jurisdiction), and eighteenth affirmative defense (due
process). She argues the Defendant failed to plead sufficient facts
to support these affirmative defenses. Additionally, he argues
these defenses were rejected in Robles v. Domino's Pizza where the
court held "Due Process was not violated merely because the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") had failed to issue standards
governing websites." The Plaintiff also argues the Robles court
rejected the application of primary jurisdiction in a comparable
situation.

Judge Nunley does not find Robles to be persuasive as it involved a
motion to dismiss -- not a motion to strike or the fair notice
standard for pleading affirmative defenses. Additionally, he finds
the allegations give the Plaintiff fair notice of the nature and
grounds for these defenses -- namely, that "the Department of
Justice has not yet issued any accessibility standards for
websites." Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike
the Defendant's sixteenth through eighteenth affirmative defenses.

Finally, the Defendant concedes that defense 21 is identical to
affirmative defense 7. Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiff's
motion to strike affirmative defense 21 as duplicative and strikes
that defense without leave to amend.

Judge Nunley grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike. He strikes the twenty-first affirmative defense
without leave to amend. The motion is denied in all other
respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35an2dcs from Leagle.com.


TAPESTRY INC: Reed Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SABRINA REED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TAPESTRY, INC., which will do business
in California as COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV399419, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on August 5, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-04546 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages due,
failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks, failure to pay all
wages owed during employment and upon termination, failure to
reimburse required business expenses, and unfair competition.

Tapestry, Inc. is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
         Jonathan S. Christie, Esq.
         Jennifer J. McDermott, Esq.
         AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
         Telephone: (310) 229-1000
         Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
         E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                 christiej@akingump.com
                 jmcdermott@akingump.com

TARGET CORP: Kahn Files Suit Over Deceptive Shelf Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
YORAM KAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04178 (S.D. Ill., Aug. 9, 2022) seeks to address and remedy
the unfair and deceptive business practices Target has engaged in
by placing false and misleading price advertisements on shelf signs
and price displays throughout its stores in Illinois and across the
U.S. in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and the State Consumer Protection Statutes.

According to the complaint, Target's shelf pricing frequently
misrepresents the prices consumers are charged at the point of
sale. As a result, consumers fall victim to a classic "bait and
switch," and unknowingly overpay Target a higher price for the
falsely-advertised merchandise at checkout. The false and
misleading shelf pricing affects various merchandise throughout
Target's stores, with overcharged goods costing consumers higher
prices in a range of 5-20%, and some much higher, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased overcharged goods at a Target store located
in Niles, Illinois, on August 2, 2022, while traveling in the
state.

Target is a multi-national corporation that operates chains of
retail and grocery stores. Target is incorporated in Minnesota and
its principal offices are located in and around Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott H. Gingold, Esq.
          GINGOLD LEGAL
          1326 Isabella Street
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (773) 793-9093  
          E-mail: scott@gingoldlegal.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq.
          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
          Jeffrey R. Mceachern, Esq.
          Hairong Basil, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  liebhard@bernlieb.com
                  beige@bernlieb.com
                  jmceachern@bernlieb.com
                  hbasil@bernlieb.com

TPUSA INC: Underpays Tech Support Representatives, Doyle Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TPUSA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:22-cv-00854-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., August 15, 2022) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Tech Support
Representative in the Defendant's call center from September 2019
until June 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated Tech
Support Representatives regularly worked hours over 40 in a week.
However, the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they
spent performing pre-shift duties that are integral to their
principal duties, specifically booting up their computer which took
approximately 10-15 minutes. As a result, despite working more than
40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

TPUSA, Inc. owns and operates telecommunications facilities in
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRB ACQUISITIONS: Faces Cakir Suit Over Trademark Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
OMER CAKIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRB ACQUISITIONS LLC; ELI YADID; and DOES
1-5, Defendants, Case No. 30-2022-01275358-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., Aug. 15, 2022) alleges violations of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

This is a putative California class action case brought on behalf
of all purchasers of "RBX" labeled apparel, accessory, and shoe
products (the "Products" or "RBX Products") manufactured,
distributed, marketed, and sold by the Defendants in California.

According to the complaint, through a deceptive, unlawful, unfair,
fraudulent, and intentional course of conduct, the Defendants
designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the Products throughout
the US, and in California, with imitations of Reebok trademarks and
logos. The Defendants' conduct is likely to cause, and has caused,
consumer confusion and deceives the public regarding the source,
sponsorship, and affiliations of the RBX products, and misleads
reasonable consumers to believe that they are purchasing Reebok
products, says the suit.

TRB ACQUISITIONS LLC is an apparel, accessory, and shoe
manufacturer and distributer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Y. Kim, Esq.
          RAY KIM LAW, APC
          11355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (833) 729-5529
          Facsimile: (833) 972-9546
          Email: ray@raykimlaw.com

               -and-

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          Email:  tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

TUYA INC: Faces Lian Suit Over False Registration Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
XIAOMENG LIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUYA INC., XUEJI (JERRY) WANG, LIAOHAN (LEO)
CHEN, YI (ALEX) YANG, YAO (JESSIE) LIU, SCOTT SANDELL, CARMEN
CHANG, JEFF IMMELT, QING GAO, JING HONG, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
BofA SECURITIES, INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG
KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, TIGER BROKERS (NZ) LIMITED, and CMB
INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06792
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased Tuya
American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's March
2021 initial public offering (IPO) seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.

On February 26, 2021, Tuya filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission a registration statement on Form F-1 for the
IPO, which, after amendments on March 12, 2021 and March 16, 2021,
was declared effective on March 17, 2021. On March 19, 2021, the
Company filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4,
which incorporated and formed part of the registration statement.
The registration statement was used to sell to the investing public
over 45 million Tuya ADSs at $21 per ADS (which included a partial
exercise of the Underwriter Defendants' over-allotment option),
generating over $946 million in gross offering proceeds.  

According to the complaint, the registration statement was
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of such documents. Specifically, the
registration statement stated that Tuya had "established a thriving
ecosystem of brands, OEMs, developers, partners and end users on
our platform due to powerful network effects." The registration
statement stated that this vibrant ecosystem included: (i) a
"[l]arge and loyal global customer base" with "over 5,000 customers
in 2020"; (ii) a "[v]ibrant developer and partner network" with
"over 262,000 IoT device and software developers"; and (iii) an
"[e]xpansive end user base" which "powered over 116.5 million smart
devices," says the suit.

Tuya, Inc., incorporated in the Cayman Islands and headquartered in
Zhejiang Province, China, developed and offers a purpose-built
Internet of Things cloud platform that delivers a suite of
offerings, including Platform-as-a-Service, or PaaS, and
Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS, to businesses and developers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 674-4674
          Facsimile: (312) 674-4676
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 292-5690
          Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
          E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com

TUYA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Tuya Inc. (NYSE: TUYA) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.

Relevant Period: Mar. 15, 2021-Aug. 9, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 11, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TUYA
Contact An Attorney Now: TUYA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Tuya Inc. (LFST) Securities Class Action is brought on behalf of
all investors who purchased Tuya ADS in or traceable to the
company's March 2021 IPO.  Specifically, Tuya's IPO documents
touted the company's historical growth, claiming it was driven by
the "thriving ecosystem" of customers, made up of brands, OEMS,
industry operators and system integrators, who generated revenue
for Tuya by selling products through e-commerce marketplaces such
as Amazon.com. The statements allowed Tuya to go public and raise
over $946 million in gross proceeds.

The complaint alleges the IPO documents failed to disclose that:
(1) a material portion of Tuya's China-based customers were engaged
in the widespread and systematic manipulation of reviews and
product offerings in violation of Amazon.com's terms of use; (2)
prior to the IPO, a consumer investigation and data breach had
exposed 13 million records of organized fake review scams linked to
over 200,000 Amazon account profiles; and (3) as a result, there
was a substantial risk that a material portion of Tuya's
significant customers would be barred from using Amazon.com's
platform, negatively impacting Tuya's business, revenues, earnings
and prospects.

Shortly after the IPO, the financial press reported that Amazon.com
suspended hundreds of thousands accounts after discovering a
massive fake review scam and closed 340 online stores of one of its
largest Chinese retailers in the first half of this year.

By Aug. 18, 2021, when Tuya announced disappointing Q2 2021
results, management blamed the results and outlook on Amazon.com's
strict execution of seller policy.
As a result, Tuya ADSs are trading almost 90% below their IPO
price.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Tuya misled
investors about its purported customers," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Tuya and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/tuya to discuss your legal
rights with Hagens Berman.

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

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:

    Reed Kathrein, Esq.
    HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
    Telephone: (510) 725-3000
    Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
    E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]

TWITTER INC: Collects Personal Info Without Consent, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER GIANAKOPOULOS; JAMISHA PRYOR; HENRY YEH; SHEILA GARCIA;
ALYSSA SCHAFFER; and JEFFERY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04674 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant's surreptitious and undisclosed
use of the Plaintiffs' and Class members' telephone numbers and
email addresses for advertising and marketing purposes, and,
ultimately, its own unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant solicited and collected
the Plaintiffs' and Class members' telephone numbers and email
addresses under the guise that they were to be used for various
account security related functions, including two-factor
authentication, account recovery, and account re-authentication.

The Defendant was also using this Personal Information of
Plaintiffs and Class members to line its own
pockets—specifically, it utilized the provided telephone numbers
and email addresses in its "Tailored Audiences" and "Partner
Audiences" marketing products, thereby permitting advertisers to
target specific groups of Twitter users by matching the telephone
numbers and email addresses that Twitter collected to the
advertisers' existing, or purchased, lists of telephone numbers and
email addresses, says the suit.

TWITTER, INC. provides online social networking and microblogging
service. The Company offers users the ability to follow other users
activity, read, and post tweets. Twitter serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          Email: srios@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          Email: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 khriebel@locklaw.com

UBS AG: Prelim. Approval Hearing on Fund Class Deals Set for Oct. 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee and
successor-in-interest to Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., HAYMAN
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, L.P., JAPAN MACRO OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND,
L.P., and CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBS
AG, UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD., SOCIETE GENERALE SA, NATWEST
GROUP PLC, NATWEST MARKETS PLC, NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES, INC.,
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS PLC, COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE
RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS
BANK PLC, NEX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, TP ICAP
PLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., MERRILL
LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50., Defendants, Case No.
15 Civ. 5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York set the
preliminary approval hearing for the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlements with:

   (1) Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., and Barclays
       PLC;

   (2) Nex International Limited and ICAP Europe Limited; and

   (3) TP ICAP PLC for Oct. 4, 2022 at 10:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3njjaans from Leagle.com.


UNDERLINING INC: Raslavich Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Raslavich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Underlining, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
154995015 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 9,
2022) is a class action arising from the Defendant's violations of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in telephonic
sales calls to consumers to promote its goods and services without
having secured prior express written consent as required by the
FTSA.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of herself and the Class members, as
well as any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting
from the unlawful actions of Defendant.

Underlining, Inc. is a beauty and wellness company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITED COLLECTION: Meisels Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAIZEL MEISELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., LVNV Finding
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 523499/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 15,
2022) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
intentional and willful violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged defaulted debt incurred to non-party
Synchrony Bank primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.

According to the complaint, Defendant LVNV has purchased the
allegedly defaulted debt from Synchrony Bank, and then contracted
with Defendant UCB for the purposes of debt collection.
Consequently, on or about September 20, 2021, Defendant UCB sent an
initial collection letter, which provides multiple addresses in
which Defendant UCB will allegedly receive correspondence. However,
the Letter failed to advise the Plaintiff as to the purpose of each
addresses or to which one disputes should be sent. The Plaintiff
therefor did not know how to properly dispute the debt and exercise
his rights under Section 1692g, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged deceptive, misleading, and
unfair representations with respect to its collection efforts, the
Plaintiff has spent time and money in determining the proper course
of action, thereby causing concrete harm to the Plaintiff. Thus, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory and actual damages, litigation
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.

United Collection Bureau, Inc. and LVNV Finding LLC are debt
collectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com

UNITY SOFTWARE: Assad Seeks More Info re ironSource Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of UNITY SOFTWARE INC., Plaintiff v. ROELOF
BOTHA, EGON DURBAN, DAVID HELGASON, ALYSSA HENRY, MICHELLE K. LEE,
JOHN RICCITIELLO, BARRY SCHULER, ROBYNNE SISCO, MARY SCHMIDT
CAMPBELL and KEISHA SMITH JEREMIE, Defendants, and UNITY SOFTWARE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2022-0691
(Del. Ch., Aug. 8, 2022) arises from the Unity Board's failure to
disclose material information about financial advisors'
compensation, conflicts, and analyses in connection with a
stockholder vote to approve an issuance of Unity common stock to
fund the Company's acquisition of ironSource Ltd.

On July 13, 2022, Unity and ironSource entered into an all-stock
Merger agreement valuing ironSource at approximately $4.4 billion.
In connection with the Merger, Unity agreed to issue $1 billion of
convertible notes to its two largest stockholders, Silver Lake and
Sequoia Capital, referred here as the PIPE, both of which have
representatives on the Unity Board and which, together, own
approximately 25% of Unity's outstanding common stock. The PIPE is
conditioned on the Merger closing and the Company's public filings
suggest that the proceeds will be used as partial funding for up to
$2.5 billion in repurchases of Unity's common stock after the
Merger closes. Both Morgan Stanley & Co LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co
LLC advised the Unity Board and Committees in connection with the
Merger and PIPE.

The New York Stock Exchange rules require Unity stockholder
approval of the issuance of Unity common stock to ironSource
stockholders. In connection with soliciting stockholder support of
the Issuance, Unity filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2022, that was
signed by the Director Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement is deficient
because it omits material information regarding potential conflicts
of interest of and work performed by Unity's financial advisors.
Specifically, the S-4 fails to disclose: (i) Whether Morgan Stanley
has provided any services to or received any compensation from any
of Silver Lake, Sequoia Capital, or ironSource during the two years
immediately preceding the issuance of its fairness opinion; and
(ii) Any description of (a) the substance of Goldman Sachs'
financial advice to the Board and Special Committees, (b) why
Goldman Sachs was brought in as a second advisor at the tail-end of
the process, (c) the amount and structure of Goldman Sachs'
compensation for advising Unity and the Special Committees in
connection with the transactions, or (d) whether Goldman Sachs has
provided any services to or received any compensation from any of
Silver Lake, Sequoia Capital, Unity, or ironSource during the two
years immediately preceding the announcement of the Merger.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Unity, seeks an order enjoining the
stockholder vote on the Issuance unless and until the Board
discloses to public stockholders all information necessary for them
to make an informed decision regarding whether to support the
Issuance.

Unity Software, Inc. is a video game software development
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 499-3600

UPFIELD US: Reyes Sues Over Deceptive Vegetable Oil Spreads' Label
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOANNE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UPFIELD US INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-06722 (S.D.N.Y., August 8, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law,
State Consumer Fraud Acts, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular
purpose and breach of Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its vegetable oil spread under the Country Crock brand. The
Defendant represents the product as "Made With Almond Oil" and made
"With Almond Oil," with pictures of almond ingredients. However,
the ingredient list reveals a negligible amount of almond oil in
relative and absolute amounts to all oils used, less than all other
oils. The amount of almond oil is insufficient to confer any of the
health benefits associated with almond oil or deliver the taste of
almond oil. The Defendant sold more of the product and at higher
prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers, says
the suit.

Upfield US Inc. is a manufacturer of margarines and vegetable oil
spreads, with a principal place of business in Hackensack, Bergen
County, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

USF REDDAWAY: Bid to Remand Rodriguez Suit to Superior Court Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USF
REDDAWAY, INC., an unknown business entity; YRC WORLDWIDE, INC., an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02270-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and the
Defendant's Motion to Strike.

On Aug. 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint
with the San Joaquin County Superior Court. He alleges he was an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee for the Defendant from
approximately August 2020 to May 2021. He alleges the Defendant
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees. He alleges the Defendant failed to pay
these employees for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and
for missed meal periods and rest breaks. The Plaintiff further
alleges employees were not paid all minimum wages, were not paid
all wages owed upon termination, and were not timely paid under
California Labor Code Section 204. He also claims employees did not
receive complete and accurate wage statements. Finally, he alleges
the Defendant did not reimburse employees for all necessary
business expenses and did not keep complete and accurate payroll
records.

The Plaintiff claims his share of the amount in controversy is less
than $75,000. However, he brought the action "on his own behalf and
on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly
situated." He proposes a class constituting "all current and former
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the
Defendants within the State of California at any time during the
period from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to
final judgment and who reside in California." He also proposes a
subclass.

On Dec. 9, 2021, the Defendant removed the case to the Court. It
bases removal on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and claims:
(1) minimal diversity exists; and (2) the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million. It also claims removal is appropriate under
federal question jurisdiction.

On Jan. 10, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand.
On Feb. 10, 2022, the Defendant filed the opposition. On Feb. 17,
2022, the Plaintiff filed the reply. On Feb. 23, 2022, the
Defendant filed the instant motion to strike.

The Plaintiff argues removal is unwarranted because the amount in
controversy does not exceed $5 million. In the notice of removal,
the Defendant alleges the amount of controversy is at a minimum
$21,256,474.28. In the opposition, it argues the amount in
controversy exceeds $24,040,629.44. It claims the later amount is
reached by solely examining the Plaintiff's first six claims, and
therefore the actual amount in controversy is even greater after
considering his additional four claims as well as potential
attorneys' fees. Specifically, it reaches $24,040,629.44 by
calculating potential damages for the Plaintiff's claims for: (1)
overtime wages; (2) meal periods; (3) rest periods; (4) minimum
wages; (5) waiting time penalties; and (6) untimely wages under
California Labor Code Section 204.

Judge Nunley finds that the amount in controversy totals
$10,602,193.28 when solely considering the Plaintiff's meal period
and rest period claims. Even if a smaller violation rate were to be
used for these two claims, such as 15% instead of 25%, the amount
in controversy from these two claims would still exceed the
jurisdictional threshold.

Therefore, the Defendant has shown the amount of controversy
exceeds the CAFA jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of the
evidence. As such, Judge Nunley does not examine the amount in
controversy arising from the other claims alleged by the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand.

Next, the Defendant argues the Plaintiff's eleven-page long reply
on his motion to remand exceeds the page limit of 10 pages. It thus
requests the Court strikes any pages in excess of the page limit.

Judge Nunley holds that the eleventh page of the Plaintiff's reply
contains a portion of his arguments regarding federal question
jurisdiction and how there is no basis for supplemental
jurisdiction. He does not address his arguments regarding federal
question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction because he
denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand on a finding of diversity
jurisdiction under CAFA. Therefore, Judge Nunley did not need to
consider any arguments on the eleventh page of the Plaintiff's
reply. Accordingly, he denies the Defendant's motion to strike as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ptm5k6z from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON: $2.15MM Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in D.S. v. DCYF
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, D.S.; D.Y. by and through his next friend JULIE
KELLOGG-MORTENSEN; H.A. by and through his next friend KRISTEN
BISHOPP; and DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, a nonprofit membership
organization for the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy
Systems, Plaintiffs v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN,
YOUTH, AND FAMILIES; and ROSS HUNTER, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Washington State Department of Children, Youth,
and Families, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00113-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Order Approving Attorneys' Fees and Costs
Following Mediation.

A class of foster children with disabilities was being harmed by
the Defendants' failure to correct systemic deficiencies in
Washington State's child welfare system. The Plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the Defendants'
failures violate the rights of foster children with disabilities
under United States Constitution, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C.
Sections 621 et seq., 670 et seq.

On June 29, 2021, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction, which required the Defendants to
address practices for children in "placement exceptions," including
use of hotel and/or government office. The Plaintiffs' Counsel
subsequently negotiated with the Defendants to stipulate to a class
definition, which was certified on Sept. 22, 2021.

On June 15, 2021, the parties began engaging in mediation. Their
efforts resulted in the Settlement Agreement, which was executed on
June 6, 2022, and was granted preliminary approval by the Court on
June 24, 2022. The Settlement Agreement provides for a
comprehensive array of remedies to expand placement options and
improve practices to better serve the complex and intersectional
needs of the Class and their families.

The Settlement Agreement itself affirms "an agreement that
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses will be paid to the
Plaintiffs' Counsel for the litigation, mediation, and post-ORDER
settlement monitoring through the date the Defendants' obligations
under this Agreement terminate." After the parties negotiated and
submitted their Settlement Agreement for preliminary approval, they
mediated on June 21, 2022, and reached an agreement for the
Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs $2.15 million for their reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs from case inception to the date the Court
enters final approval on the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs
represent their actual attorneys' fees and costs, after the
exercise of billing judgment to remove any excess, redundant, or
unreasonably duplicative time, and applying a lodestar, is at least
approximately $2,601,434.30, and their expenses are $19,258.27 as
of July 20, 2022.

The Plaintiffs have filed an unopposed motion seeking approval of
the mediated total amount of $2.15 million attorneys' fees and
costs. They submit with their motion detailed time logs and
declarations of their counsel, documentation to support their
billing rates, and records of necessary litigation expenditures.

Given the scope and complexity of the litigation, the amount of
time expended and documented in the course of representing the
Plaintiffs in this matter, the hourly rates the Plaintiffs' counsel
have requested, the costs the Plaintiffs' counsel have incurred and
documented, and the excellent results achieved, Judge Rothstein
finds that, in the absence of any meritorious objection, the
stipulated $2.15 million attorneys' fees and costs award is fair
and reasonable and is approved.

As indicated on the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement,
which was distributed to the Class in accordance with the approved
Notice Plan, the Plaintiffs have posted their Unopposed Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs on the Disability Rights
Washington website at
https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/cases/d-s-vwashington-state-department-of-children-youth-and-families
and the National Center for Youth Law website at
https://youthlaw.org/settlement-ds-v-washington-state-dcyf. Notice
has been directed to Class Members in a reasonable manner pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).

Pursuant to their agreement, the Defendants will pay $2.15 million
to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days following the entry of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 9, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rh5uyp3y from Leagle.com.


WHOLE FOODS: Flowers Sues Over Failure to Pay Uniform Maintenance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, QUENTIN FLOWERS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 652929/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August
15, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff for damages and other legal
and equitable relief against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the New York Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a stocker in their
dairy section at the Defendant's 1551 3rd Ave., New York, NY from
August 20, 2019 until the termination of his employment around
March 2020.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required him and other
similarly situated stockers to wear a uniform at all times while
employed by the Defendant. However, the Defendant never paid them
any uniform maintenance pay. In addition, the Defendant only issued
one hat and one apron to each employee and deducted the cost of any
replacement from their wages, says the Plaintiff.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. operates approximately 511 gourmet
grocery store in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

WINCO HOLDINGS: King Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATASHA KING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC. and IDAHO
CORPORATION, doing business as WINCO FOODS, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV18867, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 8, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05572 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 wages owed, including overtime;
failure to provide lawful meal periods; failure to authorize and
permit rest periods; failure to timely pay wages owed during
employment; failure to timely pay wages owed during employment;
failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
reimburse necessary expenses; and unfair competition.

WinCo Holdings, Inc. is a holding company, with its principal place
of business in Idaho.

Idaho Corporation, doing business as WinCo Foods, is a supermarket
company based in Boise, Idaho. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
         Sophia S. Kwan, Esq.
         Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
         Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
         Telephone: (916) 448-0159
         Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
         E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com
                 skwan@seyfarth.com
                 pebsworth@seyfarth.com

                 - and –

         Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
         Telephone: (213) 270-9600
         Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
         E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.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 ***