/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220915.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 179

                            Headlines

106 COLOMBIA: Does Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Camano Says
3M COMPANY: Huizar Suit Alleges Injury Over PFAS Contamination
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bragar Eagel Notes Oct. 31 Lead Plaintiff Due
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Discrimination Suit Over "Diversity Grant"
AMAZON.COM: Lugo Sues Over Unlawful Retention Personal Information

AMERICAN DEALER: Pellot Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AMERICAN DIGITAL: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settlement Claim in False Ads Suit Due Dec. 16
ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK: Schwartz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AUSTRALIA: ATO Issues Information on Robodebt Settlement Payment

BARKBOX INC: Farmer Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
BHG XXXIV: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
BJC HEALTH SYSTEM: Doe Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
BWS INSPECTION SERVICES: Schmidt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CITIBANK NA: $155-Mil. Class Settlement to Be Heard on Nov. 29

CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
COOLSTUFFINC.COM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COPAG USA INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CORTERRA ENERGY: Ritter Seeks Unpaid Interest on Late Payments
CREDIT CONTROL: Brooks FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama

CVS PHARMACY: Faces Peroxide False Advertising Class Action
DAI ICHI ARTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDWARD D. JONES: Zigler Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Harris Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Transmissions Problems

FUNPLUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over In-App Purchases' False Ads
GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAS SOUTH: Armstrong Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
GROUPON INC: $13.5MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Oct. 13
HENDREN PLASTICS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Rehab Program Lawsuit

HOMESITE GROUP: Deaver Sues Over Insurance Agents' Unpaid Overtime
INTEL CORPORATION: Anderson Files 9th Cir. Appeal in ERISA Suit
J.B. HUNT: Appeals Remand Ruling in Townsend Labor Suit
J.M. SMUCKER: Brown Appeals Dismissal of False Ad Case
JON BEL EDWARDS: Sued Over Unconstitutional Actions

KEURIG GREEN: Faces Cahill Suit Over Defective Coffee Makers
KIA CORP: Faces Surge in Class Suits Over Easy to Steal Vehicles
LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT: Faces Cook Suit Over Unlawful Wage Scheme
LVNV FUNDING: Unlawfully Collects Consumer Debts, Niemann Alleges
MOBILE FIDELITY: Bitterman Files Suit Over Vinyl Records' False Ads

NESTLE USA: Crenshaw Sues Over Ingredient Handlers' Unpaid OT
NEW YORK, NY: Mayor Issues EO for City Jails' Conditions Amid Suit
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: $2.75MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Dec. 1
SESEN BIO: Settles Securities Litigation for $21 Million
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Gift Card Policy

TAMARA LICH: Asks Judge to Unfreeze "Freedom Convoy" Funds
TESLA INC: Averts Pre-Owned Warranty Class Action Lawsuit
TETHER LTD: Wants Law Firm Off Class Suit Over Founder's Conflict
UNITED STATES: Settlement Nears in Latino Workers' Class Action
UNITI GROUP: $38.87MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on November 4

YAHOO! INC: Awaits Calif. Supreme Court Ruling in TCPA Suit
ZUORA INC: Class Action Trial Scheduled for May 8 Next Year
[*] New Class Action Scheme Introduced in Western Australia

                            *********

106 COLOMBIA: Does Not Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Camano Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CAMANO and NICASIO MARCELINO VAZQUEZ, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 106 COLOMBIA
DELI CORP. (D/B/A COLUMBIA DELI), IBRAHIM ALZUBAIRY, and GAMAL
ALFAQIH, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07480 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for
violations of New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide written
notices and accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse the costs
and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and "tools of
the trade," and failed to pay on a regular weekly basis, as well as
Defendants' unlawful deductions from tips and wages.

Plaintiffs Camano and Vazquez were employed by Defendants as
delivery drivers at Columbia Deli from approximately January 2021
until December 14, 2021 and from approximately May 2020 until
December 19, 2021, respectively.

106 Colombia Deli Corp. owns, operates, or controls a deli, located
in New York under the name "Columbia Deli."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Huizar Suit Alleges Injury Over PFAS Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERNIE HUIZAR; RAMOND WILLIAMS; DONALD CROOK; JAMES PAULK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Co., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX CORPORATION,
ARKEMA INC., ARCHROMA U.S. INC., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC., CHEMGUARD
INC. CHEMICALS, INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation, CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and
as successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, and TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP, individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company,
and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictitious names whose present identities
are unknown, Defendants, Case No. 157472/2022 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., Sept. 1, 2022) is a national class action brought on behalf
of Plaintiffs individually, and on behalf of all individuals who
currently or formerly lived or worked at a military base or
installation owned and operated by the United States.

The complaint seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief
for injuries arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and/or
negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with
the foreseeable contamination of groundwater by the use of aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF) products that contained per- and
poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including perfluoro octane
sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which resulted
and continues to result from the Defendants' practice of using
Plaintiffs and the Class Members as part of a massive, undisclosed
human health experiment without their knowledge and/or consent.

The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and/or sold AFFF/component products with the knowledge that these
toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire
protection, training, and response activities, even when used as
directed and intended by Defendants. These AFFF/component products
are subsequently released into the environment during fire
protection, training, and response activities, resulting in
widespread PFAS contamination, says the suit.

Due to this contamination, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have
suffered real personal injuries, bioaccumulation of PFAS in their
bodies, as a result of the release of PFAS to their water supplies.
The Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered an assortment of
diseases and medical conditions as a direct result of their
exposure to the PFAS contamination of their water supply, 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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick Lanciotti, Esq.
          Andrew Croner, Esq.
          Nicholas Mindicino, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: acroner@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com
                  nmindicino@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
          Santurce, PR 00907
          Telephone: (833) 271-4502
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bragar Eagel Notes Oct. 31 Lead Plaintiff Due
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:
ABT), TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP), Humanigen, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HGEN), and Kohl's Corporation (NYSE: KSS). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.

Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT)

Class Period: February 19, 2021 - June 8, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 31, 2022

Abbott manufactures various forms of infant formula including
formula sold under the brand names Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare.
Prior to February 2022, Abbott had produced 40% of the United
States' infant formula. Of that amount, nearly half was produced in
its manufacturing facility in Sturgis, MI.

On February 17, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
announced it was investigating four consumer complaints of infant
illness related to powdered infant formula produced by Abbott
Laboratories in Sturgis. The FDA stated that it had initiated an
onsite inspection at the facility and to date had found several
positive contamination results from environmental samples for a
bacteria, Cronbacter sakazakii (" Cronbacter "), linked to infant
illnesses and death. On the same day, Abbott issued a recall of
certain infant formula products including the popular brands
Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare, all manufactured in Sturgis.

On this news, the price of Abbott Laboratories common stock
declined by more than 3%.

Then, on March 22, 2022, the FDA release reports from its three
inspections of the Sturgis facility conducted in September 2019,
September 2021, and most recently between January 31, 2022 and
March 18, 2022. The FDA stated that these reports "do not
constitute final FDA determinations" of specific violations, but
highlighted that during its most recent inspection that (a) Abbott
failed to establish process controls "designed to ensure that
infant formula does not become adulterated due to the presence of
microorganisms in the formula or in the processing environment" and
(b) Abbott failed to "ensure that all surfaces that contacted
infant formula were maintained to product infant formula from being
contaminated by any source."

On this news, Abbott's stock price fell by an additional 4%.

On April 28, 2022, the FDA released a redacted copy of a
whistleblower complaint sent to the FDA in October 2021, revealing
that the issues disclosed in February and March 2022 were actually
known to Abbott management far earlier. The whistleblower complaint
identified numerous serious examples of misconduct by Abbott
management at Sturgis including the falsification of testing
records, the release of untested infant formula to the market,
efforts to mislead the FDA during its 2019 inspection audit, the
continuation of known deficient testing procedures, and an
inability to trace products to properly implement recalls of
affected pallets of formula.

On this news, Abbott Laboratories' stock price fell nearly 4%.

Finally, on June 8, 2022, investors learned that Abbott was aware
of the whistleblower's formal allegations in early 2021, when it
was reported that the FDA whistleblower had filed a complaint in
February 2021 with the US Labor Department's Occupational Safety &
Health Administration ("OSHA") and that OSHA delivered that
complaint to Abbott and the FDA during the same month.

On this news, Abbott's stock price fell by an additional 3.5%,
further damaging investors.

The Abbot class action lawsuit alleges that defendants put
profitability ahead of children's safety. During the Class Period,
Abbott Laboratories engaged in a scheme to maximize revenues and
inflate its stock price while disregarding and then concealing
lapses in safety protocols that were ultimately linked to serious
infant illnesses and even deaths.

For more information on the Abbott class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ABT

TuSimple Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TSP)

Class Period: April 15, 2021 - August 1, 2022 or pursuant to the
Company's April 15, 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 31, 2022

TuSimple is the subject of a Wall Street Journal article published
on August 1, 2022. The article alleges that one of the Company's
autonomously driven trucks left its lane of travel without warning
before striking a cement barricade. The article states that the
accident "underscores concerns that the autonomous-trucking company
is risking safety on public roads in a rush to deliver driverless
trucks to market." Although the Company attempted to blame human
error, the Journal points out that "it was the autonomous-driving
system that turned the wheel and that blaming the entire accident
on human error is misleading." The article also reveals that the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has launched a "safety
compliance investigation."

Based on this news, shares of TuSimple fell $0.97, or 9.7%, during
intraday trading to close at $8.99 per share on August 1, 2022.

According to the complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. TuSimple overstated its commitment to
safety and concealed significant problems with its technology. The
Company rushed testing of its autonomous driving systems to bear
its competitors to the market. The Company fostered a corporate
culture that ignored safety in favor of ambitious delivery
schedules. This culture made accidents during road testing more
likely. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about TuSimple, investors suffered
damages.

For more information on the TuSimple class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TSP

Humanigen, Inc. (NASDAQ: HGEN)

Class Period: May 28, 2021 - July 12, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 25, 2022

Humanigen is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on preventing and treating an immune hyper-response called
"cytokine storm", a physiological reaction in which the immune
system causes an uncontrolled and excessive release of
pro-inflammatory signaling molecules called cytokines, the sudden
release of which in large quantities can cause multisystem organ
failure and death. The Company's lead product candidate is its
proprietary antibody lenzilumab, which is under development as a
treatment for, among other things, cytokine storm associated with
COVID-19.

Among other trials, Humanigen is investigating lenzilumab for the
treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the ACTIV-5/BET-B
study, which is part of a directed public-private partnership with
the National Institutes of Health.

In May 2021, Humanigen submitted an application to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") requesting Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") for lenzilumab for the treatment of patients
hospitalized with COVID-19 (the "lenzilumab EUA").

On September 9, 2021, Humanigen issued a press release announcing
that the FDA had rejected the lenzilumab EUA, advising investors
that, "[i]n its letter, [the] FDA stated that it was unable to
conclude that the known and potential benefits of lenzilumab
outweigh the known and potential risks of its use as a treatment
for COVID-19."

On this news, Humanigen's stock price fell $7.14 per share, or
47.25%, to close at $7.97 per share on September 9, 2021.

Then, on July 13, 2022, Humanigen disclosed that lenzilumab had
failed to show statistical significance on the primary endpoint of
the ACTIV-5/BET-B study.

On this news, Humanigen's stock price fell $2.38 per share, or
79.6%, to close at $0.61 per share on July 13, 2022.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) lenzilumab was less effective in treating
hospitalized COVID-19 patients than Defendants had represented;
(ii) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the lenzilumab
EUA and the ACTIV-5/BET-B study was unlikely to meet its primary
endpoint; (iii) accordingly, lenzilumab's clinical and commercial
prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

For more information on the Humanigen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HGEN

Kohl's Corporation (NYSE: KSS)

Class Period: October 20, 2020 - May 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 1, 2022

Kohl's operates as a retail company in the U.S. The Company offers
branded apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products
through its stores and website.

In October 2020, Kohl's announced that it had entered into a new
strategic framework to "drive top-line growth," "expand operating
margin," and become "the most trusted retailer of choice for the
active and casual lifestyle" (the "Strategic Plan"). Specifically,
the Strategic Plan featured "new initiatives to position the
company for long-term success," including "be[ing] the destination
for active, casual and beauty for the entire family from the most
trusted brands, always delivering quality and discovery,"
"lead[ing] with loyalty and value through a best-in-class rewards
program," and "offer[ing] a differentiated omnichannel experience
that is easy and inviting, no matter how customers want to shop."
In addition, Kohl's announced that the Company was "focused on
increasing profitability with a goal of expanding its operating
margin to 7% to 8%." In announcing the Strategic Plan, the Company
touted its purportedly strong foundation of customers,
industry-leading loyalty and charge card programs, high volume of
stores, and large and growing digital business.

On May 19, 2022, Kohl's issued a press release announcing the
Company's fiscal Q1 2022 results, reporting, among other items, a
net sales figure expected to grow up to only 1% (compared to Wall
Street consensus growth of 1.94%), earnings per share of $0.11
(missing estimates by $0.59), a revenue figure which only barely
edged expectations, and the Company's decision to cut its full year
earnings forecast. These results were at odds with the Defendants'
representations regarding the successful execution of the Company's
Strategic Plan, which was purportedly poised to drive top-line
growth and position the Company for long-term success. Further, the
press release quoted Kohl's Chief Executive Officer Defendant
Michelle Gass, who stated, in relevant part, "[t]he year has
started out below our expectations. Following a strong start to the
quarter with positive low-single digits comps through late March,
sales considerably weakened in April as we encountered macro
headwinds related to lapping last year's stimulus and an
inflationary consumer environment."

Then, on May 20, 2022, Macellum Advisors GP, LLC ("Macellum"), "a
long-term holder of nearly 5% of the outstanding common shares of
Kohl's", issued a statement addressing "[t]his quarter's extremely
disappointing results," which Macellum attributed to a "flawed
strategic plan and an inability to execute." Macellum also stated
that "the current Board appears to have withheld material
information from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the
lead-up to this year's pivotal annual meeting," which "suggests to
us a clear breach of fiduciary duty."

On this news, Kohl's stock price fell $5.84 per share, or 12.97%,
to close at $39.20 per share on May 20, 2022.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kohl's Strategic Plan was not
well tailored to achieving the Company's stated goals; (ii) the
Defendants had likewise overstated the Company's success in
executing its Strategic Plan; (iii) Kohl's had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures, internal control over financial reporting,
and corporate governance mechanisms; (iv) as a result, the
Company's Board was able to and did withhold material information
from shareholders about the state of Kohl's in the lead-up to the
Company's annual meeting; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Kohl's financial
condition and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

For more information on the Kohl's class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/KSS

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato,
Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Discrimination Suit Over "Diversity Grant"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Samson, writing for NextShark, reports that Amazon is
discriminating against Asian and white applicants in a grant
program for delivery start-ups, a new class action lawsuit claims.

Dubbed the "Diversity Grant," the program awards $10,000 stipends
to Black, Latinx and Native American entrepreneurs to become
delivery service partners, leaving out Asian and white hopefuls to
"foot the entire bill for their startup costs," according to the
suit.

Plaintiff Crystal Bolduc filed the suit at a Texas district court
on July 20, as per the Washington Free Beacon, which published the
suit. The suit claims that the program breached the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, which forbids racial discrimination in contracting.

Bolduc, a White woman, "seeks to represent a class of all past and
future applicants" to the program "who have been subjected to
racial discrimination," according to the suit. She wants the court
to shut down the program and make Amazon pay everyone "who has
suffered unlawful racial discrimination" because of it.

More from NextShark: TikTok Rival Triller Donates 150,000 N95
Respirators, Surgical Masks to Hospitals in LA

The suit also cited Amazon's "Black Business Accelerator," a
separate initiative that has been granting Black-owned businesses
"$500 credit to assist with start-up and operational costs" since
June 2021. Bolduc called the initiative another example of
"unlawful racial discrimination."

Other major companies have been hit with similar anti-Asian and
anti-white claims. In 2018, a former YouTube recruiter accused
Google of excluding Asian and white male applicants, and in one
hiring round, "purging" all applications by "non-diverse
employees."

Pfizer recently faced backlash after announcing a nine-year
fellowship program that comes with internships, a fully funded
master's degree and future employment for "Black/African American,
Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans." With the exclusion of Asian
and white applicants, critics have also alleged a violation of the
1866 Civil Rights Act, as well as Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, which forbids racial discrimination in employment.

Last October, a man also filed a class action lawsuit against
Amazon for allegedly discriminating against white sellers. However,
the company asked the suit to be dismissed, partly because the
plaintiff has never sold anything on its platform.

Bolduc, who is backed by prominent conservative lawyers, may have a
stronger case. Since she cannot apply for the "Diversity Grant"
without subjecting herself to racial discrimination, she is
"suffering injury" and "therefore has the standing to challenge
it," the Free Beacon noted. [GN]

AMAZON.COM: Lugo Sues Over Unlawful Retention Personal Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Lugo and Andrew Brynildson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-01230 (W.D. Wash., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for its unlawful retention of Plaintiffs' and its other
New York and Minnesota customers' personally identifiable
information, including their names, addresses, credit card
information, and video rental history in violation of the New York
Video Consumer Privacy Act ("NYVCPA").

Amazon maintains a digital record system that details the rental
histories of every customer that rents a video from Amazon. Amazon
also maintains records containing its customers' billing addresses.
As a result, Amazon maintains a digital dossier on millions of
consumers throughout New York and Minnesota. These records contain
not only its customers' credit card numbers and billing/contact
information, but also a detailed account of its customers' video
rental histories.

In recognition of the fact that companies who rent digital
media--like Amazon--must collect certain confidential and sensitive
consumer information with respect to personal viewing habits, New
York and Minnesota law requires such companies to "destroy
personally identifiable information as soon as practicable."
However, in direct contravention of the protections afforded to New
York and Minnesota consumers under the NYVCPA and the Minnesota
Statute, Amazon maintains and stores its customers' names, credit
card numbers, billing and contact information, and most
importantly, sensitive video rental histories for an indefinite
period of time. Accordingly, Amazon has knowingly retained the
"personally identifiable information" and sensitive video rental
histories of millions of New York and Minnesota consumers, in
violation of New York and Minnesota law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has an Amazon account and has rented videos through
that account.

Amazon is a leading technology company that rents videos for
streaming to consumers through its Amazon Prime Video
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wright A. Noel, Esq.
          CARSON NOEL PLLC
          20 Sixth Avenue NE
          Issaquah, WA 98027
          Phone: (425) 837-4717
          Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
          Email: wright@carsonnoel.com

               - and -

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 646.837.7150
          Fax: 212.989.9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Christopher Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305) 330-5512
          Email: creilly@bursor.com


AMERICAN DEALER: Pellot Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Dealer, LLC.
The case is styled as Saul Pellot, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. American Dealer, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-01584-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla., Sept. 2, 2022).

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

America Dealer -- https://www.americadealer.com/ -- is a car
dealership has a wide selection of used cars in Marietta,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN DIGITAL: Divine Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Digital
Security, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Amy Divine,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Digital Security, LLC, Securix LLP, Securix, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00510-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss. Sept. 1, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights.

American Digital Security -- https://americandigitalsecurity.com/
-- is a leading security systems integration company based
throughout the Midwest.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Kelly Herrington, Esq.
          CHHABRA GIBBS & HERRINGTON, PLLC
          120 North Congress Street, Suite 200
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Phone: (601) 948-8005
          Fax: (601) 948-8010
          Email: bherrington@nationalclasslawyers.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Settlement Claim in False Ads Suit Due Dec. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
number of class action settlements opened last month for consumers
who can make claims to join through September and beyond.

The class action settlements were made to resolve claims revolving
around false advertising, antitrust violations, and data breaches,
among other things.

An individual, business, or entity will often agree to a class
action settlement -- without admitting to any wrongdoing -- as a
way to avoid further litigation and create a sense of good faith
with consumers.

Check the list below to see if you qualify to make a claim on any
class action settlements that opened last month. If none apply, be
sure to browse Top Class Actions' settlement directory to find more
open class action rebates.

Anheuser Busch agrees to settle over claims its Ritas products
don't actually contain wine or tequila
Anheuser Busch agreed to pay an undisclosed amount last month in
order to resolve claims that its Ritas products don't actually
contain any wine or tequila.

The settlement was made to benefit consumers who purchased a Ritas
product -- including Ritas margarita and spritzer products, among
others -- from between Jan. 1, 2018 and July 19, 2022.

Consumers will not need to provide a proof of purchase to benefit
from the class action settlement, however, class members with a
valid proof of purchase will be able to collect as much as $21.25
per household.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 16.

Snapchat to pay $35 million to resolve claims it violated biometric
privacy law
Also last month, Snap Inc. has agreed to a class action settlement
worth $35 million in order to put to bed claims the company
violated biometric privacy law with some of its features.

The class action settlement was made to benefit residents from
Illinois who have used Snapchat's "Filters" and "Lenses" filters
since Nov. 17, 2015.

A valid claim form must be submitted by Nov. 5 in order to qualify
to make a claim to join the class action settlement.

Sara Lee settles claims it misleadingly marketed that its pound
cakes as 'All Butter'
Sara Lee, meanwhile, agreed to pay $1 million last month in order
to resolve claims the food company misleadingly marketed its pound
cakes as "All Butter."

The class action settlement was made to benefit consumers who
purchased a Sara Lee All Butter Pound Cake product from between
April 27, 2017 and July 29, 2022.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 11.

Ford to pay $82 million to end claims it worked with others to
block vehicle exporting
Also last month, Ford agreed to a $82 million antitrust class
action settlement that was done in order to end claims the auto
manufacturer worked with other companies to block vehicle
exporting.

The class action settlement was made to benefit consumers who
purchased or leased certain vehicle makes -- including Acura,
Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Lexus, among others -- from a dealer in
California from between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2003.

A valid claim form must be submitted by Dec. 31 in order to make a
claim to join the class action settlement.

Keurig makes deal to resolve claims it misled consumers about
recyclability of K-Cups

Keurig agreed to pay $10 million last month in order to resolve
claims the company misled its customers about the recyclability of
its K-Cups.

The class action settlement will benefit consumers who, from
between June 8, 2016 and Aug. 8, 2022, purchased a single serving
K-Cup that had been labeled as recyclable

Consumers who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 9, 2023.

Monsanto class action settlements total $550 million over waterway
contamination claims
Also in August, Monsanto agreed to several class action settlements
worth a combined total of $550 million in order to resolve
allegations it contributed to the pollution of waterways with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

The class action settlements will benefit NPDES Phase I and II
villages, boroughs, cities, towns, independent port districts, and
townships located near a HUC 12 Watershed that adjoins a 303(d)
body of water that has been affected by PCBs since June 24, 2020.

Eligible class members will have one year and 14 days from the time
a Monsanto settlement administrator mails out Monitoring Fund
payments to submit a valid claim form to join the class action
settlement.

TCL to pay $2.9 million to end claims it inflated refresh rates
when marketing its TVs
TCL, meanwhile, agreed to pay $2.9 million last month in order to
put to rest claims the company marketed its TV models with inflated
refresh rates.

The class action settlement will benefit consumers who purchased a
new TCL TV in the state of California from between April 24, 2016
and Dec. 31, 2021 that were marketed as having a refresh rate twice
as high as the refresh rate of its native panel.

A valid claim form must be submitted by Oct. 7 in order to be
eligible to join the class action settlement.

Humana agrees to settle claims it jeopardized the data of consumers
during a 2020 data breach
Also last month, Humana agreed to a class action settlement that
will resolve claims that the company jeopardized the information of
consumers during a 2020 data breach.

The class action settlement will benefit consumers who received a
notification from Humana that their personal and health information
may have been compromised in a data breach which occurred between
Oct. 12 and Dec. 16, 2020.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 15.

AT&T to pay $14 million to end claims it charged illegal fees to
customers in California
AT&T agreed to pay $14 million last month as a way to end claims
the company charged illegal and undisclosed administrative fees to
its customers from California.

The class action settlement will benefit a class of California
residents who are AT&T customers and who were charged an
administrative fee on their postpaid wireless plan from between
June 20, 2015 and June 16, 2022.

A valid claim form must be submitted by Oct. 29 in order to make a
claim to join the class action settlement.

FTC to send out $25 million in refunds to consumers scammed by
Next-Gen
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it
will be sending out a total of $25 million to consumers who lost
money from a Next-Gen sweepstakes scam.

The FTC had previously been able to secure a $30 million refund
settlement agreement with Next-Gen, in order to resolve claims the
company financially injured consumers with prize schemes.

A request to receive a refund for a Next-Gen sweepstakes scam
scheme must be made by Oct. 17, 2022 in order to be granted
compensation. [GN]

ASSESSOR OF GREAT NECK: Schwartz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of Great Neck, et al. The case is styled as Sandra
Schwartz, all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed
SCHEDULE A v. The Assessor of the Village of Great Neck, The Board
of Assessment Review of the Village of Great Neck, Respondents,
Case No. 611741/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Sept. 2, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Great Neck -- https://www.greatneckvillage.org/ -- is a region on
Long Island, New York, that covers a peninsula on the North Shore
and includes nine villages.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce St
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915


AUSTRALIA: ATO Issues Information on Robodebt Settlement Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Taxation Office provides information on Robodebt
settlement payment.

A settlement payment you receive from the Services Australia income
compliance (Robodebt) class action is not taxable.

What is the income compliance program class action?
The Income compliance class action (also known as the Robodebt
class action) relates to Centrelink debts raised by income
compliance reviews since July 2015.

This information addresses the settlement payments individuals
receive as a result of the class action.

On June 11, 2021, the Federal Court approved the settlement of the
class action. Eligible participants in the class action should have
a letter from Services Australia.

Settlement payment and your tax return
If you receive a settlement payment because you were an eligible
participant of this class action, you:

-- don't need to declare the settlement payment in your tax return
-- don't pay tax on this payment.

For more, see information for people who have a class action
settlement notice on the Services Australia website.

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/information-for-people-who-got-class-action-settlement-notice?context=60271

This information is also available in other languages on the
Services Australia website. To find out if it is available in your
language, see robodebt class action and settlement payments
translations [GN]

BARKBOX INC: Farmer Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal
------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER FARMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARKBOX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-06242 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for alleged violations of California's Automatic
Renewal Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act arising from unfair acts by enrolling consumers, including
Plaintiff, in automatically recurring subscriptions.

According to the complaint, BarkBox sells monthly subscription
boxes of dog toys, treats, and chews. It offers a one-month plan, a
6-month plan and a 12-month plan. All plans automatically renew.
For example, when the 6-month plan ends, the customer is
automatically renewed for another 6 months of boxes (and 6 months
of charges), says the suit.

The complaint further asserts that BarkBox does not provide clear
and conspicuous disclosures or obtain affirmative consent before
enrolling consumers for recurring subscription plans. Consumers
like Plaintiff are being tricked into signing up for recurring
plans, wrongly thinking that they are only signing up for the
stated term (for example, for 6 months). Consumers are then wrongly
charged for recurring shipments that are "unconditional gifts"
under the law. The Plaintiff brings this case to put a stop to this
conduct and obtain restitution for consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401  
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: jonas@dovel.com  
                  simon@dovel.com

BHG XXXIV: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BHG XXXIV, LLC. The
case is styled as Carla Smith, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BHG XXXIV, LLC, BHG Holdings, LLC
doing business as: Behavioral Health Group, Case No.
6:22-cv-00164-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., Sept. 2, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

BHG XXXIV doing business as Behavioral Health Group --
https://www.bhgrecovery.com/ -- is the largest network of Joint
Commission-accredited outpatient opioid treatment and recovery
centers in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (312) 641-5504
          Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY AND WHITE LAW
          2301 River Road, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Phone: (502) 805-1800
          Fax: (502) 618-4059
          Email: mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com


BJC HEALTH SYSTEM: Doe Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, I, John Doe, II, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. BJC Health System
doing business as: BJC Healthcare, Case No. 2222-CC09151 was
removed from the Judicial Circuit Court of St. Louis, to the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 1, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00919-RWS to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I.

BJC HealthCare -- https://www.bjc.org/ -- is one of the largest
nonprofit health care organizations in the United States, serving
metro St. Louis, mid-Missouri and Southern Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy Collignon Gunn, Esq.
          Elizabeth Soshim Lenivy, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM PC
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 241-2929
          Fax: (314) 241-2029
          Email: agunn@simonlawpc.com
          Email: elenivy@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY LLC - Alton
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Phone: (618) 259-2222
          Email: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Jay Barnes, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 784-6400
          Fax: (212) 213-5949
          Email: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John D. Comerford, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP - Clayton
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 889-7311
          Fax: (314) 863-2111
          Email: jcomerford@dowdbennett.com


BWS INSPECTION SERVICES: Schmidt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Schmidt, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BWS INSPECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-00910 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 2, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant did not pay their employees overtime as required by
the FLSA. Instead of paying overtime, the Defendant paid their
employees (including Plaintiff) a set "day rate" for each day
worked regardless of the total number of hours worked in a week.
The Defendant's day rate plans violate the FLSA because employees
paid on a day rate basis are still owed overtime for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as an Inspector for BWS from October 2019
until December 2019.

BWS provides inspection services to the oil and gas industry and
BWS's services include the inspection of pipeline and facility
construction, maintenance, and operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and –

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


CITIBANK NA: $155-Mil. Class Settlement to Be Heard on Nov. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, as assignee
and successor-in-interest to FrontPoint Asian Event
Driven Fund L.P., et al.,

Case No.: 1:16-cv-5263 (AKH)
Plaintiffs,

               v.

CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

If you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest
in SIBOR- and/or SOR-Based Derivatives during the period from
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2011, your rights may be
affected by pending class action settlements, and you may be
entitled to a portion of the settlement fund.

This Summary Notice is to alert you to proposed Settlements
totaling $155,458,000 reached with Defendants Citibank, N.A. and
Citigroup Inc. ("Citi"), JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"), ING Bank N.V. ("ING"), Deutsche Bank AG
("Deutsche Bank"), The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Limited ("HSBC"), Credit Suisse AG ("Credit Suisse"), Australia and
New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd. ("ANZ"), Bank of America, N.A.
("BOA"), Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays"), BNP Paribas, S.A.
("BNPP"), Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), Crédit Agricole
Corporate and Investment Bank ("CACIB"), DBS Bank Ltd. ("DBS"),
MUFG Bank, Ltd. (f/k/a The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.)
("MUFG"), Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited ("OCBC"), The
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (n/k/a NatWest Markets plc) ("RBS"),
Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB"), UBS AG ("UBS"), and United
Overseas Bank Limited ("UOB" and collectively with ANZ, BOA,
Barclays, BNPP, Commerzbank, CACIB, DBS, MUFG, OCBC, RBS, SCB, and
UBS, the "Group Defendants," and collectively with Citi, JPMorgan,
ING, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC, the "Settling Defendants") in a
pending class action (the "Action").  The Settling Defendants deny
any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any kind in connection with
the allegations in the Action.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court") authorized this Summary Notice and has appointed
the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement Class in this
Action:

Vincent Briganti
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 733-7221
Email: siborsettlement@lowey.com

Who is a member of the Settlement Class?

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all Persons (including both natural persons and
entities) who purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any
interest in SIBOR- and/or SOR-Based Derivatives (as those terms are
defined below) during the period from January 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2011 (the "Class Period").

"SIBOR- and/or SOR-Based Derivatives" means (i) a SIBOR- and/or
SOR-based interest rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a
Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (ii) an option
on a SIBOR- and/or a SOR-based interest rate swap ("swaption")
entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a
location within the U.S.; (iii) a Singapore Dollar currency forward
agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or
through a location within the U.S.; (iv) a SIBOR- and/or SOR-based
forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a
Person from or through a location within the U.S; and/or (v) a
SIBOR- and/or SOR-based foreign exchange swap entered into by a
U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the
U.S.  For the avoidance of doubt, all references herein to
transactions of any kind entered into by a Person "through a
location within the U.S." include transactions that by operation of
a forum selection clause or other contractual provision provide for
jurisdiction in any state or federal court within the U.S. in the
event of a dispute.

"SIBOR" means the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate.  This term
includes USD SIBOR and SGD SIBOR.  "SOR" means the Singapore Swap
Offer Rate ("SOR").

The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlements,
November 29, 2022 Fairness Hearing Thereon, and Class Members'
Rights ("Notice") and in the Settlement Agreements, which are
available at www.siborsettlement.com.

If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Class Notice,
at www.siborsettlement.com or by calling toll-free 1-877-777-9321
(if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call
1-414-961-4867).

What is this lawsuit about and what do the Settlements provide?

Representative Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, including the
Settling Defendants, unlawfully and intentionally manipulated two
benchmark interest rates, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and
the Singapore Swap Offer Rate, to fix the prices of SIBOR- and/or
SOR-Based Derivatives in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and the common law during the Class
Period.  Representative Plaintiffs allege that Settling Defendants,
as members of the panels that set SIBOR and SOR, made artificial
submissions that did not reflect the true cost of borrowing funds
in Singapore but were, instead, intended to fix the prices of
SIBOR- and SOR-Based Derivatives.  Representative Plaintiffs allege
that Settling Defendants caused the profitability of their own
SIBOR- and/or SOR-Based Derivatives positions to increase and
caused Class Members to be overcharged or underpaid in SIBOR-
and/or SOR-Based Derivatives transactions.

The Settling Defendants maintain that they have good and
meritorious defenses to Representative Plaintiffs' claims and would
prevail if the case were to proceed.  Nevertheless, to settle the
claims in this lawsuit, and thereby avoid the expense and
uncertainty of further litigation, Citi has agreed to pay a total
of $9,990,000; JPMorgan has agreed to pay a total of $10,989,000;
ING has agreed to pay a total of $10,490,000; Credit Suisse has
agreed to pay a total of $10,989,000; Deutsche Bank has agreed to
pay a total of $11,000,000; HSBC has agreed to pay a total of
$11,000,000; and the Group Defendants have agreed to pay a total of
$91,000,000 (collectively, the "Settlement Funds") in cash for the
benefit of the proposed Settlement Class.  If the Settlements are
approved, the Settlement Funds, plus interest earned from the date
they were established, less any taxes, the reasonable costs of
Class Notice and administration, any Court-awarded attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and costs, Incentive Awards for Representative
Plaintiffs, and any other costs or fees approved by the Court (the
"Net Settlement Funds") will be divided among all Class Members who
file timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release Forms ("Claim
Forms").

Will I get a payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you may be
eligible for a payment under the Settlements if you file a Claim
Form.  You may obtain more information at www.siborsettlement.com
or by calling toll-free 1-877-777-9321 (if calling from outside the
United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-4867).

Claim Forms must be postmarked by DECEMBER 29, 2022 or submitted
online at www.siborsettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern
time on DECEMBER 29, 2022.

What are my rights?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against the Settling Defendants
and Released Parties as explained in the detailed Notice and
Settlement Agreements, which are available at
www.siborsettlement.com.  If you do not want to take part in one or
more of the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by
OCTOBER 17, 2022.  You may object to the proposed Settlements, the
Distribution Plan, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees, payment of litigation costs and expenses, and any
Incentive Awards to Representative Plaintiffs.  If you want to
object, you must do so by OCTOBER 17, 2022.  Information on how to
opt out or object is contained in the detailed Notice, which is
available at www.siborsettlement.com.

When is the Fairness Hearing?

The Court will hold a hearing from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 14D, located at 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007, on NOVEMBER 29, 2022, at 12:00 p.m.
Eastern Time to consider whether to finally approve the proposed
Settlements, Distribution Plan, the application for an award of
attorneys' fees and payment of litigation costs and expenses, and
the application for Incentive Awards for the Representative
Plaintiffs.  You or your lawyer may ask to participate and speak at
the hearing, but you do not have to.  Any changes to the time and
place of the Fairness Hearing, or other deadlines, will be posted
to www.siborsettlement.com as soon as is practicable.

For more information, call toll-free 1-877-777-9321 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-4867) or
visit www.siborsettlement.com.

**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlements. ****


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 17 Lead Plaintiff Due
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX)
between May 12, 2022 and August 11, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important October 17, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Co-Diagnostics class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8137 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 17, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was significant falloff
in demand of Co-Diagnostics' Logix Smart(TM) COVID-19 Test as
demand for the tests plummeted throughout the quarter ended June
30, 2022; and (2) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about the demand for its Logix Smart(TM) COVID-19 Test lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Co-Diagnostics class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8137 mailto:or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

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

COOLSTUFFINC.COM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CoolStuffInc.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. CoolStuffInc.com, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-07564 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2022).

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

CoolStuffInc.com -- https://www.coolstuffinc.com/ -- offers Rare
Board Games, mtg, Magic: the Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh, rpg, Role Playing
Games, Dungeons and Dragons, and many more games and supplies for
sale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COPAG USA INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Copag USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Copag USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07563 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5, 2022).

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

Copag USA Inc. -- https://www.copagusa.com/ -- offers 100% Plastic
Playing Cards.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORTERRA ENERGY: Ritter Seeks Unpaid Interest on Late Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Lane Ritter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Corterra Energy Operating, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00247-JAR (E.D. Okla., Sept. 1, 2022) is a class
action concerning Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of the
Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act related to the payment
of oil-and-gas production proceeds to owners.

The Production Revenue Standards Act requires holders of proceeds,
like Defendant, to pay interest on "proceeds from the sale of oil
or gas production or some portion of such proceeds [that] are not
paid prior to the end of the applicable time periods provided" by
statute. It imposes automatic interest on late payments. Compliance
with the PRSA is not optional, and the statute contains no demand
requirement before an owner is entitled to statutory interest.

According to the complaint, Defendant knows it is bound by statute
to pay interest on late payments, but it has consistently ignored
these obligations and blatantly violated Oklahoma law. The
Defendant does not automatically pay interest on all late payments,
instead, upon information and belief, it only pays interest to
owners who demand it, says the suit.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff is filing this class action
against Defendant to obtain relief for himself and all other owners
who received late payments for which Defendant did not pay interest
as required by the PRSA.

Mr. Ritter owns a royalty interest in the Huffstutlar 334-1HX well
in Hughes County, Oklahoma.

Corterra Energy Operating, LLC is an exploration and production
company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma focused on the acquisition and
development of oil and gas resources in the Mid-Continent
region.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

               - and -
          
          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
          211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 293-3029
          E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
                  skeeter@blsmithlaw.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Brooks FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marvalyn Brooks, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. Credit Control LLC, Case No.
01-CV-2022-902276.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County AL, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Alabama on Sept. 1, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01122-AMM to the
proceeding.

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis Hussey, Esq.
          HUSSEY LAW FIRM LLC
          82 Plantation Pointe Drive, #288
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Phone: (251) 928-1423
          Fax: (866) 317-2674
          Email: gulfcoastadr@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          L Jackson Young, Jr., Esq.
          CHRISTIAN AND SMALL, LLP
          505 North 20TH Street, Ste. 1800
          Birmingham, AL 35242
          Phone: (205) 795-6588
          Fax: (205) 328-7234
          Email: LJYoung@csattorneys.com


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Peroxide False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Who: Consumers have recently filed class action lawsuits against
CVS, Target, Walgreens and Vi-Jon over claims revolving around the
companies' sale of hydrogen peroxide solution.

Why: Consumers claim the companies mislead their customers about
hydrogen peroxide benefits.
Where: The class action lawsuits after consumers nationwide.

Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
consumers have recently filed a number of complaints arguing that
companies mislead them about hydrogen peroxide benefits.

The consumers claim that using hydrogen peroxide is not actually a
good way to treat minor cuts and abrasions in spite of companies'
alleged representations to the contrary.

While hydrogen peroxide was previously believed to be effective in
cleaning wounds, it is now thought to be better equipped as a
non-medical solution that can be used for cleaning, disinfecting
and removing stains, according to Cleveland Clinic.

CVS peroxide class action alleges retailer misleads consumers about
product's benefits
CVS Pharmacy was hit with a complaint earlier this month alleging
the company misleads consumers into believing the hydrogen peroxide
product it sells is an effective treatment for minor cuts and
abrasions.

"While the bactericidal effects of hydrogen peroxide can help clean
a cut or abrasion and initially kill bacteria, its caustic
properties negatively effect healthy cells involved in wound
healing," the CVS peroxide class action states.

Further, the consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims CVS
also misrepresents that its CVS 3% hydrogen peroxide solution can
shorten the healing time for a minor cut or abrasion.

The CVS peroxide class action also alleges the company sells more
of its 3% hydrogen peroxide product -- and at a higher price than
it otherwise could have -- had it not been for their alleged
misrepresentations about the product.

Target peroxide class action claims retailer falsely advertises
healing effects of up & up hydrogen peroxide solution
Also this month, Target faced allegations that the hydrogen
peroxide solution it sells and advertises as speeding up the
healing process actually does the opposite of what it represents.

The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims the Target
peroxide -- sold under the up & up brand -- is not actually
advisable to be used for treating minor cuts and abrasions.

"While hydrogen peroxide has antiseptic properties, the Mayo Clinic
and numerous medical studies advise that it does not help treat
minor cuts and abrasions," the Target peroxide class action states.


The consumer argues that, while hydrogen peroxide can initially
help clean a minor cut or abrasion, it will ultimately negatively
affect healthy cells which are able to heal wounds, on account of
its caustic properties.

Marketing the up & up brand hydrogen peroxide solution as a
"treatment for minor cuts and abrasions" is thus a false and
misleading statement, the Target peroxide class action lawsuit
alleges.

Walgreens peroxide class action claims retailer harms customers
with misleading statements about hydrogen peroxide product
Last month, meanwhile, a consumer accused Walgreens of misleading
consumers about the safety of using its 3% hydrogen peroxide
products on scrapes and cuts.

The Walgreens customer behind the class action lawsuit accused the
company of being guilty of negligent misrepresentation and fraud,
among other things, and of being in violation of consumer
protection laws.

The customer similarly cited the Mayo Clinic as alleged evidence
that hydrogen peroxide should not be used as a way to treat minor
cuts and abrasions.

"No credible scientific and medical evidence supports this usage of
hydrogen peroxide," the Walgreens peroxide class action states.

The customer also accused Walgreens of misleadingly labeling its
product as "Walgreens Pharmacist Recommended" with the customer
arguing the statement was "contrary to medical and scientific
evidence" and "causes consumer harm through promoting purchase of
the product," according to the Walgreens peroxide class action.

Swan peroxide class action claims product can actually slow healing
time, despite representations to contrary
Vi-Jon, the parent company of Swan brand hydrogen peroxide, also
faced claims last month that it falsely markets its Swan peroxide
product as an effective way to treat abrasions and cuts.

The consumer behind the class action lawsuit claims Vi-Jon
misleadingly markets Swan brand hydrogen peroxide as a way to help
prevent the risk of infection.

"The statement that the product will prevent the risk of infection
is false because studies show hydrogen peroxide is ineffective in
preventing infection in minor cuts, scrapes and burns," the Swan
peroxide class action states. [GN]

DAI ICHI ARTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dai Ichi Arts LTD.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Dai Ichi Arts LTD., Case No.
1:22-cv-07545 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 2022).

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

Dai Ichi Arts, Ltd. -- https://www.daiichiarts.com/ - is an art
gallery located in upper east side of New York City specializing in
Japanese contemporary Ceramics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


EDWARD D. JONES: Zigler Sues Over Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Blair Zigler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., and THE JONES FINANCIAL
COMPANIES, L.L.L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-04706 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 1,
2022), is brought on behalf of female Edward Jones home office
employees to remedy past and ongoing discrimination with regards to
compensation.

As part of Edward Jones's 2021 Purpose, Inclusion, and Citizenship
Report, 2020 "pay equity analysis," Edward Jones analyzed pay for
its U.S. home offices to "asses equal pay for equal work across
race and ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation
and military status." The results revealed what female home office
employees already knew: Edward Jones was paying them unequal
compensation for equal work. Former home office financial advisor
Blair Zigler and the members of the proposed collective and classes
are among the 2% of home office employees identified by Edward
Jones as not receiving "equal pay for equal work."

Despite Edward Jones' claim that these "identified gaps have been
addressed," those impacted by Edward Jones' discriminatory
compensation practices know this to be public- facing lip service,
unaccompanied by actual change or meaningful compensation.
Consequently, Edward Jones continues to knowingly and intentionally
foster an inequitable and unlawful workplace that
disproportionately disadvantages female home office employees and
that does not serve any reasonable business purpose. Edward Jones's
ongoing discriminatory conduct violates Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Illinois Human Rights Act,
Equal Pay Act, and the Illinois Equal Pay Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an "employee" of Edward Jones.

Edward Jones is a Fortune 500 company that provides financial
services to clients in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Fax: (312) 419-1025
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          Bria Davis, Esq.
          Jordan A. Kane, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7100
          Facsimile: 816-714-7101
          Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                 ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                 davis@stuevesiegel.com
                 kane@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Christi J. Hilker, Esq.
          Amy M. Fowler, Esq.
          HF LAW FIRM LLC
          3101 W. 86th St.
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Phone: (816)739-0107
          Facsimile: (913)426-9181
          Email: christi@hflawfirmllc.com
                 amy@hflawfirmllc.com


ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Harris Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamila Harris and Brittany Hawkins, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ELEPHANT INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00592 (E.D. Va., Sept. 1, 2022), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime wages, regular wages, liquidated and/or
treble damages, and other applicable damages pursuant to the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Virginia
Wage Payment Act.

Specifically, the Defendant has enforced a uniform policy wherein
it improperly required the Plaintiffs to perform work off-the-clock
and without pay in violation of state and federal law. The
Defendant's illegal policy has deprived the Plaintiffs from full
compensation for all hours worked. Although the Plaintiffs have
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs
have not been paid overtime of at least one and one-half their
regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours
worked and the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular
basis during the relevant time period, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are non-exempt call-center employees.

Elephant is a subsidiary of Admiral Group, PLC, a UK-based
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
                 craig@butlercurwood.com
                 zev@butlercurwood.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Transmissions Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
class action lawsuit alleges Ford fails to diagnose and repair
transmission problems in California that should be covered for 15
years or 150,000 miles.

California plaintiff Victoria Berghuis owns a 2014 Ford Focus that
she brought to a Ford dealer in December 2021 when the car had
about 77,000 on the odometer.

Berghuis told the dealer how the car would hesitate and jerk when
increasing the speed, something she blamed on the transmission. The
work order indicated a $180 diagnostic fee, and the plaintiff says
Ford refused to cover the repair under the California emissions
warranty.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff was stuck with the fee "even
though the defect increased regulated emissions, the vehicle had
been in service less than 15 years, and the vehicle had been driven
less than 150,000 miles."

According to the plaintiff, she paid the diagnostic fee
out-of-pocket and was advised she would have to pay for repairs to
the transmission.

The class action lawsuit includes all partial zero emissions
vehicles (PZEVs) in California for which Ford has received a zero
emissions credit from the California Air Resources Board.

Alleged transmission defects increase emissions and cause warning
lights to illuminate, causing a Ford vehicle to fail smog tests.
The plaintiff claims the transmission should be covered by the
California emissions warranty.

The class action lawsuit alleges the emissions warning light is not
supposed to illuminate unless the vehicle's onboard diagnostic
system has detected a defect which increases emissions.

Ford allegedly provides a transmission warranty of less value than
customers believed they were receiving.

"Ford is engaged in a nefarious scheme to limit its warranty
exposure under California's emissions warranty requirements in
violation of California emissions law by unilaterally defining and
wrongfully limiting the parts that should properly be identified as
parts covered by the California Emissions Warranty and covered for
15-years or 150,000-miles under the CCR." -- Ford class action
lawsuit

The Ford class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California: Victoria Berghuis vs. Ford
Motor Company, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of Robert L. Starr,
Pomerantz LLP, and Frontier Law Center. [GN]

FUNPLUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over In-App Purchases' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 2, 2022, Pollock Cohen LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against KingsGroup and FunPlus International AG on behalf
of users of the mobile game "State of Survival: Zombie War." The
lawsuit alleges that the companies deceived consumers by falsely
advertising deep discounts for in-app purchases, when in fact,
there was never any non-discounted pricing. Courts have long ruled
such deceptions are improper.

State of Survival is a zombie themed "freemium" game that was
initially released in 2019, and the Defendants claim it has been
downloaded more than 100 million times, generating more than $1
billion in revenue. As a "freemium" game, it is free to download
and play, but the companies make money by selling in-app packs of
tools and resources that help players reach higher levels within
the game.

The complaint alleges that Defendants' deceptive practices include
telling players that they will receive discounts of nearly
99%—for instance, paying only $9.99 for a bundle that normally
sells for $997.40. As alleged in the complaint, however, the bundle
was never sold for a price anywhere close to $997.40. The complaint
further details fraudulent offers, including promised bonuses of
"3960%" or "2800%" -- often displayed in red, visually-catchy
bubbles intended to lure and deceive consumers. Additional
deceptive tactics detailed in the complaint include the warning,
"Only 1 remaining!" to indicate an extreme scarcity in products and
invoke a sense of urgency and competition among gamers. In reality,
the lawsuit contends, there was no such supply limitation.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys
Raphael Janove and Adam Pollock of Pollock Cohen LLP, Jay Kumar of
Jay Kumar Law, and Karl Kronenberger and Kate Hollist of
Kronenberger Rosenfeld LLP. This is the same legal team
representing consumers in a similar class action lawsuit against
Warner Bros. for its "Game of Thrones: Conquest" mobile game.

"Video game companies need to play by the rules of fairness,
honesty, and transparency," said Raphael Janove. "Defendants seem
to have forgotten that taking advantage of loyal customers is not
only illegal, but also wrong," added Adam Pollock.

"Perhaps KingsGroup and FunPlus wanted to make sure no one loses
hope in the post-apocalypse world by always providing the same
discounts," said Jay Kumar. "But you can't survive the catastrophe
on screen by going broke in reality," added Karl Kronenberger.
"Thankfully, unlike in a zombie apocalypse, we have law and we have
a court. FunPlus will have to provide explanations for its
dishonest and unlawful sales tactics in the courtroom and
compensate for the harms it has unlawfully caused to countless
loyal users," explained Kate Hollist.

For more information, please visit
www.stateofsurvivalclassaction.com.

CONTACT:

Raphael Janove, 215-667-8607
rjanove@pollockcohen.com [GN]

GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Game Time
Supplements, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Game Time
Supplements, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07566 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 5,
2022).

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

Game Time Supplements LLC is a company that operates in the Health,
Wellness and Fitness industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GAS SOUTH: Armstrong Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gas South, LLC. The
case is styled as Lynette Armstrong, Humara Thomas, Jennifer
Scofield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Gas South, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03550-SDG (N.D. Ga., Sept. 1,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.

Gas South -- https://www.gassouth.com/ -- is a natural gas provider
that serves more than 425,000 residential, commercial and
governmental customers in Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South
Carolina, New Jersey and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald Sean Nation, Esq.
          SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: snation@sirillp.com


GROUPON INC: $13.5MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Oct. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

LAZAR MACOVSKI, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

               v.


GROUPON, INC., RICH WILLIAMS, and
MELISSA THOMAS,


Defendants


Case No. 1:20-cv-02581

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who, during the period between July
30, 2019 through February 18, 2020 inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Groupon, Inc. ("Groupon")
and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $13,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on October 13, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly via teleconference, call-in number:
888-684-8852, access code: 746-1053, to determine (i) whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June
24, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Macovski v.
Groupon Inc., c/o Epiq, P.O. Box 2648, Portland, OR 97208-2648,
1-866-991-0893.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.GrouponSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than
December 1, 2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than September 22,
2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds
of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than September 22, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Groupon, or
its counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Macovski v. Groupon Inc.
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 2648
Portland, OR 97208-2648
1-866-991-0893
www.GrouponSecuritiesSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
(212) 371-6600
telrod@kmllp.com

-and-

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Leanne H. Solish, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court

URL: www.GrouponSecuritiesSettlement.com


HENDREN PLASTICS: Gets Favorable Ruling in Rehab Program Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that drug and
alcohol recovery patients working for a company as part of a
treatment program aren't employees and don't have to be paid the
minimum wage, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis
recently ruled in an Arkansas case.

The ruling from the three-judge panel overturned a $1.6 million
class-action judgment in 2020 against Hendren Plastics Inc., a
plastics plant in Gravette owned by state Sen. Jim Hendren, and
recovery program DARP Inc., a nonprofit in Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
DARP, which stands for Drug & Alcohol Recovery Program, offers
services at a 60-bed facility in Decatur (Benton County) and
requires patients to work full time for the program's duration, at
least six months.

The ruling provides clarity, said William B. Putman of
Fayetteville, DARP's attorney. "The primary purpose [of being in
DARP] is not to get a job. It wasn't to have a place to live. It
was to deal with addiction and stay out of prison," he said.

Every DARP class member had a choice: Serve prison time for drug
offenses or attend a free, residential work-based drug and alcohol
recovery program for six months or a year. Some participants worked
about 40 hours a week or more at Hendren Plastics without getting
paid. Instead, Hendren Plastics paid DARP for the work -- at rates
higher than minimum wage -- so DARP could operate.

About 175 DARP residents sued DARP and Hendren Plastics in 2017,
claiming they were entitled to minimum wage and overtime. DARP
argued that residents weren't employees and weren't subject to the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the Western District of
Arkansas agreed with the class members that they were employees,
spurring DARP and Hendren to appeal.

U.S. Circuit Judges James B. Loken, Steven M. Colloton and Duane
Benton ruled in favor of DARP and Hendren Plastics, finding that
the DARP participants weren't employees when they toiled at the
plant.

The participants got room, board and basic necessities as part of
the program and had no reason to expect to be paid by Hendren,
Colloton wrote. "There was no risk that DARP participants would be
deprived of a minimum standard of living that safeguards their
health, efficiency, and general well-being."

The appellate court reversed Brooks' ruling and sent the case back
to the district court for further proceedings, which essentially
ended the case.

Hendren was pleased, said Tim Hutchinson, a cousin and an attorney
at RMP LLP of Springdale, which represented Hendren Plastic. "My
client always believed that drug court participants should have an
affordable way to avoid incarceration and receive rehabilitation,"
Hutchinson said. "The 8th Circuit's decision allows work programs
to continue to play a role in the rehabilitation continuum. As
such, many people will benefit from continued access to no-cost
drug rehabilitation programs in lieu of incarceration."

Hendren Plastics also was represented by attorneys Abtin
Mehdizadegan and Missy McJunkins Duke of Cross Gunter Witherspoon &
Galchus of Little Rock.

Hendren didn't respond to messages for comment. But on Twitter on
Aug. 26 he wrote, "I've always believed that drug courts and
rehabilitation programs are better alternatives than prison for
those struggling with addictions."

Other organizations filed friend of the court briefs in the case.
Simmons Foods of Siloam Springs and its Simmons Pet Food said that
it partners with a work-based recovery program, Christian
Alcoholics & Addicts in Recovery of Jay, Oklahoma. "Simmons Foods
and Simmons Pet Food do not participate in the CAAIR program to
enrich themselves or to exploit a vulnerable source of labor," the
filing said. "They do so because the companies' leaders genuinely
believe that criminal offenders deserve a second chance, that
prison is failing [them], and that the CAAIR Program works."

An attorney for the DARP participants, Tim Steadman of the Little
Rock's Holleman & Associates, plans to ask for a rehearing before
the three-judge panel and a rehearing before all the judges at the
8th Circuit. "We think there's some facts that [the three-judge
panel] overlooked or miscomprehended," Steadman said. "But also,
the issue is exceptionally important."

Steadman said he was disappointed with the ruling. "It is not just
bad for our clients, but it's bad for workers across the state of
Arkansas," he said. "The Arkansas Minimum Wage Act should protect
those who labor for profit making enterprises, like Hendren
Plastics." [GN]

HOMESITE GROUP: Deaver Sues Over Insurance Agents' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA DEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMESITE GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-11416-AK (D. Mass., Sept. 1, 2022) challenges the
policies and practices of the Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as the laws of the State of Ohio and the
materially similar laws and their implementing regulations in
effect in other states.

Plaintiff Deaver has been employed by Defendant since approximately
June 2018 as a non-exempt remote insurance agent. She asserts that
Defendant failed to pay her and other members of the FLSA
Collective and the State Law Class overtime at a rate of one and
one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
in a workweek.

Homesite Group Incorporated is a property and casualty insurance
company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
          585 Boylston St.  
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 536-1800
          Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com

               - and -

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          50 Public Square, Suite 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44113  
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625  
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
          Strongsville, OH 44136
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

INTEL CORPORATION: Anderson Files 9th Cir. Appeal in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winston R. Anderson and Christopher M. Sulyma are taking an appeal
from a court order granting their stipulation and dismissing Count
VII with prejudice in the lawsuit entitled Winston R. Anderson, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-04618-VC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Winston Anderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
brought this class action suit against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by investing billions of dollars in
retirement savings in unproven and unprecedented investment
allocation strategies featuring high-priced, low-performing
illiquid and opaque hedge funds.

Christopher M. Sulyma also filed a class action complaint against
the Defendants for ERISA violations on October 29, 2015.

On May 27, 2020, District Judge Lucy H. Koh ordered the
consolidation of Sulyma's case with Anderson's lawsuit, which was
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04618-VC.

On May 5, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts I
through VI of the Plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, which
the Court granted through an Order entered by District Judge Lucy
H. Koh on January 8, 2022.

On July 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal
of Count VII with prejudice, which the Court granted through an
Order entered by District Judge Vince Chhabria on July 25, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Winston Anderson, et al. v.
Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al., Case No.
22-16268, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on August 22, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Winston R. Anderson and Christopher M. Sulyma
Mediation Questionnaire was due on August 29, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on October 17, 2022;

   -- Appellants Winston R. Anderson and Christopher M. Sulyma
opening brief is due on November 25, 2022;

   -- Appellees Charlene Barshefsky, Terra Castaldi, George S.
Davis, Susan L. Decker, Ronald D. Dickel, John J. Donahoe, Finance
Committee of the Intel Corporation Board of Directors, Christopher
C. Geczy, Tami Graham, Reed Hundt, Intel Corporation Investment
Policy Committee, Intel Retirement Plans Administrative Committee,
Ravi Jacob, Cary Klafter, Stuart Odell, James D. Plummer, David S.
Pottruck, Tiffany Doon Silva, Stacy Smith, Arvind Sodhani, Robert
H. Swan, Richard Taylor, Todd Underwood and Frank D. Yeary
answering brief is due on December 27, 2022.

   -- Appellants' optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WINSTON R. ANDERSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

           Robert Joseph Barton, Esq.
            BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP
            1633 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
            Washington, DC 20009
            Telephone: (202) 734-7046

                   - and -

            Vincent Cheng, Esq.
            BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
            100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 968-8999

                   - and -

            Joseph Creitz, Esq.
            CREITZ & SEREBIN LLP
            100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
            San Francisco, CA 94111
            Telephone: (415) 269-3675

                   - and -

            Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
            Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
            Washington, DC 20007
            Telephone: (202) 463-2101

Defendants-Appellees INTEL CORPORATION INVESTMENT POLICY COMMITTEE,
et al., are represented by:

            Scott P. Cooper, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
            2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 284-5669

                   - and -

            Daniel F. Katz, Esq.
            WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
            680 Maine Avenue, SW
            Washington, DC 20024
            Telephone: (202) 434-5143

                   - and -

            David Simon Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq.
            WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
            680 Maine Avenue, SW
            Washington, DC 20024
            Telephone: (202) 434-5676

                   - and -

            Juli Ann Lund, Esq.
            WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
            680 Maine Avenue, SW
            Washington, DC 20024
            Telephone: (202) 434-5239

                   - and -

            Jennifer Lynn Roche, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
            2029 Century Park, E., Suite 2400
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 557-2193

                   - and -

            Myron D. Rumeld, Esq.
            PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
            11 Times Square
            New York, NY 10036-8299
            Telephone: (212) 969-3021

J.B. HUNT: Appeals Remand Ruling in Townsend Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling remanding the lawsuit entitled DAVID TOWNSEND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.B.
HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.; J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC.; and DOES
2 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-05185-PA-MAA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9, 2022, the case
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of Los Angeles. 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
minimum wages, failure to provide meals periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay for rest periods separately, failure
to pay all wages due and owed upon separation, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse necessary
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

On August 19, 2022, Judge Percy Anderson entered an Order stating
that Defendant have failed to satisfy its burden of showing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000 as required for federal jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act. The action was therefore remanded to the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as J.B. Hunt Transport Services
Inc, et al. v. David Townsend, Case No. 22-80094, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 1, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES INC, an
Arkansas corporation; and J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT INC., are represented
by:

          Christopher James Eckhart, Esq.
          James Anthony Eckhart, Esq.
          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          Karen Butler Reisinger, Esq.    
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, PC
          10 W Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777

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

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200

J.M. SMUCKER: Brown Appeals Dismissal of False Ad Case
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Molly Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled MOLLY BROWN, as an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-06467-HSG,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.

On August 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging
that she was deceived into buying Smucker's Peanut Butter &
Strawberry Uncrustables Sandwiches that contain protein content
claims on the front of the product packages. She asserts that the
labels on the front of the packages falsely inflate the amount of
protein in the products. She further notes that amino acid content
testing and Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid scoring both
show lower protein content levels than the packaging advertises.

The Plaintiff brings causes of action under the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair
Competition Law as well as for common law fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation and for unjust enrichment.

On October 26, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
class action complaint which Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted
on August 12, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Molly Brown v. The J.M. Smucker
Company, Case No. 22-16326, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on September 1, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Molly Brown Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 8, 2022;

   -- Appellant Molly Brown opening brief is due on November 1,
2022;

   -- Appellee The J.M. Smucker Company answering brief is due on
December 1, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MOLLY BROWN, as an individual, on behalf of
herself, the general public and those similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Matthew Thomas McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          265 Franklin Street
          Boston, MA 02110

               - and -

          Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114

Defendant-Appellee THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY is represented by:

          Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          333 S Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

               - and -

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          35 W Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-9703
          Telephone: (312) 558-7464

JON BEL EDWARDS: Sued Over Unconstitutional Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Alex A., by and through his guardian, Molly Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOVERNOR JON BEL
EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM
SOMMERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office
of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety &
Corrections, Case No. 3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., Aug. 19,
2022), is brought against the Defendants' unconstitutional actions
placing the Plaintiff and members of the class at risk of
unspeakable harm and lifelong trauma, pursuant to the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, for members of
the putative subclass of youth with disabilities, under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

On July 19, 2022, at a press conference called to address the
failings of one of the state's juvenile facilities, Gov. Jon Bel
Edwards declared that the state will "temporarily move" youth in
the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") from a
juvenile secure care facility to the Louisiana State Penitentiary
(LSP). Although Gov. Edwards claimed that the youth would be held
in a separate location at LSP, would not have any contact with
adults incarcerated at LSP, and that youth transferred to LSP will
have counseling, educational programming, and other services, those
claims are unsupported by any plan.

The Plaintiff along with other putative class members, is a student
who meets the definition of a disability under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act and previously had an Individual Accommodations
Plan. As a result of his disability, he is entitled to receive
educational accommodations and other services under federal law to
ensure equal and nondiscriminatory access to the classroom. As a
maximum-security adult prison, LSP does not have a school capable
of providing those services and Defendants have provided no plan
for doing so, despite being given multiple opportunities to provide
information about their plan.

Young people who are the target of Defendants' commitment to
transfer youth to LSP, including Plaintiff Alex A., are anxious and
in fear for their safety as a result of Defendants' actions.
Because Defendants' actions constitute ongoing, systemic violations
of Plaintiffs' constitutional and statutory rights, Plaintiffs seek
class-wide relief enjoining Defendants from transferring any youth,
including the Plaintiff, to LSP, and to prevent Defendants from
incarcerating any youth adjudicated delinquent in LSP, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a 17-year-old male currently under juvenile court
jurisdiction.

Edwards is the Governor of Louisiana and responsible for the
faithful execution of the laws of Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J Utter, Esq.
          William R Claiborne, Esq.
          THE CLAIBORNE FIRM, P.C.
          410 East Bay Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Phone: (912) 236-9559
          Facsimile: (912) 236-1884
          Email: david@claibornefirm.com
                 will@claibornefirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher J Murell, Esq.
          MURELL LAW FIRM
          2831 St. Claude Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70117
          Phone: (504) 717-1297
          Facsimile: (504) 233-6691
          Email: chris@murrell.law

               - and -

          Hector Linares, Esq.
          Sara Godchaux, Esq.
          STUART H. SMITH LAW CLINIC
          LOYOLA UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS COLLEGE OF LAW
          7214 St. Charles Avenue, Box 902
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Phone: (504) 861-5560
          Facsimile: (504) 861-5440
          Email: halinare@loyno.edu
                 shgodcha@loyno.edu

               - and -

          Ronald Haley, Esq.
          HALEY & ASSOCIATES
          8211 Goodwood Blvd., Suite E
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Phone: (225) 755-9935
          Facsimile: (888) 900-9771
          Email: rhaley@ronaldhaleylawfirm.com

               - and -

          David Shanies, Esq.
          SHANIES LAW OFFICE
          110 West 40th Street
          Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 951-1710
          Fax: (212) 951-1350
          Cell: (646) 515-2151
          Email: david@shanieslaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: Faces Cahill Suit Over Defective Coffee Makers
------------------------------------------------------------
DOREEN CAHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., and BED BATH &
BEYOND, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-07507 (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
1, 2022) seeks equitable relief, and to recover damages for breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud by omission,
and violations of New York's General Business Law and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

This class action lawsuit is brought against Keurig Green Mountain
for the manufacture and sale of certain K-Supreme Single Serving
Coffee Makers, all of which suffer from identical defects in
design, and for the manufacture and sale of its bottled Descaling
Solution. The suit is also against Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond for
the sale of the Coffee Makers and the Descaling Solution, says the
suit.

The alleged defect pertains to the process through which the Coffee
Makers descale (clean) themselves, which, if followed according to
instructions provided by Keurig on its Descaling Solution,
completely disables the Coffee Makers. The defect makes it so the
Coffee Makers cannot be used or properly maintained and renders
them unsuited for their principal and intended purpose, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as all persons in
the United States who purchased the Coffee Makers during the
applicable statute of limitations period.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. manufactures, markets, and distributes
the Coffee Makers throughout the United States, including in New
York.

Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. sells domestic merchandise and home
furnishings online and in-stores throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700  
          E-mail: bscott@bursor.com

KIA CORP: Faces Surge in Class Suits Over Easy to Steal Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Conklin, writing for Fox News, reports that Kia and Hyundai
thefts have skyrocketed across the country, with some major cities
reporting increases of more than 300% over the past two years, and
police are blaming a TikTok and social media trend.

Since 2021, TikTok and social media users are posting videos under
the hashtag "Kia Boyz," teaching people how to start Kia or Hyundai
vehicles without keys by using the tip of a phone charger or USB
cable, prompting juveniles across the country to try and steal
those vehicles.

"It's becoming a game even though there is nothing funny about it,"
George Glassman, president of the Glassman Automotive Group in
Detroit, told FOX 2.

Detroit Police Department Lt. Clive Stewart told the outlet that
kids "get in with their buddies" in the stolen vehicles "and they
ride around in them."

Now, state and federal lawsuits against the two vehicle
manufacturers are piling up.

One class-action lawsuit filed in Milwaukee last year by Barton
Legal states that a defect in defendants' Hyundai and Kia vehicles
made them "easy to steal," "unsafe" and "worth less than they
should be" if they did not have the defect. Since then, plaintiffs
have filed class-action lawsuits in at least seven other states,
including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Illinois and
Texas.

The issue stems from the lack of an immobilizer system in some of
the vehicles prior to the 2022 model year, mainly 2011-2021 Kias
and 2015-2021 Hyundais equipped with ignitions requiring mechanical
keys.

"The vehicles are defective in that, among other things, Defendants
manufactured and designed them without engine immobilizers, an
electronic security device that make it virtually impossible to
start a vehicle without a key unless the vehicle's computer has
been altered," the lawsuit states. "This means that all a thief
needs to do to steal one of the Defective Vehicles is remove a thin
piece of plastic that covers the ignition column, exposing a
fragile component that can also easily be removed, The thief can
then stick a USB drive, a knife, or something that fits in the
resulting hole to start the vehicle without a key or electronic
signal from a key."

The lawsuit added that "[c]onsidering how many people charge their
cell phones in their cars, the necessary instrument needed to steal
a Defective Vehicle is usually readily at hand to a would-be
thief."

Illinois authorities recently reported a 767% increase in Hyundai
and Kia vehicle thefts in the Chicago area since the beginning of
July compared to last year.

"Vehicle theft is up an astounding 767% due to an emerging TikTok
challenge," the Chicago Police Department's 15th District said in
an Aug. 24 community advisory. "This challenge is a play by play
[sic] for young adults on how to steal both Hyundai and Kia
vehicles. These automobile thefts are a crime of opportunity and
can affect just about any member of the community."

Charlotte, North Carolina, has recorded a 346% increase in Kia and
Hyundai thefts since last year, according to Axios Charlotte.
Hyundai and Kia thefts in Omaha, Nebraska, have increased about
600% compared to last year, WOWT reported.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, Kia thefts were up 1,300% compared to last
year, and Hyundai thefts were up about 600%, according to FOX 9
Minneapolis. In August, a group of four children between the ages
of 14 and 17 stole a 2021 Kia Forte from a rental lot and led
police on a highway chase with patrol cars and a helicopter in
pursuit. The car crashed as the driver attempted to avoid a stop
stick that had been set up in the road, and the group tried to flee
on foot before they were apprehended.

In St. Louis, which has seen an approximate 1,000% increase in Kia
and Hyundai thefts compared to last year, according to KSDK, Mayor
Tishaura Jones and Director of Public Safety Daniel Isom sent a
letter to Hyundai and Kia executives saying that the companies have
caused a "public safety crisis" in the Missouri city.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt pushed back, writing on
Twitter, "St. Louis has a violent crime problem. What's causing
crime in the city? The Mayor's war against the police? The
prosecutor letting criminals run wild? Evidently city "leaders"
think it's….the cars. Yes—car manufacturers are to blame not
criminals You can't make this stuff up."

Hyundai Motor America spokesperson Ira Gabriel told Fox News
Digital in a statement that it "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 Nov. 1, 2021," Gabriel said.

To help Hyundai owners whose vehicles do not have 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," Gabriel continued. The company is also
working with a Compustar "security kit that targets the method of
entry thieves are using to access these vehicles." The security kit
will be available for purchase and installation beginning Oct. 1.

Kia did not immediately respond to an inquiry from Fox News
Digital, but the automaker told FOX 28 in a statement that "the
majority of Kia vehicles in the United States are equipped with a
key fob and 'push-button-to-start' system, making them more
difficult to steal."

"All 2022 Kia models and trims have an immobilizer applied either
at the beginning of the model year or as a running change," the
statement adds. "Kia America has provided steering wheel lock
devices at no cost to law enforcement in affected areas to deter
vandalism and theft. That effort will continue in close
coordination with local police departments for distribution to
concerned owners of Kia vehicles not originally equipped with an
immobilizer."

TikTok has said that it does not condone videos about stealing Kia
and Hyundai vehicles, which violate the video app's policies and
will be removed if found.

Fox News' Gary Gastelu contributed to this report. [GN]

LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT: Faces Cook Suit Over Unlawful Wage Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD COOK and HANNAH RITZENHEIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAKE MICHIGAN CREDIT
UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-12074-DPH-APP (E.D. Mich., Sept.
1, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, the Sales Representative
Commission Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The class action is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay all minimum wages, overtime wages, and all commission due at
separation; for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and
for restitution based on unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Cook and Ritzenhein were employed by Defendant as
mortgage loan officers in the state of Michigan, from August of
2013 to September of 2020 and from May of 2016 through February of
2022, respectively.

Lake Michigan Credit Union is a credit union based in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. As of 2019, Lake Michigan Credit Union has 53 locations
throughout the states of Michigan and Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Yana Hart, Esq.
          Tiara Avaness, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070  
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com

LVNV FUNDING: Unlawfully Collects Consumer Debts, Niemann Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY P. NIEMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV402583 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., August 30, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Fair Debt
Buying Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to send written
communication as required by the CFDBPA. LVNV hired, contracted, or
otherwise engaged Financial Recovery Services, Inc. to collect an
alleged debt from the Plaintiff and the Class on LVNV's behalf.
LVNV's first written communication to the Plaintiff was sent in
smaller than 12-point type. As a result, the Defendants have
engaged in unlawful acts in connection with their attempt to
collect charged-off consumer debts from the Plaintiff and the
Class, says the suit.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a collection agency doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
         Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
         Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
         CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
         38 West Santa Clara Street
         San Jose, CA 95113-1806
         Telephone: (408) 294-6100
         Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
         E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

MOBILE FIDELITY: Bitterman Files Suit Over Vinyl Records' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY BITTERMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILE FIDELITY SOUND LAB, INC.
and AUDIOPHILE MUSIC DIRECT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-04714 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 1, 2022) seeks compensatory
damages, restitution, and equitable remedies for Plaintiff and
members of the Proposed Classes.  The lawsuit asserts causes of
action including violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation
of New York's consumer protection and false advertising statutes,
common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

This civil class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of all consumers who purchased Defendants' vinyl records sold as
Limited Edition Ultradisc One-Step recordings. For years,
Defendants have falsely advertised the UD1S Products as genuine
analog recordings while falsely omitting the existence of a digital
step in Defendants' proprietary mastering chain, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiff, like other consumers nationwide, purchased UD1S
Products based on the express and/or implied representations made
by Defendants that the UD1S Products were all analog with no
digital production step, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and members of the Proposed Class were
injured by Defendants false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, and
misleading practices, the suit asserts.

Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Inc. is a record label that specializes
in the production of reissued vinyl LP records using all analog
technology. Mobile Fidelity also sells vinyl records, compact
discs, and Super Audio CDs that are produced using digital
technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Michelle I. Locascio, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  akeller@dicellolevitt.com
                  mlocascio@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Andrew B. Miller, Esq.
          STAR AUSTIN & MILLER, LLP
          201 South 3rd Street
          Logansport, IN 46947
          Telephone: (574) 722-6676
          E-mail: miller@starrausten.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com
                  kfay@golomblegal.com

NESTLE USA: Crenshaw Sues Over Ingredient Handlers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME CRENSHAW, Plaintiff v. NESTLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01552 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 1, 2022) is a collective action on
behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees
against the Defendant for the recovery of unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Crenshaw states that he performed work for Nestle as an
ingredient handler from July 25, 1995 until his termination on
September 2, 2020. He asserts that he and those similarly situated
are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available for
violations of the FLSA, including, but not limited to, back pay,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other
compensation pursuant to the FLSA.

Nestle USA, Inc. produces and distributes nutritious food and
beverage products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com

NEW YORK, NY: Mayor Issues EO for City Jails' Conditions Amid Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Mayor disclosed that WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021,
the federal monitor in the Nunez use-of-force class action stated
steps must be taken immediately to address the conditions in the
New York City jails; and

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the federal court in Nunez approved the
Nunez Action Plan, which "represents a way to move forward with
concrete measures now to address the ongoing crisis at Rikers
Island"; and

WHEREAS, while there has been improvement in excessive staff
absenteeism, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing levels
continue to contribute to a rise in unrest and disorder and create
a serious risk to the necessary maintenance and delivery of
sanitary conditions; access to basic services including showers,
meals, visitation, religious services, commissary, and recreation;
and prompt processing at intake; and

WHEREAS, this Order is given to prioritize compliance with the
Nunez Action Plan and to address the effects of DOC's staffing
levels, the conditions at DOC facilities, and health operations;
and

WHEREAS, additional reasons for requiring the measures continued in
this Order are set forth in Emergency Executive Order No. 140; and

WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, dated
September 15, 2021, and extended most recently by Emergency
Executive Order No. 181, dated August 24, 2022, remains in effect;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:

Section 1. I hereby direct that section 1 of Emergency Executive
Order No. 186, dated August 29, 2022, is extended for five (5)
days.

Sec. 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: $2.75MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on Dec. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Lead Case No. CGC-19-576750

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PIVOTAL
SOFTWARE, INC. ("PIVOTAL" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT
OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN
CONNECTION WITH PIVOTAL'S APRIL 20, 2018 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING
(THE "CLASS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A
LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on DECEMBER 1,
2022, at 2:00 p.m.  before the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng in
Department 613, Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement as set forth in the
Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated April 15, 2022
("Stipulation") of the above-captioned action ("Action") for
$2,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) to
award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and if so in
what amount; (4) to reimburse Plaintiffs for their time and expense
in representing the Class, and if so in what amount; and (5) to
enter the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation.

This Action1 is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons or Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Pivotal Software, Inc. ("Pivotal") common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (the
"Offering Documents") issued in connection with Pivotal's April 20,
2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), and against Pivotal, Dell
Technologies, Inc. ("Dell"), certain Pivotal officers and
directors, and the underwriters of Pivotal's IPO, for allegedly
making materially untrue or misleading statements in the Offering
Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which allegedly damaged Class
Members. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. Persons or
Entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Pivotal common stock
before October 17, 2018 (the date upon which the lockup period
expired) shall be presumed as being able to trace their purchases
to the Offering.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED PIVOTAL COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR
TRACEABLE TO THE OFFERING DOCUMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
PIVOTAL'S IPO, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF
THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than
NOVEMBER 7,2022) or submitted electronically at
www.pivotalshareholdersettlement.com no later than
NOVEMBER 7,2022. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
NOVEMBER 7, 2022, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude
you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action. If you are a Member of the Class and do
not request exclusion, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim. Plaintiffs' Counsel represents you and other Members of the
Class. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may
hire one at your own expense. To the extent you file a Proof of
Claim and a Request for Exclusion, the Claims Administrator shall
communicate with you in writing to give you an opportunity to cure
the conflicting requests submitted and to advise the Claims
Administrator whether you are seeking to be part of the Class and,
thus, be eligible for their pro rata share of the recovery, or,
alternatively, whether you wish to be excluded as a member of the
settlement class.

Distributions will be made to Authorized Claimants by the Claims
Administrator after all claims have been processed and after the
Court has finally approved the Settlement. Authorized Claimants
will have ninety (90) days to cash their checks. For Authorized
Claimants whose checks are returned as undeliverable, the Claims
Administrator will endeavor to locate new addresses for the
recipient. Where a new address is located, the Claims Administrator
will update the database accordingly and re-issue a distribution
check to the Authorized Claimant at the new address. In the event
the Authorized Claimant loses or damages his, her, or its check, or
otherwise requires a new check, the Claims Administrator will issue
replacements only upon written instructions from the Authorized
Claimant, provided that the Authorized Claimant returns the
previous check where appropriate. For all checks, the Claims
Administrator will void the initial payment prior to re­issuing a
payment. Authorized Claimants requesting re-issuance of checks will
be informed that, if they do not cash their Initial Distribution
checks within 30 days of the mailing of such reissued check, their
check will lapse, their entitlement to recovery will be irrevocably
forfeited, and the funds will be re-allocated to other Authorized
Claimants. Reissue requests for lost or damaged checks will be
granted after the void date on the checks, however, void dates on
such reissues will be adjusted so as not to delay future
re-distributions.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at
www.pivotalshareholdersettlement.com, or by writing to:

Pivotal Shareholder Litigation Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173081
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Phone: 877-829-4296
www.pivotalshareholdersettlement.com

Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Plaintiffs'
Counsel:

HEDIN HALL LLP
David W. Hall
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-766-3534

SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: 212-419-3171

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Reed R. Kathrein
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-725-3000

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST
FOR EXCLUSION BY SENDING A SIGNED LETTER IN THE MAIL TO THE CLAIMS
ADMINISTRATOR THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 1,2022.
SUCH A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION MUST INCLUDE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS,
E-MAIL ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND THE DATE, PRICE AND NUMBER OF
SHARES OF PIVOTAL COMMON STOCK PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS
ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH PIVOTAL'S APRIL 2018 IPO. ALL MEMBERS OF
THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE
BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION EVEN IF THEY DO
NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.
IN ORDER FOR ANY OBJECTION TO BE CONSIDERED, YOU MUST SEND A
WRITTEN STATEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF CLASS MEMBERSHIP, TO THE
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR SUCH THAT IS IT POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
NOVEMBER 1, 2022.

ATTENDANCE AT THE SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING IS NOT NECESSARY. IT
IS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION IN ORDER TO APPEAR AT
THE SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTION TO THE
COURT.

DATED: AUGUST 19, 2022

1 You can view this Action's full docket on the Court's website
(https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services) free of charge by
inputting the case number (CGC-19-576750).


SESEN BIO: Settles Securities Litigation for $21 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2022, Sesen Bio, Inc. (the "Company") announced that
it has filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle
the previously disclosed consolidated shareholder class action
captioned In re Sesen Bio, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 1:21-cv-07025-AKH (the "Securities Litigation") against the
Company and certain of its officers, the Company disclosed in its
Form 8-K Current Report for August 17, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As disclosed in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2022, the Company has also reached an
agreement in principle to settle the previously disclosed
derivative litigation (the "Derivative Litigation").

In May 2022, the Company initiated a process to review potential
strategic alternatives with the goal of maximizing shareholder
value. The Company believes that the settlements, if approved, have
the potential to enable a favorable strategic transaction by
increasing the range and attractiveness of strategic alternatives
that the Company is able to consider. The Company and the
individual defendants continue to deny all allegations of
wrongdoing. The decision to settle the Securities Litigation and
the Derivative Litigation is driven by the desire to avoid the
uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted
litigation.

The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement related to the
Securities Litigation provides for a settlement payment of
$21,000,000 to the class and the dismissal of all claims against
the Company and the other defendants. The settlement payment is
being funded by the Company and its insurance carriers. The
settlement of the Securities Litigation and the Derivative
Litigation are subject to final court approval.

Sesen Bio, Inc. is a late-stage clinical company advancing targeted
fusion protein therapeutics ("TFPTs") for the treatment of patients
with cancer.

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Gift Card Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Carter, writing for Seattle Times, reports that what to do
with that Starbucks gift card that doesn't have enough credit left
to buy a short drip coffee or a puppuccino for Fido?

How about filing a federal lawsuit?

A Boston man tried to redeem a card with a $4.92 balance for cash
at his nearest coffee shop. When he was refused, he filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle,
alleging the coffee retail giant has unjustly enriched itself by
millions of dollars by making it difficult to redeem small balances
remaining on gift cards for cash, even when the law requires it.

Richard Spencer filed the lawsuit last month, alleging the
company's popular reloadable gift cards "include unfair, deceptive
and illegal conditions that are only revealed to customers after
the point of sale, or never revealed at all."

The lawsuit accuses Starbucks of engaging in "unjust enrichment"
and breach of contract.

According to the lawsuit, Massachusetts is among 10 states that
have laws requiring companies that issue gift cards to redeem in
cash any balance of $5 of less. Washington, Oregon and California
are among the Western states with similar statues on the books. The
small print on the gift cards states they cannot be redeemed for
cash unless required by law.

The lawsuit alleges Starbucks does not emphasize this caveat and
that company policy states "gift cards are completely
nonrefundable."

"These small balances add up," the lawsuit claims. "Defendant has
distributed millions of these cards to Gift Card purchasers and
holders throughout the United States."

"Thus, [Starbucks] has acquired at least millions of dollars in
revenue to which it is not entitled," according to the document.

Starbucks gift cards are among the most ubiquitous of presents
given to family and friends on holidays and birthdays. The company,
in last year's earnings report, said it sold $11 billion worth of
gift cards in 2021 and $12.6 billion the prior year.

Unused Starbucks gift cards contain an estimated $1 billion in
value, according to news reports. The number of Starbucks cards
sold outstrips the rest of the gift card industry combined, the
company says.

The company, on its website, does provide a mechanism for those who
live in states that require the cash redemption of small balances,
according to a company spokesperson. However, cardholders cannot
simply walk into their nearest coffee shop and demand payment.

"Starbucks is aware of state gift-card redemption requirements and
has policies and procedures in place to honor valid gift card cash
redemption requests in accordance with applicable law," the
spokesperson said in a statement. "We don't believe this claim has
merit and will defend accordingly."

The spokesperson pointed out -- as does the lawsuit -- that
customers in California and Oregon can submit redemption requests
online; however, those living in other "qualifying states" have to
call Starbucks customer service at 800-782-7282 to see if they
qualify.

Those living elsewhere apparently have no redemption recourse.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge John Coughenour to certify it
as a class-action, arguing that Starbucks cardholders number in the
millions and that the amount of money involved exceeds $5 million.

The attorneys for Spencer, Issaquah attorney Wright Noel and a firm
in Walnut Creek, California, did not respond to emails or phone
messages seeking comment. [GN]

TAMARA LICH: Asks Judge to Unfreeze "Freedom Convoy" Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lapierre, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that "Freedom
Convoy" leaders are asking the court to release hundreds of
thousands of dollars in frozen donations to pay for their
appearance at the federal inquiry into the use of the Emergencies
Act.

The funds, donations made to the "Freedom Convoy" and later frozen
by court order, were placed into escrow -- an arrangement where a
third party holds the funds until certain conditions are met --
awaiting the conclusion of a proposed class action lawsuit against
the "Freedom Convoy" leaders.

The suit was filed on behalf of Centretown residents and businesses
who are seeking damages for the noise and chaos caused during the
protests in late January and February.

In a notice of motion filed on Sept. 2, a group of defendants in
that class action suit said they needed access to $450,000 from the
escrow account to pay for their legal representation at the Public
Order Emergency Commission, the federal inquiry into the use of the
Emergencies Act.

The group of defendants includes prominent "Freedom Convoy"
organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber. Their draft budget of the
expenses required to attend the commission includes $151,200 for
the services of a senior barrister, $108,000 for a junior
barrister, and travel and accommodation expenses of $83,200.

Keith Wilson, the lawyer for the "Freedom Convoy" leaders seeking
the funds, said in his notice of motion that the money was urgently
needed. The Public Order Commission is scheduled to begin Sept. 19
and the commission has mandated the participation of several of the
prominent "Freedom Convoy" leaders.

The "Freedom Convoy" leaders requesting the funds have "significant
concerns about their ability to be adequately represented and to
fully participate in the commission without access to funding,"
Wilson wrote, adding that "the demands of the commission are far
greater than anticipated."

Justice Paul Rouleau, the appointed commissioner of the inquiry,
has named the convoy organizers as important participants in the
inquiry.

"They can provide a vantage point that goes beyond an individual
Convoy participant or observer and encompasses the organization and
leadership of the Convoy," he wrote in a decision on standing in
June. "Their contributions to the work of the commission are
necessary as they are uniquely situated to offer information to the
commission and give first-hand evidence as to the goals and
organization of the convoy."

Initially, the "Freedom Convoy" leaders agreed to attend the
commission and provide requested documents. They did not submit a
request for funding to the commission, believing that they had
ample support from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms,
an Alberta-based legal advocacy organization.

But, according to documents filed in support of the notice of
motion, the "Freedom Convoy" participants had underestimated the
effort and scope of the work needed to attend and respond to the
commission's demands. "The Public Order Emergency Commission
exceeds the capacity for funding available to be provided by the
JCCF," according to the documents.

The notice of motion also says that JCCF's funding has decreased
"as a result of the end of public measures resulting from the
pandemic."

Without the money held in escrow, the "Freedom Convoy"
participants' "ability to fund and participate in the commission is
severely restricted."

The escrow agent currently holds more than $5 million, nearly $1.4
million of which was seized from bank accounts belonging to Lich --
the result of donations from GoFundMe and direct
e-transfers from 3,000 donors. The bulk of the remaining escrow
funds come from other frozen donations to the "Freedom Convoy,"
some of which are in crypto-currency.

The court has already approved the removal of $100,000 from escrow
as an interim payment for the "Freedom Convoy" leaders' legal
fees.

No date has been set for a judge to hear arguments about the new
release of the funds from escrow. Paul Champ, who represents the
plaintiffs in the civil suit against the "Freedom Convoy" leaders,
said in an email he is opposed to the release of the funds and
argued that they had not yet tried to secure funding from the
commission.[GN]

TESLA INC: Averts Pre-Owned Warranty Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Tesla
pre-owned warranty class action lawsuit is over after a plaintiff
sued in 2019 by alleging used Model S and Model X warranties are
practically worthless.

Lead plaintiff Hugh Nguyen says he believed the used Model S car he
purchased would get about 200 miles per full charge at 100% battery
capacity, but the battery could take the car only 165 miles on a
full charge.

He brought the Model S to Tesla technicians multiple times but
Tesla allegedly could not repair the battery.

According to the Tesla pre-owned warranty class action lawsuit,
Tesla was supposed to perform a comprehensive certified pre-owned
inspection of the car before it was sold. But the plaintiff
complained he never received any report regarding the conclusions
of the inspection.

The lawsuit says used vehicle buyers are stuck with not knowing if
the batteries are defective or how far a battery will take a
vehicle on a single full charge. In addition, the pre-owned
warranty allegedly doesn't mean much when Tesla fails to provide
used vehicle buyers with results of certified pre-owned
inspections.

Included in the Tesla used car lawsuit are these vehicles.

2012-present Tesla Model S 60
2012-present Tesla Model S P85+
2012-present Tesla Model S 60D
2012-present Tesla Model S 85
2012-present Tesla Model S 90D
2012-present Tesla Model S 75
2012-present Tesla Model S P85
2012-present Tesla Model S 85D
2012-present Tesla Model S 70
2012-present Tesla Model S 90D
2012-present Tesla Model S P90D
2012-present Tesla Model S 75D
2012-present Tesla Model S 90
2012-present Tesla Model S P85D
2012-present Tesla Model S 70D
2012-present Tesla Model S P100D
2012-present Tesla Model S 100D
2012-present Tesla Model X 60D
2012-present Tesla Model X 70D
2012-present Tesla Model X 75D
2012-present Tesla Model X 90D
2012-present Tesla Model X P90D
2012-present Tesla Model X 100D
2012-present Tesla Model X P100D
Tesla Pre-Owned Warranty Lawsuit (Arbitration)

Due to terms of the purchase agreement, the lead plaintiff argued
his case in arbitration with Tesla and lost the case. According to
the plaintiff, Tesla lied to the arbitrator regarding the battery
capacity, so the plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit.

But the judge ruled the four plaintiffs who sued all agreed to
arbitrate their claims when they ordered the used Tesla vehicles.

While the plaintiffs argued Tesla should buy back all the
2012-present vehicles, the judge ruled Tesla clearly provided every
pre-owned vehicle buyer with the order agreement which contained
the arbitration section that says claims must be arbitrated on an
individual basis.

The district court ruling caused the plaintiffs to appeal to the
Ninth Circuit which dismissed the case.

In the most recent court documents, the plaintiffs have finally
dropped their claims regarding the pre-owned vehicles. However, the
documents don't hint if the claims were dropped due to an
individual settlement, a result of arbitration or possibly
something else.

The Tesla pre-owned warranty class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California - Hugh
Nguyen, et al., v. Tesla Inc.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Edward C. Chen.
[GN]

TETHER LTD: Wants Law Firm Off Class Suit Over Founder's Conflict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalini Nagarajan, writing for Blockworks, reports that Roche
Freedman, the law firm behind multiple legal actions against crypto
companies, is in damage control mode after founding partner Kyle
Roche was accused of taking payoffs to harm industry players.

The firm on Sept. 2 urged a New York federal court judge to deny
Tether and Bitfinex's requests to disqualify it as co-lead counsel
on its ongoing class action, saying one attorney's actions
shouldn't hold consequences for the entire practice.

Roche allegedly struck a secret pact with Avalanche developer Ava
Labs to use litigation as a weapon against its competitors. In
secretly-recorded videos published by CryptoLeaks, he admitted to
being Ava Labs' in-house crypto expert and that he was responsible
for ensuring the US Securities and Exchange Commission stays
distracted with other targets.

Roche claims information in the CryptoLeaks report is false and
contains highly-edited footage. His law firm, however, told the
court that the attorney "unfortunately" made untrue statements to
impress the meeting attendants.

"He also made inappropriate remarks disparaging jurors and class
members," Roche Freedman said.

Shortly after the exposé, and despite denying the accuracy of the
alleged conspiracy, Roche filed to withdraw as an attorney for
multiple class action lawsuits he initiated against companies
including Tether, Bitfinex, Binance.US, Solana Labs and Dfinity --
the latter two being direct Ava Labs competitors.

Roche Freedman's lawsuits claim Solana Labs and Dfinity's
respective tokens, solana and internet computer, are unregistered
securities. The firm's Dfinity suit also alleges instances of
insider trading.

Roche Freedman says Tether, Bitfinex case wasn't filed for Ava
Labs
Some sued parties don't consider Roche withdrawing from the case as
satisfactory. Tether and Bitfinex have demanded the entire firm be
removed from their case, stating other Roche Freedman lawyers are
known to hold substantial amounts of AVAX tokens.

In response, Roche Freedman said Roche is no longer part of the
firm's class action practice and has renounced his financial
interest in the litigation against Tether and Bitfinex, which
alleges the firms engaged in market manipulation to inflate token
prices.

The firm also claimed that the Tether/Bitfinex case wasn't filed at
Ava Labs' request, and that partner interest in Ava Labs or AVAX
tokens doesn't present a conflict of interest. It said the case was
filed before Ava Labs' relationship with the firm began.

However, a memorandum of understanding shows a financial agreement
between both parties commenced on September 30, 2019 -- about a
week before the case in question was filed on October 6, 2019 by
Kyle Roche and Velvel Freedman.

Tether and Bitfinex's lawyer Elliott Greenfield didn't return
Blockworks' request for comment.

Roche Freedman further argued Ava Labs isn't a competitor to the
parties sued -- and that even if it were, there would be no
disqualifying conflict.

"The idea, therefore, that the firm filed this case for Ava Labs,
is both impossible, nonsensical, and untrue," Roche Freedman said.
[GN]

UNITED STATES: Settlement Nears in Latino Workers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Tennessee Lookout, reports that a
settlement is in the works in a lawsuit filed by Latino workers at
a Grainger County slaughterhouse who were arrested without proof of
wrongdoing in a controversial raid authorized by the U.S.
government.

U.S. District Judge Travis McDonough has issued a stay in the
class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Latino workers at the
Southeastern Provision meat processing plant in Bean Station,
Tenn., after the April 2018 raid.

The judge stated in the stay order that a proposed settlement has
been reached between the workers, the U.S. government and a slew of
federal agents accused of targeting Latino workers solely based on
their ethnicity.

"On Aug. 29, 2022, the parties notified the court by e-mail of
their agreement in principle to settle the case," McDonough wrote.
"In their notice, the parties request that the court stay all
deadlines through Sept. 9, 2022, to allow sufficient time to
finalize their settlement agreement."

The U.S. District Court lawsuit was brought on behalf of the
impacted workers by various nonprofit legal organizations including
the National Immigration Law Center, Southern Poverty Law Center
and National Domestic Workers Alliance.

The proposed settlement comes after the government and federal
agents lost round after round of preliminary legal battles in the
case and U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher Steger decided to make
public -- despite agents' objections -- video and exhibits that
support the workers' claims of mistreatment.

Steger last month unsealed video showing U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Agent John Witsell stepping on the neck of a
Latino worker who was facedown on the floor with his hands cuffed
behind his bar after the Tennessee Lookout filed a court challenge
over its sealing.

The news organization then posted that video and two others, which
made clear agents treated Latino workers differently than white
workers during the raid, on its website for public viewing.

Arrest first, 'develop probable cause' later

Federal agents in April 2018 told now-retired U.S. Magistrate Judge
Bruce Guyton they only intended to search the slaughterhouse for
records to support a case against plant owner James Brantley for
evading taxes by paying all his employees in cash.

It was a lie, and dozens of exhibits unsealed by Steger prove it.

Agents began planning the raid -- dubbed Great American Steak Out
-- nearly a year before it was carried out and made specific plans
for the mass arrest of Hispanic workers, including arranging for
use of a National Guard armory as a makeshift immigration detention
center, buses to transport Hispanic workers to that armory and a
stack of plastic zip ties to handcuff them, even though white
workers at the plant were also being paid in cash.

"From what I understand, the initial plan was to gain (or) make
entry, detain the (workers), ask them of their legal status or lack
thereof, then bring them to the employee control teams and put them
in two different lines," U.S. Department of Homeland Security Agent
Trevor Christiansen said in a deposition reviewed by the Tennessee
Lookout.

"One line was for people who claimed to be U.S. citizens or aliens
authorized to work in the United States, and the other line was
supposed to be for people who admitted to being in the country
illegally," Christiansen said.

Video captured on slaughterhouse security cameras revealed agents
did not, in fact, separate workers based on immigration status
claims and instead herded all Hispanic workers into one line,
searched and handcuffed each one without allowing them to present
proof of immigration status and took all of them to the armory for
processing. White workers, meanwhile, were allowed to walk around
freely.

Plant worker Isabel Zelaya testified in a deposition he told agents
he was legally authorized to work in the U.S.

"I already told them I had my permit, and I pulled it out in order
to show it to (an agent)," Zelaya testified. "He took it from me
and said, 'Go over there' . . . where they were putting people . .
. in a line."

Despite showing agents proof of his legal employment status, Zelaya
was arrested and detained at the armory for more than two hours,
records show. There were at least two American citizens of Latino
descent who also were among those detained at the armory, records
show.

Christiansen and other agents deposed in the case admitted they
never once used any tools at the government's disposal to try to
determine the legal status of plant workers before or during the
raid. The agents also admitted they referred to all Hispanic
workers as "illegals" in those planning meetings and documents
without any proof of illegal immigration status.

"So was it your understanding that the (Latino workers) could not
be released from that detention until they provided their legal
status?" an attorney asked U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Agent Travis Carrier in a deposition.

Carrier replied, "Yes. We had the right to detain everyone."

Under state and federal law as well as the U.S. Constitution, law
enforcers must have "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing to
temporarily detain anyone and must have probable cause that a crime
has been committed and the person being detained committed that
crime before arresting anyone.

"So the plan was to develop probable cause with respect to
individual workers at the plant (after they were detained and
arrested)?" an attorney asked U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Supervising Agent Ronald Appel.

Appel responded, "Yes."

'Y'all seeing the media?'

Unsealed exhibits reviewed by the Tennessee Lookout as part of the
news organization's investigation into the raid reveal that agents
not only improperly detained and arrested Latino workers but also
berated, mocked and, in two instances, brutalized them.

Witsell, for instance, punched worker Geronimo Guerro in the face
without cause in addition to the boot-on-the-neck incident captured
on video. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Francisco
Ayala has admitted he and other agents referred to Latino workers
as "f—-ers" during the raid.

Agents reveled in the media attention the raid garnered, according
to text messages reviewed by the Tennessee Lookout.

"Y'all seeing the media?" IRS Agent Nick Worsham said in a text
message. "Largest ICE raid in a decade!!"

An unidentified agent responded, "Yeah, Fox, Washington Post and
some others covered it. Nice!"

"Yep, I think it's great," Christiansen replied.

Worsham added, "Perfect timing with (former President Donald)
Trump's recent comments about immigration."

Worsham also texted to fellow agents a screenshot of a fundraising
campaign launched for families of Latino plant workers.

Christiansen responded, "I donated to that. Should I have not done
that?"

An attorney later asked Christiansen in a deposition, "Did you
donate to this fundraising site for families affected by the
raid?"

"No, ma'am," he answered. "I was being sarcastic because I don't
understand why people who are in the country illegally are getting
funded, or getting funds, that were in the country illegally,
working in a country illegally. I do not understand that."

The attorney pressed, "You don't think families affected by the
raid should be entitled to any money as a result of the raid?"

"I don't think people who commit crimes should be rewarded," he
replied.

Records reveal Christiansen also complained when a list of
government awards did not include him and fellow agents who carried
out the raid.

"Between you and me, and I won't repeat this, I'm pretty pissed off
that we didn't get an award for our case," Christiansen wrote in an
email to Appel. "I think it's a bunch of BS. My buddy went and got
(an) award a couple of years ago although he seized about the same
money as us (and) there were probably only a dozen arrests. If you
can't tell, I've been drinking beer, and I don't know why we were
overlooked. But it's a bunch of (expletive)."

In his deposition, Christiansen said Appel later explained that the
agents had indeed been awarded for their raid work but "it must
have been left off the email that was sent out of the annual . . .
awards." [GN]

UNITI GROUP: $38.87MM Class Settlement to Be Heard on November 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a
statement regarding the Uniti Group Inc. Securities Settlement:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

In re UNITI GROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION


This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

Master File No. 4:19-cv-00756-BSM

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSE

To: all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Uniti Group Inc. (f/k/a Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc.
("Uniti")) Securities during the period from April 24, 2015 through
June 24, 2019, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class").1

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, that Lead Plaintiffs
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System, and David McMurray, on behalf of himself and as
sole beneficiary of the David McMurray R/O IRA (together,
"Plaintiffs"), and Zhengxu He, Trustee for the He & Fang 2005
Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of themselves and all members of
the Settlement Class, and Defendants Uniti, Kenneth A. Gunderman
and Mark A. Wallace (collectively with Uniti, the "Defendants" and,
together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") and related claims in the amount of $38,875,000 (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Brian S. Miller on
November 4, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. CDT, remotely, via videoconference
(the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should:
(i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 17, 2022; (iii)
approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the
proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application. To join on your computer or mobile app,
please download Microsoft Teams and enter 265 481 733 390 for the
meeting ID and RCEzJP for the passcode. To join with a
videoconferencing device, go to teams@meet.vc.uscourts.gov and
enter 118 555 112 9 for the meeting ID. The Court may change the
date and time of the Settlement Hearing without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to participate in the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement,
www.UnitiGroupSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

Uniti Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o KCC LLC
P.O. Box 6159
Novato, CA 94948-6159
www.UnitiGroupSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com
1-888-219-6877

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
1-800-449-4900

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 1,
2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than October 14, 2022. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation
must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be
mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later
than October 14, 2022.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE

DATED: August 17, 2022                                             
                               BY ORDER OF THE COURT

THE HONORABLE BRIAN S. MILLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Uniti Securities means Uniti common stock, call or put options of
Uniti and the following bonds issued by Uniti and/or its
subsidiaries: (i) 6.00% Senior Secured Notes due April 15, 2013
(CUSIP No. 20341WAA3); (ii) 8.25% Senior Notes due October 15, 2013
(CUSIP No. 20341WAD7); and (iii) 7.125% Senior Unsecured Notes due
December 15, 2014 (CUSIP No. 20341WAE5).


YAHOO! INC: Awaits Calif. Supreme Court Ruling in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce E. Cutler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Yahoo!
Inc., besieged by class actions accusing the pioneering internet
search engine of sending unwanted ads via text message in violation
of federal law, turned to its insurer to provide and pay for its
legal defense.

But, despite the existence of specifically negotiated and distinct
"personal injury" and "advertising injury" coverage provisions
according to Yahoo, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa., denied coverage.

A San Jose federal judge agreed with the carrier, but the more
circumspect US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit punted the
issue to California's Supreme Court, asking: Does a commercial
liability policy that covers "personal injury" -- defined as
arising out of oral or written publication of material violating a
person's right of privacy -- trigger an insurer's duty to defend
claims that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending those unsolicited texts, even if they didn't reveal
any private information?

The seven-member high court hears argument over the issue on Sept.
6. Despite receiving the referral in 2019, by law they have just 90
days to issue a ruling.

California appellate courts, like courts across the country, are
split on whether general liability policies cover only suits over
the right to keep information confidential, called the right to
secrecy, or whether they also cover the right to be free from
unwanted intrusions, called the right to seclusion, said Scott M.
Seaman, co-chair of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP's global insurance
services practice group.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims typically only implicate
the right to seclusion, Seaman said.

"All eyes will be on the California Supreme Court decision. It will
be significant for TCPA cases applying California law and may be of
interest beyond California and TCPA cases," he said via email.

Yahoo counsel William T. Um, a partner with Jassy Vick Carolan LLP,
declined comment on the case. Counsel with Horvitz & Levy LLP
representing the insurer didn't respond to emails seeking comment.

Five Class Actions
Yahoo was defending five putative class actions—two in
California, two in Illinois, and one in Pennsylvania— alleging
injuries that arose during time periods covered by the National
Union policies. All five suits accused the company of violating the
TCPA by transmitting those unsolicited ad messages to putative
class members. The texts didn't reveal any private information.

The company sued to compel National Union's coverage, arguing the
insurer had a duty to defend the company against the lawsuits. The
district court threw out the case, concluding that the policy's
coverage of personal injury arising out of "publication . . . of
material that violates a person's right of privacy" doesn't apply
to Yahoo's potential TCPA liability.

The district court narrowly and technically interpreted the terms
"publication," "material," and "right of privacy" rather than
giving them the plain and ordinary meaning as a layperson would
understand them, Yahoo said in a state supreme court filing. The
plain reading of those terms, the importance of which the high
court has repeatedly emphasized, "at least potentially encompass
TCPA claims," the company said.

National Union counters the policy covers publication of private
information in violation of the right to secrecy, not sending
unsolicited texts in violation of the right to seclusion. The right
to privacy means the right to secrecy, to which the TCPA doesn't
apply, not the right to seclusion, to which it does, the insurer
said.

United Policyholders, in a friend of the court brief supporting
Yahoo, contends the right to privacy is a broad term and can't be
restricted solely to the right to secrecy. Nor is the language
unique or different from standard terms construed in TCPA cases
around the country.

"The Court should uphold coverage, thus vindicating the rights of
policyholders to the coverage they pay for and to the language that
is clear and supports insurance policies' dominant purpose of
indemnity," Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Reed Smith LLP counsel
wrote for United Policyholders.

The case is Yahoo! Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
Pa., Cal., No. S253593, oral arguments 9/6/22. [GN]

ZUORA INC: Class Action Trial Scheduled for May 8 Next Year
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASEY ROBERTS, Individually and On
Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

                        v.

ZUORA, INC., TIEN TZUO, and TYLER
SLOAT,


Defendants.


Case No. 3:19-cv-03422-SI


Class Action

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ARIC OLSEN and JAMES ALPHA MULTI
STRATEGY ALTERNATIVE INCOME
PORTFOLIO, Individually and On

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,


                                                     
Plaintiffs,

                        v.

ZUORA, INC., et al.,


Defendants.


Lead Case No. 20-CIV-01918
(Consolidated with Case No. 20-CIV-02276)

Class Action

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTIONS

To: All persons or entities who (1) purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly-traded common stock of Zuora, Inc. during the period from
April 12, 2018 to May 30, 2019 and/or (2) purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of Zuora, Inc. common stock pursuant or traceable
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with Zuora's April 12, 2018 initial public offering (the
"Classes").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned actions have been
certified to proceed as class actions on behalf of the Classes as
defined above.

The Federal Action, Roberts v. Zuora, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-03422-SI (N.D. Cal.), asserts claims under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Zuora, Inc., Tien Tzuo, and Tyler Sloat.  It is
brought by class representative New Zealand Methodist Trust
Association ("Federal Class Representative").  The action alleges
that between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019, defendants issued
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions about the
functionality of Zuora's products.

The State Action, Olsen v. Zuora, Inc., Lead Case No. 20-CIV-01918
(Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of San Mateo), asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Zuora,
Inc., Tien Tzuo, Tyler Sloat, Peter Fenton, Kenneth A. Goldman,
Timothy Haley, Jason Pressman, Michelangelo Volpi, Magdalena Yesil,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Allen & Company
LLC, Jefferies LLC, Canaccord Genuity LLC, and Needham & Company,
LLC ("Defendants").  It is brought by class representative Aric
Olsen ("State Class Representative").  The action alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
Zuora's April 12, 2018 initial public offering allegedly contained
false and misleading statements and omissions about the
functionality of Zuora's products.

Defendants in the Federal Action and the State Action deny all of
the above allegations and deny any wrongdoing or violation of law.
PLEASE NOTE: At this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or
monetary recovery in either action.  Trial in the Federal Action is
currently scheduled for May 8, 2023.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THESE ACTIONS.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Actions
("Notice"), which fully sets forth the rights and obligations of
class members, is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential class members.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice, you can obtain a copy at
www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Notice
Administrator at:

Zuora Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions
P.O. Box 5530
Portland, OR 97228-5530

Your interests in the Federal Action are being represented by the
Federal Class Representative and the Federal Class Counsel.  Their
contact information is:

Steve Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
steve@hbsslaw.com

Lucas E. Gilmore
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
lucasg@hbsslaw.com

Your interests in the State Action are being represented by the
State Class Representative and the State Class Counsel.  Their
contact information is:

Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Yury A. Kolesnikov
Bottini & Bottini, Inc.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA  92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
fbottini@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

If you are a member of one or both of the Classes, you have the
right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class(es).  If
you want to remain a member of the Class(es), you do not need to do
anything at this time other than to retain your documentation
reflecting your transactions and holdings in Zuora common stock.
If you are a member of the Class(es) and do not exclude yourself
from the Class(es), you will be bound by the proceedings in these
actions, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.  If you
move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address,
please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your
new address.

IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOUND BY ANY ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT IN ONE OR BOTH OF THE ACTIONS, YOU MUST REQUEST TO EXCLUDE
YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS(ES).  However, if you request exclusion,
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered for the benefit of the Class(es).  There is no
monetary relief currently available.  To exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked
no later than October 30, 2022, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the full printed Notice.

Further information regarding this notice or the actions may be
obtained by writing to the Notice Administrator at the address
provided above or at www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated:  June 24, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

Dated:  June 28, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO     
    

URL// www.ZuoraSecuritiesLitigation.com


[*] New Class Action Scheme Introduced in Western Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that a new
legislative class action scheme has been introduced in Western
Australia, in what the state's Attorney-General said will enhance
access to justice.

Following the lead of other Australian states, new legislation has
passed through Parliament and will enhance access to justice by
introducing class actions for the first time in Western Australia.

The Civil Procedure (Representative Proceedings) Bill 2021 means
that West Australians will now be able to bring class action
claims, following recommendations from the Law Reform Commission of
Western Australia's 2015 final Representative Proceedings report.

The legislative class action procedure assists the plaintiff group
and the defendant to resolve their dispute efficiently, reducing
the cost of the litigation for the parties and the court.

While a mechanism for bringing a class action to the Supreme Court
exists, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia found it to
be outdated, inherently uncertain, and silent on many procedural
aspects of representative proceedings.

The regime will give access to the courts to those in the community
who have been effectively denied justice because of the cost of
commencing a legal action.

A legislative class actions federal scheme was first introduced
nearly 30 years ago and has allowed those who have been wronged to
gain access to justice. The new West Australian scheme is modelled
after it, which has been substantially and successfully implemented
in other Australian jurisdictions.

Attorney-General John Quigley said that many people in the state
have a "very deserving case for compensation who are unable to
access the courts, because they simply cannot afford to bring an
action".

"Without a strong and sustainable mechanism for bringing class
actions, countless individuals will not see justice and their
losses will go uncompensated. A similar regime has been
substantially adopted in Victoria in 2000, New South Wales in 2011,
Queensland in 2017, and Tasmania in 2019, and has stood the test of
time," he said.

"This regime will not only enhance access to justice by reducing
the cost of court proceedings to the individual and improve the
individual's ability to access legal remedies, it will enable court
resources to be used more efficiently." [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***