/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220929.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 29, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 189

                            Headlines

1701 ALBEMARLE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
3M CO: Faces Miltary Base Water Contamination Class Action
568 PRESIDENTS: Class Action Lawsuit Over Financial Aid Ongoing
5830 RESTAURANT: Stipulation of Conditional Certification Filed
AEGEAN MARINE: Utah Retirement Seeks to Certify Class Action

AMAZON.COM INC: Erb Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMBASSADOR GROUP: DOYB Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
AMERICAN LOUVER: Ayala Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Settles Class Action Over Lime-a-Rita Drink
APACHE CORP: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims

APACHE CORP: Must Face Class Action for Misleading Investors
APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Extend Case Schedule in Tabak Suit
APPLE INC: Shay Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Insurance Age Exclusions
AUSTRALIA: More Ex-Ashley Detainees Likely to Join Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Class Action Over UDTPA Violations
BANK OF UTAH: Sun Life Original Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot
BED BATH: Class Action May Have Played Role in Ex-CFO's Suicide
BED BATH: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action in Iowa Over Protein Claims

BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
BLOOMBERG LP: Discloses Subscribers' Identities, Cuevas Suit Says
BOSTON GLOBE: Must Face Facebook Data Sharing Class Action
CAMPOS VERDES: Martines Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Approval of FLSA Notice & Forms Sought

CIMARRON ENERGY: Morales Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
CNB BANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH: Morrison Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COMME DES GARCONS: Abbott Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
COPPERSTATE FARMS: Begay Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CSI FINANCIAL: Breach Class Action Final Hearing in January 2023
CURATED BUSINESSES: Entices Followers to Join Lottery, Pop Says
DEJA VU SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Action for $6.5-Mil.
DORAL ACADEMY: Vogeley Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
DUKE ENERGY: Shird, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective

E.V.A. HEALTH: Sehgal Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
EVOLENT HEALTH: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $23.5-Mil.
EXECUPHARM INC: Third Cir. Ruling in Data Breach Suit Discussed
FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
FIVE STAR: WHSC Bid for Default Judgment Granted in Part

FLORIDA: Civil Rights Law Firm Files Class Suit v. Gov. DeSantis
FLORIDA: Consent Forms Won't Help DeSantis in Migrant Class Suit
FOSTER GARVEY: Faces Class Action Over TelexFree Ponzi Scheme
FULGENT GENETICS: Gainey McKenna Reminds Nov. 21 Lead Plaintiff Due
GENUINE PARTS: Bachan Sues Over Servicemen's Unpaid Wages

GLOBAL TEL: FCC New Guidelines Proposed Following Class Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Primed to Decertify Securities Lawsuit
GOOGLE LLC: BIPA Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set on Sept. 28
GOOGLE LLC: Humphries Kerstetter to File Antitrust Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: South Korean Privacy Watchdog Imposes Fine Amid Suits

HEATHER MUELLER: K.O. Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
HUDSON VALLEY: Court Says Arbitration in OD Fees' Suit Needs Review
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Scheme
ILLINOIS MUTUAL LIFE: Lowenberg Files Suit in N.D. California
ILVA SPA: Taranto Citizens' Class Action Proceedings Suspended

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Final Hearing in Securities Suit Set on Dec. 5
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
INTRUSION INC: $3.25-M Deal in Securities Suit Heard on Nov. 30
IPPODO TEA USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JAGERSFONTEIN DEVELOPMENTS: Class Action Mulled Over Dam Collapse

JP FIFTY-TWO: Lelii Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Walker Files Suit in E.D. New York
KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Engine Immobilizers
KIA AMERICA: Hufford Sues to Seek Relief Over Defective Vehicles
KIA CORP: Minnesota Man Files Class Action Over Car Thefts

KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Employee Class
LES BOURGEOIS VINEYARDS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LONGHORN RESALE: Guzman Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers
LOVE GRACE: Sends Unwanted Text Message Ads, Asher Walli Alleges
LOWE'S COS: Job Applicant Files Class Action Over FCRA Violations

LUMIO HOME SERVICES: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL: May Face Class Action Over Election Records
MARATHON REFINING: Hazlett Case Stayed Pending McGhee Ruling
MARTIN LUTHER KING: Hejazi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Rashad Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
MCCARTHY'S FLOWERS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEDIALAB.AI INC: Deadlines in Case Management Order Continued
MEDLY PHARMACY: Former Employees Sues Over WARN Act Violations
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over App Tracking Transparency Workaround

MGM RESORTS: Parties Seek OK of Class Certification Stipulation  
MICHIGAN: O'Connor Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
MIDTOWN HOME: Underpays Canvassers, Freeman FLSA Suit Claims
MOTT'S LLP: Must Face Class Action Over Mislabeled Applesauce
MUSTANG GAS PRODUCTS: Wake Energy Sues Over Untimely Payments

MY PILLOW: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 6
NAIVE MELODY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Harris Loses Conditional Cert. Bid
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kuo Sues Over Fraudulent Representations
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Botello FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCARE: Averts Data Breach Class Action
NEURON FUEL: Sends Unsolicited Sales Calls, Hudgins Suit Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Ex-Women's Prison Detainees File Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Fire Protection Inspectors' Racism Suit Can Proceed
NEXTPHASE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NORMANDY, MO: Parties Seek Approval of Terms in Settlement
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Lower Court's Approval of Service Award Reversed
NURTURE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Suit
NUSCALE POWER: Former Employees File Suit Over Stock Valuation
NUSCALE POWER: Surina Sues Over Unlawful Restructuring of Equity

ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Lamb Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
OREGON: State Supreme Court Won't Review Timber Class Action
ORIGINAL FOOTWEAR: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: New Partner Added to "Moneymaker" Plaintiffs' Team
PERFECT B: Peyre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PETECO INTERNATIONAL: Thorn Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
PETSMART LLC: Class Action Over False Training Program Pending
PHOENIX ROZE NY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PINK OLIVE INC: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POWER HOME: Bates Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice

PREMIERE GLOBAL: Goodnow, et al., Seek to Certify Employee Class
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settles Pension Class Suit for $267-M
PRIORITY OUTDOOR: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
QUEST HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nursing Staff, Class Action Alleges
RACHEL MITCHELL: Court Junks Luckey Class Suit

RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Defective Burglar, Fire Alarms
ROCK DIAMOND: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Settlement Hearing in Sex Abuse Suit Set Nov. 14
RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Racketeering
SANGUINE GAS: Wake Energy Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma

SANTA MARIA: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS: Barnett Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
SCL UNLIMITED: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Sehgal Says
SEED FACTORY INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERAFINA 38TH STREET: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SHREVEPORT, LA: Lower Court Ruling in Overbilling Suit Reversed
SMITH HOUSE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SNAP INC: BIPA Suit Settlement Final Approval Trial Set on Nov. 17
SOM FRIENDS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Chalas Suit

SOUTH AFRICAN EMPORIUM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPECIALIZED TOWING: Barrios Seeks Unpaid OT for Tow Truck Drivers
SPECTRUM PAINT: Weinman Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
STARKIST CO: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Mislabeled Tuna
SUNBELT FEDERAL: McGill Sues Over Improper Collection of OD Fees

T-MOBILE US: Settlement Final Approval Trial Set on Jan. 20, 2023
TASTE OF KENTUCKY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TESLA INC: Vehicles' ADAS Technology "Defective," Battiato Claims
THOMPSON REUTERS: Leslie Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
THREE J'S HEATING: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

TIPRANKS LTD: Esposito Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Mock Files Suit in N.D. New York
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
TRIPLEDOT STUDIOS: DeFazio Suit Removed to S.D. California
TRULY NOLEN OF AMERICA: Gannon Files Suit in D. Arizona

U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Arizona
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Durgan Says
UNITED STATES: Calixto, et al., Seek Class Certification
UNIVERSALPEGASUS: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Sued Over Sex Discrimination

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over FTSA Text Messages
US NEWS: Golden Sues Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Personal Data
VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM: Neidig Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
VIP CINEMAS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VIRGINIA: Violates Disabled Students' Rights, Class Action Alleges

VOICE OF AMERICA: Underpays Studio Technicians, Class Suit Says
WAXMAN CANDLES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Overtime Pay Class Action Lawsuit
WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Judge Approves $54-M Settlement in PFAS Suit
[*] Litigation Experts Discuss 2023 Class Action Trends

[*] Small Litigation Shops File Class Actions v. Crypto Exchanges
[*] Tech Cos. Settle Biometric Data Collection Suits in Illinois
[*] Victoria Becomes Forum of Choice for Securities Claims

                            *********

1701 ALBEMARLE: Faces Espinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
ESTEBAN ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1701 ALBEMARLE OWNERS CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05518 (E.D.N.Y., September 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hour premium, failure to
timely pay wages, and failure to comply with notice provisions.

Mr. Espinal worked for the Defendant as a porter in New York for
over 20 years.

1701 Albemarle Owners Corp. is a property owner and operator, with
its headquarters in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         Toneille Raglan, Esq
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 832-1000

3M CO: Faces Miltary Base Water Contamination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that
following widespread water contamination caused by per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aqueous film-forming foam
(AFFF) used in recent years to combat fuel-based fires, 3M Company
and other manufacturers face a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of individuals who lived or worked on military bases, where
the toxic firefighting foam was regularly used during training
exercises.

The complaint was filed earlier this month in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, by plaintiffs Ernie Huizar, Ramond Williams,
Donald Crook and James Paulk, who seek class action status to
pursue damages from more than a dozen firefighting foam
manufacturers, who they say knowingly supplied the U.S. military
with AFFF that infiltrated nearby water supplies.

AFFF has been widely used for decades by military and civilian
firefighting organizations, containing high levels of PFAS, which
are commonly described as "forever chemicals," since they do not
naturally breakdown and can bioaccumulate in the body and
environment, causing a number of serious health conditions among
former firefighters and instructors.

The toxic chemicals were first introduced into the manufacturing
industry in the 1940's because of their ability to resist heat,
grease, stains, and water. However, since then numerous studies
have found that the chemicals may cause a myriad of adverse health
effects including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased
fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression, and
cancer.

A growing number of former firefighters and military service
members, and municipal water systems are now pursuing firefighter
foam lawsuits after water sources became contaminated and those
living in the vicinity developed various different types of cancer,
including prostate cancer, testicular cancer, kidney cancer,
pancreatic cancer and other diseases.

All four plaintiffs in this latest complaint indicate they were
stationed on various military bases that have been found to contain
PFAS water contamination, which put them at increased risk of
developing various ailments. Huizar, for example, was stationed at
Camp Lejeune, Paris Island and other bases, where he claims he was
exposed to high levels of PFAS chemicals. While the plaintiffs do
not indicate they have been diagnosed with any particular
illnesses, they indicate they now must be monitored for cancers and
other health problems which may result from the firefighter
foam-contaminated water.

"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 lawsuit states. "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 in their
water supply."

The lawsuit indicates the plaintiffs and other class members have a
"legitimate fear" of developing health problems doe to their PFAS
exposure, which could include liver injuries, immune system damage,
high cholesterol, thyroid problems and cancer. The water
contamination class action lawsuits seeks to represent all
individuals who formerly or currently live on military bases
nationwide that have been found to contain high levels of PFAS in
the water.

The class action comes as the manufacturers already face hundreds
of firefighter cancer lawsuits brought over their failure to warn
individuals using AFFF about the long-term risks associated with
exposure. There are also a growing number of PFAS water
contamination lawsuits being pursued against the same defendants by
individuals diagnosed with cancer or ulcerative colitis after
living near near military bases, airports and other training
facilities, where the chemicals have contaminated local drinking
water. [GN]

568 PRESIDENTS: Class Action Lawsuit Over Financial Aid Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Li, writing for The Georgetown Voice, reports that an
ongoing class-action lawsuit alleges that in a higher education
landscape without the 568 Presidents Group -- a cohort of private
universities who collaborate on financial aid calculations -- the
cost of attendance at 17 elite institutions would decrease
dramatically. Nine could provide free attendance for all current
students on financial aid; eight, including Georgetown, could
reduce their net cost of attendance by an average of $12,000
annually.

The accusations were made public via nine former students who
initially sued 17 of these universities in January, alleging the
568 Presidents Group of colluding, price-fixing, and deliberately
limiting students' financial aid. In response, the 17 universities,
including Georgetown, the neighboring Johns Hopkins University and
six Ivy League schools, filed a Motion to Dismiss in April in
dispute of these claims.

On Aug. 15, this case was presented in front of federal judge
Matthew Kennelly, who denied the universities' attempt to dismiss
the lawsuit. Per Judge Kennelly's ruling, the class-action is to
proceed to the discovery phase, in which parties of the lawsuit
obtain more evidence from each other, which could ultimately result
in a jury trial. The plaintiffs and defendants agreed to establish
a definitive timeline for the proceedings by mid-November of this
year. Tentatively, the final pretrial hearing is scheduled for May
2025.

Throughout the August hearings, the former students accused the 17
universities of violating Section 568 of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994, which outlines the extent to which
universities can collaborate on setting tuition standards, and is
where the 568 Presidents Group derived its namesake.

Under federal antitrust law, private parties are prohibited under
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 from collaborating to set the
market-wide price of goods and services. Section 568 of the
Improving America's Schools Act, however, creates an exemption to
the Sherman Act by permitting schools to collaborate on the
condition that they do not consider students' financial situation
in making admissions decisions.

Georgetown, along with eight other defendants in the lawsuit,
publicly deems itself a need-blind school. The plaintiffs allege,
however, that by adopting the shared Consensus Methodology in
calculating aid, members of the 568 Presidents Group did in fact
weigh students' ability to pay as a part of admission processes for
the purposes of eliminating price competition and artificially
inflating their costs of attendance. For these reasons, former
students allege, the 17 universities are not truly need-blind, and
may not be exempted under Section 568.

"All 17 defendants systematically favored wealthy applicants in
making admissions decisions," according to the class-action's
official website. "Defendants effectively raised the net price of
attendance, harming in the aggregate more than 200,000 students
from working and middle-class families."

The 17 universities, on the other hand, contested the students'
arguments by claiming that they operated in line with antitrust
exemptions. "[The] plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a violation
of the Sherman Act, have alleged injuries that are too speculative
to satisfy antitrust injury and standing requirements, and have
raised claims that are time-barred," the universities' dismissal
motion reads.

Judge Kennelly was not the only person to reject the validity of
the universities' claims. The class action has garnered national
attention, including the U.S. Department of Justice's. In July, the
Justice Department submitted a Statement of Interest to the court,
which challenged the universities' dismissal arguments. "An
agreement between schools that admit all students on a need-blind
basis and schools that do not is beyond the scope of the 568
Exemption," the agency wrote.

If plaintiffs prevail in this case, the outcome of this lawsuit
could monumentally alter the financial model of higher education,
especially in the context of rising tuition costs. "This is the
first time that antitrust law is being invoked to seek damages from
elite U.S. universities for colluding to limit student financial
aid," Karie Stern, a spokesperson for the student plaintiffs,
explained in an email to the Voice. "The 17 elite universities have
for nearly 20 years participated in a price-fixing cartel that
inspired to reduce the financial awards to admitted students,
systematically increasing the net tuition prices paid by thousands
of students and their families."

The former students claim that if each university chose to allocate
an additional 2 percent of its unrestricted endowment funds to
financial aid -- a percentage that would still permit robust
endowment growth, the plaintiffs argue -- the cost of attendance
would plummet, and surplus aid could be distributed.

"Each financial aid student at Georgetown University could receive,
on average, an additional $4,493 in scholarship support per year
toward tuition, room, board and fees if Georgetown competed in
offering financial aid for students rather than continuing to
collude," Stern wrote. [GN]

5830 RESTAURANT: Stipulation of Conditional Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL CARRILLO RODRIGUEZ
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. 5830 RESTAURANT CORP., SMOKIN DAVES BBQ, CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S,
LLC, 7522 RESTAURANT CORP., 5374 RESTAURANT CORP., HOUSE OF Q
CORP., and DAVID OEHLMAN, Case No. 21-cv-01166-KLM (D. Colo.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order adopting their stipulation
to the conditional collective action certification of Plaintiff's
claims brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to the
dissemination of the form of notice.

In the operative First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff pleaded
substantial allegations of the Defendants' company-wide violations
of the FLSA. For example, the Plaintiff pleaded that "Defendants
refused to pay their hourly employees overtime premiums for
overtime hours worked and "though Plaintiff and those similarly
situated regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek, and
sometimes more than twelve hours per day, Defendants refused to pay
their employees overtime wages for overtime hours worked."

The Plaintiff detailed his allegations, pleading that he "worked
126 hours and 26 minutes during the two-week pay period running
from October 26, 2020 through November 10, 2020. During the
two-week pay period running from December 26, 2020 through January
10, 2021, Plaintiff Carrillo worked 155 hours and 13 minutes, and
during the two-week pay period running from January 26, 2021
through February 10, 2021, the Plaintiff Carrillo worked 124 hours
and 38 minutes. The Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff Carrillo
overtime premiums for the hours he worked beyond 40 each workweek
and each workday during these and all other pay periods during his
tenure of employment."

The Plaintiff also alleged that "Defendants subjected all their
hourly employees to the same policy and practice of failing to pay
overtime premium wages for overtime hours worked."

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRpBC6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440.8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Andrew N. Dunkin, Esq.
          FLANDERS, ELSBERG, HERBER & DUNN, LLC
          401 Main Street, Suite 1
          Longmont, CO 80501
          Telephone: (303) 776-5280
          E-mail: andrew@flanderslaw.com

AEGEAN MARINE: Utah Retirement Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE AEGEAN MARINE PETROLEUM NETWORK,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-04993-NRB (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
      Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and

   3. appointing Berman Tabacco as Class Counsel pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Utah Retirement Systems administers pension plans and retirement
savings plans for public employees in the U.S. state of Utah.

Aegean Marine provides marine support services. The Company
supplies and markets refined marine fuel and lubricants to ships in
port.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SxKF8q
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems, are:

          Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          Kristin Moody, Esq.
          Jeffrey Rocha, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
                  jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                  nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
                  cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com
                  kmoody@bermantabacco.com
                  jrocha@bermantabacco.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Erb Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DON ERB, RYAN STEWART and IAN GILL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON and UST SELECT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01325-DSC (W.D. Pa., September 15,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated truck drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

Plaintiffs Erb, Stewart, and Gill have been employed by the
Defendants as truck drivers at a facility in Coraopolis,
Pennsylvania since September 15, 2019.

Amazon is an American multinational technology company,
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

UST Select is a provider of warehousing and delivery services, with
its headquarters at 556 Perry Avenue, B106, Greenville, South
Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
         THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP LLC
         First & Market Building
         100 First Avenue, Suite 650
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 227-0763
         Facsimile: (412) 774-1994
         E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

                 - and -

         John R. Linkosky, Esq.
         JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
         715 Washington Avenue
         Carnegie, PA 15106
         Telephone: (412) 278-1280
         Facsimile: (412) 278-1282
         E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net

AMBASSADOR GROUP: DOYB Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEL OBISPO YOUTH BASEBALL,
INC. d/b/a DANA POINT YOUTH BASEBALL, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals and entities, v. THE
AMBASSADOR GROUP LLC d/b/a AMBASSADOR CAPTIVE SOLUTIONS;
PERFORMANCE INSURANCE COMPANY SPC; BRANDON WHITE; GOLDENSTAR
SPECIALTY INSURANCE, LLC; DOMINIC GAGLIARDI; and DOES 1 through 50,
Case No. 8:21-cv-00199-SPG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves for
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r0htLE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          Ra O. Amen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com
                  Ramen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
          Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
          NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street., Suite 2050
          Los Angeles, CA , 90017
          Telephone: (213) 622-6469
          Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
          E-mail: gnelson@nflawfirm.com
                  gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com

AMERICAN LOUVER: Ayala Sues Over Illegal Biometric Data Retention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN LOUVER COMPANY, and PLASTICADE
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2022LA000800 (Ill. Cir.,
18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., Sept. 8, 2022) seeks to stop
Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's and the proposed Class' sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants, upon information and
belief, mandated and required that employees have finger(s) scanned
by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards -
which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -
biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each employee. This allegedly exposes Defendants' employees,
including Plaintiff, to serious and irreversible privacy risks,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class members may be aggrieved because
Defendants may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to
third-party vendors in violation of BIPA. They are also aggrieved
by Defendants' failure to destroy their biometric data when the
initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been
satisfied or within three years of employees' last interactions
with the company, the suit added.

American Louver Company manufactures plastic products based in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  plesko@peifferwolf.com  
                  aflorek@peifferwolf.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Settles Class Action Over Lime-a-Rita Drink
---------------------------------------------------------------
KTVI reports that Anheuser-Busch is settling a class-action lawsuit
associated with their Ritas(TM) line of drink, meaning if you've
ever had a Lime-a-Rita, you may be eligible to file a claim.

The lawsuit, filed in Missouri, alleges that the brewer advertised
that the drink contains tequila or wine when they do not.
Anheuser-Busch denies any wrongdoing and settled the lawsuit.

A court has not yet decided whether to approve the settlement, but
you can start your claim now to receive settlement money if you're
eligible.

To be eligible, you'll need to have purchased any of the dozens of
Ritas(TM) Brand Products listed in the settlement in the U.S., from
Jan. 1, 2018, through July 19, 2022.

You can receive a partial refund of up to $9.75 without proof of
purchase. If you have a receipt, then you may get $21.75. Your
refund total will depend on the product or products you purchased.

The deadline to file a claim is Dec. 16, 2022.

According to the settlement's website, a hearing will be held in
early December to determine whether the settlement should be
approved.

Learn more about the products this settlement applies to and file a
claim here.
https://ritassettlement.com/ [GN]

APACHE CORP: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA) ("Apache") against certain of its
officers and directors.

If you have continuously owned Apache shares since/before September
7, 2016, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a
browser to join this action:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/apache-corporation-class-action-apa

Last year a class action complaint was filed against Apache. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Apache intentionally used
unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of
available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did not have the
proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill
and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the
amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of Apache's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, Apache's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Recently, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the Southern
District of Texas denied the defendant's motion to dismiss a
shareholder class action lawsuit.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Apache holding
shares before September 7, 2016, you may have standing to hold
Apache from the alleged harm caused by the Company's officers and
directors by making them personally responsible. You may also be
able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

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

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

APACHE CORP: Must Face Class Action for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Chronicle reports that lawyers for Houston-based Apache
Corp. failed to convince a federal magistrate to toss out a
proposed securities class action claiming that company leaders
misled investors in an announcement of a "transformational
discovery" of a West Texas shale play called Alpine High.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the Southern District of
Texas, in an opinion issued recommended that the case move forward
because the plaintiffs' complaint is sufficiently detailed and
specific in its allegations that company officials knew the
information they made public in 2016 was "materially false."

Lawyers for Baker Botts, the Houston law firm that represents
Apache, are expected to ask U.S. District Judge George Hanks of
Houston to reject Edison's recommendation.  

Groups of investors, led by trustees of the Teamsters Union No. 142
Pension Fund and the Plymouth County (Mass.) Retirement
Association, allege Apache was involved in "a massive fraud
centering on an oil and gas field" in West Texas.

Judge Edison, in his memorandum, said the plaintiffs have
"sufficiently alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements."

"Over my career, both as a lawyer and as a judge, I have had the
opportunity to review a vast number of securities class action
lawsuits," Edison wrote. "Despite their usual length, many of those
filings are cut-and-paste jobs that unquestionably fail to properly
allege a false or misleading statement.

"This is not one of those complaints," Edison wrote. "The
consolidated class action complaint provides a detailed discussion
of the alleged misrepresentations at issue and explains the reasons
why defendants allegedly knew at the time they spoke publicly that
those statements were materially false."

Apache in court papers claims that their executives had no intent
to mislead -- an issue that Edison said is "a close call." A
spokeswoman for Apache's parent company, APA Corp., declined to
comment.

Apache announced the Alpine High discovery with great fanfare in
2016, estimating that that field held 3 billion barrels of oil and
75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Alpine High, however, never
met expectations and the company called it quits there in 2020,
turning its attention to offshore oil fields off the coast of
Suriname in South America.

In their complaint, investors claim that Apache "endured a
prolonged financial slump" in the early 2010s even as the
exploration and production industry in Texas capitalized on
advances in hydraulic fracturing."

"Apache allegedly did not make a single notable discovery during
the fracking boom," according to court documents. "As a direct
result, the company's stock price languished."

The plaintiffs point to a Houston Chronicle article that said
Apache "found itself on the outside looking in" and that management
"knew Apache had to get back its swagger if it was to reverse its
fortunes. It had to return to the business of risk, and it had to
make a headline-grabbing find."

To make "a headline-grabbing find," the investors claim that Apache
focused on Alpine High, which is in Reeves County. The energy
company announced in September 2016 that Alpine High in Texas was a
"transformational discovery" and "world class resource play" with
immense production capabilities. [GN]

APPLE INC: Parties Seek to Extend Case Schedule in Tabak Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA TABAK, DE'JHONTAI
BANKS, MATTHEW WHITE, KELLY CAMELO-CENICOLA, NESTOR TRUJILLO, and
CHRISTINE CLEMENCE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-02455-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties agreed and stipulated that the case schedule be
extended as follows:

                              Previous            New
                              Deadline            Deadline

-- Plaintiffs' Class        Nov. 15, 2022     March 14, 2023
   Certification
   Expert Reports:

-- Deadline to Complete     Dec. 19, 2022     April 17, 2023
   Private Mediation:

-- Defendant's Class        Jan. 13, 2023     May 12, 2023
   Certification Expert
   Reports:

-- Plaintiffs' Class        Feb. 24, 2023     June 23, 2023
   Certification
   Rebuttal Expert
   Reports:

-- Plaintiffs' Motion       March 17, 2023    July 14, 2023
   for Class
   Certification:

-- Defendant's              June 9, 2023      Oct. 6, 2023
   Opposition to
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Plaintiffs' Reply        May 12, 2023      Sept. 8, 2023
   ISO Class
   Certification:

Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DSi1Lq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          First Horizon Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Allison Parr, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  aparr@tzlegal.com
          
               - and -

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Arturo J. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Penelope A. Preovolos, Esq.
          Alexis A. Amezcua, Esq.
          Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: AGonzalez@mofo.com
                  PPreovolos@mofo.com
                  AAmezcua@mofo.com
                  CTapernoux@mofo.com

APPLE INC: Shay Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHAEL SHAY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a
Delaware corporation; APPLE VALUE SERVICES, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,  Case No.
3:20-cv-01629-JO-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. Determining that a class action is proper as to Count I of
      the Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Violation of
      the Consumer Legal Remedies Act) pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23;

   2. Determining that a class action is proper as to Count II
      of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Negligent
      Misrepresentation) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

   3. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

   4. Certifying the following classes:

      a. Nationwide Class

         "All consumers who purchased an App Store & iTunes gift
         card in the United States from May 28, 2017 to the
         present, whose gift card was subject to a redemption
         attempt prior to activation, and whose gift card was
         redeemed by a third party prior to attempted redemption
         by the consumer or intended user;" and

      b. California Class

         All consumers who purchased an App Store & iTunes gift
         card in the State of California from May 28, 2017 to
         the present, whose gift card was subject to a
         redemption attempt prior to activation, and whose gift
         card was redeemed by a third party prior to attempted
         redemption by the consumer or intended user.

      c. Excluded from the classes are Defendants and their
         officers, directors and employees;

   5. Finding Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and
      certifying her as the class representative;

   6. Finding Plaintiff’s counsel and their firm, namely James
      R. Hawkins, Malte L. L. Farnaes, Christina M. Lucio, and
      Mitchell J. Murray of James Hawkins APLC, as adequate
      class counsel and certifying them as class counsel; and

   7. Directing that notice be provided to the class in
      accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2).

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 9,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ffZvCr
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Malte L.L. Farnaes, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  malte@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Murray, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: mitchell@jameshawkinsaplc.com


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Insurance Age Exclusions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that the Australian
government is facing a massive class action -- predicted to be on
the same scale as the robodebt debacle -- for the alleged unlawful
exclusion of over 65s from the national disability insurance
scheme.

The case, proposed by Mitry lawyers, could see the commonwealth on
the hook for an estimated $800m a year for denying support to
seriously and permanently disabled people based on their age.

Proponents point to the average $111,000 a year spent on an NDIS
plan for seniors who qualified before age 64 - as opposed to
$56,000 for the equivalent aged-care scheme -- as a form of
"pecuniary loss" suffered by those who applied aged 65 and over.

Rick Mitry, the partner of Mitry lawyers, told Guardian Australia
the firm had only begun advertising the proposed class action on
Sept. 17, with 70 or 80 people "keen - or some would say desperate
-- to join" the case it aims to launch by year's end.

"These people are really suffering," Mitry said. "They cannot
understand why over the age of 65, at which age you need it the
most, they wipe you out.

"If you have an accident at 64, you're entitled [to the NDIS] but
if the accident happens a few months later - you're out."

The national disability insurance scheme, established by the Labor
government in 2013, only applies to people aged 64 and under at the
time they applied for support. Those aged 65 and over are eligible
for other programs.

The Mitry Lawyers class action, to be run by barristers Bret Walker
and Richard Scheelings, argues the age bar was inconsistent with
the convention on the rights of people with disabilities; that
could render it unconstitutional because the commonwealth relied on
the external affairs power to enact the NDIS.

The staggered state-by-state rollout of the NDIS also could have
breached the constitution's ban on discrimination based on state of
residency, it argues.

Peter Freckleton, a member of the Post Polio Victoria board, told
Guardian Australia he applied for the NDIS two years ago, citing
lifelong paralysis in both legs as a result of having contracted
polio as an infant in the 1950s pandemic.

"I couldn't walk unaided, I had to wear leg braces and crutches.
There was no doubt about the disability … The only thing they
[NDIS] objected to was my age."

Freckleton said aged-care payments were not "designed to deal with
disability" - which can require big lump-sum costs like assistive
technologies - forcing him to save payments over months to pay for
a wheelchair.

"If I had been on the NDIS, [the supplier] would've signed up on
the spot . . . [Instead] I arranged to accumulate aged-care
payments . . . I had to wait to save enough to pay for the chair."

Freckleton said the case would assist people with disability who
"live in daily fear of being forced into residential aged care,
although socially and cognitively they're fine".

"Those people need help as soon as possible. It's just
unconscionably cruel [they're excluded].

"It's disability discrimination with age as the pretext The real
victims are people with permanent and severe disabilities."

Another proponent of the case is former senior public servant Roger
Beale, who also had childhood polio. He says the case "has
significant budgetary implications and impacts thousands of
disabled people and their families".

"It could be the biggest and most morally embarrassing class action
the commonwealth has faced since robodebt," he told Guardian
Australia.

The robodebt case, brought on behalf of welfare recipients who
received computer-generated debt notices using unlawful income
averaging, cost the commonwealth $1.8bn.

Beale estimates the cost of the NDIS exclusion at $800m a year,
based on a "significant proportion" of the 140,000 people on the
highest level of aged-care package who are "seriously and
permanently disabled and would have been eligible for NDIS support
but for the age exclusion in the Act".

Mitry Lawyers is in discussions with a commercial litigation funder
to pay for the case, with a deal expected in weeks after conditions
about the number of participants are satisfied.

A spokesperson for the department of social services said the NDIS
is "one part of a broader system of disability support".

"People over the age of 65 are able to access support through the
aged-care system." [GN]

AUSTRALIA: More Ex-Ashley Detainees Likely to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Maloney, writing for The Advocate, reports that class action
proceedings by 105 former Ashley Youth Detention Centre detainees
against the government started in the Supreme Court on Sept. 19.

The action is led by four named male plaintiffs who were detained
at the centre from the early 1990s to after 2010.

Lachlan Armstrong, appearing for the plaintiffs, said the four
named men in the statement of claims would provide examples of
operations at Ashley over a significant period of time.

Mr Armstrong said claims by the plaintiffs went as far back as
1961. He said the named plaintiffs would act as an example for the
claims of the rest of those involved in the class action.

Mr Armstrong said the questions to be asked over the proceedings
were what was the appropriate practice at the centre at a
particular time, what was the actual practice, and were there
shortfalls in practice that were negligible and that would require
compensation.

He said since the statement of claims was filed, several other
former detainees had contacted the representing law firm to submit
their own claims.

Mr Armstrong anticipated there would be others as the matter
progressed.

He said to that effect, any new former detainees with a claim would
seek to be added to the overall statement of claims in the new year
through a formal order through the court.

The state has until November 30 to submit a response to the
plaintiffs' claims.

Mr Armstrong said both parties were actively considering mediation
and arriving at a settlement which would avoid sending the matter
to a trial next year.

A further case management hearing is scheduled for February 24.
[GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Class Action Over UDTPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC disclosed that earlier this month, a
District Judge in the Western District of North Carolina denied
Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss a pending class action lawsuit
alleging the Bank was unjustly enriched when it violated the North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA).

According to the underlying Complaint, the Bank led customers to
believe they were required to pay Automatic Clearing House (ACH)
transfer fees, ranging from $3 to $10 per transfer, to transfer
money from another bank to the Defendant Bank. As alleged, and
unbeknownst to consumers, these fees could have been avoided had
consumers initiated transfers from the transferring institution
rather than initiating the transfer from the Bank.

The Bank's Motion to Dismiss alleged Plaintiff failed to allege any
unfair or deceptive conduct by not showing that the Bank made any
factually inaccurate statements, and the Bank claimed that failing
to disclose to consumers that transfer fees could be avoided by
initiating transfers through the other institution does not
constitute a UDTPA violation absent a duty to disclose. Further,
the Bank contests Plaintiff's claims that it was unjustly enriched
by these fees, alleging, "a claim for unjust enrichment cannot be
sustained when a contract governing the dispute exists[]," citing
to the contract that existed between the Bank and the Plaintiff.

Despite the Bank's arguments in the Motion, the Court found
Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently stated a claim constituting,
"a core deceptive business practice barred by consumer protection
laws across the country" -- representing to consumers that they
were required to pay a transfer fee that it did not have to pay,
thereby convincing consumers to pay for an illusory or valueless
service. The Court also refused to dismiss Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claims, reasoning that the "existence of a valid
contract does not preclude an unjust enrichment claim if the
subject matter of the suit is not directly covered by an
enforceable contract provision." The Court continued, citing
multiple other courts that have declined to dismiss claims of
unjust enrichment at the motion to dismiss stage, finding dismissal
would be premature.

In addition to this class action, a companion case filed in March
2021 against the Bank is pending in the Southern District of New
York, stemming from the same theory of liability, and originally
filed by the same Plaintiff and a similarly situated claimant. The
Bank also filed a Motion to Dismiss in that case; however, the
Southern District of New York granted in part the Bank's Motion as
it pertained to a lack of personal and specific jurisdiction with
respect to the Plaintiff named in the North Carolina matter. The
Southern District matter continues with the other named claimant
alleging that the Bank's transfer fees violate the New York
Deceptive Practices Act.

A copy of the Order is available at:

https://www.thewbkfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/BoA-SDNY-MTD-Order.pdf
[GN]

BANK OF UTAH: Sun Life Original Bid to Certify Class Tossed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA, v. BANK OF UTAH, Case No. 1:21-cv-03973-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order denying as moot
Plaintiff's original motion to certify class.

Pursuant to the Court's Order entered on September 6, 2022, Bank of
Utah filed an amended motion to certify class. Because the amended
motion supersedes the original motion, the original motion, is
denied as moot.

Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate
headquarters in Ogden, Utah. It is part of the Utah Bankers
Association, the American Bankers Association, and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SbjwIJ at no extra charge.[CC]

BED BATH: Class Action May Have Played Role in Ex-CFO's Suicide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Fickenscher, writing for New York Post, reports that an
explosive shareholder lawsuit that may have played a role in the
shocking suicide of Bed Bath & Beyond's former financial chief
Gustavo Arnal has recently run into trouble of its own.

The $1.2 billion suit -- which accuses the home-furnishings
retailer, its late CFO, JPMorgan and a big investor of
orchestrating a "pump and dump" stock scheme -- was recently handed
over to a new law firm, even as legal experts question its
prospects in court, The Post has learned.

Arnal, 52, jumped to his death on Sept. 2 from the 18th floor of
the "Jenga Building," a chic luxury tower in lower Manhattan's
Tribeca neighborhood, while his wife was inside the apartment,
which they reportedly were renting for $18,500-a-month. Arnal was a
father to two daughters.

Meanwhile, the suit -- which some media reports have cited as
contributing to the stress Arnal was facing as the CFO of the
financially embattled company -- was filed Aug. 23 by an attorney
based in Falls Church, Va. who is both the counsel and the
plaintiff in the case -- an unusual arrangement that typically
presents a conflict of interest that wouldn't pass muster with a
judge, according to legal experts.

The attorney, Pengcheng Si, who specializes in immigration law,
declined to comment on "ongoing litigation" in an email to The
Post. He also said he realizes "this is emotion[al] hell for
Gustavo Arnal's family . . . I would like to extend my sympathy and
condolence[s] for Mr. Arnal['s] family's loss."

Filed in federal court in Washington, DC, the complaint is seeking
class-action status and claims that Si and his wife lost $106,480
because of a scheme cooked up by Arnal and Bed Bath & Beyond's
former largest investor, Chewy.com's billionaire founder Ryan
Cohen. The latter sold his shares between Aug. 16 and 17 before the
stock crashed, bagging $68 million.

On those same two days, Arnal sold more than 55,000 shares worth
$1.4 million, according to securities filings -- transactions that
the filings claimed had been part of a pre-arranged plan set up in
April.

On Sept. 6, however, the plaintiff Si hired law firm Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, which specializes in class-action litigation, to
take over the case, according to a public notice.

"Once [Si] learned how the class-action mechanisms work, he decided
to withdraw as counsel," partner Steven Toll told The Post in an
interview. "He wasn't aware of the challenges of being both a
plaintiff and counsel."

The complaint alleges that Arnal had "heavy communications" with JP
Morgan and Cohen about "creating a buying frenzy of [the
company's'] stock," and that JPMorgan helped Arnal and Cohen
"launder the proceeds of their criminal conduct."

The suit does not, however, lay out how Si, an individual investor,
got the information, notes Richard Schoenstein, a securities
attorney for Tarter Krinsky & Drogin who isn't affiliated with the
case.

"The complaint doesn't reveal the source of the information
regarding the allegations which makes it vulnerable to being
dismissed," Schoenstein told The Post.

Indeed, Toll said, "I don't have any information on how he would
have knowledge of conversations between Cohen and Arnal," adding
that Si might have "read it somewhere or heard about it from
another person or he believes it happened."

Elsewhere, the suit erroneously named "Arnal Gustavo" as a
defendant throughout rather than "Gustavo Arnal." In another
instance, the suit refers to the plaintiff, Si, as a female -- a
mistake that will be corrected, according to his lawyer.

Bed Bath & Beyond said in an email to The Post that it "is in the
early stages of evaluating the complaint, but based on current
knowledge the company believes the claims are without merit." Reps
for Cohen's investment firm RC Ventures declined to comment as did
reps for JPMorgan.

According to Si's bio on his law firm's web site -- DWS Law Group
-- he is also referred to as Simon P. Si. A native of China, Si's
bio says in addition to immigration law he "provides strategic
advice on business formation, real estate, investment and
international trade."

Toll's firm has meanwhile begun soliciting other plaintiffs to join
the case. Si's is the "first and ONLY" class action lawsuit "thus
far" the law firm said in a public notice required by the SEC.

But there are at least several other big law firms fishing for
investors to be part of future class action lawsuits against Bed
Bath & Beyond over similar allegations.

It's not clear whether the complaints, including Si's, will replace
Arnal as a defendant in the complaint with his estate, Toll said.

"The question is whether it's a good strategic move," Toll said,
adding "you wouldn't do that unless you thought there was a lot of
money in the estate. If [the estate] is worth $10 or $50 million a
lawyer would need to weigh that." [GN]

BED BATH: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bed Bath
& Beyond Inc. (NASDAQ: BBBY) common stock between March 25, 2022
and August 18, 2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. BBBY operates a nationwide chain of retail stores.

What is this Case About: Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY) Insiders
Manipulated the Company to Enable an Aggressive Pump & Dump Scheme

According to the complaint, defendant Ryan Cohen has a history of
employing pump and dump schemes to ignite meme stocks to
jaw-dropping heights. In March 2022, Cohen's corporation, RC
Ventures LLC, bought a nearly 10% stake in BBBY. Thereafter, BBBY
gave Cohen three board seats. For four months, BBBY stock climbed
from its lowest price of $4.38 per share on July 1, 2022, to $30.00
per share on August 17, 2022.

On August 16, 2022, Cohen filed a Schedule 13D with the SEC
indicating he beneficially owned 9,450,100 shares - approximately
11.8% of the shares outstanding - of BBBY. However, the Schedule
13D filing was materially false and constitutes a false written
filing because Cohen sold most of the 9,450,100 shares when the
filing was submitted and intended to create a buying frenzy of BBBY
stocks so he could finish selling his shares at an artificially
inflated price. Cohen also filed Form 144 on paper providing notice
of his intent to sell up to all his shares and additional call
options. This filing was not disclosed to the public until the
market closed the next day, August 17, 2022, at 5:07 pm, when Cohen
finished dumping his BBBY shares. Right after the disclosure of the
filing, BBBY shares tumbled after hours from a record high $30.00
per share to around $22.5 per share.

On August 18, 2022, Cohen reported he had sold all his shares as of
August 16, 2022. On this news, BBBY sock fell 45%. Over the next
several days, the stock fell from its August 17 high to close at
$8.78 per share on August 23, 2022. The Company lost more than $800
million in market capitalization while insiders profited at least
$110 million from their sales on August 16 & 17.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Bed Bath & Beyond Corporation
between March 25, 2022 and August 18, 2022, you may ask the court
to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today.

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

Contact:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN]

BEYOND MEAT: Faces Class Action in Iowa Over Protein Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clark Kauffman, writing for Iowa Capital Dispatch, reports that an
Iowa woman is among three consumers suing the makers of Beyond Meat
for what they allege are false claims about the protein content of
the meat substitute.

It's the third such lawsuit filed against the company in recent
months.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa, seeks class-action status and unspecified damages
from Beyond Meat Inc. Named as plaintiffs are Erica Nichols Cooks
of Des Moines; Richard Garcia of Denver, Colorado; and Jennifer
Speer of Pensacola, Florida.

Cooks alleges she purchased Beyond Ground Beef and Beyond Sausage,
as well as other Beyond Meat products, at retailers such as Target,
Hy-Vee, and Walgreens throughout 2022. She alleges that although
the products were more expensive than competing brands, she bought
them in part because the labels promoted a specific amount of
protein content. All of those representations pertaining to the
protein content were false, the lawsuit claims. Garcia's and
Speer's allegations are of a similar nature.

The lawsuit claims that Beyond Meat's claims of protein content are
inflated due to its deviation from the accepted,
government-approved method of calculating protein and each
product's "daily value," which reflects each product's percentage
of the recommended daily intake of protein.

The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act requires food
manufacturers to use a specific set of calculations intended to
show the amount of digestible protein in a product. Beyond Meat
allegedly uses a different method of calculating protein, called
the "Nitrogen Content Method." While FDA rules allow that, they
also require a different set of calculations in arriving at a daily
value percentage. According to the lawsuit, Beyond Meat does not
adhere to those government-imposed industry standards and, as a
result, its product labels do not reflect their actual protein
content.

As one example, the lawsuit states that while Beyond Beef's Sausage
Plant-Based Dinner Links claims to provide 16 grams of protein per
serving and 25% of the daily value for protein, the links actually
have 13 grams of protein and only 5% of the daily value.

"Simply put," the lawsuit states, Beyond Meat's product labels "are
a farce. Defendant knowingly prepared the material on their website
and product labels to misrepresent the true protein amount."

The lawsuit alleges violations of various state consumer-fraud
laws, as well as violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, which provides consumers with a legal cause of action for
breach of warranty. The lawsuit also alleges unjust enrichment.

It is at least the third class-action lawsuit to be levied against
Beyond Meat this year -- the others having been filed in Illinois
and California. The California lawsuit takes issue not only with
Beyond Meat's protein claims, but with the company's claim of "all
natural" ingredients, pointing to the use of methylcellulose, which
the lawsuit claims is synthetic.

Beyond Meat has said the allegations of falsely stated protein
levels "are unfounded and not representative of Beyond Meat's
products," and indicated it will "vigorously fight" such
allegations.

In the Iowa case, the court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs'
request for class action status and Beyond Meats has not filed a
formal response to the lawsuit. [GN]

BIOLINERX LTD: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 19
announced an investigation of potential civil securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of BioLineRx Ltd. (NASDAQ: BLRX).

SO WHAT: If you purchased BioLineRx securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=8781 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.

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 litigate securities class actions. 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.

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

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

BLOOMBERG LP: Discloses Subscribers' Identities, Cuevas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOMBERG L.P., d/b/a BLOOMBERG.COM
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04860 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 8, 2022) is a
consumer digital privacy class action complaint arising from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act by disclosing its digital subscribers' identities
and video media to Facebook without the proper consent.

The Plaintiff's claims occurs from Defendant's practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data
containing Plaintiff's and other digital-subscriber Class Members'
(i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and (ii) the
computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed,
referred in this complaint collectively as Personal Viewing
Information, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and
equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's
practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers'
Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of
VPPA.

The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to Bloomberg.com in 2018
and continues to maintain the subscription as of the filing of this
complaint.

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 444-0734
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  aflorek@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Patrick Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          318 W. Adams St., Ste. 1512
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 500-8680
          E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 494-3531
          E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

BOSTON GLOBE: Must Face Facebook Data Sharing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boston
Globe Media Partners must defend a proposed class action alleging
the company shared subscribers' personal identifying information
with Facebook in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, a
federal court ruled.

Denying the company's motion to dismiss, Judge Richard G. Stearns
of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said on
Sept. 19 that its arguments relied "on factual disputes not
appropriate for disposition at this early stage."

In his lawsuit, subscriber David Ambrose alleged that the Globe
disclosed his email address, first and last name, and mailing
address to Facebook, as well as information about videos he had.
[GN]



CAMPOS VERDES: Martines Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalope Rogelio Peral Martines, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CAMPOS VERDES CORP. (d/b/a JIMBO'S
HAMBURGER PALACE), REGULO HERNANDEZ, ERVE LUNA, and MIGUEL GUZMAN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08040 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022), is brought to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours
pay, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked 60 hours per week from August 2016 to 2022.
The Defendants deducted $30 dollars per week for food. The
Defendants deducted $30 dollars per week for alleged "breaks,"
which were not scheduled and were frequently interrupted. The
Plaintiff was not paid overtime pay at one and one half times his
regular hourly wage rate for hours worked over forty per week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed by the Defendants as a
delivery worker.

The Defendants own, operate, control, manage, and/or maintain the
restaurant, Jimbo's Hamburger Palace in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.,
          SACCO & FILLAS LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Phone: 718-69-2243
          Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com


CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS: Approval of FLSA Notice & Forms Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHIQUITA SMITH,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
current and former employees, v. CARE4ALL CAREGIVERS, LLC and Sandi
Ann Seymour-Necaise, Case No. 1:22-cv-00094-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving their
stipulated notice and consent to join forms and notice period
protocols.

The parties agree to the conditional certification of a
collective/class of:

   "all current and former individuals who provided caregiving
   services for the Defendants at any time during the last three
   years from April 20, 2022, the date the Collective Action
   Complaint was filed, plus any current or former Caregiver who
   provided services after April 20, 2022 and up to the
   expiration of the opt-in period."

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants misclassified individuals as
independent contractors and did not pay these individuals the
applicable overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. The Defendants assert they properly classified the
individuals as independent contractors and that no overtime
compensation is due.

However, to preserve resources, the parties have agreed to
conditional certification and the issuance of Court-approved notice
and consent to join forms to the putative class.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3feEWGu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garner J. Wetzel,Esq.
          James K. Wetzel,Esq.
          WETZEL LAW FIRM
          Post Office Box I
          Gulfport, MS 39502
          Telephone: (228) 864-6400
          Facsimile: (228) 863-1793
          E-mail: jkwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com
                  gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          Attorneys at Law
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Steven R. Cupp, Esq.
          Kelly McCall, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          2505 14th Street, Suite 300
          Gulfport, MS 39501
          Telephone: (228) 822-1440
          Facsimile: (228) 822-1441
          E-mail: scupp@fisherphillips.com
                  kmccall@fisherphillips.com

CIMARRON ENERGY: Morales Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CIMARRON ENERGY INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03219 (S.D.
Tex., Sept. 20, 2022), is brought to recover overtime compensation
for the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Despite being non-exempt employees, the Defendant failed to
properly pay the Plaintiff and other VRU Techs overtime
compensation at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay when they
worked over 40 hours per workweek. Specifically, the Defendant does
not factor in these non-discretionary job bonuses into the
Plaintiff's and VRU Tech's regular rates of pay for the purposing
of paying overtime, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a VRU Technician
from January 2020 through June 2021.

Cimarron Energy is a primary solution provider that engineers and
manufactures environmental control, production and process
equipment for the upstream, midstream and downstream energy
industries, as well as environmental control solutions for biogas
at wastewater facilities, digester tanks, landfills, breweries and
the aerospace industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza #3025
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 300-0375
          Email: Jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
                 aortiz@fslawfirm.com


CNB BANK: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that CNB Bank
faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of charging
$32 overdraft fees to customers whose account contain sufficient
funds to cover individual transactions.

According to the 24-page lawsuit, CNB Bank has breached the terms
of its customer account agreement, which states that overdraft fees
will be assessed only when there is not enough money in an account
to cover a transaction. Instead, CNB Bank has wrongfully charged
consumers an overdraft fee even though their account contains
sufficient funds to cover a given transaction, the suit claims.

The case alleges that the promises outlined in CNB Bank's overdraft
policy "fundamentally misconstrue and mislead consumers," who
generally understand that debit card transactions are reflected in
their accounts immediately. Per the lawsuit, there exists "no
justification for these practices" other than for CBN Bank "to turn
its customers' financial struggles into revenue" through the
imposition of these fees.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks to challenge CNB Bank's practice of
charging overdraft fees on "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative
transactions," or APSN transactions. According to the filing, an
APSN transaction occurs when a consumer makes a transaction with a
positive available balance, but after a subsequent transaction is
processed, it leaves a negative balance and an overdraft fee is
charged.

"Here's how the practice works. At the moment debit card
transactions are authorized on an account with positive funds to
cover the transaction, Defendant immediately reduces consumers'
checking accounts for the amount of the purchase, sets aside funds
in the checking account to cover that transaction, and adjusts the
consumer's displayed "available balance" to reflect that subtracted
amount. As a result, customers' accounts will always have
sufficient funds available to cover these transactions because
Defendant has already held the funds for payment."

As the case tells it, the "entire purpose" of the immediate debt
and hold of positive funds is to make sure an account contains
enough money to pay a transaction when it settles. Nevertheless,
CNB improperly charges overdraft fees on APSN transactions despite
the fact that it has already reserved funds to cover a transaction
and "[kept] the funds off-limits for other transactions," the
complaint says.

Beyond allegedly violating the conditions of its customer contract,
CNB has also breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by
"abus[ing]" its "discretion to take money out of consumers'
accounts without their permission and contrary to their reasonable
expectations that they will not be charged improper fees," the
lawsuit alleges.

This lawsuit comes in the wake of a growing trend of litigation
centered on the assessment of excessive overdraft fees, primarily
because they disproportionately punish vulnerable populations,
namely young, lower-income, and non-white accountholders. Bank of
America, Capital One, Wells Fargo, Alliant, and Ally have all
announced plans to drop these fees entirely, and the New York
Attorney General has called other industry-leading banks to follow
suit.

The lawsuit looks to cover CNB Bank checking accountholders who,
during the applicable statute of limitation period, were assessed
an overdraft fee on a debit card transaction that was authorized on
sufficient funds and settled on negative funds in the same amount
for which the debit card transaction was authorized. [GN]

COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH: Morrison Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Morrison, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH CARE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03460-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, Sept. 20, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act to
collect unpaid overtime wages.

The Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek.
As part of their job duties, the Plaintiff are required to drive to
client's homes to provide home health services. The Plaintiff are
required to drive to and from multiple different clients' homes
within a single shift. However, the Plaintiff are not paid—at any
rate—for their time spent traveling between clients' homes within
a single shift. On numerous occasions, the Plaintiff has complained
to Defendant that she is not receiving compensation for this travel
time. The Plaintiff's complaints have been ignored, and Defendant
continues to violate the law. The Defendant willfully refused and
continue to refuse to pay the Plaintiff in accordance with the law,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed with the Defendant between October 2010
and September 2, 2022.

Columbus Family Health Care LLC is in the business of providing
home healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Phone: 614-610-4134
          Fax: 614-547-3614
          Email: Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
                 Greg@MansellLawLLC.com


COMME DES GARCONS: Abbott Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daniel Abbott, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling dismissing their lawsuit entitled DANIEL ABBOTT, ELIZABETH
AMMERMAN, AMIR AZARCON, SEAN CONWAY, CURTIS HENNAGER, GABRIEL
HERRERA, RYAN INWARDS, BLAKE MARTIN, MADISON MURPHY, CARLIN
ROLLENHAGEN, WINSTON TOLLIVER, DAVID UNICH, FNAN YSAHAK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COMME DES GARCONS, LTD., DOVER STREET MARKET NEW YORK
LC, ELAINE BEUTHER, and JAMES GILCHRIST, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04929, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

The lawsuit is a collective and class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful practices and
policies that willfully and intentionally violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 10, 2022, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter an order:

   1. Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) Collective Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
      216(b);

   2. Compelling the Defendants to produce within 10 days of the
      Court's decision a computer-readable data file containing,
      for each Collective member: (a) name; (b) last known
      mailing address(es); (c) last known telephone number(s);
      and (d) last known email address(es) of all potential
      class members employed by Defendants from June 1, 2018,
      through June 1, 2021;

   3. Authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of
      Pendency and Consent to Join to the Collective in the
      Plaintiffs' proposed envelope by U.S. Mail, email, and
      text;

   4. Authorizing the issuance of the Plaintiffs' proposed
      Reminder Notice to the Collective by U.S. Mail, email, and
      text; and

   5. Equitably tolling the FLSA statute of limitations to June 3,
      2018.

On April 8, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice after the
first amended complaint was dismissed on January 29, 2022.

On August 12, 2022, Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered an Opinion and
Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss second amended
complaint, and dismissing with prejudice the FLSA claims in
Plaintiffs' SAC. The Court also ruled that the Plaintiffs' state
law claims are dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion for
collective certification is denied as moot, and Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees as sanctions is denied.

On August 15, 2022, judgment was entered directing closure of all
open motions and closure of the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Abbott, et al. v. Comme Des
Garcons, Ltd., et al., Case No. 22-1962, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Sept 7, 2022.[BN]

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

          Joshua Bernstein, Esq.
          JOSH BERNSTEIN P.C.
          188 Grand Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (646) 308-1515

Defendants-Appellees Comme Des Garcons, Ltd., et al., are
represented by:

          Erik Mass, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 489-8230

COPPERSTATE FARMS: Begay Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Begay, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Copperstate Farms, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-08157-DLR (D. Ariz., Sept. 8, 2022) is a collective action
brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant paid Plaintiff and other
hourly employees one and a half times their base hourly rate and
did not include the attendance bonuses in the overtime calculation.
The Defendant further violated the FLSA by not including all forms
of compensation, such as the nondiscretionary bonuses of Plaintiff
and other hourly employees, in their regular rate when calculating
their overtime pay, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to perform quality
assurance and packaging duties from October of 2019 until March of
2022.

Copperstate Farms, LLC is a cannabis company based in Snowflake,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

CSI FINANCIAL: Breach Class Action Final Hearing in January 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
DataBreaches.net reports that in July 2021, DataBreaches reported a
breach at CSI Financial Services, aka ClearBalance, a firm that
services loans made by hospitals and providers to patients who need
to finance medical expenses. At the time, ClearBalance notified
almost 210,000 patients whose protected health information (PHI)
was in employee email accounts that had been accessed without
authorization.

A class action lawsuit made all the usual claims — that the firm
could have prevented the breach and that it should have notified
people sooner.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, CSI Financial has agreed to a
$2.65 million settlement deal to resolve these allegations.
California residents will get more than residents of other states,
and all may get two years of credit monitoring services.

The case is Ivo Kolar v. CSI Financial Services LLC, Case No.
37-2021-00030426, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Diego.  The final hearing will be in
January.

For more details see, ClearBalanceClassActionSettlement.com.

h/t, Top Class Actions

Bricker and Eckler
Bricker and Eckler is a law firm in Ohio. In April 2021, they
notified HHS and announced a ransomware attack had impacted 420,532
individuals. Unsurprisingly, a lawsuit was filed that claimed that
the law firm could have avoided the breach by having appropriate
data security.

And like most defendants in such lawsuits these days, Bricker &
Eckler hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but decided to settle because
of the cost of litigation. In this case, they have settled for
$1.95 million class action settlement.

The case is In Re Southern Ohio Health Systems Data Breach
Litigation, Case No. A2101886, in the Court of Common Pleas for
Hamilton County, Ohio.  The final hearing is in November.

For more details, see
SouthernOhioHealthSystemDataBreachSettlement.com [GN]

CURATED BUSINESSES: Entices Followers to Join Lottery, Pop Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALIN POP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURATED BUSINESSES PTY LTD, SCOTT DISICK,
KIMBERLY KARDASHIAN WEST, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV30245 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 15,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligent
misrepresentation, operation of illegal Florida game promotions,
operation of illegal Florida lotteries, unjust enrichment, aiding
and abetting, and violations of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the California's Consumers Legal Remedy Act,
and the California's Unlawful Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly worked
together to operate and promote a series of lotteries which
promises their followers to win cash and other giveaways. But in
reality, the Defendants are not giving away anything. As part of
this transaction, they are cashing in indecent amounts of money.
They are earning more money by selling the personal information of
their followers and duping their followers into allowing
advertisers post on their Instagram feed. As a result of
participation in the Defendants' giveaways, the personalized space
of the Plaintiff and the Class was invaded by advertisers providing
persistent and unwanted content as an intentional interference with
their interest in solitude, says the suit.

Curated Businesses Pty Ltd is a global influencer marketing company
based in Australia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Steven E. Young, Esq.
         PRACTUS LLP
         16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 304
         Encino, CA 91436
         Telephone: (888) 252-7780
         E-mail: Steven.Young@practus.com

                 - and -

         Bernard J. Kornberg, Esq.
         PRACTUS LLP
         58 West Portal Ave. PMB 782
         San Francisco, CA 94127
         Telephone: (888) 252-7780
         E-mail: Bernard.Kornberg@practus.com

DEJA VU SERVICES: Agrees to Settle Labor Class Action for $6.5-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Deja Vu Services agreed to pay $6.5
million to resolve claims it violated California labor laws when
paying dancers in clubs.

The settlement benefits entertainers who performed as independent
contractors at one or more of the San Francisco area clubs between
Aug. 8, 2010, and Nov. 16, 2018, or at one or more of the Greater
California clubs between Feb. 8, 2017, and Nov. 16, 2018.

Deja Vu Services is a strip club operator that runs clubs around
the world, including numerous locations in California. According to
a class action lawsuit against the company, Deja Vu violates
California labor laws by classifying its performers as independent
contractors. Plaintiffs in the case say they deserve to be paid and
treated as employees under California law.

"Plaintiffs and class members have incurred financial loss, injury,
and damage as a result of Defendant's common policies and practices
of misclassifying them as independent contractors and failing to
pay them minimum wages in addition to the tips that they were given
by customers," the wage-and-hour class action lawsuit contends.

Deja Vu Services hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to
resolve these allegations with a $6.5 million class action
settlement.

The settlement includes a $125,000 PAGA payment, 75% of which will
be given to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency as
penalties. The remaining 25% will be used to fund class member
payments.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive either
a cash payment or a dance fee settlement.

Of the settlement fund, $4 million will be used to pay regular cash
payments based on the amount they earned during the class period
according to 1099 forms. Exact payments will vary, but will
represent a proportional share of the cash fund for each class
member.

Another $500,000 of the settlement fund will be used to fund
additional dance fee payments to class members. These funds would
have otherwise been retained by the clubs as part of its gross
income. The settlement's dance fee payments allow class members to
collect this compensation as additional commission.

In addition to providing cash payments, the settlement provides
non-monetary relief to dancers. Going forward, Deja Vu Services and
the included nightclubs will treat all entertainers as employees
and pay them according to applicable labor laws. These business
changes are valued at a minimum of $2 million.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 17, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Nov.
17, 2022.

Class members do not need to file a claim in order to receive
regular settlement payments. However, in order to receive a dance
fee payment, class members must submit an election form by Oct. 17,
2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits entertainers who performed as independent
contractors at one or more of the San Francisco area clubs between
Aug. 8, 2010, and Nov. 16, 2018, or at one or more of the Greater
California clubs between Feb. 8, 2017, and Nov. 16, 2018.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Election Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Election Form Deadline
10/17/2022

Case Name
Roe v SFBSC Management LLC et al., Case No. 14-cv-03616-LB in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Roes 1 and 2 v Déjà vu Services, Case No. 19-cv-03960-LB in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California

Final Hearing
11/17/2022

Settlement Website
SFBSCSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
SFBSC/Deja Vu Services Settlement
P.O. Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799
SFBSCSettlement@Simpluris.com
866-603-6949

Class Counsel
Jason Thompson
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC

Megan Bonanni
PITT MCGEHEE PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS PC

Steven G Tidrick
Joel B Young
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP

Defense Counsel
Douglas Melton
Shane Cahill
Long & Levit LLP

Tammara Bokmuller
Bowman and Brooke LLP

Bradley Shafer
Shafer & Associates PC [GN]

DORAL ACADEMY: Vogeley Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Vogeley and Michele Vogeley, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. DORAL
ACADEMY OF NEVADA, a domestic nonprofit corporation; Case No.
2:22-cv-01587-JCM-EJY (D. Nev., Sept. 20, 2022), is brought for
damages arising from violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as
a result of the Defendant's failure to pay for all actual time
worked and wages earned, and failure to fully pay for all regular
time and overtime in violation of the FLSA.

Although Plaintiffs and other employees regularly worked over 8
hours per day and/or 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to
compensate their employees for all hours worked and failed to pay
employees at least time and one half for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per week. The Defendants also engaged in a scheme to make it
appear as though its employees were taking required lunch and
breaks and not working overtime. The Plaintiffs, and the
Defendant's other employees, were regularly required to work
through their lunch and breaks, but would still be docked a full
hour of time from their timesheet for a thirty-minute lunch and two
fifteen-minute breaks. Consequently, employees were working 9 hours
per day, but only being paid for 8 hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant.

DORAL ACADEMY OF NEVADA is and was a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation
with its principal place of business located in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J.Bourassa, Esq.
          Jennifer A Fornetti, Esq.
          Valerie S.Gray, Esq.
          THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
          2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Phone: (702) 851-2180
          Facsimile: (702) 851-2189
          Email: mbourassa@blgwins.com
                 jfornetti@blgwins.com
                 vgray@blgwins.com


DUKE ENERGY: Shird, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PANDORIA SHIRD, on behalf
of herself and all similarly situated persons, v. DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00999-CFC-CJB (D. Del.), the
Plaintiff Pandoria Shird and the Opt-In Plaintiffs move the Court
to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action and order notice sent to:

   "all Customer Service Representatives, Associate Customer
    Care Specialists, and Customer Care Specialists, along with
    employees holding similar positions regardless of title, who
    worked for Duke Energy Corporation since February 4, 2019 to
    the date of the Order granting this Motion (FLSA
    Collective).

Duke Energy is an American electric power and natural gas holding
company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fcTHcH at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew F. Boyer, Esq.
          Aaron M. Shapiro, Esq.
          Lauren P. DeLuca, Esq.
          CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
          1201 Market Street, 20th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 884-6585
          E-mail: mboyer@connollygallagher.com
                  ashapiro@connollygallagher.com
                  ldeluca@connollygallagher.com

E.V.A. HEALTH: Sehgal Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REKHA SEHGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. E.V.A. HEALTH LLC, CHADI ABDUL NOUR, and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV30252 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment
ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to give
rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse for
business expenses, failure to provide personnel records, failure to
provide pay records, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from
the latter part of 2021 until January 2022.

E.V.A. Health LLC is a healthcare services provider doing business
in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

EVOLENT HEALTH: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $23.5-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Francis-Smith, writing for The Journal Record, reports that
the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System (OPPRS) and other
members of a class action lawsuit have reached a $23.5 million
settlement with Evolent Health.

"The Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System is proud of our
work to hold Evolent accountable for their misconduct that produced
losses for both large and small shareholders," reads a statement
issued by OPPRS when the settlement was announced on Sept. 19.

OPPRS, the Plymouth County Retirement System and other plaintiffs
negatively affected when Evolent bought a majority stake in
nonprofit Passport Health Plan, accused Evolent of misleading
investors. Under the settlement agreement, Evolent admits no
wrongdoing.

The class action lawsuit accused Virginia-based Evolent, which
provides clinical and administrative services to health systems, of
making false and misleading statements and omissions when
purchasing a majority stake in Kentucky-based Passport Health Plan,
a Medicaid insurance plan.

Court documents show that Evolent shocked its investors when the
company purchased a 70% share of Passport for $70 million. Passport
was already struggling financially after the state of Kentucky cut
Medicaid rates for the Louisville region, where Passport conducted
much of its business.

According to court documents, Evolent had previously stated it had
no intention of buying Passport, and that acquiring health plans
was not part of its strategic focus.

"In addition, Evolent admitted that Passport was performing poorly
and was not being run or managed properly, despite paying massive
management fees to Evolent for what was previously understood by
investors to be an aligned relationship," reads a press release
issued in 2019, when national law firm Saxena White filed the class
action lawsuit against Evolent.

Fueled by the assurances Evolent provided regarding the deal,
Evolent's stock price shot up from $13.65 to $28.75 over a
nine-month period.

Evolent's "entire business model is predicated on its purported
ability to dramatically reduce its clients' healthcare and
administrative costs," yet Evolent increased costs for Passport,
the lawsuit claimed. Court filings assert that Evolent charged
Passport "grossly excessive fees and provided it with grossly
deficient services," hiring away more than 70% of Passport's
workforce and then billing the company "exorbitant fees for the
exact same services those employees were already performing." As a
result, Passport's costs grew at a rate more than 1,000% greater
than its revenue, according to court filings.

When Passport's true financial condition was revealed, Evolent's
stock price plummeted nearly 30%, according to court documents. By
Sept. 2019, OPPRS tallied its estimated losses from the deal at
$770,000.

A hearing will be held on Nov. 18 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to determine if the
settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. If
approved, Evolent will pay $23.5 million, to be deposited in an
escrow account and distributed to class members and their
attorneys. [GN]

EXECUPHARM INC: Third Cir. Ruling in Data Breach Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Cahoy, Esq., and Tomoaki Takaki, Esq., of Covington &
Burling LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the Third
Circuit recently reinstated the putative class action Clemens v.
ExecuPharm Inc., concluding there was sufficient risk of imminent
harm after a data breach to confer standing on the named plaintiff
when the information had been posted on the Dark Web.

In March 2020, the known hacker group "CLOP" allegedly stole
employee data held by ExecuPharm Inc., including social security
numbers, birthdates, names, addresses, taxpayer identification
numbers, banking information, credit card numbers, driver's license
numbers, tax forms, and passport numbers. The hackers then
purportedly posted the stolen data on the Dark Web, a portion of
the Internet hidden from search engines that the Third Circuit
described as being widely used for illicit sales.

After ExecuPharm warned of potential harm, Jennifer Clemens, a
former ExecuPharm employee, claimed that she took extensive action
to prevent identity theft and fraud. Clemens allegedly invested
time and money such as paying for credit monitoring services,
experienced emotional distress and related therapy costs, and
suffered a risk of future identity theft and fraud.

Clemens then brought a putative class action on behalf of other
current and former ExecuPharm employees raising claims for
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and
breach of confidence against ExecuPharm. The Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed the action in February 2021, concluding that
allegations of increased risk of identity theft resulting from a
data breach do not confer standing. The district court relied on
the Third Circuit's decision in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., 664 F.3d
38 (3d Cir. 2011).

A unanimous panel of the Third Circuit reversed on all claims, with
Judge Peter Phipps concurring in the judgment. Judges Joseph
Greenaway Jr. and Cheryl Ann Krause distinguished Reilly because
the Reilly plaintiffs had only alleged hypothetical future harm and
lacked evidence that harm was imminent. The majority clarified that
Reilly did not create a bright-line rule precluding standing based
on alleged risks of future identity theft or fraud and stated that
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Susan B. Anthony List v.
Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014), authorized lawsuits where there
is a "substantial risk" of future harm.

The majority decided that Clemens faced imminent "substantial risk"
of future identify theft because a known hacker group, CLOP,
intentionally misused stolen data by posting it on the Dark Web.
The combination of stolen financial and personal information was
"particularly concerning as it could be used to perpetrate both
identity theft and fraud."

The majority also decided that plaintiffs suing for damages due to
data breach can satisfy the "concreteness" standing requirement if
they allege that the exposure to future substantial risk of
identity theft caused additional current concrete harms. Emotional
distress or the money spent on mitigation measures like credit
monitoring services made Clemens's injury concrete under the
panel's analysis. The panel vacated the district court's decision
and reinstated all claims.

Judge Phipps concurred in the judgment but would have gone even
further. He concluded that Clemens had standing simply because the
claims she pursued for negligence, breach of contract, breach of
confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty are traditional causes of
action well suited for judicial resolution at the time of the
Constitution's adoption. Judge Phipps believed the panel need not
analyze standing through the tripartite test laid out in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). [GN]

FIRST STUDENT: Galvan Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Barbara Galvan, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling denying their motion for class certification in the lawsuit
entitled BARBARA GALVAN, et al., v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC,
et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and Business
and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs allege that drivers were not
paid for the walk time to/from the dispatch office nor were they
paid for post-trip inspections.

The suit was removed from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Dec. 7, 2018.

On October 14, 2021, Plaintiff Galvan filed a motion to certify
class after a series of orders extending time to file class
certification motion and continue class certification briefing.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 8, 2022, the Hon.
Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification because the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate predominance.

The appellate case is captioned as Barbara Galvan, et al. v. First
Student Management, LLC, Case No. 22-80096, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sept 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners BARBARA GALVAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771

               - and -

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771  

               - and -

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211

Defendant-Respondent FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, is represented by:

          David J. Dow, Esq.
          Jocelyn D. Hannah, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          501 W Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 515-1802

FIVE STAR: WHSC Bid for Default Judgment Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY,
INC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FIVE STAR ADVERTISING, LLC, and JOHNNY LEE, Case No.
1:19-cv-03157-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment:

  -- The default judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiff and
     against the defendants on plaintiff's claim for a violation
     of 47 U.S.C. section 227.

  -- The following permanent injunction is entered:

     a. The Defendants, and their employees, agents,
        representatives, contractors, and affiliates acting on
        behalf of the Defendants, shall not send or cause to be
        sent, directly or indirectly, by any telephone facsimile
        machine, computer or other electronic device, any
        facsimile advertisement to either Plaintiff or any class
        member as defined in the Court's March 17, 2021 Order
        regarding class certification, unless the Defendants
        possess a prior invitation or permission from the fax
        recipient.

     b. The Defendants, and their employees, agents,
        representatives, contractors, and affiliates acting on
        behalf of Defendants, shall not send or cause to be
        sent, directly or indirectly, by any telephone facsimile
        machine, computer or other electronic device, to any
        telephone facsimile machine any unsolicited facsimile
        advertisement unless it contains the following opt-out
        notice clearly and conspicuously placed on the first
        page: "You have the right to request not to receive
        future faxes from Five Star Advertising, LLC, by calling
        [insert toll-free domestic telephone number] or sending
        a fax to [insert toll-free domestic fax number] at any
        time. Your opt-out request must include the fax
        number(s) to which You request that no future fax
        advertisements should be sent. Five Star Advertising,
        LLC's failure to comply with a valid opt-out request
        within 30-days is unlawful."

     c. In the event that Defendant Lee sends or causes to be
        sent, directly or indirectly, by any telephone facsimile
        machine, computer or other electronic device, any
        unsolicited fax advertisement on behalf of any other
        entity, partnership, limited liability company,
        corporation, sole proprietorship, or any other legal
        structure, Lee is hereby required to include the
        aforementioned opt-out notice on any unsolicited fax
        advertisements. The notice shall, however, include the
        correct name of any entity that is sending the
        advertisement.

     d. The Defendants are also enjoined from entering, forming,
        organizing, or reorganizing into any partnership,
        corporation, sole proprietorship, or any other legal
        structure for the purpose of avoiding compliance with
        the terms of the Order and Judgment in this case.

  -- The plaintiff is awarded $500 in statutory damages.

  -- The plaintiff shall have its costs upon a filing of a bill
     of costs pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

The Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to default judgment
on its claim that the fax it received violated the TCPA. The Court
additionally finds that both defendants are liable for this
violation. "Individual officers of an entity violating the TCPA can
be personally liable for their direct participation."

Liability is appropriate where the individual "had direct, personal
participation in or personally authorized the conduct found to have
violated the statute."

The complaint alleges that Mr. Lee is the only registered member of
Five Star, has personal oversight and control over its day-to-day
operations, and "[o]n information an belief oversaw and controlled
the drafting of the Five Star Fax [and] was directly involved in
the transmission of the faxes to Plaintiff and the Class."

This case arises out of the receipt of unsolicited facsimile
("fax") advertisements. The Plaintiff alleges that defendants sent
unsolicited fax transmissions in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant Johnny Lee, a natural
person residing in Castle Rock, Colorado, is the only registered
member of defendant Five Star Advertising, LLC, a limited liability
company with its principal office at 6247 El Diente Peak Place,
Castle Rock, Colorado.

The Plaintiff states that on October 1, 2019, the defendants
transmitted a fax advertisement to plaintiff. The Plaintiff states
that the fax advertised defendants’ goods or products, it was
part of defendants' work or operations in marketing defendants'
goods or products, plaintiff never invited or gave permission to
defendants to send the advertisement fax, and the fax did not
contain an opt-out provision as required by 47 U.S.C. section 227.

Fivestar Advertising is a company that operates in the marketing
and advertising industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxuWzp at no extra charge.[CC]


FLORIDA: Civil Rights Law Firm Files Class Suit v. Gov. DeSantis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kashinksy and Gary Fineout, writing for Politico, report that
a civil rights law firm filed a federal class action lawsuit
against Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis on Sept. 20, accusing him of
orchestrating a "premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme" to
fly dozens of migrants from San Antonio to Martha's Vineyard.

The lawsuit, filed by the Boston-based Lawyers for Civil Rights,
alleges that DeSantis and state transportation officials violated
the migrants' constitutional rights by coercing mostly Venezuelan
asylum-seekers onto planes in Texas to the island through "false
promises and misrepresentations." It also accuses DeSantis of
inappropriately using federal coronavirus relief funds to pay for
the flights.

The lawsuit also asks a judge order DeSantis to stop transporting
migrants in the future. The Florida governor has promised to
continue flying migrants to Democratic strongholds and on Sept. 20
sent White House and Delaware state officials scrambling to prepare
for the arrival of more migrants in Delaware amid speculation that
he was sending migrants to that state.

"No human being should be used as a political pawn in the nation's
highly polarized debate over immigration," Iván Espinoza-Madrigal,
executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, which is providing
free legal assistance to the migrants who landed on Martha's
Vineyard, said in a statement.

The lawsuit represents the first legal action against DeSantis over
the migrant transport on Sept. 14 from Texas to Martha's Vineyard.
Some Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have called
on the Justice Department to investigate the Florida governor over
the flights but the DOJ has not taken any action.

Democrats have expressed outrage over the transports and
characterized it as a political stunt with little regard for the
asylum-seekers while Republicans have praised DeSantis, claiming
he's brought attention to the Biden administration's border
policies. Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott has also transported thousands
of migrants from the southern border to Chicago, New York City and
Washington, where they have crowded city shelters.

The 35-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Boston offers
one of the most detailed accounts yet of how roughly 50 migrants
found themselves on two planes that unexpectedly landed in Martha's
Vineyard, and trauma their new lawyers say they've suffered from
their ordeal and from being thrust into the center of the national
debate over immigration.

The plaintiffs include three Venezuelan migrants who boarded the
planes to Martha's Vineyard along with their family members as well
as Alianza Americas, a Chicago-based advocacy group for Latino
immigrant communities.

The complaint alleges that people working for DeSantis were
"trolling streets outside of a migrant shelter in Texas and other
similar locales, pretending to be good Samaritans offering
humanitarian assistance," including $10 McDonalds gift cards and
free hotels while making "false promises and false representations"
of employment, housing and educational opportunities awaiting the
migrants in either Boston or Washington, D.C.

They were also allegedly told they would receive assistance with
their immigration proceedings at their final destination and were
"intentionally sequestered" before their departure from Texas "so
they could not discuss the arrangement" and so that the migrants
"would be less likely to leave or change their minds."

Instead, the migrants were flown to Martha's Vineyard off the coast
of Massachusetts, where "no one" on the island or "anywhere in
Massachusetts" knew they were coming. They were given pamphlets
"lifting language" from the state's Refugee Resettlement Program --
which the lawsuit argues none of the migrants are eligible for. And
the people who recruited the migrants for the flights were
"unreachable by phone" after they landed in Massachusetts.

"These immigrants, who are pursuing the proper channels for lawful
immigration status in the United States, experienced cruelty akin
to what they fled in their home country," the plaintiffs argue.
"Defendants manipulated them, stripped them of their dignity,
deprived them of their liberty, bodily autonomy, due process, and
equal protection under law, and impermissibly interfered with the
federal government's exclusive control over immigration in
furtherance of an unlawful goal and a personal political agenda."

Taryn Fenske, communications director for DeSantis, said the
migrants "were homeless, hungry, and abandoned."

"It is opportunistic that activists would use illegal immigrants
for political theater," she said in a statement. "If these
activists spent even a fraction of this time and effort at the
border, perhaps some accountability would be brought to the Biden
Administration's reckless border policies."

Lawyers for Civil Rights previously called for Massachusetts
Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat and frontrunner for
governor, and U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Rachael Rollins to
open a criminal investigation into the migrants' plight.

A Texas sheriff did just that on Sept. 19: Bexar County Sheriff
Javier Salazar, an elected Democrat, said that while he could not
cite specific laws that may have been broken by relocating the
migrants, his office will be investigating what he called an "abuse
of human rights."

Texas sheriff says migrants were 'exploited' for 'political
posturing'

DeSantis has continued to defend his actions, claiming that the
migrants voluntarily boarded the flights and weren't coerced. He
has argued that Florida's Republican-led Legislature approved $12
million to transport migrants out of the state, though Democrats
have claimed the flights are improper uses of the allocated funds.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, also a Republican, told reporters
on Sept. 20 that Salazar did "the right thing" by opening an
investigation into DeSantis' actions and that sending migrants
across the country, potentially under false pretenses, is "just a
really lousy thing to do." But he stopped short of directly
condemning DeSantis, who he said he hasn't spoken to since the
migrants landed on Martha's Vineyard on Sept. 14.

"What I would really like to see happen is I would like to see the
feds create an immigration policy that people can understand and
people can enforce and people can abide by," Baker said. [GN]

FLORIDA: Consent Forms Won't Help DeSantis in Migrant Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Thomas, writing for Newsweek, reports that Ron DeSantis is
releasing consent forms he said were signed by migrants flown to
Martha's Vineyard as the Florida governor tries to blunt a
class-action lawsuit targeting his relocation program. But legal
experts say the forms won't help him.

Taryn Fenske, spokeswoman for DeSantis, disclosed the forms to
media outlets on Sept. 20, reiterating that he was trying to help
the migrants by flying them to a more welcoming destination. The
Republican governor's response came after the migrants and advocacy
groups sued DeSantis for what it called a scheme targeting
vulnerable people. However, legal commentators say the consent
forms are possibly invalid or undercut his justification.

"DeSantis may have gotten the immigrants to sign consent forms --
but if there was fraud (and it sounds like there was), then any
purported contract was and is void," Tristan Snell, lawyer and
former New York state prosecutor, said in a tweet.

Fenske, in a statement to Fox News, pushed back against the lawsuit
filed on Sept. 20 in federal court in Massachusetts by several of
the migrants and advocacy group Alianza Americas. Deriding the
lawsuit as "political theater" brought by "opportunistic
activists," she said the real danger to migrants is President Joe
Biden's approach to the southern border.

"If these activists spent even a fraction of this time and effort
at the border, perhaps some accountability would be brought to the
Biden Administration's reckless border policies that entice illegal
immigrants to make dangerous and often lethal journeys through
Central America and put their lives in the hands of cartels and
Coyotes," Fenske said.

The forms Fenske provided to Fox News were available in English and
Spanish and were given to the migrants before boarding the two
planes that arrived unexpectedly in Martha's Vineyard, an upscale
vacation enclave, two weeks ago.

The forms indicate that signatories consented to be transported and
agreed to "hold the benefactor or its designed representatives
harmless of all liability arising out of or in any way relating to
any injuries and damages that may occur during the agreed transport
to locations outside of Texas until the final destination in
Massachusetts."

Despite Fenske referring to the migrants as "illegal immigrants,"
the form states that the benefactors agree they are "not providing
transportation made in furtherance of any unlawful entry into the
United States."

Oscar Chacón, executive director of Alianza Americas, told
Newsweek in a statement that "signing a piece of paper does not
constitute informed consent."

"The governor of Florida and his accomplices induced vulnerable
people to board airplanes by falsely promising work opportunities,
education for children, and assistance with their immigration
cases," he said. "It's morally despicable and we also believe it is
illegal, which is why we're pursuing legal action."

Judd Legum, a writer and lawyer, reacted to the release of the
forms pointing out on Twitter that the lawsuit alleges DeSantis and
his associates "went to extraordinary lengths to coerce migrants
into signing these forms."

"Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that migrants, who were
suffering from food insecurity, were gathered together and told
they could receive $10 McDonald's gift cards if they signed the
form," LeGum wrote. "They were not told what the form was or given
time to read it." [GN]

FOSTER GARVEY: Faces Class Action Over TelexFree Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that law
firm Foster Garvey is accused of aiding and abetting the TelexFree
Ponzi scheme by allegedly providing legal advice to the company.

The Pacific Northwest-based law firm allegedly took up legal
defense for TelexFree after the company faced criminal charges
lobbied at it by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The individuals behind the class action lawsuit argue Foster Garvey
chose to look the other way to TelexFree's alleged unlawful
behavior.

Financial institutions Bank of America, Wells Fargo and TD Bank
similarly face claims of aiding and abetting the TelexFree Ponzi
scheme.

Consumers around the world reportedly lost $3 billion as a result.


TelexFree ponzi scheme class action lawsuit overview:
Who: Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and TD Bank have been accused of
aiding and abetting the TelexFree ponzi scheme which cost consumers
around the world a total of $3 billion.

Why: Plaintiffs claim the financial institutions continued
servicing TelexFree accounts despite allegedly knowing that the
company was operating illegally.
Where: The TelexFree ponzi scheme victimized consumers around the
world.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo and TD Bank have been accused of
aiding and abetting the multibillion dollar TelexFree ponzi scheme.


The TelexFree ponzi scheme was disguised as an internet phone
service company and affected more than 1 million consumers from a
number of countries around the world, reports CNBC.

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and TD Bank, meanwhile, have been
accused of continuing to service TelexFree accounts despite
allegedly knowing the company was operating illegally, reports
Law360.

All three financial institutions attempted to get the claims
against them dismissed, however, a Massachusetts federal judge
ruled against the trio in an order.

The judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation determined in his
order that the plaintiffs in the complaint had sufficiently pleaded
their claims against Bank of America, Wells Fargo and TD Bank.

Judge rejects motions to dismiss from TD Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of
America

TD Bank had unsuccessfully argued that the complaint against it
failed to show that it had any actual knowledge that fraud was
occuring, while Wells Fargo argued the claims did not adequately
plead that an underlying fraud had taken place.

"This is not a case where, despite certain suspicious activity, a
bank failed to detect an underlying fraud," the judge wrote.

Bank of America, meanwhile, had attempted to argue that the
complaint failed to "properly plead substantial assistance."

While the judge agreed that a routine banking service "typically
does not constitute substantial assistance," he ultimately
determined that "when a bank has actual knowledge that its routine
services are assisting a customer in committing a specific tort,
the provision of those services may constitute substantial
assistance."

The TelexFree ponzi scheme victimized individuals from between late
2012 to April 2014, with consumers tricked into purchasing fake
securities for the company's flimsy Voice over Internet Protocol
service.

Consumers -- including around 170,000 Americans -- suffered a total
of $3 billion in losses from the TelexFree ponzi scheme, reports
Law360.

In June, Bank of America agreed to pay $8 million to resolve claims
it violated its account agreements with its customers by charging
them multiple fees on the same checks.

The TelexFree ponzi scheme class action lawsuit is In re: TelexFree
Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]

FULGENT GENETICS: Gainey McKenna Reminds Nov. 21 Lead Plaintiff Due
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 21 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Fulgent Genetics, Inc. ("Fulgent" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLGT) in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Fulgent's common stock between
March 22, 2019 and August 4, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint allege that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had been
conducting medically unnecessary laboratory testing, engaging in
improper billing practices in relation to laboratory testing, and
providing or receiving remuneration in violation of the
Anti-Kickback Statute (which prohibits the knowing and willful
payment of "remuneration" to induce or reward patient referrals or
the generation of business involving any item or service payable by
the Federal health care programs) and the federal Stark Law (which
prohibits a physician from making referrals for certain designated
health services, including laboratory services, that are covered by
the Medicare program, to an entity with which the physician or an
immediate family member has a direct or indirect financial
relationship); (2) accordingly, the Company was likely to become
subject to enhanced legal and regulatory scrutiny; (3) the
Company's revenues, to the extent they were derived from the
foregoing unlawful conduct, were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing,
once revealed, was likely to subject the Company to significant
financial and/or reputational harm; and (5) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Fulgent's
should contact the Firm prior to the November 21, 2022 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

GENUINE PARTS: Bachan Sues Over Servicemen's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
DEVENDRANATH BACHAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07674 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law to recover from Defendant unpaid wages,
including overtime premiums, due to time-shaving; compensation for
late payment of wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a serviceman at
the store located at 3003 Rayview Avenue, Long Island City in New
York in June 2013. After approximately 2 years working at this
location, Defendant transferred Plaintiff to work at their store
located at 1973 38th St, Queens, New York where Plaintiff worked
until the end of his employment on June 4, 2022.

Genuine Parts Company operates a chain of auto-part retail stores,
operating primarily under the brand name "National Automotive Parts
Association" with more than 1,500 stores across the U.S. and New
York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188

GLOBAL TEL: FCC New Guidelines Proposed Following Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu, writing for Protocol, reports that one of the
largest prison technology providers in the country seized $121
million from users' prepaid accounts, after deeming those accounts
inactive. Now, not only is the company -- Global Tel Link, or GTL
-- paying out $67 million in refunds and credits, but the Federal
Communications Commission is proposing new and expansive guidelines
to ensure it does not happen again.

The details about GTL's actions came to light as part of a
class-action lawsuit brought by attorney Benson Githieya in
Georgia. According to that suit, Githieya set up an account with
GTL's AdvancePay service and loaded it with funds so his cousin in
a South Carolina prison would be able to call him. But after 90
days of inactivity, Githieya said GTL repossessed all the money
left in his account. This policy played out across so many
customers, that according to court filings, GTL brought in an
average of more than $1 million a month from seized accounts over
the course of eight years.

"GTL has been unjustly enriched by its practice of converting to
revenue any funds remaining in an account that GTL deems inactive,"
the complaint read.

GTL did not respond to Protocol's request for comment about the
complaint and the settlement.

While Githieya's claims have been public since April 2015 when he
filed suit, the total sum of the fortune GTL seized was only
recently released, spurring prison reform advocates to call the FCC
into action. The court documents show that in October 2018 alone,
GTL took $1.8 million in revenue simply by seizing customers'
unspent funds. The practice allegedly did not stop even after the
suit was filed. Even now, the full extent of GTL's seizures are
unknown, as the court has allowed revenue since September 2019 to
be redacted.

"Now that we have a number, we understand just how large this
problem is and just how much money the companies are making off of
this," Wanda Bertram, communications strategist at the nonprofit
Prison Policy Initiative, told Protocol. "I do think that it is
past time that the FCC took an interest in this particular kind of
consumer abuse around inactive accounts."

Now, it seems the FCC is answering the call. Under the new rules,
the FCC would prohibit GTL and other providers from deeming an
account inactive for at least 180 days and require all unspent
funds to be refunded to customers. "We expect our other reforms
aimed at reducing certain charges and curtailing abusive practices
to benefit all incarcerated people by easing the financial burdens
that such charges and practices place on the incarcerated and those
they call," the FCC's draft proposal said.

For years, criminal justice reform advocates have highlighted
issues with prison telecom providers — from the lack of
competition to the astronomical rates and subpar delivery of
services. "There is one standard of consumer protection for most
people in this country and then a couple million people have a
whole different set of standards applied to them, a much looser set
of standards," Bertram said.

Until recently, prison calls could cost as much as $14 a minute, 31
times the amount it would cost to call a phone number in
Antarctica. As one of the largest for-profit providers of
communication services in prisons around the United States, GTL has
found itself at the center of lots of these pricing fights.
According to its website, the Virginia-based company provides
services for "2,300 facilities and 1.8 million inmates in 50
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico." It also serves
facilities run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

The FCC has previously taken some action to clamp down on predatory
policies by the prison telecom industry. In 2013, it issued an
order that capped the price of interstate calls from prison at 21
cents per minute. In 2015, it further cut rates ensuring that most
15-minute interstate and intrastate prison calls would cost $1.65
altogether.

The FCC also plans to mandate prison telecom companies to provide
video call services for incarcerated people with communication
disabilities and whose primary language is American Sign Language.
The new rules will be voted on by the commission on Sept. 29, 2022,
a spokesperson at the FCC told Protocol. [GN]

GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Cir. Primed to Decertify Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
case, which is 12 years old, has been before the U.S. Supreme Court
and has wound its way through several federal courts, but pensions
seeking more than $13 billion in damages from Goldman Sachs may be
no closer to class certification now.

On Sept. 21, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals again seemed
primed to decertify a class action securities lawsuit against
Goldman Sachs, as judges wrestled with whether the investment bank
lied to investors about conflicts of interest on securitized
mortgages leading up to and during the Great Recession.

The case originally was filed in 2011 by the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System a year after Goldman Sachs settled with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and paid a $550 million fine --
the largest penalty against a Wall Street firm at the time.

The pension and other investors claim Goldman put certain clients'
interests ahead of others' regarding its holdings of collateralized
debt obligations, securities that at that time often were comprised
of subprime mortgages. The suit also claims Goldman Sachs misstated
its holdings in those risky securities and therefore inflated its
stock price.

In one such transaction cited by investors, known as the Abacus
transaction, Goldman admitted it had allowed a favored client to
participate in the asset selection process for a collateralized
debt obligation (CDO) without telling other investors the client
held a short position and hoped the underlying mortgages would
fail.  

The day the SEC took action against Goldman Sachs in 2010, the
bank's stock fell from about $184 to $160.

The case has twisted itself into knots over the last 12 years as it
wound its way through various federal courts, including the highest
in the land.

In 2021, Goldman Sachs successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to
decertify the class action complaint, arguing that it was
undisputed at the time that its share price was inflated when the
misstatements allegedly were made and that the stock drop was
unrelated to the conflicts of interest regarding CDOs.

The Second Circuit also had twice before decertified the class
action, with attorneys for Goldman stating throughout the years
that granting class certification in this case would be a "cheap
ticket" and "boon for plaintiffs," since most class action
securities cases settle once certification is granted.  

Government attorneys have not sided with either party in the
complaint but have sought clarification on how securities
statements can be used in such class action lawsuits.

In this latest iteration, brought about since a federal court again
certified the class action complaint, Goldman Sachs argued that its
statements to investors in 2010 "could hardly be more generic" and
lacked price import. The bank's corrective disclosures after the
SEC settlement, according to Goldman, were not related to the
"longstanding statements about Goldman's values and risks" but
about the specific government enforcement action.

The pension and other investors, on the other hand, argued in its
briefs that Goldman's statements about its conflict of interest
polices and systems were not merely generic but rather a "peculiar
risk" to the bank's business model. "As the market commentary
reflects, the disclosures showed uncontrolled conflicts of such
significance as to risk serious damage to the firm's reputation and
its bottom line," the pension's brief stated.

During oral arguments, which went well over the ten minutes per
side the court had allotted, the three-judge panel walked
well-tread ground on whether Goldman's business model lent itself
to conflicts of interest, and whether the bank's statements were
overly generic.

"Seems like we've been here before," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard
Sullivan joked at the beginning of the arguments.

Indeed the court had been, and Sullivan -- who has previously taken
Goldman Sachs' side -- seemed again swayed by the bank's arguments,
noting that if a company disclosed that it intended to comply with
the spirit and letter of federal laws but had an employee under
investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office, that company would
need to disclose the identity of that employee.

"What was the truthful statement that they should have made?"
Sullivan, a Donald Trump appointee, later asked the attorney
representing the pension funds. "They should have said 'we have
actually had a bunch of conflicts that we have identified but we're
not disclosing'?"

Thomas Goldstein, of Goldstein Russell, answered that the bank
should have told investors that they didn't have the extensive
procedures in place to prevent such conflicts of interest.

"So, if you say something about having procedures in place and you
know that there are certain problems, even if they're isolated, you
need to disclose them or you have to say that statement is no
longer true?" Sullivan asked.

"I think that you have to tell the truth," Goldstein answered.

The other two judges on the Second Circuit's tribunal were less
inclined to the bank's side. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard
Wesley, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush, noted
that it was publicly reported in various publications, from the New
York Times to Rolling Stone, that Goldman might have conflicts of
interest since the bank represented individuals and was itself a
market maker. "And the stock didn't move" after those statements,
Wesley noted.

Goldstein noted a SEC action is considered more credible than news
reports, and that is why the investment bank's stock dropped after
the settlement but not after those reports.

Kannon Shanmugam, who represents Goldman Sachs in this case, noted
the bank's statements were merely generic promises to investors.
"This was a conflict warning, it was not a warranty that conflicts
would not arise," he argued. "The whole point was to warn
[investors] about the risks." [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: BIPA Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set on Sept. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
5Chicago reports that eligible Illinois residents have less than
one week left to submit their claims as part of a multi-million
dollar settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving Google.

The lawsuit, which mirrors one recently settled with Facebook that
resulted in many residents receiving checks worth nearly $400 this
year, claimed the company violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by "collecting and storing biometric data
of individuals who, while residing in Illinois, appeared in a
photograph in the photograph sharing and storage service known as
Google Photos, without proper notice and consent."

A settlement agreement was reached in the case earlier this year
and now, eligible residents can file their claims. Google did not
respond to NBC 5's request for comment, but did not admit any
wrongdoing as part of the settlement agreement and denied all
claims made in the lawsuit.

So how much could eligible residents receive and when? Here's what
to know if you're planning to file a claim:

Who is eligible?
According to the settlement website, residents are eligible "if, at
any time between May 1, 2015 and April 25, 2022, you appeared in a
photograph in Google Photos while you were an Illinois resident."

When can I submit a claim and what is the deadline?

Eligible residents can submit a claim now through Sept. 24. All
claims must be submitted by that date to be eligible for a
payment.

For those wishing to object or exclude themselves from the
settlement, that deadline was Aug. 10.

A final approval hearing is slated for Sept. 28.

How do I submit my claim?
Those looking to submit a claim can do so here.

How much money could I get?
Those who are eligible will receive a portion of the $100 million
settlement fund, after court fees, costs and expenses are deducted.
But how much each person will get remains unclear.

"No one knows in advance how much each valid claim payment will be
until the deadline for submitting claims passes and the Court
awards the Fee and Expense Award and Service Payments," the
settlement website states. "Each Class Member who submits a valid
claim will receive an equal proportionate share of the Net
Settlement Fund."

Attorneys in the case estimate, based on their experience and
similar cases, that each claim could be worth between $200 and
$400.

When would I get my payment?
If the final approval is granted and any potential appeal process
is completed, eligible participants could receive their payments
within 90 days. The final approval hearing is set for 10:30 a.m. on
Sept. 28.

Attorneys warn, however, that even if the court approves the
settlement, there may still be appeals in the case.

"It is always uncertain whether and when appeals can be resolved,
and resolving them can take time," the website states.

What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act?
Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act prohibits private sector companies
and institutions from collecting biometric data from unsuspecting
citizens in the state or online, no matter where the business is
based. Data cannot be sold, transferred or traded. Unlike any other
state, citizens can sue for alleged violations, which has sparked
hundreds of David-and-Goliath legal battles against some of the
world's most powerful companies.

If a company is found to have violated Illinois law, citizens can
collect civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation compounded by
the number of people affected and days involved. No state
regulatory agency is involved in enforcement.

Since BIPA is an Illinois law, it only applies to state residents.

Which other companies are being accused of violating the Illinois
law?
So far, no company associated with the lawsuits surrounding the law
has admitted fault, though many have agreed to settlements.

Most recently, a federal judge in Illinois granted final approval
for a $92 million class-action lawsuit settlement between the
social media network TikTok and users of the platform, with
Illinois residents set to receive the largest share of the payout
due to BIPA.

A class-action lawsuit has also been brought against Snapchat's
parent company, accusing the social network of violating the act. A
$35 million settlement was recently announced in that case, though
a final approval hearing still has to take place.

Earlier this year, more than one million Illinois Facebook users
began receiving checks following a $650 million settlement in a
class-action suit alleging it violated residents' rights by
collecting and storing digital scans of their faces without
permission.

Microsoft and Amazon are also among the companies that have been
accused of violations. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Humphries Kerstetter to File Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that U.K. newspapers have been reporting that the
law firm Humphries Kerstetter is planning to bring a class action
case against Google in the next month, with a similar lawsuit being
filed in parallel by lawyers in the EU.

The allegations against Google will be familiar to followers of the
tech giant's antitrust woes in the U.S., where the state attorney
general office in Texas has been in protracted legal battles with
Google since it first launched an investigation in 2020.

That investigation threw light on the shady deal Alphabet made with
Meta known as Jedi Blue, and is likely to have contributed toward
decisions in the EU and the UK to launch similar probes this year.

Digital advertising is extraordinarily complex but the fundamentals
are pretty easy to grasp. Websites possessing a few square inches
of digital real estate need to match with advertisers willing to
pay for the space. But publishers rarely negotiate directly with
advertisers. Instead, intermediaries known as ad exchanges sit
between buyers and sellers to match supply with demand.

The accusation against the current system is that Google has set
itself up as buyer, seller, and marketplace, and is able to extract
value from the whole process at each step of the way, often
muscling out competitor services and driving prices up or down to
increase its own profits.

In one notorious email unearthed by Texas investigators, a Google
employee wrote that: "the analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank
owned the New York Stock Exchange."

In theory, instantaneous communication and rapid payment automation
mean that digital advertising should operate as a near-perfect free
market. In practice, the revelations of recent years show that
publishers and advertisers have often been getting the short end of
the stick.

The latest EU and UK lawsuits are hoping to claw back some of that
money and the respective claims will be brought on behalf of
website publishers that receive advertising revenue through
Google's platforms.

The U.K. claim will be "opt-out", meaning that affected parties
will be automatically included as part of the claim, while the EU
claim lodged in the Netherlands will be "opt-in", meaning would-be
claimants will have to apply to join the suit.

With so many websites running their advertising operations through
Google, thousands of businesses may be eligible for compensation,
which lawyers have estimated could amount to $25 billion in total.

In parallel to civil action, competition watchdogs in both the UK
and the EU are currently investigating Google's AdTech business, in
probes that may lead to further billions in fines for the company.

Of central concern to both investigations is Jedi Blue, the
backroom deal Google's parent company Alphabet made with
Facebook-owner Meta.

Describing the rationale behind its investigation, the U.K.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stated that "we're
concerned that Google may have teamed up with Meta to put obstacles
in the way of competitors who provide important online display
advertising services to publishers."

Google should certainly be concerned about the regulatory scrutiny.
Just recently it had its appeal against a $4.33 billion antitrust
fine struck down by an EU judge. And although the search giant was
able to win a small reduction, the fine is still the largest of
three the European Commission has issued against Alphabet.

Not to mention the fact that class action litigations can end up
being much more expensive, considering the Volkswagen "deiselgate"
scandal, for example, which has cost the German carmaker upwards of
$30 billion in settlements.

Overall, regulators are right to intervene when monopolies arise,
but for the consumers and small businesses that end up paying the
price of giant corporations' market dominance, nothing could taste
as sweet as court-ordered cash settlements. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: South Korean Privacy Watchdog Imposes Fine Amid Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sumeet Wadhwani and Ziff Davis, writing for Spiceworks, report that
the South Korean privacy watchdog has slapped Google and Meta with
a combined penalty of KRW100 billion ($71.79 million) for
infringing on users' privacy and thus violating the country's
privacy law.

Alphabet's Google was handed a KRW69.2 billion ($49.68 million)
fine by the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC). In
comparison, Meta was penalized KRW30.8 billion ($22.11 million),
making the overall amount the highest imposed by the South Korean
regulator.

Allegedly, Google and Meta didn't obtain legal consent from users
who visit their platforms or other websites before collecting
online behavioral data or adequately apprise them about collecting.


For instance, PIPC's notice said Google set the default option for
data collection as "agree" when users signed up for its online
services. "When subscribing to the service, Google did not clearly
notify the fact that third-party behavioral information was
collected and used, and used a method such as setting the default
value to 'Agree' while hiding the setting screen ('More options'),"
PIPC stated.

PIPC concluded that Meta's form is difficult to understand and that
the company also failed to stay on the legal side of the country's
privacy affairs to serve users' customized advertisements.

PIPC added that users have a hard time assessing what information
from online services (both websites and apps) is being collected.
Users also lose anonymity when third-party behavioral data is
collected, something that could reveal their political views,
health, physical, physiological and behavioral characteristics, and
other sensitive information and open them to being targeted.
PIPC cited previous violations by Google and Meta that were
highlighted by France's Commission nationale de l'informatique et
des libertés (CNIL) and Germany's Bundeskartellamt (FCO).

Google and Meta disagree with PIPC's claims and have 90 days to
file an administrative lawsuit to appeal the multi-million dollar
penalties.

"While we respect the commission's decision, we are confident that
we work with our clients in a legally compliant way that meets the
processes required by local regulations. As such, we do not agree
with the commission's decision, and will be open to all options,
including seeking a ruling from the Court," stated a spokesperson
for Meta.

A spokesperson for Google said, "We disagree with the PIPC's
findings and will be reviewing the full written decision once it's
shared with us. We've always demonstrated our commitment to making
ongoing updates that give users control and transparency while
providing the most helpful products possible. We remain committed
to engaging with the PIPC to protect the privacy of South Korean
users."

The fine imposed by PIPC on Google is the third setback to its
parent Alphabet. On Sept. 14, the General Court of the European
Union upheld a 2018 antitrust ruling against the search and online
advertising giant over allegations that it imposed unlawful
restrictions on manufacturers of Android mobile devices and harmed
competition along the way.

As such, Google will have to pay EUR4.125 billion ($4.12 billion)
in Europe, where it has a 67.25% mobile market share. The fine was
reduced from the original EUR4.34 billion ($4.33 billion). Google
told CNBC, "We are disappointed that the Court did not annul the
decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not
less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and
around the world."

Meanwhile, publishers in the U.K. and EU are alleging that Google
abused its market position in the ad-tech space. U.K's Humphries
Kerstetter, one of the law firms hired against Google, claimed that
victims have collectively lost £7 billion ($8.08 billion). Dutch
law firm Geradin Partners will represent EU-based publishers.
Litigants are expected to claim EUR25 billion ($24.989 billion)
through the fresh class-action lawsuits. [GN]

HEATHER MUELLER: K.O. Suit Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.O., et al., v. Heather
Mueller, Case No. 0:21-cv-01837-PJS-ECW (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following class:

   "All individuals who turned 21 within two years before the
   filing of this action or will turn 21 during the pendency of
   this action who are provided or were provided a FAPE under
   the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA by any
   school board subject to the supervision and control of the
   MDE and who, but for their turning 21, would therwise qualify
   or would have qualified for a FAPE because have not or had
   not yet earned a regular high school diploma LEA in the State
   of Minnesota and who, but for turning 21, would otherwise
   qualify or would have qualified for a FAPE because they have
   not or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma."

The Plaintiff also ask the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
Rule 23(b)(2), appointing K.O. and A. C. as class representatives;
and appointing Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
and Sonja Peterson of the Minnesota Disability Law Center as class
counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xDUAkM
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY, LLP
          300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 997-1057

               - and -

          Sonja Peterson, Esq.
          DISABILITY LAW CENTER
          111 N. 5th Street, Suite 100
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-1604
          Telephone: (612) 746-3831

HUDSON VALLEY: Court Says Arbitration in OD Fees' Suit Needs Review
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan S. Rubin, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that an
arbitration dispute that raised the "unique question" of whether
and how to address incorporation by reference in web-based
contracts under New York law needs another look from the trial
court, the Second Circuit ruled on Sept. 14.

The record wasn't clear enough on whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate for the trial court to deny the motion to compel
arbitration, the panel said.

Nicole Zachman said Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union wrongly
assessed and collected overdraft fees and insufficient-funds fees.
She said she wasn't notified of any mandatory arbitration clauses
or class-action waiver provisions. [GN]



IDEXX LABORATORIES: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
AVMA News reports that a class-action suit alleges that
anticompetitive behavior by Idexx Laboratories has caused pet
owners to pay artificially inflated prices for point-of-care
diagnostics.

The suit was filed July 25 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeking an injunction against Idexx
and damages for 22 pet owners and all others similarly situated.

In the market for point-of-care diagnostics for companion animals
in the U.S., according to the lawsuit, Idexx has a more than 70%
share of sales of analyzers and compatible consumables and a more
than 70% share of sales of single-use rapid test kits.

In 2013, Idexx dropped an arrangement with MWI Veterinary Supply
for MWI to carry Idexx diagnostic products exclusively, resolving
charges by the Federal Trade Commission that Idexx was using
exclusive arrangements with distributors to stifle competition.
Idexx agreed to a settlement order prohibiting concurrent exclusive
distribution arrangements with the three top distributors of
products to small animal veterinarians.

According to the new class-action lawsuit, Idexx then pivoted to
all direct sales. According to the suit: "After cutting out the
distributors, IDEXX proceeded to lock the vast majority of
veterinary practices into long-term exclusive agreements, thereby
substantially foreclosing competition, and maintaining and
enhancing its monopoly power over POC Diagnostic Products. As a
result of this anticompetitive scheme, IDEXX has been able to
impose supracompetitive prices for POC Diagnostic Products on
Plaintiffs and members of the Class."

In a statement, Idexx responded: "We believe the claims are
meritless and will vigorously defend against them. Since this is
ongoing litigation, we are unable to provide further comment at
this time.

"IDEXX is passionate about supporting veterinarians and advancing
the standard of pet healthcare. We value the partnerships we have
with our veterinary customers and are relentlessly focused on
innovating and providing effective solutions so that they can help
pets lead longer, fuller lives." [GN]

ILLINOIS MUTUAL LIFE: Lowenberg Files Suit in N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Mutual Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Frank Lowenberg,
individually and on behalf of all members of the public similarly
situated v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No.
4:22-cv-05329-KAW (N.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Illinois Mutual -- https://www.illinoismutual.com/ -- is a premier
provider of life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Richard Carlin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Phone: (562) 432-1656
          Email: gary@garycarlinlaw.com


ILVA SPA: Taranto Citizens' Class Action Proceedings Suspended
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Teller Report, some citizens of Taranto had asked the
judges of Milan to close Ilva for environmental and health
problems

The section specialized in business matters of the Civil Court of
Milan, chaired by Angelo Mambriani, suspended the proceedings
initiated with a "class action" by some citizens of Taranto who
asked, in essence, the closure of Ilva for environmental and health
problems.

The judges referred to the European Court of Justice "three
questions concerning the interpretation of European legislation on
polluting emissions from industrial plants in relation to Italian
standards".

The Court of Milan ruled in the context of "a collective injunction
procedure (Article 840 sexesedecies of the Italian Code of Civil
Procedure) established by citizens of Taranto and concerning
requests for termination of the activities of the hot area of the
Ilva steel plant, closure of coke ovens, interruption of the
activity of the hot area until the provisions of the Integrated
Environmental Authorization (DPCM 2017) are implemented,
preparation of an industrial plan that provides for the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50%" This is what we read
in a press release signed by the president of the section Angelo
Mambriani and by the acting president of the Court Fabio Roia.

"The Court therefore referred to the European Court of Justice,

with reference to the special legislation governing the
effectiveness of the Ilva steel plant in Taranto, three issues
concerning the interpretation of the European legislation on
polluting emissions from industrial plants in relation to Italian
regulations relating to: the role of health damage assessment in
the release procedure and review of the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the set of harmful substances that must be considered for the
purpose of issuing and reviewing the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the timing of adaptation of the industrial activities carried out
to the requirements of the Integrated Environmental Authorization
".

interpretation of the European legislation on polluting emissions
from industrial plants in relation to the Italian regulations
relating to: the role of the assessment of health damage in the
process of issuing and reviewing the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the set of harmful substances that must be considered for the
purpose of issuing and reviewing the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the timing of adaptation of the industrial activities carried out
to the requirements of the Integrated Environmental
Authorization".

interpretation of the European legislation on polluting emissions
from industrial plants in relation to the Italian regulations
relating to: the role of the assessment of health damage in the
process of issuing and reviewing the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the set of harmful substances that must be considered for the
purpose of issuing and reviewing the Integrated Environmental
Authorization;

the timing of adaptation of the industrial activities carried out
to the requirements of the Integrated Environmental Authorization
". [GN]


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Final Hearing in Securities Suit Set on Dec. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Tydings & Rosenberg LLP
regarding the Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. Class Action:

CURTIS J. TIMM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY Case No. 24-C-11-008391

SUMMARY OF THE TERMS OF THE CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD OR ACQUIRED SERIES B
PREFERRED STOCK OF IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS INC. (TICKER SYMBOL:
IMPHP) AT ANY TIME FROM THE CLOSE OF THE TENDER OFFER ON JUNE 29,
2009 UNTIL THIS ACTION IS FINALLY CONCLUDED.

PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY OF THE NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN
THIS LITIGATION.

The Order Certifying Class and Providing for Class Notice and Final
Hearing, dated July 22, 2022, as amended on August 8, 2022 (the
"Class Certification Order") has been filed with the Court and is
available for your inspection. The following is only a summary of
its terms. The Court has:

a. Certified the Action as a non-opt-out class action, meaning that
Class members will be bound by the Final Judgment entered in the
Action.

b. Certified the Action as a class action pursuant to Maryland Rule
2-231(c)(2), on behalf of a class consisting of:

All owners of Series B Preferred stock of Impac Mortgage Holdings,
Inc. from the close of the tender offer on June 29, 2009, until the
date that the Final Judgment issued in this action attains
finality. The Final Judgment will attain finality (a) thirty-one
days after it is entered by the Clerk if no post-judgment motions
and no appeals are filed; (b) thirty-one days after resolution of
any post-judgment motions if no appeals are filed; or (c) after
final resolution of any appeals, whichever date is latest.

c. Designated Camac Fund LP ("Camac") as the Class Representative
and designated Camac's counsel, Tydings & Rosenberg LLP, John B.
Isbister, and Daniel S. Katz, as Class Counsel.

d. Provided deadlines for the Class Representative and Class
Counsel to file a petition for award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, including the expense of providing Class Notice.

e. Provided deadlines for plaintiff Curtis J. Timm to file a
petition for award of attorneys' fees and expenses and any other
special individual monetary relief.

f. Provided the means by which notice is being provided to the
Class, including deadlines for Class members to file any objections
to the proposed Final Judgment.

g. Required defendant Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. ("Impac") to
establish a record date of August 15, 2022 for payment of the
amount equal to Series B Preferred Stock dividends at 9.375%
interest for the quarters ending June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009,
and December 31, 2009 (the "2009 Dividend Amount"), which amount
the parties agree is $1,169,985.94, and to pay that amount into the
registry of the Court to be held pending final resolution of all
issues and final determination by the Court of the appropriate
distribution of those funds.1

h. Determined preliminarily and subject to final determination
after consideration of any objections by any Class members that the
2009 Dividend Amount, less any deductions allowed by the Court,
shall be paid to the owners of Series B Preferred stock as of the
August 15, 2022 record date.

i. Scheduled a Final Hearing on December 5, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., to
consider all remaining issues and to enter a Final Judgment.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CLASS NOTICE, THIS ACTION, THE
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT, OR THE FINAL HEARING, YOU SHOULD CONSULT
YOUR OWN COUNSEL OR DIRECT THEM TO PLAINTIFFS' CLASS COUNSEL, JOHN
B. ISBISTER, DANIEL S. KATZ, OR TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP, IN THIS
ACTION. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE CLERK OF THE COURT.

THE CLASS NOTICE WAS APPROVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE
CITY, JUDGE LAWRENCE P. FLETCHER-HILL, FOR USE IN PROVIDING NOTICE
TO MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS.

THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY. FOR THE COMPLETE NOTICE, WHICH INCLUDES
DETAILS ABOUT YOUR RIGHT TO FILE AN OBJECTION, THE MANNER OF DOING
SO, AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT DOING SO, PLEASE VISIT
WWW.IMPACMORTGAGEHOLDINGSSERIESBPREFERREDCLASSACTION.COM OR
HTTPS://IR.IMPACCOMPANIES.COM/SERIES-B-PREFERRED-CLASS-ACTION OR
CONTACT THE NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR AT
INFO@IMPACMORTGAGEHOLDINGSSERIESBPREFERREDCLASSACTION.COM OR CLASS
COUNSEL AT DKATZ@TYDINGS.COM.

1 This amount was paid into the registry of the Court on August 18,
2022. [GN]

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) was negligent with its
cybersecurity, allowing hackers to access the company's network and
disrupt functions including the online platform that guests use to
reserve rooms, a new class action lawsuit filed by franchisees
alleges.

The plaintiffs -- Louisiana-based hotel operators Park 80 Hotels
LLC, PL Hotels LLC and Mayur Patel as well as four other operators
-- filed the class action lawsuit against Intercontinental Hotels
Group Sept. 15 in a Georgia federal court.

According to the lawsuit, for the second time in recent years, IHG
has allowed a third-party actor to access their network and disrupt
numerous functions including IHG Concerto, the online platform that
guests use to reserve hotel rooms at any of the approximately 3,500
IHG-branded properties throughout the United States.

"Although IHG has not been forthcoming about the details, on or
about September 5, 2022, its technology systems were subject to
'unauthorized activity,' which meant that its booking channels,
reservations and customer care call centers and the IHG Help Desk
were inoperable and inaccessible," the lawsuit alleges.

"As a result, Plaintiffs and the class members lost significant
revenue because guests were not able to make bookings online,
access their IHG One Rewards account or contact Reservations &
Customer Care."

IHG consumer data compromised, lawsuit alleges
Although IHG has not publicly commented on whether customer data
was impacted, independent reporting has revealed that certain
consumer data has been compromised, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim the breach was the "inevitable result' of
IHG's inadequate data security measures and lackadaisical approach
to network security.

"Despite the well-publicized and ever-growing threat of
cyberattacks, particularly in the hospitality industry, IHG refused
to implement certain best practices, failed to upgrade critical
security systems, ignored warnings about the vulnerability of its
computer network and disregarded and/or violated applicable
industry standards," they say.

As a result, the plaintiffs lost revenue from bookings, loss of
consumer goodwill, and additional use of employee time dealing with
the fallout, including working with guests on cancellations,
re-bookings and related issues, they say.

They are suing for negligence and unjust enrichment, and seeking
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury
trial.

Park 80 Hotels and the other plaintiffs are represented by MaryBeth
V. Gibson and N. Nickolas Jackson of The Finley Firm PC, Andrew P.
Bleiman, Mark Fishbein and Justin M. Klein of Marks & Klein LLP,
and Justin E. Proper of White and Williams LLP.

The IHG data breach class action lawsuit is Park 80 Hotels LLC et
al. v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising LLC et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-03709, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia. [GN]

INTRUSION INC: $3.25-M Deal in Securities Suit Heard on Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 19 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Sherman
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
securities class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of
Intrusion, Inc. common stock (NASDAQ: INTZ):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND

PROPOSED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED INTRUSION, INC.
("INTRUSION") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 14, 2020 AND AUGUST 26,
2021, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, that a hearing
will be held on November 30, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Sean D. Jordan, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of Texas, 7940 Preston Road, Suite 111, Plano, TX
75024 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $3,250,000 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead
Counsel for attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
Amount ($1,083,333.33) plus a proportionate share of interest
accrued on the Settlement Amount, Lead Counsel's reimbursement of
litigation expenses incurred of not more than $50,000 and Award to
Lead Plaintiff of not more than $5,000 should be approved; and (4)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth
in the Revised Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of
June 1, 2022 (the "Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to
hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual
means.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intrusion common stock
between October 14, 2020 and August 26, 2021, both dates inclusive
("Settlement Class Period") and were damaged thereby, your rights
may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership
interest in Intrusion common stock. You may obtain copies of the
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Securities
Class Action ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form by
writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Intrusion, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)
274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can
also download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim
and Release Form online at www.strategicclaims.net/Intrusion/. If
you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form electronically or postmarked no later than
October 31, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a
request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November
9, 2022, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice.
All members of the Settlement Class who do not timely request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection by a Settlement Class Member to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, Lead Counsel's requests for an award to Lead Counsel
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Award to
Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than November 9, 2022, by each of the
following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Texas
7940 Preston Road
Room 101
Plano, TX 75024 LEAD COUNSEL

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR INTRUSION, INC., B. FRANKLIN BYRD, MICHAEL L. PAXTON,
T. JOE HEAD, GARY DAVIS, AND JAMES GERO

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
& ROSATI, P.C.
Caz Hashemi
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JACK BLOUNT
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP

David W. Klaudt
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 5200
Dallas, TX 75201

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue
40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
pkim@rosenlegal.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 17, 2022                                

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]

IPPODO TEA USA: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ippodo Tea USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ippodo Tea USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05601 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

Ippodo Tea USA, Inc. -- https://ippodotea.com/ -- are a family-run
Japanese tea company founded in 1717, in the heart of Kyoto.[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


JAGERSFONTEIN DEVELOPMENTS: Class Action Mulled Over Dam Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieketseng Maleke, writing for IOL, reports that while
Jagersfontein Developments, the company that owns the tailings dam
that collapsed in Jagersfontein, hasn't said anything, it does
appear as if this is the end of its operations, according to
Richard Spoor, a public service lawyer.

This follows the collapse of the tailings dam, leading to the death
of one person and the displacement of many others.

The cause of the collapse has yet to be determined.

According to Spoor, Jagersfontein Developments produces vast
quantities of tailings and needed a dam to dump them. Without the
tailings dam, they won't have anywhere to dump them.

"I think they generate about 300 tons per hour of tailings, and you
need a place to dump that. And they have stated previously that it
is too expensive. It's not economically viable to build a new
dump.

"So that probably means that this mine will shut. It's not going to
continue," he said.

He said the design of that dam was to accept 770 000 cubic metres
of waste per annum, while Jagersfontein Developments was dumping
over 2 million.

"Jagersfontein was dumping a lot more water onto the dam. If you
dump too much water on the dam, you destabilise it. If it has too
much water, it becomes too wet. The risk of failure is considerably
higher.

"A tailings dam is designed to deal with a certain amount of water.
There must be functioning de-watering systems in place. It cannot
get too wet, but we know that they were dumping huge quantities
above the licence conditions on that dam," he said.

The Department of Water and Sanitation and Jagersfontein
Developments said they had received an engineering report from SKR
Consulting which stated that the dam was safe.

Spoor said: "I don't know how the engineers and the Department of
Water and Sanitation dealt with the excess of dumping in the dam.
They better have an answer. That dam was also supposed to stop
operating in 2020. It wasn't designed to take more tailings that it
was taking every year," he said.

Spoor, who has launched class actions around asbestos, gold mining,
coal mining and Tiger Brands, among others, said he wasn't sure if
he would pursue a class action against Jagersfontein Developments.

"I don't believe that Jagersfontein Developments have substantial
assets. It is a very substantial claim. The environmental damage is
significant, and it's going to cost a lot of money to clean that
up.

"We've heard that departments have been assisting families.
Emergency assistance, those kinds of costs, they can also recover,"
he said.

Spoor said he hadn't received an answer from the government as to
whether if would participate if class action were to be pursued.

"We can go way wider than the personal harm and loss suffered by
families. Or, do we limit ourselves to the families?" he said.

"I don't think we're going to be able to recover from Jagersfontein
(Developments) unless they are very well insured. It looks as if we
have to find a way to go after the shareholders, being Stargems and
Johann Rupert's business, Reinet Investments.

"Class action is academic if you can't recover any damages, and I
think Jagersfontein mine is in deep trouble, and it's hard to see
them surviving.

"I think it's going to be essential that if the state and the
community are going to recover the damages, then we must find a way
to hold the shareholders liable. And that is one of the things that
we're looking at, on what basis can they be held liable?" Spoor
said.

According to Spoor, there was also the question of the liability of
the engineers. He said there was an interesting aspect relating to
engineers and their responsibilities. For example, if they are
compiling reports on the conditions of dams, regulations require
them to exercise a public function, which means it's not just a
private job that they are doing, which means that they can be held
liable.

"We know that in June 2021 the department reversed its position
that the tailings dam should be closed and agreed to open it. Now
they would have done that based on an engineer's report. You ask
yourself, what kind of report was this? How good was it?" he said.

Spoor said his company was in the process of identifying defendants
should a class action be launched.

"We are looking at defendants and the cause of action that we can
formulate to bring them in because if we confine ourselves to
Jagersfontein Developments, I'm concerned that there's no money to
clean up the space and to compensate people adequately," he said.

Meanwhile, De Beers said De Beers Consolidated Mines (DBCM)
purchased the Jagersfontein mine in 1947 and operated it until 1971
when operations ceased. It performed further sampling work on the
mine on several occasions in subsequent decades, but on each
occasion the decision was taken not to resume operations, and the
mine remained dormant until it was sold.

"DBCM began the sale process in 2008 and then sold the mine in 2010
with a focus on delivering sustainable benefit to the Jagersfontein
community. As such, the proposed transaction required participation
by the Jagersfontein community, not only with employment
opportunities and community initiatives but also through equity
ownership of the mine.

"The assets were sold to the Superkolong Consortium, a broad-based
BEE holding company for several mining operations, including
alluvial diamond operations," De Beers said.

The Jagersfontein mine started operating in 1870, which predates
the Kimberley discoveries.

"Regarding mine closure plans, we do indeed have robust
rehabilitation plans in place for when our mines close. However,
this mine was not closed as it was sold to the Superkolong
Consortium, so rehabilitation activities were not implemented," it
said. [GN]

JP FIFTY-TWO: Lelii Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lelii, and all others similarly situated v. JP FIFTY-TWO,
LLC, and HO JUN SIN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00951 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 19,
2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against
the Defendants to seek damages for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee and
costs.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff and all other Floor Managers
to work unpaid overtime hours for which they were not properly
compensated. The Plaintiff worked 65 hours in each workweek after
June 1, 2022, but was only paid for 44 hours in each workweek. The
Plaintiff is owed 21 hours of overtime in each workweek from June
1, 2022, through June 15, 2022. The Defendants repeatedly and
willfully violated the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
at a rate not less than one and one-half times regular rate of pay
for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from March 30, 2022 to
June 18, 2022, as a Floor Manager,

The Defendants operate a card-room enterprise in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Walker Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
The case is styled as Timothy Walker, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-05557 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Keurig Dr Pepper -- https://www.keurigdrpepper.com/ -- is a leading
producer and distributer of hot and cold beverages to satisfy every
consumer need, anytime and anywhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Engine Immobilizers
-------------------------------------------------------------
MLG Attorneys at Law has filed a national class action lawsuit
against Kia and Hyundai for a defect exposed by a trending TikTok
challenge.  The case, Stephanie McQuarrie, et al. v. Kia America,
Inc. and Hyundai Motor America (Case No. 8:22-cv-01721), was filed
on Sept. 21 in federal court in Orange County, California.

"It's time to centralize the fight with Kia and Hyundai," said
Jonathan Michaels, founder of MLG Attorneys at Law. "We filed the
class action in federal court in Orange County to bring it to the
doorstep of these two massive auto manufacturers."

The lawsuit alleges that cars manufactured between 2011 and 2021 by
Orange County-headquartered car makers Kia and Hyundai were made
without an "engine immobilizer." According to the complaint, engine
immobilizers are critical, yet inexpensive anti-theft devices that
prevent cars from being hot-wired, which have been used by
virtually every car manufacturer over the last twenty years -
except Kia and Hyundai. The first patent for an engine immobilizer
was granted in 1919.

The absence of engine immobilizers in Kia and Hyundai vehicles
reached sensational heights in July 2022 when the "Kia Challenge"
was posted on the burgeoning social media platform, TikTok. The
video demonstrates how Kias and Hyundais can be started with a
simple USB cord and screwdriver. Since its posting, scores of Kias
and Hyundais have been stolen across the country, with disturbing
joy riding videos being posted in their wake.

The damage to consumers has been substantial. Chicago reported a
767 percent increase in car thefts in July 2022 compared with the
same time-period last year, and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Kias and
Hyundais now account for nearly 67 percent of all stolen cars.

"The wrath of car thefts is likely to destroy the secondary market
for Kias and Hyundais," says Michaels. "Now that the defect has
been so widely publicized, it is unlikely the thefts will stop
anytime soon."

The class action lawsuit seeks monetary damages against the
automakers, as well as initiation of a nationwide recall. Further
information can be found at www.mlgaplc.com/tiktok

About MLG Attorneys at Law

Located in Orange County, California, MLG is a leading firm for
protecting consumers from automotive defects. The firm has
litigated cases against nearly every major automotive manufacturer
in the world, and has been involved in numerous class actions
against automakers for malfeasance. Follow MLG on Facebook,
LinkedIn and Twitter.

Contact: Sharon Noot
Phone: (714) 600-9022
Email: sharon@nootinc.com [GN]

KIA AMERICA: Hufford Sues to Seek Relief Over Defective Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven C. Hufford, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Case No.
8:22-cv-01715 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 19, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants seeking relief including damages and injunctive relief
to require that Defendants address the harm that their defective
vehicles are causing.

Kia and Hyundai vehicles suffer from a defect that allows anyone
with a USB cable to steal them. The defect stems from a design flaw
in Kia and Hyundai vehicles, which do not include engine
immobilizers. An immobilizer is an electronic device that prevents
a vehicle from starting without the right key in the ignition.
Because Kia and Hyundai vehicles do not have immobilizers, a thief
need only pop off a plastic cover on the steering column, plug a
USB cable into the column, and turn it like any other key to start
the engine.

The trend is spreading across the country, including Los Angeles,
where affected model thefts are up 85%, and Chicago, where affected
model thefts are up by 800%, with "no end in sight." As of this
month, 23 Kias are being stolen in St. Louis every day. In fact,
Kia and Hyundai's vehicles are so easy to steal, teenagers and
children as young as 11 years old are stealing and joyriding
consumers' cars, posting their exploits on social media, including
one TikTok video that has over 33 million views. Every Kia and
Hyundai model from 2011 2021 suffers from this defect, meaning it
affects vehicles across the country and exposes its owners to
theft, property damage, and harm.

The Defendants have known about this defect for years, including
the alarming rate at which their vehicles were being stolen. Even
so, the Defendants did not fix the defect or install immobilizers
in their vehicles. In fact, the Defendants concealed the defect
from consumers or otherwise failed to disclose, reveal, or provide
notice to them that their vehicles were defective and unfit for the
ordinary purposes for which they are used.

This is despite Defendants' duty to comply with federal regulation
that requires manufacturers like Defendants to install ignition
systems that will not operate without the right key inserted into
the ignition: "Each vehicle must have a starting system which,
whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents: (a)
The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b)
Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or
both." Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 114. Now
that auto thefts are sweeping the country, Defendants have
acknowledged the problems they created and have promised to equip
new vehicles with immobilizers.

But equipping new vehicles will not address the harm Defendants'
defective vehicles cause consumers like the Plaintiff, who
purchased a 2021 Hyundai Venue trusting that it would be safe,
reliable, and equipped with adequate security. At the time the
Plaintiff purchased his vehicle, he was unaware that it was
susceptible to theft, unsafe, and unfit for the purpose for which
he bought the vehicle, and Hyundai never informed him that it knew
his vehicle was susceptible to theft. As a result, the Plaintiff
sues the Defendants in a class action on behalf of all consumers
harmed by their misconduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Arnold, Missouri, where
he intends to remain.

The Defendants manufacture vehicles for sale in California,
Missouri, and across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 358-6913
          Email: mram@forthepeople.com
                 mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Brittany Resch, Esq.
          TURKE STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 100
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com
                 brittanyr@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Donner, Esq.
          Thomas R. Applewhite, Esq.
          DONNER APPLEWHITE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          906 Olive Street, Suite 1110
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 240-5350
          Email: steve.donner@da-lawfirm.com
                 tom.applewhite@da-lawfirm.com


KIA CORP: Minnesota Man Files Class Action Over Car Thefts
----------------------------------------------------------
Ratchet+Wrench reports that a man in St. Paul, Minnesota, has filed
a class action lawsuit against Kia and Hyundai, according to a
press release.

The lawsuit claims that Kia and Hyundai vehicles are easy to steal
due to the fact that they do not come with an engine immobilizer,
according to Johnson Becker law firm in St. Paul. The law firm also
noted that plaintiff LaShaun Johnson had his 2019 Kia Sorrento
stolen in August. The thieves used a screwdriver to successfully
start the car.

An immobilizer transmits a code to the vehicle's engine to show
that a key is present or a key fob is in the vehicle. If there is
no immobilizer present, all that thieves need is a tool of sorts to
start the car. This tool could range from a knife to a USB cord.
The complaint said that allegedly, newer Kia and Hyundai vehicles
are fitted with engine mobilizers, but many people with older
vehicles are still susceptible to theft.

The complaint also outlines some shocking numbers in relation to
car thefts in the St. Paul area. It reports that Hyundai thefts
have gone up 584% and Kia vehicles have grown to be 13 times more
likely to be stolen than in the past.

The complaint also said that even though Kia and Hyundai are aware
of the issues with the vehicles, neither have issued any recalls on
the matter. Additionally, Johnson Becker said the automakers are in
violation of a Federal Motor Vehicle Standard requiring vehicles
cannot be started without a key. [GN]

KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Employee Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS
NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   1. Conditionally certifying this case to proceed as a
      "collective action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
      define the class as:

      "All hourly employees who worked on or after May 9, 2019
      who were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours
      worked";

   2. Approving the Notice and Consent to Join form;

   3. Directing the Plaintiff to deliver the Notice and Consent
      to Join form to all potential collective action members
      via first-class U.S. Mail;

   4. Directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to
      Join form, in English and in Spanish, in conspicuous
      places in their place of business for a period of 60 days;

   5. Directing the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice
      and Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two
      consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective
      action members currently employed by Defendants;

   6. Directing the Defendants to produce the names, addresses
      and dates of employment of all potential class members
      within 14 days of the Court's order so that Plaintiff may
      disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a
      timely fashion; and

   7. Directing the putative class members shall have 60 days
      from the date Plaintiff disseminates the Notice in which
      to opt-in to the action.

Kiss Nutraceuticals provides packaging solutions. They offer
gummies, vitamins, tablets, confections, chewing gums and mints,
chocolates, and beverages.

The Defendants allegedly refuse to pay their hourly workers
overtime wages for overtime hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BIngdR at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Telephone: (303) 440-8780
          brandt@milsteinturner.com

LES BOURGEOIS VINEYARDS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Les Bourgeois
Vineyards, Inc. The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Les Bourgeois
Vineyards, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07923 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16,
2022).

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

Les Bourgeois Vineyards -- https://missouriwine.com/ -- is a
family-owned vineyard with a tasting room & terrace restaurant
overlooking the Missouri River.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


LONGHORN RESALE: Guzman Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONGHORN RESALE SHOP, LLC d/b/a LONGHORN
BUILDING MATERIAL, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03165 (S.D. Tex.,
September 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Guzman has worked for the Defendant as a local delivery driver
since September of 2021.

Longhorn Resale Shop, LLC, doing business as Longhorn Building
Material, is an operator of a lumberyard and hardware store located
at 3054 Tidwell Road in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         5612 Chaucer Drive
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 885-8844
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

                 - and -

         John Neuman, Esq.
         SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
         5612 Chaucer Drive
         Houston, TX 77005
         Telephone: (281) 885-8630
         Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
         E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

LOVE GRACE: Sends Unwanted Text Message Ads, Asher Walli Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHER WALLI, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE GRACE HOLDINGS, INC., doing
business as BLU SPERO, Defendant, Case No. 22-004470-CI (Fla. Cir.
Ct., 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., September 15, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff text
messages for the purpose of soliciting a sale of consumer goods or
services, soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or
services, or obtaining information that will or may be used for the
direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an
extension of credit for such purposes, without first obtaining the
Plaintiff's prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have been
harmed, including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of ordinary and necessary business operations, says the
suit.

Asher Walli, LLC is a real estate business in Florida.

Love Grace Holdings, Inc., doing business as Blu Spero, is an
online clothing retailer in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
         Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
         SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
         974 Howard Ave.
         Dunedin, FL 34698
         Telephone: (202) 709-5744
         Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
         E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com

LOWE'S COS: Job Applicant Files Class Action Over FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an unhappy
job applicant has filed a class action lawsuit against Lowe's over
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Justin Downing and an attorney Penny Kopke of Maxwell & Morgan in
Mesa, Ariz., filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 in Phoenix federal court
against Lowe's and First Advantage Corporation. It alleges Lowe's
failed to provide notice and disclosures to its applicants and
employees, while First Advantage failed to ensure the information
in consumer reports was accurate.

"That is, Lowe's provides a single disclosure that includes
extraneous information regarding Lowe's supposed ability to obtain
consumer reports regarding the applicant's children/wards," the
suit says.

"The inclusion of such extraneous information overshadows the
consumer report disclosure and renders the disclosure confusing to
Plaintiff and to any reasonable person."

Meanwhile, First Advantage was providing Lowe's with consumer
reports with outdated information that adversely affected class
members' attempts to gain employment, the suit says.

Downing had three guilty pleas set aside in November 2020, though
First Advantage furnished a report containing three past criminal
convictions with "the disposition stated as 'guilty,'" the suit
says. [GN]

LUMIO HOME SERVICES: Alexander Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumio Home Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Cathy Alexander, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumio Home Services,
LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-01693-CEM-EJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 16, 2022).

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

Lumio -- https://www.lumio.com/ -- is a full-stack solar energy
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Andrew Beck, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Fax: (305) 679-9006
          Email: sbeck@bursor.com


MACOUPIN COUNTY, IL: May Face Class Action Over Election Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Sanon, writing for Enquirer-Democrat Reporter, reports that
the Macoupin County Board meeting was held the evening of Sept. 13.
Several items were discussed, including the September American
Rescue Plan Fund requests, and potential litigation the county
could be facing.

FOIA Requests and Potential Litigation

County Clerk Pete Duncan gave notice to the board of an influx of
Freedom of Information Act Requests his office has received in the
last few weeks. The requests are all in regards to election
information from 2017 forward. Duncan says the requests have been
very significant and time consuming and therefore take a lot of
time for the County Clerk's Office to handle. Duncan said that his
office has now received 15 notices of prospective litigation and
demand for record retention.

Duncan stated and then reiterated that these requests have been
coming in to County Clerk's Office's throughout Illinois and the
Country. The possible litigation would be a class-action lawsuit.
As the lawsuit is pending the County Clerk's Office would not be
able to destroy any election related information from 2019 onward.

Due to the large number of County Clerks that have received such
letters, the Illinois State Archives and Local Records
Commissioner, who gives the county permission to dispose of
records, stated the Archives would not be approving any requests
for disposal of election records. This becomes a problem for Duncan
and the rest of the County Clerk's Office because of the large
amount of records that they will have to file and store without
being able to remove any other records. Duncan said the area where
he stores the files will fill up very quickly and should a lawsuit
happen and be a drawn out process there will not be a secure
location to store the necessary records.

No mention was made by Duncan of who the groups are individuals
leading the effort are. However, The Washington Post published an
article on Sept. 11 detailing the issue. The article found that it
seemed supporters of former president Donald Trump have been
sending in the requests nationwide as part of a coordinated effort
to "cause chaos as their fall crunchtime approaches, making it more
difficult to run smooth elections…"

Board members tried to offer up various locations that could be
used for storage should the need arise. State's Attorney Jordan
Garrison said the issue with other locations is that they would not
be as carefully regulated and secured as the record storage in the
Courthouse would be, leaving room to potentially question the
integrity of the records.

Duncan informed the board only so it would be aware of the issue.
There was no action to be taken at the time.

American Rescue Plan Fund Requests

The board reviewed the American Rescue Plan fund requests for
September. The majority of the county requests came from Animal
Control. There were several requests from different townships as
well. Townships were awarded $100,000 for any requests. Bird
Township submitted two requests which would exceed the $100,000
mark. The board approved the requests with the reminder that
anything over the $100,000 granted would be the responsibility of
the Township. It was also announced that all of the American Rescue
Plan Funds have been budgeted and no additional funds were
available to any entity or department.

Public Transportation

Kent Tarro was a guest at the meeting, updating the board about the
public transportation program. He told the board that there were
three group trips that were booked for the fall and that those
trips all had people signed up to ride. Tarro also announced that
the Transit program might have to cut one of the days it provides
rides to Springfield due to the cost. Currently the bus goes to
Springfield five days a week and Tarro says could have up to five
buses making the trip each day. Due to cost issues they may reduce
the trips to only Monday through Thursday.

Tarrant also spoke to the board about granting Board Chairman Larry
Schmidt power to act to sign an agreement to get funding from the
state. Later in the meeting Schmidt was granted the power to act to
sign the downstate operating assistance agreement. This agreement
allows the State to make funds available for assistance with the
public transportation program.

Courthouse Digital Scan

Board Member Harry Starr brought to the board a bid for a digital
scan of the courthouse for $16,500. The board previously approved a
digital scan of the Courthouse, focusing on the interior of the
building only. The new bid would cover a scan of the interior and
exterior. Starr felt that the scan was still a good idea as it
would help with any improvements made to the building in the future
and would give the County a set of blueprints to the building,
which so far have not been able to be located. The board approved
the interior and exterior scan.

Communications

A letter from Springfield Coal Country was discussed. The letter
was in regards to a proposed bond release of Crown III Mine near
Girard. Garrison said that the bond release would not be where the
fly ash is stored. The area is a 1.6 acre plot that has been
farmland for the last decade. According to the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources Office of Mines and Minerals, the company has
met all of the qualifications for the restoration of the area.

A letter from Block Grain Belt Express was sent to the board asking
them to pass a resolution denouncing Eminent Domain being used by a
non-public utility. Board member Todd Armour suggested the board
write a letter to that effect. Duncan said that the board could
also send the letter they issued in April denouncing Grain Belt
Express' use of eminent domain to the Illinois Commerce Commission,
where they previously sent the letter to the State Legislature. The
board agreed to resend the letter.

Matters of Recognition

The week of September 18-24 was declared to be National Farm Safety
and Health Week in Macoupin County.

A moment of silence was held for former board member James
Hallbaugher who recently passed away.

Other Business

The board approved three culvert repairs in the Barr, Dorchester
and North Palmyra townships.

The board approved the Health Insurance renewal rates for 2023.
[GN]

MARATHON REFINING: Hazlett Case Stayed Pending McGhee Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR HAZLETT, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING
LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-04238-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order staying
this matter pending class certification ruling in McGhee v Tesoro
Refining & Marketing Company LLC and vacating all future dates with
modifications.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dqArYR at no extra charge.[CC]

MARTIN LUTHER KING: Hejazi Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelly Hejazi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL; MARTIN
LUTHER KING JR.-LOS ANGELES (MLK-LA) HEALTHCARE CORPORATION;
SCRIBECONNECT, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
22STCV30482 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 19, 2022), against the
Defendants for California Labor Code violations and unfair business
practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to
timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

Despite these requirements, throughout the statutory period the
Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of: failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum wages, and overtime wages in compliance with
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; failing to provide
employees with timely and duty free meal periods in compliance with
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to maintain
accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and failing
to pay an additional hour's pay for each workday a meal period
violation occurred; failing to authorize and permit employees to
take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance with the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to pay an
additional hour's pay for each workday a rest period violation
occurred; failing to indemnify employees for necessary business
expenses incurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum
wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period
premium wages due within the time period specified by California
law when employment terminates; and failing to maintain accurate
records of the hours that employees worked. failing to provide
employees with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all
the information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a California resident that worked for the
Defendants as a medical scribe from November 2020 to November
2021.

The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Allen Feghali, Esq.
          Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
                 jacquelyne.vanemmerik@moonyanglaw.com


MASON'S PROFESSIONAL: Rashad Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Watts Rashad and Calvin Bell, Individually, and on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. MASON'S PROFESSIONAL CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, FLSA Opt-In Collective Action
DOROTHY MASON, individually, and ELLIOT MASON, individually, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02635-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 20, 2022), the Fair
Labor Standards Act against the Defendants failure to pay overtime
compensation.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay their workers
for all hours of work at the rates required by the FLSA. The
Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week but were
not paid overtime, including straight time, for doing this
excessive work. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and
Class Members for only 40 hours per week and failed to pay proper
without regard to the amount of hours the Plaintiffs and Class
Members actually worked, including travel time, or guarantee proper
payment of overtime. The Defendants either knew or acted with
reckless disregard of applicable laws, regulations and
administrative guidelines in failing to pay the Plaintiffs and
Class Members overtime compensation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants.

MPCS provides cleaning, disinfecting, janitorial, custodial and
sanitization services to the city of Memphis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


MATTRESS FIRM: Valencia Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Valencia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. MATTRESS FIRM
INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV31940 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 21,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for the Defendants
violations of the California Labor Code, by willfully denying their
California employees meal and rest periods, and fail to timely
provide such, or compensation in lieu thereof, as required by Labor
Code.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay all
final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation
to all employees in California, and failing to provide employees
with accurately itemized wage statements. The Defendants further
failed to pay premium wages to the Plaintiff who was denied meal
and rest breaks. The Plaintiff and the Defendant's California
employees were routinely unable, and not authorized to take their
10 minute rest periods and were also unable to take an
uninterrupted 30 minute meal break for every shift they worked. As
a result, employees are not properly compensated for work
performance in excess of 8 in a work day and work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and
one half times the regular rate of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly
employee in California.

MATTRESS FIRM, INC. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in
Santa Monica, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          Nidah Farishta, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203
          Agoura Hills, CA, 91301
          Phone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          Email: Roman@OLFLA.com
                 Nidah@OLFLA.com


MCCARTHY'S FLOWERS: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy's Flowers
Colorado, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. McCarthy's
Flowers Colorado, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-08036 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20,
2022).

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

McCarthy's Flowers Colorado, Inc. is a family-owned and operated
flower shop .[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDIALAB.AI INC: Deadlines in Case Management Order Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mohamed MOHAMED SUUFI et
al., v. MEDIALAB.AI, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00979-SB-KS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
continuing deadlines in the case management order, as follows:

                Event           Current Dates     New Dates

-- Trial                      June 12, 2023     Aug. 7, 2023

-- Pretrial Conference        May 26, 2023      July 21, 2023

-- Motion to Amend            Aug. 19, 2022     Aug. 19, 2022
    Pleadings:

-- Motion for Class           Sept. 16, 2022    Nov. 4, 2022
    Certification:

-- Opposition to Motion       Sept. 30, 2022    Nov. 18, 2022
    for Class
    Certification:

-- Reply Brief in Support     Oct. 7, 2022      Nov. 28, 2022
    of Class Certification:

-- Motion for Class           Oct. 28, 2022     Dec. 16, 2022
    Certification Hearing

-- Discovery Deadline         Jan. 20, 2023     March 17, 2023
    – Nonexpert

-- Discovery Deadline         Feb. 17, 2023     April 14, 2023
    – Expert

-- Initial Expert             Jan. 6, 2023      March 3, 2023
    Disclosure

-- Rebuttal Expert            Jan. 20, 2023     March 17, 2023
    Disclosure

-- Discovery Motion           Feb. 17, 2023     April 14, 2023
    Hearing Deadline

-- Non-Discovery Motion       March 3, 2023     April 28, 2023
    Hearing Deadline

-- Settlement Conference      March 17, 2023     May 12, 2023
    Deadline

-- Post-Settlement Status     March 31, 2023     May 19, 2023
    Conference Report

-- Post-Settlement            March 24, 2023     May 26, 2023
    Status Conference

-- Trial Filings              April 28, 2023     June 23, 2023
    (1st Set)

-- Trial Filings              May 12, 2023       July 7, 2023
    (2nd Set)

MediaLab.Ai designs and develops application software. The Company
offers messaging applications, online education platform, and
various application.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxgszB at no extra charge.[CC]

MEDLY PHARMACY: Former Employees Sues Over WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giles Bruce, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
twelve former employees of Medly have filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against the digital pharmacy, alleging they weren't given
adequate notice or reason for being laid off.

The former staffers allege the company failed to provide 60 days'
notice of a mass layoff as required by the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and 90 days' notice as
required by the state's WARN Act, according to the complaint filed
Sept. 14 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

Medly laid off 293 employees, or 16 percent of its workforce, on
Aug. 4 and about half of its remaining roughly 1,600 employees on
Aug. 31, according to the lawsuit and previous reporting by
Becker's.

Medly told the employees being let go Aug. 31 that it was due to
"unexpected failure to consummate a significant financing in
mid-August 2022 and subsequent inability to obtain comparable
alternative financing," the lawsuit stated. But then company CEO
Richard Willis stated in a companywide videoconference, on or about
Sept. 1, that Medly had secured financing and funding from
investors and banks, according to the complaint. Remaining
employees received raises, the former staffers claim.

Medly didn't respond to requests from Becker's for comment. The
company has raised more than $100 million, according to Crunchbase.
[GN]

META PLATFORMS: Sued Over App Tracking Transparency Workaround
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Lovejoy, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that Meta is facing a
class action lawsuit after both Facebook and Instagram were found
to be using an App Tracking Transparency workaround to track users
on the web, even after they were denied permission to do so.

The company is accused not just of breaking Apple's privacy rules,
but also violating both state and federal laws . . .

Background
App Tracking works by Apple assigning a unique identifier to your
device. It doesn't reveal any details about you, but does allow
them to see (for example) that iOS user
30255BCE-4CDA-4F62-91DC-4758FDFF8512 has visited gadget websites,
and therefore would be a good target for gadget ads.

It also allows them to see that iOS user
30255BCE-4CDA-4F62-91DC-4758FDFF8512 was shown an ad for a
particular product on a particular website, then subsequently went
to a particular retailer site to buy it -- therefore that ad was
(likely) successful.

With App Tracking Transparency, app developers must ask you if you
want to allow that tracking. If you say no (as most people do),
then the apps are not allowed to use that system.

Meta's App Tracking Transparency workaround
Facebook and Instagram each have their own embedded web browsers,
which are used whenever a user taps a link in either app. This
means that Meta can track activity in those browsers.

The theoretical risk of this was already well understood, but
security researcher Felix Krause last month found concrete evidence
that Meta was actually doing this.

He found that both apps injected their tracking code into every
website shown, including when clicking on ads. In the most extreme
case, this would enable Meta to monitor all user interactions, like
every button & link tapped, text selections, screenshots, as well
as any form inputs, like passwords, addresses, and credit card
numbers.

Krause doesn't suggest Meta is going that far, of course. His
research didn't allow him to see what data the company was
extracting, but he was able to confirm that they do extract
something.

I don't have a list of precise data Instagram sends back home. I do
have proof that the Instagram and Facebook app actively run
JavaScript commands to inject an additional JS SDK without the
user's consent, as well as tracking the user's text selections. If
Instagram is doing this already, they could also inject any other
JS code.

Class action lawsuit
Bloomberg reports that two users have now sued Meta in a proposed
class action lawsuit.

Meta Platforms Inc. was sued for allegedly building a secret
work-around to safeguards that Apple Inc. launched last year to
protect iPhone users from having their internet activity tracked.

In a proposed class-action complaint filed on Sept. 21 in San
Francisco federal court, two Facebook users accused the company of
skirting Apple's 2021 privacy rules and violating state and federal
laws limiting the unauthorized collection of personal data. A
similar complaint was filed in the same court [. . .]

Responding to the report, Meta acknowledged that the Facebook app
monitors browser activity, but denied it was illegally collecting
user data.

A Meta spokesperson told 9to5Mac: "These allegations are without
merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously. We have designed our
in-app browser to respect users' privacy choices, including how
data may be used for ads."

A class action suit is when others affected are invited to join the
action against the defendant. Generally this means no more than
filling in an online form if the case is successful, and
compensation awarded (which is generally just a few dollars per
person). A judge has to approve the conversion of the lawsuit to a
class action. [GN]

MGM RESORTS: Parties Seek OK of Class Certification Stipulation  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONI D. LUCAS, JEREMY
GOARD, and SHAWNDREA STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
INTERNAL COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, THE
ADMINSTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, and JOHN DOES
1-30, Case No. 2:20-cv-01750-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting stipulation regarding class
certification.

The parties agree that the class shall be defined as and limited
to:

   "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
   members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
   Plan, at any time between September 23, 2014 through the date
   of judgment, excluding any class member who executed an
   applicable release."

The Parties agree that Defendants specifically reserve the right to
litigate the effect of any release signed by any Named Plaintiff on
their claims and damages in this matter, including as an
affirmative defense.

MGM Resorts is an American global hospitality and entertainment
company operating destination resorts in Las Vegas, Massachusetts,
Detroit, Mississippi, Maryland, and New Jersey, including Bellagio,
Mandalay Bay, MGM Grand, and Park MGM.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DEVPnK at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

          - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh. Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Paul T. Trimmer, Esq.
          Phillip C. Thompson, Esq.
          Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
          Howard Shapiro, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
          Las Vegas, NE 89101
          Telephone: (702) 921-2460
          Facsimile: (702) 921-2461
          E-mail: Paul.Trimmer@jacksonlewis.com
                  Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com
                  Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com
                  Howard.Shapiro@jacksonlewis.com

MICHIGAN: O'Connor Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dennis O'Connor filed an appeal from a court ruling
dismissing their lawsuit entitled DENNIS O'CONNOR, Plaintiff v.
RACHAEL EUBANKS, TERRY STANTON, and the STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants, Case No. 21-12837, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

This putative class action concerns the Uniform Unclaimed Property
Program ("UUPP") arising under the State of Michigan's Uniform
Unclaimed Property Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 567.221, et seq.
The Act "provides a mechanism by which the state may hold certain
unclaimed property in trust for the benefit of the rightful
owner."

Mr. O'Connor, on behalf of himself and the class he seeks to
represent, filed a complaint -- that was later amended -- for money
damages against the State of Michigan and Defendants Eubanks
(administrator of UUPP) and Stanton (state administrative manager
of UUPP) in their personal capacities. The Amended Complaint
asserts that the Defendants violated the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution by not paying the
Plaintiff and the putative class members interest accumulated on
the value of the assets held in the UPPP, or alternatively, by
operating the UUPP as a "Ponzi scheme."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 20, 2022, Judge
Nancy G. Edmunds of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael
Eubanks, et al., Case No. 22-1780, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on Sept. 7, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate case state that appellant
brief is due on Oct. 17, 2022 and appellee brief is due on Nov. 16,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DENNIS O'CONNOR, and all those similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
          P.O. Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055

Defendants-Appellees RACHAEL EUBANKS, in her personal capacity as
Michigan State Treasurer, et al., are represented by:

          James Alan Ziehmer, Esq.
          Brian Kenneth McLaughlin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30754
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-3203

MIDTOWN HOME: Underpays Canvassers, Freeman FLSA Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
THADDEUS FREEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDTOWN HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00591-FJG (W.D. Mo., September 15,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated canvassers earned
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Missouri wage laws.

Mr. Freeman was employed by the Defendant as a canvasser from
approximately 2017 to June, 2022.

Midtown Home Improvements, Inc. is a home improvement company with
its principal place of business in the state of Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael Hodgson, Esq.
         THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
         3609 SW Pryor Road
         Lee's Summit, MO 64082
         Telephone: (816) 600-0117
         Facsimile: (816) 600-0137
         E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

MOTT'S LLP: Must Face Class Action Over Mislabeled Applesauce
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Mott's LLP must face a proposed class action
accusing the company of misleading consumers by labeling its
applesauce products as "Made From 100% Real Fruit" when they
contain high fructose corn syrup and another additive, a federal
judge said.

Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel in East St. Louis,
Illinois, rejected Mott's bid to toss consumer Amber Schneider's
suit after finding that a shopper could be misled by the "100%"
claim on the applesauce's label when the product has sweetener and
ascorbic acid added to it.

Rosenstengel wrote in the Sept. 19 ruling that the plaintiff "was
not required to question the label and parse it for ambiguities" in
the brief amount of time shoppers spend choosing applesauce,
"perhaps, in fact, with small children in tow."

Representatives for Keurig Dr Pepper Inc, which owns the Mott's
brand, and Perkins Coie attorneys representing the company did not
immediately respond to requests for comment. Attorneys for
Schneider, who is seeking to represent classes of shoppers from
both Illinois and the rest of the country, also did not immediately
respond.

Mott's has argued that the "100%" label is referring to the real
fruit in its product, and reasonable consumers would not see it and
assume the product is made solely from fruit. "There are scores of
cases" that hold reasonable consumers know products made with an
ingredient aren't necessarily made from it exclusively, the company
told Rosenstengel.

Perkins Coie, the firm representing Mott's in this case, tracks
litigation against food and beverage cases in a yearly report that
has shown a steady increase in class actions against the industry
since 2017. Last year's 325 cases marked the highest number of
these lawsuits since 2011, according to the report.

Mott's isn't the only company to face lawsuits over labels claiming
to contain "100%" of an ingredient. A case against several grocery
store companies over cans labeled "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" is
still ongoing in federal court after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed with other circuits that consumers can still be
deceived by labeling even if the ingredient list is correct.

But a recent pair of cases involving claims Kellogg Sales Co
misleads consumers about the fruit content of its Strawberry Pop
Tarts have had less success.

In July, a Manhattan federal judge dismissed a proposed class
action over Kellogg's Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Pop Tarts that
claimed the products conned consumers into believing they contained
more strawberries than they did, finding that no reasonable
consumer would assume the product's only ingredient was fresh
strawberries.

In March, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr in Manhattan
dismissed a similar case over regular Frosted Strawberry Pop Tarts
for the same reason.

"No reasonable consumer would see the entire product label, reading
the words ‘Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts' next to a picture of a
toaster pastry coated in frosting, and reasonably expect that fresh
strawberries would be the sole ingredient in the Product," Carter
wrote. [GN]

MUSTANG GAS PRODUCTS: Wake Energy Sues Over Untimely Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wake Energy, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Mustang Gas Products, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00821-J
(W.D. Okla., Sept. 16, 2022), is brought concerning the Defendant's
willful and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to the
interest owed on untimely payments of proceeds derived from the
sale of oil and gas production.

Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA") requires
holders of proceeds derived from the sale of oil and gas
production, like the Defendant here, 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. The PRSA 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.

The Defendant knows it is bound by statute to pay interest on late
payments, but has consistently ignored these obligations and
deliberately violated Oklahoma law. The Defendant does not
automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely payments of O&G
Proceeds. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory
interest when those legally entitled thereto demand it, despite the
fact that no such demand requirement exists. The Plaintiff brings
this class action to recover damages for itself and all similarly
situated owners who received untimely payments from the Defendant
for which it did not pay the interest required by the PRSA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company who owns an
oil and gas interest for which the Defendant owed a duty under
Oklahoma law to timely remit proceeds to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is in the business of purchasing and transporting oil
and gas and constituent products from the oil and gas properties in
which the class members hold interests.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
          211 N. Robinson Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: 405.293.3029
          Email: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com
                 Skeeter@BLSmithLaw.com


MY PILLOW: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 6
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gaudreau v. My Pillow,
Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01899 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
David A. Baker entered an order on the motion for extension of time
to file  motion for class certification, as follows:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
     certification is extended to October 6, 2022; and

  -- The response is due November 3, 2022.

The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.

My Pillow is an American pillow-manufacturing company based in
Chaska, Minnesota. The company was founded in 2009 by Mike Lindell,
who invented and patented My Pillow, an open-cell, poly-foam pillow
design.[CC]


NAIVE MELODY: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Morales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. NAIVE MELODY 24 LLC d/b/a MARIAN'S and CHRISTIAN ROWAN, Case No.
1:22-cv-07918 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2022), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law that the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages due
to time shaving; unpaid wages due to time shaving; unpaid minimum
wages due to an invalid tip credit; illegally retained gratuities;
compensation for late payment of wages; statutory penalties;
liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours worked due to the
Defendants' policy of time shaving. The Plaintiff was subject to a
30-minute meal break deduction every day. However, meal time was
not free and clear, and the Plaintiff was interrupted and required
to work through his meal breaks on a daily basis, either polishing
silverware or bussing tables. As a result, Plaintiff was time
shaved a total 2 hours per week. FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs and
Class Members also suffered similarly from the Defendants' illegal
policy of time shaving by deducting for meal breaks which were not
free and clear, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a support
staff for the Defendants' Marian's restaurant located in New York
City.

The Defendants owns and operates the Marian's restaurant located in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


NATIONAL WATERPROOFING: Harris Loses Conditional Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darwin Harris, et al., v.
National Waterproofing & Roofing LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01537-SPL (D. Ariz. ), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.

This case will proceed as a single action brought by the Plaintiffs
Darwin Harris and Jason McCoy against Defendants NWR and Kirk
Poteet for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, the Court says.

NWR is a specialized construction company primarily involved in
waterproofing and building restoration.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BxuLEf at no extra charge.[CC]

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kuo Sues Over Fraudulent Representations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Kuo, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public,
and those similarly situated v. NAVIENT CORPORATION; NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-05282-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16,
2022), is brought against the Defendants to seek declaratory and
injunctive relief on time-barred claims; redress for their
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent representations; and disgorgement
of Defendants' ill-gotten gains.

For over a decade, Navient has lied to borrowers of so-called Bar
Study Loans by telling them that the loans were not discharged in
their bankruptcies and that they remained responsible to pay the
balance. After courts around the country, including most recently
the Fifth Circuit, have held that Bar Study Loans are subject to
bankruptcy discharge orders, Navient has switched tactics. After
informing borrowers that the loans were not discharged in
bankruptcy--and collecting payments on those Loans from
borrowers--for years, the Defendants have now told guarantors that
the loans were discharged in bankruptcy and are attempting to
collect the balance from the guarantors. Kuo is a guarantor on a
Bar Study Loan that Navient is now attempting to collect payment
from him by making misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, seeking a judgment against
the Defendants that would, among other things: enjoin the
Defendants from soliciting payment from guarantors on the Bar Study
Loans that they are time-barred from collecting upon; declare that
any payments that Class Members made on the time-barred debts did
not extend the statute of limitations because any such payments
were induced by the Defendant's fraud; require the Defendants to
return to the guarantors the payments they made as a result of the
Defendants' fraudulent inducement of payments on the Bar Study
Loans that had long ago been discharged in bankruptcy and waive any
penalties and fees allegedly owed by the Plaintiff and the
guarantors for failure to make payments; and require the Defendants
to pay Plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of New York City, and
was a resident of San Francisco, California in March 2009 when he
negotiated and executed the promissory note, and intended to
perform, as a guarantor of Charles Martin's Bar Study Loan.

Navient Corporation is a Delaware corporation incorporated and
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Botello FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashley Botello, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated consumers v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Case
No. BER-L-003991-22 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of NJ, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for District
of New Jersey on Sept. 16, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-05601 to the
proceeding.

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

Navient Solutions, LLC -- https://navient.com/ -- provides
financial services. The Company offers consumer loans, asset
management, repayment plans, and business processing solutions to
education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal,
state, and local levels.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Clayton Joseph Vignocchi, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          31 WEST 52ND ST
          NEW YORK, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 513-3372
          Email: clayton.vignocchi@hklaw.com


NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCARE: Averts Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner on Sept. 19 disclosed that in a case of
first impression, BCLP's Class Action Team obtained a ruling from a
federal court which advances a novel legal theory -- that
nonprofit, federally supported health centers are immune from suit
for data breach class actions under the Federally Supported Health
Center Assistance Act (FSHCAA). The decision has enormous
implications for nonprofit health centers nationwide.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California held that BCLP client Neighborhood Healthcare was immune
from suit in a putative class action alleging violations of
California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
Plaintiff Jane Doe alleged that Neighborhood failed to adequately
safeguard her electronic patient health records in connection with
a highly publicized ransomware attack on Neighborhood's data
hosting provider.

BCLP advanced the novel theory that maintaining and securing
confidential electronic patient health records is an essential part
of providing effective health care and is required under federal
regulations, and is therefore a "related function" for purposes of
the FSHCAA. Based on this court decision, nonprofit health care
providers should carefully consider whether to seek deeming status,
the purchase of cyber-insurance, and how best to respond in the
event of a breach involving patient health records.

Partner Daniel Rockey, co-leader of the firm's Data Privacy,
Telecommunications & Collections Class Action Team, led this work
for client Neighborhood Healthcare, with support from LaDawn
Burnett. [GN]


NEURON FUEL: Sends Unsolicited Sales Calls, Hudgins Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HARLEY HUDGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEURON FUEL, INC. D/B/A TYNKER, Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-05271-NC (N.D. Cal., September 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending automated
telephonic sales calls, in the form of text messages, to the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and numerous other individuals
across Florida without obtaining prior express written consent. As
a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the privacy of the
Plaintiff has been invaded, says the suit.

Neuron Fuel, Inc., doing business as Tynker, is an educational
programming platform company, with its corporate headquarters in
Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
         HEDIN HALL LLP
         1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 357-2107
         Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
         E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com

NEW YORK, NY: Ex-Women's Prison Detainees File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Graham Rayman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that like
other state prisoners from New York City, A.Q. wanted to be closer
to home -- so much so she lobbied the state correction commissioner
to finish her sentence at a Manhattan women's prison.

She got the transfer to the Bayview Correctional Facility on W.
20th St. in Chelsea-- and became one of numerous women who say they
were coerced into sex acts by prison guards who threatened their
return to harsher lockups upstate.

Soon after she arrived at Bayview in 2010, A.Q. said, an officer
who worked nights would come to her private room and coerce her
into groping him.

"Any time he wanted to, he would just barge in," she said. "He knew
I wanted to stay at Bayview. He would say, 'Don't tell anyone. You
know where you're going to go.'"

A.Q. is one of at least a dozen women who have signed on to a class
action lawsuit to be filed against the state under the Adult
Survivors Act, which opens a one-year window for adult sexual
assault survivors to sue outside New York's statute of limitation
for such lawsuits. The one-year window opens late in November.

"This particular correctional facility had a persistent and
prolific pattern of sexual abuse between correction officers and
inmates over the decades," said lawyer Anna Kull of the Levy
Konigsberg law firm, which represents the victims.

"The abuse ranged from peeping Tom situations to fondling and
molesting them all the way to rape," said Kull. "It became really
ingrained in the [prison's] culture."

A.Q. said she suffered the abuse because it seemed the clearest
path to getting out of prison and moving forward with her life. "I
was just thinking about going home," she said.

A.Q, who now works as a bartender and is six months pregnant, was
one of a number of women who told the Daily News their stories of
being abused by the prison's staff. Most of them asked to be
identified only by their initials or first names.

Bayview, located across 11th Ave. from the Chelsea Piers complex,
became a state prison for women in 1978. In 2012, it was flooded
during Hurricane Sandy and the state opted not to reopen it.
Several attempts to sell or lease the building failed, and it
remains dormant today.

But its grim legacy lives on in the stories of the women who served
time there.

Typically, Bayview detainees were either nearing the end of their
prison terms or in coveted work release programs with weekend
passes. Many were young mothers from the city who benefitted from
having their children and extended family close by.

Those factors gave their jailers an enormous amount of leverage
over the women -- and incentive for them to remain quiet about the
sexual abuse they suffered, Kull said.

"They were less likely to report it because you don't want to
ruffle feathers," the lawyer said. "A lot of them were being
threatened into silence to avoid being sent upstate."

Thomas Mailey, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision, declined to comment on any potential
litigation. In a statement, he described the agency as a national
leader in preventing prison sexual abuse.

"The department has zero tolerance for sexual abuse, which is
illegal, violates department rules and threatens security," he
said. "All reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment are
thoroughly investigated, as is retaliation against any individuals
who cooperate with those investigations."

But at the time of their incarceration years ago, the women signing
on to Levy Konigsberg's planned lawsuit saw no benefit in reporting
prison staff's behavior.

"I didn't report it because I saw people write statements, and
nothing happened," said A.Q.

"One girl came forward and they just transferred her. They said she
was lying and put her in lockdown," she recounted. "I was just
thinking about going home."

A.Q. kept the secret until she told her mom about a year ago.

Sometimes officers provided the women with other forms of help in
exchange for sex, former detainees said.

"I didn't get visits or packages. He said he would take care of
me," former Bayview detainee Georgette B. recalled of an officer
she says forced her into sex.

"I would fill out an order [for the prison commissary] and I would
give it to him and he would put some money in it," said Georgette
B., who is now 56 and lives in the Bronx.
She said she was in the last stages of her prison sentence in 1997
when the officer, who escorted inmates to the mess hall, regularly
coerced her into sex acts in the rear of a vacant gym.

Like many of the other victims, Georgette says she had been
previously sexually abused and had little self-esteem.

"I was being used," she said. "It was something that I was familiar
with. I didn't report it because I always blamed myself. I didn't
think people would believe me. It would only make my stay more
difficult."

She signed on to the lawsuit because she sees power in numbers. "If
more than one person comes forward, it will be more believable,"
she said. "We suffered for too long in silence, and we're sick of
our secrets."

A former detainee who asked to be identified as B.V. arrived at
Bayview in 1997 on work release after a conviction for steering --
showing two undercover cops where to buy drugs. She was
drug-addicted herself at the time.

One night about three months in to her Bayview stay, an officer
woke her up and demanded she clean a bathroom. He led her to a
toilet stained with feces, pushed her to her knees and forced her
to give him oral sex, B.V. recalled.

"I started crying, gagging and choking," said B.V., now 52 years
old. "He kept on until he was done and then he said, 'Be careful,
you don't want to ruin your weekend passes.'"

C.B. was a Bayview detainee from 1995 to 1997 and worked in the
state Department of Motor Vehicles call center that was housed
there.

One night an officer told her she had a medical appointment -- but
when she got to the clinic, no one was there.

She says the officer sexually assaulted her and then told her, "You
know you can't tell anyone about this because you'll end up right
back where you came from."

"I was desperate enough to want to remain where I was, so I just
stayed quiet," said C.B., now 57.

"I didn't report it. I was warned of what the consequences would
be. When people did tell, they would get shipped off and sent to
lockdown," she said. "There was no incentive to report it."

On the day she was released, the same officer asked her for her
address and said, "We should stay in touch. Where are you going
to?"

"The audacity of that!" said C.B. "I didn't respond. I knew then
there was nothing more he could do to me."

Sexual abuse was a problem at Bayview long before the plaintiffs in
Levy Konigsberg's planned suit were incarcerated there.

A Correctional Association of New York report covering the 1980s
noted a shortage of female guards at the prison. "At Bayview,
sexual abuse seems to manifest itself in a variety of ways -- from
verbal harassment to coerced sexual contact," the report said.

Over the years, the state has settled a handful of sex abuse
lawsuits involving Bayview, including a payment of $300,000 to
former inmate Sarene Walsh, who alleged she was pushed into a
closet and groped by an officer in 2012, court records show.

In 2003, the Legal Aid Society sued on behalf of 17 women who
claimed they were sexually abused in Bayview and seven other state
prisons that housed women. One of the women become pregnant by a
guard who was charged with a crime and fired.

While several plaintiffs received monetary compensation, the case
collided with the range of procedural hurdles that blunted its
effect.

The survivors act reopens a door victims thought was long closed.

C.B. was hosting a baby shower for her daughter in July when a
friend mentioned a Levy Konigsberg ad seeking women to join the
lawsuit.

"I said, 'Send me the information, so I can share with someone who
deserves to know about it,'" C.B. said. "That someone, of course,
was me." [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Fire Protection Inspectors' Racism Suit Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Crane-Newman, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
City Fire Department inspectors who say they make less money than
workers in similar jobs at the Department of Buildings can pursue
their case against the city as a class action, a federal judge
ruled.

The decision by Manhattan Federal Court Judge Analisa Torres will
help the 500 predominately nonwhite fire protection inspectors in
their suit, which blames their low pay on racial discrimination.

More than 70% of the 500 fire protection inspectors are minorities,
the lawsuit says. Their higher-paid counterparts at the Buildings
Department are approximately 50% white, says the suit.

Torres found the fire protection inspectors' arguments and publicly
available data cited in their lawsuit convincing enough to let
their case proceed as a class action.

That means that the lawsuit, originally filed by five fire
protection inspectors and their union, can now be deemed to
represent everyone who worked as a fire protection inspector during
the three years before the complaint was filed to now.

Torres also wrote that the Fire Department and Buildings Department
employees "perform similar tasks and the jobs require similar
knowledge, skills, and abilities."

The judge noted that the jobs are so similar that city officials
considered consolidating them on at least two occasions. Yet the
persisting pay gap between them averages about $9,000 per year,
according to public data cited in the plaintiffs' lawsuit.

"For too many years, the city has treated fire protection
inspectors as second-class employees," said Darryl Chalmers, one of
the original plaintiffs in the case. "We look forward to the day
when our critical services to the city are properly valued."

"Judge Torres allowing the case to proceed as a class action on
behalf of all the city's fire protection inspectors is a critical
step toward righting a wrong," said Michael Lieder, a lawyer for
the plaintiffs.

Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci said the city was unhappy
with Torres' decision. He said Torres was wrong to write that the
Fire Department and Buildings Department jobs are similar. "The two
positions differ significantly in terms of educational requirements
and responsibilities, and the salaries are determined by
negotiations with the unions," Paolucci said.

On top of less pay, the fire inspectors argue that while their work
is virtually identical to Buildings Department inspectors, they
more regularly face danger. Unlike Buildings Department inspectors,
fire inspectors are peace officers and can issue criminal summons
and court appearance tickets.

Oren Barzilay, president of FDNY-EMS Local 2507, told the Daily
News his members regularly deal with life-threatening situations.

"Our fire inspectors secure, for instance, all the gas pipes that
lead through the airport -- all the fuel lines," he said.

"Fire inspectors protect the lives of New Yorkers every day," he
said. "It's the right decision." [GN]

NEXTPHASE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nextphase, Inc. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Nextphase, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07967 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2022).

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

Nextphase -- http://nextphase-inc.com/-- is a workplace interiors
partner serving organizations in Western, Central, and Eastern
Michigan.[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



NORMANDY, MO: Parties Seek Approval of Terms in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA DAVIS; QUINTON M.
THOMAS; ROELIF EARL CARTER; MEREDITH WALKER; v. CITY OF NORMANDY,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01514-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. approving the terms of the proposed class action
      settlement;

   2. approving Class Counsel's application for an award of
      attorneys' fees and costs; and

   3. entering a Final Order consistent with these findings.

The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the parties'
proposed class settlement on March 29, 2022, finding the terms
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to inform the class and
proceed to a formal fairness determination.

The Settlement provides Class Members with substantial and
immediate monetary relief and Normandy with certainty and finality,
while avoiding the inherent risks, delays, and expenses associated
with continued, protracted class action litigation.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 8, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dBJFl5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Waldron, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Maureen G.V. Hanlon, Esq.
          ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 North 4th Street, Ste. 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (855) 724-2489
          Facsimile: (314) 925-1307
          E-mail: jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -

          S. Zachary Fayne, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 471-3114
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: Zachary.fayne@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Retter, Esq.
          HELLMICH, HILL & RETTER, LLC
          1049 N. Clay Ave.
          Kirkwood, MO 63122
          Telephone: (314) 646-1110
          E-mail: jason@hellmichhillretter.com

NPAS SOLUTIONS: Lower Court's Approval of Service Award Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Naini and Julie Nepveu of AARP Foundation disclosed that the
Court may soon have the opportunity to address a relatively recent,
lop-sided circuit split with important consequences for class
actions. Courts routinely approve service awards (also known as
incentive awards or case contribution awards) for lead plaintiffs
to compensate them for their time and resources spent and
reputational risk incurred. In Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975
F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020), however, the Eleventh Circuit held that
a pair of Supreme Court precedents from the 1880s prohibit service
awards. On August 3, 2022, the court denied a petition for
rehearing en banc of that decision, and a petition for certiorari
may be forthcoming. 43 F.4th 1138 (11th Cir. 2022).

In Johnson, the lead plaintiff sued NPAS Solutions, LLC, alleging
that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227, by using an automatic telephone-dialing system to call
him and other class members without their consent. 975 F.3d at
1249. The district court approved a $1,432,000 million settlement
for the class, which included a $6,000 service award to the lead
plaintiff. Id. at 1249-51.

On appeal, a divided panel reversed the district court's approval
of the service award, concluding that two Supreme Court cases
prohibited it. The majority relied on Trustees v. Greenough, 105
U.S. 527 (1882), in which the Supreme Court held that a
plaintiff-creditor who sued to recover on behalf of himself and
other creditors could not receive an allowance for his "personal
services and private expenses." Id. at 1256-57 (citing 105 U.S.
527, 537 (1882)). The majority also read Central Railroad & Banking
Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), to confirm this prohibition.
Johnson, 975 F.3d at 1250. Reasoning that the modern-day service
award functions as a "salary" (compensation for the lead
plaintiff's time) and a "bounty" (incentivizing named plaintiffs to
lead class actions), the majority held that Greenough and Pettus
disallow it. Id. at 1257-59.

The partly concurring and dissenting opinion noted that courts have
granted service awards for decades; that the Third, Fourth, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have all approved of
service awards; and that even prior Eleventh Circuit precedent has
implicitly approved of service awards. Id. at 1266-67 (Martin, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (explaining that the
Eleventh Circuit articulated a test for service awards in Holmes v.
Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983)). Judge Martin
further argued that prohibiting service awards will require named
plaintiffs to "incur costs well beyond any benefits they receive
from their role in leading the class," and make potential
plaintiffs "less willing to take on the role of class
representative in the future." Id. at 1264.

Neither the circuit split created by Johnson nor the salience of
service awards will be receding anytime soon. Following the
Eleventh Circuit's decision (but prior to its denial of the
petition for rehearing en banc), the Sixth Circuit summarily
affirmed a service award. Shane Grp. Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Mich., 833 F. App'x 430, 431 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).
Service awards can be an important factor in encouraging
individuals to act as lead plaintiffs, and they are effective in
allowing lead plaintiffs to turn down settlement offers aimed at
"buying them out" to dispose of a class action. Because they are
nearly ubiquitous -- the Eleventh Circuit is the only circuit to
have forbidden them -- a Supreme Court decision reversing Johnson
will not do much beyond re-affirming the status quo. Affirming
Johnson, however, will likely make certain class-action cases
harder to prosecute. [GN]

NURTURE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ, v.
NURTURE, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Edward J. Davila Judge entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss:

  -- The motion to dismiss is denied as to the "unlawful" theory
     of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim and the unjust
     enrichment claim.

  -- The motion to dismiss is granted in all other respects.

  -- The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Should the
     Plaintiff choose to amend her complaint, the amended
     complaint is due within 30 days of the filing of this
     Order.

Ms. Sanchez filed this class action alleging that the Defendant's
products have been improperly labeled and misbranded in violation
of several California and federal laws such
as, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising,
Business and Professions Code (FAL), and the UCL.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QVtHj7 at no extra charge.[CC]


NUSCALE POWER: Former Employees File Suit Over Stock Valuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Manfield, writing for Willamette Week, reports that former
employees of NuScale, a Tigard company that designs nuclear
reactors, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Portland,
alleging the company denied them $100 million in proceeds when it
went public earlier this year.

NuScale began trading under the ticker symbol SMR after a merger
with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company in May. It was valued at
nearly $1.9 billion, thanks to its innovative nuclear reactor
design, which was recently greenlit by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The company emerged from research at Oregon State
University.

The lawsuit is being brought by 13 former employees who allege that
the company diluted the value of their stock without their approval
using an "unlawful amendment" to an agreement between them and
company. It's similar to a lawsuit filed earlier this year, before
NuScale went public, but this version is a class action on behalf
of at least 600 shareholders.

They're asking for $200 million in damages, along with the return
of the money lost in the dilution.

After nearly going broke, NuScale's founders sold a majority of the
company to the Texas-based multinational conglomerate Fluor
Corporation for $3.5 million in 2011. Fluor is named as a defendant
in the lawsuit.

"They're screwing the employees of the company," says Timothy
DeJong of the Stoll Berne law firm, who represents the former
employees, most of whom were once NuScale executives.

NuScale released a statement to WW saying the "claims are without
merit" and promised to defend itself in "the appropriate forum."
Fluor did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN]

NUSCALE POWER: Surina Sues Over Unlawful Restructuring of Equity
----------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Surina, Jr., trustee of the Elizabeth Sophia Surina Trust
and Nicholas William Surina Trust; BRUCE LANDREY, an individual;
PAUL LORENZINI, an individual; RICHARD SANDVIK, an individual;
EDWARD G. WALLACE, an individual; JACK A. BAILEY, an individual;
GARY CARL BARBOUR, an individual; PAUL D. BENNETT, an individual;
JAMES E.CARTER, an individual; CHARLES MARCINKIEWICZ, trustee of
the Charles & Kathleen Marcinkiewicz Trust; MICHAEL S. MCGOUGH, an
individual; CHRISTOPHER RUNCKEL, an individual; and JOE CLAYTON
TURNAGE, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. NUSCALE POWER, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., a California
corporation; JAPAN NUSCALE INNOVATION, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; SARGENT & LUNDY NUHOLDINGS, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Case No. 3:22-cv-01410-YY (D. Ore.,
Sept. 19, 2022), is brought as a results from Defendants' abuse of
their control of NuScale Power, LLC through an unlawful amendment
of the Company's operating agreement and restructuring of the
Company's equity on or about May 2, 2022 (the "Restructuring") that
enriched Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs and other present
and former employees of the Company.

The Restructuring preceded a complex merger, after which holders of
the Company's restructured stock received the option to exchange
their restructured shares for publicly traded shares. In the
Restructuring, the Defendants received more restructured Company
shares than they were entitled to, and the Plaintiffs and the class
they seek to represent received substantially fewer shares than
they were entitled to. The result is that Plaintiffs and the class
lost more than $100 million in value, and Defendants were unjustly
enriched by more than that amount. The Plaintiffs bring this action
on behalf of a class of all persons holding Common Units and/or
Common Unit Options that were adversely affected by the
Restructuring. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of their rights and to
recover their damages and the additional amounts by which the
Defendants were unjustly enriched, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former executives and minority members of
NuScale that, collectively, held substantial Common Units and
Common Unit Options.

NuScale is an Oregon limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Washington County, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
          Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
          Lydia Anderson-Dana, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Phone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          Email: tdejong@stollberne.com
                 kketterling@stollberne.com
                 landersondana@stollberne.com


ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Lamb Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
--------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Lamb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONETOUCHPOINT CORP., Case No. 2:22-cv-01091-BHL (E.D.
Wis., Sept. 20, 2022), is brought against OTP for its failure to
secure and safeguard her and at least 2,651,396 other individuals'
personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI"), including names, member IDs, and information
that may have been provided during a health assessment.

On April 27, 2022, unauthorized individuals gained access to OTP's
network systems and had access to and encrypted files that
contained the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data
Breach"). OTP owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to
implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized
access and disclosure. OTP breached that duty by, among other
things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect its customers' patients'
PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure.

As a result of OTP's inadequate security and breach of its duties
and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and the Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. The Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and all United States
residents whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach,
which OTP learned of on or about April 28, 2022, and first publicly
acknowledged on or about July 27, 2022, approximately three months
after the breach was discovered. The Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all other Class members, asserts claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an Ohio resident who received health insurance
from CareSource, a company that hired OTP to provide printing
services.

OTP provides printing and mailing services to health insurance
carriers and medical providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.621.2000
          Fax: 312.641.5504
          Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                 aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                 rprince@barnowlaw.com


OREGON: State Supreme Court Won't Review Timber Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mateusz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reports that a
class-action lawsuit pursued by counties against logging
restrictions on state forestlands has reached the end of the road.

The counties have failed to convince the Oregon Supreme Court to
review a decision that overturned a $1 billion judgment against the
state government earlier this year.

The Oregon Supreme Court has denied a request by counties to
reinstate a $1 billion judgment against the state government.

An attorney for the counties said they are "deeply disappointed"
the state's highest court will not consider reinstating the award.

For the rural communities involved in the lawsuit, the judgment
represented "funds their local governments should have been paid
long ago and which they could have used for their schools,
libraries, hospitals, public safety and other services," said John
DiLorenzo, attorney for the counties.

However, critics had expected the court's decision, characterizing
the plaintiff's legal underpinnings as flimsy and far-fetched from
the outset.

"There was nothing there to begin with and there was nothing to
take to the Supreme Court," said Ralph Bloemers, an attorney who
represented fishing and conservation groups.

The lawsuit was filed by six years ago by Linn County, which
claimed forestry officials were contractually bound to maximize
logging revenues on nearly 700,000 acres donated by the counties.

The case was granted class-action status, allowing local
governments to argue they had been deprived of more than $1 billion
in timber harvest revenues after state forest managers began
emphasizing environmental and recreational considerations about two
decades ago.

In Clatsop County, the Board of Commissioners voted 3 to 2 to opt
out of the suit in 2017. The county, which includes Clatsop State
Forest, was the highest-profile defection among the state's timber
counties.

In 2019, a Circuit Court jury agreed the state government had
breached its contract with the counties, which gave up the
forestlands in the 1930s and 1940s in return for a share of timber
revenues.

The state's Court of Appeals threw out that verdict in April,
ruling that the lawsuit should have been dismissed before even
reaching the jury

Linn County, the lead plaintiff, challenged that legal opinion on
behalf of the counties and numerous tax districts within them, but
the state's highest court has now denied the petition without
comment.

That leaves the Court of Appeals ruling as the last word in the
case.

While state forestlands must be managed for the greatest permanent
value, that phrase gives state government a lot of leeway, the
appellate ruling said. It doesn't amount to an "immutable promise"
to maximize timber harvest, since there are other values than
revenue production.

Forest management and other matters of statewide concern are
policies over which counties cannot sue the state, since they are
political subdivisions of the state, the ruling said.

The Court of Appeals ruling allows the state government to make
unilateral changes without the consent of the counties, which has
far-reaching implications, DiLorenzo said.

"Issues of this magnitude that directly affect the people of Oregon
and impact future cooperation between local governments and the
state government should have been decided by the Supreme Court, not
the Court of Appeals," he said in an email.

Now that the Supreme Court has refused to entertain the lawsuit's
"red herring" legal theory, there's no question that state forests
must be managed for the benefit of all Oregonians, Bloemers said.

"For the people of Oregon, it's good that this came about," he
said.

Bloemers said the lawsuit was a "high-stakes gamble based on a
false narrative" that has now raised questions about tax breaks
enjoyed by timber companies.

Only a small fraction of Oregon's forests are owned by the state
government, whose holdings are dwarfed by industrial timber
operators, he said.

County commissioners went along with the lawsuit based on the
"myth" and "political argument" that state forest policies have
underfunded local governments, when tax cuts for timber companies
have a much bigger impact, Bloemers said.

"It's much harder for them to point their fingers at their
political backers, who aren't paying their fair share," he said.
"They're the real culprits who aren't supporting rural
communities." [GN]

ORIGINAL FOOTWEAR: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Original Footwear
Manufacturing BR, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Original Footwear Manufacturing BR, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00709
(W.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

Original Footwear Manufacturing BR -- https://originalfootwear.com/
-- offers new boots online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: New Partner Added to "Moneymaker" Plaintiffs' Team
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for Poker.org, reports that a new twist in
the famed 'Moneymaker' class action targeting online-payments giant
PayPal over alleged illegal seizures of users' balances will bring
the chance to participate to a global audience, via an additional
partner added to the plaintiffs' expanding legal and business team.
Via the addition of a new firm to the proceedings, Justitia Dao,
alleged victims of PayPal will be able to assign their rights en
masse to an independent manager who will then arbitrate the claim
on the victims' behalf.

All of the alleged victims of PayPal's seizures are now able to
access a new global intake form at paypalclassaction.net. The
extended intake form explains the process through which possible
claimants can join the action. Once registered, each claimant will
receive, free of charge, a blockchain token that authenticates the
claimant's participation in the action.

According to attorney Eric Bensamochan, the new approach addresses
legal hurdles placed in the path of the original class action as
initially filed. In June, PayPal successfully petitioned the court
to combine the initial class action with a similar class action
filed earlier, and to compel the matter to be heard by an
arbitrator rather than moving to full trial proceedings.

At the time, Bensamochan promised to continue that battle, and the
order sending the case to arbitration remains under appeal. Poker
League of Nations founder Lena Evans remains the lead plaintiff in
the case after replacing Chris Moneymaker. Moneymaker had planned
to sue and retained Bensamochan for that purpose, but PayPal
quickly refunded a five-figure sum to Moneymaker and made his
participation moot.

"We promised Chris Moneymaker that we would not stop fighting for
all of those who have been victimized by PayPal's practices of
keeping people's hard-earned money," Bensamochan said. We have now
found the way. Visit the website for an updated contribution form.
There is no amount too big or small, and geographic location is not
an issue for this. We will be hitting PayPal with a mass
arbitration after having partnered with a third firm. We take our
commitment to the community very seriously and are prepared to take
this to the fullest extent possible."

Justitia Dao partnership expands case worldwide
The twist involving Justitia Dao is that aggrieved PayPal users may
now join the action from any country on the planet. By assigning
their rights to the "Manager", the users may also pursue claims for
much smaller amounts that would normally not be worth bringing
legal action to resolve. The revised action and the legal approach
now being used are also intended to address the "anti-class action
and anti-mass arbitration provisions," as Bensamochan described it,
that PayPal's legal team is asserting within the original
"Moneymaker" case.

Bensamochan shared with Poker.org that the revised action will
begin with between 10,000 and 15,000 plaintiffs, and tens of
thousands more are expected to join once word of the action
spreads. "So far, we have close to 8,000 just in China,"
Bensamochan said. "We will be issuing 'tokens' via a blockchain
technology to anyone and everyone who signs up.  Basically we are
having those with money taken assign their claims to a third party
entity who in turn, will bring a mass arbitration on all of their
behaves."

New plaintiffs joining the action will have to learn just enough
blockchain tech to create an OpenBlock Wallet, but there's no
financial risk. The issued tokens are free and signify no value
other than participation in the Justitia Dao-aggregated action.
[GN]

PERFECT B: Peyre Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Arleyn S. Peyre, and other similarly situated individuals v.
PERFECT B, LLC, a/k/a PERFECT B AESTHETIC MEDICINE and RAFAEL
SILVA, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-22982-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept.
19, 2022), is brought for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While employed with the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked overtime
hours that were not paid to her at any rate, not even at the
minimum wage rate, as required by law. The Plaintiff had a regular
schedule. The Plaintiff worked 5 days from Monday to Friday for 40
hours or more. Sometimes the Plaintiff worked at the office more
than 40 hours, but she was paid for her on-the-clock regular and
overtime hours. However, the Defendant failed to count certain
hours worked by Plaintiff as compensable hours. Therefore, the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages, at
the rate of time and a half her regular rate, for every hour that
she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full time, hourly employee from September 29, 2021, to June 22,
2022, or 30 weeks.

The Defendant is a med spa specializing in Aesthetic medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PETECO INTERNATIONAL: Thorn Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Travis Thorn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PETECO INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03208 (S.D.
Tex., Sept. 20, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay minimum wage and overtime premiums to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and the other Delivery Drivers at the Defendant's
restaurants worked "dual jobs." Specifically, they delivered food
to the Defendant's customers and receive tips, and they also worked
inside the store completing nontipped duties. The Defendant paid
the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers less than minimum wage per
hour for all hours worked. In other words, the Defendant takes
advantage of the "tip credit" provision of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff occasionally worked over 40 hours in a week, and in
these weeks he did not receive a sufficient overtime premium
because of the unreimbursed mileage expenses. Other Delivery
Drivers also occasionally worked over 40 hours in a week and also
incurred overtime violations due to the unreimbursed mileage
expenses. The Defendant knew or should have known that it was not
paying the Plaintiff and other Delivery Drivers sufficient minimum
wages and overtime premiums., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Delivery Driver from November of 2021 until June of 2022.

The Defendant owns and operates Papa John's franchises in
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040


PETSMART LLC: Class Action Over False Training Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Fister Gale, writing for Chief Learning Officer, reports that
If you have ever tried to help a young person find a first job that
could lead to a career, you may have stumbled across a posting from
PetSmart, the national pet products retailer, that offers free
training as a pet groomer -- no experience required.

The job promises new hires access to the PetSmart Grooming Academy
where they will participate in "an exclusive and knowledge-filled
four-week, 160-hour-long program" that includes classroom training,
hand-on grooming experience under the guidance of a senior groomer
and a tool kit "worth over $600" upon graduation.

Free training that comes at a price

It's a compelling offer. Free training is seen as value-add for new
hires, especially if it helps inexperienced workers develop an
in-demand skill. But PetSmart's promised training comes with a
catch.

New groomers are expected to pay back the full price of the
training -- up to $5,600 including the groomers kit -- if they
don't stay with the company for two full years, even if they are
fired or laid off. The debt is reduced to about $2,750 after one
full year on the job.

PetSmart also requires all of its groomers to sign a Training
Repayment Agreement Provision as part of its new hire paperwork,
which includes language saying the training "is voluntary, for my
personal benefit, and is transferable to grooming positions with
other employers."

Illegal scheme

In July 2022, BreAnn Scally, a former PetSmart pet groomer, filed a
groundbreaking class-action lawsuit in California against the
retailer alleging it engaged in an illegal scheme to trap trainees
in low-wage jobs by levying thousands of dollars in "abusive and
unenforceable debts" against them.

The lawsuit also claims that the pet groomer training has failed to
deliver "exclusive instruction from a dedicated teacher in a
classroom setting as well as a supervised, hands-on grooming
experience," which is part of the promised training agreement.
Instead, novice groomers are rapidly put in situations where they
are expected to groom dogs for paying customers with little
oversight or guidance.

Scally's lawyers argue that the supervision provided is minimal,
often by senior groomers or store managers who are overseeing their
own customers and full-time workload. Scally reports that she
learned most of her skills by going through the training materials
on her own and observing other groomers, and that it wasn't worth
the cost: "That $5,000 far exceeds any reasonable value of the
Grooming Academy and is well beyond what PetSmart groomers, who
make barely above minimum wage, are able to afford," the lawsuit
contends.

Once groomers complete the training, they are expected to complete
200 "supervised grooms" at their hourly pay rate with no
commission, followed by six more months of work before they can
start collecting a commission. This means it could be more than a
year before they are earning above minimum wage. If they leave
before the two years are complete, the company threatens to send
debt collectors after them to pay for the training and the groomers
kit.

Worthless certification

"The crux of the issue is that for PetSmart workers to become
groomers, they are required to complete the Grooming Academy," says
Rachel Dempsey, an attorney with Towards Justice, the nonprofit
workers' rights law firm representing Scally in collaboration with
Jubilee Legal and with support from the Student Borrower Protection
Center.

They argue that the practice of using TRAPs is illegal either under
California Employment Law or under California Consumer Law.

California Employment law prohibits employers from holding
employees accountable for the cost of doing business. "To the
extent that the training they receive is necessary to do their job
and primarily benefits PetSmart, rather than the employees, then
it's unlawful under California Employment Law," Dempsey explains.

This includes requiring them to pay for the groomers kit, which is
a necessary part of the job. PetSmart does not provide groomers
with the tools needed to groom client's pets.

Conversely, if PetSmart tries to present the training as a valuable
and transferable product, e.g., a certification that would apply in
any pet grooming environment, then it falls under the category of a
consumer product. This might apply if a company pays for an
employee to complete a master's degree at an accredited university,
or an in-demand software certification that includes testing by a
verified third-party vendor. However, the grooming world doesn't
require licensing in California, nor does it recognize the PetSmart
Academy or groomers certification.

PetSmart isn't registered as a provider of education in California,
so in this context they would be operating as an unlicensed school,
saddling groomers with debt under unfair and abusive circumstances.
"They are basically treating employees as consumers and holding
their debt, which doesn't comply with requirements for holding or
trying to collect on a debt," Dempsey says.

The lawsuit argues that, either way, TRAP strips PetSmart workers
of bargaining power that they could use to seek out employment
opportunities in which they would be paid more or treated better.

The potential impact to PetSmart will be determined by the number
of participants who join the class-action lawsuit and the damages
assigned if they lose. Damages could include reimbursing any
repayments they collected via the TRAP in California, along with
damages and back wages tied to the impact these practices had on
employee earning potential and negotiating power. It could also
trigger similar suits in other states, and potentially a federal
claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Dempsey says.

Who benefits?

While such predatory contract terms have existed for decades, TRAPs
are becoming more common as companies look for new ways to
undermine worker bargaining power. "Employers are using TRAPs as a
way to get around prohibitions on non-competes," Dempsey says. "The
goal of these restrictive covenants is to lower employee mobility,
making employees less able to negotiate for higher wages and better
working conditions. It keeps them at jobs they would otherwise
leave if they didn't have massive economic consequences."

Companies using these repayment provisions need to be careful about
the cost they assign to that training, whether it adds value for
the employee, and whether it is required to do the work. "When
employers start charging for training that they would like the
employee to have, but is not legally required, that's a concern,"
she says. "It is an important distinction for HR teams to recognize
when they are developing these policies."

Even if it is legal, companies need to consider the message it
sends to employees about company culture. "Employees want to work
in a place that provides them with good working conditions and
benefits," she says. "And free training is a good benefit."

Rather than trying to lower costs by charging employees to provide
that training, a better approach might be to treat them well so
they won't leave. "The best way to save money on employee training
is to reduce turnover," Dempsey concludes. "If you don't have to
constantly train new employees, your costs will go down." [GN]

PHOENIX ROZE NY: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Roze NY, Inc.
The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Phoenix Roze NY, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08030 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022).

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

Phoenix Roze NY, Inc. -- https://www.phoenixroze.com/ -- offers
unique artisan jewelry, handcrafted in the heart of New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINK OLIVE INC: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pink Olive, Inc. The
case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pink Olive, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08031 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022).

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

Pink Olive -- https://pinkolive.com/ -- is a whimsical boutique
that specializes in unique gifts for happiness and home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POWER HOME: Bates Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS BATES and CODY FEDDER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWER HOME SOLAR, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-12190-LVP-KGA (E.D. Mich., September
15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide 60 days'
notice of a mass layoff as required by the WARN Act. The Defendant
terminated the Plaintiffs together with approximately 300 other
employees as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing on or about
September 1-13, 2022, without any advance notice. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members their
respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay
and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective
terminations, says the suit.

Power Home Solar, LLC is a solar power company, headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         John C. Philo, Esq.
         Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
         SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
         4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Fl.
         Detroit, MI 48201
         Telephone: (313) 993-4505
         Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
         E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                 tparis@sugarlaw.org

                 - and -

         Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
         LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
         100 Church Street, 8th FL
         New York, NY 10078
         Telephone: (212) 581-5005
         Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

                 - and -

         Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
         M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
         THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
         182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
         Mobile, AL 36602
         Telephone: (251) 433-8100
         Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

PREMIERE GLOBAL: Goodnow, et al., Seek to Certify Employee Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY GOODNOW, AUDRA
TERRAZAS, AND TIMOTHY STEFFENS, All Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.,
AMERICAN TELECONFERENCING SERVICES, LTD., AUDIO TELCOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY II LLC, and DOE CORPS 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-02184-TWT
(N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying a class defined as follows:

      "All former employees of PGi who: (1) entered into a
      Severance Agreement in connection with layoffs conducted
      on or around March 31, 2021, June 25, 2021, or August 20,
      2021; and (2) were not paid the full amount of their Basic
      Severance or Enhanced Severance promised in the Severance
      Agreement;

   2. Appointing them as class representatives;

   3. Appointing counsel for Plaintiffs, Jeremy Stephens and
      Bryan Arbeit of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., as Class Counsel;

   4. Approving the form and method of Notice, and finding said
      Notice to be fair, reasonable, and adequate and consistent
      with due process; and

   5. Any other relief that is just and proper

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are former PGi employees who
were participants of the Premiere Global Services U.S. Affiliates
Severance Pay Plan Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2018,
and who were terminated for a "Severance-Qualifying Event" on or
around March 31, 2021, June 25, 2021 and August 20, 2021.

Specifically, the Chief Human Resources Officer of PGi sent an
email that explained that PGi was required to hold, or stop payment
on, all severance payments in the U.S. as part of a new forbearance
agreement with lenders.

The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and the
Putative Class to recover their unpaid Basic Severance Pay pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA)" and their
Enhanced Severance Pay pursuant to Georgia common law.

Premiere Global provides collaboration software. The Company offers
web casting, event streaming, and project management.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
          Bryan Arbeit, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Ste. 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Telephone: (404) 965-1682
          E-mail: jstephens@forthepeople.com
                  barbeit@forthepeople.com

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: Settles Pension Class Suit for $267-M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP will pay $267 million to settle a
16-year-old class action by retirees seeking higher pension
benefits and challenging various aspects of the company's pension
plan, according to a filing in the Southern District of New York.

The deal, which is expected to pay an average of about $11,000 to
each of 16,000 former participants in the PwC plan, is the largest
recovery ever achieved in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act case challenging a pension calculation known as a "whipsaw,"
plaintiff Timothy D. Laurent said in a settlement motion filed on
Sept. 19. It also represents a recovery of "virtually 100%" of the
benefits plaintiffs would be owed if they won their case in court,
Laurent said.

The PwC retirees' suit challenged various aspects of their pension
plan, including its stated retirement age and the interest rate
used to calculate certain distributions. In particular, they claim
PwC shorted their benefits by using faulty interest rates and
normal retirement dates when performing whipsaw calculations, in
which the value of workers' pension benefits are projected forward
to retirement age and then backward to the time of distribution.

Prior decisions established that the plan violated ERISA, but Judge
J. Paul Oetken nevertheless ruled for PwC in 2017 after finding the
statute didn't give the retirees an avenue to remedy the
violation.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, holding
in 2019 that ERISA authorizes courts to rewrite plan terms to
correct statutory violations that aren't rooted in fraud. After
failing to obtain US Supreme Court review of this decision, PwC
argued on remand that the "two step" ERISA remedy authorized by the
Second Circuit—under which a court can reform a benefit plan
document and then enforce the terms of the reformed plan—meant
the case could no longer be resolved as a class action.

Oetken disagreed last year, denying PwC's motion to decertify the
class and awarding the retirees summary judgment as to liability.
However, he declined to adopt the retirees' proposed method for
calculating the amount owed and instead instructed the parties to
come up with a plan for litigating the case's remaining issues.

The retirees are represented by Gottesdiener Law Firm PLLC, which
stands to receive up to $89 million in attorneys' fees if the deal
is approved.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents PwC.

The case is Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, S.D.N.Y., No.
1:06-cv-02280, motion for preliminary settlement approval 9/19/22.
[GN]

PRIORITY OUTDOOR: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priority Outdoor
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Priority Outdoor
Products, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08035 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022).

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

Priority Outdoor Products doing business as Priority Bicycles --
https://www.prioritybicycles.com/ -- is an American bicycle
manufacturer based in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUEST HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nursing Staff, Class Action Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that nursing
home operators Quest Healthcare Development and William Penn Health
Care Associations have been hit with a proposed class action filed
by a nursing staff member who claims they and similarly situated
nurses have been categorically underpaid.

The 10-page suit argues that William Penn Continuing Care Campus, a
Jeannette, Pennsylvania nursing home operated by Quest Healthcare
Development, breached its contract with "weekend warrior" nurses,
who were supposedly offered 40 hours' worth of pay for two 16-hour
weekend shifts but were not compensated in accordance with this
agreement.

According to the complaint, Quest Healthcare Development and
William Penn Health Care Associates advertised a nursing position
that would pay four extra hours per day in an effort to fulfill
staffing requirements. The case contends that the plaintiff's
contract reflected this promise:

"Employee is agreeing to work a 16-hour shift on Saturday and a
16-hour shift on Sunday. Completion of these shifts, employee will
receive a Baylor pay equal to 4 hours per day, resulting in a 40
hours per week pay."

However, the case alleges that from Spring 2020 until fall of that
year, the plaintiff was paid only $16 per hour. The plaintiff's
Baylor pay was $125, which totals less than their hourly rate of
$16 per hour, the complaint says.

Per the filing, Quest Healthcare Development increased the
plaintiff's hourly rate to $18.50, and Baylor pay to $135, in
January 2022. The Baylor wage should have been $148 given the
plaintiff's hourly wage, the case argues.

As the lawsuit tells it, the practice of shorting Baylor pay is
widespread within the "weekend warrior" program. Quest Healthcare
Development's failure to provide regular pay violates
Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law, the case alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals employed as "weekend
warriors" by Quest Healthcare Development. [GN]

RACHEL MITCHELL: Court Junks Luckey Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel Luckey, et. al, v.
Rachel H. Mitchell, Case No. 2:21-cv-01168-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge G. Murray Snow entered an order as follows:

  -- The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to
     Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification; the Defendant's
     Motion for Judicial Notice; and the Defendant's Motion to
     Dismiss.

  -- The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted.

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
     Defendant's Motion for Judicial Notice are denied as moot.

  -- This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal
     Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the Clerk of Court is
     directed to terminate this action and enter judgment
     accordingly.

The Plaintiffs fail to state a Fourteenth Amendment violation in
Count Three based on alleged deprivations of their state created
liberty interests, and the Court will dismiss this claim. Because
there are no claims remaining, the Court will grant the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the
Maricopa County Attorney's Office has a policy of warning those
charged with crimes in the County's Early Disposition Courts that
if they reject an initial plea offer or exercise their right to a
preliminary hearing, the next offer will be "presumptively harsher"
or even “substantially harsher," thereby punishing people who
simply choose to exercise their rights.

The Plaintiffs claim they are being coerced into accepting pleas
that require giving up their right to preliminary hearings, which
harms them because they must accept the terms offered without any
examination of witnesses or a probable cause determination by a
judge or grand jury and without being given the benefit of any
discovery beyond a police report.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UE2DIz at no extra charge.[CC]


RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Defective Burglar, Fire Alarms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Karantzoulidis, writing for Security Sales & Integration,
reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Resideo
and Honeywell for allegedly selling burglar and fire alarm system
control units that that contained "defects, dangers and
non-conformities" that the companies knew about.

The alleged defects were found in all combination-listed single
data-bus burglar and fire alarm system control units that were
manufactured and sold by Honeywell and its former affiliate
Resideo. Honeywell spun-off Resideo in 2018.

According to the lawsuit, the defects can lead to an instantaneous
and catastrophic failure of the alarm system's combination-listed
control unit during a fire. In this silent and non-functional
state, instead of the alarm system warning all occupants inside the
home of the fire emergency and the central station, the combination
listed control unit fails.

These alleged defects are said to render the control units
non-conforming to the minimum standards required by both UL and
NFPA 72 Standards. The lawsuit says before the Defendants submitted
their equipment to be listed by a nationally recognized testing
laboratory such as UL, they were required to verify that their
equipment was conforming.

"Defendants concealed these serious defects, dangers and
non-conformities from consumers and/or failed to disclose the Alarm
System Defects to Plaintiff and the class, while at the same time
affirmatively representing the high quality and safety of their
control unit systems meeting both UL and NFPA Standards. Defendants
failed to remove these Alarm Systems from the marketplace and they
failed to take appropriate remedial action, even though Defendants
were aware that the single data-bus circuit of their combination
listed control units was non-compliant to UL and NFPA regulations,"
the lawsuit states.

It continues, "Instead, Defendants marketed and sold their
combination listed control units, even though it knew and/or should
have known that it was non-conforming and was both defective and
dangerous. The Defendants concealed these material defects from
consumers who relied on the Defendants combination listed control
units for their security and life safety protection but it was to
no avail."

The specific product named in the lawsuit is Honeywell Vista 20P
control unit. Its installation guide "falsely" represents that it
complies with the NFPA and its product detail sheet "falsely"
states that its control unit complies with UL 985 and UL 1023.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of a class action suit against GE
and Carrier for the same alarm system control "defect."

SSI has reached out to Resideo for comment. [GN]

ROCK DIAMOND: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rock Diamond, Corp.
The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rock Diamond, Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-08037 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022).

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

Rock Diamond, Corp. doing business as Diamonds by Lauren --
https://www.diamondsbylauren.com/ -- offers custom made rings, stud
earrings, Canary Necklaces, featuring Yellow, Pink, Colorless,
Champagne, Blue, Green Diamonds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Settlement Hearing in Sex Abuse Suit Set Nov. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
A NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN CLASS ACTION to all individuals
who were sexually abused by a priest of the Roman Catholic
Episcopal Corporation of Halifax or Roman Catholic Episcopal
Corporation of Yarmouth between April 14, 1954 and March 31, 2020
and have not previously settled or otherwise released either the
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Halifax or Roman Catholic
Episcopal Corporation of Yarmouth.

A proposed settlement has been reached between the parties. If
approved, it will make compensation available to individuals who
allege they were sexually abused by a priest of the Roman Catholic
Episcopal Corporation of Halifax or Roman Catholic Episcopal
Corporation of Yarmouth.

If you opted out of the class action, the settlement will not
impact you.

There will be a court hearing on November 14, 2022 to decide
whether to approve the proposed settlement and counsel fees.

Compensation to Class Members is not yet available. If the court
approves the settlement and you are part of the lawsuit as a Class
Member, you can then make a claim for compensation.

For further information, visit
https://kmlaw.ca/cases/catholic-priest-sexual-abuse-classaction/ or
call 1-833-630-1785, or email catholicabuseclassaction@kmlaw.ca.

The lawyers acting for the class are Koskie Minsky LLP and McKiggan
Hebert Lawyers. You may contact either firm with any questions or
concerns you have about this proposed
settlement.

If you approve of the settlement and want it to proceed so you can
claim money, you do not need to take any steps.

If you want to object to the settlement for any reason, you must
send an objection to Koskie Minsky by October 25, 2022. [GN]

RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Racketeering
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silive.com reports that for the second time in three years, a
lawsuit has been filed against Queens-based Runway Towing
Corporation that services Staten Island highways alleging it has
been overcharging customers for years, and that the company ran an
illegal "racketeering enterprise."

The class-action suit -- which also names NYPD Commissioner
Keechant Sewell, Department of Consumer and Worker Protection
Commissioner (DCWP) Vilda Vera Mayuga, the NYPD, and DCWP as
defendants -- was filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Sept. 17.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Gary Rosen, also alleges Runway
underpaid workers, illegally compensated them with cash, and that
the city not only looked the other way but gave Runway a monopoly
by continuously awarding the company a contract to tow on seven of
the city's 17 arterial highways, including the exclusive rights to
tow on the Staten Island Expressway, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Expressway and the Korean War Veterans Parkway.

And a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 is still pending.

The Advance/SILive.com reported on Runway's alleged overcharging
and license rejection in 2021.

However, Errol Margolin, a lawyer for Runway, called the lawsuit
"frivolous."

"It is based on Google reviews, Yelp reviews, and Better Business
Bureau reviews; they are anonymous and hearsay. Runway denies it
overcharges consumers, and their rates are governed by the
[administrative code] and set since 2010 and $125 a tow and $25 for
highway services plus mileage. No judge has ever found Runway ever
overcharged consumers," Margolin said.

The alleged "racketeering enterprise, or Racketeer Influences and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, is "for their creation of and/or
maintaining of a racketeering enterprise, which has caused damages
to the plaintiffs and to thousands of persons and businesses that
utilized the roadside assistance and towing services on New York
City Arterial Highways of Defendant Runway from approximately Sept.
1, 2016, to date," according to the lawsuit.

Margolin alleges the complaint fails to properly plead a RICO
enterprise.

"The conspiracy allegation between Runway and the NYPD and the
[Department of Consumer and Worker Protection] is comical. The
complaint will be dismissed, and Rosen sanctioned as it contains
material false allegations is designed to harass Runway and
embarrass it," Margolin said.

City Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci, on behalf of the NYPD
and DCWP, said, "We will investigate the allegations in this
complaint and respond in the litigation. "The city is committed to
protecting consumers and workers and ensuring integrity in its
contracting process."

STATEN ISLANDERS ARE SOME OF THOUSANDS OVERCHARGED, LAWSUIT
ALLEGES

The lawsuit alleges that between Feb. 10, 2010, and the present
date, Runway generated in excess of $200 million in revenue from
providing roadside assistance and towing services on NYC Arterial
Highways by overcharging consumers.

Drivers who operate passenger vehicles and require a tow on Staten
Island highways are supposed to be charged $125 for the first 10
miles and $4 for any additional mile after, according to towing and
NYPD regulations.

Should a vehicle be between 10,000 pounds and 18,000 pounds, the
price would rise to $175 and $10 for each additional mile,
according to NYPD regulations.

In the case of vehicles between 18,000 pounds and 26,000 pounds the
towing price would jump to $250, while for vehicles over 26,000
pounds it would be $300, the regulations indicate.

Regulations indicate no tow company can charge a fee for towing,
storage or any charge indirectly related to towing and storage of a
vehicle.

Yet, documents obtained by the Advance/SILive.com show dozens of
drivers were charged by Runway more than permitted for distance
towed, charged credit card fees, storage fees and other excess
fees.

On January 12, 2020, Runway towed a 2017 Nissan Altima from the
Staten Island Expressway and charged the consumer $283.08,
including a $25 pull-out fee, which was illegal and in violation of
the regulations, documents allege.

In the two weeks that followed, Runway towed a 2017 Ford Escape and
a 2006 Honda Accord and charged drivers for clean-up fees, pull-out
fees, credit card surcharges and overcharged per mileage, which was
illegal and in violation of the regulations, documents allege.

There were dozens of other charges shown to the Advance/SILive.com
which indicate charges higher than what's allowed by the city's
Administrative Code, all of which are outlined in the lawsuit.

"The racketeering enterprises operated by defendant Runway Towing .
. .  resulted in defendant Runway Towing failing to pay its
employees legal wages, and knowing that Runway overcharged
consumers with illegal tow rates, credit card charges, pull out
fees, storage fees and administrative charges totaling millions of
dollars, and defendant New York City Police Department and
Defendant New York City Department of Consumer and Worker
Protection permit defendant Runway to provide exclusive towing
services on seven arterial highways in New York City…" the
lawsuit states.

JUDGE PREVIOUSLY ANNULS CITY'S DECISION TO DENY LICENSE; CITY
APPEALS DECISION

The city Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) denied
Runway's 2020 tow truck company license renewal application,
according to documents provided to the Advance/SILive.com, however,
the Queens-based company continued to tow vehicles on the seven
highways it previously had exclusive towing rights to.

DCWP's denial alleged that "Runway violated numerous laws and rules
governing tow truck companies based on documents provided by Runway
in response to a subpoena issued by DCWP…"

The NYPD confirmed Runway was still towing as part of the
department's New York City Arterial Highway Program.

DCWP states it gave Runway more than one opportunity to provide
documents after it was subpoenaed, but Runway did not provide all
documents requested within the given timeframe, in addition to
multiple extensions to produce needed documents.

Runway was issued a temporary operating letter that allowed the
company to continue towing - even though its license was denied -
while Runway appealed the agency's decision. It was extended for a
final time until Sept. 7, 2021.

However, the day before the temporary operating letter was set to
expire, a judge responded to Runway's lawyer's appeal of DCWP's
decision and annulled the decision, which he called "too harsh."

"The court is persuaded that respondent's assessment of the
ultimate penalty, the denial of renewal is too harsh in this
instance," said Judge Debra James in a motion. "Given its operation
as a license tow trucking company for 17 years, now employing 35
vehicles, 30 drivers, and nine managerial staff, 14 years of which
petitioner operated free of any adjudicated violations, the court
finds the punishment of non-renewal shockingly grave in its
consequences," James continued. [GN]

SANGUINE GAS: Wake Energy Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanguine Gas
Exploration, LLC. The case is styled as Wake Energy LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Sanguine Gas
Exploration, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00263-KEW (E.D. Okla., Sept. 20,
2022).

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

Sanguine Gas Exploration LLC --
http://www.sanguinegasexploration.com/ -- is an oil and natural
gas exploration and production company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brady L Smith, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC
          211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Phone: (405) 293-3029
          Email: brady@BLSmithlaw.com

SANTA MARIA: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Roberto Gonzalez, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SANTA MARIA TOM'S JR., INC., a California
corporation; TOM'S JR. BURGER INC., a California corporation; TOM'S
JR. LA MIRADA, INC.; a California Corporation; SPIROS POLITIS, an
individual; DIMITRIOS SPATHOPOULOS, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV30296 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 16, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code by failing
to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages.

The Defendants had and have a policy or practice of failing to pay
overtime wages to Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and other
Aggrieved Employees working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per
week, and/or 7 straight workdays in a workweek without paying them
proper overtime wages, as a result of, without limitation, failing
to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked;
engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock,
including, without limitation, by requiring employees: to remain
on-call, to suffer under Defendants' control to complete pre-shift
tasks before clocking in and post-shift tasks after clocking out
(including answering calls from dispatch and others), to clock out
for meal periods and continue working, to don and doff uniforms
and/or safety equipment off the clock, to attend company meetings
off the clock, to make phone calls or drive off the clock; failing
to include all forms of remuneration, including non-discretionary
bonuses, incentive pay, meal allowances, and other forms of
remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where
overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for
the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay; detrimental
rounding of employee time entries, 9 editing and/or manipulation of
time entries to show less hours than actually worked, and for
paying straight pay instead of overtime pay, to the detriment of
Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee.

SANTA MARIA is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of California and doing business in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jean Hopkins Power, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                 jean@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com


SCHWAN'S CONSUMER BRANDS: Barnett Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwan's Consumer
Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Rachael Barnett, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Schwan's Consumer
Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-02178 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 18, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Schwan's Company -- https://www.schwanscompany.com/ -- is
widely known for its consumer brands, including Schwan's, Red
Baron, Freschetta, Tony's, Mrs. Smith's, Edwards, Pagoda, and
Larry's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

SCL UNLIMITED: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Sehgal Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
REKHA SEHGAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCL UNLIMITED LLC, SUPERIOR LOGISTICS
UNLIMITED LLC, ANI LUISA COSSYLEON-SAPHANTHONG, BOUN SAPHANTHONG,
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV30376 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment
ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to give
rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse for
business expenses, failure to provide personnel records, failure to
provide pay records, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver from
September 2021 until around late June/early July 2022.

SCL Unlimited LLC is a transportation company doing business in Los
Angeles County, California.

Superior Logistics Unlimited LLC is a logistics company, doing
business in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

SEED FACTORY INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seed Factory, Inc.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Seed Factory, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07945 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2022).

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

Seed Factory, Inc. -- https://seedfactoryatlanta.com/ -- is a
children's shop in Atlanta & online clothing, gifts, classic wooden
toys & books .[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


SERAFINA 38TH STREET: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serafina 38th Street,
LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Serafina 38th Street, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-05597 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

Serafina -- https://www.serafinarestaurant.com/ -- is an Italian
restaurant in New York City.[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


SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Serendipity 3, Inc.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Serendipity 3, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05598 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

Serendipity 3, Inc. -- https://serendipity3.com/ -- is a NYC
landmark restaurant serving Frrrozen Hot Chocolate since 1954.[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


SHREVEPORT, LA: Lower Court Ruling in Overbilling Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
KTBS3 reports that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal has reversed a
lower court's ruling that awarded Shreveport water customers nearly
$10 million for overbilling.

The appellate court in its ruling issued on Sept. 21 sent the case
back to Caddo District Court for further proceedings.

Attorney Jerry Harper, who along with co-counsel Anne Wilkes
represented the water customers in a class action lawsuit, said
they will seek to have the ruling overturned.

"We are surprised by and respectfully but vigorously disagree with
the court's ruling. We are also disappointed that the ruling, if it
becomes final, will adversely affect approximately 100,000
Shreveport area families," Harper said in a statement to KTBS.

The city's response to the ruling: "The City does not comment on
potential nor pending litigation."

The lawsuit was filed in 2017 to recover overpayments of water and
sewerage charges. The plaintiffs alleged the city failed to
properly calculate average winter consumption for residential
sewerage use based on a formula in the city's ordinance. They
contended customers' bills were consistently inaccurate because the
city averaged water use in the four winter months instead of
charging them for actual use.

Caddo District Judge Michael Pitman agreed and awarded damages to
the plaintiffs of almost $11.4 million, which includes interest.

The city objected to the judgment and raised four areas of appeal.

In its decision siding with the city, the appellate court said when
the Shreveport City Council passed its water ordinance it did so
with the understanding water meters were, and continue to be, read
by a person who follows a route, going residence by residence to
read water meters.

"To expect all manually read water meters in the city, consisting
of tens of thousands of residences, to be read on the last day of
every month is impossible given the system for reading water meters
that the city has in place. When a law is clear and unambiguous and
its application does not lead to absurd consequences, then it is
interpreted as written. To so strictly construe the ordinance as
the trial court did here leads to such absurd consequences.
Therefore, the trial court's rulings are reversed," the court
ruling stated. [GN]

SMITH HOUSE INC: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Smith House, Inc.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Smith House, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07946 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2022).

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

The Smith House -- https://smithhouse.com/ -- has been serving
family-style country cooking since 1922.[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


SNAP INC: BIPA Suit Settlement Final Approval Trial Set on Nov. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Snap Inc. has agreed to a $35
million class action settlement resolving claims certain Snapchat
features violate biometric privacy law.

The class consists of Illinois residents who used the "Lenses" and
"Filters" Snapchat features from Nov. 17, 2015, to present.

Snapchat is a popular video-sharing app operated by Snap Inc. App
users can choose to apply filters and lenses to enhance their
videos before sending them privately or sharing them publicly.

However, the platform may violate the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA requires companies to take
certain steps to guard biometric data, including obtaining written
consent before collecting such information and providing written
guidelines for how the information will be stored and destroyed.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit allege Snap Inc. possesses,
collects and discloses biometric data through Snapchat's lenses and
filters, thereby not complying with BIPA.

Under the terms of the Snapchat settlement agreement, class members
are eligible to collect a cash payment from the settlement fund
after expenses such as attorneys' fees and administration costs are
paid.

Class members who submit a valid and timely claim form can receive
a proportionate payment from the settlement fund. No payment
estimates are available.

Those who wish to opt out of or object to the Snapchat settlement
is Oct. 6, 2022.

A final approval hearing will be held Nov. 17, 2022.

The deadline to file a claim is Nov. 5, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Illinois residents who used the "Lenses" and "Filters" Snapchat
features from Nov. 17, 2015, to present.

Potential Award
Class members who submit a valid and timely claim form can receive
a proportionate payment from the settlement fund. No payment
estimates are available.

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is applicable. However, class members
submitting a claim must provide the following:

Full legal name
Snapchat username
Personal attestation they have lived in Illinois for at least 183
days, or 6 months, during the class period and during that time
used Snapchat's Lenses or Filters features
One Illinois address at which they resided during the class period

Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
11/05/2022

Case Name
Boone, et al. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2022LA000708 in the Circuit
Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois

Final Hearing
11/17/2022

Settlement Website
SnapIllinoisBIPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Snapchat Privacy Settlement
c/o Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@snapillinoisbipasettlement.com
1-844-939-4343

Class Counsel
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Defense Counsel
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP [GN]

SOM FRIENDS: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Chalas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA CHALAS, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SOM FRIENDS
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04198-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis
J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Initial requests for production       Sept. 20, 2022
     of documents shall be served by:

  -- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule      Sept. 20, 2022
     33.3(a) of the Local Rules of the
     Southern District of New York
     shall be served by:

  -- Depositions shall be completed by:    Jan. 4, 2022

  -- All expert discovery, including       Feb. 18, 2023
     disclosures, reports, rebuttal
     reports, production of underlying
     documents, and depositions shall
     be completed by:

  -- A post-discovery status conference    March 6, 2023
     shall be held on:

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SiQczJ at no extra charge.[CC]

SOUTH AFRICAN EMPORIUM: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South African
Emporium, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. South African
Emporium, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07966 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2022).

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

South African -- https://southafricans.com/ -- is a store in
Atlanta with quality and authentic South African foods and
Good.[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


SPECIALIZED TOWING: Barrios Seeks Unpaid OT for Tow Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALIZED TOWING AND TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
RAUL HERRERA, JUAN J. HERRERA, and RIGOBERTO HERRERA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-22953 (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated tow truck drivers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tow truck driver in
Homestead, Florida from 2015 until February 4, 2021.

Specialized Towing and Transportation, Inc. is a towing company,
with corporate offices in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SPECTRUM PAINT: Weinman Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Paint
Company Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Weinman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spectrum Paint
Company Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-00857-DPM (E.D. Ark., Sept. 16,
2022).

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

Spectrum Paint -- https://spectrumpaint.com/ -- sell paint &
coatings solutions to professionals and do-it-yourself
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joanie M. Harp, Esq.
          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 441-3996
          Email: joanie@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


STARKIST CO: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Mislabeled Tuna
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ruth Law Team disclosed that while Starkist did not admit to
any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay out either $25 in cash or $50
worth of tuna. However, participants in the class action lawsuit
ended up getting less than $3 if they chose cash, and about $5 if
they chose coupons for tuna. More than $2.5 million people joined
the lawsuit, which was 12 times more than Starkist originally
anticipated.

Original Post:

WANT $25.00??? Yup, cash. Turns out Starkist was accused of
cheating by putting less than the labeled weight of tuna in their
cans. It was only by a small amount, but when multiplied by the
thousands of cans they sell it amounted to a big savings for
Starkist. As the result of a lawsuit filed against Starkist, it can
amount to a payout for you. While not "admitting fault," Starkist
has agreed to a class action settlement. Here's what you need to
know:

You can get $25.00 if you purchased any one of the following
Starkist tuna products between 2/19/2009 and 10/31/2014:

-- 5 oz. Chunk Light in Water

-- 5 oz. Chunk Light in Oil

-- 5 oz. Solid White in Water

-- 5 oz. Solid White in Oil

Once you get to this site (NOW CLOSED) there are easy to follow
instructions to guide you through what you need to do to receive
your $25.00 cash portion or $50 Starkist coupon settlement. Time is
of the essence as the deadline for applying for your settlement is
November 20. 2015, so you need to take click on that link now if
you want to opt in.

The purpose of the lawsuit was to make a point to Starkist, as well
as other corporations, that the consumer should get what the
manufacturer says they're getting and what Federal statutes and
regulations require they get. Without these types of lawsuits which
seek accountability, food manufacturers will take advantage of the
lack of vigilance and make millions of dollars shorting the
containers of food products.

Class action law suits like this help to keep big corporations from
placing their profits over people and in some instances, even
putting the lives of consumers and their families in jeopardy. [GN]

SUNBELT FEDERAL: McGill Sues Over Improper Collection of OD Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rufus McGill, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SUNBELT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
2:22-cv-00127-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Sept. 19, 2022), against
Defendant over the improper assessment and collection of $25 OD
Fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient funds.

The Defendant misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents its fee
practices, including in its own account contracts, which consist of
the Member Service Agreement and, upon information and belief, the
Opt-In Form (collectively, the "Contract"). Overdraft fees and
insufficient funds fees ("NSF fees") are among the primary fee
generators for banks. Unfortunately, the customers who are assessed
these fees are the most vulnerable customers. Younger,
lower-income, and non-white account holders are among those who
were more likely to be assessed overdraft fees.

At the moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account
with positive funds to cover the transaction, Defendant immediately
reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase, sets aside funds in the checking account to cover that
transaction, and adjusts the consumer's displayed "available
balance" to reflect that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these
transactions because the Defendant has already held the funds for
payment.

However, the Defendant still assesses crippling $25 OD Fees on many
of these transactions and misrepresents its practices in the
Contract. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, Defendant later assesses OD Fees on those same
transactions when they settle days later into a negative balance.
These types of transactions are APSN Transactions.

On January 24, 2019, March 30, 2019, April 1, 2019, May 2, 2019,
September 5, 2019 and September 30, 2019, Plaintiff was assessed OD
Fees on debit card transactions even though the transaction had
been previously authorized on sufficient funds. Because the
Defendant had previously held the funds to cover these
transactions, the Plaintiff's account always had sufficient funds
to cover these transactions and should not have been assessed these
fees.

The improper fees charged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's
account were not errors by the Defendant, but rather were
intentional charges made by Defendant as part of its standard
processing of transactions. The Plaintiff therefore had no duty to
report the fees as errors because they were not; instead, they were
part of the systematic and intentional assessment of fees according
to the Defendant's standard practices. Moreover, any such reporting
would have been futile as the Defendant's own contract admits that
Defendant made a decision to charge the fees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff had an account with Defendant.

The Defendant is a citizen of Mississippi and maintains its
principal place of business in this District in Hattiesburg,
Forrest County, Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Van D. Turner, Jr., Esq.
          BRUCE TURNER, PLLC
          2650 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2325
          Memphis, TN 38118
          Phone: (901)290-6610
          Email: vturner@bruceturnerlaw.net

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          J.Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, Tennessee 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. Berger, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94611
          Phone: (510) 350-9700
          Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com


T-MOBILE US: Settlement Final Approval Trial Set on Jan. 20, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that T-Mobile agreed to pay $350 million
as part of a settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a
data breach that affected 76 million Americans.

The settlement benefits individuals whose information was
compromised in the T-Mobile data breach announced Aug. 16, 2021.

In August 2021, T-Mobile announced it had been the victim of a data
breach that compromised sensitive information of current, former
and prospective customers. The breach did not affect financial
information but did compromise sensitive personal identifiers such
as names, addresses, dates of birth, ID information and even some
Social Security numbers.

"We spend lots of time and effort to try to stay a step ahead of
them, but we didn't live up to the expectations we have for
ourselves to protect our customers," T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert said
in the data breach announcement. "Knowing that we failed to prevent
this exposure is one of the hardest parts of this event."

Consumers quickly took legal action against T-Mobile, arguing the
company failed to live up to its promises that consumers can trust
it with their sensitive information.

Plaintiffs in the case argue that the data breach could have been
prevented or mitigated through reasonable cybersecurity measures
but, due to T-Mobile's negligence, occurred due to subpar
protections.

T-Mobile hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $350
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the T-Mobile settlement, class members can
collect a cash payment.

Class members can receive reimbursement for up to $25,000
unreimbursed out-of-pocket losses. This includes payments for
credit monitoring, identity theft, fraud, other expenses and up to
15 hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour, or class members'
documented hourly wage if they took time off work.

Class members who do not wish to make a claim for lost time or
out-of-pocket expenses can receive an alternative payment of $25 or
$100 if they lived in California on Aug. 1, 2021.

Class members can also receive two years of identity protection
services through Pango. These services include TransUnion credit
monitoring, monthly credit scores, real time authentication alerts,
dark web monitoring, transaction monitoring, $1 million in identity
theft insurance and other benefits.

In addition, the settlement provides additional restoration
services for class members who suffer from identity theft or fraud
as a result of the data breach.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 8, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the T-Mobile data breach settlement
is scheduled for Jan. 20, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 23, 2023.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals whose information was
compromised in the T-Mobile data breach announced Aug. 16, 2021.

Potential Award
Up to $25,000

Proof of Purchase
It is important for you to send documents that show what happened
and how much you lost or spent, so that you can be reimbursed. The
specific documentation required for each type of loss is listed on
the claim form.

Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
01/23/2023

Case Name
In re: T-mobile Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No.
4:21-md-03019-BCW, in the Western District of Missouri, Western
Division

Final Hearing
01/20/2023

Settlement Website
T-MobileSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
T-Mobile Data Breach Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
info@t-mobilesettlement.com
833-512-2314

Class Counsel
Norman E Siegel
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP

Cari Campen Laufenberg
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP

James J Pizzirusso
HAUSFELD LLP

Defense Counsel
Kristy McAlister Brown
Donald M Houser
ALSTON & BIRD LLP [GN]

TASTE OF KENTUCKY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Taste of Kentucky,
Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. A Taste of Kentucky, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08002 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

A Taste of Kentucky -- https://atasteofkentucky.com/ -- has offered
gifts and goods with a distinctive Kentucky flavor.[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


TESLA INC: Vehicles' ADAS Technology "Defective," Battiato Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK BATTIATO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA, INC., dba TESLA MOTORS,
INC.; TESLA LEASE TRUST; and TESLA FINANCE LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-05264 (N.D. Cal., September 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranties, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, negligence, and violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

The case arises from Tesla's misleading and deceptive statements
regarding its advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) technology.
Tesla allegedly deceived and misled consumers regarding the
abilities of its ADAS technology and by representing that it was
perpetually on the cusp of perfecting that technology and finally
producing a fully self-driving car. The reality of Tesla's ADAS
technology is far different from what Tesla has spent years telling
consumers. Instead of providing its customers the full self-driving
capability (FSD) they paid for, Tesla uses them as guinea pigs to
test drive its experimental FSD Beta software on public roadways,
which generates data that Tesla can use to improve its software. As
a result of defects related to Tesla's ADAS technology, the
Plaintiff has experienced sudden and unexpected braking in Tesla
vehicles, says the suit.

Tesla, Inc., doing business as Tesla Motors, Inc., is an automobile
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Palo Alto,
California.

Tesla Lease Trust is a Delaware statutory trust.

Tesla Finance LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tesla, Inc.,
headquartered in California. [BN]

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

THOMPSON REUTERS: Leslie Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Leslie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THOMPSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-07937 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2022), is brought against
Defendant TipRanks, Ltd. for violations of the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act arising from the Defendant's practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data
containing Plaintiff's and other digital-subscribers Class Members'
personally identifiable information or Facebook ID ("FID") and the
computer file containing video and its corresponding URL viewed
("Video Media") (collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").

This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against
Thompson Reuters Corporation, as the owner of Reuters.com, for
violating the VPPA by disclosing its digital subscribers'
identities and Video Media to Facebook without the proper consent.
The VPPA prohibits "video tape service providers," such as
Reuters.com, from knowingly disclosing consumers' personally
identifiable information, including "information which identifies a
person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or
services from a video tape provider," without express consent in a
stand-alone consent form.

The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on Reuters.com
allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it tracks
when digital subscribers enter Reuters.com or Reuters.com's
accompanying App and view Video Media. Reuters.com tracks and
discloses to Facebook the digital subscribers' viewed Video Media,
and most notably, the digital subscribers' FID. This occurs even
when the digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to share)
such information. Importantly, Defendant shares the Personal
Viewing Information--i.e., digital subscribers' unique FID and
video content viewed--together as one data point to Facebook.
Because the digital subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an
individual's Facebook user account, Facebook--or any other ordinary
person--can use it to quickly and easily locate, access, and view
digital subscribers' corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply,
the pixel allows Facebook to know what Video Media one of its users
viewed on Reuters.com.

Thus, without telling its digital subscribers, Defendant profits
handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. It does so
at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their
statutory rights under the VPPA. Because Reuters.com digital
subscribers are not informed about this dissemination of their
Personal Viewing Information--indeed, it is automatic and
invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend
themselves against the highly personal ways Reuters.com has used
and continues to use data it has about them to make money for
itself.

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other Reuters.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal
and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's
practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers'
Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of
VPPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to Reuters.com in 2022
which continues to this day.

Thompson Reuters Corporation is a publicly traded multinational
media conglomerate headquartered in Toronto, Canada and is one of
the leading news sources in the world and claims to be read and
seen by 1 billion people each day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.494.3531
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf

               - and -

          Jennifer Duffy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY
          28649 S. Western Avenue, Suite 6571
          Los Angeles, CA 90734
          Phone: 310-714-9779
          Email: jennifer@usclassactions.com


THREE J'S HEATING: Salazar Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Henry Salazar, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situate v. Three J's Heating & A/C Corp., Jorge Garcia and Johana
Cardona, Case No. 9:22-cv-05589 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022), is
brought for unpaid overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Lab. Law and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commission of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP.
CODES R.& REGS., including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week.
The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked over 40 hours and paid him at straight time. The
Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other
similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintain a policy and
practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants and was primarily
employed as an installation worker.

The Defendants own, operate or control a company specializing in AC
and Hearing located in Amagansett, New York under the name "Three
J's Heating & A/C Corp."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Toneille Raglan, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com

TIPRANKS LTD: Esposito Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Esposito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIPRANKS, LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-07937 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
16, 2022), is brought against Defendant TipRanks, Ltd. for
violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act arising from
the Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party,
Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing Plaintiff's and other
digital-subscribers Class Members' personally identifiable
information or Facebook ID ("FID") and the computer file containing
video and its corresponding URL viewed ("Video Media")
(collectively, "Personal Viewing Information").

This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint against
TipRanks, Ltd., as the owner of TipRanks.com, for violating the
VPPA by disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and Video
Media to Facebook without the proper consent. The VPPA prohibits
"video tape service providers," such as TipRanks.com, from
knowingly disclosing consumers' personally identifiable
information, including "information which identifies a person as
having requested or obtained specific video materials or services
from a video tape provider," without express consent in a
stand-alone consent form.

The Facebook pixel is a code Defendant installed on TipRanks.com
allowing it to collect users' data. More specifically, it tracks
when digital subscribers enter TipRanks.com or TipRanks.com's
accompanying App and view Video Media. TipRanks.com tracks and
discloses to Facebook the digital subscribers' viewed Video Media,
and most notably, the digital subscribers' FID. This occurs even
when the digital subscriber has not shared (nor consented to share)
such information. Importantly, Defendant shares the Personal
Viewing Information--i.e., digital subscribers' unique FID and
video content viewed--together as one data point to Facebook.
Because the digital subscriber's FID uniquely identifies an
individual's Facebook user account, Facebook--or any other ordinary
person--can use it to quickly and easily locate, access, and view
digital subscribers' corresponding Facebook profile. Put simply,
the pixel allows Facebook to know what Video Media one of its users
viewed on TipRanks.com.

Thus, without telling its digital subscribers, Defendant profits
handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital
subscribers' Personal Viewing Information to Facebook. It does so
at the expense of its digital subscribers' privacy and their
statutory rights under the VPPA. Because TipRanks.com digital
subscribers are not informed about this dissemination of their
Personal Viewing Information--indeed, it is automatic and
invisible--they cannot exercise reasonable judgment to defend
themselves against the highly personal ways TipRanks.com has used
and continues to use data it has about them to make money for
itself.

The Defendant chose to disregard Plaintiff's and hundreds of
thousands of other TipRanks.com digital subscribers' statutorily
protected privacy rights by releasing their sensitive data to
Facebook. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal
and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's
practices of intentionally disclosing its digital subscribers'
Personal Viewing Information to Facebook in knowing violation of
VPPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began a digital subscription to TipRanks.com in 2022
which continues to this day.

TipRanks, Ltd. is a privately owned company headquartered in Tel
Aviv, Israel, and the operator of TipRanks.com, an investment
research platform that measures and ranks the performance of
financial experts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.494.3531
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf


TOMPKINS COMMUNITY: Mock Files Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tompkins Community
Bank. The case is styled as Stacy Mock, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Tompkins Community Bank, Case No.
3:22-cv-00995-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Sept. 20, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Tompkins Community Bank -- https://www.tompkinsbank.com/ -- offers
a variety of personal and business loans and accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.-NEW YORK OFFICE
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV; and DOES 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-01077-TLT (N.D. Ga.), the
Parties agree to continue the filing deadlines of the motion for
class certification, the class certification opposition, and the
class certification reply by 90 days, and also vacate or reset the
current hearing date for the motion for class certification.

Transdev is the largest private sector operator of multiple modes
of transit in North America.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xBzBza at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  cmiller@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          11 18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathy M. Huynh, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 768-0650
          Facsimile: (510) 768-0651
          E-mail: Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com

                - and -

          Sonni Nolan, Esq.
          Kayt Kopen, Esq.
          Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 480-1500
          E-mail: Sonni.Nolan@huschblackwell.com
                  Michael.Hayes@huschblackwell.com

TRIPLEDOT STUDIOS: DeFazio Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexa DeFazio, an individual, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated v. Tripledot Studios Limited,
Case No. 37-02022-00017054-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of California on Sept. 20, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01422-BEN-BLM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Tripledot Studios -- https://tripledotstudios.com/ -- is a mobile
games studio that develops casual mobile games such as solitaire
app and several puzzle games.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Timothy Ryan, Esq.
          RYAN LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
          Century City, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 957-2093
          Fax: (310) 496-1435
          Email: andrew.ryan@theryanlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Deborah Hedley, Esq.
          VEDDER PRICE LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3004
          Phone: (424) 204-7700
          Fax: (424) 204-7702
          Email: dhedley@vedderprice.com

               - and -

          Ryan A. Tyz, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041
          Phone: (650) 988-8500
          Fax: (650) 938-5200
          Email: ryan@tyzlaw.com


TRULY NOLEN OF AMERICA: Gannon Files Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Truly Nolen of
America Incorporated. The case is styled as Crystal Gannon,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Truly Nolen of America Incorporated, Case No. 4:22-cv-00428-JAS (D.
Ariz., Sept. 16, 2022).

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

Truly Nolen -- https://www.trulynolen.com/ -- is a family-owned
company offering termite control, exterminator services, and more.
Call to get your free estimate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          Julia Deutsch, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: cab@colevannote.com
                 jkd@colevannote.com
                 sec@colevannote.com


U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that U-Haul
didn't adequately protect its computer systems, leading to
cybercriminals obtaining the personal information of customers in a
data breach, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Chris Bagley filed the class action lawsuit against
U-Haul International Incorporated Sept. 22 in an Arizona federal
court, alleging negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of contract
and violations of the Driver's Privacy Act.

According to the lawsuit, the hack started on Nov. 5, 2021, and
continued for seven months through April 5, 2022, leaking personal
information including names, dates of birth and driver's license
numbers.

The hackers accessed two passwords used to control U-Haul's
systems, the U-Haul class action states. That gave them access to
personal information that has "been used and will continue to be
used in a variety of sordid ways for criminals to exploit Plaintiff
and the Class members and to profit off their misfortune," the
lawsuit alleges.

U-Haul class action claims company lacked security practices
U-Haul did not have proper security practices in place to safeguard
its customers' personal information and failed to provide timely
and adequate notice of the breach, Bagley alleges.

He says he was not advised of the U-Haul data breach until
September 2022.

It was only earlier this month that U-Haul International disclosed
that it was the victim of the data breach that exposed the names
and driver's license information of some of its customers.

As a result, Bagley and other customers face an impending identity
theft risk, he says.

"This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as Plaintiff
and Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of
identity thieves possessing and using their Personal Information,"
the U-Haul class action states.

Bagley looks to represent any U-Haul customer affected by the
breach.

He seeks an injunction requiring U-Haul to improve its data
security systems and protocols and conduct future annual audits and
pay for credit-monitoring services for affected customers. He's
also seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs and a jury trial.

Were you impacted by the U-Haul data breach? Let us know your
thoughts on this class action in the comments!

Chris Bagley is represented by Rory Brian Riley of Morgan & Morgan
and William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood.

The U-Haul data breach class action lawsuit is Bagley v. U-Haul
International Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01608, in the United
States District Court for the District Of Arizona. [GN]

U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Durgan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA DURGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01565-MTL (D. Ariz., September 15, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, and violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act.

The case arises from the unauthorized access of the Defendant's
contract search tool which compromised the personal identifiable
information (PII) of its past and current customers, including the
Plaintiff. The data breach occurred as a result of the Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class
members; (ii) warn the Plaintiff and Class members of Defendant's
inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively
secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and
effective. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk
of (i) identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of
driver's license numbers or state identification number, and (ii)
the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information,
says the suit.

U-Haul International, Inc. is an American moving truck, trailer,
and self-storage rental company, with a principal place of business
in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rory Brian Riley, Esq.
         MORGAN AND MORGAN ARIZONA PLLC
         2355 E. Camelback Road, Suite 335
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Telephone: (602) 735-0250
         E-mail: briley@forthepeople.com

                 - and -

         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
         BUSINESS DIVISION
         201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                 rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

UNITED STATES: Calixto, et al., Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting certification of a class, appointment of class
counsel, and approval of the settlement agreement.

The Parties jointly request, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, that this Court certify the following class:

   a. All soldiers who enlisted in the U.S. Army (including
      Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve/Delayed Training
      Program ("DTP") and Regular Army/Delayed Entry Program
      ("DEP") soldiers) through the Military Accessions Vital to
      the National Interest ("MAVNI") program, and did so on or
      prior to September 30, 2017, and

   b. have not been discharged, or

   c. have been discharged by the U.S. Army (including the U.S.
      Army Recruiting Command and/or the U.S. Army Reserve,
      where such discharge or separation was not characterized
      as Honorable, General (under honorable conditions), Under
      Other Than Honorable Conditions, Bad Conduct, or
      Dishonorable.

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

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DD0EOs at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
          Bernard J. Garbutt III, Esq.
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (202) 739-5313
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
                  douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by

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

UNIVERSALPEGASUS: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Moreno, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSALPEGASUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and UNIVERSAL
ENSCO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00353 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 20, 2022), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and its other Inspectors
overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff and its other Inspectors were
paid a flat daily rate for all hours worked in a workweek,
including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff and
the other inspectors regularly work more than 40 hours in a week.
The day rate paid by Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff
and the other inspectors on a salary basis. This collective action
seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed
to these inspectors, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Safety Inspector.

The Defendants provide inspection services to the energy industry,
including pipelines and gas plants among others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@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


UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Sued Over Sex Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Tatum Robertson, Eve Brennan, and Marin Rhodes, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL
OKLAHOMA and BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF
OKLAHOMA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00836-HE (W.D. Okla., Sept. 20, 2022),
is brought against UCO and the Board of Regents for the Regional
University System of Oklahoma (together "Defendants") for
discriminating against female varsity student-athletes at UCO on
the basis of their sex in violation of Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX") by depriving them of treatment and
benefits equal to those provided to male varsity student-athletes
at UCO and by retaliating against them for complaining about sex
discrimination at UCO and trying to enforce their rights under
Title IX.

The Plaintiffs and all female varsity student-athletes at UCO are
being deprived of treatment and benefits equal to those provided to
male varsity student-athletes at UCO. UCO retaliated against the
Plaintiffs for complaining about UCO's sex discrimination against
them and other female varsity student-athletes by firing their head
coach, and UCO's retaliatory actions had a chilling effect on the
willingness of other female varsity student-athletes to challenge,
expose, and remedy UCO's sex discrimination. Each of the Plaintiffs
was also injured because she was subjected by UCO to discrimination
on the basis of her sex, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are female varsity student-athletes at UCO who
participate in the women's varsity indoor track and field team,
outdoor track and field team, and/or cross country team.

University of Central Oklahoma is a constituent institution of the
Oklahoma Regional University System.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 272-8000
          Email: abryant@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          309 E. 5th Street, Suite 202B
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Phone: 515.416.9051
          Email: lbullock@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Joshua I. Hammack, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Email: jhammack@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Frank W Frasier, Esq.
          Maureen M. Johnson, Esq.
          FRASIER, FRASIER & HICKMAN, LLP
          1700 Southwest Blvd.
          Tulsa, OK 74107
          Phone: (918) 584-4724
          Fax: (918) 583-5637
          Email: ffrasier@frasierlaw.com
                 mjohnson@frasierlaw.com


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over FTSA Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Troutman Firm disclosed that Queenie here to break down yet another
FTSA text message case -- this time hitting the retail vertical. I
remember the days I used to shop at Urban Outfitters.

As the Czar keeps warning, it is critical to keep in mind that the
FTSA is much much more restrictive than the TCPA. It contains an
extremely broad definition of an "autodialer" and unlike the TCPA,
no random or sequential number generator needs to be used in
Florida.

If your system is determining the sequence in which numbers are to
be texted -- you are using an autodialer under Florida state law.
The FTSA also contains a rebuttable presumption that a sales call
or text made to any number with a Florida area code is made to a
Florida resident or to a person in Florida at the time of the call.
Fla. Stat. Sec. 501.059(8)(d).

In Tooley v. Urban Outfitters, Plaintiff alleges Urban Outfitters
blasted marketing text messages "automatically and without any
human involvement" and without the proper level of consent.
Plaintiff alleges that the platform "automatically made a series of
calls to Plaintiff's and the Class members' stored telephone
numbers with no human involvement . . . ." Plaintiff alleges these
calls/text were made into Florida and Urban Outfitters sent the
same text messages to other class members within the same district
of Florida. As a result, these text messages violate the FTSA and
Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties on behalf of a proposed class
numbering in the tens of thousands.

As you can see, the text component continues to drive the avalanche
of most new Florida litigation. The FTSA's expansive and ambiguous
ATDS prohibitions still apply to all companies doing business with
Florida consumers. Companies continuing to do telemarketing in
Florida should implement policies and procedures that comply
specifically with Florida state law. When dialing numbers with a
Florida area code, you must ensure you are securing prior express
written consent before calling or texting. Implementing procedures
to ensure compliance with the FTSA can also help you avoid
litigation risk in other states implementing "mini-TCPA" laws. [GN]

US NEWS: Golden Sues Over Disclosure of Subscribers' Personal Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERHONDA GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00966-CDP (E.D. Mo., September 15,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of knowingly
disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing
the personal viewing information of its digital subscribers,
including the Plaintiff, without proper express consent. Thus,
without telling its digital subscribers, the Defendant profits
handsomely from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital
subscribers' personal viewing information, says the suit.

U.S. News & World Report LP is a privately owned media company,
headquartered in Washington, DC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
         Adam Florek, Esq.
         PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
         73 W. Monroe, 5th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 444-0734
         E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com

                 - and -

         Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
         BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
         1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
         Washington, DC 20007
         Telephone: (202) 494-3531
         E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM: Neidig Suit Removed to N.D. West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elaine Neidig, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Valley Health System, Case No.
CC-19-2022-C-91 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of West Virginia on Sept. 20, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00161-GMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice.

Valley Health System -- https://www.valleyhealth.com/ -- is a
regional healthcare system that serves residents in northern New
Jersey and southern New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen G. Skinner, Esq.
          SKINNER LAW FIRM
          PO Box 487
          Charles Town, WV 25414
          Phone: (304) 725-7029
          Fax: (304) 725-4082
          Email: sskinner@skinnerfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles F. Printz, Jr., Esq.
          Jonathan Tyler Mayhew, Esq.
          Liana Stinson, Esq.
          BOWLES RICE LLP
          P O Drawer 1419
          101 S. Queen Street
          Martinsburg, WV 25402
          Phone: (304) 264-4222
          Fax: (304) 267-3822
          Email: cprintz@bowlesrice.com
                 tmayhew@bowlesrice.com
                 lstinson@bowlesrice.com


VIP CINEMAS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Sanchez, on behalf of himself and similarly-situated
employees v. VIP CINEMAS, INC. AND MARK MCSPARIN, Case No.
5:22-cv-00212-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2022), is brought for
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the collective action provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. In so doing, Defendants acted in a coordinated and
calculated scheme and, with a common practice and purpose,
deliberately and willfully violated Plaintiff and the putative FLSA
Class Plaintiffs' rights under the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants performing movie theater
support services beginning in 2018.

The Defendants are in the business of operating movie theaters in
the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          1992 Lewis Turner Blvd, Suite 1023
          Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
          Phone: (850) 200-4594
          Fax: (888) 988-6499
          Email: mjackson@jackson-law.net


VIRGINIA: Violates Disabled Students' Rights, Class Action Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Cline, writing for Virginia Mercury, reports that a
federal class-action suit has been filed against the Virginia
Department of Education and Fairfax County School Board claiming
they are violating the rights of disabled students under the
federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

The plaintiffs in the case -- the parents of an anonymous Fairfax
County student and their nonprofit, Hear Our Voices, an
organization focused on supporting disabled and special needs
students -- argue that VDOE and the Fairfax school board "have
actively cultivated an unfair and biased" hearing system to oversee
challenges to local decisions about disabled students.

The parents claim that state hearing officers, who are responsible
for holding impartial hearings to resolve disagreements over issues
related to special education services, have ruled
disproportionately against parents for two decades.

Between 2010 and 2021, Virginia parents who initiated a due process
hearing "received a favorable hearing" in only 13 of 847 cases, the
lawsuit says.

"Moreover, during the last twenty years approximately two thirds of
the hearing officers have never ruled in favor of parents, not even
once," the plaintiffs wrote. "Even worse, in Northern Virginia, 83%
of hearing officers never once ruled in favor of parents over the
eleven-plus years from 2010 to July 2021."

The low success rate for parental challenges in Virginia "is a
glaring outlier compared to other states," where studies have found
rulings in favor of parents hovering around 30%, the lawsuit says.


Charles Pyle, a spokesperson with the Virginia Department of
Education, said in an email that the department does not comment on
pending litigation, but is "committed to ensuring that students
with disabilities receive all services and supports that they are
entitled to under federal and state law."

Fairfax County Public Schools did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Trevor Chaplick, the father of the Fairfax student, said the
lawsuit was brought forward to reveal the "deeply troubling ruling
record" of Virginia's hearing officers against parents of disabled
children.

"The parents of disabled and special needs children deserve a
better fate from the Virginia public school system," said Chaplick
in a statement.

The Chaplicks allege that the Department of Education developed a
roster of "school-friendly" hearing officers, allowed local
education agencies to communicate improperly with hearing officers,
hired officers who were biased due to financial interests and
declined to certify new officers for more than a decade.

The Civil Rights Clinic of Georgetown Law School, the law firm of
Susman Godfrey, LLP, and Merritt Law, PLLC, are representing the
family. The case is being heard in the Alexandria Division of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

"Children with disabilities and their families deserve 'a life like
yours,'" said Aderson Francois, director for the Georgetown Civil
Rights Clinic, in a statement. "This lawsuit is the first step in
making sure that the commonwealth of Virginia provides these
children with an education that meets their needs." [GN]

VOICE OF AMERICA: Underpays Studio Technicians, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Seiden, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a studio
technician who provided services to Voice of America isn't entitled
to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he
failed to demonstrate an employer-employee relationship with the
federal agency, according to a US Court of Federal Claims opinion.

Jason Lambro argued that Voice of America -- a division of the US
Agency for Global Media -- unlawfully denied him and other
similarly situated individuals benefits under the act because they
provided services as federal employees, not independent
contractors. He sought to have his case certified as a class
action. [GN]



WAXMAN CANDLES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waxman Candles, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Waxman Candles, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07999-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2022).

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

Waxman Candles -- https://waxmancandles.com/ -- is a full service
candle shop located in downtown Lawrence, Kansas.[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


WELLS FARGO: Judge Tosses Overtime Pay Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Koch, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a
Missouri judge has effectively dismissed a potential class-action
lawsuit alleging that Wells Fargo Clearing Services withheld
overtime pay from qualifying employees at its broker-dealer
offices.

Judge Sarah Pitlyk issued the ruling on Sept. 14, granting a
motion, filed by Wells Fargo's attorneys, to reverse a prior ruling
that would have allowed the matter to proceed as a class action.

Pitlyk's ruling means that Wells Fargo has escaped the possibility
of a jury awarding many millions to a large class of claimants. All
plaintiffs who opted into the class can still pursue individual
claims.

The two lead plaintiffs, Marcus D'Addio and Michael Silvestri,
meanwhile, are headed to arbitration, per their employment
agreements. A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Dispute
Resolution Services panel will determine their outcomes.

The matter dates to 2007, when Silvestri joined a Philadelphia
Wells Fargo office as an operations liaison. D'Addio joined a Wells
Fargo office as a client associate in Frontenac, Missouri about
four years later. In their lawsuit, the men alleged that they and
other brokerage associates, client associates and operations
liaisons were expected to work five eight-hour shifts a week, but
that they regularly worked additional hours and were not permitted
to report those hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri in
January 2021. The parties are expected to agree to a dismissal
within a week, per the ruling.

In support of their motion to decertify the class, Wells Fargo's
attorneys cited depositions from other Wells Fargo workers who
claimed that they had, in fact, received overtime pay and that
there was no policy requiring overtime.

According to a statement provided by a Wells Fargo spokesperson,
the firm "is confident our applicable policies are lawful and that
we've properly paid the employees at issue in the case. We are
pleased with the court's order effectively ending this case and
confirming the validity of our actions." The plaintiffs' attorneys
did not respond to a request for comment.

Wells Fargo still faces other suits alleging violations of the FLSA
regarding overtime pay. According to a Bloomberg report, the firm
is seeking to choke off class opt-ins in a Pennsylvania lawsuit,
and FA-IQ earlier this year reported on a similar lawsuit filed
against the firm by Florida registered client associates. [GN]

WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE: Judge Approves $54-M Settlement in PFAS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Dwyer, writing for Michigan Radio, reports that a federal
judge has given preliminary approval to a $54 million settlement to
homeowners affected by PFAS contamination in northern Kent County.

PFAS -- short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances -- have been
linked to elevated risks of certain cancers and other health
problems

The contamination from harmful PFAS chemicals came from a shoe
factory owned by Wolverine Worldwide. Homeowners sued Wolverine and
3M, the company that made the waterproofing chemical that caused
the contamination.

It's one of several lawsuits filed after homeowners in the area
discovered the PFAS contamination in 2017.

Two years ago, 3M agreed to pay $55 million to Wolverine Worldwide
to cover its obligations stemming from a lawsuit filed by the state
of Michigan. Wolverine agreed to pay more than $69 million to pay
for homes with contaminated wells in the area to be connected to
municipal water systems. Under the proposed settlement, owners of
those homes could be eligible for additional payments themselves.

The proposal calls for breaking up the $54 million among four
groups of property owners:

   -- Those who are eligible to be connected to municipal water;
   -- Those who received filters for their well water ;
   -- Properties where no filtration is in place, and where PFAS
levels tested below state standards; and
   -- Properties that are vacant, or where the water hasn't been
tested.

Within those groups, property owners would be eligible for higher
payments if their water showed higher levels of PFAS.

To be eligible, people would have to show proof of owning the
property as of November of 2017. About 1,700 people could be
eligible, according to the court filing announcing the settlement.

In that filing, attorneys said they would notify eligible property
owners about the proposed settlement in the next 30 days.

In a statement, Wolverine said it would continue to work with
residents to address the contamination that came from its factory.

"We are pleased to have settled this lawsuit," the statement from a
company spokesperson said, "and believe this settlement represents
another important step towards resolving this matter and doing the
right thing for our community. Wolverine will continue to provide
municipal water in the area, conduct environmental remediation at
our House Street and former tannery properties, and monitor wells
for PFAS.

Hala Jarbou, the federal judge overseeing the case, has scheduled a
hearing for March 29, 2023, in Lansing to decide whether to grant
final approval to the settlement plan. [GN]

[*] Litigation Experts Discuss 2023 Class Action Trends
-------------------------------------------------------
John Sammon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a panel of
litigation experts on Sept. 13 held a discussion via Zoom on trends
they see developing in the filing of class action lawsuits, most
commonly litigation brought by large groups of plaintiffs against
companies or organizations for consumer product defect, misleading
advertising claims, privacy violations and insurance actions.

"Chemicals are also finding their way into class action suits,"
Bethany Lukitsch, Los Angeles-based host of the program with the
BakerHostetler law firm's Class Action Defense Team told viewers.

The program was billed as a "Fall Recap Update."

Lukitsch said PFAS chemicals used to create non-stick surfaces,
called "forever chemicals" because they can get in drinking water
systems and enter the body's bloodstream, are more often today the
subject of class action suits. Other chemicals commonly litigated
include benzene used in lubricants, dyes and detergent.

Lukitsch called a recent flurry of PFAS lawsuits a "blitz."

"PFAS is in all sorts of consumer products," she said. "These
chemicals are a target (for litigation) in 2022 from the cosmetics
to the food industry. Suits are for economic damages, in other
words I would not have bought the product if I'd known (it
contained such chemicals)."

Lukitsch added that many pending court cases have not yet been
decided. Additional suits have been filed regarding aerosols
(sunscreen, deodorants and shampoo).

"Judges have said the plaintiffs need more than conjecture (and
potential increased risk) to win such cases," she said.

Climate change litigation will also be a more frequent occurrence
in the future, she said, adding that the Federal Trade Comission
(FTC) is in the process of updating a "Green Guide," to help
marketers avoid making environmental claims that mislead
consumers.

In one case, Corpvz v, Bayer Corp., plaintiffs claim that a One a
Day Natural Fruit Bite (multivitamin) product had wrongly labeled
that the product contained "natural synthetic ingredients."

Companies also face potential litigation over accusations of
wiretapping, which in California is a violation of the state
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), making it unlawful to secretly
listen in on conversations. In May, the 9th Circuit Court decided
the law does apply to the internet.

"We're seeing s flurry of suits applying to replay technology and
(web) chat functions," Lukitsch said. "It deals with complied
consent and whether the participation of a third party vendor is
eavesdropping."

Panelist Julie Singer Brady said an emerging target of plaintiffs
are companies that make diet supplements such as melatonin, less
regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) than a
prescription or over-the-counter drug would be.

"Companies are being accused of overdosing, misleading consumers,"
Brady said.

The accusations in addition to false labeling also include breaches
of warranty and unjust enrichment.

In the case Lopez v. Zarbees Inc. in the Northern District of
California, the company is accused of providing supplements with
twice the amount of melatonin shown on the label, allegedly
creating side effects and putting child consumers at risk.

A similar case of false labeling has been filed against Walmart.

"The good news for the defense is that cases have found that a
reasonable consumer would not be deceived," Brady said.

An example she said is a chocolate health drink. In a case at the
Northern District of California, Norti v. Nestle Healthcare
Nutrition Inc., the plaintiffs argue false labeling tricked
consumers into believing the drink can help treat diabetes. A court
determined that plaintiffs had failed to show that reasonable
consumers were likely to be deceived by the product labels.

"People with diabetes had to know better," Brady said.

Regarding deceptive pricing cases, Brady said most states prohibit
deceptive pricing.

"Such cases continue, a slew of them," Brady said. "Two are against
Target and Walmart, accused of bait-and-switch pricing and
fictitious discounts."

The accusations in those cases maintain that the companies engaged
in shelf pricing to misrepresent the amount a customer will have to
pay.

In a case in the 9th Circuit Appeals Court, TransUnion v. Ramirez,
the plaintiff filed a class action in 2012 accusing the consumer
credit reporting company of three violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Plaintiffs in the class suit, 8,185 of them, alleged
that the company sold credit reports for use by entities requesting
information on the creditworthiness of individual consumers. Using
third party software, the company introduced in 2002 an Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) name alert, comparing the consumer
credit names against a Treasury Department OFAC terrorist list.

The plaintiffs alleged that TransUnion had failed to use
appropriate procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit
files.

Panelist Karl Fauter said the 8,185 plaintiffs had Article III
standing (a plaintiff must have suffered tangible harm), while
6,333 class members did not qualify. A district court decided on
preliminary approval of the class settlement.

"The take-away from this case is whether a plaintiff who alleged
injury has a close relationship to harm," Fauter said. "The risk of
future harm is insufficient."

He said lots of actions are being filed against banks when a
plaintiff can sue for identity theft alleging harm.

"It would not surprise me to see more suits against consumer
banking in 2023," Fauter said. "I think we'll see an increase in
class actions against financial institutions over the next 18
months."

Suits are being filed against auto insurance companies where class
action plaintiffs contend insurers failed to pay for a replacement
vehicle after an accident or failed to properly value a vehicle.

In a 2020, case Lewis v. Government Employees Insurance Co., the
plaintiff contended that GEICO underpaid a claim settlement. The
case involved a woman pedestrian who was hit by a car, suffered
injuries, applied for insurance coverage through her parent's
policy but was denied because the defendant determined she was not
a resident of her parents' household. The defendant had the case
moved to a federal court.

Panelist Paul Karlsgodt said the litigation horizon will center on
privacy and data breech issues among retail and financial
companies, but particularly data breech issues in the healthcare
industry.

"Among the trends the big one is identity theft," he said. "Lately
more (such) suits are surviving motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs
claiming fraud have become more creative in developing their
theories of injury."

Karlsgodt said in the past suits were launched over issues of debit
cards. The new trend is among crypto currency attacks through
ransomware and phishing attacks (malwear that denies a person or
organization access to their computer files).

Karlsgodt predicted a growing trend of suits against hospital
systems using Facebook Pixel (collects data for target marketing
and advertising on a company website).

BakerHostetler will hold an end-of-year review of class action
trends in December. [GN]

[*] Small Litigation Shops File Class Actions v. Crypto Exchanges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wise, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that as the Biden
administration ramps up its scrutiny of the cryptocurrency
industry, a handful of small litigation shops are piling up class
actions against crypto exchanges and digital token issuers,
pursuing theories that could shape how decades-old laws apply to
the emerging field.

Led by partners from boutique firms, lawyers have filed 58
securities class actions against crypto companies since 2016,
according to a report from the consulting firm Cornerstone Research
and Stanford Law School.

More than one-third landed in the past two years, and the pace
surged in the first six months of 2022, when the industry's market
capitalization fell by $2 trillion before stabilizing.

Many of the complaints -- targeting entities including Coinbase and
Binance, two of the world's largest crypto exchanges -- allege that
the trading platforms, coin issuers and other firms are shirking
disclosure requirements mandated by federal securities laws and
that they should be on the hook for investors' losses.

"There was a crash and a lot of the excesses and abuses started to
come to light," said John Jasnoch, a partner at the firm Scott &
Scott, which is litigating seven proposed crypto class actions.

It's still unclear if the litigation will break any broad-ranging
legal ground. Most of a rash of crypto class actions filed by two
firms in April 2020 ultimately fizzled because of statute of
limitations and jurisdictional issues.

"In a way, the space has a 'more money, more problems' thing going
on, where it's mature enough where it can attract attention from
class action lawyers, whether that attention is warranted or not,"
said Jason Gottlieb, a Morrison Cohen attorney who maintains a
crypto litigation tracker and whose firm is representing defendants
in two class actions.

"It's very easy to copy and paste a complaint from one company to
another," he said.

Lawsuits that have survived challenges so far include one crafted
by Roche Freedman against crypto exchange Bitfinex and affiliate
Tether, the company behind the Tether stablecoin. The suit accuses
the companies of defrauding investors and causing billions of
dollars in losses.

In another, a California state judge in early September tentatively
rejected blockchain platform Dfinity's motion to dismiss a proposed
securities class action filed by Scott & Scott.

A New York federal judge, meanwhile, is weighing whether to
greenlight a lawsuit filed by Selendy Gay Elsberg and Silver Golub.
The suit claims that Coinbase facilitated the transactions of 79
digital tokens that it asserts are unregistered securities.

If successful, the lawsuit could potentially expose Coinbase to
billions of dollars in damages. It would also undercut the
company's stance that no asset traded on its platform is a
security, or an "investment contract" in which a person can expect
profits to stem from the efforts of others.

In a motion to dismiss the complaint, Skadden lawyers representing
Coinbase called the action Selendy's latest attempt to
"manufacture" securities laws.

But James Cox, a Duke University law professor who reviewed the
complaint for Bloomberg Law, said the main allegation—that
Coinbase failed to register as a broker-dealer or securities
exchange—"has some really strong legs to it."

"The fact that there were scores of different coins would not
prevent the class being certified," Cox said.

‘Cop on the Beat'
The proliferation of private litigation comes as SEC chair Gary
Gensler pledges the agency will be a "cop on the beat," protecting
investors in the digital assets arena.

The agency brought 20 enforcement actions against crypto companies
in 2021—Gensler was confirmed in April of that year—80% over
the alleged sale of unregistered securities, Cornerstone found.

The SEC then made waves in July by bringing an insider trading
action against a former Coinbase employee in which it identified
several tokens traded on the platform as securities.

The Biden administration, in a series of reports, called for
federal regulators to double down on investigating unlawful
practices in the industry. The aggressive push is likely to provide
further ammunition for class action attorneys, corporate litigators
say.

Most litigants, however, are still waiting for courts to resolve
foundational questions, such as whether certain cryptocurrencies
are akin to traditional stocks and bonds and should comply with the
disclosure requirements for securities.

Unless new legislation is passed by Congress—a bipartisan
regulation bill is now wending its way through the Senate—the
decisions could carry huge weight not just for the industry, but
how both the SEC and plaintiffs bar move on the issue in the coming
years.

Gensler has said his agency has authority over "crypto security
tokens" and repeatedly pushed for companies to comply with
securities laws, claiming that most tokens are securities.

Industry advocates have argued the space needs a clearer regulatory
framework. Exchanges like Coinbase have repeatedly denied offering
securities on their platforms.

The law firms taking on these companies aren't among the well-known
plaintiffs' shops that often represent a proposed class in a
conventional securities action, in part because of so few
institutional investors in crypto, said Kayvan Sadeghi, a Jenner &
Block corporate defense lawyer.

That has left a door open for upstart firms to seize lead positions
in some of the biggest cases.

Other small shops are making big splashes outside the securities
realm.

Gerstein Harrow, a two-person civil rights firm launched in Los
Angeles in 2021, has formed a crypto consumer protection practice.
The firm has filed two lawsuits targeting decentralized finance
operators, or organizations that remove banks and other third
parties from financial transactions.

The lawsuits target the crypto company PoolTogether for allegedly
operating an illegal lottery and decentralized finance platform bZx
for alleged neglect that caused a $55 million theft on its
platform. (Both have denied the claims and moved to dismiss them.)

"We took the time to study the technology and came to the view that
[decentralized autonomous organizations] were operating in an area
where they believe themselves to be free of American legal
regulation," said founding partner Charlie Gerstein. "Lots of them
are causing lots of consumer harm. Second, we noticed that there
was a very large volume of money changing hands. That presented an
obvious financial opportunity."

Lesser Known Players
Firms like Selendy say they're operating as a "complementary" force
to the SEC examiners and other regulators applying broader
scrutiny.

Launched in 2018 by 10 Quinn Emanuel expats, the firm splits its
time between plaintiff and defense matters.

Philippe Selendy and Jordan Goldstein, who each have been involved
in the firm's crypto work, helped the Federal Housing Finance
Agency win more than more than $25 billion in payouts from Wall
Street banks following the mortgage-backed security crisis over a
dozen years ago.

Goldstein said he sees parallels between that work and his new
focus on alleged fraud in crypto.

"We saw the opportunity to start a litigation boutique that would
be focused on cutting-edge matters that would not just benefit our
clients but advance public interest where possible," he said. "The
crypto market seemed to present an opportunity to benefit investors
through the legal system."

Roche Freedman, launched in 2019 by attorneys from prominent
litigation shop Boies Schiller, has been the most active firm in
the crypto class-action space, filing more than a dozen lawsuits
and serving as lead counsel in many of them.

Some of that work has come under intense scrutiny amid
accusations—fueled by the August leak of secret recordings—
that founding partner Kyle Roche worked with crypto startup Ava
Labs to target competitors through litigation. Roche denied the
allegation but has since left the firm's class action practice and
withdrawn from various cases, according to court records.

The firm, meanwhile, is fighting to remain lead counsel in its
action against Bitfinex and Tether.

The past couple years have demonstrated that the industry is also
investing in legal muscle to fight these actions, suggesting many
cases, both public and private, face a long road to a resolution.

Crypto firm Ripple Labs has aggressively pushed back against the
SEC in response to a 2020 enforcement action claiming its XRP token
is an unregistered digital asset. The case is one of the key
ongoing matters that could help define the broader crypto
litigation and regulatory landscape.

Despite some of the recent turbulence, Wall Street has shown a
greater interest in crypto this year, creating the dual screen of
increasing litigation involving an industry still aggressively
pushing to become more mainstream. And while the downturn seemed to
flatten during the summer, the still-steep losses from the peak
mean the crypto class action space figures to get more crowded.

There wasn't a ton of interest from plaintiffs firms in crypto "as
long as the market was going up and up," said Carol Goforth, an
Arkansas University law professor. "Now there are plaintiffs coming
out of the woodwork and theories coming out of the market." [GN]

[*] Tech Cos. Settle Biometric Data Collection Suits in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Metz, writing for CNN Business, reports that regulators have
spent years trying to make big tech companies pay for the ways they
harvest and, at times, abuse users' data. One state, meanwhile, is
literally making them pay up -- and pay out directly to consumers.

The video featured is from a previous report.

Illinois is one of just a few states in the United States that has
a law requiring companies to get consumers' consent before snagging
their biometric data, and its rule, passed in 2008, is seen as the
toughest in the nation. The law, called the Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), doesn't just force companies to get permission
from people before collecting biometric data like fingerprints or
scans of facial geometry. It also sets rules regarding how
companies must safeguard such information, prohibits companies from
selling Illinois residents' biometric data, and allows Illinois
residents to sue companies for alleged violations of the law.

In the nearly 15 years since its passage, services using biometric
data -- from palm print recognition for buying groceries to
facial-recognition software for unlocking your smartphone -- have
become increasingly common. But legislation in the United States
has not kept up. There is no federal legislation on the matter, and
among the select few states to have taken action, the Illinois law
is seen as uniquely effective, CNN reported.

"It's the gold standard law," said Chad Marlow, a senior policy
counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

As a result, Illinois has become the benchmark for regulating
biometric technologies such as facial-recognition software. Groups
like the ACLU and individual consumers have used the law to sue a
growing list of prominent companies from Facebook to Snapchat, and
in some cases curbing the behavior of tech companies offering
products and services in the state. In the process, it has sent a
message about the importance of personal data privacy that
reverberates far beyond Illinois.

How it started
In Illinois, BIPA came about at least partly due to concerns over
data gathered by a bankrupt fingerprint-scanning payment company,
which then went belly-up. Lawmakers worried the data gathered by
Pay By Touch, which had been available in Jewel-Osco grocery stores
in the Chicago area, could be sold in the wake of its failure (the
company was auctioned off in pieces).

The text of the law, which was introduced in early 2008, mentions
Pay By Touch by name and points out that, unlike a Social Security
number, biometric identifiers are "biologically unique" and can't
simply be changed if they're compromised.

"The full ramifications of biometric technology are not fully
known," the law says.

Indeed, at the time, companies across the United States were
pursuing biometric technologies, but consumers weren't nearly as
familiar with them as we are today -- and the impact of such
technologies was impossible to calculate. It wasn't until 2010 that
Facebook began using facial-recognition software to automatically
tag users in pictures uploaded to the social network, for example,
and it was in 2013 that Apple first added a fingerprint sensor to
the iPhone for unlocking the device. BIPA was passed 12 years
before America's first known wrongful arrest due to facial
recognition.

Experts say one of the most powerful provisions of the law is that
it allows individuals to sue, rather than leaving it up to the
state. (Texas and Washington, which have their own similar rules,
leave the decision to take legal action to their states' attorneys
general). Companies found to have "intentionally or recklessly"
violated BIPA may owe up to $5,000 for each violation; those found
to have violated the law due to negligence may owe up to $1,000 per
violation.

That right to sue "has been one of the only ways you get companies
to take compliance seriously," said Hayley Tsukayama, a senior
legislative activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a
digital rights group. "And it is of course one reason the people
who hate it hate it with a burning passion."

Despite BIPA's legal teeth, the law didn't show its full force
until 2015. That year, Chicago-based attorney Jay Edelson's firm,
Edelson PC, led a class-action suit against Facebook alleging that
the social network violated BIPA with its use of facial-recognition
software to identify people in users' photos and suggest users tag
those people by name. The suit argued, essentially, that Facebook
was gathering and keeping users' facial biometric data -- measures
of their facial geometry gleaned from pictures -- without asking in
advance or asking for permission, which is against Illinois law.

"Our client was literally worried he would lose his biometrics, and
it would be out in the world," Edelson said of the initial
plaintiff's decision to sue the social network.

Facebook agreed to settle the suit in early 2020 for $550 million,
and a judge increased that amount to $650 million in March of 2021.
(This amounts to $397 per person who is eligible for payment,
Edelson said - an amount that may sound small but is far more than
what people receive in many class-action suit settlements.)

Far-reaching impacts
Edelson has since worked on dozens of BIPA lawsuits and estimates
that more than 500 suits have been filed alleging violations under
the law. Many of the lawsuits relate to companies using systems
that make employees clock in or out with a fingerprint or face, but
in addition to Facebook numerous big tech companies have also
agreed to class-action settlements worth hundreds of millions of
dollars.

Last year, TikTok agreed to pay $92 million to settle a
class-action suit alleging it unlawfully gathered biometric data
from users and then shared it with other companies; the suit was
divided into a national class and an Ilinois class, with those in
the Illinois class able to receive as much as six times more money
due to BIPA. Google agreed in April to pay $100 million to settle a
suit related to a photo grouping feature in Google Photos, and
Snapchat parent company Snap agreed in August to pay $35 million to
settle a suit related to filters and lenses in Snap's app. (None of
these companies has admitted any wrongdoing.)

"In the big picture, it's all of these suits acting in combination
with each other, which is what makes BIPA so powerful," Marlow
said.

The results aren't always limited to money being paid out to
consumers, and the impacts of the suits can reach beyond Illinois
state lines. For instance, a settlement with controversial
facial-recognition company Clearview AI (which Edelson took on pro
bono on behalf of the ACLU and other nonprofit groups) had a
far-reaching impact when it was settled earlier this year: It led
to an agreement that the company will not sell its software to most
companies in the United States -- a decision that largely restricts
its use to law-enforcement agencies in the country.

The outcome of the suit "is a total game changer, in our minds,"
Edelson said.

The Facebook suit, too, may have had an impact beyond Illinois. In
November 2021, less than a year after a judge increased the amount
of its BIPA case settlement, the company said it would stop using
facial-recognition software for automatically recognizing people in
photos and videos. It also announced it would delete related data,
which is associated with over a billion people's faces (it will
still be working on facial recognition technology, however, and may
use it in its future products).

"I'm not sure that that's a decision they would have made were it
not for BIPA, but certainly making that decision removes the
possibility of BIPA non-compliance with facial images, and facial
geometry," said Lior Strahilevitz, a law professor at the
University of Chicago.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment. The company did
not mention BIPA when it announced its decision to halt the use of
the technology.

To avoid even the potential for violating the law, some companies
have gone as far as deciding not to sell a product in the state -
such as with Sony's Aibo robot dog, which the company says mimics a
real pet's behavior by using facial-recognition software to "behave
differently around familiar people."

Some other companies are limiting features that include biometrics
to people who live outside Illinois. This was the case in 2018,
when Google added a feature to its Google Arts & Culture app that
lets people take a selfie that is then compared to historic
paintings in order to find one that most closely resembles your
mug.

"That was definitely not available in Illinois, and there was kind
of some local, 'Huh, that's interesting. Why can't we use that?'"
Strahilevitz said.

Others try (and fail) to pass similar rules
In the wake of BIPA's passage, Texas and Washington passed their
biometric laws in 2009 and 2017, respectively. But the laws have
hardly been tested (in 2022, Texas also sued Facebook over
allegations that it illegally snagged Texans' facial-recognition
data), likely because it's up to the states, rather than individual
citizens, to decide whether to sue.

The basic ideas behind BIPA "seems to be consistent with popular
sentiment," said Strahilevitz, yet legislators in states such as
California and Maine have tried and failed to pass their own
versions of the rule.

Experts say part of the reason for these failures is that momentum
has built up against such biometrics laws, particularly from
companies large and small that can be their targets.

Yet Tsukayama of the EFF, whose group worked with California State
Senator Bob Wieckowski on the bill he introduced in February that
would have created a BIPA-like law in California, thinks it could
be revived in the future, even though it stalled in committee this
spring.

After all, Tsukayama pointed out, "I can change a password, but I
can't change my face." [GN]

[*] Victoria Becomes Forum of Choice for Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Victoria's landmark class action reforms have made it the
jurisdiction of choice for securities claims and could force the
federal government to follow suit, according to the authors of an
industry-leading report on the sector.

The Review - Class Actions in Australia 2021-22 by global firm King
& Wood Mallesons also says cryptocurrency is emerging as a new
battleground in the US and that Australia could soon follow suit.

The report said the recent decline in securities cases as a
proportion of all claims had been arrested in 2021-22, when 25
consumer claims were filed against only eight for securities
matters. It meant the rate doubled from 12 per cent of all claims
to 24 per cent.

All up, the number of class actions filed in federal and state
courts fell from a record 64 in 2020-21 to 54, but only 15 claims
were filed in the second half. Securities shared top billing with
consumer claims, with 13 cases. Next was government liability
(nine), employment (eight) and financial products (five).

The standout performer was the Victorian Supreme Court, which
received 62 per cent (eight of 13) of all new securities claims.
The Victorian registry of the Federal Court also had more claims
than the NSW registry (22 v 12).

The appeal of contingency fees and group costs orders (GCOs) was
apparent, with 75 per cent of claims filed in the Victorian Supreme
Court being unfunded.

Alex Morris, a KWM partner and one of the report's authors, said
the landscape had shifted with the Victorian reforms of 2020, which
introduced contingency fees for lawyers via the GCOs regime,

"Litigation funding for class actions is here to stay, whether it's
by litigation funders or lawyers," Mr Morris said.

"The group costs order regime in the Victorian Supreme Court is the
only place lawyers can now get a percentage of the winnings, and
funders can participate with back-to-back financing.

"By contrast, you can try and get a common fund order anywhere, but
it only works for funders (with the lawyers still on hourly fees)
and there is a residue of legal risk."

Mr Morris said it would likely force the hand of the Albanese
government, which has flagged similar moves as part of a "less
hostile" approach to funders and class action lawyers.

"You would have to think that the current federal government is
looking at making these things uniform.

"That means that plaintiff class action lawyers can look forward to
an investment banker's remuneration model going forwards: clipping
the ticket on the transaction rather than hourly rates."

At least 12 settlements worth $475 million were approved by the
courts, with the $125 million payout for shareholders in Crown
Casino topping the list after revelations about criminality at its
operations in Australia led to a sharp dive in the stock's price.

Others over $50 million included claims against convenience store
giant 7-Eleven (underpayment of wages), Colonial First state
(super), various carmakers (airbags) and education provider
Vocation.

The report shows that four law firms - Shine, Slater & Gordon,
Gordon Legal and Phi Finney McDonald - led the way on class actions
filings with five each. Of the funders, Omni Bridgeway (six) and
Woodsford Litigation Funding (five) were prominent.

The report notes that cryptocurrency claims have emerged in the US
against a range of issuers and exchanges - and also in relation to
instruments for investing in cryptocurrencies such as financial
derivatives.

"In Australia, the momentum in this space is growing," the report
says.

"The US class actions give some indication of the causes of action
that may be pursued in Australia, at least as long as Australian
regulators take a similar 'stop-start' approach to their US
counterparts in how they categorise and regulate crypto products.

"If and when regulatory oversight increases, including as a result
of ongoing reform efforts, we expect to see a sharp increase in
cryptocurrency-related class actions.

"Even as things stand, we expect that the activity in this space
will continue to grow in Australia, particularly given the
increased investment in the digital asset industry and escalating
scrutiny by investors and advocates." [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 ***